| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is incredibly dark. It basically lends itself to the logical conclusion that any act you preform while charmed is performed with willing consent.
Which is very different than the normal interpretation which is it is forcing you to take that action so you are still plausibly unwilling at your core.
Curious. Do you consider acts performed while drugged/drunk as willing consent?
It is an interesting interpretation, but I don't think it implies quite as much as you infer.
I do not consider someone under the influence of drugs or mind altering substances as willing or able to provide consent under any circumstances.
"Deep down, secreted away, in every heart, lies the potential for wickedness; this, willingly or not, coaxes that out and into action."
I'll try to articulate my feelings as I feel the 'OP' is different that mere drugs/alcohol.
I do not personally believe that all beings secretly harbor the desire to take any and all actions. While they may be coerced into taking such actions when in an altered mental state due to drugs I feel that the implication of the 'OP' is slightly different. The 'OP' suggests that the charm is not altering the users mental state it is merely bringing that dark secret desire to the forefront, that they secretly wanted to do it all along and now just realized it. I feel that while substances like alcohol can cause a similar effect in some cases it is not a blanket case as with the compulsion/charm which makes it intrinsically more dark as it implies that in EVERY case they secretly wanted it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I couldn't even finish the thread before commenting on this. I looked at the vigilante playtest, decided it wasn't for me, and probably would never have looked twice at this book. Yall owe the OP money, because now I need to read this as a DM. This book just became important to me.This has done more to sell me on Ultimate Intrigue than anything Paizo has put out about it.We have mention of these two sections scheduled for two blogs from now (not tomorrow's but the one the week after). It's with the other subsystems, but if you guys on this thread think that spending more detail on these two sections is a really strong point of excitement, that tells me I should adjust that blog to give some more info on them.
Thanks Eliandra, RD, p-sto, Brew Bird, and others here; if you see more about this in that blog, you'll know it was thanks to you!
Nobody owes me anything, but if you absolutely insist, I wouldn't mind a few more copies of the Core Rulebook to hand out to new Pathfinder/PFS players.
Buying them all myself has started to really make me feel that financial pinch lately.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My PoV on the Paladin derail. Sorry for that :-(
Hard to create a new thread on my phone
'Not lying' is an example given for 'act with honor' - It's a general shorthand for being deceitful or misleading, not an absolute. If there is a situation where lying is the honorable act (or where no one would actually be misled), the paladin can lie. Discretion being a part of valor and so forth.
Inversely, Paladins are barred from being misleading by selective truths, even though those are not actually lies.
OK, might as well follow up on this here...
Similar to lying, I see people believe that any and all usage of Poison is banned...
But that ban is stated in exactly the way the ban on lying is, i.e. as an example of 'acting with honor'.
So would it be the case that likewise with lying, the Poison ban isn't actually an absolute, but conditional on 'dis-honor'?Concretely, slipping some Poison in somebody's drink so they suffer without ever confronting you is clearly dishonorable.
Much less clearly dishonorable is using a CON damage poison on your Greatsword...
Or using Stinking Cloud spell/effect... Or using a Pseudodragon Familiar with Sleep Poison.Thoughts?
EDIT: This and the No Lying issue are probably FAQ material, IMHO.
I would say to each GM their own and leave it at that
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I couldn't even finish the thread before commenting on this. I looked at the vigilante playtest, decided it wasn't for me, and probably would never have looked twice at this book. Yall owe the OP money, because now I need to read this as a DM. This book just became important to me.This has done more to sell me on Ultimate Intrigue than anything Paizo has put out about it.We have mention of these two sections scheduled for two blogs from now (not tomorrow's but the one the week after). It's with the other subsystems, but if you guys on this thread think that spending more detail on these two sections is a really strong point of excitement, that tells me I should adjust that blog to give some more info on them.
Thanks Eliandra, RD, p-sto, Brew Bird, and others here; if you see more about this in that blog, you'll know it was thanks to you!
Nobody owes me anything, but if you absolutely insist, I wouldn't mind a few more copies of the Core Rulebook to hand out to new Pathfinder/PFS players.
Buying them all myself has started to really make me feel that financial pinch lately.
This might interest you RD, and anyone interested in taking his gifting offer up :3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People thought Diplomacy was mind control?
You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments
Necromancer: "Paladin, help me murder these children, so I can turn them into undead minions."
Paladin: "No."(Necromancer makes a high diplomacy roll.)
Paladin: "Your arguments have convinced me. I guess I have no choice."
What, it doesn't work like that in your games?
See page 162 for the discussion on dominate person, it is not limited to physical self-harm (the example they give in that section is dominating a king to announce something that will irreparably destroy his reputation and tear his kingdom apart would count).Uh no they would not.
Vanpire dominates you, says attack your allies. Rip powers, evil act to attack friends and innocents AND aiding undead.
It only prevents physical self harm, not meta self harm
This is the one item I'd like to see more detail on, frankly, and can't wait to read. On these forums in particular people seem to hand-waive away the limits on Dominate Person as quickly as they do the requirements to have costly material components (and then don't see how this exacerbates caster/martial disparity).
- Diplomacy is not mind control.
People thought Diplomacy was mind control?
-Skeld
Edit: Next thing you'll be telling me that people think charm person is mind control!
This is something I'd like to know. Just how limits does the Diplomacy skill and the charm person spell have, according to UI?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is incredibly dark. It basically lends itself to the logical conclusion that any act you preform while charmed is performed with willing consent.
