Hello fellow GM's.

My player just picked up the talent Scathing Tirade:

The character may take the Scathing Tirade action by making an Average Coercion check. For each Success, one enemy within Short range suffers one strain. The character can also spend Advantage, and for every Advantage spent, one target already affected suffers one additional strain.

However, he is a Lightsider, so I wanted him to be aware/remind him that Coercion checks generate conflict as noted on the Morality Table. He reasoned that he didn't think conflict was warranted if he wasn't being completely intimidating. Instead of saying things like: "You better put down that weapon or I'll cleave you in two!" He would say instead: "You know who we are, correct? We killed the Hutts Rancor on Nal Hutta!"

He was essentially suggesting that he could use the talent as more as "Trash talk" than true Coercion.

Here's my question, do you think Scathing Tirade should be as implied, as way to intimidate and Coerce your opponents to make them fear you, which probably should generate conflict. Or can it be used in a more subtle way? Does this go against the intended nature of the Talent?

We know that Jedi usually have a high morality score, but many on occasion do take conflict for the actions they take or the things they may say, but in general maintain their high morality. So would/could a Jedi use Scathing Tirade and do so in a way that would not incur a conflict penalty?

I lean towards no, but I really would like your thoughts?

Scathing Tirade uses Coercion because it needs to use something, but is clearly meant as **** talk. Obi Wan makes all manner of comments in Clone Wars like when he tells Maul he should've aimed higher. You should always be asking what people say before they roll, if they make a really good smart @$$ comment you should consider a Boost die.

3 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Hello fellow GM's.

My player just picked up the talent Scathing Tirade:

The character may take the Scathing Tirade action by making an Average Coercion check. For each Success, one enemy within Short range suffers one strain. The character can also spend Advantage, and for every Advantage spent, one target already affected suffers one additional strain.

However, he is a Lightsider, so I wanted him to be aware/remind him that Coercion checks generate conflict as noted on the Morality Table. He reasoned that he didn't think conflict was warranted if he wasn't being completely intimidating. Instead of saying things like: "You better put down that weapon or I'll cleave you in two!" He would say instead: "You know who we are, correct? We killed the Hutts Rancor on Nal Hutta!"

He was essentially suggesting that he could use the talent as more as "Trash talk" than true Coercion.

Here's my question, do you think Scathing Tirade should be as implied, as way to intimidate and Coerce your opponents to make them fear you, which probably should generate conflict. Or can it be used in a more subtle way? Does this go against the intended nature of the Talent?

We know that Jedi usually have a high morality score, but many on occasion do take conflict for the actions they take or the things they may say, but in general maintain their high morality. So would/could a Jedi use Scathing Tirade and do so in a way that would not incur a conflict penalty?

I lean towards no, but I really would like your thoughts?

To me, Scathing Tirade sounds like the "Coercion" or "Emotional Abuse" entries on the Conflict chart. Just saying "you know who we are, correct? (etc.)" doesn't sound like Scathing Tirade to me, it seems more like a Deception(/convince) or Coercion check made to convince someone not to try and stop you. Not so much a "Scathing Tirade" which seems like it would include a lot more insulting, threatening, and general stamping about while yelling. The stereotypical abusive boss sort of thing.

Using it in a more subtle way goes against the nature of the talent, in my opinion.

As for its use, think of it like this: The Force-user typically keeps himself in check, but has a temper. When he snaps or intentionally decides to harness his temper, he can pull out Scathing Tirade and really let 'em have it.
It's okay to intentionally do something that you know will garner conflict, that's a part of the game. The player just has to choose when is the proper time to use it.
I'd probably always have it garner conflict, except in rare scenarios such as "righteous anger" at someone who did something particularly bad.

3 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Scathing Tirade uses Coercion because it needs to use something, but is clearly meant as **** talk. Obi Wan makes all manner of comments in Clone Wars like when he tells Maul he should've aimed higher. You should always be asking what people say before they roll, if they make a really good smart @$$ comment you should consider a Boost die.

I don't know why you say "clearly meant as" because the title is "Scathing (witheringly scornful; severely critical) Tirade (a long, angry speech of criticism or accusation)."

