So I posted earlier about my GM's house rule/ruling about morality, things have changed, and I thought I'd ask the internet for their take.

If you would like to read the previous thread go ahead morality problem.

In any case the house rules/rulings are as follows:

• Morality gain is a d5 not a d10
• Killing an individual under any circumstances using any means will give at minimum 1 conflict.
• Using a force power with lethal intent (dealing lethal damage not necessarily killing) gives at least one implicit conflict in addition to any other implicit conflict the power has (such as unleash) or any conflict generated by dark side pips.
• Move cannot be used on people (as in you cannot throw people, you can still throw things at people).
• Conflict gain from the table is still in full effect.

I should note that all conflict gain is cumulative.

The reason for the d5 instead of d10 is because otherwise "You would get five free black pips per session, and I will absolutely not allow that." I'm paraphrasing.

I've always thought when you get attacked and you don't at least try to resolve things peacefully you gained conflict for "violence as a first option." But I guess that wasn't enough.

I find this whole thing completely unfun, and it has made be seriously consider just dropping the game, I mean I could understand some of these rulings, but all of them? Together they are very extreme. I'm the only force user who participates directly in combat (there is one other force user, but the character is primarily non combat so this affects the player much less) so this almost exclusively affects me.

Internet what is your take? Am I over reacting? Are these common house rules/rulings? I think this is basically the best I'll get, and more or less I'm forced to be a saint, or a Sith. Nothing in between will be stable, as for example if I kill a group of minions I get conflict for each one. This is so much fun I just can't contain myself.

In a word? No. Just No.

1 hour ago, Sir Reginold said:

Morality gain is a d5 not a d10

Not much of an issue here, though it does run the risk of having someone more likely to either stay middle, or slide towards dark, even with a couple conflict. If the GM wants it to be more of a struggle to be in the Light, then it's fine, but it is a mathematical issue that would need to be considered.
Especially if conflict is more commonly applied for actions.

1 hour ago, Sir Reginold said:

Killing an individual under any circumstances using any means will give at minimum 1 conflict.

I'm ok with this one for the most part. The thing is, Conflict isn't supposed to be Bad Guy Tokens. Conflict is supposed to reflect the inner turmoil (Conflict) that a person struggles with, when going through life, trying to know what is right and wrong, and making the right choices. While the chart only gives examples of conflict awards that line up with "sins" or "breaking the law", it really shouldn't just be for that.

To use an example from the films, Anakin witnessing his mother dying, should've generated Conflict. The fact that he followed it up with a LOOOOT of conflict for mass murder is a separate issue. But basically things that would cause a person emotional strife and uncertainty, should be Conflict worthy. Break up with your girlfriend? Conflict. Have to let your child live with the other parent because you can't support them? Conflict. Etc etc.

So killing someone, for most people, WOULD be something they would struggle with. I've known people who have killed, either in accidents, or while deployed in a military, or in one case, a guy who was in a gang. And they all had some issues with the fact that they took a life. So assigning conflict isn't a bad system. I think the key to consider, is what the result is from the Conflict roll. Which I will go into later.

1 hour ago, Sir Reginold said:

Using a force power with lethal intent (dealing lethal damage not necessarily killing) gives at least one implicit conflict in addition to any other implicit conflict the power has (such as unleash) or any conflict generated by dark side pips.

I think this is a bit excessive, especially with a d5 Morality roll at the end. Since a lot of those harmful powers, require you spend Dark Side pips to even attempt the harmful action, this is piling on a LOT of conflict for a single power use.

1 hour ago, Sir Reginold said:

Move cannot be used on people (as in you cannot throw people, you can still throw things at people).

....why? Under what precedent? I mean, Move gets used on people all the time in the films. It's one of the most signature uses of the power in the franchise. They use it judiciously in the prequels, tossing droids around left and right. They use it in the new films, literally dragging people around like puppets on a string. I don't understand the logic behind this at all, as it has no grounds in the franchise, and is in fact, directly contrary to what we know someone can do with the Force.

