I've asked this question several times on the rules questions,several times. Baleful Gaze is a conflict earning talent. Automatically earning you one per session, the way my group plays it that each use is also counted as using fear, similarly using coercion is also using fear.

So with Fearsome, a strong amount of reliance on Coercion , and Baleful Gaze, I have trouble seeing how, in Max Brookes description as a Warden being more on the grey side. If they use any of the above 5 times a session they have 11 conflict, so they would rate higher than murder every session.

How do you guys see this

Conflict on each use is a house rule, though somewhat common best I see it. Context is big though, already in a fight? Scaring your foe isn't as big a moral issue as if you're doing something for your benefit or just for fun.

Conflict talents do not cost conflict to use. They give you 1 conflict at the start of the session.

I agree with Decorus. I might grant Conflict for using Baleful Gaze depending on the circumstances and the role play aspects but that would be the exception and not the rule. I think Coercion does lend itself to gaining Conflict but if you're already in a violent conflict (and using Baleful Gaze in this context) then I don't think it does. Coercion is usually making the threat of violence before there is violence and potentially instigating violence (and instilling fear in the target), but if you're already in a fight then you're already there.

With the talent being linked to coercion this isnt a house rule . The Aggressor talent is easier to see this as you actually do a Coercion check.

Baleful Gaze , you are actively using fear ro protect yourself which you can argue as coming uder the conflict chart under

Coercion and threatening with violance . So using coercion gives you 2 conflct and using Baleful Gaze is in effect using coercion.

If every use of Baleful Gaze adds conflict, does every attack? I do not advise either.

1 hour ago, syrath said:

With the talent being linked to coercion this isnt a house rule . The Aggressor talent is easier to see this as you actually do a Coercion check.

Baleful Gaze , you are actively using fear ro protect yourself which you can argue as coming uder the conflict chart under

Coercion and threatening with violance . So using coercion gives you 2 conflct and using Baleful Gaze is in effect using coercion.

So...it can be argued that Coercion includes threats of violence; therefore, using coercion always gives you 2 Conflict? What if I can coerce someone without a direct threat of violence? What if I am simply an imposing figure, and use my size to interpose myself between two arguing parties, and get them to back down simply by glaring at them? I just stopped a violent fight from occurring. Is that worthy of conflict? What if a young girl is being accosted by muggers, or worse, and I stand up to them and just make eye contact until they back down? Is that worthy of conflict?

If you take a hardline approach to it, you're stymying the narrative powers of the game. Baleful Gaze could be used by Darth Maul, but it could also be used by Mace Windu. Windu uses it in the name of defense, at peace with his own emotional state and to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. Darth Maul uses it in hatred and malice in his mind. Both of them receive Conflict for knowing the talent, but only Maul would get Conflict for using it in such a fashion.

19 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

So...it can be argued that Coercion includes threats of violence; therefore, using coercion always gives you 2 Conflict? What if I can coerce someone without a direct threat of violence? What if I am simply an imposing figure, and use my size to interpose myself between two arguing parties, and get them to back down simply by glaring at them? I just stopped a violent fight from occurring. Is that worthy of conflict? What if a young girl is being accosted by muggers, or worse, and I stand up to them and just make eye contact until they back down? Is that worthy of conflict?

If you take a hardline approach to it, you're stymying the narrative powers of the game. Baleful Gaze could be used by Darth Maul, but it could also be used by Mace Windu. Windu uses it in the name of defense, at peace with his own emotional state and to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. Darth Maul uses it in hatred and malice in his mind. Both of them receive Conflict for knowing the talent, but only Maul would get Conflict for using it in such a fashion.

Hence my quandry, the conflict chart isnt even vague about it and specifies Coercion costs 2 conflict and the core 326 has some info on fear and that it is a Major path to the dark side. So yes using someones fear against themselves is conflict worthy. Baleful Gaze, fearsome, Scathing Tirade, perhaps even bad cop and the coercion skikl ,if you look beyond the mechanics are essentially using your opponents fear against themselves and Fear has definitely been called out as a dark side tool.

I personally agree that a force user relying on fear absolute should get conflict regardless of what they are using it for. My problem with ruling it this way is that as a PC Warden who relies on Coercion you will rack up a massive amount of conflict from each smaller use.