A smart@$$ comment isn't something that would be gated behind Scathing Tirade, or that would really have the effect being discussed. Obi-Wan saying "I should have aimed higher" isn't something that would really get Maul's goat or especially anger him. Rather, constantly lambasting him over the course of the duel (there's an example of this, but I'm forgetting who and where) would probably come up to Scathing Tirade where someone is just tearing down the other person and hurling invective.

10 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

To me, Scathing Tirade sounds like the "Coercion" or "Emotional Abuse" entries on the Conflict chart. Just saying "you know who we are, correct? (etc.)" doesn't sound like Scathing Tirade to me, it seems more like a Deception(/convince) or Coercion check made to convince someone not to try and stop you. Not so much a "Scathing Tirade" which seems like it would include a lot more insulting, threatening, and general stamping about while yelling. The stereotypical abusive boss sort of thing.

Using it in a more subtle way goes against the nature of the talent, in my opinion.

As for its use, think of it like this: The Force-user typically keeps himself in check, but has a temper. When he snaps or intentionally decides to harness his temper, he can pull out Scathing Tirade and really let 'em have it.
It's okay to intentionally do something that you know will garner conflict, that's a part of the game. The player just has to choose when is the proper time to use it.
I'd probably always have it garner conflict, except in rare scenarios such as "righteous anger" at someone who did something particularly bad.

Those are my thought's exactly, I don't see how trash talk could really be defined as Scathing Tirade. But even if it was, trash talking an opponent once or twice might not make a difference, but to do so on a regular basis or throuhgout a whole fight, I would question the Jedi's frame of mind and probably assume he was gaining conflict, taking a darker/morally obscure path.

I just assume if chopping a Sith in two doesn't cause Conflict then calling them a poopie face probably shouldn't.....

46 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

I just assume if chopping a Sith in two doesn't cause Conflict then calling them a poopie face probably shouldn't.....

Well, usually a Jedi is fighting a Sith in self-defence or to protect others. In any case, they're not ones to aggressively berate their foes on the battlefield. Its generally not in their nature to attempt to instill fear in others.

So you'll apply context and totality of circumstance to eviscerating someone, but not to harsh language? It seems to me that if a Jedi can overwhelm and defeat a potential opponent with simply the spoken word, and not resort to any physical violence at all that would be very much desirable. If of course we are applying the same standard of context and totality of circumstance to use of Scathing Tirade as we are to a death stroke with a lightsaber.

Use of Scathing Tirade does not generate conflict.

9 minutes ago, Fistofpaper said:

Use of Scathing Tirade does not generate conflict.

Citation?

1 hour ago, 2P51 said:

So you'll apply context and totality of circumstance to eviscerating someone, but not to harsh language? It seems to me that if a Jedi can overwhelm and defeat a potential opponent with simply the spoken word, and not resort to any physical violence at all that would be very much desirable. If of course we are applying the same standard of context and totality of circumstance to use of Scathing Tirade as we are to a death stroke with a lightsaber.

If you are fighting defensively, you have a choice: You can fight and win, or you can die, and those you are protecting will die. In other words, fighting them isn't really optional. However, the way you fight them is. If you seek violence first, that causes conflict. If you choose to kill a defenseless opponent, that causes conflict. Etc.

On the other hand, Scathing Tirade is inherently conflict-generating because it is offensive (pardon the pun), unnecessary, and not peace-promoting. It isn't a tactic for dissuading them from action, it is a tactic for angering them and frustrating them. It is not peace-promoting.
You've mentioned trash talk. What is trash talk usually used for? Goading someone into a mistake by getting them angry. That is fueling aggression, and you generally use aggression, hatred, malice, etc. to fuel your prodding.
However, I don't think Scathing Tirade is trash talk. Rather, I think that Scathing Tirade is more accurately described as a scathing tirade. A witheringly scornful, long, angry speech of criticism or accusation. That can include trash talk, and trash talk can include scathing tirades, but they are not directly identical. Saying "I should have aimed a bit higher" is trash talk. Hurling invective at someone again and again, yelling in their face, that's more in line with Scathing Tirade. Doesn't have to be that extreme, but it's more than a snarky comment.

Defeating or overwhelming a potential opponent with the spoken word is a good thing, but that should be Charm, Deception, Negotiation, etc., not verbal abuse.

