Knowledge of some particular thing can be enough to corrupt a person. Can we, at least, agree on that much? It's a very popular trope in all sorts of fiction.

Examples:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheseAreThingsManWasNotMeantToKnow

I think that's fair. Like I said, I'm not opposed to Terrify giving conflict, I'm just not down with it being an automatic thing at the start of the session. This is not the concept of Original Sin, nor is this Call of Cthulhu

Except the developers clearly think Terrify is a Dark Side ability. That's why they named it Terrify and decided to tack on gaining 1 Conflict.

The Aggressor specialization specifically says they rely on fear to intimidate.

I agree that looking at the mechanical effects out of context of the name of the Talent or the specialization it's in it's not inherently dark side - it could even be used to implement Malacia or Morichro.

I also agree that choosing to use Terrify is the more important choice but that doesn't mean that training in it in the first place wasn't a decision with consequences. I think it does a good job of modelling the hold the dark side has on your thoughts and inclinations and emotions and adds a useful narrative tool in that regard.

The description also says " Some Aggressors hope their enemies backdown without a fight , but others fall into the trap of relishing the fear they inspire."

Seems to indicate a choice of actions to me. They use their ability to try and make people back down, much like the arguments and examples I gave earlier about Yoda, and others use it purposefully for intimidation and fear.

If you want to go with the idea of the "hold the dark side has on your thoughts and inclinations..." then do it narratively as part of roleplay with the players. Not as a forced mechanic. Which to tie in with GMml's question:

For folks who don't like Terrify in it's current state, or to zoom out a bit...talents being heavy handed in this arena...., what kind of mechanics would reinforce and reflect the Dark Side in a way that would reinforce your narrative and give you control or the illusion of control over your build choices?

Use the already established mechanics RAW for morality? If my player is going to use Terrify for the specific purpose of combating someone by using their fear to subdue them, then I'm going to give them conflict and that's that. This will have been worked out beforehand between me and my players. For example: A player force user runs with a smuggling crew doing smuggling runs and participating in backroom deals. They are at a meeting where they exchange a stolen crate of military gear for credits. The meeting then turns sour and the opposing party tries to play the group for fools. The force user refuses to let this fly and forces an attack, deciding to employ Terrify in order to have the upper hand and intimidate. I'm so going to give him conflict for that.

I'd say that the Star Wars setting is pretty clear - through Yoda's teachings - that Fear is of the dark side and there's no gray area.

Yes the Aggressor description says some hope enemies back off but it doesn't change the fact that they are using fear as a weapon and using the Force to cause fear in another being and in the setting as defined that's still dark side. It may be more dark side to relish in it but the act itself is of the dark side. And training to do so is walking the dark path.

And the name Terrify and the additional rule of gaining 1 Conflict for having the Talent (and the statement they're introducing this now to set a precedent to be continued in additional books) would indicate that's the intent of the designers.

Yeah, it's like the character himself can be conflicted...not just what he does, but who he is . Like Vincent Keller from Beauty and the Beast. He's got this thing that's a part of him, and he wants to be good, but he has to constantly apply extra effort and avoid doing the "easy, but wrong, thing" because of [romance].

I would definitely give Vincent Keller the Terrify talent...

It seems like the sticking point is about what is a character choice and what isn't.

I see that training in Terrify is a character choice. You're learning how to use the Dark Side. This isn't just some mechanical tweak it's moving towards the Dark Side - it's in a specialization that's all about that.

Another sticking point seems to be gaining Conflict when you may not have DONE anything in a particular session. Which is a fair complaint but I like that choosing the Dark Side (by training in Terrify) has lasting consequences. You've learned and practiced how to tap into the dark side and fill another being with terror. And even just the training in that gives the Dark Side a hook into you, the temptation to use it, to draw even further on the Dark Side. I think the Conflict represents NOT what you've necessarily done but well...the conflict within you as you struggle with the pull the Dark Side has on you. It's like being an alcoholic - just because you haven't had a drink for a year doesn't mean that you don't feel conflict and stress within yourself to drink.

I also think a GM/player could very well decide that at a certain point the character has fully thrown of the influence of the Dark Side and the Terrify Talent is "unlearned". That would make for a cool character journey made even more meaningful (just a little) because now you're not gaining that 1 Conflict every session.

