Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

In any normal game session, there should be several tough moral choices needed to be made. The characters' moral strengths and weaknesses should be triggered routinely. IF the GM doesn't do this, then he should not be surprised if his players' characters rocket up to Paragon. No matter which mechanic is in effect (Duty, Obligation or Morality, or any combination thereof) the GM and players should be actively engaging in these mechanics and using them to their fullest . This means, that for the Morality mechanic to be used to its fullest, the PC should face multiple tough moral choices. However, they should not be put into situation where Conflict is unavoidable. Even if that moral choice is between using a DSP or not to power a Force power, the GM and players should actively be playing up the morality mechanic, not simply play it lip service.

Ok, Tramp, outline the encounters in this "typical" session for me where multiple tough moral choices need to be made.

Also, it's pretty much out of the GM's control if PCs engage with strengths/weaknesses. The GM might try to set up scenarios where they think it *may* happen but ultimately the GM has no say in a PC feeling anger, fear, or being brash or whatever. Unlike Duty and Obligation, Morality his highly dependent on the PC to choose to use it (and regularly as you say).

But maybe I'm missing something here. I'd love to see your session outline showing a typical session where this happens.

4 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Ok, Tramp, outline the encounters in this "typical" session for me where multiple tough moral choices need to be made.

Also, it's pretty much out of the GM's control if PCs engage with strengths/weaknesses. The GM might try to set up scenarios where they think it *may* happen but ultimately the GM has no say in a PC feeling anger, fear, or being brash or whatever. Unlike Duty and Obligation, Morality his highly dependent on the PC to choose to use it (and regularly as you say).

But maybe I'm missing something here. I'd love to see your session outline showing a typical session where this happens.

I'm not a GM. And I currently play only on these forums. However, all the GM has to do is routinely put the PCs into multiple situations where their moral strengths and weaknesses can be triggered, where they have to make a choice between the right action or the "easy" action, put the PCs into moral quandries, and don't make it easy on them. You don't have to be heavy handed, but don't make it overly easy for them either. If the player manages to always choose the right action, reward him. If he gives in to his moral weakness, hit him with Conflict. It should be pretty clear if the player's action is driven by his Moral strength or moral weakness.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I'm not a GM. And I currently play only on these forums. However, all the GM has to do is routinely put the PCs into multiple situations where their moral strengths and weaknesses can be triggered, where they have to make a choice between the right action or the "easy" action, put the PCs into moral quandries, and don't make it easy on them. You don't have to be heavy handed, but don't make it overly easy for them either. If the player manages to always choose the right action, reward him. If he gives in to his moral weakness, hit him with Conflict. It should be pretty clear if the player's action is driven by his Moral strength or moral weakness.

Show me. You say you're not a GM but also "hey it's easy as 1, 2, 3". So show me. I suspect that whatever you describe you're going to be doing one of the following: being heavy handed/overly strict in Conflict infractions or not presenting meaningful moral choices. You say that's wrong and it's easy to avoid either of those. You're seeing something I'm not, so please show me.

You meet an NPC. Do you murder them (and take their stuff)? Do you deceive them (and take their stuff)? Either way you go, there existed the opportunity for Conflict, so you'll make a roll. You can become a paragon by just not murdering people.

2 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Show me. You say you're not a GM but also "hey it's easy as 1, 2, 3". So show me. I suspect that whatever you describe you're going to be doing one of the following: being heavy handed/overly strict in Conflict infractions or not presenting meaningful moral choices. You say that's wrong and it's easy to avoid either of those. You're seeing something I'm not, so please show me.

Well, that depends upon what you mean by "heavy handed". To me "heavy handed" is when a given situation is contrived , rather than occurring organically as a natural course of the action. A contrived situation would be having the PCs walking down the street and being forced, out of the blue, with some crazy situation (like the above mugging) that has nothing to do with the adventure simply to force a moral choice. By contrast, the PC being given a choice between killing a helpless foe he just defeated as a natural result of the adventure or sparing him, is not heavy handed. Giving the PC a choice between using DSPs, or not, to power a given Force power, and hitting him with Conflict if he does so, is not heavy handed. As long as the moral choices are a natural part of the course of the adventure, and result from what has previously occurred in the campaign, then I wouldn't call it "heavy handed".