An important qualifier in this scenario is the emotions behind what you are saying and the effect of what you are saying. This leads to the question of what exactly the talent is, because what you do should line up with the talent. With Inspiring Rhetoric, you are building people up. With Scathing Tirade, you are tearing them down.

See but you're applying conditions and context to the circumstances in which violence is employed but not allowing the same for words. There is nothing in the rules that says Scathing Tirade can't be used under the exact same circumstances. Verbally intimidating someone so you don't have to fight at all, defensively or otherwise, is inherently less violent. I fail to see how the exact same context in regards to being defensive and protecting people allows for the defender to chop people in half, but not tell bad people bad words.

2 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

See but you're applying conditions and context to the circumstances in which violence is employed but not allowing the same for words. There is nothing in the rules that says Scathing Tirade can't be used under the exact same circumstances. Verbally intimidating someone so you don't have to fight at all, defensively or otherwise, is inherently less violent. I fail to see how the exact same context in regards to being defensive and protecting people allows for the defender to chop people in half, but not tell bad people bad words.

If you do it through Charm or Negotiation, sure. But if you're going to Coerce someone, that comes with conflict, as supported by the rules.

Can you give me an example of what you would say as a morality 80 PC while using Scathing Tirade while staying true to the power and keeping in mind the conflict rules for Coercion, while not earning any conflict doing so?

It of course may be a tactic some Jedi would use. Probably as a last resort as they nearly always begin with Negotiation. But they will gain conflict. Doing so may have kept their own life or the lives of others preseved, but they certainly have not fostered peace or good relations, they may have actually delayed the inevitable, where in fact the Jedi or protector may not be around when the final blow comes.

Also, you're assuming this is done out of combat or used to avoid it. I'm talking about using it IN COMBAT for the purpose of demoralizing and breaking an enemies will making them fearful and STILL killing them.

I'm sure we can come to an agreement that if a Jedi were to verbally abuse an opponent and still kill them would garner conflict? That sounds like the exact thing a Sith would do. And all the material we have from movies/books/shows/games supports that.

4 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Citation?

I'm not sure what would need to be cited. A Coercion check that causes conflict would be a skill check of its own. Scathing Tirade is an action that uses the skill ranks in Coercion to determine a dice pool. It is not, by itself, a Coercion and only utilizes the number for the mechanic. I view them as independent of each other and would require reasonable arguments as to why they are not mutually exclusive to change my mind.

8 hours ago, Fistofpaper said:

I'm not sure what would need to be cited. A Coercion check that causes conflict would be a skill check of its own. Scathing Tirade is an action that uses the skill ranks in Coercion to determine a dice pool. It is not, by itself, a Coercion and only utilizes the number for the mechanic. I view them as independent of each other and would require reasonable arguments as to why they are not mutually exclusive to change my mind.

It specifically says "Make an Average Coercion check," and so is a use of the Coercion skill. You have to really do some gymnastics to say that isn't a Coercion check.

If your point is that it is a use of the Coercion skill that does not fall into the sort of coercion being discussed in the Conflict chart, then you have a point in some situation. It is not always true and therefore cannot be used to support a blanket statement. Further, it does not account for other factors or for the Emotional Abuse Conflict listing, and therefore cannot be used to support a blanket statement.

Even if Scathing Tirade doesn't fall directly into the "coercion" being discussed in the Conflict chart, there are other things about it, as I have detailed, that make it Conflict-generating by its very nature.

To go back to the example of the stereotypical abusive boss, they are not necessarily trying to Coerce you into something, but they are trying to intimidate you. That would clearly be a use of Coercion. Beyond that, they are emotionally abusing you.

13 hours ago, 2P51 said:

See but you're applying conditions and context to the circumstances in which violence is employed but not allowing the same for words. There is nothing in the rules that says Scathing Tirade can't be used under the exact same circumstances. Verbally intimidating someone so you don't have to fight at all, defensively or otherwise, is inherently less violent. I fail to see how the exact same context in regards to being defensive and protecting people allows for the defender to chop people in half, but not tell bad people bad words.

You are confusing violence with the dark side.