A player dedicating his character to turning to the light can do so fairly quickly ("I decided to turn away from the dark side like 5 sessions ago - that's ancient history") and I think that Terrify leaves some lingering consequences there that is true to Yoda's admonition to Luke.

But to each there own.

This is the more simplistic argument out of the myriad associated with what's wrong with the talent. But I'll focus on the point here in that what makes "Terrify" a darkside power other than it's name? There is no fluff in the talent description to indicate that it's a dark side ability; certainly, no indication that a character is using "fear" to induce this effect. Essentially it's an activated force aura, and besides the name, there really is no "darkside flavor" to it.

Like I've mentioned on this forum, why couldn't you call it "Awe" and let it be a lightside power? What about calling it "Force Presence"/"Force Aura"/"Stupifey"/Whatever?

The name would make it sound like a more neutral power, and then none of us would be the wiser. Like I said, what about Influence? Jedi Mind Tricks are used to subvert a persons free will. That's a pretty messed up thing to do. Should everyone start gaining an automatic conflict each session just to know how to use that ability?

Training in it may be a choice, but using it or not using is the more important choice. I'm not saying the power shouldn't generate conflict, I'm saying it shouldn't just be an automatic. Same as a lot of the other powers aren't an automatic Conflict giving mechanic.

If you want it to give a guaranteed conflict, then the talent should work as a dual talent like the force powers are, and have separate consequences based on how it's used. A lightside ability and a darkside ability. That way there is less moral ambiguity, you know what you're getting, and you can use it for the full dark side effect should the player so choose.

I like your thinking here. As effectively the way they have it now you are forever punished and lose access to something you spent XP on. And my understanding is that is why they came up with the Duel force powers. I think a duel talent would be good. Fuel it with the darkside and you terrify people. Fuel it with the lightside and you put people in awe. The mechanical effects would be the same. The narration changes based on how it is used.

Daeglan is half right... The problem with the talent is not the wording of the effect, it is its name. I remember people having an argument over Convincing Demeanor talent working with opening locks with Skuldudgery. The effect says one thing, but the name implies another.

The effect of the talent Terrify is that it causes a target to be immobilized, or staggered with the improved version. Be it with terror or awe, the mechanical effect is the same. Maybe the opponent is suprised, impressed, awed, or even terrified, but he just stands there unable to move... that's the effect of the power.... The Conflict should be from the narrative of how the character used this power.... was it by using fear or awe... not just because he has that talent.

I'm against the automatic Conflict for this talent.... it reminds me of the talent Duelist's Training.... before the beta update, it added a setback dice when confronted with multiple opponents... they removed that part because it was stupid to have a talent (you paid with XP) give a negative aspect.... It is the same with Terrify !

I really like the change to the Terrify talent. It simply makes sense.

Daeglan is half right... The problem with the talent is not the wording of the effect, it is its name. I remember people having an argument over Convincing Demeanor talent working with opening locks with Skuldudgery. The effect says one thing, but the name implies another.

The effect of the talent Terrify is that it causes a target to be immobilized, or staggered with the improved version. Be it with terror or awe, the mechanical effect is the same. Maybe the opponent is suprised, impressed, awed, or even terrified, but he just stands there unable to move... that's the effect of the power.... The Conflict should be from the narrative of how the character used this power.... was it by using fear or awe... not just because he has that talent.

I'm against the automatic Conflict for this talent.... it reminds me of the talent Duelist's Training.... before the beta update, it added a setback dice when confronted with multiple opponents... they removed that part because it was stupid to have a talent (you paid with XP) give a negative aspect.... It is the same with Terrify !

I think there are some big distinctions between Terrify and Duelist Training.

First of all, a GM is justified in awarding Conflict for using Terrify. Even most here who don't think you should get Conflict for just having Terrify have said they think it would be fine if you got Conflict for using it. So, you're still "punished" for using something you purchased. There's also force powers which auto-generate Conflict so there's already a precedence for gaining Conflict for using something you purchased.

