What I would like to see with terrify (and potentially future talents like it) is a choice at the start of the session. A player choice, to accept the conflict and gain access to the talent (after it's been acquired with xp of course), or the choice to not accept the conflict, and they are not able to use the talent. If you really wanted to push this choice further, you could require a destiny point to be spent (though I really think this is unnecessary, as wasted xp should be burden enough). Leave it up to the player to decide if 1 conflict is a big deal, just like every other method of accruing conflict is within the players control.

This way, it doesn't punish a player 6 months down the way for taking a talent when it fit their concept before, and doesn't anymore. It's more akin to choosing not to use the dark side to fuel force powers.

It also bypasses the need for house rules to deal with the majority of the perceived unfairness.

I'm all for the change in the beta, except for it's permanence. And that permanence is in stark contrast to every other aspect of the morality mechanic and all the other potential dark powers out there.

What I would like to see with terrify (and potentially future talents like it) is a choice at the start of the session. A player choice, to accept the conflict and gain access to the talent (after it's been acquired with xp of course), or the choice to not accept the conflict, and they are not able to use the talent.

Why not just have the talent give 1 Conflict per session if used at all? Then it works a lot like every other power that grants Conflict.

What I would like to see with terrify (and potentially future talents like it) is a choice at the start of the session. A player choice, to accept the conflict and gain access to the talent (after it's been acquired with xp of course), or the choice to not accept the conflict, and they are not able to use the talent.

Why not just have the talent give 1 Conflict per session if used at all? Then it works a lot like every other power that grants Conflict.

Because the devs have put forward their idea, so if they see this as the future of the rules, I'd rather see this choice than no choice.

Having it work like every other power just seems easy.

We all have to deal with the choices we make. They will forever shadow our destinies.

If that's not a movie quote, I'm claiming it as my own.

Anyway, I kind of agree with the one conflict per session idea.

On two levels:

1. If everyone is following the same way to dole out conflict, using Terrify is going to generate conflict. At least one point. Now, if you game it properly (as it currently stands), if you use it once in a session you wont ever lose any morality. I think the devs just want to put forth that you already have one conflict, want to add more by Terrifying someone?
2. On a more philosophical level -- we are the choices we make. We have to suffer those choices everyday from there on out. If you take the talent, you always have access to it. It can be very challenging NOT to resort to what you know will work in a particular instance. If you maintain the steady path, you may make it out.

You head down a path. Learn some things. Those things aren't nice things. Do they fade away because you don't use them? Not really, you can always go down that path... quickly.

Remember, one of the design goals of the game was to tempt the players. Say "its not so bad if you just use one dark side pip. You've only got one Conflict point."

If I am already generating 2 conflict every time I use terrify I really don't need another point of conflict just because I can use it. With the way things sit now if I use the bility twice in a gaming session I am already at 5 conflict. Odds are I stay at the same morality, if I use it any more my morality is going down.

I disagree of your interpretation of Mace Windu as an aggressor as the class is written. He was aggressive , certainly, and used what could be his own negative emotions to fuel his fighting style, but he didn't engender fear and terror as a combat tactic. I don't know enough about the other character you mentioned to form an opinion.

Really? Where else would you put a Form VII practitioner? Save for a Juyo-flavored specialization in a later splat book, I find this specialization to be an excellent reflection of Mace Windu. Well, as much as any movie character can be defined by a single specialization. (I'm thinking "Juyo Practitioner" for the Warrior splat book...shot in the dark)

I would totally put Aggressor into Mace Windu's build. Definitely not his first specialization, but maybe after a bit of development, perhaps after reaching Morality 71. Noting here a section from page 52, "Often, a skill or ability that a Warrior learns within one specialization can have applications that exceed its originally intended scope." So the aggression learned here could be tempered through further maturity and character development.

Some points to consider about Mace Windu...

- He was widely recognized as the best swordsman in the Order (that would scare me).

- He was a formidable warrior and a fearsome opponent in battle (again, scary).

- He had an imposing physical presence, and great power in the Force (scary yet again)

- Vaapad was designed to channel the negative emotions of Windu's opponents, combining them with his own inner darkness and forming a superconductive loop which aided him in the fight.

- His self-identified greatest character flaw was his enjoyment of fighting.

- Vaapad's ferocity was also described as "Tempered Aggression."

- Essentially, Windu utilized his aggression/aggressiveness without succumbing to it.

- Windu believed in peace at any cost, which would include intimidating people into surrendering.

We all have to deal with the choices we make. They will forever shadow our destinies.

