I do think the morality system is designed with the assumption that the characters will make choices that cause conflict, and a group that does not do that will jump to 100 pretty quickly.

In the specific example of killing a helpless bad guy, the rules call for 10+ points of conflict. If your group believes that a character who kills a helpless enemy should lose a lot of morality, then assign a lot of conflict for such an act. The rules suggest a minimum of 10. There is no reason you could not go higher.

That said, if you don't enjoy the system, and prefer something else, then that is what you should do and no one should be offended by it.

I did give him about 11 iirc but he just rolled really well and only lost a small amount.

I will still make them flip the Destiny Point and spend the strain but I will try to use a certain amount of common sense for how much dark side usage is noticeably bad. As to dark side acts I will try to ensure that the player is aware that their act is considered a darkside act and then I will penalise them appropriately.

I pitched an evil idea, not sure how unbalanced it is, of giving the character 1 xp each time they use dark side pips. The lure of easy improvement!

Only to be used in a party of force users who want to try to remain light, but might be tempted!

4 hours ago, TheSapient said:

I do think the morality system is designed with the assumption that the characters will make choices that cause conflict, and a group that does not do that will jump to 100 pretty quickly.

The other problem is that I don't think it was designed around the idea that Light Side Paragon is some super-special thing that should be really difficult/impossible to reach, but a lot of people want to treat it that way.

21 hours ago, eldath said:

I did give him about 11 iirc but he just rolled really well and only lost a small amount.

I will still make them flip the Destiny Point and spend the strain but I will try to use a certain amount of common sense for how much dark side usage is noticeably bad. As to dark side acts I will try to ensure that the player is aware that their act is considered a darkside act and then I will penalise them appropriately.

Murder should be like 20, minimum. There is no way one can come away unscathed mentally and emotionally from murder.

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 12:41 AM, eldath said:

OK just to check, whose post were you responding to?

Oh sorry. I was responding to the OP. I was wondering if this was a case where the player's expectations and the design of the campaign/style of GM were at odds.

22 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

Murder should be like 20, minimum. There is no way one can come away unscathed mentally and emotionally from murder.

While I agree, the book calls for 10+, and seems to suggest 15 maximum.

On 1/26/2018 at 11:57 PM, Darzil said:

I pitched an evil idea, not sure how unbalanced it is, of giving the character 1 xp each time they use dark side pips. The lure of easy improvement!

Only to be used in a party of force users who want to try to remain light, but might be tempted!

In a group I play in we are testing a different temptation of the dark side. Every time a pc is giving in to the temptation to use dark side pips, he gets the strain, gains the conflict, but the gm is the one flipping a story point from dark to light. We shall see how that goes.

10 hours ago, TheSapient said:

While I agree, the book calls for 10+, and seems to suggest 15 maximum.

The entire rulebook is a guideline, really. Do what works best for your table though.

On 29.1.2018 at 1:30 AM, [Arkas] said:

In a group I play in we are testing a different temptation of the dark side. Every time a pc is giving in to the temptation to use dark side pips, he gets the strain, gains the conflict, but the gm is the one flipping a story point from dark to light. We shall see how that goes.

That's certainly an interesting take on things. I'd be interested to hear how it goes.

On 1/28/2018 at 5:30 PM, [Arkas] said:

In a group I play in we are testing a different temptation of the dark side. Every time a pc is giving in to the temptation to use dark side pips, he gets the strain, gains the conflict, but the gm is the one flipping a story point from dark to light. We shall see how that goes.

I kind of like that cuz it's a great "front-end" temptation, as opposed to the very heavy front-end costs of vanilla Dark pip use w/ only potential "back-end" payoff, but man that could really put the GM out of Destiny Points in a bad way...

It shifts the dynamic from "GM must have pretty much any use of the Force potentially result in a huge narrative/mechanical boon" (as that's the temptation - power, but not really guaranteed), to "Darkside use enables the PCs to create huge narrative/mechanical boons for themselves" (guaranteed power).