1 hour ago, Sir Reginold said:

The reason for the d5 instead of d10 is because otherwise "You would get five free black pips per session, and I will absolutely not allow that." I'm paraphrasing.

This is just incorrect, plain and simple. For several games in a row, one of my players, only generating like 2-3 conflict, still rolled lower, and ended up going less than 50 on his Morality. It's more likely the person won't lose Morality, and if they do, it will only be a point or two, sure. But, if all they did that session was gain 1-2 conflict points, they've not really done anything all that bad? I mean, why punish them with a lowered Morality, if they made an effort to not do much of anything that would actually generate conflict?

If the player is making the concerted effort to walk the line, and not give into temptation, and do things that would cause conflict, why shouldn't they see an advance in their Morality towards the Light? I mean, isn't that what the Morality advancement is supposed to be reflecting? Someone who doesn't give into their emotions, and temptations, and finding the easy path to accomplish things? This is reflected by them not getting much Conflict in the session .

I think your GM is suffering from "Conflict = Punishment" -itus, which is a common affliction with Star Wars.

This is my take on Conflict and Morality, and what it's supposed to represent, when you have a result that either goes up or down, based on the dice roll. It requires the player to actually ROLEPLAY their emotions, which a lot of gamers are allergic to, but here it is.

*deep breath*
Morality represents your overall mental stability, in regards to the actions you take in the world, and your intent with those actions. Conflict, is the natural reaction that everyone encounters while going through life, when they are confronted with challenges and obstacles, and they have to make a choice. It reflects your inner..well...conflict, about a choice you made. And this is the part that I think most gamers get wrong when it comes to how you should interpret the results of the Morality check.

Gaining morality after conflicted actions doesn't mean you don't care that you did them, it means the exact opposite.

I saw this a lot with the World of Darkness system, and their system of morality, and it always bugged me.

A lot of people interpret not losing points on the Morality as "well my character is totally fine with what they did, and just moves on no problem." No...nonono NO. If your character is able to maintain their morality after possibly taking a life (in self defense, or due to no other choice), or because they had to lie to a friend to save their life, or whatever, then the roleplay reflection of this, is them being upset and uncertain about what they did. The fact that they actually CARE about what they did, and FEEL BAD about it, is an indication that their Morality wasn't sent spiraling down, or if it did take a hit, it was a small one. This usually translates to a scene in a film/tv, where that character starts to try and deal with their feelings on the matter, either talking to a friend for guidance, or self-medication, etc. Their Morality improves from a situation like this, when they come to a realization about their motivation, and accept what they did, and try and learn from their mistakes, and do better in the future.

THAT is how someone who did some questionable things, earned Conflict, but still came out positive, should be reflected in play.

When you lose your Morality in a significant amount, like 8+ perhaps, definitely 10+ (you know, murdering people or whatever), you don't actually care about what you did. You might be upset, like Anakin was when he killed the sandpeople, but he didn't really regret what he did, or at least not for long. It quickly turned to just pure anger, and hatred, and grief, and his vow to conquer death by becoming the most powerful Jedi ever. THAT was somebody who lost a lot of Morality in a scene. They end the situation, feeling totally justified in what they did, showing little to no remorse, and making no effort to try and change their ways. And as their Morality slides further down, they become more unstable, more prone to indulging their emotional impulses, lashing out, and in general becoming an unstable person.

The conflict/morality system shouldn't be used as a punishment system, it should be used as a barometer for the player to gauge how they should be emotionally playing out their character.

2 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

....why? Under what precedent? I mean, Move gets used on people all the time in the films. It's one of the most signature uses of the power in the franchise. They use it judiciously in the prequels, tossing droids around left and right. They use it in the new films, literally dragging people around like puppets on a string. I don't understand the logic behind this at all, as it has no grounds in the franchise, and is in fact, directly contrary to what we know someone can do with the Force.

Basically he doesn't want move to be the -be all end all- power, he doesn't want it to be able to do everything.

