Houserule: Morality

[Alphanoobmeric 11]

The reason I give Darksiders a boost to Resillience and not a setback it's because I imagine the Light Side to give more discipline over the mind, while the Dark Side to have more discipline over the body (which goes in line with that FFG did with Strain/Wounds for LS and DS users).

 

It don't think the Dark Side makes you sick, I think it makes you look sick while at the same time giving you power and resistance over the pain you use to fuel it (like Kylo Ren hitting his wound).

Cool, just wasn't sure. Wafrog mentioned setback to resilience and then you gave it a boost. Thought maybe there was a miscommunication there.

 

I honestly could see it done either way as far as the evil doers being sickly trope goes.

[Maese Mateo 66]

I prefer leadership to charm.

I agree. I like the idea of the LS Paragon inspiring people.

 

Version 1.2:

 

19 or less:  +1 Boost to Coercion and Resilience checks

9 or less: +1 Boost to Coercion and Resilience checks, +1 Setback to Discipline checks 

 

81 or more:+1 Boost to Leadership checks

91 or more: +1 Boost to Leadership and Discipline checks

 

 

[edit]

I'm considering changing Discipline for Cool in both LS and DS. Main reason because Discipline is used with Force powers. Thoughts?

Edited January 29, 2016 by Maese Mateo

[whafrog 10,384]

I'm considering changing Discipline for Cool in both LS and DS. Main reason because Discipline is used with Force powers. Thoughts?

 

 

Agree, Cool is better.

[Maese Mateo 66]

Ok. Then:

 

Version 1.3:

 

19 or less:  +1 Boost to Coercion and Resilience checks.

9 or less: +1 Boost to Coercion and Resilience checks, +1 Setback to Cool checks.

 

81 or more:+1 Boost to Leadership checks.

91 or more: +1 Boost to Leadership and Cool checks.

 

I think I pretty much nailed what I wanted. I'll be using this from now on instead of Wounds/Strain adjustments.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Maese Mateo

[Garran 485]

Actually if you don't do evil things your morality stays the same. And frankly people who view morality as "if you don't do bad things then you're moral" are wrong. But I'm not going to digress into a philosophical debate on the nature of being a moral human being. You only roll for Morality if the character actually does things to gain Conflict. Therefore not doing evil keeps you at the same level as when you started playing. Your Morality can only go up by making morally conflicted choices in the game. The problem also seems to be that people equate gaining Conflict as being EVIL when in reality it's just engaging in less than ideal actions. Which is why when you do so, sometimes your Morality will go up and sometimes your Morality goes down. This represents the character being able to come to terms with his actions. It's random so a character will never know upfront if doing something bad and morally conflicting will result in good or bad things. But this allows an excellent chance to explore doing bad things for good reasons. It does a very good job of shifting through how that will or will not pay off in the long term.

The Morality mechanic requires people to merely not do bad things. Otherwise you don't get to even roll for Morality. The Morality mechanic requires an exploration of doing morally conflicting things to see what kind of person that makes you. Frankly I think most peoples views on morals are wrong and that leads to why so many people have issues with the Morality mechanic and need some kind of mechanical reward for doing good deeds.

This is definitely not RAW. "Player characters should have a chance to earn conflict (even if they don't take it) if their morality will have a chance to change." The key there is "a chance to earn conflict" - you don't have to do something bad to become good; you have to face a situation in which you COULD do something bad.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Garran

[Bromide Hadral 5]

After a couple of session I found that 1d10 is just to random to roll on every situation. For example, last session the group's Force-user earned 2 Conflict, did nothing else moralty significant, and still he rolled a 10 so he's supposed to increase Morality by 8? I think it's a bit much.

 

My first idea was roll Morality at the end of each adventure rather than session, but we play quite long sessions (6+ hours) so I don't think that'd work.

 

Finally, I came up with this idea that rather than a fixed d10, the die to roll is based on the character's morality positive good deeds (light side) decitions during the session, in the same way Conflict is gained when the character performs Dark Side actions. That way Morality increases or decreases as the juxtaposition of both Good and Bad actions.

 

This is very raw, but it'd work something like this:

 

 

No Good Deeds______ d2

Minor Good Deed_____d4

Two minor Deeds or Moderate Deed____d6

Two Moderate Deeds or Significant Deed ____ d8

Two Significant Deeds or Mayor Selfless Sacrifice _____ d10

 

 

What do you think?

 

 

[edit]

Just to be clear, you still only roll a single die. The table is not accumulative, you take the highest option.

I thought of giving negative conflict to a player if they do something heroic. I did keep the d10, but I love this idea.