Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
erik_wolff

Yet another Morality suggestion.

Recommended Posts

I think a lot of the frustration comes for a common root, we want something the PCs cant "game" or work to their advantage and something the GM can game and use for the stories advantage. As the current system stands the GM has little to no control. This is my issue with the current system in place.

Conversely I don't want a system either side can "game". I want a system both sides work together using to Narrate the story.

This is not the system for me, so I'll do what I've been doing for things like this: Wing it, work with the PCs, tell a good story without using a particular set of rules.

Dropping a single piece of the rules (and a tacked on piece at that) won't kill the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oogy,

Actually, the GM does have a lot of control over when Conflict gets assigned, simply by devising the adventure to include options for the "quick and easy" path to a dilemma, and the player can choose to either take that option (much as Anakin frequently did) or find an alternative solution that isn't as questionable or damning.

 

There are countless tales of what's become known as "Paladin Screw Jobs" where the player of a D&D Paladin is put in no-win situations by jerkass GMs that causes the character to fall from grace and loose their paladinhood.

 

So in a FaD game, the GM can be just as much of a railroading jerkass and put their characters in situations where the only solution is to undertake an action that generates Conflict, and simply stonewall the story until one or more players accept the "sadistic choice" being offered.

hell just being around psychopath characters in the rest of the party will generate conflict. if you use the chart on page 220. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hell just being around psychopath characters in the rest of the party will generate conflict. if you use the chart on page 220.

Only if they know said character is a vile evil person that actually commits vile evil acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience players tend not to be discrete in front of other player characters. Or at least less so.

We should play in a game together one day. You can be the righteous "by the book" Paladin and I'll be the saucy evil Assassin that only does evils when you're not looking. It'll be like a buddy cop movie...

I mean unless you want to wear the mask. I'm cool with that too...    ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with the current system, but may want to tone it down from a d10 to a d6 of morality per session. So a single murder takes several sessions to recover from, and redemption is slower.

Well, if that's how you want to run it for your own games, that's fine so long as your players are all on board with the house rule.

 

That said, perhaps a sidebar could be included to include the option of using a d6 for those groups that would prefer a slower gain/decrease in a player's Morality.  So not only would it take longer to recover from committing a murder, but even those acting like a bunch of Paladins (i.e. not really generating any Conflict) won't hit Light Side Paragon on the third or fourth session.  Include it as an option rather than making it a default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue with changing the D10, I believe, is that with the custom dice, the D10 (and d100) is the only "normal" die included in the game, and they may not want to complicae it.

 

still "D10/2" and "D10 x 2" are both things worth puttng in a sidebar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue with changing the D10, I believe, is that with the custom dice, the D10 (and d100) is the only "normal" die included in the game, and they may not want to complicae it.

 

still "D10/2" and "D10 x 2" are both things worth puttng in a sidebar.

That was exactly what I was thinking.  They used a d10 because the game already requires a d10 as part of a percentile roll for Critical Injuries.  Depending on how fast you want Morality to change, I think a d6 or d8 would probably be a better choice, but they most likely don't want to make yet another type of die required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The biggest issue with changing the D10, I believe, is that with the custom dice, the D10 (and d100) is the only "normal" die included in the game, and they may not want to complicae it.

 

still "D10/2" and "D10 x 2" are both things worth puttng in a sidebar.

That was exactly what I was thinking.  They used a d10 because the game already requires a d10 as part of a percentile roll for Critical Injuries.  Depending on how fast you want Morality to change, I think a d6 or d8 would probably be a better choice, but they most likely don't want to make yet another type of die required.

 

 

I've suggested the d8 and d6 before.  Now I'm thinking that's a good variable to represent the local strength of the Dark side.  Riffing off the Dark side cave in Dagobah, there are plenty of SW stories that feature locations where the Dark side has grown very strong, usually due to some horrific event in the past, lingering ghosts, etc.  If your adventure takes place in one of these locations, scaling back the d10 to a smaller die at the adventure's conclusion is an elegant way to represent that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oggdude, I admit that your explanation makes the most sense I've read so far regarding keeping the original morality rules. I really did love the system when I first read it. Unfortunately, I still have a major issue with the giant gains that are possible with the current system. If you use dark side, you should lose morality. Maybe not a bunch, but some. Same holds true for the opposite, if I gain 9 conflict and roll a 10, story wise I shouldn't be gaining any morality.