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Well, that depends upon what you mean by "heavy handed". To me "heavy handed" is when a given situation is contrived , rather than occurring organically as a natural course of the action. A contrived situation would be having the PCs walking down the street and being forced, out of the blue, with some crazy situation (like the above mugging) that has nothing to do with the adventure simply to force a moral choice. By contrast, the PC being given a choice between killing a helpless foe he just defeated as a natural result of the adventure or sparing him, is not heavy handed. Giving the PC a choice between using DSPs, or not, to power a given Force power, and hitting him with Conflict if he does so, is not heavy handed. As long as the moral choices are a natural part of the course of the adventure, and result from what has previously occurred in the campaign, then I wouldn't call it "heavy handed".

Ok, so you're going to parse my language instead of showing me the example encounters of a typical session? I get it, that's where you're most comfortable engaging with this, but concrete encounter examples of the typical session would let me see it.

1 minute ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Ok, so you're going to parse my language instead of showing me the example encounters of a typical session? I get it, that's where you're most comfortable engaging with this, but concrete encounter examples of the typical session would let me see it.

I did give you two examples: one being a mugging out of the blue, and the other being a choice between sparing a fallen foe the PCs fought as a natural result of the adventure--particularly a long time nemesis, that they've been in conflict with throughout the campaign--or killing him in cold blood. The former would be heavy handed, the latter would not.

12 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I did give you two examples: one being a mugging out of the blue, and the other being a choice between sparing a fallen foe the PCs fought as a natural result of the adventure--particularly a long time nemesis, that they've been in conflict with throughout the campaign--or killing him in cold blood. The former would be heavy handed, the latter would not.

So these describe the typical session? Involving one encounter you called heavy handed?

Just now, Jedi Ronin said:

So these describe the typical session?

These describe two potential situations. Like I said. What's important, to me anyway, is how those situations arise, not the situation itself. Does the situation arise as a natural course of play, or is it thrown in arbitrarily simply to force a moral quandry? If it's thrown in arbitrarily simply to force a moral choice, then it's heavy handed. If it's a natural result of the course of the campaign, then it's not. So, it's not the specific situation, but, rather, how that situation arises, and why the situation happens, that is important.

15 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

These describe two potential situations. Like I said. What's important, to me anyway, is how those situations arise, not the situation itself. Does the situation arise as a natural course of play, or is it thrown in arbitrarily simply to force a moral quandry? If it's thrown in arbitrarily simply to force a moral choice, then it's heavy handed. If it's a natural result of the course of the campaign, then it's not. So, it's not the specific situation, but, rather, how that situation arises, and why the situation happens, that is important.

Ok, until you jumped in, the context of the conversation was that the Morality system makes it too easy to rocket to Paragon. You disputed that and said using RAW it's simple. And now I don't know what point you're trying to make that has to do with that. I agree moral choices should arise naturally from the story and campaign and be meaningfully connected to the story. Hence why I've said most of the stuff I've said about making the rocket to Paragon non-trivial. Are you arguing about something unrelated to the original context of what I was responding to?

19 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Ok, until you jumped in, the context of the conversation was that the Morality system makes it too easy to rocket to Paragon. You disputed that and said using RAW it's simple. And now I don't know what point you're trying to make that has to do with that. I agree moral choices should arise naturally from the story and campaign and be meaningfully connected to the story. Hence why I've said most of the stuff I've said about making the rocket to Paragon non-trivial. Are you arguing about something unrelated to the original context of what I was responding to?

No, I'm simply saying that, you don't have to be "heavy handed" about it. If you put enough moral choices into the adventure that arise organically, rather than arbitrarily, you shouldn't have the "problem". I'm simply saying that you don't have to be heavy handed about the moral situations and throw them in arbitrarily simply for the sake of slowing down the climb to Paragon status. The players should put themselves in those situations easily enough. And, if they still manage to routinely chose the morally proper course of action, then they deserve their rise to Paragon status. If you want to make those choices harder for them do so, just don't make it arbitrary. "Simple" and "easy" are not the same thing.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, I'm simply saying that, you don't have to be "heavy handed" about it. If you put enough moral choices into the adventure that arise organically, rather than arbitrarily, you shouldn't have the "problem". I'm simply saying that you don't have to be heavy handed about the moral situations and throw them in arbitrarily simply for the sake of slowing down the climb to Paragon status. The players should put themselves in those situations easily enough. And, if they still manage to routinely chose the morally proper course of action, then they deserve their rise to Paragon status. If you want to make those choices harder for them do so, just don't make it arbitrary. "Simple" and "easy" are not the same thing.

