Some backstory; one of our players had discovered an recipe for what was apparently a very strong alcohol, hidden away under a floorboard, in a house of an abandoned town. And there was no sign of the townspeople ever returning- for we know, they could all be dead, or fled the area, never to return.
So he ^ thought he'd go ahead and copy the recipe down, to take home for himself to have some nice strong ale. But a few of the other players disagreed and called this an "evil" action.
The reaction was "Okay... So. Why should I let you stop me, just because you find it disagreeable?"
So some of the other players made Diplomacy checks to try and alter his behavior. Yet, according to the link below, the Diplomacy (and I assume other 'social skills') can only be used against NPCs, right?
http://paizo.com/prd/skills/diplomacy.html
The argument was basically;
- "I find this action to be disagreeable, if not an 'evil' one!" *succeeds diplomacy check*
- "Okay. And? Why should I care what you think? Still gonna do it..."
- *more arguing about how "you have to do what he says because he Diplomacy'd you!"*
In the end, most of the group bogged down the guy who wanted to make a copy of the recipe for himself and Diplomacy'd him into not doing it.
Of course, this caused a bit of arguing back and forth over the table; should a player be allowed to influence the behavior of another player, even when the resulting attitude/behavior/way of thinking wouldn't be in line with the affected character?
Is there a rule on this somewhere? In the link, it did say "you can influence NPCs" but not players...
Our table was kind of divided over this, and I'm afraid it might come up again...
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
A player is always in full control of their own payers actions unless magic.
GM can't diplomacy you, other players can't intimidate you (to make you friendly anyway, obviously they can demoralise you). At best a GM can strongly suggest, for example, you really feel favourably towards someone, but it's not binding.
I don't know if that's expressly written somewhere, but that has always been the case in pretty much any game I've ever played.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, diplomacy doesn't work on player characters.
Diplomacy is a poorly written skill. It should be written less as you get someone to do something, and more convince someone to accept a deal. It shouldn't just make someone your friend. The other players should try something more along the lines of "I'll give you 50 gold to leave that recipe alone".
In any event, no, a fellow cannot effectively control another player through a diplomacy check. Nothing can force a PC to do something other than what he wants without magic causing it to be such.
Also, I think it's hilarious that people think this is evil. He's copying down the recipe, presumably leaving the original in tact and you're not even certain if the original owners are alive. If you group has a problem with him taking this recipe, then they shouldn't be okay with taking any items left lying in a dungeon either since the original owner might come back too.
|
For any creature, not just a PC and regardless what attitude you achieve, "some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature". Of course, the GM may make note of what you claim to be your character's values or nature, in case you should later be charmed or dominated. Further, "if a request is refused, the result does not change with additional checks".
But, yes, Diplomacy explicitly works on NPCs.
Since when is learning the secret moonshine recipe an evil act, particularly if you leave the original hard-copy behind?
Its copywritted. You just broke the law?
Breaking the law isn't inherently evil, and I have some doubts that a recipe hidden in the floorboards would be copyrighted.
It might be in a paladin-ruled country. But no, I can't really see anything that would make the events in the first post evil.
Either the players don't know what they are talking about, or there is more to the situation than what we are being told. Just copying down a recipe is not evil. (Otherwise the recipe box in my kitchen would absolutely be oozing evil. I copied them all from my grandmothers book.)
Maybe the alcohol is so strong a single drink kills (much like a poison). Or maybe it is so alcoholic that those who drink it spontaneously burst into flame if they so much as breathe anywhere near a candle. Introducing it to the dwarves may incinerate the entire continent.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general, No. PC 'social' skills to influence attitude (Diplomacy/Intimidate) won't work the same on PCs as NPCs.
The game is all about agency. The freedom of character choice. Trying to force a PC with a skill check runs directly counter to that, just like casting Charm Person on them would.
Ultimately, it's up to your players to sort out (with your input) how inter-party use of social skills will work.
At most tables (mine included) they're NPC only, and if you want your character to convince another PC to (not) do something, then it's up to you to convince them.