And I don't think Conflict is a drawback. Duelist Training was a direct penalty to your character in a common scenario. A setback die - while not a huge deal - is a drawback. Conflict is a narrative tool used to model the Dark Side and d epending on your character concept gaining Conflict is a desirable thing . It's only a real drawback (with a bonus) if you consistently accrue lots of Conflict and fall to the dark side. (So even if you want to view Conflict as a drawback Terrify barely contributes to it, not on the same level of Duelist Training which in-and-of-itself gives you a drawback). It seemed like the intent of Duelist Training getting a setback was to simulate the Makashi practitioner being poor at dealing with multiple opponents while on the flip side the Shii-cho practitioner being good at multiple opponents (but poor against a duelist). I guess they decided it was awkward or unbalanced to model the Makashi duelist this way or didn't want to set the precedence of balancing lightsaber styles this way (give the Shi-cho Knight Talent Multiple Opponents a setback die too?, does every lightsaber style tree need this sort of thing?). Modelling the lure and hold of the dark side using auto-generated Conflict doesn't seem unbalanced (it doesn't really an immediate negative effect, it just builds in a very minor tendency) and it's not awkward because it does a pretty good job of giving that character the feel of the dark side being there tempting you.

Daeglan is half right... The problem with the talent is not the wording of the effect, it is its name. I remember people having an argument over Convincing Demeanor talent working with opening locks with Skuldudgery. The effect says one thing, but the name implies another.

The effect of the talent Terrify is that it causes a target to be immobilized, or staggered with the improved version. Be it with terror or awe, the mechanical effect is the same. Maybe the opponent is suprised, impressed, awed, or even terrified, but he just stands there unable to move... that's the effect of the power.... The Conflict should be from the narrative of how the character used this power.... was it by using fear or awe... not just because he has that talent.

I'm against the automatic Conflict for this talent.... it reminds me of the talent Duelist's Training.... before the beta update, it added a setback dice when confronted with multiple opponents... they removed that part because it was stupid to have a talent (you paid with XP) give a negative aspect.... It is the same with Terrify !

I think there are some big distinctions between Terrify and Duelist Training.

First of all, a GM is justified in awarding Conflict for using Terrify. Even most here who don't think you should get Conflict for just having Terrify have said they think it would be fine if you got Conflict for using it. So, you're still "punished" for using something you purchased. There's also force powers which auto-generate Conflict so there's already a precedence for gaining Conflict for using something you purchased.

And I don't think Conflict is a drawback. Duelist Training was a direct penalty to your character in a common scenario. A setback die - while not a huge deal - is a drawback. Conflict is a narrative tool used to model the Dark Side and d epending on your character concept gaining Conflict is a desirable thing . It's only a real drawback (with a bonus) if you consistently accrue lots of Conflict and fall to the dark side. (So even if you want to view Conflict as a drawback Terrify barely contributes to it, not on the same level of Duelist Training which in-and-of-itself gives you a drawback). It seemed like the intent of Duelist Training getting a setback was to simulate the Makashi practitioner being poor at dealing with multiple opponents while on the flip side the Shii-cho practitioner being good at multiple opponents (but poor against a duelist). I guess they decided it was awkward or unbalanced to model the Makashi duelist this way or didn't want to set the precedence of balancing lightsaber styles this way (give the Shi-cho Knight Talent Multiple Opponents a setback die too?, does every lightsaber style tree need this sort of thing?). Modelling the lure and hold of the dark side using auto-generated Conflict doesn't seem unbalanced (it doesn't really an immediate negative effect, it just builds in a very minor tendency) and it's not awkward because it does a pretty good job of giving that character the feel of the dark side being there tempting you.

My issue is it gives you conflict for doing absolutely nothing. You could spend the entire game locked in your cabin on the ship and not interact with anyone and still get conflict. that is the problem. I do not mind conflict for using the talent. I mind conflict for doing nothing just because you bought a talent.

I'd say that the Star Wars setting is pretty clear - through Yoda's teachings - that Fear is of the dark side and there's no gray area.

Kriff the Star Wars setting.

If Conflict worked like Dark Side points in previous versions of SWRPGs, yeah, I'd see a problem with getting 1 automatic Conflict for having a talent that allowed me to make a Force-fueled Coercion check to immobilize a number of people with fear. As it is, I don't see it as a problem, especially since it's pretty easy to go around that talent and the improved version on the Aggressor specialization tree.