When I point out that then there are actions like throwing people against a wall that are simply impossible now, he just doesn't give a ****. He says if you want to telekinetically effect people, use bind, that's what it's for. The worst part is that I'm a Nimian Disciple and the capstone fighting technique ability: force assault, is pretty **** useless. I can disarm people, and that's pretty much it. Caveat I don't have that ability yet.

31 minutes ago, Sir Reginold said:

Basically he doesn't want move to be the -be all end all- power, he doesn't want it to be able to do everything.

When I point out that then there are actions like throwing people against a wall that are simply impossible now, he just doesn't give a ****. He says if you want to telekinetically effect people, use bind, that's what it's for. The worst part is that I'm a Nimian Disciple and the capstone fighting technique ability: force assault, is pretty **** useless. I can disarm people, and that's pretty much it. Caveat I don't have that ability yet.

No, that's NOT what Bind is for, that's what MOVE is for. Yeah, your GM seems to be a little too draconian in his approach to Force related stuff. If he's not willing to listen to your concerns, I'd either quit the table, and make sure he knows why you are quitting (but do it maturely, no table flipping or flouncing), or roll up another type of PC that doesn't have Force abilities, thus making the entire debate moot. You don't have to worry about Morality and Conflict at that point, because it's not a factor for your character type.

Just now, KungFuFerret said:

No, that's NOT what Bind is for, that's what MOVE is for. Yeah, your GM seems to be a little too draconian in his approach to Force related stuff. If he's not willing to listen to your concerns, I'd either quit the table, and make sure he knows why you are quitting (but do it maturely, no table flipping or flouncing), or roll up another type of PC that doesn't have Force abilities, thus making the entire debate moot. You don't have to worry about Morality and Conflict at that point, because it's not a factor for your character type.

I'm considering just going dark side, I mean totally out of character, but so much fewer restrictions.

I’m going to suggest it’s much more effective to adjust adventures than to muck about with powers, but I doubt that will convince your GM. I mean, obviously Force Move is very good and generally useful, but in combat terms throwing someone against a wall still pales in comparison to a blaster rifle shot to the face - particularly in terms of XP investment.

I can’t tell you what you should do, I’d need to be part of the group for that, but I’d likely change my character concept (yes, I get that that is frustrating too) to either non Force user or less direct combat oriented Force user. I’d get too annoyed during the game otherwise.

Is this an experienced GM, or more of a novice? Because if the latter my concern would be that he’d find other things problematic as they come up in game, and the d5 thing is making me think it’s the latter.

1 minute ago, Sir Reginold said:

I'm considering just going dark side, I mean totally out of character, but so much fewer restrictions.

*shrugs* Not what I'd pick, as I don't enjoy playing evil/dark characters, but if that's your bag, go for it. I'd still voice your thoughts on your GM's rules, saying they are too restrictive and punishing, which isn't the intention, and they are making the game unfun for you. If he doesn't care about your level of fun, then he's an a-hole. I mean, if given the choice of changing a house rule, that is singling out one player only with the restrictions , while everyone else is free to act as they wish, and when you voice your problems with it, if his reaction is to shrug and say basically "tough, deal with it." Then he apparently isn't concerned with you guys actually having fun. He clearly just is worried more about controlling his table for his own personal enjoyment. Personally, I'd leave the table, or at least if the GM is how I'm picturing him, based on some of your comments. Maybe he's not a control freak a-hole, but he sounds like it. And I have very little patience for that kind of thing these days, especially at an activity I'm doing to have fun. And if he's indifferent to your saying you are going to leave, or the changing of a character because his rules make the game unfun, then I wouldn't really lose any sleep over him, and go find something else to do.

1 minute ago, nameless ronin said:

I’m going to suggest it’s much more effective to adjust adventures than to muck about with powers, but I doubt that will convince your GM. I mean, obviously Force Move is very good and generally useful, but in combat terms throwing someone against a wall still pales in comparison to a blaster rifle shot to the face - particularly in terms of XP investment.