Jedi are just fine with violence if it is called for. It's spreading fear and agression and anger they have big issues with. Why does a completely non-violent talent like Terrify inherently carry a conflicy cost?

13 hours ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Can you give me an example of what you would say as a morality 80 PC while using Scathing Tirade while staying true to the power and keeping in mind the conflict rules for Coercion, while not earning any conflict doing so?

"My name is General Mace Windu of the Jedi Order. At this point of the Clone War, I have dismantled and destroyed over 100,000 of you type one battle droids. I’m giving you an opportunity to peacefully lay down your weapons so that you may be reprogrammed to serve a better purpose than spreading the mindless violence and chaos, which you have inflicted upon the galaxy."

4 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

It specifically says "Make an Average Coercion check," and so is a use of the Coercion skill. You have to really do some gymnastics to say that isn't a Coercion check.

If your point is that it is a use of the Coercion skill that does not fall into the sort of coercion being discussed in the Conflict chart, then you have a point in some situation. It is not always true and therefore cannot be used to support a blanket statement. Further, it does not account for other factors or for the Emotional Abuse Conflict listing, and therefore cannot be used to support a blanket statement.

Even if Scathing Tirade doesn't fall directly into the "coercion" being discussed in the Conflict chart, there are other things about it, as I have detailed, that make it Conflict-generating by its very nature.

To go back to the example of the stereotypical abusive boss, they are not necessarily trying to Coerce you into something, but they are trying to intimidate you. That would clearly be a use of Coercion. Beyond that, they are emotionally abusing you.

I disagree. I feel that the reason for a Coercion check causing conflict would be actually coercing. I think your interpretation is overbroad in this instance. If a check could or could not be seen as true coercion, one should err on the side of the player.

3 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

"My name is General Mace Windu of the Jedi Order. At this point of the Clone War, I have dismantled and destroyed over 100,000 of you type one battle droids. I’m giving you an opportunity to peacefully lay down your weapons so that you may be reprogrammed to serve a better purpose than spreading the mindless violence and chaos, which you have inflicted upon the galaxy."

Scathing tirades are not about peaceful surrenderings. They're about inflicting damage.

And this sounds more like peaceful negotiation. It's not a tirade and it's not scathing.

I'm also not sure if this has even a glimmer of a chance of affecting that kind of droid. I don't think there's enough of a personality inthere to be affected by this.

1 hour ago, Fistofpaper said:

I disagree. I feel that the reason for a Coercion check causing conflict would be actually coercing. I think your interpretation is overbroad in this instance. If a check could or could not be seen as true coercion, one should err on the side of the player.

If it's not true coercion then it shouldn't be a Coercion check. Scathing Tirade can kill Minions stone cold dead.

1 hour ago, Fistofpaper said:

I disagree. I feel that the reason for a Coercion check causing conflict would be actually coercing. I think your interpretation is overbroad in this instance. If a check could or could not be seen as true coercion, one should err on the side of the player.

I specifically detail why it doesn't have to fall under the "coercion" entry on the Conflict chart to be conflict generating. It is also worth pointing out that the Conflict chart specifically states that they are examples, not an all-encompassing compendium of Conflict-generating actions and behaviors.

And in my opinion, I found the illustration lacking and don't agree. It is rather academic since the entire premise relies on a force sensitive (and concerned about it) Politico in the first place and even then I wouldn't consider assigning conflict with the generic "I can tell it's family armor because of the poop-stains!" Scathing Tirade statement. Though the pool is formed from the ranks Coercion, it is just a debuff and not attempting a social change. You can choose to rule differently, but I do not.

9 minutes ago, Fistofpaper said:

And in my opinion, I found the illustration lacking and don't agree. It is rather academic since the entire premise relies on a force sensitive (and concerned about it) Politico in the first place and even then I wouldn't consider assigning conflict with the generic "I can tell it's family armor because of the poop-stains!" Scathing Tirade statement. Though the pool is formed from the ranks Coercion, it is just a debuff and not attempting a social change. You can choose to rule differently, but I do not.

But that isn't a scathing tirade. That's the problem. Childish insults don't count.

And there are more specs than just Politico that have Scathing Tirade.

22 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Scathing Tirade can kill Minions stone cold dead.