Coercion, as in threatening someone, triggers conflict. It doesn't say "any use of the Coercion skill causes conflict". While the latter will usually be used for the former, it doesn't have to be.

1 minute ago, Garran said:

Coercion, as in threatening someone, triggers conflict. It doesn't say "any use of the Coercion skill causes conflict". While the latter will usually be used for the former, it doesn't have to be.

Again, there is an obvious threat involved in every use of a Combat skill. If that earns Conflict, then the mechanic is either broken or being misused. I say it's the latter.

1 minute ago, syrath said:

Hence my quandry, the conflict chart isnt even vague about it and specifies Coercion costs 2 conflict and the core 326 has some info on fear and that it is a Major path to the dark side. So yes using someones fear against themselves is conflict worthy. Baleful Gaze, fearsome, and the coercion ,if you look beyond the mechanics are essentially using your opponents fear against themselves and Fear has definitely been called out as a dark side tool.

I personally agree that a force user relying on fear absolute should get conflict regardless of what they are using it for. My problem with ruling it this way is that as a PC Warden who relies on Coercion you will rack up a massive amount of conflict from each use.

There's the "terror" aspect of fear, and then there's the aspect of "dread" or "apprehension." Just because I can make people dread coming into a physical confrontation with me doesn't mean I'm filling them with abject terror. When doling out Conflict, one should consider both ends and means. Intent has a lot to do with it.

And it's important to consider the context of table 9-2 on FaD p324. The text calls out that this table contains " examples of Conflict awarded for common negative or evil actions. The GM can and should adjust the penalties to account for unusual actions or situations." Coercion is commonly negative and/or evil. But it doesn't have to be worthy of Conflict. It's all in how you actually pull off the Coercion.

I should hope my earlier examples with Windu vs. Maul, combined with the synonyms of fear I provided just above in this post, would suffice to make this point clear. There's nothing wrong with the rules, because they aren't hard and fast about this matter. They are worded so as to be flexible. And I'd encourage all my fellow GMs to embrace that spirit of flexibility.

6 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

There's the "terror" aspect of fear, and then there's the aspect of "dread" or "apprehension." Just because I can make people dread coming into a physical confrontation with me doesn't mean I'm filling them with abject terror. When doling out Conflict, one should consider both ends and means. Intent has a lot to do with it.

And it's important to consider the context of table 9-2 on FaD p324. The text calls out that this table contains " examples of Conflict awarded for common negative or evil actions. The GM can and should adjust the penalties to account for unusual actions or situations." Coercion is commonly negative and/or evil. But it doesn't have to be worthy of Conflict. It's all in how you actually pull off the Coercion.

I should hope my earlier examples with Windu vs. Maul, combined with the synonyms of fear I provided just above in this post, would suffice to make this point clear. There's nothing wrong with the rules, because they aren't hard and fast about this matter. They are worded so as to be flexible. And I'd encourage all my fellow GMs to embrace that spirit of flexibility.

Baleful Gaze is however using the Force (it is a force talent) to project fear at your opponent with such intensity that it can be equivalent to dodge 5 in ability, that is an insane amount of fear thst is being projected at range, given that sense "only" provides a double upgrade. Fearsome also again is functionally using fear perhaps at a lower level but a few ranks of this is essentially making people, just in your presence, fear for their very life (once you get 2 or 3 ranks).

I personally am on the fence with it, which is why I have dropped the question, if Im not mistaken 4 times now to the devs with no response. I was hoping for a similar talent on DOH so I could ask if the DoH one worked by causing conflict per use in the O66 podcast however, this time the power was totally different.

So I thought Id get others ideas on it , and if the majority were saying that it should be 2 conflict per use, id be pointing out that using it, or the other talents mentioned, just 5 times a sessionmake you worse than a serial killer (who if they murder once per session would get 1 less conflict)

6 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

There's the "terror" aspect of fear, and then there's the aspect of "dread" or "apprehension." Just because I can make people dread coming into a physical confrontation with me doesn't mean I'm filling them with abject terror. When doling out Conflict, one should consider both ends and means. Intent has a lot to do with it.