A shift in the Morality mechanic work-load from "GM agency" to "Player agency", which seems like a net gain, but it's also a potentially significant decrease in GM flexibility, as those DP are powerful narrative tools for the GM to keep things interesting and fun.

I'd probably add a base, single Dark Destiny Point to the pool to represent the GM (players roll as normal) to try to counteract that...

Or maybe limit the Destiny Point flips due to Darkside use to "one per round/scene" (for structured/unstructured gameplay)... any additional Dark pip use in the same round/scene would have no DP-economy effect either way?

I dunno... seems worth a look though if you're having troubles with the vanilla Morality/Darkside mechanics.

6 hours ago, emsquared said:

but man that could really put the GM out of Destiny Points in a bad way...

It certainly could, if one were to use it for that exact goal. That however would imply that the players have no need, want or use of spending Destiny points. It may not be for every type of group, but then again, the Destiny pool only ever really works if everyone remembers, that it needs to flow. So in the long run it should always equalize, while short spikes can and should unbalance the pool. The temptation to use the dark side may be the greatest when the dark side is strong (mostly dark destiny pool) and the pcs are desperate. There is conflict afterall and falling to the darkside has its own cost.

So far I have not experienced a problem, but we only just started playing with this mod. Once I can really give feedback I shall get back to this, however we do not get to play all to frequent at the moment, so it may be a long term observation.

When it comes to something as important as Destiny points, I have a method for dealing with Dark Side use without completely redesigning morality.

Basically, I houserule it so that it's no longer necessary to flip a Light Side point when using the Dark Side, but I offer this advice to GMs:

• If your interpretation of the Dark Side is that it's a corrupting power, flip a Dark Side point when a player uses the Dark Side and create some sort of narrative effect of their use of the Dark Side, like an unintended side-effect.
• If your interpretation of the Dark Side is that it's a natural part of the Force, just don't flip any points when a player uses the Dark Side.

I fall into the second camp, but I figure each GM should be able to do as they please, given the murky logistics of the Force in the new canon.

To me there is just the force. The dark side is no more than an influence, a corruption, a cancer. Life and death are both part of the force, the dark side comes into play when extremes and cruelty beyond the way of life take over. As such being afraid is ok, but being reigned by fear leads to darkness. And yes, to me there is no such thing as the light side, there is the force.

The destiny pool however is a game mechanic that can be painted with narrative. It is a tool to somewhat govern who gets to break the established how often, ideally for the narratives sake. While one can interpret narrative to the destiny pool, what one mainly should be doing is interpret the pool into the narrative, when used. So my view of what the force is has, for the most part, no effect on the pool or its workings, only on how I narrate them.

2 hours ago, [Arkas] said:

To me there is just the force...

...And yes, to me there is no such thing as the light side, there is the force.

And I can understand where you're coming from, but I know other people disagree based on the lore, which is why I think the best course of action when trying to fix morality as it relates to Force-use is to make it malleable.

I do, however, agree with you that the Destiny Pool is more related to the narrative than the Force itself. The only reason I think the two should interact at all is that Force-use does sometimes come with added narrative effects.

I use a modified version of the RAW Morality.