If that's not a movie quote, I'm claiming it as my own.

Reminds me of this:

To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic.

I love the Terrify idea. Like it

About Adversaries, again I love all the fixes. I don't understand the need of double-bladed saber for Fallen Master, but it's ok. Maybe because the fallen one has a more "agressive philosophy". Then it's ok.

Thanks for the quickness on the Beta Update process.

PS: Fix or explain hutt Resilence 8 please! XD

I love the Terrify idea. Like it

About Adversaries, again I love all the fixes. I don't understand the need of double-bladed saber for Fallen Master, but it's ok. Maybe because the fallen one has a more "agressive philosophy". Then it's ok.

Thanks for the quickness on the Beta Update process.

PS: Fix or explain hutt Resilence 8 please! XD

out of the box he has a double. Swap in whatever you want for your needs. In fact I could see using oggdudes generator and making 3 different ones. 1 with double. 1 with single 1 with 2 shotos.

Nice thing about this system is you can use the same guy multiple times just reskinning them to your needs.

As for getting rid of it once you've had a change of heart...

"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny"

Yoda says no.

Yoda wasn't alive to see the final act. That statement was proven to be terribly wrong.

Eh, maybe I interpret the quote different than you. By the EU, at least, Yoda had plenty of reasons to know that people who fell to the darkside could be redeemed. So I believe he was saying that the effects of the darkside will always linger.

Vader may have had a change of heart in his last moments, but he didn't suddenly get back his health, which his choices down the dark path were unarguably responsible for. The dark side leaves scars, physically as well as mentally.

What I would like to see with terrify (and potentially future talents like it) is a choice at the start of the session. A player choice, to accept the conflict and gain access to the talent (after it's been acquired with xp of course), or the choice to not accept the conflict, and they are not able to use the talent. If you really wanted to push this choice further, you could require a destiny point to be spent (though I really think this is unnecessary, as wasted xp should be burden enough). Leave it up to the player to decide if 1 conflict is a big deal, just like every other method of accruing conflict is within the players control.

This way, it doesn't punish a player 6 months down the way for taking a talent when it fit their concept before, and doesn't anymore. It's more akin to choosing not to use the dark side to fuel force powers.

It also bypasses the need for house rules to deal with the majority of the perceived unfairness.

I'm all for the change in the beta, except for it's permanence. And that permanence is in stark contrast to every other aspect of the morality mechanic and all the other potential dark powers out there.

I agree with this.

In the Order 66 Podcast, I think either episode 36 or 37 (I don't fully remember), but they were discussing FaD since it was announced at GenCon. Sam Stuart I believe was on the episode discussing the book, and they got into the morality mechanics. I distinctly remember him bringing up a particular point about assigning conflict (as an aside to the much larger topic of morality in general), that the GM should be telling the player exactly how much conflict he is going to accrue from any particular action the player takes. A player shouldn't be left in the dark with how much conflict his actions are causing; presumably, so that the player can amend his plans/actions to lessen the conflict or not go ahead with it in order to avoid conflict all together.

I think the point being that it's part of the narrative--as this system is a narrative system--and doesn't force upon the players certain "penalties" just for doing them. It's left up to roleplay with the GM and his players in deciding how they wish to apply the morality. That's a good thing.

This talent is taking away from player agency and goes against the idea of introducing conflict as a narrative aspect, and instead turning it into a hard mechanical one. How can I tell my player he's going to automatically accrue conflict because of an existing talent, and not give him the opportunity to avoid that conflict? The answer isn't-- or at least shouldn't be --"well don't take the talent!". That's not a good answer. Especially when the talent is still morally ambiguous to a lot of people.

Therein lies another issue, or rather what I feel is the crux of the issue: Forced morality beyond the obvious logical ones. And the reason that's a problem is because we all have different opinions on what "morality" is concerning the star wars universe. We all have different moral systems, points of view, and upbringings which allows us to see things through a different lens. You can already see that in this thread, with a lot of people having different opinions on what exactly is "moral" and what exactly should cause conflict or not. Therefore, morality should be a mechanic left to narrative roleplay and a discussion between the GM and his players; what their expectations are, what would constitute as "conflict earning", and how that plays out in their games.

Earning conflict from using darkside pips is not a forced mechanic. It makes sense logically and narratively. You have to consciously use the darkside pips, spend a destiny point, and then gain the conflict. This illustrates purposeful calling on the dark side and actively using it. That should gain conflict. The table presented in the book is a good baseline for general morality scores because it's the most basic of moralities somewhat universally accepted. Even still, "The GM can and should adjust the amount to account for unusual actions or situations." and "Character intent should influence the amount of Conflict awarded, as some actions may be considered good in one situation and evil in another."