Interestingly, there's an interesting alternative take on Diplomacy that functions a lot more realistically (at the expense of some simplicity) written by
Rich Burlew
No, absolutely not. It's essentially PvP, except instead of a player character dying, it's even worse, the player himself loses his agency and freedom of choice (the main reason to play an RPG).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't there, so please describe how this could possibly be viewed as "evil". Kept in mind that a core piece of what heroes do in RPGs is still killing things and taking their stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing is that diplomacy is not a form of nonmagical mind control. Making someone friendly towards you does not mean they have to obey you, and the rules never say they have to do what you want. It just means they are more likely to cooperate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If PCs can influence other PCs with Diplomacy (And they can't), then it only makes sense that NPCs can do the same thing to the PCs.
So, start throwing monsters with really, really high Diplomacy modifiers at the PCs.
PC: "I attack the orc!"
Monster makes successful Diplomacy check
GM: "No, you don't. The orc sits you down, and after a heartfelt talk, you have decided the orcs are actually really nice guys. You decide to walk away and leave them to their elf slaughtering."
Yeah. It doesn't work like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Behold,the companion of the necronomicon,the cook book! If you read it out loud you risk inviting pastries into our world! Army of Dark Chocolate
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We can forgive a few murders, property destruction, and robbery, but possible copyright infringement?
Now, that's just evil.
YOU WOULDN'T MAGICALLY DOWNLOAD A CAR!... wait.
I think it's theoretically allowed by RAW... But fortunately, I've never seen any GM allow that. It's just not fun.
I do allow players to use intimidate to demoralize other PCs if they want, and they can give false information via Bluff, but no matter what, the one who decides what a character does is her player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does Golarion even have copyright law? In real life, it didn't come about until the 18th century.
As a player, I often use social skills on my fellow players, however, I always try to be clear: this is how persuasive the character is being, but you are under no obligation to follow such. Simply RP it out, as you like.
Actively forcing another player to do something is a very harsh thing. As another noted, it's akin to PvP.
By RAW, diplomacy is only "effective" against NPCs, and the GM has final say whether or not that'd work anyway.
Please explain if there is anything other than non-dangerous booze that the character is replicating. If it is, then give us the entire explanation.
(If this is in an AP, let us know which one, and folk who've run it should be able to respond better.)
Thanks!
The question as to the diplomacy skill has been thoroughly answered.
The question as to why copying a secret booze recipe was considered evil is a tad odd to us without further reference.
Legality doesn't enter since you said the group considered it evil rather than unlawful. This rules out copyright infringement, or prohibition solely by law as the reasons.
Was it evil because it was alcohol? I can understand if by some religious reason that the PCs viewed alcohol as destructive and therefor evil, and if said PC shared this view it would be considered an evil act (willingly attempting to harm).
Was it evil because the PC simply wanted to go home afterwards instead of finding the townsfolk? In which case it is a neutral act (not helping, yet not harming innocents).
As it stands, we're beginning to think of the mentioned PC party as the Golarion Elliot Ness and the Untouchables.
If PCs can influence other PCs with Diplomacy (And they can't), then it only makes sense that NPCs can do the same thing to the PCs.
So, start throwing monsters with really, really high Diplomacy modifiers at the PCs.
PC: "I attack the orc!"
Monster makes successful Diplomacy check
GM: "No, you don't. The orc sits you down, and after a heartfelt talk, you have decided the orcs are actually really nice guys. You decide to walk away and leave them to their elf slaughtering."Yeah. It doesn't work like that.
Why wouldn't it work like that? Maybe not your specific example of being diplomacized into turning a blind eye to slaughter but an NPC should be able to use diplomacy to convince the party that his daughter is worth rescuing or that his ale is worth the asking price or that he is their friend. The NPC should also be able to use bluff to convince the party all of these things are true even if they are false.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You may notice that diplomacy says it enables characters to change the attitudes of non-player characters. It doesn't say you can change the attitude of the other PCs - for that you need to succeed on your real life diplomacy and powers of persuasion.