• Non-Force Users track Morality. This is mainly because I notice that often players don't have a Force Sensitive character until after the game begins, and later decide to buy into the Force stuff, which I allow. By tracking all Morality I can immediately have a gauge of the character's Light Side/Dark Side stance. I use a scale of -100 to + 100. I start characters at about 25 if they are just normal Edge Characters. FaD characters I normally start at 50. AoR characters depend on their amount of battle fatigue and dark outlook.
• I see Morality as a descriptor of the character's alignment with the side of the Force which they are allied with. This means that Neutral or Gray Jedi are not particularly invested in either side and therefore have the fuzzy view that is shared with neophytes and non-force users. Narratively this means that I shut them off from certain descriptions and opportunities that come from being firmly in alignment with one side or the other (Becoming one with the Force-Light Side, Imbuing Essence into Places/Objects-Dark Side). I feel that Qui Gon Jinn was a paragon who had enough credit with the light side that he had wiggle room. A Jedi who habitually did dark side things would not transcend in my game, but would instead become one with the Force in the manner of natural things.
• The Dark Side doesn't start for my players until they hit -1 Morality. After a character is Dark Side they lose negative morality from a) displaying subservience/weakness , and b) being selfless . They do not ever pass back into Light Side status again without redeeming themselves. Forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.
• No accidental Paragons: I award Morality only for deeds, and never because of the Die Roll. Characters can lose morality through those rolls , but not gain them. This gives the player the chance to try and overcome their deficiencies through greater deeds within that same session. If they use dark side points for good things (End Justifies the Means) then they may be able to make some Morality off their result, but the Murder, Theft, Torture, that led to it may easily overwhelm the good.
• A character can do something so Horrid as to lose a great amount of points immediately and throw themselves into, or nearly into, the dark side. This allows for narratively appropriate changes to occur. If a player wants to be a Dark Side adherent I don't make him play the dice game to try and be evil. Quicker, Easier, more seductive.

Personally considering removing the costs of opposite alignment use and not doing the normal "meta" method of informing players when they would take conflict. Feels like it would be a less meta-gamey system that way, where the players never get stopped by an outside force to consider their actions (which breaks the fourth wall imo).

You could also look at it and describe it as their conscience. For myself I would consider it as my duty as the ref to point out that what they are doing might seem OK to them but will accrue them conflict, though subsequent games I will not be using the Morality anymore.

10 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

Personally considering removing the costs of opposite alignment use and not doing the normal "meta" method of informing players when they would take conflict. Feels like it would be a less meta-gamey system that way, where the players never get stopped by an outside force to consider their actions (which breaks the fourth wall imo).

That meta-warning and the PCs option to retcon their RP is the only thing that allows the GM to turn the vanilla Morality mechanic into a carrot instead of a whip.

The vanilla Morality mechanic was not designed to be a whip, and does not work as a whip.

IME

When used as a whip, you get PCs who don't want to Engage the mechanic which creates 1.) an adversarial relationship between PCs and GM, and 2.) puts all of the work of implementing the Morality mechanic on the GM. Which means it won't get used as it supposed to (as the GM has plenty of other things going on), which means it breaks down, and no longer gets used.

This isn't opinion, this is how I have successfully implemented the vanilla Morality mechanic in two campaigns now.

Player. Buy-in.

12 minutes ago, emsquared said:

That meta-warning and the PCs option to retcon their RP is the only thing that allows the GM to turn the vanilla Morality mechanic into a carrot instead of a whip.

The vanilla Morality mechanic was not designed to be a whip, and does not work as a whip.

IME

When used as a whip, you get PCs who don't want to Engage the mechanic which creates 1.) an adversarial relationship between PCs and GM, and 2.) puts all of the work of implementing the Morality mechanic on the GM. Which means it won't get used as it supposed to (as the GM has plenty of other things going on), which means it breaks down, and no longer gets used.

This isn't opinion, this is how I have successfully implemented the vanilla Morality mechanic in two campaigns now.

Player. Buy-in.

The vanilla morality mechanic still requires players to engage it and more often than not a player opts out of conflict to be able to do the thing they originally wanted to do when I step in as the Morality police and have to inform them that they need to spend some costs to do the thing they want to do. At which point, they opt out, because Destiny Points are apparently a vanishing resource (they always have them available, I make sure of that).

1. Players already don't trust the GM with Destiny Points, so they hoard them and don't spend them unless it was their original idea to do so.

2. All the work of implementing the morality mechanics IS already on the GM. you have to step in any time they would take a conflict-worthy action to warn them of such, breaking the narrative, the action, the suspense, the fourth wall to tell them "hey the game mechanic is going to penalize you for doing this action" (the vanilla mechanic does have costs associated with it in strain and destiny points, so it is still penalization). Then they have to deliberate on what they had already chosen to do and more often than not, change their mind which means my intervention as GM has affected their decision as a player and as a character and the narrative as a whole, solely because the game mechanic says I have to warn them. The Force doesn't warn you about your actions in the movies, just other characters do if they see what you're doing or about to do.