If Conflict worked like Dark Side points in previous versions of SWRPGs, yeah, I'd see a problem with getting 1 automatic Conflict for having a talent that allowed me to make a Force-fueled Coercion check to immobilize a number of people with fear. As it is, I don't see it as a problem, especially since it's pretty easy to go around that talent and the improved version on the Aggressor specialization tree.

This.

Not all talents must be valid for all character concepts. There are a good many talents in my talent trees that I've never purchased, simply because I don't find them helpful or interesting.

And also, since when was Conflict a "punishment?"

First of all, a GM is justified in awarding Conflict for using Terrify. Even most here who don't think you should get Conflict for just having Terrify have said they think it would be fine if you got Conflict for using it. So, you're still "punished" for using something you purchased. There's also force powers which auto-generate Conflict so there's already a precedence for gaining Conflict for using something you purchased.

I'm not against giving Conflict if Terrify is used to incite fear into a NPC... it easily falls into the "Inflicting Emotional Abuse" category and would warrant 2 conflict. My point is that some talents can be roleplayed and that it should affect how you interpret their effect. Fear is not the only way to make somebody stop in his tracks and unable to act.... presence, stature, innocence, vulnerability and many more...

For this example... let's rename Terrify for IMMOBILIZE.

Example #1 : A Rodian Aggressor is confronted by 4 ruthless thugs... the Rodian FU spits at the thugs and says that if they try anything, he will rip them apart and feed their flesh to his ravenous dogs ; he uses the talent IMMOBILIZE to make them unable to move.....

Example #2 : A young girl jedi padawan is confronted by 4 ruthless thugs.... the girl stands firm and holds her ground, telling the thugs that she is not afraid, showing her resolve and determination ; she uses the talent IMMOBILIZE to make the unable to move....

Example #3 : An older senator and a young brash senator are victim of a group of thugs that shot a rocket at their speeder.... After the explosion, the young senator jumps and tries to go after the thugs, the older senator tells him to stay and care for the wounded bystanders and that he will take care of the thugs, filling his voice with presence and leadership ; he uses the talent IMMOBILIZE to stop the young senator.

In these examples... only example #1 would warrant conflict points... examples #2 and #3 would not warrant Conflict even if they used the same talent.... The point I'm trying to make is that the power itself is not inherently evil, it depends on the way you use it.... You might think it's evil because of the name they gave it, change the name and it because something completely different.

For this example... let's rename Terrify for IMMOBILIZE....

The point I'm trying to make is that the power itself is not inherently evil, it depends on the way you use it.... You might think it's evil because of the name they gave it, change the name and it because something completely different.

You can rename it anything you want but you can't get around the fact that it requires a Coercion check. The skill is pretty dubious on a moral level, even if it's possible for a good guy to utilize Coercion without any malice involved. Said good guy probably wouldn't take this talent. That you can make a Force check along with it to add Force points to the result strongly indicates it's pretty dark side. This is why the talent comes across as evil flavored. That it is open to easy rationalizations on the part of the user makes it even more so.

I'm going to throw this out there... how is the terrify talent worthy of 1 auto conflict a round session, but knowing how to resurrect dead people via stealing life essence from others (willing or otherwise) not? because harm has some nasty dark side nonsense to it, but it doesn't automatically corrupt the user... so why is terrify special in this regard?

The question is more directed at the idea that if dark abilities are corrupting, where is the line being drawn, because on the list of terrible dark side things accomplish-able in the FaD core, terrify is like the 5th worst one. the others just happen to be bundled into "good guy" schtick, but they are clearly far far worse, in the corruption and force milieu.

Edit: I meant session when I first typed this. d'oh!

You can rename it anything you want but you can't get around the fact that it requires a Coercion check. The skill is pretty dubious on a moral level, even if it's possible for a good guy to utilize Coercion without any malice involved. Said good guy probably wouldn't take this talent. That you can make a Force check along with it to add Force points to the result strongly indicates it's pretty dark side. This is why the talent comes across as evil flavored. That it is open to easy rationalizations on the part of the user makes it even more so.

More to point, I think, is that you are using the Force to intimidate or coerce your target. So the coercion part is already questionable (warranting 1 conflict in most cases) and using the Force to do it would put the vast majority of uses of this talent squarely in dark side territory.

