I am looking for feedback on this but I am not looking to be convinced to use the Morality rules as written. I've used those for 2 years and found them lacking. What I propose is more in line with the KotOR style, points for both light deeds and dark deeds.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c9jsdf60bd91teb/Serenity table.docx?dl=0

Seems like a house rule system that could totally work. Seems fair and as you state in the table, encourages players to actually do good deeds rather than just coast along avoiding conflict.

Has your group tested this? And Also curious on the thought process behind taking out the destiny point and strain cost for use of opposite points.

11 minutes ago, Quigonjinnandjuice said:

1. Has your group tested this?

2. And Also curious on the thought process behind taking out the destiny point and strain cost for use of opposite points. 

1. Not yet, just wrote it up. I think we play again next week.

2. Thought process is to make using the opposite alignment no longer a penalty. In the franchise, those on the Light are constantly tempted by the dark and those in the dark that aren't completely gone are tempted by the light. How can it be tempting to use the opposite aligned Force Pips if there's 3 penalties associated with it?

8 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

1. Not yet, just wrote it up. I think we play again next week.

2. Thought process is to make using the opposite alignment no longer a penalty. In the franchise, those on the Light are constantly tempted by the dark and those in the dark that aren't completely gone are tempted by the light. How can it be tempting to use the opposite aligned Force Pips if there's 3 penalties associated with it?

Okay, i can see that.. Definitely keep this thread updated after it has been tested!

My personal opinion would be to maybe go with just strain or just a destiny point to use the opposite side. I see how it's not tempting to do something that's going to potentially set you back. I also however, feel that a dark user/light user shouldn't always be able to call upon the opposite side of the force. With some sort of repercussion other than take conflict/serenity it will avoid a character just always using all points they roll.

I think this system could be great, but may increase the power of characters slightly by them using every point they roll. At least, I feel that is how my players would use it. But maybe I missed something while reading through it.

10 minutes ago, Quigonjinnandjuice said:

I think this system could be great, but may increase the power of characters slightly by them using every point they roll. At least, I feel that is how my players would use it.

You know, that is what would happen, isn't it? Okay, I'll have to keep one of the penalties, unfortunately... Players seem to be less concerned with strain than they are with Destiny (never seen people get so torn over imaginary points), so I'll keep the strain cost.

24 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

You know, that is what would happen, isn't it? Okay, I'll have to keep one of the penalties, unfortunately... Players seem to be less concerned with strain than they are with Destiny (never seen people get so torn over imaginary points), so I'll keep the strain cost.

Hahaha right? They are powerful little pieces of cardboard. But yes, I feel it could be abused a little. I do really like the system you're coming up with though! This is why we play test.

Apart from the standard concern of players meta-gaming the system in order to gain what amounts to karmic brownie points to offset Conflict gains, the other major problem I see is gaining said karmic brownie points just from using light side pips. Maybe not all players, but there's enough of a temptation for players to go out of their way to do "good deeds" as outlined in your chart in order to offset any Conflict gains they might have incurred during the session. Not every player is going to want to make their way to Light Side Paragon, and introducing a karmic brownie point system to the mechanics makes it that much easier for those players to undertake Conflict-earning actions (up to and including using dark side pips on Force dice) without having to worry too much about falling to the dark side, as long as they can do a few good deeds along the way and get rewarded for it.

By default, using the light side carries a substantial benefit in that PCs can use those without suffering strain or incurring Conflict to utilize their Force powers, and with the way the Force dice are arranged, more often than not a light side result is going to give you two Force points to work with, making whatever Force-based effect the player was trying to use that much more effective.

Now, the reason such a mechanic as what KOTOR used works in that game is because all the instances of when your toon's alignment score would change are pre-scripted events, as the game developers specifically established what instances the toon's alignment would change, and in KOTOR2 at which thresholds certain events (like Visas Marr being introduced) would occur. The problem with an RPG is that the story is much more freeform and the players have far more choice in what actions they can take.

