What do the attitudes in the Diplomacy skill mean?


Rules Questions


Diplomacy (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/diplomacy.html) lists 5 attitudes: helpful, friendly, indifferent, unhelpful, and hostile. But it never defines those attitudes, and neither does the Adventure Path I'm using tell me the NPCs' starting attitudes. So I have no idea what to use as the skill DC for my players' diplomacy checks.

Can anyone clear this up?

Another game system defined the attitudes like this:
Attitude | Means | Possible Actions
Hostile | Will take risks to hurt you | Attack, interfere, berate, flee
Unfriendly | Wishes you ill | Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult
Indifferent | Doesn’t much care | Socially expected interaction
Friendly | Wishes you well | Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate
Helpful | Will take risks to help you | Protect, back up, heal, aid

Are they supposed to be similar for Pathfinder?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes, they're meant to be similar to how 3.5 did it. Pathfinder does leave things open to GM interpretation (it's possible to have a helpful character who won't protect you because they're a coward, for example), but social skills are something of a bad apple in the system.

Hopefully Ultimate Intrigue (it's gone to the printer!) will clear a lot of it up.


Basically.

Though I would define helpful as will provide greater aid so long as it doesn't come at much personal risk. As opposed to friendly which will offer limited help with no personal risk.

Unfriendly will probably do things to try to harm you if they think they can do so with little personal risk. Hostile will likely do whatever it takes to harm you with almost no regard for personal risk.


Not every word in the rulebooks are "game terms". Some clearly are: HP, BAB, Saving Throw, Dazed, Sunder, etc.

But many are not.

The attitude categories in the Diplomacy skill are not game terms; they are very simple English words. We all know what they mean or we can use a dictionary to figure them out. Then the GM has to decide, based on his understanding of those words, what attitude the monster/NPC/encounter begins with, and this sets the base DC for any Diplomacy attempt.

As Chemlak said, this is definitely open to GM interpretation but I disagree with him about hoping Ultimate Intrigue clears it up; I personally like that the GM gets to make some decisions in this game instead of being bound hand and foot by a complex web of game terminology; it's one of the things that separates this game from playing a computer RPG (which I also like, but I don't think they should be the same at all).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Slight misunderstanding there, Blake (my fault, I was in a bit of a rush when I posted).

I absolutely agree that keeping interpretation in the GM's hands is the way it should be. What I'm hoping UI clears up is more along the lines of degree than a precise codification of the attitudes: make it crystal clear that diplomacy isn't some sort of social "I Win" button, and provide good guidance on using social skills to influence people while maintaining the integrity of NPCs.

Sovereign Court

Giants on the Playground (Order of the Stick guy) has an interesting houserule posted for Diplomacy - which they changed it from changing someone's attitude entirely to being about a specific transaction. How much they already like you & the deal their getting are the modifiers. (In his home game he changed the name to Persuade.)

So - if you want to get past a guard and into a fancy ball - it helps with that (bonus/penalty for how much they like you & their risk/reward) - but it doesn't make the guard your new BFF no matter the result.

I like it more than how Diplomacy works - especially how the DCs go up with the target's level & Wisdom. (similar to how it becomes harder to intimidate them)


Chemlak wrote:
I absolutely agree that keeping interpretation in the GM's hands is the way it should be. What I'm hoping UI clears up is more along the lines of degree than a precise codification of the attitudes: make it crystal clear that diplomacy isn't some sort of social "I Win" button, and provide good guidance on using social skills to influence people while maintaining the integrity of NPCs.

Ahh, well, that I truly support.

After all, we all know that Bluff is "mind control" and therefore we already have a CHA-based skill "I Win" button. We don't need two of them...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I like it more than how Diplomacy works - especially how the DCs go up with the target's level & Wisdom. (similar to how it becomes harder to intimidate them)

I agree that the big problem with Diplomacy is that the target's level (experience) and intellect (INT or WIS) have no bearing on how easily you can manipulate him into being helpful to you, even if he doesn't want to and should not want to.