My proposed change both removes the penalization (strain & destiny point), keeps the Morality scale, allows player and GM to discuss the situation after the session rather than in the middle of a game (which I've had players argue about conflict they would accrue before in the middle of the action and halt the game). I would print out a copy of the conflict table and tell players to "become familiar with this table. Actions that are selfish will accrue conflict, so use your best judgement and we can discuss the amount you accrue at the end of the session so we don't disrupt the gameplay."

What I mean by engage is, I have players who:

1.) Voluntarily bring it to my attention when they're doing something Conflict worthy (especially w/ regards to their Weakness). This is the hardest part of Morality to implement. My players often do it for me.

2.) Voluntarily make checks, or ask if they can make a check (Discipline) to see if they take Conflict (in cases where it's border-line Conflict worthy). Because they as players or their PC "feels bad" about it, and they want to Engage the mechanic to reflect that.

3.) Voluntarily make checks (Discipline) to see if they follow through with a Conflict worthy action. Because their PC has emotions going on that the player may not, so they leave it to "chance".

4.) Voluntarily take actions that cause Conflict because it's what their PC would do. All. The. Time. Sometimes they retcon, but usually they go through with it. They engage the mechanic because they can see how it does a decent approximation of a "Jedi's" journey through the choices of life.

That's A LOT of work I don't have to do - mental real estate during gameplay that I have leased to players by getting their buy-in. All the work does not have to be on the GM. All I have to do is adjudicate.

The DP cost for Darkside use is steep, but burning the narrative Morality mechanic tothe ground is not the answer/fix for that.

I believe your group is an exception to the norm, I've done my best to promote the intent of the morality system to players and encouraged use of it in creative ways but they treat it as a penalty and are afraid to accept conflict. So as great as it sounds for that situation you have, it's just not common in my experience.

All I did was talk to them about it at some length before beginning the campaign, and continue to bring it up now and again during, asking them to do it (engage it as a storytelling mechanic).

Simultaneously ensuring them that I won't use it as a whip - that I won't use it to force their PC to go someplace they don't want them to. That THEY are the ones using it.

These are two different tables. Two different groups. Mostly prior strangers at both of them (only one player I know personally at each). So it's not like we have long running trust relationships.

Just complete transparency RE: what it is being used for and how. Like there is supposed to be in RAW.

I don't doubt though that this is a rare situation compared to what occurs at many tables.

Attaching stark mechanic advantages to it as they did makes it a power gamers wet dream/nightmare. And the "image" of the Good Jedi and the Evil Sith being as ingrained into the fan base as it is.

But I think anyone could do it if they're just willing to be as open about it as I have described in my series of posts throughout this thread.

I am really not a fan of the Morality system, for many of the reason stated above. I had my virtuous Jedi never actually hit Paragon in a campaign that went to about 1000 xp, and other less virtuous hit it early on.

I'm pondering a house rule where at the end of each session, we the players and GM just discuss it with each other and decide how much up or down we should get. That said I play in a relatively small group of 4 who have been gaming together for 25 years, so I'm pretty comfortable just arbitrarily setting numbers with them. A newer group or one with transient players might have more trouble with that.

4 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

I believe your group is an exception to the norm, I've done my best to promote the intent of the morality system to players and encouraged use of it in creative ways but they treat it as a penalty and are afraid to accept conflict. So as great as it sounds for that situation you have, it's just not common in my experience.

I'm not sure, my group does that as well. There have been some times when we have halted for short bit to talk about why we're getting conflict from a certain thing, but a lot of the time we simply take it and then move on. Rolling less often for conflict has brought up the discussion a bit more often though. We also implemented an idea that falling heavily requires a bit of a proper moral and roleplaying moment though, which in retrospect we should probably have had for the paragon status as well.