And it's important to consider the context of table 9-2 on FaD p324. The text calls out that this table contains " examples of Conflict awarded for common negative or evil actions. The GM can and should adjust the penalties to account for unusual actions or situations." Coercion is commonly negative and/or evil. But it doesn't have to be worthy of Conflict. It's all in how you actually pull off the Coercion.

I should hope my earlier examples with Windu vs. Maul, combined with the synonyms of fear I provided just above in this post, would suffice to make this point clear. There's nothing wrong with the rules, because they aren't hard and fast about this matter. They are worded so as to be flexible. And I'd encourage all my fellow GMs to embrace that spirit of flexibility.

Baleful Gaze is however using the Force (it is a force talent) to project fear at your opponent with such intensity that it can be equivalent to dodge 5 in ability, that is an insane amount of fear thst is being projected at range, given that sense "only" provides a double upgrade. Fearsome also again is functionally using fear perhaps at a lower level but a few ranks of this is essentially making people, just in your presence, fear for their very life (once you get 2 or 3 ranks).

I personally am on the fence with it, which is why I have dropped the question, if Im not mistaken 4 times now to the devs with no response. I was hoping for a similar talent on DOH so I could ask if the DoH one worked by causing conflict per use in the O66 podcast however, this time the power was totally different.

So I thought Id get others ideas on it , and if the majority were saying that it should be 2 conflict per use, id be pointing out that using it, or the other talents mentioned, just 5 times a sessionmake you worse than a serial killer (who if they murder once per session would get 1 less conflict)

1 hour ago, syrath said:

Baleful Gaze is however using the Force (it is a force talent) to project fear at your opponent with such intensity that it can be equivalent to dodge 5 in ability, that is an insane amount of fear thst is being projected at range, given that sense "only" provides a double upgrade. Fearsome also again is functionally using fear perhaps at a lower level but a few ranks of this is essentially making people, just in your presence, fear for their very life (once you get 2 or 3 ranks).

I personally am on the fence with it, which is why I have dropped the question, if Im not mistaken 4 times now to the devs with no response. I was hoping for a similar talent on DOH so I could ask if the DoH one worked by causing conflict per use in the O66 podcast however, this time the power was totally different.

So I thought Id get others ideas on it , and if the majority were saying that it should be 2 conflict per use, id be pointing out that using it, or the other talents mentioned, just 5 times a sessionmake you worse than a serial killer (who if they murder once per session would get 1 less conflict)

Sure, I get that. If it were used in a way like you're describing it above (projecting fear at your opponent with such intensity), then yeah totally, I could see that happening. But that's just one way to interpret the talent. I don't think there needs to be an "on the fence" about it. For me, it just depends on how it's used. In the majority of circumstances, I could definitely see this earning you some Conflict.

I would also point out that Conflict generated for serial killing should be much higher than 10! Premeditated, ritualistic murder should easily earn a character double that Conflict. And equating murderhobos with serial killers is also problematic But that's neither here nor there. I can understand concerns that using this talent frequently could easily earn you more Conflict than less-frequent occurrences of murder; but really, that's true of anything on that list of Conflict suggestions. If you tell 11 lies for personal gain (for example) it's "worse than murder" in terms of Conflict. But only in terms of Conflict. Allow me to explain:

We should (as GMs) always be considering unusual circumstances and narrative consequences. Conflict, and your occasional distrust generated from getting caught in a lie, is pretty much the only consequences for lying for personal gain. But Conflict is far from your only consequence for murdering someone.

• On the societal side, it's like the difference between several acts of bullying behavior and one act of a mugging/murder combo. The former is a consistent trajectory that belies a habit, and could result in some jail time; while the other could just be a freak occurrence that you're really sorry about afterward, but could result in a lengthy prison sentence. If the murders keep happening, and especially if they're premeditated, then crank up the Conflict. And if you are caught in the act, you're now facing the death penalty or a life sentence in the spice mines, rather than a bit of jail time, or a stint in prison, or a public beating, etc.
• On the spiritual side, it's the difference between little drops in the bucket and a big, fat *spe-lunk* in the bucket. If I had a PC who was regularly earning 10 Conflict for murder (I used to have PC like that), I can tell you from experience that those 10 points of Conflict are not the only Conflict that PC is earning that session That *spe-lunk* might be his only big drop in the bucket, but it sure-as-shooting wouldn't be his only! On the other hand, a character who just has a stealing problem or a lying problem, they might be earning upwards of 10 Conflict on a session that gives them enough opportunity; but that's the only thing they're earning Conflict for.