Since when? I would never do that, it stretches...everything. They might run away, put down their blasters, turn on their boss, or just go catatonic while they contemplate their life choices, but dying? No chance.

I generally lean towards Coercion not generally being a tool the Jedi use, and if you're still using the completely bogus Morality rules, then sure, it should usually cause Conflict. A Jedi in control of his feelings isn't going to warn a Sith that he's prepared to chop him in half, he's simply going to state that he will defend as well as possible. A Jedi in control of his feelings will also not deliver the coup de grace if there's a chance the Sith can be turned...which may not be today.

But I don't think the lines are as rigid as some are insisting. These skills are a pretty good representation of social conflict, but there could easily be dialogue that doesn't fit any of the others. Warning a Sith that you're going defend isn't Charm, Deception, Negotiation, or Leadership...it really fits best with Coercion.

On 1/1/2021 at 2:41 PM, 2P51 said:

Scathing Tirade uses Coercion because it needs to use something, but is clearly meant as **** talk. Obi Wan makes all manner of comments in Clone Wars like when he tells Maul he should've aimed higher.

Except that the whole point of that episode is that Obi Wan is not in control of his feelings at all, which makes his commentary all the more pointless. Trying to make Maul angry so he makes a mistake was exactly the problem. That episode is a turning point for Obi Wan, and he slowly stops being so constantly cavalier. Compare that to the episode where Maul kills Satine, and Obi Wan tries a different, more compassionate, approach. It doesn't work, but that's a Jedi who's grown, and finally understands his own fears. Comparing those episodes with the game rules, he probably deserves Conflict from the first, and some resolution/moral healing for the second.

14 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Since when? I would never do that, it stretches...everything. They might run away, put down their blasters, turn on their boss, or just go catatonic while they contemplate their life choices, but dying? No chance.

Since always.

They could panic, start firing wildly and cause some friendly fire. Or panic and drop a grenade. Or panic and slip and fall into one of those bottomles chasm Star Wars architecture likes so much. Some droids might just decide to self-destruct. I would say that it is down to the character using the talent how nasty or mild the effects are, same as when you shoot a Stormtrooper.

And turning on their boss is not something that is entirely without danger if that boss happens to be part of the encounter.

1 hour ago, whafrog said:

Since when? I would never do that, it stretches...everything. They might run away, put down their blasters, turn on their boss, or just go catatonic while they contemplate their life choices, but dying? No chance.

I generally lean towards Coercion not generally being a tool the Jedi use, and if you're still using the completely bogus Morality rules, then sure, it should usually cause Conflict. A Jedi in control of his feelings isn't going to warn a Sith that he's prepared to chop him in half, he's simply going to state that he will defend as well as possible. A Jedi in control of his feelings will also not deliver the coup de grace if there's a chance the Sith can be turned...which may not be today.

But I don't think the lines are as rigid as some are insisting. These skills are a pretty good representation of social conflict, but there could easily be dialogue that doesn't fit any of the others. Warning a Sith that you're going defend isn't Charm, Deception, Negotiation, or Leadership...it really fits best with Coercion.

Except that the whole point of that episode is that Obi Wan is not in control of his feelings at all, which makes his commentary all the more pointless. Trying to make Maul angry so he makes a mistake was exactly the problem. That episode is a turning point for Obi Wan, and he slowly stops being so constantly cavalier. Compare that to the episode where Maul kills Satine, and Obi Wan tries a different, more compassionate, approach. It doesn't work, but that's a Jedi who's grown, and finally understands his own fears. Comparing those episodes with the game rules, he probably deserves Conflict from the first, and some resolution/moral healing for the second.

Episode aside, the notion that Coercive language to avoid a fight altogether and Conflict is automatic but use the level a violence a lightsaber visits upon a target, deathblow or not, won't lead to the same is silly. I can kill a Sith during the course of a fight but I can't scare them into surrender. Silly.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

But that isn't a scathing tirade. That's the problem. Childish insults don't count.

And there are more specs than just Politico that have Scathing Tirade.

It's not a scathing tirade, but it is an example of Scathing Tirade. ST is just the mirror opposite talent of Inspiring Rhetoric, not an attempt at Coercion. I don't expect a real inspirational or demeaning speech when it's used, although it is welcome.