That, and part of the morality in Star Wars is that good deeds are their own reward, so having a karmic brownie system that provides additional rewards for being good guys on top of being the good guys in the story just feels tacky, although that's more of a personal bias on my part than a purely mechanical issue. Though if anything, a player that wants to skyrocket to LS Paragon could also exploit this system even more so than the current Morality mechanic by avoiding Conflict-incurring actions and going out of their way to perform Serenity-earning actions, with the only difference being it might take a few more sessions than it would under the official Morality system.

If you're really dead set on having a Serenity point system, then I'd honestly suggest cutting the values listed by at least half and have the scale be much smaller and the acts performed to gain Serenity be much more significant. Make it so that a few good deeds don't easily wipe away the fact the character has performed several dark deeds along the way.

31 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

1. Apart from the standard concern of players meta-gaming the system in order to gain what amounts to karmic brownie points to offset Conflict gains, the other major problem I see is gaining said karmic brownie points just from using light side pips. Maybe not all players, but there's enough of a temptation for players to go out of their way to do "good deeds" as outlined in your chart in order to offset any Conflict gains they might have incurred during the session. Not every player is going to want to make their way to Light Side Paragon, and introducing a karmic brownie point system to the mechanics makes it that much easier for those players to undertake Conflict-earning actions (up to and including using dark side pips on Force dice) without having to worry too much about falling to the dark side, as long as they can do a few good deeds along the way and get rewarded for it.

By default, using the light side carries a substantial benefit in that PCs can use those without suffering strain or incurring Conflict to utilize their Force powers, and with the way the Force dice are arranged, more often than not a light side result is going to give you two Force points to work with, making whatever Force-based effect the player was trying to use that much more effective.

2. Now, the reason such a mechanic as what KOTOR used works in that game is because all the instances of when your toon's alignment score would change are pre-scripted events, as the game developers specifically established what instances the toon's alignment would change, and in KOTOR2 at which thresholds certain events (like Visas Marr being introduced) would occur. The problem with an RPG is that the story is much more freeform and the players have far more choice in what actions they can take.

3. That, and part of the morality in Star Wars is that good deeds are their own reward, so having a karmic brownie system that provides additional rewards for being good guys on top of being the good guys in the story just feels tacky, although that's more of a personal bias on my part than a purely mechanical issue. Though if anything, a player that wants to skyrocket to LS Paragon could also exploit this system even more so than the current Morality mechanic by avoiding Conflict-incurring actions and going out of their way to perform Serenity-earning actions, with the only difference being it might take a few more sessions than it would under the official Morality system.

4. If you're really dead set on having a Serenity point system, then I'd honestly suggest cutting the values listed by at least half and have the scale be much smaller and the acts performed to gain Serenity be much more significant. Make it so that a few good deeds don't easily wipe away the fact the character has performed several dark deeds along the way.

1. I mean, that problem still lies in the original rules, the only difference being here the player actually has to take action, rather than just play passively and get rewarded. Sure the player can do negative things and then do positive things to counteract it, isn't that already part of the system as is? the only difference being that here you actually have to do positive things rather than just "avoid doing negative things" for a session or two. Sure a player can attempt to do positive stuff to counteract evil stuff but that still means they don't get any benefits of reaching a Morality alignment. Kinda gimping themselves, really.

2. Isn't that what happens in RPG tho? The GM throws out a scenario specifically designed to test the characters and depending on how they act, they occur light/dark points. That's really already part of the system. Players have a lot of choice in how they do things, sure, but it's not like they are stuck with taking a single choice because of the chart. they can do what they like but if they want to become more "light", then that requires they be more selfless.

3. Have you ever run a game where your players actually played "good guys"? I seem to only encounter players that just react to the scenarios, do not generally do good unless it seems necessary. They don't ever sacrifice for the greater good, they never make selfless calls. This system doesn't really encourage that. It's basically designed to say "hey you're a good guy and you will continue to become more good as long as you don't do too much evil stuff. In fact, a small amount of evil stuff is good because then you can roll for Morality at the end of the session and reach Paragon status quicker."