EDIT: For the record, because I feel like it seems I'm bashing the morality mechanic of the book, I really do enjoy the way morality and conflict works in the system. I think it's a pretty intuitive mechanic...when used as it should: as a narrative device.

I was going to suggest Improved Parry for the Inquisitor (even though I disagree with how the talent works).

"This talent is taking away from player agency"

I disagree. The player knows ahead of time the consequence of choosing this talent. He or she can easily enough avoid taking the talent.

"This talent is taking away from player agency"

I disagree. The player knows ahead of time the consequence of choosing this talent. He or she can easily enough avoid taking the talent.

Hence why I stated "that's not a good answer". You can pretty much chose to take conflict or not with anything else--force powers and darkside pips included, but you can't avoid it with that talent. That's not very good.

You can also choose by a course of repeated actions not to become a dark sider, but once you do you must start turning over destiny points.

I don't know. I see a mirror of this kind of stuff in my WFRP games and it flows just fine there. If a player chooses certain career paths and mechanics, say hedge magic/witch, they're going to get corruption points. It's thematic, ties into the narrative, and has mechanics to back it up. The issue here, as in many past rpg's, is that we have the whole Dark Paladin thing again where folks want to dip into grey-to-dark territory without taking the thematic consequences that go along with it. Business as usual, unfortunately. If player input waters F&D down it's going to be a pretty big disappointment, but at least the community won't have anyone to blame but themselves.

"This talent is taking away from player agency"

I disagree. The player knows ahead of time the consequence of choosing this talent. He or she can easily enough avoid taking the talent.

More likely, not take the spec.

The main problem I have is not the "loss of agency", but that you're losing Morality for things that don't happen "on screen." They violate one of the most important rules of fiction: show, don't tell. And one of the main dramatic focal points has been reduced to dirt. Remember, there is more of this to come in future splatbooks, promising to suck all the drama off the table with passive-aggressive "darksiders" who just look evil but, in fact, don't need to act very evil to get their grimdark on. It's a very passive and cowardly trend, afaict...

I don't know. I see a mirror of this kind of stuff in my WFRP games and it flows just fine there. If a player chooses certain career paths and mechanics, say hedge magic/witch, they're going to get corruption points. It's thematic, ties into the narrative, and has mechanics to back it up. The issue here, as in many past rpg's, is that we have the whole Dark Paladin thing again where folks want to dip into grey-to-dark territory without taking the thematic consequences that go along with it. Business as usual, unfortunately. If player input waters F&D down it's going to be a pretty big disappointment, but at least the community won't have anyone to blame but themselves.

Except it's not thematic. There's nothing thematic about getting a forced conflict "just because". Lorne summed it up nicely above, "you're losing Morality for things that don't happen 'on screen'". Thematic consequences should happen at the agreement of the players and GM involved. Let ME roleplay my character's fall.

A Force user internally embracing or avoiding the Dark Side is conflict in and of itself. You certainly can slay a temple full of younglings or redeem a fallen comrade to drive this point home but to me that comes after the inner turmoil, which is what I believe they're attempting to reflect with the mechanics. It's not the right/wrong thing these boards will attempt to make it, but simply a difference of opinion on how to define theme. It is a bit different than many of the mechanics we've seen up to this point, but I think FFG probably feel like a copy/paste with new fluff isn't going to work for this third "game" so I at least applaud them for trying different things, even if they don't end up in the final release.

A Force user internally embracing or avoiding the Dark Side is conflict in and of itself. You certainly can slay a temple full of younglings or redeem a fallen comrade to drive this point home but to me that comes after the inner turmoil, which is what I believe they're attempting to reflect with the mechanics. It's not the right/wrong thing these boards will attempt to make it, but simply a difference of opinion on how to define theme. It is a bit different than many of the mechanics we've seen up to this point, but I think FFG probably feel like a copy/paste with new fluff isn't going to work for this third "game" so I at least applaud them for trying different things, even if they don't end up in the final release.

Sure I can agree with that, and I do appreciate changing things up a bit, but I just don't think adding additional conflict to stuff like talents is a way to go about it. If you wanted to make specific careers/trees in supplements be more dark side themed, then I can agree with adding talents that can potentially generate a conflict ( not an auto conflict ). It would make a bit more sense thematically.

Thing is, look at the talent. It's an active ability you have to use and it in essence acts like an aura. Call the talent/aura "Awe" instead, and now it's a lightside power.

