7 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

Yes but amoral or overly selfish add motives add to the base cost. Lying to someone like this is definitely worse than personal gain, as firstly it was completely unnecessary and secondly it couod be construed as even minor evil. It wouod be efrectively bullying.

Regardless , as pointed out motives that go beyond the basic offenses add significantly more to the minor points listed, so lying (for personal gain) is 1-6 points depending on the motive and lying for personal gain (for overly selfish reasons would be, according to the rules and not me , 2-6.

I wouldn't think for personal gain would be a bad thing so long as it's not at the expense of others , meaning that "victimless" lies should be Conflict-free.

58 minutes ago, syrath said:

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.

Sorry, you're correct. I was carrying over the (IMO) flawed argument that every use of Coercion is Conflict-worthy into the same applying to uses of Deception.

Personally I don't believe every incidence of Corc should warrant conflict; the simple act of "oi, both of you knock it off right now, otherwise we will all regret this" or "Please, this won't end well for you, do not make me do this." or "Look, I've faced off against an entire stormtrooper patrol last week and cut them down without much as a blastermark, so what makes you think your garden variety thug can stop me? I am just here to talk." shouldn't generate conflict if it's main use was avoiding conflict. Not everyone responds to softly spoken words and being a true ambassador one should think what form of communication is most effective at reaching a favorable conclusion and sometimes being reminded of the harsh reality of the galaxy is just the medicine needed!

Personally I save actual conflict generation to the open palm/closed fist way described in Jade Empire; actions that are outright detrimental or evil to one group of people in a manner injust would warrant conflict. I wouldn't necessarily apply a "corporate tax" on baneful gaze as a cost of 1 conflict for "every single session they have it" is already involved, they are already paying for it every single session. Though in the evil use catagory there may be potential.

6 hours ago, syrath said:

Yes but amoral or overly selfish add motives add to the base cost. Lying to someone like this is definitely worse than personal gain, as firstly it was completely unnecessary and secondly it couod be construed as even minor evil. It wouod be efrectively bullying.

Regardless , as pointed out motives that go beyond the basic offenses add significantly more to the minor points listed, so lying (for personal gain) is 1-6 points depending on the motive and lying for personal gain (for overly selfish reasons would be, according to the rules and not me , 2-6.

I don't disagree. But that was not what I was arguing. I'm only correcting you on your initial statement regarding lying's base Conflict conditions.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I don't disagree. But that was not what I was arguing. I'm only correcting you on your initial statement regarding lying's base Conflict conditions.

As I said fair point.

8 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Sorry, you're correct. I was carrying over the (IMO) flawed argument that every use of Coercion is Conflict-worthy into the same applying to uses of Deception.

Im not actually arguing that, in fact im not arguing anything just trying to get a feel on something. Max Brooke , the dev who was interviewed on the book dive by order 66 pointed out that a Warden is more likely to be in the grey area because they dont need to kill or sometimes even fight. To me Baleful Gaze alone is enough to make someone fall, destiny points permitting. Given the wardens reliance on fear , using these talents , the coercion skill etc is very likely to tip a player over to the sub 30 morality zone quite quickly unless they are very selective of when to use talents like fearsome , baleful gaze etc as well as a general leaning on the coercion skill.

So this will be interesting to explore. I have a ex slave selonian warden. He relies on coercion to avoid fighting and fear to keep enemies from attacking him in the first place. He is like a stray dog. He growls to prevent having to bite.

51 minutes ago, syrath said:

Given the wardens reliance on fear , using these talents , the coercion skill etc is very likely to tip a player over to the sub 30 morality zone quite quickly unless they are very selective of when to use talents like fearsome , baleful gaze etc as well as a general leaning on the coercion skill.

But does Baleful Gaze have to be "relying on fear" in every instance? Rather than causing overwhelming fear, projecting a sense of trepidation and intimidation could be enough in the narrative to justify using the talent.

I don't see why Baleful Gaze, as a talent, has to be purely a tool of terror.

1 hour ago, awayputurwpn said:

But does Baleful Gaze have to be "relying on fear" in every instance? Rather than causing overwhelming fear, projecting a sense of trepidation and intimidation could be enough in the narrative to justify using the talent.