4. I feel like your response is heavily geared towards finding another solution rather than improving upon this one. Cutting the positive point values in half is going to gear the game towards everyone dropping to the dark side and I'd prefer that things be balanced so that it's entirely player choice, just as in the KotOR games. Your response does give me an idea though, that maybe I should alter the benefits of Light/Dark status to make players desire to reach one of those more quickly than staying in the middle. Maybe another option would be that a player doesn't gain the difference but their Morality score changes equal to the higher point value.

The problem of a PC feeding puppies to counterbalance unrepentant murder is the biggest problem, as pointed out. I can think of two potential fixes to this:

• Acts of conflict can only be canceled by equal (in magnitude) acts of serenity. This can still be problematic, but at least directs the PC in the right direction of not trying to game the system with easy tasks.
• Alternatively, when a PC performs an action (or several acts in short order) that scores them a certain amount of conflict, they cannot gain any serenity until they spend time and effort to repent for what they did, or something to that effect. This can be by trying to fix or mend any damage done, taking punishment for their crimes, seeking forgiveness, extensive meditation and self reflection, and so on, at the GM's discretion. A penalty would be required, such as having to spend strain to generate from light side points, or generating less light side points on a roll.

I still think that using the dark side should at least have a strain cost (unless they are a dark sider, in which case the opposite applies). It always seems to me that whenever we see a character using the dark side on screen, they are at the very least slightly winded afterwards. The dark side affects a person adversely, even if the effects are not immediately obviously in the short term.

Keep in mind that strain is a cost, not a penalty. Spending strain is the price other non-Force sensitives pay for using talents, maneuvers, and so forth, so I don't why it should be viewed as such.

Reducing the ease at which a character generates serenity may also work (about half as much opposed to conflict, roughly?).

2 minutes ago, Swordbreaker said:

The problem of a PC feeding puppies to counterbalance unrepentant murder is the biggest problem, as pointed out. I can think of two potential fixes to this:

• Acts of conflict can only be canceled by equal (in magnitude) acts of serenity. This can still be problematic, but at least directs the PC in the right direction of not trying to game the system with easy tasks.
• Alternatively, when a PC performs an action (or several acts in short order) that scores them a certain amount of conflict, they cannot gain any serenity until they spend time and effort to repent for what they did, or something to that effect. This can be by trying to fix or mend any damage done, taking punishment for their crimes, seeking forgiveness, extensive meditation and self reflection, and so on, at the GM's discretion. A penalty would be required, such as having to spend strain to generate from light side points, or generating less light side points on a roll.

Hm. Yeah I am severe with the Conflict amount awarded for murder (20 minimum) but I see your point.

My other thought that I just came to while replying to Donovan Morningfire was the idea that you don't gain the difference but you gain the full amount of points of whichever is higher at the end of the session. The player of course is not gonna know exactly how many they gained through the session, since the GM tracks the specifics, so they have to use their best judgement on that.

I also know that the concept used is an extreme case but we do have the example of Anakin, who murdered an entire village and still wasn't considered a Dark Side character after that. He went on to become a pretty prominent Jedi Knight throughout the Clone Wars, in fact. So there's precedence for someone doing an extremely evil and selfish act born out of anger and hate and still not going full Sith-eyes, as weird as that may be.

I can agree with @Donovan Morningfire about reducing the rate of Serenity points gained for the good deeds. Reason being as, like he stated.. Being good is sort of the reward within it self. If you go around doing "good" deeds and then expect some sort of reward, was it really in the goodness of the heart?

But still, play testing will always show what actually works.

45 minutes ago, Quigonjinnandjuice said:

I can agree with @Donovan Morningfire about reducing the rate of Serenity points gained for the good deeds. Reason being as, like he stated.. Being good is sort of the reward within it self. If you go around doing "good" deeds and then expect some sort of reward, was it really in the goodness of the heart?

But still, play testing will always show what actually works.