So it's simple but not easy. And the two examples you gave me had one you called heavy handed and the other one was not typical - taking down a long-time nemesis that you don't kill but have at your mercy.

That doesn't outline something I can use on a regular basis to add meaningful moral choices that make it non-trivial to rocket to Paragon. And now you seem to be saying it will just happen because the players will make sure it happens ("The players should put themselves in those situations easily enough."). Which sounds simple and easy for the GM. And doesn't give me any guidance as a GM (I just sit back and watch the PCs make it hard for themselves get to Paragon, all I have to do is apply the RAW Morality rules).

That's why I asked for a session outline of the encounters. You say it's not easy but in theory you're convinced it's doable. But haven't demonstrated it.

1 minute ago, Jedi Ronin said:

So it's simple but not easy. And the two examples you gave me had one you called heavy handed and the other one was not typical - taking down a long-time nemesis that you don't kill but have at your mercy.

That doesn't outline something I can use on a regular basis to add meaningful moral choices that make it non-trivial to rocket to Paragon. And now you seem to be saying it will just happen because the players will make sure it happens ("The players should put themselves in those situations easily enough."). Which sounds simple and easy for the GM. And doesn't give me any guidance as a GM (I just sit back and watch the PCs make it hard for themselves get to Paragon, all I have to do is apply the RAW Morality rules).

That's why I asked for a session outline of the encounters. You say it's not easy but in theory you're convinced it's doable. But haven't demonstrated it.

I can only tell you from a player's perspective, and from my understanding of the system. I have GM'd D20 RCRB, but not this system yet . The situations I gave above are just examples. not only that, but depending upon the the preceding events of the campaign, could be reversed, with the mugging being a natural result of the campaign, and the fight being arbitrarily thrown in. As for using something on a "regular basis", that is exactly what I mean by being arbitrary as well. Each situation should be unique and natural, there are no "hard and fast rules" of "if you do this, it will always turn out like that". You have to do what works for your particular group, and your players' personalities. Just make the moral choices meaningful, and difficult, but not arbitrarily thrown in just for the sake of it. And yes, the players should be putting themselves into moral quadries on their own, even if that quandry is a choice between using a DSP or not. In this case, really make it tempting for the player to want to use that DSP, Entice him. Play the Dark Side whispering in his ear; or make it a desperate situation, where he believes that he may have no other choice (don't make it actually true that he doesn't, but make him believe it). Play to the character's emotional weaknesses. That is the trick to getting the Morality mechanic from a GM's perspective. At least, that's how I see it.

30 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

And doesn't give me any guidance as a GM (I just sit back and watch the PCs make it hard for themselves get to Paragon, all I have to do is apply the RAW Morality rules).

Seriously, just consider any given adventure and how the PCs will find it easy to take an approach to problems that is violent, exploitative, and/or reckless (especially if reckless to the point of endangering others). Taking those options gets Conflict. In most RPGs, taking those approaches also tends to get quick results . If the players don't take those approaches (and thus avoid the Conflict), they have made the game harder for themselves.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

Seriously, just consider any given adventure and how the PCs will find it easy to take an approach to problems that is violent, exploitative, and/or reckless (especially if reckless to the point of endangering others). Taking those options gets Conflict. In most RPGs, taking those approaches also tends to get quick results . If the players don't take those approaches (and thus avoid the Conflict), they have made the game harder for themselves.

I guess my mental block is that Star Wars is space opera so violent and reckless approaches are usually reasonable and don’t present much of a moral dilemma because usually the villains are the evil empire or a vicious crime syndicate. I guess I need to examine it some more - though I have seen this as a common complaint (rocketing to Paragon).

4 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I guess my mental block is that Star Wars is space opera so violent and reckless approaches are usually reasonable and don’t present much of a moral dilemma because usually you’re villains are the evil empire or a vicious crime syndicate. I guess I need to examine it some more - though I have seen this as a common complaint (rocketing to Paragon).

The difference is often whether said violence is unprovoked, or unnecessarily extreme.

4 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I guess my mental block is that Star Wars is space opera so violent and reckless approaches are usually reasonable and don’t present much of a moral dilemma because usually you’re villains are the evil empire or a vicious crime syndicate. I guess I need to examine it some more - though I have seen this as a common complaint (rocketing to Paragon).

