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

Yoda says no.

Not if I make it to Morality 71, regardless of how many times I've activated Unleash...

If talent drawbacks were "a thing" already, an integral part of the game's design, it would be different. The game would be different and designed and balanced accordingly -- maybe talent trees that branch instead of webs of arbitrary connection, without "must have" capstones at the end, where the player has more choice after choosing a spec.

I don't have a problem with talent trees veering dark or light. That is their flavour. If you're going to use Terrify you aren't exactly acting with the light side of the Force in mind.

I also don't mind a bit of variability in game structure, not everything has to conform to a consistent model.

It's not so much that the Talent shouldn't give conflict but that it should't give conflict for existing, anymore than you get conflict for knowing HOW to hurt someone with the Force.

It's not so much that the Talent shouldn't give conflict but that it should't give conflict for existing, anymore than you get conflict for knowing HOW to hurt someone with the Force.

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.

It's not so much that the Talent shouldn't give conflict but that it should't give conflict for existing, anymore than you get conflict for knowing HOW to hurt someone with the Force.

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.

This is just a rationalization.

Regardless, I'm more disappointed by the route they took with the spec a couple weeks ago than this which just plays into it. Warrior is now kind of a wasted, incoherent career, but not going to beat the dead bantha. As Sam notes, this is just a toe dip for the splatbooks which will have mandatory conflict so whatever. They've made their choice which may or may not be interesting in the future.

I don't like the addition of conflict just for having terrify. I am actually trying to go lightside with the agressor. I am ok with using it sparingly because it causes me to gain conflict but I really don't like taking an extra conflict just for having it when I am going to be racking up conflict everytime I use it anyways.

Conflict for Terrify gets my approval. It just makes sense .

I guess I'm in the minority that thinks having Terrify generate a point of Conflict just for having it is a good thing.

As written, Terrify can be a pretty potent talent, particularly once the character gets their Force Rating to 2 or higher, as that's better odds of being able to immoblize the target (thus locking them in place and cutting down what options they have on their turn) as well as leave them disoriented for one or more rounds. It's using out and out fear against your foe, and it's in keeping with the in-verse lore that fear is both a tool of and path to the dark side.

But unless your Aggressor PC is in the habit of racking up lots of Conflict each session anyway (say 6 or more points), then I don't see the one extra point being that much of a deal-breaker. If anything, it might help speed an Aggressor PC to the dark side, since it's a guaranteed point of Conflict they don't have to do any work for.

Certainly better than "You automatically generate 1 Conflict each time you use this talent" which would also be in keeping with the established lore about fear and the dark side. With the Conflict being earned at the start of the session, it allows the player the chance to use the Aggressor's abilities in a not-entirely negative way (such as employing them against someone that's already made their intent to injure or kill the PCs).

As for the NPC changes, I generally like those.

I hadn't seen just how lethal the Imperial Assassin could be, but then I kinda pegged him as being a high-tier threat for a party, one that doesn't show up until the PCs have a couple hundred XP under their belts.

I do like that the Inquisitor has Improved Parry as an option, and in that light having the Intimidating Presence knocked down from 2 automatic Threat to just the 1 makes sense.

Kinda wish they'd given the Fallen Master some actual Force powers to draw upon, even if fairly minor stuff like only 30XP or so in a couple of powers, but do like that the saber crystal got downgraded to a mephite crystal (far less nasty than the Krayt Dragon Pearl he used to have).

I can take or leave the Conflict surcharge. I would like to chime in with my 2 cents about the Aggressor having a dark side slant.

There are many other Force career/specs that can excel at combat, so there are plenty of spec choices if you simply want to be good in combat while pursuing a kinder/gentler life philosophy. To me, the Aggressor spec (and Starfighter Ace) is about dedicating oneself to warfare as a lifestyle. And the story material has shown time and time again that a Jedi who does that flirts with the darkside. Killing people for a living and making combat a life-focus is not good for soul.

Aki

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.

I personally have no issue with having a tree have a flavor that makes perfect sense with what it is. Learning to terrify with the force is decidedly dark side.

Jedi are not aggressors and those with aggressive tendencies are almost always on the way to fall. There are notable exceptions but they are exceptions not the generally seen.

One conflict at the beginning of a session does not make any issue really unless you plan to rack up more conflict along the way.

My actual issue is with it being in a talent within the warrior class. I think that the current orientation of the aggressor as a fear and intimidation-based combatant give it an obvious dark side slant that makes warrior a less desirable choice overall.

Indeed. Post-overhaul, this spec is too morally aligned for my tastes, whereas all other specs are morally neutral.

I was really hoping they would clean this one up from printed beta into what it seemed like they were going for -- a Marauder with Force talents, a melee/saber spec without the exclusive focus on sabers. Well, we got that, kind of, but with the mandatory Dark flavor.

I disagree.

If the previous example of the difference between Darth Maul and Mace Windu was not apt enough, perhaps take Sora Bulq and Mace Windu as considerations. Both were Aggressors. One fell to the Dark Side by letting his emotions control him, and one stayed true to the light side by accepting the darkness within (the conflict) and using it as a weapon for the light.

