I wouldn't say there should be no consequence for using this power to bully people around, just that whether using the ability costs you Conflict should be more about player intent, and that what pips the player decides to use from their Force Dice are enough to handle it mechanically.

Alternately, we could take a page from the example of Force Powers, and offer a "Light Side" analog in the same tree. Where the 2 ranks of Prey on the Weak are now, create a new talent that more accurately reflects a more peaceful, less "evil" side of the spec's abilities.

Unwavering Will

Take an Unwavering Will action; Make an opposed Discipline check against one target within medium range, adding <Force Die> equal to Force Rating. If target suffers strain from <threat> this round, it suffers additional strain equal to <success> on this check at end of round. Spend <Force Point> to affect additional targets.

Improved Unwavering Will

When performing Unwavering Will, may spend <2 Advantage> to extend duration, or <Triumph> to recover strain equal to Willpower.

Supreme Unwavering Will

When an affected target becomes incapacitated this round, may spend 1 Destiny Point to revive them as an ally for this encounter. (Rival or less)

Essentially, it's less terrifying the enemy than showing you won't back down, and eventually being able to make them realize that "the Force is with you", and they're on the wrong side. I see a revised talent tree with Terrify and its associated talents on the left, and this one on the right, along with talents that focus more on steely determination and physical endurance than fear, and more on wearing opponents out than forcing them to flee. This talent's side of the tree wouldn't be as immediately powerful, but does have a unique effect and reflects what a Light Side-aligned person would do with it. It also allows for player choice that ties into the internal conflict of how to use these abilities. Quick and easy, but a little evil? go left. Slow payoff, but without the conflict? Go right. I'd imagine there would be nothing stopping you from doing both aside from substantial XP investment, but that too is a difficult choice.

If no reversion is desired to Terrify, then what do you think about offering an alternative in the same tree?

I think the issue is less "using your powers to terrify people is bad, have some conflict," and more, "you have this talent you picked up at character creation, and have only used it twice in our long running campaign, have some conflict."

I think what away is getting at is that Conflict doesn't equal Dark Side points, as they appeared in earlier games. Conflict may result in reduced Morality, but it's not an auto-deduction. To be certain about reducing your Morality you need to acquire 11 Conflict, any lesser amount means there's a chance nothing will happen or if you accumulate less than 10 you may still increase your Morality, if I'm not mistaken.

New Morality = Old Morality + 1d10 - Conflict

That's the math. People are saying "Conflict may reduce your morality" when they mean "Morality may decrease at the end of the session due to Conflict". But Conflict always lowers your morality from what it would otherwise be every time.

Conflict = Dark side points from previous games, they're just a) called something different and b) much more granular, approx. 10 to 1, which is about right -- murdering an innocent in a previous version would get you 1 DSP, here it gives you 10 Conflict, IIRC. But with the extra resolution, there's now room for minor infractions like apathy and jaywalking.

It reduces potential to gain morality, or increases the potential to fall, because the result of the d10 is not known until after the roll. But in a system where 100 is the hard cap, there is the potential to reach the apex even in the face of negative potential. Conflict, therefore, is not the dark side; it represents all the negative actions and emotions that form the path to the dark side. But 1 step backward and 2 steps forward is net gain, because math.

“But what would have been the good?"

Aslan said nothing.

"You mean," said Lucy rather faintly, "that it would have turned out all right – somehow? But how? Please, Aslan! Am I not to know?"

"To know what would have happened, child?" said Aslan. "No. Nobody is ever told that."

"Oh dear," said Lucy.

"But anyone can find out what will happen," said Aslan. "If you go back to the others now, and wake them up; and tell them you have seen me again; and that you must all get up at once and follow me – what will happen? There is only one way of finding out.”

― C.S. Lewis, Prince Caspian

Conflict, therefore, is not the dark side; it represents all the negative actions and emotions that form the path to the dark side.

Just like Dark Side Points of WEG/SAGA represent the negative actions and emotions that form the path to the dark side. We call it "dark side" for short. This is truly a semantic argument and thus fruitless.

I think the issue is less "using your powers to terrify people is bad, have some conflict," and more, "you have this talent you picked up at character creation, and have only used it twice in our long running campaign, have some conflict."