Well considering it's an RPG and it's all made up, the players do things for the rewards, yes. That's kind of why I'm encouraging the option of doing positive things by way of rewards. Because currently there is no reward for doing so which means nobody is actually heroic because they don't have reason to do "good" within the confines of the game. Under the current rules they can simply just react to the situation and kill whomever decides to attack them first, loot their corpse and gradually slide up to being a "Paragon of Light" without ever doing anything selfless or positive for another. I wouldn't really consider that Light Side behavior.

The current Morality system not inherently "rewarding" good behavior is only a problem if you insist on seeing it as such.

The vast majority of RPGs in general are written with the idea that the PCs are going to be good guys, at the least not a pack of sociopathic murderers, and that the primary reward for doing things (i.e. adventuring) is sense of accomplishment at the good deeds done but most importantly the XP earned so that they can advance their character. Star Wars itself is about heroes and them doing heroic things simply because they need to be done. EotE skirts this by having the PCs be scoundrels of a sort, but even then the assumption is that the PCs while not altruistic are at least generally decent people who will do what's right when push comes to shove.

And from your remark about how the GM is able to script everything in a session, it sounds like you've never really GM'd anything, or you force your players onto rails. I've lost track of the number of sessions that my players have done something completely unexpected that throws whatever I had planned off course, so any talk of GMs being able to 100% predict what their players will do in any given situation is a load of malarky.

But then, it seems I apparently have a better crop of players than you, ones who get the general themes of Star Wars, so I don't have a need to create an artificial reward system beyond the XP that PCs generally receive for completing a session.

If you really want to give your players an incentive to do good deed, a better solution than shoehorning in a karmic brownie point system that's riff with chances to abuse would instead be to hand out bonus XP for completing certain story points in a heroic way. Given how XP starved F&D PCs are, an incentive of 5 to 10 XP per session of being upstanding individuals or accomplishing goals in such a way that don't incite conflict or violence.

Your responses seem more about putting me down than helping and you are assuming things that are incorrect. You're also comparing your players to mine just so that you can say they're better. Good for you? It's just not really helpful in this conversation.

I did not say that the GM can script everything in a session, feel free to reread my previous post if you would like to actually respond to it, it seems you misunderstood some of it.

Part of providing the feedback you asked for when you posted this onto a public forum is to point where there might be potential problems with that approach. It might surprise you, but you're not the first person to try and wedge in a "karmic brownie point" mechanic into the game, all of which suffered the exact same problems that your proposal does, and ultimately proved to create new problems while barely "resolving" the alleged problem they sought to fix.

Which I did, and you subsequently blew off, and effectively cited that your players are either 1) jerks who need incentive for their characters to not also be jerks, or 2) unimaginative drones who slavishly follow whatever plot trails you put before them.

But hey, you bought the books, so you're free to do with the game at your table what you will.

So correct me if I'm wrong but part of (or the biggest) issue you're having is players "sleepwalking to Paragon". And your solution seems to be to increase crunch and bookkeeping and make it easier to become a Paragon (and quite possibly A LOT harder to become Darkside - so much for the slippery slope).

But under the vanilla system if a person is "just avoiding doing negative things", presuming you're doing your job as GM and presenting them with situations where they must make a choice (as you would still have to do using your system), aren't they actually doing positive things?

If you're not lieing, you're telling the truth, if you're not starting fights, you're defending yourself, if you're trying to prevent others from doing negative things, you're advocating for positive. The vanilla system already rewards players for doing positive things by giving them a d10 in Morality gain at the end of the appropriate "Morality period".

Your system just doubles the reward (by rewarding the PC for using the Force(???)) and makes it more gameable by eliminating the random component.

This doesn't fix any "problem", it just creates more bookkeeping (entirely to be handled by he GM) and shifts problems to different places.

But maybe that's what some tables need? Different problems.