If you wanna use the Force to simply immobilize your opponent, there's always the Bind power

I'm going to throw this out there... how is the terrify talent worthy of 1 auto conflict a round, but knowing how to resurrect dead people via stealing life essence from others (willing or otherwise) not? because harm has some nasty dark side nonsense to it, but it doesn't automatically corrupt the user... so why is terrify special in this regard?

The question is more directed at the idea that if dark abilities are corrupting, where is the line being drawn, because on the list of terrible dark side things accomplish-able in the FaD core, terrify is like the 5th worst one. the others just happen to be bundled into "good guy" schtick, but they are clearly far far worse, in the corruption and force milieu.

The problem with that is that the Force power is Heal/Harm . None of the upgrades are solely dark side, nor is the base power. So for the powers, use of them is going to have to suffice for dolling out conflict. And really, with an automatic 10 conflict for using the dark side resurrection upgrade, I think it is indeed sufficient

but it's still forbidden knowledge, many levels above and beyond focusing fear in a target (which in and of itself is not far off from the influence control upgrade).

So again, if we're stating that simply knowing how to do something bad with the force should result in auto conflict, what makes terrify distinct in this regard?

but it's still forbidden knowledge, many levels above and beyond focusing fear in a target (which in and of itself is not far off from the influence control upgrade).

So again, if we're stating that simply knowing how to do something bad with the force should result in auto conflict, what makes terrify distinct in this regard?

Also, the dark side powers carry with them an automatic +1 conflict per use that Terrify does not. It's just a different mechanic, and I guess I like it, in part, because it breaks the mold (such as it is).

but it's still forbidden knowledge, many levels above and beyond focusing fear in a target (which in and of itself is not far off from the influence control upgrade).

So again, if we're stating that simply knowing how to do something bad with the force should result in auto conflict, what makes terrify distinct in this regard?

As a Force Talent, it's mechanically different from a Force Power/Upgrade and shouldn't have to abide by the same rules, for starters.

Cool, so... force power soul steal carries no inherent corrupting influence... force talent soul steal does...

[caption for haley: animated gif of an evil spell being cast in a castlevania game]

(you'll have to excuse me, i couldn't find a gif of soul steal)

As a Force Talent, it's mechanically different from a Force Power/Upgrade and shouldn't have to abide by the same rules, for starters.

I suppose if that's the only distinction that can be identified, there you go. I'd prefer a narrative reason, but not everything in a narrative game needs to support the idea of a narrative game.

IMO, it comes down to the fact that the sole intent and purpose of the talent is to use the Force to instill fear in your enemies. None of the other effects in the game are like that.
Also, the dark side powers carry with them an automatic +1 conflict per use that Terrify does not. It's just a different mechanic, and I guess I like it, in part, because it breaks the mold (such as it is).

I guess I just don't see the distinction between sole use and terrible use as being meaningful. if a thing is capable of terrible things, that's still a thing capable of terrible things. If I know how to crush a wind pipe with my mind, not using it doesn't change the fact that I know it. Unleash is solely devoted to destruction, that it's bundled with protect is happy coincidence. So just because terrify is only useful for terrifying, I don't see how that specific knowledge is different in it's core narrative concept from the other dark side mastery type powers in the game. Agreed they're mechanically different, but then terrify suffers from being the arbitrary odd man out.

Again, this arbitrary change tilts the aggressor into a less generally useful spec. Not much,but it's creating an arbitrary divide, and I haven't heard a good narrative reason why terrify is so much more corrupting than the other terrible abilities. and if a good narrative reason for why terrify is different beyond the others isn't easy to explain, then it may be a bad mechanic. at least in this application, not overall, because I like the idea of corrupting knowledge.

I think the one difference I can see between Terrify and Protect/Unleash is that you can pick up Protect/Unleash and your character will only use Protect and can in character not actually have knowledge of the Unleash aspect of it. Therefore it's not corrupting knowledge unlike Terrify where you pick it up and you have that knowledge.

Maybe, except... Unleash comes with Protect, as Harm does with Heal...if you know one, you know the other. Then you have a choice of how to use it. But Terrify has only one purpose, and when you've picked the talent you've made your choice.

The choice is not in what you know how to do but in doing or not doing it. Just because one knows how to Terrify does mean one MUST.

This argument is only valid if use of the Terrify talent is always enough to generate conflict. I don't think it is.

What is you use your shock-and-awe tactics to pacify an otherwise deadly situation?