---

TL;DR: none of these things occur in a vacuum. It's literally impossible to try and encode a single hard rule to deal with them all. It's best, IMO, to try and keep the rule in its loose state, and make your calls in the moment, according to your common sense and in a way that makes the game more fun for the table. @syrath , I think your mindset of "being on the fence" makes a lot of sense, because the rule itself is on the fence It could go either way, and it's up to the GM to make that call as he sees fit, in every given situation. That is our prerogative; that is our joy.

And thanks for reading this mess. I spent way too long writing it

2 hours ago, Garran said:

Coercion, as in threatening someone, triggers conflict. It doesn't say "any use of the Coercion skill causes conflict". While the latter will usually be used for the former, it doesn't have to be.

Actually the coercion skill description itself calls out that you are using fear to scare a person into doing something they dont want to do, again regardless of how you put this it should provide conflict.

The conflict table (although the GM has some leeway here) does list Coercion flat out giving 2 conflict. I personally think this is fair in moderation, my concern is that IF you work on an opinion that each time you use fear to accomplish something it is worth a minimum of 2 conflict, a Warden can rack up an astounding amount of conflict, especially if you include Scathing Tirade in the mix. Fearsome on its own used liberally could cause you to fall.

The Aggressor has perhaps a harder time here, but has less talents and abilities that would fall under this ruling.

I would love to know FFG'S take on this. My concern isnt that they cause conflict but that they can add up significantly over a session, and Max Brooke described Warden's as mostly being more likely to be grey, however not if they use the right hand columns of the talent tree and also make significant use of coercion. I can personally see me having more conflict than a murder hobo, so be it if that is what is in store for me, but make no mistake if this is correct then I would expect 10-20 conflict each session

8 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

Sure, I get that. If it were used in a way like you're describing it above (projecting fear at your opponent with such intensity), then yeah totally, I could see that happening. But that's just one way to interpret the talent. I don't think there needs to be an "on the fence" about it. For me, it just depends on how it's used. In the majority of circumstances, I could definitely see this earning you some Conflict.

I would also point out that Conflict generated for serial killing should be much higher than 10! Premeditated, ritualistic murder should easily earn a character double that Conflict. And equating murderhobos with serial killers is also problematic But that's neither here nor there. I can understand concerns that using this talent frequently could easily earn you more Conflict than less-frequent occurrences of murder; but really, that's true of anything on that list of Conflict suggestions. If you tell 11 lies for personal gain (for example) it's "worse than murder" in terms of Conflict. But only in terms of Conflict. Allow me to explain:

We should (as GMs) always be considering unusual circumstances and narrative consequences. Conflict, and your occasional distrust generated from getting caught in a lie, is pretty much the only consequences for lying for personal gain. But Conflict is far from your only consequence for murdering someone.

• On the societal side, it's like the difference between several acts of bullying behavior and one act of a mugging/murder combo. The former is a consistent trajectory that belies a habit, and could result in some jail time; while the other could just be a freak occurrence that you're really sorry about afterward, but could result in a lengthy prison sentence. If the murders keep happening, and especially if they're premeditated, then crank up the Conflict. And if you are caught in the act, you're now facing the death penalty or a life sentence in the spice mines, rather than a bit of jail time, or a stint in prison, or a public beating, etc.
• On the spiritual side, it's the difference between little drops in the bucket and a big, fat *spe-lunk* in the bucket. If I had a PC who was regularly earning 10 Conflict for murder (I used to have PC like that), I can tell you from experience that those 10 points of Conflict are not the only Conflict that PC is earning that session That *spe-lunk* might be his only big drop in the bucket, but it sure-as-shooting wouldn't be his only! On the other hand, a character who just has a stealing problem or a lying problem, they might be earning upwards of 10 Conflict on a session that gives them enough opportunity; but that's the only thing they're earning Conflict for.