I don't see why Baleful Gaze, as a talent, has to be purely a tool of terror.

Well using the force to cause negative emotions does cause conflict, it even requires dark side pips.

Using the force to boost coercion causes conflict albeit because you have to use dark side pips.. Baleful Gaze is absolutely using the force to instill fear which is definitely causing negative emotion. While mechanically the difference is subtle the former does require dark side pips , and for example, the latter doesn't. It is up to yourselves how you would rule it but I definitely rule that as being a few levels above nudging someone a bit so that they suffer a little fear or to boost a coercion check.

2 minutes ago, syrath said:

Well using the force to cause negative emotions does cause conflict, it even requires dark side pips.

Using the force to boost coercion causes conflict albeit because you have to use dark side pips.. Baleful Gaze is absolutely using the force to instill fear which is definitely causing negative emotion. While mechanically the difference is subtle the former does require dark side pips , and for example, the latter doesn't. It is up to yourselves how you would rule it but I definitely rule that as being a few levels above nudging someone a bit so that they suffer a little fear or to boost a coercion check.

How does it require dark side pips?

You say "absolutely"...I'm not seeing it.

Baleful Gaze doesn't say anything about instilling fear. It just has you spend a Light Side Point, links you to the Coercion skill (which is indeed more nuanced than being "the fear skill"), and gives you 1 Conflict for knowing the talent. No mention of instilling fear, or dark side pips.

28 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

How does it require dark side pips?

You say "absolutely"...I'm not seeing it.

Baleful Gaze doesn't say anything about instilling fear. It just has you spend a Light Side Point, links you to the Coercion skill (which is indeed more nuanced than being "the fear skill"), and gives you 1 Conflict for knowing the talent. No mention of instilling fear, or dark side pips.

Exactly, which is why I question it in the first place. It's clear from the description that 1/ its keyed to coercion 2/ it has the title Baleful Gaze , so you can surmise that the upgrades are caused because people are scared of you 'because you looked at them in an evil manner" and used the force to put them off the attack. For Baleful Gaze this is actually a bit of a leap, so on one hand its inferred mode of operation is that you cause fear, they miss. It doesn't have fo be this way in reality, it could just be another tool in your tool box and its only penalty is the 1 conflict per session and the destiny point cost (I originally favored this way of thinking).

Similarly, the talent Fearsome , people that are near you have to make a fear check, should that be worthy of conflict, because they are scared of you, yet you can argue that you have a choice to use the talent or not, so you are actively and selectively trying to scare a target. So should that be worth conflict. I can argue both cases all day and to be honest , I will never get an answer that I , myself am truly happy with, and Im not trying to sway anyone elses opinion, as most people will have their minds made up on it.

I actually do wish I had received an answer from FFG on it so that I could at least go with how they intended it myself, although when playing, my own GM has his own mind about it and it follows that mostly using coercion, baleful gaze , fearsome , and perhaps less so, even scathing tirade can be worthy of conflict, many will go this way and let the narrative decide how it works , and this is how it should be. I personally get the feeling though that when FFG put together the Warden though, its clearly leaning on the darker side of things but not as badly as Im describing, although I do feel that many people hand wave this without a thought and dont apply conflict for any of these at all, beyond the 1 once per session, and focus more on the results rather than the method used, and this is where some people may be missing some good roleplaying fodder.

Sorry for the long post but perhaps you can see what I am trying to get at.

I'm not seeing how baleful gaze instills fear. It in no way gives a fear check. No fear check no instilling of fear.

Baleful Gaze causes the opponent to hesitate when they attack which causes them to possibly miss. For a brief moment the attacker has second thoughts about it being a good idea to attack the player. This makes the attack more difficult. It in no way uses negative emotions or even a coercion skill check to do so. Thus it does not cause conflict.

40 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

How does it require dark side pips?

You say "absolutely"...I'm not seeing it.

sorry for not answering your first question in the post above as for using dark side pips on influence, the side bar does say that to use influence to generate negative emotion you have to use dark side pips and use light side pips for positive emotions. A lot of people on the forum (myself not included), and also on the order 66 podcast when they did their influence special episode also said that using the control upgrade that boosts social skills requires dark side pips for coercion and deception , and light side pips for Charm and negotiation and either for Leadership (iirc).