Besides, I think the issue is in the talent name. "Terrify" obviously has a negative connotation to it: "cause to feel extreme fear", and fear potentially being an agent of the darkside. But that doesn't automatically mean that it's a darkside conflict inducing thing. Consider, if the Jedi Grand Master like Yoda was to raid a well known criminal organization, I think his mere presence (his reputation and status of being a Jedi Master) upon entering the room would cause the criminals to be "terrified". And what if he used his obvious status and "power" in that case to "Terrify" the criminals in the room so that they are so disoriented and stunned that they drop their weapons and surrender? Is that a completely darkside act?

Not the same at all. Yoda causing fear in criminals because he showed up isn't a reflection on Yoda, it's a reflection on the criminals. There is no moral relativism here. But if Yoda purposely calls upon the Force to inject fear into the minds of the criminals, that is exactly a darkside act.

But Yoda wouldn't do that. What Yoda would do instead would be to invoke "Fortify" or "Courage" (*) to remove their fear and help them understand that they need to go home and rethink their lives...

------------------

* light side Talents that don't exist yet, that maybe automatically remove 1 Conflict at the start of each session...

Yeah - if you have the character concept of moving from the dark side to the light I can see where some players would be frustrated because this change seems to stand in the way.

I have the opposite reaction to frustration, this totally fits a character I want to run, and I liked the idea that if I took Terrify it would mean he would have to work harder *forever* to redeem himself and stay that way.

"This talent is taking away from player agency"

I disagree. The player knows ahead of time the consequence of choosing this talent. He or she can easily enough avoid taking the talent.

More likely, not take the spec.

The main problem I have is not the "loss of agency", but that you're losing Morality for things that don't happen "on screen." They violate one of the most important rules of fiction: show, don't tell. And one of the main dramatic focal points has been reduced to dirt. Remember, there is more of this to come in future splatbooks, promising to suck all the drama off the table with passive-aggressive "darksiders" who just look evil but, in fact, don't need to act very evil to get their grimdark on. It's a very passive and cowardly trend, afaict...

Narratively you're gaining Conflict because of choices you have made. And you don't necessarily lose Morality - most likely you'll just gain 1 less as your previous choices and the hold the dark side has on you slows up your journey a bit.

"If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will...".

The Dark Side is more than just specific instances of actions but it's a mindset and opening yourself up more fully to negative emotions like anger and fear etc. It's something you take with you and it's hard to get rid of.

The change to Terrify isn't necessarily the only way to model this in the game but it is one way of doing it.

Besides, I think the issue is in the talent name. "Terrify" obviously has a negative connotation to it: "cause to feel extreme fear", and fear potentially being an agent of the darkside. But that doesn't automatically mean that it's a darkside conflict inducing thing. Consider, if the Jedi Grand Master like Yoda was to raid a well known criminal organization, I think his mere presence (his reputation and status of being a Jedi Master) upon entering the room would cause the criminals to be "terrified". And what if he used his obvious status and "power" in that case to "Terrify" the criminals in the room so that they are so disoriented and stunned that they drop their weapons and surrender? Is that a completely darkside act?

Not the same at all. Yoda causing fear in criminals because he showed up isn't a reflection on Yoda, it's a reflection on the criminals. There is no moral relativism here. But if Yoda purposely calls upon the Force to inject fear into the minds of the criminals, that is exactly a darkside act.

But Yoda wouldn't do that. What Yoda would do instead would be to invoke "Fortify" or "Courage" (*) to remove their fear and help them understand that they need to go home and rethink their lives...

------------------

* light side Talents that don't exist yet, that maybe automatically remove 1 Conflict at the start of each session...

See what I wrote above: "Thing is, look at the talent. It's an active ability you have to use and it in essence acts like an aura. Call the talent/aura "Awe" instead, and now it's a lightside power. "

Which really is already built into the mechanics of the talent. It says to use force points, it doesn't say light or dark. So a character like Yoda using it would symbolize him using his aura to "awe" his opponents to prevent them from attacking, while a dark side character uses his dark side pips to instill fear and "terrify". You're going to get the conflict with the dark side pips anyway. Unless, they make it like a force power and it has dual abilities that you have to chose from depending on if it's light or dark. Use lightside pips to do "strain damage" instead, while dark side pips causes them to be immobilized.

Edit: Actually, the ability lightside would be too weak. I would say change the talent to be Terrify/Awe. Lightside pips used to activate the secondary power will give setback dice for each point used to everyone affected in the area. Darkside pips make them immobilized. That way you can get variable conflict for using the ability.