That doesn't mean that diplomacy, bluff, and other skills aren't useful in portraying how the PCs perceive each other. A good diplomacy check here might lead a GM to tell the moonshiner that "the other character makes a passionate argument that distilling that alcohol will make Baby Erastil cry that you find emotionally moving, bringing an unbidden tear to your own eye - but the choice is, of course, up to you."
And I still don't understand how copying a recipe for poteen would be evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why wouldn't it work like that? Maybe not your specific example of being diplomacized into turning a blind eye to slaughter but an NPC should be able to use diplomacy to convince the party that his daughter is worth rescuing or that his ale is worth the asking price or that he is their friend. The NPC should also be able to use bluff to convince the party all of these things are true even if they are false.
Because nothing short of magic should allow anyone else to control a player character other than it's player. The player always retains the agency to act however the choose, unless they have been magically controlled. Why? Because it's no damn fun as a player to be told what your character does, especially when you don't agree with it.
Hell, in my opinion diplomacy shouldn't even exist as a skill that lets players convince the orcs not to attack. I'd prefer that my players role play it out and give a convincing reason for the orcs not to attack the village rather than just say "I roll a 35 diplomacy and ask them not to attack, does that beat the DC?". But the rules for diplomacy exist so the people who are bad at speaking in real life don't get penalized for it in character. You have set DCs and rules so that it's not all up to the GM and to provide guidelines for more consistent application of the ability. It should not be "I make anyone do whatever I want by rolling the dice".
So no, the NPC can't just roll a diplomacy check to convince the party to rescue his daughter. However, using bluff in an attempt to convince the players to do it is valid because players have a chance to detect it is a lie. And beyond that they aren't forced to rescue his daughter no matter what, they can always decide not to. Regardless of whether they believe his lie or not, the lie just might be compelling enough to convince otherwise uninterested party members to agree. A farmer might bluff the party and try to convince them to rescue his daughter by telling them the princess has been taken away by a dragon, and promise them unimaginable wealth, as a representative of the kings court, for rescuing the princess. He probably won't succeed, but he could try. Whether or not the party helps him will depend on what the players think and want to do. If they believe they will be well rewarded for helping a princess (but not necessarily a peasant girl) that lie might convince them to do. Alternatively, if the players know the truth they might decide to help him anyways because they're good people. They may be evil and see through his lies and decide to kill him for his lie. All these choices are possible, and many others. And shouldn't be resolved by diplomacy checks by NPCs on PCs. If you start doing that you've taken away player control and stopped playing and game. Instead you have started telling a story. A story that you players are probably no longer interested in because you have taken away their part in it.
Why wouldn't it work like that? Maybe not your specific example of being diplomacized into turning a blind eye to slaughter but an NPC should be able to use diplomacy to convince the party that his daughter is worth rescuing or that his ale is worth the asking price or that he is their friend. The NPC should also be able to use bluff to convince the party all of these things are true even if they are false.
Because you take the choice of how to play the character away from the player. It is the players character, and unless magic is involved, the player should always make the decisions about how his character acts in a given situation.
The diplomacy skill is much more nuanced than it is being credited as. A PC can't "make" an NPC do something using the skill anymore than an NPC can "make" a PC do something using it. All you can do is cause a change of attitude toward the diplomacizer. The "victim" retains free will. Just because I am your friend does not mean you control me nor do I control those who are my friends. Many of my characters have been diplomacized by NPC's and never has this resulted in my loss of agency. It has simply given me a little something extra to mull over while making whatever choice I was faced with.
I agree tha PC on PC diplomacy does not and should not work however it feels like dirty pool to be able to do things to NPC's that they are not able to do to PC's in return. This philosophy keeps some aspects of the game under control. For example, we do not scry and fry because that would open the door to NPC's scrying and frying us, that sort of thing. I guess you could say our group has a gentleman's agreement in place: what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The diplomacy skill is much more nuanced than it is being credited as. A PC can't "make" an NPC do something using the skill anymore than an NPC can "make" a PC do something using it. All you can do is cause a change of attitude toward the diplomacizer. The "victim" retains free will.