The only thing that matters is his CHA, which makes sense that it could be a factor, but this just means your average run-of-the-mill town guard with an average CHA has no resistance to be diplomatized into making a career-ending mistake. Neither will his boss or his boss, even though that captain of the watch is a 30-year veteran who has seen it all and done it all and heard every lie, bluff, and diplomatic subterfuge ever invented - but he still has an ordinary CHA score and all those years of experience don't help him at all.

Sadly, the "smartest" thing an NPC guard can do to avoid being effectively mind-controlled by a diplomatic character is to be hostile to everyone and everything he sees, thereby having the hardest DC for a diplomat to talk him into being overly helpful and potentially making that career-ending mistake.

That's a sad state for any RPG to have the mechanics work like this.


DM_Blake wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I like it more than how Diplomacy works - especially how the DCs go up with the target's level & Wisdom. (similar to how it becomes harder to intimidate them)

I agree that the big problem with Diplomacy is that the target's level (experience) and intellect (INT or WIS) have no bearing on how easily you can manipulate him into being helpful to you, even if he doesn't want to and should not want to.

The only thing that matters is his CHA, which makes sense that it could be a factor, but this just means your average run-of-the-mill town guard with an average CHA has no resistance to be diplomatized into making a career-ending mistake. Neither will his boss or his boss, even though that captain of the watch is a 30-year veteran who has seen it all and done it all and heard every lie, bluff, and diplomatic subterfuge ever invented - but he still has an ordinary CHA score and all those years of experience don't help him at all.

Sadly, the "smartest" thing an NPC guard can do to avoid being effectively mind-controlled by a diplomatic character is to be hostile to everyone and everything he sees, thereby having the hardest DC for a diplomat to talk him into being overly helpful and potentially making that career-ending mistake.

That's a sad state for any RPG to have the mechanics work like this.

Yep, either that or you have to play in a world full of jerks who wouldn't help their friends. Well maybe not jerks, but it could seem that way.

Diplomancer: Hey buddy, can you let me into your super secret government lab?
Dope: Well, I've known you for 20 years, but despite that no. I could really get into a lot of trouble for that.

That becomes a really tiresome line to have to roll out to your players to prevent them from just rolling through every encounter using diplomacy to make everyone their best friend.

But I've long wanted to remove Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate from the game mechanics.


That sounds entirely reasonable. If I were a gaurd I would not let someone into a secret government lab even if I'd known them for 20 years unless I believe they actually are supposed to be there.


Yeah, Shadowrun has this problem as well - the character type is called a 'pornomancer', i.e. they can get anyone to sleep with them. There are, and have to be, points past which someone won't go, however. IMO, the GM needs to be more than willing to flip this on its head: 'We've been buddies for 20 years, and you want me to do something for you that WILL get me fired?!? What kinda buddy ARE you?!?'

----------------------------------------------------------------
Pananagutan - A Limited-Ongoing Shadowrun Tale
"Oh, look - it's Go-Frag-Yourself-O'Clock."
New Wyrm!! Now with Twice the Bastard!!
Play the game; don't try to win it, and don't be afraid to fail.


Just like in the bluff case , it is "subject to GM discretion".

Just like in the bluff case the GM can deny the roll if he thinks it is unreasonable.

What this means?

Expect a LOT of table variance , that simple , just like in the bluff thread case.


I think part of the problem with the influencing skills is that they are treated as a single encounter or as a very short series of actions to get the desired result.

In reality much of the influencing that PCs want to do would actually be social engineering. Social engineering can be achieved through a number of techniques, but typically all require multiple steps to build a plausible story, gain the mark's confidence and ultimately convince them to do what you want.

The influencing skill scores give some insight as to how good the character would be at achieving those steps but the player still needs to roleplay the entire sequence, which could take several sessions to come to fruition - not a single dice roll.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Not only is it a single dice roll, but the very mechanics of the PF system (and one might argue of the d20 system in general) is that you keep adding static bonuses here and there, and using optimization tricks to max out a given skill set, until one of two things happen: either you break the system because you automatically succeed every challenge, or the DM artificially beefs up the challenge, rendering all your optimisation efforts trivial.