Like take me, I like to play "gray Jedi" or rather, my PCs don't ascribe to Jedi philosophy or Sith, and tend to stay in middle Morality zones. Under your system, I would have to play a crappier person (as I tend to do things like stand up for droids/aliens) just so I don't skyrocket to Paragon for being a decent person. Because as a "gray" I'm still using Light pips by default, and so if I want to use the Force at all in doubling my ascension rate. Yea, the more I look at it, the more I think this system is no good, UNLESS you play with murderhobos who don't like to think of themselves/acknowledge the fact that they're murderhobos.

2 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Part of providing the feedback you asked for when you posted this onto a public forum is to point where there might be potential problems with that approach. It might surprise you, but you're not the first person to try and wedge in a "karmic brownie point" mechanic into the game, all of which suffered the exact same problems that your proposal does, and ultimately proved to create new problems while barely "resolving" the alleged problem they sought to fix.

Which I did, and you subsequently blew off, and effectively cited that your players are either 1) jerks who need incentive for their characters to not also be jerks, or 2) unimaginative drones who slavishly follow whatever plot trails you put before them.

But hey, you bought the books, so you're free to do with the game at your table what you will.

Maybe you're having a bad day or something, I don't know you or your life. What I do know is that rather than be constructive with your feedback you have continuously told me why my houserule is inferior to the rules as written (specifically something I said I wasn't looking for in my OP) and on top of that, you have used language that seems to insult not only myself but my players as well. I appreciate that you are trying to help with your comments but it's coming off as rude and judgmental. I do not wish to argue, you and I seem to want to have two different kinds of conversations here, so I think it best if you please stop.

59 minutes ago, emsquared said:

1. So correct me if I'm wrong but part of (or the biggest) issue you're having is players "sleepwalking to Paragon". And your solution seems to be to increase crunch and bookkeeping and make it easier to become a Paragon (and quite possibly A LOT harder to become Darkside - so much for the slippery slope).

But under the vanilla system if a person is "just avoiding doing negative things", presuming you're doing your job as GM and presenting them with situations where they must make a choice (as you would still have to do using your system), aren't they actually doing positive things?

If you're not lieing, you're telling the truth, if you're not starting fights, you're defending yourself, if you're trying to prevent others from doing negative things, you're advocating for positive. The vanilla system already rewards players for doing positive things by giving them a d10 in Morality gain at the end of the appropriate "Morality period".

Your system just doubles the reward (by rewarding the PC for using the Force(???)) and makes it more gameable by eliminating the random component.

This doesn't fix any "problem", it just creates more bookkeeping (entirely to be handled by he GM) and shifts problems to different places.

But maybe that's what some tables need? Different problems.

2. Like take me, I like to play "gray Jedi" or rather, my PCs don't ascribe to Jedi philosophy or Sith, and tend to stay in middle Morality zones. Under your system, I would have to play a crappier person (as I tend to do things like stand up for droids/aliens) just so I don't skyrocket to Paragon for being a decent person. Because as a "gray" I'm still using Light pips by default, and so if I want to use the Force at all in doubling my ascension rate. Yea, the more I look at it, the more I think this system is no good, UNLESS you play with murderhobos who don't like to think of themselves/acknowledge the fact that they're murderhobos.

1. Mainly what I see as a problem is the fact that while Dark Side actions are tracked, the game assumes that you are doing Light Side things if you're not doing Dark Side things. Trade of contraband is, while, illegal, not considered Conflict worthy in the game rules. Or how about a character that simply manipulates all their enemies into attacking them first, so that they can avoid taking Conflict from striking first? Neither of those earn you Conflict, but I wouldn't consider that "selfless" or "good" behavior befitting a Light Side character. Being on the side of the Light is about being selfless. You can be a "good guy" in this game, by the RAW, without ever actually being selfless. It allows a certain level of selfishness from characters that doesn't match up with the ideals of someone who is a "good guy Force User" as portrayed in Star Wars.

2. Would removal of the Light pips = Morality increase be enough to level it out in your opinion? Does it need further adjustments? Any specific thoughts you have as far as improving on this idea instead of just telling me why it doesn't work as-is?