What's more, there's no alternate choice. Unlike the Force Powers that have both a Dark and Light usage, there's no talent in this tree that rewards LS characters. If this is the talent tree that's supposed to highlight the conflict between using fear as a weapon and using courage as a shield, then give a compelling reason to avoid Terrify and its associated talents. If this is supposed to be the tree that obviously dips to the Dark Side for its abilities, then offer a talent in another tree that highlights the other side of that coin. Explore where the other extension of that design goes.

Conflict, therefore, is not the dark side; it represents all the negative actions and emotions that form the path to the dark side.

Just like Dark Side Points of WEG/SAGA represent the negative actions and emotions that form the path to the dark side. We call it "dark side" for short. This is truly a semantic argument and thus fruitless.

Edit: plus that, it's not really semantics. "Potentially leading to the dark side" is not the same as "being of the dark side." There are outside influences (the d10) that combine with the inner conflict to determine one's moral standing.

I think the issue is less "using your powers to terrify people is bad, have some conflict," and more, "you have this talent you picked up at character creation, and have only used it twice in our long running campaign, have some conflict."

What's more, there's no alternate choice. Unlike the Force Powers that have both a Dark and Light usage, there's no talent in this tree that rewards LS characters. If this is the talent tree that's supposed to highlight the conflict between using fear as a weapon and using courage as a shield, then give a compelling reason to avoid Terrify and its associated talents. If this is supposed to be the tree that obviously dips to the Dark Side for its abilities, then offer a talent in another tree that highlights the other side of that coin. Explore where the other extension of that design goes.

You can always do good acts, or at least not do bad ones, and just eat the one potential point of Morality because you chose to add Fear to your arsenal.

Conflict, therefore, is not the dark side; it represents all the negative actions and emotions that form the path to the dark side.

Just like Dark Side Points of WEG/SAGA represent the negative actions and emotions that form the path to the dark side. We call it "dark side" for short. This is truly a semantic argument and thus fruitless.

Well, I put some number-type arguments in there too, so you're kinda quoting me out of context.

Edit: plus that, it's not really semantics. "Potentially leading to the dark side" is not the same as "being of the dark side." There are outside influences (the d10) that combine with the inner conflict to determine one's moral standing.

There is no "out of context" -- the math is a beaten dead bantha rotting in the suns.

In previous versions, you had something called "atonement" which allowed characters to remove DSPs. Turns out that "atonement" isn't a lot of fun for the party to play out, was never really used and therefore a useless rule. The D10 just replaces that mechance because "hey, we assume you guys are doing good by default and let's keep the game moving because now we're in our 40's and the kids take up all our time, so let's just cut to the chase, shall we?"

The Morality mechanic of (D10 - Conflict) is completely analagous to (Atonement - DSP).

There is no "out of context" -- the math is a beaten dead bantha rotting in the suns.

It is no such thing.

I am attempting to show that the "math" argument posited several posts earlier is faulty due to a hard cap of 100. If we had some infinitely scaling Morality score to deal with, then yes, Conflict would always be a detriment 100% of the time. But we don't have an infinitely scaling Morality score. All we need to do is get it to 90, and we have reaped the maximum benefit. When we get to 100, we max out, and cannot progress any further. A Conflict rating of 1 will, at this point, have absolutely no effect on a character's Morality score. It is impossible for a Conflict of 1 to lower one's Morality, and if one's Morality is at 100, it cannot go any higher. The argument that Conflict always lowers Morality is necessarily wrong .

Likewise, if we fall to 0, that is the absolute lowest one can go. There is no negative Morality, and therefore if one is at 0 Morality, no amount of Conflict will affect their Morality score. Again, we see that the argument that Conflict always lowers Morality is wrong.

TL;DR, Conflict has a limited impact on causing one to gain or lose Morality, imposed by the scale of 0-100.

In previous versions, you had something called "atonement" which allowed characters to remove DSPs. Turns out that "atonement" isn't a lot of fun for the party to play out, was never really used and therefore a useless rule. The D10 just replaces that mechance because "hey, we assume you guys are doing good by default and let's keep the game moving because now we're in our 40's and the kids take up all our time, so let's just cut to the chase, shall we?"