I like the spirit behind the Giants/Oots diplomacy system, because it gives quantifiable benchmarks and situational guidelines to help overcome the "one dieroll rules all" syndrome.

I also like the PF Diplomacy deck, because it often suggests off-the-wall solutions to social problems that the players wouldn't necessarily have come up with. I use it differently than intended, but it is fairly cool.

In actual gameplay, with my players who are neither social optimisers nor CHA-dumped social pariahs, I simply ask them what they are trying to achieve, how they plan to go about it, and eventually let them roleplay through part of the social interaction so that I can get a feel for it, then I call out a DC, like "roll diplomacy DC 15 (or 18 or 12 or 20, etc)" and let it fly on th seat of my pants. The most humorous situations often develop from natural "1"s and natural "20"s.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Check out the Alexandrians design notes on diplomacy which build upon GitPG's Diplomacy rules update and finally deliver the Diplomacy fix. In short: each check is for a narrowly defined action/deal that brings it's own modifiers.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

What about the Pathfinder "social combat" deck of cards? Has anybody ever used it?

I don't use it the way the deck suggests. Instead, as soon as a key social situation gets underway, I have each involved player draw one card at random plus one card for each +1 in charisma. Each card has two unique actions on it, and if the player finds in his "hand" an action that seems appropriate, he can declare it and roll for it. The cards have a cool variety of diplomacy, bluff, intimidation and sense motive rolls (and a few other assorted skills, IIRC) and the blend is flavorful.

This doesn't prevent them from trying some alternate strategy that they think up on the spot. But it's a great reservoir of ideas and plot twists that empowers players and makes them feel good about their characters, since they are partially in the driver's seat, determining the direction of interaction instead of the DM.


Wheldrake wrote:
The most humorous situations often develop from natural "1"s and natural "20"s.

I assume this is NOT because you're operating under the false impression that these "natural" rolls are auto failure/success?

Because even a mildly-competent (optimized, but not much) diplomat/bluffer can hit many successes even when he rolls a natural 1. And in some cases, rolling a natural 20 can still fail for those who are not really optimized.


Wheldrake wrote:


I like the spirit behind the Giants/Oots diplomacy system, because it gives quantifiable benchmarks and situational guidelines to help overcome the "one dieroll rules all" syndrome.

Link? I've never heard of "Giants/Oots" or "Giants"/"Oots" before.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Sorry, it was refereed to a few posts before.

I should have called it the "Burlew diplomacy system".

Rich Burlew is the author of the ubiquitous and hilarious "Order of the Stick" webcomic. If you don't know it prepare yourself for 48 solid hours of sidesplitting humor. His website is called Giants in the Playground, and used to be one of the go-to places to discuss D&D mechanics.

I've just read through Justin Alexander's revamping of the Burlew diplomacy rules, and it seems quite usable as it stands. Personally, in addition to the PF "social combat" deck I described above, I allow adversaries variable sense motive checks or counter-diplomacy checks, depending on the situation.

I'm keen on hearing other folks' solutions to diplomacy and other social skill checks.

DM_Blake wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
The most humorous situations often develop from natural "1"s and natural "20"s.

I assume this is NOT because you're operating under the false impression that these "natural" rolls are auto failure/success?

Because even a mildly-competent (optimized, but not much) diplomat/bluffer can hit many successes even when he rolls a natural 1. And in some cases, rolling a natural 20 can still fail for those who are not really optimized.

Yes, I am aware that skill checks are not subject to critical failure or critical success on natural 1s or 20s. But admit it, players love natural 20s and hate (in a sick, loving way) natural 1s. So my solution is to describe some extravagant but not necessarily deadly failure result or spectacular success result on natural 1s and 20s for many skills. Not RAW, agreed, but it does seem to enhance many players' experiences.


Here's an old thread on social combat which lists a few alternatives to the paizo deck rules.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What do the attitudes in the Diplomacy skill mean? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.