The rules do, in fact, allow PCs to "make" NPCs do things:
If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature’s attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
The sticking point is the definition of "goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion". I use that discretion extremely liberally; if a group of orcs is hellbent on ransacking the village because ransacking villages is their calling in life, no amount of Diplomacy will be sufficient to reverse their course. Likewise, you aren't going to convince the BBEG to forsake his evil plan of world domination with a mere Diplomacy check--though you might pull it off with roleplaying and a Diplomacy check if you can offer an argument that makes your suggested course of action more in line with the BBEG's values and nature.
blahpers
What a strange way to tell me that you can make NPC's do something. Your example of the orcs is precisely what I mean when I say you can't.
You can ask them nicely but if there's no way that they would ever want to do the thing then you can't make them just like no NPC could ever make my character do anything it would not normally do. I don't surrender agency when an NPC diplomacizes me, I consider their request and come to a decision.
A player is always in full control of their own payers actions unless magic.
GM can't diplomacy you, other players can't intimidate you (to make you friendly anyway, obviously they can demoralise you). At best a GM can strongly suggest, for example, you really feel favourably towards someone, but it's not binding.
Unless you want it to work. "A player is always in full control of their own payers actions unless magic." is true, but if a Player wants to have his PC convinced thru other PC's bluff or Diplomacy, then it's fine, fun and good roleplaying.
As some others have said, it doesn't work. I had a DM allow it one time and my character was forced to make another players character breakfast even though his character was being a jerk to my character. Needless to say I was very annoyed and upset out of character. Didn't happen again at least. Take it from me though, if it isn't magic used against the player, pc to pc at least, then it will only end up bitter.
Edit: save for the scenario Dr. Deth lists at least.
blahpers
What a strange way to tell me that you can make NPC's do something. Your example of the orcs is precisely what I mean when I say you can't.
You can ask them nicely but if there's no way that they would ever want to do the thing then you can't make them just like no NPC could ever make my character do anything it would not normally do. I don't surrender agency when an NPC diplomacizes me, I consider their request and come to a decision.
The rules do not merely represent a shift in attitude; they enable requests, and so long as the request is not against the NPC's values or nature, the rules do state that the request is granted. This isn't strictly contrary to how you've described it, but it does demonstrate a source of confusion for a lot of players and GMs. If the NPC is merely reluctant, that isn't enough to deny the request; it's denied only if doing so would violate the NPC's nature or values.
As an example, if you ask Bob Indifferent for the time of day and make your Diplomacy check, Bob will give you the time of day unless doing so goes against Bob's values or nature. If Bob's nature is to never talk to outsiders because nothing good ever comes of it, or if giving the time of day to a stranger is simply not proper conduct in Bob's culture, then Bob may not respond. Otherwise, barring some other nature/value conflict, Bob will give the time of day. The nature/value clause is important because it allows the request rules to function without effectively becoming "diplomancy". Otherwise, one might as well throw out the entire section on requests and leave everything completely to on-the-spot GM fiat--at that point, Diplomacy really does only shift attitudes, which makes it a terribly nebulous skill to invest skill points in.
It can seem like a meaningless distinction since NPC personality is already GM fiat, but the request mechanic is a useful GM tool for consistently translating personality into reaction when players come up with something unexpected. At the same time, the GM can decide how liberally to interpret the nature/value clause to better fit his or her idea of Diplomacy's position on the sliding scale between meaningless number and mind control.
Because you take the choice of how to play the character away from the player. It is the players character, and unless magic is involved, the player should always make the decisions about how his character acts in a given situation.
RAW, you are right.
However, if a decent diplomacy-check can make my GM-controled NPC with only PC class levels do stuff he doesn't really want to do, why would the reverse not be true for PCs?