With that said though, I really like your explanation of things.

Make sure you are using the chart on page 220. Just being in a typical gaming group is going to give your player with Morality conflict. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was exactly what I was thinking.  They used a d10 because the game already requires a d10 as part of a percentile roll for Critical Injuries.  Depending on how fast you want Morality to change, I think a d6 or d8 would probably be a better choice, but they most likely don't want to make yet another type of die required.

The thought occurs to me that there are other shaped dice that come with the game. And they have special mechanics that are normally used with them. I think we can make use of this.

Here’s a first stab at what I’m thinking:

At the end of every session, each player using the Morality mechanic will roll five dice.

If they didn’t generate any Conflict points, then all of these dice will be green 8-sided Ability dice. Your Morality score would go up by the total number of successes rolled.

For each two points of Conflict that were generated, one of the green Ability dice gets turned into a purple Difficulty die. If they generated more than ten points of conflict, then you subtract ten from their Morality, and the remainder gets converted into dice to be rolled. However, for every ten points of Conflict that were generated, you convert one purple Difficulty die into a red Challenge die. The PCs Morality score will go up or down based on the net success/failure that are rolled.

For each net Advantage that is rolled, then for the next session the PC will get to add a blue Boost die, and for each net Threat that is rolled, they add a black Setback die. But that check happens in the next session, and not this one.

I haven’t yet figured out how to use Despair, but if we’re going to include this possibility then we also have to work in a way to get yellow Proficiency dice into the mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the Morality system the way it is written. I'm GMing a campaign with the new rules and I feel it pretty well reflects their design goal of having the PCs presumed light until proven dark through their actions. I agree with many of the posters here who believe that the OP's suggestion (and similar good-act vs bad-act point systems) would make the system too gamey. 

 

However, I also agree that in a general sense Morality is difficult to lower unless the PCs are actually conflicted. If people want to play light-side paragons, I think you just sort of let them do it. Sure, some people will be light-side paragons simply for the mechanical benefits it brings but a good group of role-players will look at the situation from all angles and make their decisions in-character. If you feel that the players are gaining Morality too quickly despite proper role-playing decisions, it's your job as a GM to balance the system to match your group.

 

The issue comes with the fact that a "session" varies wildly from group to group. Some sessions for some groups only last a couple hours and/or involve a lot of OOC discussion. Other groups run for 6 hours every session and/or are constantly in-character and progressing the game. The GM must get a feel for how long their sessions last and adjust Morality (plus XP and other per-session benefits) accordingly. When it comes down to it, since the mechanic is session-based, there is going to be a lot of variation between groups. The final system printed in the book should be the one the designers feel works for the majority and doesn't involve additional dice that aren't in the game. I feel the current system will probably work out for most groups, and others should just make adjustments. This adjustment can be handled a number of ways:

 

As others have pointed out, a simple adjustment is to reduce the base number of Morality gained per session from 5.5 to 4.5 or 3.5 by, instead of using a d10, using a d8 or d6, respectively. This means that each point of Conflict is worth a lot more.

 

Another method would be to adjust the amount of Conflict that each action gives. You could easily double or even triple the entire Conflict table to balance it out.

 

A third method would be just to make each "session" be based on game progress rather than actual sessions. This could either be just for Morality and Conflict purposes, tracking only Conflict between actual sessions, or could apply to all per-session mechanics.

 

My preferred method (because it doesn't involve changing the rules) is just to build in a lot of tough decisions that force Morality choices and award Conflict very liberally. The rules say you should have at least one situation per adventure where gaining Conflict makes the situation easier to resolve. I prefer to have far more than one.

 

One of my favorite parts of the Star Wars setting is the struggle between light and darkness within each character and that their decisions have tangible effects through the Force. This is especially present with heroes fighting the Empire in the Rebellion Era. There are plenty of places to make the PCs choose between upholding the ideals of the Jedi and playing it safe, avoiding notoriety, and surviving.

 

Embrace the Morality system; all sorts of encounters can result in various levels of Conflict gain if you think outside the box presented on table 9-2. Interpret the actions to award more or less conflict based on your group. Yes, I know the book just merely says "no threat to the PCs," but I extrapolate that to mean no proximate threat (otherwise you get to justify all sorts of crazy stuff). I find a similar situation with the words "unnecessary" and "unprovoked" in that they can be strictly interpreted to mean proximate necessity and proximate provocation. 