I can’t tell you what you should do, I’d need to be part of the group for that, but I’d likely change my character concept (yes, I get that that is frustrating too) to either non Force user or less direct combat oriented Force user. I’d get too annoyed during the game otherwise.

Is this an experienced GM, or more of a novice? Because if the latter my concern would be that he’d find other things problematic as they come up in game, and the d5 thing is making me think it’s the latter.

It's the latter, I dunno, I think he is so into Mandalorians that he wants them to have an edge over Jedi, and of course he has a mandalorian GMPC...

2 minutes ago, Sir Reginold said:

GMPC

Not saying you should bail, but maybe consider it.

1 minute ago, nameless ronin said:

Not saying you should bail, but maybe consider it.

Well it's not unreasonable in this case as it has become a bit of a GM swap. For example right now we are with another GM, the only difference with this one is full d10, and fear checks as frequently as possible, which frankly I prefer.

My point is he has a character to play in this circumstance.

21 minutes ago, Sir Reginold said:

Well it's not unreasonable in this case as it has become a bit of a GM swap. For example right now we are with another GM, the only difference with this one is full d10, and fear checks as frequently as possible, which frankly I prefer.

My point is he has a character to play in this circumstance.

I’m really not in favour of GMPCs. It’s a huge red flag for me. Particularly since, as a GM myself, I know there is plenty to do playing the NPCs. Nonetheless, I left it at maybe. Benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, a lot of this reeks of an unnecessary nerfing of Force user capability, especially if the later posts about the GM having a GMPC that he wants to be more capable or simply "better" than a Force user PC. That said GMPC is a Mandalorian leaves me tempted to make snide remarks about Travissty and Fandalorians, but I'll refrain.

If the GM is legitimately worried about Conflict not having enough weight or that PCs might reach Light Side Paragon too quickly, the easiest adjustment to make and employ is that instead of rolling to resolve Conflict at the end of each session, you roll it at the end of the adventure, which should be about every two or three sessions. I've been using this since the book came out, and it's worked quite well both in averting the "party full of Light Side Paragons" concern but also in making my PCs consider if gaining Conflict is really worth it; bulk of us are old-time SWRPG veterans, so we've admittedly not been able to fully shake the "Conflict = Dark Side Points = Bad!" mindset.

Problem with automatic Conflict just for using Move to attack is that we see characters who are undoubtedly pretty high on the Morality scale using Move as an offensive tactic, from Qui-Gon Jinn to Yoda to Kanan in later seasons of Rebels (who flat out shoves an opponent off a skyscraper to his presumed death). I can see assigning Conflict, especially multiple points, if the Force user busts out Move against someone that's not already attacking them; i.e. the PC is the one that strikes first, and using Move (especially with really big objects) begins to fall into the realm of overkill. The Conflict guidelines already suggest assigning 1 Conflict for a PC that attacks first, so assigning 1 or 2 additional points of Conflict for using Move in such instances is probably warranted.

And as we see often in the films, Move is 100% usable on people, so that bit of houseruling on the GM's part comes across more as the GM being a prig and upset that their precious GMPC is being upstaged.

I do agree with Nameless Ronin that having GMPCs in a game is a very slippery slope, and very rarely is it done well or the GM in question able to keep their pet character from unduly upstaging the players' characters, who are supposed to be the real stars of the campaign.

I should mention that the GM hasn't actually said that he wants his GMPC to be stronger than my PC, or force users in general, it's just my speculation.

He is also super salty about the mastery power of dark side bind for some reason, not that it has ever been used in game. Pretty much no force powers have been used in game yet.

It sounds to me like he simply hates Force users in general.

They fear what they do not understand see that way too much here.

Move scares me it can do 40 damage this must be fixed...

Lets completely forget the whole pips number and xp required to actually do that on a regular basis.

4 minutes ago, Decorus said:

They fear what they do not understand see that way too much here.

Move scares me it can do 40 damage this must be fixed...

Lets completely forget the whole pips number and xp required to actually do that on a regular basis.