Basically all a diplomacy roll "should" do is improve a social situation being role-played. It should be evry possible to improve the attitude of PCs
What is so important about your players never losing control? People play a role. Sometimes Johny Derp-adventurer will walk into a a very clever and convincing charmer who wants to sell him dog-poo. Johny derp-adventurer himself has decided to take a 7 on wisdom and charisma, so he will buy dogshit.
Which means that he is a little bit gullable and not very sure of himself and will lose discussions easily. Should there be adverse effects to this in his social situation, I think so.
So yes, I will tell my players that somebody is highly convincing. I will even call out when I feel that arguments and charm (diplomacy rolls) have bested him, that stubbornly holding on to his own position can only be done if he himself sees it as against his nature. If he is doing it for any other reason it might as well be meta-gaming.
I always dislike the fact that many people make distrustful/fearless/heroic/stubborn characters who always have the sinking feeling they should not do what an NPC says. That is not player freedom, that's not wanting to own up to the weak points in your character.
I once even had a character go so far as to tell me the dragon fear did not work cause his personality was fearless :). Personally, I would have preferred him to be a coward, and to run away despite
For story and fun, it is usually fun to go along with stuff, and it is fun to have weak spots.
If my STR 7 wizard arm-wrestles a cloud giant, he will lose. There are consequences.
If my -2 diplomacy/Sense Motive PC goes-up against a diplomancer, he will get influenced. No matter what the rules say about who can be targeted by diplomacy.
However, I generally have PCs which will accept somebody, even an NPC, influencing them.
Some backstory; one of our players had discovered an recipe for what was apparently a very strong alcohol, hidden away under a floorboard, in a house of an abandoned town. And there was no sign of the townspeople ever returning- for we know, they could all be dead, or fled the area, never to return.
So he ^ thought he'd go ahead and copy the recipe down, to take home for himself to have some nice strong ale. But a few of the other players disagreed and called this an "evil" action.
The reaction was "Okay... So. Why should I let you stop me, just because you find it disagreeable?"
So some of the other players made Diplomacy checks to try and alter his behavior. Yet, according to the link below, the Diplomacy (and I assume other 'social skills') can only be used against NPCs, right?
http://paizo.com/prd/skills/diplomacy.html
The argument was basically;
- "I find this action to be disagreeable, if not an 'evil' one!" *succeeds diplomacy check*
- "Okay. And? Why should I care what you think? Still gonna do it..."
- *more arguing about how "you have to do what he says because he Diplomacy'd you!"*In the end, most of the group bogged down the guy who wanted to make a copy of the recipe for himself and Diplomacy'd him into not doing it.
Of course, this caused a bit of arguing back and forth over the table; should a player be allowed to influence the behavior of another player, even when the resulting attitude/behavior/way of thinking wouldn't be in line with the affected character?
Is there a rule on this somewhere? In the link, it did say "you can influence NPCs" but not players...
Our table was kind of divided over this, and I'm afraid it might come up again...
This
Since when is learning the secret moonshine recipe an evil act, particularly if you leave the original hard-copy behind?Its copywritted. You just broke the law?
The character is Chaotic Evil. He doesn't give a shit about the law.
THANK YOU!
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one here who thinks this way!
Check: You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check.
Nobody said that within the rules as written there was any disagreement. It does not work on PCs.
Yet, I still maintain that it makes no sense that it doesn't, and it makes dumping of mental stats and social skills so much less painful than dumping physical stats.
Like I said, as a GM I would absolutely allow diplomacy to affect players. Not to the extent that it works like Dominate, nor take away free will completely.
But I would tell them something along the lines of the Charm Person and trust my players to ROLEPLAY as if their character was somewhat convinced (regardless of whether they as players knew I was messin' with them). And I would increase/decrease the effect on my players based on their Sense Motive or w/e.
I just miss the logic: Both an NPC take Power Attack, Charm Person, Time Stop, Cleave or any other spell or feat in the game, and they can affect each other with it. Yet for this one skill it wouldn;t work? Why on earth not?