Those will be the usual responses, and Force-users should get some Conflict for taking such actions (that's part of what keeps the rocker to Paragon under control). Just because it is setting-appropriate to be violent and reckless does not mean such behavior is Morality-ideal, which is what Conflict measures. Bizarrely, most characters in the game operate under pulp morality (small "m"), while Force-users have a much more contemporary values-based Morality mechanic.

To add to what @HappyDaze said, even the F&D CRB states that how strict you are with Conflict can depend solely upon how much of an impact you want the moral conflict. If you want a more "swashbucking' adventure, be more lenient in giving out Conflict, if you want it to play a much more important role, be more strict.

I do appreciate the conversation and I’m reading what you say and thinking things over (and this line of conversation really got started by a question about Morality gains being quick).

I’d like getting to Paragon to be more of an achievement.

Not being a total jerk doesn’t seem like enough for the achievement of being a Paragon, servant of the Light Side etc but when you get there you’re just not a jerk.

Tramps guidelines are great - unprovoked or unnecessarily extreme - but that’s still skating to Paragon for my group. I’d like it to feel more like an achievement. Look at Obligation and Duty. Moving on those scales mark achievements or minor milestones usually - or at least concerted purposeful action.

It's a good point about swashbuckling vs more noir Wars (and the GM having control over that), however Star Wars is swashbuckling in it's roots and conception (with some noir thrown in), people can change that to taste but it’s the default expectation and play style.

Nit-picking by filtering all F&D PC's through "the Conflict list" for each action takes away from some of the cinematic fun and adventure (swashbuckling) it's at odds with what we see on the screen too (i.e. Obi-wan). Or not? Are masters like Obi-wan regularly racking up some Conflict, just not tons? (I think this is certainly true in terms of gaining Conflict for activating Force Powers, not so for actions). I don’t want to be the GM throwing flags on every play - it’s like tapping the brakes (or pausing/interrupting play to stick to the same metaphor). Maybe awarding Conflict at the end of a session instead of instantly gets around this?

There's also a lot of different reactions and perceptions of Conflict amongst players - some see gaining Conflict as falling to the Dark Side (or at least being very tempted) and others as it's merely tension or stress/strain of Dark Side emotions, and in between. I haven't found (yet) a way for the Morality mechanic to really bring the sense of the Dark Side to the table and the drama/character interest around it. Maybe I just need to have the Conflict table in front of me when Going to be reminded to include it more often. Dunno, still thinking about it.

EDIT:

I should also mention in my current game the Jedi PC (who shows up most every session and just dinged 1000XP last session ) skyrocketed to Paragon and I’ve played Morality RAW as near as I can tell.

17 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I do appreciate the conversation and I’m reading what you say and thinking things over (and this line of conversation really got started by a question about Morality gains being quick).

I’d like getting to Paragon to be more of an achievement.

Not being a total jerk doesn’t seem like enough for the achievement of being a Paragon, servant of the Light Side etc but when you get there you’re just not a jerk.

Tramps guidelines are great - unprovoked or unnecessarily extreme - but that’s still skating to Paragon for my group. I’d like it to feel more like an achievement. Look at Obligation and Duty. Moving on those scales mark achievements or minor milestones usually - or at least concerted purposeful action.

It's a good point about swashbuckling vs more noir Wars (and the GM having control over that), however Star Wars is swashbuckling in it's roots and conception (with some noir thrown in), people can change that to taste but it’s the default expectation and play style.

Nit-picking by filtering all F&D PC's through "the Conflict list" for each action takes away from some of the cinematic fun and adventure (swashbuckling) it's at odds with what we see on the screen too (i.e. Obi-wan). Or not? Are masters like Obi-wan regularly racking up some Conflict, just not tons? (I think this is certainly true in terms of gaining Conflict for activating Force Powers, not so for actions). I don’t want to be the GM throwing flags on every play - it’s like tapping the brakes (or pausing/interrupting play to stick to the same metaphor). Maybe awarding Conflict at the end of a session instead of instantly gets around this?

There's also a lot of different reactions and perceptions of Conflict amongst players - some see gaining Conflict as falling to the Dark Side (or at least being very tempted) and others as it's merely tension or stress/strain of Dark Side emotions, and in between. I haven't found (yet) a way for the Morality mechanic to really bring the sense of the Dark Side to the table and the drama/character interest around it. Maybe I just need to have the Conflict table in front of me when Going to be reminded to include it more often. Dunno, still thinking about it.

EDIT:

I should also mention in my current game the Jedi PC (who shows up most every session and just dinged 1000XP last session ) skyrocketed to Paragon and I’ve played Morality RAW as near as I can tell.