 

An example: Do you allow the last Stormtrooper who threw down his weapon to run away, possibly alerting more Stormtroopers, or do you kill him even though he no longer represents a proximate threat to your group? If you don't kill him but still don't want to let him go, what do you do? Do you tie him up and leave him? That probably still results in some amount of Conflict since you have no idea if he'll be found and released before he starves. Also, it only accomplishes stopping the immediate threat of a bunch more Stormtroopers coming to find you right now; it doesn't stop him from reporting your presence up the chain of command resulting in Inquisitors coming after your group later. Do you take him with you instead? How do you do that? Do you have a ship with a brig? Do your meager supplies allow you to feed the guy?

 

The point is that all sorts of situations can result in a series of moral decisions that *tempt* the players with an easy solution then *punish* that choice with Conflict. This is what Morality is all about in Star Wars. In so many stories, people don't fall from the light because they begin with evil intentions in their hearts; they fall because the dark side is the easiest or, in fact, the only way to accomplish their goals. The high road should always be the hardest road to travel, and it is the GM's job to ensure it is filled with potholes, detours, and roadblocks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience with Morality isn't overblown...out of 2 sessions the Jedi player has managed to only raise his Morality by 1 point using d10 and with no conflict over 4 after each session so far.....not seeing the massive Morality gains yet though he has yet to get a double Morality option rolled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience with Morality isn't overblown...out of 2 sessions the Jedi player has managed to only raise his Morality by 1 point using d10 and with no conflict over 4 after each session so far.....not seeing the massive Morality gains yet though he has yet to get a double Morality option rolled.

I think a big part of the complaints is that if a PC manages to avoid accruing any serious amounts of Conflict and gets a few lucky dice rolls, said PC could be a Light Side Paragon in two or three sessions.

 

I think your experience with said player is more realistic and more in line with how the system is meant to work, in that he's taking actions that generate Conflict and isn't getting super-high results on his d10 each time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's an old thread, but i was thinking something along these lines when adjudicating final morality value.

 

Here are some tentative values:

 

For the final check, use a d10 if the character is below 70 morality at the start of the session.

Use a d8 if its 71-80

A d6 if its 81-90

And a d4 if its 91+

 

The closer you get to the light side, the more a single action prevents you from being a lighìt side paragon.

You could do the same for the dark side part; you use smaller dice as you get darker, showing how much harder is to climb back once you are very dark.

However that's not very canon, considering how darth vader basically reedemed itself in a single act.

 

Also, one houserule which im probably implementing is: When you commit a single action that gives you 6+ points of conflict, you do not get to raise your morality. If the final rolls happens to be a 10 and you had a single conflicting action worth 6 points, you get no increase and no decrease.

I can't really see a force user torturing someone and gain morality thanks to a lucky roll.

Edited by Madeiner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My group personally hates the idea that doing nothing increase your morality. So if we have sessions that have a bit more down time (less Starwars but most of our EoE chars are training in the ways of the force).

I'm not sure what the right answer is, but it feels like it should take effort to go Paragon. With a D10 (average 5.5) means it's not that big of a deal to use a couple of dark side points for for powers or doing so conflicting things...

 

Currently I think my group is thinking of changing the gain to be a D4 (2.5 average), so it's much smaller gain and does not force the GM to have to constantly come up with morality conflicts if it does not fit in the current story/action.  Also having the reduced gain, makes flipping dark side pips for force power uses-age much more harsh/meaningful along with just general conflict gain.  It makes it a bit more okay if during a session the GM does not give you conflict (if you had none).

Edited by Jaradakar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was worried about the same thing, even if my vision is a little different from that of your group.

 

I feel that nobody should actually have 0 conflict each session, except people like yoda or possibly obi-wan.

I like and encourage the usage of dark sides pips; i dont see it as "using the dark side of the force", rather to just not be able to banish all negative thoughts when using powers.

Only a master should be able to never use those dark sides pips.

My characters are normally accruing from 2 to 6 conflict each session, and they are very slowly advancing to the light side, as i think it should be.

 

I sometimes use a smaller die when i feel no morality issues have arosen in the current session, but not always

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...