I know right, so many threads on how move is OP. Umm have you seen any power or piece of equipment in this game at max level all of it can be just as strong if not more so. I'm more scared of a maxed force user using Bind or Unleash than move. You can kill a lot more with those and a ton easier too.

@Sir Reginold I think you should talk to the GM and let him know what you think of the rules and how they make it very hard for you to want to role play your force user. Hopefully he/she will be reasonable.

5 minutes ago, Shlambate said:

I know right, so many threads on how move is OP. Umm have you seen any power or piece of equipment in this game at max level all of it can be just as strong if not more so. I'm more scared of a maxed force user using Bind or Unleash than move. You can kill a lot more with those and a ton easier too.

Maxed out Influence. You can make multiple targets believe something untrue or feel an emotion for several rounds or minutes. "Your boss is plotting to kill you". "You don't wish to fight". "Your true enemy is yourself". "That ledge is actually a walkway and a rebel just ran across it, shooting at you". "You feel at peace". "You feel confused". "You feel hollow".

End combats without even fighting. Influence RAW is insanely powerful, the only limit to it being the amount of Conflict the user takes when they abuse the power or cause harm/death with it.

Influence is another can of worms and just as scary in the hands of a talker and very potent at ending fights in a non conflict way, but for those channeling Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine Bind and Unleash are the flashier ways of killing your opponents.

I'm sorry, I took one look at the rule set and laughed. The force choses people to wield it for a reason, a destiny, yet all I see is the GM suggesting reasons that they should never ever use their powers. I sometimes get irritable if my GM doesn't follow through with proper conflict enforcement, but this is the complete other end of the spectrum.

In regards to dealing lethal damage with the force; that ultimately depends. The force generally doesn't like to be used to end life, but it's very situational. We see Yoda for example use move to knock two guards out; that presumably exceeded their wound threshold but the wielder ultimately chose to use only the precise power required.

Morality is also more about the wielders outlook on life and stability of the heart, and conflict is the misgivings that the wielder has; if they become apathetic to people then they are well on the way to the dark side, it's milage ultimately depends on the campaign though, in regards to the galactic civil war the primary foe is an fascist ideology that would think little of committing genocide, thus the process of change always incures expenses. Besides, the force is everything natural, including death thus as long as one considers each loss towards a purpose rather then murders sake, again the force cares little. Luke destoryed an entire death star, but compared to the devastation that thing would bring about, the people stationed aboard it were all guilty by the force's measuring stick.

Go full on dark side and dodge the issue. You get two less strain but two more wounds. Should be quick to take the plunge with those rules. No Palpatine levels of evil needed. Just play like you normally would and treat people with kindness.

2 hours ago, LordBritish said:

In regards to dealing lethal damage with the force; that ultimately depends. The force generally doesn't like to be used to end life, but it's very situational. We see Yoda for example use move to knock two guards out; that presumably exceeded their wound threshold but the wielder ultimately chose to use only the precise power required.

Morality is also more about the wielders outlook on life and stability of the heart, and conflict is the misgivings that the wielder has; if they become apathetic to people then they are well on the way to the dark side, it's milage ultimately depends on the campaign though, in regards to the galactic civil war the primary foe is an fascist ideology that would think little of committing genocide, thus the process of change always incures expenses. Besides, the force is everything natural, including death thus as long as one considers each loss towards a purpose rather then murders sake, again the force cares little. Luke destoryed an entire death star, but compared to the devastation that thing would bring about, the people stationed aboard it were all guilty by the force's measuring stick.

Good points, especially the first one.

While the rules specify that it's up to the GM if a minion or rival that's pushed over their wound threshold survives or not, I'd be amenable to allowing the PC to make that decision, especially if they're reasonably proficient in the skill being used to make the attack; I'd say at least 2 skill ranks qualifies as 'reasonably proficient,' but that's just me. So with Yoda in RotS, yes he used Move to take those two guards out, but that doesn't mean he used so much power as to kill them outright, just enough to knock them out and keep them from attacking him while he dealt with Sidious.