Side note: As far as the comments on playing a "gray" character, I don't really understand the reason behind playing a "gray" character when you are losing out on the benefits from choosing a side. Star Wars has a very black and white, bad and good morality to it, where even the characters that claim they are neutral and operate in a moral grey area pick a side eventually (Han Solo in A New Hope, Lando Calrissian in Empire, DJ in The Last Jedi). What draws you to that concept so strongly?

49 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

1. Mainly what I see as a problem is the fact that while Dark Side actions are tracked, the game assumes that you are doing Light Side things if you're not doing Dark Side things. Trade of contraband is, while, illegal, not considered Conflict worthy in the game rules. Or how about a character that simply manipulates all their enemies into attacking them first, so that they can avoid taking Conflict from striking first? Neither of those earn you Conflict, but I wouldn't consider that "selfless" or "good" behavior befitting a Light Side character. Being on the side of the Light is about being selfless. You can be a "good guy" in this game, by the RAW, without ever actually being selfless. It allows a certain level of selfishness from characters that doesn't match up with the ideals of someone who is a "good guy Force User" as portrayed in Star Wars.

2. Would removal of the Light pips = Morality increase be enough to level it out in your opinion? Does it need further adjustments? Any specific thoughts you have as far as improving on this idea instead of just telling me why it doesn't work as-is?

Side note: As far as the comments on playing a "gray" character, I don't really understand the reason behind playing a "gray" character when you are losing out on the benefits from choosing a side. Star Wars has a very black and white, bad and good morality to it, where even the characters that claim they are neutral and operate in a moral grey area pick a side eventually (Han Solo in A New Hope, Lando Calrissian in Empire, DJ in The Last Jedi). What draws you to that concept so strongly?

1. No, I think the vanilla system assumes that the Darkside is a pervision of and deviation from what is "the Force". A nuanced difference in language perhaps, but drastic in effect. And of course butts right up against philosophical debates that will have no end.

As for contraband, Illegal =/= "Immoral". And RE: manipulation, depends on the means of manipulation. But that could easily become lieing, or coercion, or just the GM saying, "Uh, you're clearly starting this fight with verbal/mental abuse. Which is responding with violence. 1 Conflict."

2. It would certainly help. But also you've created a dilemma for Darksiders who aren't playing their evil guy as "Chaotic Stupid". The discerning Darksider couches themselves in an appearance of cordiality, and even beneficence. Until of course the moment is right. And if such a Darksider is playing a long game, they could pretend themselves right out of the Darkside.

Your system has the same blind spots just in different places.

As for not understanding someone playing "gray", first don't get me wrong - I think the term "gray" or gray Jedi is a misnomer, but it just most effociently conveys in discussion how I play my Force Users. That said, as you know, even if you're "gray" you're actually still Light. So there is no deviation here from your "black and white" vision of the Star Wars Universe. And this subsequently reflects the philosophy that I ascribe to that there is only "one Force", and the Darkside is just a perversion of/deviation from that (it's the user that is Dark, not the Force). Maybe this factors into why the vanilla system works for me, I'm not trying to create a Lightside and a Darkside, there's just the Force, and the Will of the Force, and the Darkside is a perversion of that Will (seriously not trying to derail thread with philosophical debate, but there is clearly a philosophical reason behind why mechanics do or do not sit well for some people).

Also, while it's now relegated to "Legends" there are some very interesting Old Republic novels that might shift your black-and-white perception some.

Ultimately, as I've always said, if you're not gonna use the vanilla Morality system, I think the next best way is to handle it 100% narratively. ie "We know a Darksider when we see it."And so with your system, I feel like you're clearly wanting to use the narrative approach, but can't let go of gameifying it. So the only possible suggestion I can recommend is to let go of "mechanizing" Morality, and just handle it fully narratively.

5 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

you're free to do with the game at your table what you will.

Donovan, I read your last several posts, and this is the only thing of value that I got out of them. Pity you saved this message for last. Perhaps starting future responses from this point would be best.