---

TL;DR: none of these things occur in a vacuum. It's literally impossible to try and encode a single hard rule to deal with them all. It's best, IMO, to try and keep the rule in its loose state, and make your calls in the moment, according to your common sense and in a way that makes the game more fun for the table. @syrath , I think your mindset of "being on the fence" makes a lot of sense, because the rule itself is on the fence It could go either way, and it's up to the GM to make that call as he sees fit, in every given situation. That is our prerogative; that is our joy.

And thanks for reading this mess. I spent way too long writing it

Like the post however please note that a lie is 1 conflcit if you read the paragraph below the table it rules that you might get more if the reason you lied isnt altruistic, lying for personal gain actually has the potential for an additional 1-5 conflcit and if its greed then its likely to be 3-4 additional and if for evil reasons then the lie would be 6 total conflict. Having now thought that through, a sadistic murderer would be looking at 15 or more depending what else was involved, so 2 per instance isnt as bad as I was originally thinking, mind you I think my Warden might be heading to 1 morality given this.

7 minutes ago, syrath said:

Actually the coercion skill description itself calls out that you are using fear to scare a person into doing something they dont want to do, again regardless of how you put this it should provide conflict.

The conflict table (although the GM has some leeway here) does list Coercion flat out giving 2 conflict. I personally think this is fair in moderation, my concern is that IF you work on an opinion that each time you use fear to accomplish something it is worth a minimum of 2 conflict, a Warden can rack up an astounding amount of conflict, especially if you include Scathing Tirade in the mix. Fearsome on its own used liberally could cause you to fall.

Note that the Table 9-2 entry for Coercion specifies: "The PC threatens someone with violence, or coerces the person to do his bidding against that person's will." This is textbook bully behavior, and isn't the only way to use the Coercion skill. So it's far from a blanket "using Coercion earns you 2 Conflict" ruling. And note the full text under the Coercion skill entry in Chapter III. Especially the sentence, "However, even decent individuals may use Coercion to intimidate opponents into surrendering rather than fighting and killing their enemies."

So even in the skill itself, there's some leeway as to how to interpret it. A weapon in the hands of the wrong person can violently end a life. But the same weapon, in the hands of the right person, can save many lives, with no actual violence taking place. I'd call that an example of a decent person using Coercion. And I certainly wouldn't award any Conflict for it. And I think the rules totally support that.

2 minutes ago, syrath said:

Like the post however please note that a lie is 1 conflcit if you read the paragraph below the table it rules that you might get more if the reason you lied isnt altruistic, lying for personal gain actually has the potential for an additional 1-5 conflcit and if its greed then its likely to be 3-4 additional and if for evil reasons then the lie would be 6 total conflict. Having now thought that through, a sadistic murderer would be looking at 15 or more depending what else was involved, so 2 per instance isnt as bad as I was originally thinking, mind you I think my Warden might be heading to 1 morality given this.

No quite. A lie is only worth one Conflict if it is for Selfish gain. This is explicitly stated in the Conflict table on page 324:

Quote

1: Lying for Personal Gain : the PC tells a lie for selfish reasons or to benefit himself. Some lies can be told without penalty to benefit others, such as avoiding a combat situation or protecting innocents.

So the only way to get Conflict when lying is if it's for selfish gain.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No quite. A lie is only worth one Conflict if it is for Selfish gain. This is explicitly stated in the Conflict table on page 324:

So the only way to get Conflict when lying is if it's for selfish gain.

True but it also says further down that page on the last paragraph in the left column

Character intent should influence the amount of Conflict awarded, as some actions may be considered good in one situation and evil in another. Obviously evil or overly selfish acts can add 1 to 5 additional Conflcit points. Gray areas such as using dark pips results to generate force points for a selfish but not a truly evil action recieves a minimum of +1 conflict, but possibly 2 to 5 more conflict. The GM'S determination and ruling is final.

So lying for personal gain - base 1 , lying for overly selfish personal gain is 2 to 6.

20 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

Note that the Table 9-2 entry for Coercion specifies: "The PC threatens someone with violence, or coerces the person to do his bidding against that person's will." This is textbook bully behavior, and isn't the only way to use the Coercion skill. So it's far from a blanket "using Coercion earns you 2 Conflict" ruling. And note the full text under the Coercion skill entry in Chapter III. Especially the sentence, "However, even decent individuals may use Coercion to intimidate opponents into surrendering rather than fighting and killing their enemies."