The Morality mechanic of (D10 - Conflict) is completely analagous to (Atonement - DSP).

Sure it's analogous, but not completely. To me it's ineffable, but there's something that just feels different about the Morality mechanic than previous systems' Dark Side/Atonement mechanics. Could be the fact that Dark Side players are allowed to keep playing, as opposed to Saga Edition's mechanic of falling to the dark side = you become an NPC. But I dunno.

EDIT: sorry...Morality is actually tracked on a scale of 1-100. But otherwise everything up top should hold up

Sure, Conflict will not lower your Morality when you hit the rail and d10 - Conflict keeps you at the rail. We can all agree on that. It doesn't really change anything I noted before.

Hard cap is nothing new. 0 DSP ~ 100 Morality. In SAGA, your hard cap for DSP on the Dark side was Wisdom, which by default was 10. So, DSP = WIL ~ 0 Morality.

WEG was wonky because the cap was a D6, so even 2 DSPs could make you evil -- a very unforgiving system, indeed.

Hard cap is nothing new. 0 DSP ~ 100 Morality. In SAGA, your hard cap for DSP on the Dark side was Wisdom, which by default was 10. So, DSP = WIL ~ 0 Morality.

WEG was wonky because the cap was a D6, so even 2 DSPs could make you evil -- a very unforgiving system, indeed.

The hard cap argument was for the math side of things, not for the analogy side of things. I do realize that the systems are similar, and wasn't arguing that. I would welcome any critiques to my actual argument

And yeah, WEG was weird for that...and other things... I never played Force Sensitive in that system though. Kinda wish I had.

And yeah, WEG was weird for that...and other things... I never played Force Sensitive in that system though. Kinda wish I had.

The only good thing I can say about WEG's SW is that the source books were Grade A.

"Sorry Darth, those three ranks in Terrify you took back as Anakin say otherwise."

OK... Again, I don't have the Beta for F&D... Based on what I have gleaned from this and other threads, it seems to me that conflict represents the almost sedimentary accumulation of all those natural things that tug on a Force-User throughout their life and risk knocking them to a darker path, often despite or because of good intentions.

That "flaw in character" (perhaps lovable, perhaps dangerous) that will be "the thing" that turns you to the darkside if you don't learn to wrangle it.

The Jedi got to the point where they just distanced themselves with rigid dogma in an attempt to, and I'll use the mechanical term, avoid conflict points.

Am I even close?

Terrify is of special interest to me because it fits in with the backstory of one of my players.

He was a youngling on a "field trip" when the purge came down. His "class" and their instructor had gotten a ride with some Clone Troopers and a Rodian Jedi (named Guphin) that was assigned to assist them. When 66 came in, the instructor got the younglings hidden but died in the attempt. Guphin had no means of getting the younglings off the ship and, thus, saw no other option and decided that he had to kill all the troopers. Now, Guphin wasn't a legendary knight or great Master, but he had a trick up his sleeve and despite hating himself for it (well, more so, given the killing and all) he used it. He knew these soldiers after several missions. They had become friends and he knew their fears. He reached into their minds and turned those fears against them, which helped him kill them all.

This was all just to establish how the PC survived 66, why his training was so limited (Guphin taught them only enough to aid survival and keep a low profile), but I overthink even the simple things.

This was established between myself and a few PCs many months ago and it was all narrative, but Terrify is (in retrospect) the ability I would have referenced.

OK... Again, I don't have the Beta for F&D... Based on what I have gleaned from this and other threads, it seems to me that conflict represents the almost sedimentary accumulation of all those natural things that tug on a Force-User throughout their life and risk knocking them to a darker path, often despite or because of good intentions.

That "flaw in character" (perhaps lovable, perhaps dangerous) that will be "the thing" that turns you to the darkside if you don't learn to wrangle it.

The Jedi got to the point where they just distanced themselves with rigid dogma in an attempt to, and I'll use the mechanical term, avoid conflict points.

Am I even close?

Yes. I think the "flaw in character" is more in line with the emotional strength and weaknesses. Conflict is mechanical tally of the bad thing you've done, and this ultimately decides your morality and place on the spectrum of the force.