I personally dont subscribe to that as to me it describes that the force makes you more charismatic and able to form better arguments to sway your opponent so either shade would do for any check, but Im definitely in a small minority there, and given that as a result I also said that because the force was making you better , it could work on droids , at range where people could hear you and over comms. Of these last I was proven completely wrong after several threads in that they dont affect droids but could work over comms when a dev answered it. So I was putting over what appears to be the majority opinion on force boosted social checks.

12 minutes ago, Decorus said:

I'm not seeing how baleful gaze instills fear. It in no way gives a fear check. No fear check no instilling of fear.

Baleful Gaze causes the opponent to hesitate when they attack which causes them to possibly miss. For a brief moment the attacker has second thoughts about it being a good idea to attack the player. This makes the attack more difficult. It in no way uses negative emotions or even a coercion skill check to do so. Thus it does not cause conflict.

Coercion is called out in the conflict list as having a base cost of 2 , and as Coercion is used as the base of the level of ability in the talent as well as the talent itself is a force talent.

What do you think is causing them to miss. It isnt your ability to dodge the attacks, and because it uses Coercion as its base it is quite easy to figure out that at the time they attack you are doing something to make them miss. It is fairly obvious from the talent name , and the skill it is based off even down to the graphic on the talent card (which of course has Vader on it, who would absolutely have this talent).

Really you glare at someone, while they are attacking, use the force in some way linked to coercion to make it harder for them to hit you. At the very least it is still using the Coercion skill in a round about way. If this talent didnt have a DP cost and say cost 2 strain instead , it would be the most powerful combat avoiding move in the game , as it is I would say its arguably one of the best in game , esp if you have combat talents (overbalance?) keyed off threat or despair. I dont think it's a stretch to say you are using the force to cause fear in your opponent at the time of the attack. It is effectively intimidating them at range, boosted by the force.

For all you know I'm tossing a dozen credits in the air and that causes him to miss.

23 minutes ago, Decorus said:

For all you know I'm tossing a dozen credits in the air and that causes him to miss.

How does your skill at coercion improve the amount of upgrades applied if all you did was throw coins in the air , if you were throwing coins in the air and why do you need a force rating do pull it off. I think many people here are eocerlooking the fact that it keys off Coercion.

At its very core Coercion is an ability where you are using someone else's fear of something to make them do something they dont want to do, in this case miss, what is missing from the description is in what way your Coercion is being applied.

While the talent title implies it is a Gaze many titles are there for flavor and dont accurately describe what is going on each , example the second part of Precision Strike applies to ranged attacks as well but the name says Strike. We know Coercion is definitely involved as per the descriprion and we know the Force is involved because it is a force talent so ergo we are using the force to apply Coercion in some way.

To argue against this you could argue that the reason that it is keyed to coercion is that what you are doing naturally gets better because you are good at Coercion, but not Coercion in itself, although that is a bigger stretch.

Personally I see it as the following. In films you often see the BBEG or the hero stand and let an opponent get a free shot at them and while staring them down the other person completely misses because he is put off by this as they get scared, (again you could just argue that the stare itself put them off, sort of like playing chicken in a car , but even then this idea is based round scaring your opponent, which is using fear as a weapon)

59 minutes ago, syrath said:

sorry for not answering your first question in the post above as for using dark side pips on influence, the side bar does say that to use influence to generate negative emotion you have to use dark side pips and use light side pips for positive emotions. A lot of people on the forum (myself not included), and also on the order 66 podcast when they did their influence special episode also said that using the control upgrade that boosts social skills requires dark side pips for coercion and deception , and light side pips for Charm and negotiation and either for Leadership (iirc).

I personally dont subscribe to that as to me it describes that the force makes you more charismatic and able to form better arguments to sway your opponent so either shade would do for any check, but Im definitely in a small minority there, and given that as a result I also said that because the force was making you better , it could work on droids , at range where people could hear you and over comms. Of these last I was proven completely wrong after several threads in that they dont affect droids but could work over comms when a dev answered it. So I was putting over what appears to be the majority opinion on force boosted social checks.