So even in the skill itself, there's some leeway as to how to interpret it. A weapon in the hands of the wrong person can violently end a life. But the same weapon, in the hands of the right person, can save many lives, with no actual violence taking place. I'd call that an example of a decent person using Coercion. And I certainly wouldn't award any Conflict for it. And I think the rules totally support that.

I know and agree, but im generally talking about a character like the warden who leans on coercion as a crutch, not the skill itself, as there will always be exceptions depending on the narrative at the time, but what Im getting it is the generalised use of fear that isnt described narratively or doesnt fit the easy adjudication, this causes conflict or not. Example every time you use Baleful Gaze you are using the force to project fear , this should generate conflict, as even using the force to boost Coercion in anyway even requires dark side pips.

Scathing Tirade is shouting at people hard enough that it causes them to take strain damage, Fearsome etc these are all generalised use of fear and how much if any conflict should this give (the amount question is rhetorical here, as everyone has their own opinion on it). While an enforcer using fearsome has nothing to worry about a force user is held to a much higher standard. Mace Windu, was described as a Jedi who skirted the dark side and those who tried to emulate him (in legends) fell. He was certainly the most militant Jedi.

47 minutes ago, syrath said:

True but it also says further down that page on the last paragraph in the left column

Character intent should influence the amount of Conflict awarded, as some actions may be considered good in one situation and evil in another. Obviously evil or overly selfish acts can add 1 to 5 additional Conflcit points. Gray areas such as using dark pips results to generate force points for a selfish but not a truly evil action recieves a minimum of +1 conflict, but possibly 2 to 5 more conflict. The GM'S determination and ruling is final.

So lying for personal gain - base 1 , lying for overly selfish personal gain is 2 to 6.

Yes, but my point was that is is only when lying for personal gain that you get any Conflict at all.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, but my point was that is is only when lying for personal gain that you get any Conflict at all.

Not all inclusive as the list isnt complete but fair point. How about lying to someone, just to mess with them (but not enough to be considered mental cruelty). To me thst generates more conflict than lying for personal gain because of increased malice.

22 minutes ago, syrath said:

Not all inclusive as the list isnt complete but fair point. How about lying to someone, just to mess with them (but not enough to be considered mental cruelty). To me thst generates more conflict than lying for personal gain because of increased malice.

So lying to the dying soldier by telling him everything is going to be fine gives Conflict?

Lying to your friend by telling her that she doesn't look fat gives Conflict?

Lying to the Nazis by telling him that you haven't seen the Jews (that you have hidden in your attic) gives Conflict?

Man. The road to the Dark Side is really, really wide.

34 minutes ago, syrath said:

Not all inclusive as the list isnt complete but fair point. How about lying to someone, just to mess with them (but not enough to be considered mental cruelty). To me thst generates more conflict than lying for personal gain because of increased malice.

I would say that still falls under the "personal gain" category since it's being done for your own self-satisfaction in making some else look foolish for no reason.

7 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

So lying to the dying soldier by telling him everything is going to be fine gives Conflict?

Lying to your friend by telling her that she doesn't look fat gives Conflict?

Lying to the Nazis by telling him that you haven't seen the Jews (that you have hidden in your attic) gives Conflict?

Man. The road to the Dark Side is really, really wide.

7 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

So lying to the dying soldier by telling him everything is going to be fine gives Conflict?

Lying to your friend by telling her that she doesn't look fat gives Conflict?

Lying to the Nazis by telling him that you haven't seen the Jews (that you have hidden in your attic) gives Conflict?

Man. The road to the Dark Side is really, really wide.

I havent said simple lying gives you conflict at any time Ive point out that greedy or immoral motives add 1 to 5 points. In my post , which was a reply to someone else I pointed out that the 1 point entry for lying (they originally omitted the full description, not myself) and I pointed out that while any entry in the list has a point cost that that point cost can be increased by 1 to 5 depending on motive. So yes lying just to mess with someone is going to carry conflict greater than 1 cost. Never at any point did I imply any of what you suggest here.