(from TMNT), whirling your lightsaber-chucks around, getting the bad guys to pee their pants before running away?

Or..."

?!"

What if you terrify a bully who is picking on an innocent, does that give you conflict? Maybe, if you RP'd something over the top. But if you just came in, did something impressive enough while still exercising restraint, and got the bad guy to leave without drawing blood, isn't that the Jedi way of non-violence?

The talent really has a dark flavor , but is not in itself a "dark side talent." This knowledge could destroy you if you let it (like Sora Bulq let the knowledge of Vaapad destroy him) or it could just become a tool for the light side.

Edit: added hyperlinks

Power is neither good nor evil. It simply is. Good or evil is how you use your power.

Hmm... I first found the approach to hand out conflict whether you use the talent or not overly restrictive.

But thinking more about the effect I found that you'd probably use the talent a lot more often that way. You get the conflict, you might as well use it. It's an incentive to play the role of the aggressor.

Those of you who react a little strongly on the use of the word "narrative" will probably not like that reasoning, but I find it strangely convincing.

You decide to take the talent, knowing that makes you a bully, which narratively should be fairly close to the dark side. You do this knowing you will get conflict, that means you are free to play your role gleefully and with abandon , and use the talent as often as you like without thinking about the cost. The cost is paid in advance, now you get to reap in the benefits.

The cost is paid in advance, now you get to reap in the benefits.

You would still get conflict for the use of causing emotional distress to people, and any conflict from using dark side points to power the immobilization effect. So at minimum, you're probably grabbing 2 conflict per use as is, on top of what is currently 1 conflict per session.

We're having multiple discussions on the talent, and approaching the arguments from different ways, which is a good thing really. It's good that this change has caused spirited debate in how the system works and the nature of morality and such.

However, the problem with the talent for me, more than anything, is the fact that it is forced morality . I'm not just talking about the morality mechanic itself, I'm talking about actual moral, ethical, and philosophical issues that the talent has introduced. You can see it in the many discussions already, what exactly the talent should be, how it should be interpreted, and whether it is in essence a darkside "evil" thing. We all have different opinions on what should be generating conflict, what should be considered darkside, or evil, or even how things like this should apply to our own games. These are discussions that should be had by the GM and his gaming group, and what their own ideas and expectations are.

That to me is the biggest problem with this talent. It's forcing a morality issue beyond the established base mechanics, and that is totally not cool. The talent is forcing me to have to accept a point of conflict every session. To me it's saying "you're somehow inherently tainted because of something you've "learned" and is outside your control, and not based on your individual actions." Like I said before, I'm not keen on this idea of some sort of inherent "original sin" being forced upon me via mechanics.

You want to get into those ideas, you want to play out falling to the darkside, being conflicted, whatever, then do it narratively within your game group and RP.

No one has spoken to the concept I brought up about other abilities being inherently wrong. Influence allows you to essentially subvert the free will of a sentient. If you're talking about knowing something that is "corrupting", that fits the bill quite perfectly doesn't it? It's ripe for abuse, the ability to make people believe whatever you want, to influence their thoughts and emotions. It's a dangerous path, right? How about we start giving conflict just for simply knowing it?

I'm not a fan of the slippery slope argument, but you can easily start seeing things head that way with adding auto conflict like the Terrify talent. What else are they going to require an automatic conflict for? What about improved parry and reflect? Those cause you to counterattack a target. That's dangerous knowledge isn't it? What about all combat talents? Just knowing how to kill people is enough to garner a conflict? How about Fearsome or Intimidating Presence? Those invoke fear and intimidation purposefully, and just knowing those is bad enough, right? Let's add some auto conflict to that as well. Next thing you know it, it's not just 1 conflict you're automatically taking on, it's 2, 3, 4, etc. Then it starts to add up.

I can see where FFG may be going with this concept, and it's not really a bad one. If they're using this as a potential bench test for future supplements where there are more "dark side" careers and specialization say Sith Apprentice, Dathromiri Witch, or whatever else dark side flavored where the concept is "inherent knowledge of dark side abilities taints you". I think it's a neat concept. But don't make stuff cause auto conflict . I'm willing to concede that it should be conflict on use. Or, to make things more aligned with already established mechanics, make it so that talents have a dual purpose. A light side use or a dark side use just like the force powers.