Player agency? To hell with that, I expect my players to trust that if they get influenced I do it to achieve a fun situation. The p[roblem here lies in the (slight) tendency of PF to treat the GM and players as adversaries, whereas I think they work together to make an awesome story. Combat is part of that, so are social interactions. Fail social interactions, there will be consequences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all why is copying a recipe an evil act? What do you plan to use the recipe for?
Secondly the legality has very few things to do with Law.
The character is Chaotic Evil. He doesn't give a s*$% about the law.Since when is learning the secret moonshine recipe an evil act, particularly if you leave the original hard-copy behind?Its copywritted. You just broke the law?
Why did you choose to play a CE character in a group with (assuming) good PCs?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This
This what?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The character is Chaotic Evil. He doesn't give a s%+@ about the law.
I think we've hit the nail on the head regarding this topic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Check: You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check.Nobody said that within the rules as written there was any disagreement. It does not work on PCs.
Yet, I still maintain that it makes no sense that it doesn't, and it makes dumping of mental stats and social skills so much less painful than dumping physical stats.
Like I said, as a GM I would absolutely allow diplomacy to affect players. Not to the extent that it works like Dominate, nor take away free will completely.
But I would tell them something along the lines of the Charm Person and trust my players to ROLEPLAY as if their character was somewhat convinced (regardless of whether they as players knew I was messin' with them). And I would increase/decrease the effect on my players based on their Sense Motive or w/e.
I just miss the logic: Both an NPC take Power Attack, Charm Person, Time Stop, Cleave or any other spell or feat in the game, and they can affect each other with it. Yet for this one skill it wouldn;t work? Why on earth not?
Player agency? To hell with that, I expect my players to trust that if they get influenced I do it to achieve a fun situation. The p[roblem here lies in the (slight) tendency of PF to treat the GM and players as adversaries, whereas I think they work together to make an awesome story. Combat is part of that, so are social interactions. Fail social interactions, there will be consequences.
Please stay on topic - the question was whether players can use diplomacy on each other, to make them do something they don't want to do - not whether a GM should be allowed to influence a player.
Also, if one of your players is shy and/or socially akward, and couldn't roleplay a diplomacy skill of 5+ modded if his life depended on it, then what?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if one of your players is shy and/or socially akward, and couldn't roleplay a diplomacy skill of 5+ modded if his life depended on it, then what?
Then you hold them to the double-standard and penalize their ability to play a social character. Just also make sure you figure your barbarian's max bench weight before allowing him to play 16 str pre-rage and give your witch player an IQ test before allowing her to have 17 int. Because if there's anything I know, it's that if it's feasible for one human to do it, it's expected for the player to be able to do the same. [/sarcasm]
See also: Puzzles and/or Mazes (just let the wizard roll an int check if the party can't solve the dang thing so you can move on already)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if one of your players is shy and/or socially akward, and couldn't roleplay a diplomacy skill of 5+ modded if his life depended on it, then what?Then you hold them to the double-standard and penalize their ability to play a social character. Just also make sure you figure your barbarian's max bench weight before allowing him to play 16 str pre-rage and give your witch player an IQ test before allowing her to have 17 int. Because if there's anything I know, it's that if it's feasible for one human to do it, it's expected for the player to be able to do the same. [/sarcasm]
See also: Puzzles and/or Mazes (just let the wizard roll an int check if the party can't solve the dang thing so you can move on already)
Disable device? Better make sure that they can work a puzzle box.
Acrobatics? Better hope the player isn't in a wheelchair.
Bard? Well, better make sure they can carry a tune.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The lack of rules or mechanics in this area is the single greatest weakness of Pathfinder.
Just imagine, if, instead of a chapter on combat, and a chapter on weapons (used in combat), and a chapter on spells (often used in combat), we just had a fight skill, and if you rolled higher, you won.
That's how diplomacy is, and that's for a game which is supposed to be a role-playing game. Really bad game design here, it's possible to have an entire session devolve into 'we go left" "no, right".
There's no way to fix player-player conflict within the rules. Which is why these often turn into fights, they're the only conflict resolution system with solid mechanics, so players default to them. There's literally nothing else. And it's time we had that.