On average, every F&D character can expect to gain a couple of Conflict per session. It's almost impossible to not get at least one, no matter how virtuous the Jedi. There are going to be situations where the character may need that extra Force Pip on a critical Force power check, or he may fail a Fear check (which the GM can award Conflict for in lieu of other penalties).

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

On average, every F&D character can expect to gain a couple of Conflict per session. It's almost impossible to not get at least one, no matter how virtuous the Jedi. There are going to be situations where the character may need that extra Force Pip on a critical Force power check, or he may fail a Fear check (which the GM can award Conflict for in lieu of other penalties).

We keep going back to this. But I'll repeat myself.

Even gaining a couple of Conflict per session, and even awarding Conflict on everything in the "Common Conflict Penalties" table you still have PCs typically rocket to Paragon. For most players hitting 5-8 or more Conflict in a session is rare (at least at my table). So on average they won't take a Morality hit on a relatively high Conflict gain session.

This is when you've stated that PCs not being total murder-hobos should be rewarded for being good and playing their characters that way by getting to Paragon. Then I remind you it's still a rocket for most groups (in my experience) and that for me that is the issue - it's hard (for GM and player) to not slide fairly quickly to Paragon (and thus isn't much of an "earned" achievement).

Maybe in my own case - maybe - I haven't been as strict in my current game with applying the table. I'm not intentionally avoiding awarding Conflict but I also don't have the table in front of me and conscientiously scrutinize every PC action for infractions. If they do something obviously on the dark side (solving things through violence first, etc) that would be 5+ on the table I've awarded it. I've played it RAW mostly by feel and a strong sense of the setting.

It sounds to me like they simply get lucky rolls. What's their typical roll on the Morality checks? If they typically roll is higher than 5, then, yes, their Morality is likely to go up, unless they take a huge Conflict hit. But that's more the luck of the roll.

It also sounds to me like your players are actively trying to get to Paragon status. If that's the case, then, yes, they're likely to get very little Conflict, and thus "rocket" up to that status.

Yes, you said pretty much what I said you would. Under normal RAW play there's a rocket to Paragon. And "trying" to get to Paragon to me doesn't mean relatively normal play (some Conflict for using Force Powers but otherwise avoiding being a murder-hobo-jack-wad at the table). It seems to mean that to you. There have been some lucky/unlucky rolls but the average is to go up.

The RAW does include rules that can reasonably - to me - lead to somewhat of a rocket to paragon: Using Triggered Morality every session and the PC really plays up their Strength/Weakness and such dramatics attached to their Strength/Weakness fit into the current story (the GM section calls this out) . That's something I would applaud (players getting directly rewarded for engaging the mechanic) but this on top of the typical things that make Morality rocket up? Just makes that rocket aspect worse (and diminishes the mechanical enticement of using Triggered Morality).

7 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Yes, you said pretty much what I said you would. Under normal RAW play there's a rocket to Paragon. And "trying" to get to Paragon to me doesn't mean relatively normal play (some Conflict for using Force Powers but otherwise avoiding being a murder-hobo-jack-wad at the table). It seems to mean that to you. There have been some lucky/unlucky rolls but the average is to go up.

The RAW does include rules that can reasonably - to me - lead to somewhat of a rocket to paragon: Using Triggered Morality every session and the PC really plays up their Strength/Weakness and such dramatics attached to their Strength/Weakness fit into the current story (the GM section calls this out) . That's something I would applaud (players getting directly rewarded for engaging the mechanic) but this on top of the typical things that make Morality rocket up? Just makes that rocket aspect worse (and diminishes the mechanical enticement of using Triggered Morality).

That really depends upon the character. If someone is playing a full on “paladin” type who meticulously follows the Jedi Code to the letter, that’s role-play, and it’s going to be very tricky to slow down that character’s rise to Light Side Paragon. It’s also not a matter of simply avoiding being a “murder hobo”. There’s also avoiding lying for personal gain, theft (particularly for personal gain or from those who can ill afford the loss), cruelty to others, etc. and other “minor” infractions. Those each can garner a few points of Conflict and they add up, so the character has to tread carefully there as well.

We’re repeating the same points over and over again. We have very different notions of what s typical session involves and what a typical players does. And is the math behind it.

You don’t think there’s a rocket or that this has negative consequences for game play. Fine. That’s the experience at my table and it’s a common complain of the Morality system.