I think it's a flavorful mechanic, and yes it's dark, but it's not inherently Dark Side. It's how the character is RP'd in light of this talent that makes a light- or dark-sider.

Peoples arguments might be swaying me over to the dark side here. I've been pondering this on and off today, and I'm starting to come around to the side of giving the conflict. The one suggestion I might make is to move the talent so it's not so central in the tree. Currently it's very hard to avoid, I might put it off to the side so it would be relatively easy for a person to skip it.

It doesn't help that I was just reading the Hired Gun book, and now I kind of want to play an Enforcer who goes Aggressor, and has to fight their own dark side (and violent) tendencies. This talent would flavor my character nicely. Not to mention the combination of the two tree's could easily have almost anybody wetting themselves in fear.

Split Light, one way to look at it would be that this inclination to terrify is built into the character's personality and, even years later, they must be vigilant to avoid giving in to it.

Similar to people with addiction who still consider themselves addicts after being clean for 10 years, or 20, and who still fight the urge to give in to their vice each day.

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

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

Yoda says no.

Not if I make it to Morality 71, regardless of how many times I've activated Unleash...

Meh..."Paragon" doesn't necessarily mean "Untainted."

Making a talent cost an automatic conflict at the start of the session goes against the overall mechanics. There are no talents in EoTE and AoR that cause you to generate an automatic obligation or duty just for having it. It's an unnecessary penalization to players. Making it cause conflict on use makes much more sense narratively, mechanically, and can be tacked on to whatever additional conflict the GM and player believe make sense dependent on its use.

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?

Moreover, when Obi-wan came upon Luke and the sandpeople, he pretty much used "Terrify" to scare them away. I mean yeah he could have used a force illusion but the effect is still the same. He forced them away so he didn't have to kill them. Is that a completely darkside act?

We can argue the moral ambiguity of the scenarios and then ultimately fall to the default answer "well the Force doesn't care" (which we can argue all day about), but essentially that should be at the discretion of the GM and his players. Not a forced mechanic beyond the rational and logical ones already presented.

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

Or..." DO I LOOK LIKE A COP ?!"

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

Every update makes me think my decision to throw out the Morality mechanics was the right one.

My actual issue is with it being in a talent within the warrior class. I think that the current orientation of the aggressor as a fear and intimidation-based combatant give it an obvious dark side slant that makes warrior a less desirable choice overall.

Indeed. Post-overhaul, this spec is too morally aligned for my tastes, whereas all other specs are morally neutral.

I was really hoping they would clean this one up from printed beta into what it seemed like they were going for -- a Marauder with Force talents, a melee/saber spec without the exclusive focus on sabers. Well, we got that, kind of, but with the mandatory Dark flavor.

I disagree.

If the previous example of the difference between Darth Maul and Mace Windu was not apt enough, perhaps take Sora Bulq and Mace Windu as considerations. Both were Aggressors. One fell to the Dark Side by letting his emotions control him, and one stayed true to the light side by accepting the darkness within (the conflict) and using it as a weapon for the light.

I think it's a flavorful mechanic, and yes it's dark, but it's not inherently Dark Side. It's how the character is RP'd in light of this talent that makes a light- or dark-sider.

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.

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.

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.

Anakin was redeemed, but I think you could still argue that the dark side did dominate his destiny. In fact, the very act of redemption couldn't have taken place without him falling to the dark side, and it wouldn't have been so meaningful if he hadn't fallen so deeply and so long. I would say that validates Yoda's statement.

Besides, if you really want to nit pick Yoda's gems of wisdom, the "Do or do not, there is no try," line is much, much more worthy of criticism.

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.

Anakin was redeemed, but I think you could still argue that the dark side did dominate his destiny. In fact, the very act of redemption couldn't have taken place without him falling to the dark side, and it wouldn't have been so meaningful if he hadn't fallen so deeply and so long. I would say that validates Yoda's statement.

Besides, if you really want to nit pick Yoda's gems of wisdom, the "Do or do not, there is no try," line is much, much more worthy of criticism.

I would criticize almost all of Yoda's and Obi-wan's wisdom, considering they were framing the whole argument as "you become so consumed by the darkside you're irredeemable" , just so they can force Luke's hand to murder his own father. I wonder if you can get conflict for the long con?

I would criticize almost all of Yoda's and Obi-wan's wisdom, considering they were framing the whole argument as "you become so consumed by the darkside you're irredeemable" , just so they can force Luke's hand to murder his own father. I wonder if you can get conflict for the long con?

They were obviously Sith the whole time.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

I would criticize almost all of Yoda's and Obi-wan's wisdom, considering they were framing the whole argument as "you become so consumed by the darkside you're irredeemable" , just so they can force Luke's hand to murder his own father. I wonder if you can get conflict for the long con?

They were obviously Sith the whole time.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

And now that quote makes so much sense. The circle is now complete.