9 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

Maxed out Influence. You can make multiple targets believe something untrue or feel an emotion for several rounds or minutes. "Your boss is plotting to kill you". "You don't wish to fight". "Your true enemy is yourself". "That ledge is actually a walkway and a rebel just ran across it, shooting at you". "You feel at peace". "You feel confused". "You feel hollow".

End combats without even fighting. Influence RAW is insanely powerful, the only limit to it being the amount of Conflict the user takes when they abuse the power or cause harm/death with it.

Yeah, this is a good idea, I'm going to try this as influence is easy to max.

17 hours ago, Sir Reginold said:

So I posted earlier about my GM's house rule/ruling about morality, things have changed, and I thought I'd ask the internet for their take.

If you would like to read the previous thread go ahead morality problem.

In any case the house rules/rulings are as follows:

• Morality gain is a d5 not a d10
• Killing an individual under any circumstances using any means will give at minimum 1 conflict.
• Using a force power with lethal intent (dealing lethal damage not necessarily killing) gives at least one implicit conflict in addition to any other implicit conflict the power has (such as unleash) or any conflict generated by dark side pips.
• Move cannot be used on people (as in you cannot throw people, you can still throw things at people).
• Conflict gain from the table is still in full effect.

I should note that all conflict gain is cumulative.

The reason for the d5 instead of d10 is because otherwise "You would get five free black pips per session, and I will absolutely not allow that." I'm paraphrasing.

I've always thought when you get attacked and you don't at least try to resolve things peacefully you gained conflict for "violence as a first option." But I guess that wasn't enough.

I find this whole thing completely unfun, and it has made be seriously consider just dropping the game, I mean I could understand some of these rulings, but all of them? Together they are very extreme. I'm the only force user who participates directly in combat (there is one other force user, but the character is primarily non combat so this affects the player much less) so this almost exclusively affects me.

Internet what is your take? Am I over reacting? Are these common house rules/rulings? I think this is basically the best I'll get, and more or less I'm forced to be a saint, or a Sith. Nothing in between will be stable, as for example if I kill a group of minions I get conflict for each one. This is so much fun I just can't contain myself.

I think restricting the roll to a d5 is a bad move. The reason it's there in the first place is because Jedi and Light Side characters, for all their strength and positivity and hope, aren't perfect and make mistakes, leading to Conflict. To make a few small mistakes and immediately start down the path to the Dark Side makes no sense. The d10 is fine as it is, especially since you don't "get 5 free black pips a session", you just have a higher chance of gaining Morality than losing it when you take just a few Conflict per session. It's not even guaranteed.

Interesting about the killing thing. That I don't mind so much but then I look at Star Wars rebels where they nonchalantly toss troopers to their deaths and Luke Skywalker kills the thugs aboard Jabba's sail barge. I don't think killing is always Conflicting and I think that's where the mitigation of "if you were attacked first" comes in and "if you tried other things first".

That said I do think that crits deserve a point of Conflict, since they are more lasting harm than just wounds and players can opt to not Crit if they need to. Usually they crit because they want to inflict maximum damage which is kinda opposite of the Light Side way.

Move should be used as normal, just with the understanding that doing it in evil ways gets you Conflict.

10 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

Maxed out Influence. You can make multiple targets believe something untrue or feel an emotion for several rounds or minutes. "Your boss is plotting to kill you". "You don't wish to fight". "Your true enemy is yourself". "That ledge is actually a walkway and a rebel just ran across it, shooting at you". "You feel at peace". "You feel confused". "You feel hollow".

End combats without even fighting. Influence RAW is insanely powerful, the only limit to it being the amount of Conflict the user takes when they abuse the power or cause harm/death with it.

This would be one of those things the GM might find out to be equally “problematic”. If not more so. So, not saying not to do this but if you do expect the GM to feel that you’re trying to one-up him. If the GM is indeed trying to ensure that his GMPC is more effective than the Jedi PCs that’s hardly a good start to the proceedings, but turning this into an arms race is not going to end well either.,