I think you're applying the rules for Influence (capitalized, meaning the power) to general attempts to influence (by all other means). Those special rules are specific to that power.

3 minutes ago, syrath said:

At its very core Coercion is an ability where you are using someone else's fear of something to make them do something they dont want to do, in this case miss, what is missing from the description is in what way your Coercion is being applied.

Coercion plays upon the target's desire to avoid punishment. Coercion is used by parents and police to gain compliance when targets are compelled to avoid (hopefully justified) punishments.

Just now, HappyDaze said:

I think you're applying the rules for Influence (capitalized, meaning the power) to general attempts to influence (by all other means). Those special rules are specific to that power.

Sorry if I wasnt clear I was referring to the power Influence not a check to influence someone , the fact I mentioned force pips I assumed would have made it clear.

I'm still waiting for the skill check and the fear check oh wait baleful gaze has neither.

No skill check and coercion fails to generate conflict. No fear check same thing.

The talent generates no conflict.

Just now, HappyDaze said:

Coercion plays upon the target's desire to avoid punishment. Coercion is used by parents and police to gain compliance when targets are compelled to avoid (hopefully justified) punishments.

Yes even then that is still using fear. Fear of the punishment in this case, we arent talking about police here , we are talking about force users who are held to a higher standard. An enforcer has no penalty for using Fearsome in any way, a Marshal has no penalty for using Coercion, a force user is different and even in the order 66 episode 71 (I think) which is about Keeping the Peace made it clear that the Warden by using their abilities was definitely going to be earning conflict but smaller amounts as they can avoid more lethal modes of combat, or avoid combat altogether. My quesTions to FFG centre around that it's clear from Max Brookes description that they intended the Warden to generate smaller amounts of conflict, but if you apply even 1 for every time someone uses fear as a weapon , even for good reasons, a fully tricked out warden is pretty much getting over 10 every game and I dont see this from Max's description either.

10 minutes ago, Decorus said:

I'm still waiting for the skill check and the fear check oh wait baleful gaze has neither.

No skill check and coercion fails to generate conflict. No fear check same thing.

The talent generates no conflict.

Coercion is listed as generating 2 conflict. Whether you make a check is neither here nor there , unless you want to argue that coordination dodge which is keyed off coordination ranks works while you are tied up because it doesnt say you make a coordination check.

1 hour ago, syrath said:

For Baleful Gaze this is actually a bit of a leap, so on one hand its inferred mode of operation is that you cause fear, they miss. It doesn't have fo be this way in reality, it could just be another tool in your tool box and its only penalty is the 1 conflict per session and the destiny point cost (I originally favored this way of thinking).

This is the crux of the matter, for me. It's all in the narrative. For example: using Move to throw an enemy to the ground is probably not Conflict worthy. Using Move to toss an enemy a dozen meters in the air, and then letting him fall to his death, is Conflict-worthy.

Similarly, if I use Baleful Gaze (and btw "baleful" doesn't necessarily mean evil; it can be menacing, hostile, pernicious, threatening) to look at a target in a hostile way that unsettles or intimidates him and causes him to miss me (or have second thoughts about attacking in the first place, etc), then that isn't worthy of Conflict. But if I use Baleful Gaze to feed abject terror into my attacker which causes his hands to shake and his shot to go wide, then I do earn some Conflict.

The narrative provides the distinction.

1 minute ago, syrath said:

Coercion is listed as generating 2 conflict. Whether you make a check is neither here nor there , unless you want to argue that coordination dodge which is keyed off coordination ranks works while you are tied up because it doesnt say you make a coordination check.

It's not all Coercion checks. The table you are referencing calls out specific coercive behavior (bullying behavior, basically), and Coercion is more than just the "bully" skill.

It does work while tied up, being tied up doesn't stop you from dodging attacks especially in a cinematic game like this.

Once again you are attaching things to a talent that does not exist.

The one conflict you get for having the talent that is applied every session until the game stops handles all the conflict you ever need.

There is no need to punish them further by charging them each time its activated thats just GM passive aggressive I don't like you took this talent BS.