2 hours ago, emsquared said:

2. It would certainly help. But also you've created a dilemma for Darksiders who aren't playing their evil guy as "Chaotic Stupid". The discerning Darksider couches themselves in an appearance of cordiality, and even beneficence. Until of course the moment is right. And if such a Darksider is playing a long game, they could pretend themselves right out of the Darkside.

Your system has the same blind spots just in different places.

As for not understanding someone playing "gray", first don't get me wrong - I think the term "gray" or gray Jedi is a misnomer, but it just most effociently conveys in discussion how I play my Force Users. That said, as you know, even if you're "gray" you're actually still Light. So there is no deviation here from your "black and white" vision of the Star Wars Universe. And this subsequently reflects the philosophy that I ascribe to that there is only "one Force", and the Darkside is just a perversion of/deviation from that (it's the user that is Dark, not the Force). Maybe this factors into why the vanilla system works for me, I'm not trying to create a Lightside and a Darkside, there's just the Force, and the Will of the Force, and the Darkside is a perversion of that Will (seriously not trying to derail thread with philosophical debate, but there is clearly a philosophical reason behind why mechanics do or do not sit well for some people).

Also, while it's now relegated to "Legends" there are some very interesting Old Republic novels that might shift your black-and-white perception some.

Ultimately, as I've always said, if you're not gonna use the vanilla Morality system, I think the next best way is to handle it 100% narratively. ie "We know a Darksider when we see it."And so with your system, I feel like you're clearly wanting to use the narrative approach, but can't let go of gameifying it. So the only possible suggestion I can recommend is to let go of "mechanizing" Morality, and just handle it fully narratively.

You don't find that the game already makes it hard to play Dark Side without being chaotic stupid? I mean, aside from some randomly low rolls on Morality and an intentional use of only Dark Side points, you basically have to take a lot of selfish actions on purpose to drop to the Dark Side.

Also, thank you for explaining your view of the gray and why it appeals to you.

I have seriously been considering just dropping the Morality mechanic since I began this topic as a simpler solution. It seems like a better way of handling the game than trying to quantify what makes someone light or dark through the scrutiny of actions.

7 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

You don't find that the game already makes it hard to play Dark Side without being chaotic stupid? I mean, aside from some randomly low rolls on Morality and an intentional use of only Dark Side points, you basically have to take a lot of selfish actions on purpose to drop to the Dark Side.

Also, thank you for explaining your view of the gray and why it appeals to you.

I have seriously been considering just dropping the Morality mechanic since I began this topic as a simpler solution. It seems like a better way of handling the game than trying to quantify what makes someone light or dark through the scrutiny of actions.

Well, that's just it. Playing "Dark Side" isn't the norm anyway; so it should take a character to be truly selfish, greedy, egomaniacle, manipulative, brutal, Machiavellian, Murder-hobo, to go fully Dark. That or always taking the easy way and constantly using DSPs to power his/her Force usage.

I like the idea. In my group I've been doing RAW and a couple players have complained that one of my other players is almost at paragon just by staying in the background.

My group is meeting tonight and I will run this by them and see what they think.

And yes, I understand it might be more work for me, but I knew there would be a lot of work going into GMing. But my job is to give my players the best experience possible, not to complain about it.

In all honesty I've never played someone intentionally Darkside. So I can't rightfully say how hard it might be to go/stay Dark.

But I and a lot of my players have played "gray" and generally, granted with upward trends/spikes more common than downward, we don't have trouble staying gray, without doing anything too crazy (using Dark pips when we really need to make that Power work/when there's Destiny for it, starting combat when the situation calls for it like preventing alarm, stealing or lieing when it's the easy way toward accomplishing our "good" goal, using coercion).

3 minutes ago, HistoryGuy said:

In my group I've been doing RAW and a couple players have complained that one of my other players is almost at paragon just by staying in the background.

Don't want to derail this thread, but this sounds like a failure of the GMs (letting the PC roll the d10 when they haven't been in adequate Moral quandaries), not the Morality mechanic.