Which is very different than the normal interpretation which is it is forcing you to take that action so you are still plausibly unwilling at your core.
Curious. Do you consider acts performed while drugged/drunk as willing consent?
It is an interesting interpretation, but I don't think it implies quite as much as you infer.
I do not consider someone under the influence of drugs or mind altering substances as willing or able to provide consent under any circumstances.
"Deep down, secreted away, in every heart, lies the potential for wickedness; this, willingly or not, coaxes that out and into action."I'll try to articulate my feelings as I feel the 'OP' is different that mere drugs/alcohol.
I do not personally believe that all beings secretly harbor the desire to take any and all actions. While they may be coerced into taking such actions when in an altered mental state due to drugs I feel that the implication of the 'OP' is slightly different. The 'OP' suggests that the charm is not altering the users mental state it is merely bringing that dark secret desire to the forefront, that they secretly wanted to do it all along and now just realized it. I feel that while substances like alcohol can cause a similar effect in some cases it is not a blanket case as with the compulsion/charm which makes it intrinsically more dark as it implies that in EVERY case they secretly wanted it.
. What's then interesting is turning this idea on its head... or rather getting yet another interpretation out of it.
(This will make take #3; the moral failing, the intoxication, and...)
... the failure/point of error was in allowing it to happen in the first place.
This is basically a nuanced difference, rather than an outright rejection. It comes from the idea that in failing a will save, a person wanted to fail a will save; nothing more. Kind of a harboring a desire to be controlled or tricked. That in some way, perhaps, they wanted to give in.
What this means is that they didn't necessarily want or even harbor repressed desires to do explicit evil thing... they just wanted someone else to run things for a while or surrendered to some vain desire for a different kind of sin that took them farther than they ever wanted to go.
This is the same concept as putting themselves in the situation - they don't want to behave in X manner, but they "willingly" (due to having failed a will save) allowed that to happen. They were basically (however briefly) seduced and then stuck.
Again, I'm not claiming that this is the official stance, only that this is a way to, within the rules, and can be used to explain things in an alternate way. But these interpretations are definitly not for all groups and tables.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is something I'd like to know. Just how limits does the Diplomacy skill and the charm person spell have, according to UI?
- Diplomacy is not mind control.
People thought Diplomacy was mind control?
-Skeld
Edit: Next thing you'll be telling me that people think charm person is mind control!
I'll take Diplomacy.
The basic points are that just because someone is friendly or helpful, doesn't mean they're going to change their own behaviours. Evil necromancer queen might like you a lot, so she turns you into a free-willed undead instead of killing you and animating you as a zombie. Nice woman.
Also, the ability to make requests without annoying the subject doesn't mean they have to do what you ask, just that the act of asking them hasn't pissed them off, and they'll consider your request in a positive way. Even so, asking evil necromancer queen not to kill the rest of your party, pretty please with a cherry on the top, might be at odds with her sworn oath to kill every living thing in the country, so... well, shucks, you're a wight, how about we make your friends all wight, too?
All that charm spells do is force the attitude of the target, it doesn't affect the target's personality, goals, or behaviour in any way: a charmed drow might still stick a sword in your guts if it sees a chance and the reward is good enough. Charmed evil necromancer queen will still continue her goal to kill every living thing in the country... but might save you for last because you're her friend.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is something I'd like to know. Just how limits does the Diplomacy skill and the charm person spell have, according to UI?
- Diplomacy is not mind control.
People thought Diplomacy was mind control?
-Skeld
Edit: Next thing you'll be telling me that people think charm person is mind control!
I'll take Diplomacy.
The basic points are that just because someone is friendly or helpful, doesn't mean they're going to change their own behaviours. Evil necromancer queen might like you a lot, so she turns you into a free-willed undead instead of killing you and animating you as a zombie. Nice woman.
Also, the ability to make requests without annoying the subject doesn't mean they have to do what you ask, just that the act of asking them hasn't pissed them off, and they'll consider your request in a positive way. Even so, asking evil necromancer queen not to kill the rest of your party, pretty please with a cherry on the top, might be at odds with her sworn oath to kill every living thing in the country, so... well, shucks, you're a wight, how about we make your friends all wight, too?
That's a solid and concise summary, though I'd say that the full description is more on the side of explaining ways to make things happen over time, have the diplomacied character suggest a compromise, etc (mostly since it has more words in it to explain, not because of any shortcoming in the summary).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, Mark. I was going for an explanation of the limits, rather than covering the whole thing.
[Edit: Weird, when I read that back, it looks like I'm being sarcastic. Not intended!]
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I was probably going to get this for the crunch, but now I'm definitely getting it.Well, most of this is crunch; it's replacing rules or adding new ones, like with simulacrum.
Ravingdork's post and Mark's comments make it sound like clarifications of existing rules. As far as I'm concerned, that isn't crunch any more than a book review is a book.
I'm really glad people like these sections! I felt they were a bit of a risk (especially since I asked for the spells of intrigue section to get 50% more pages than it initially was allotted, so we could answer all the questions I had about spells and intrigue) because while I personally thought they were awesome and super-important, I wasn't sure how many people would share my enthusiasm vis-a-vis enthusiasm over classes, archetypes, and the like.
While the blogs so far (including tomorrow's) focus on some of the fun character-building options in here, I feel that the "true power" of this book is in the fact that it makes it so that the game is working with you (you being both players and GM) to play an awesome political/social/thievery/intrigue game with plenty of challenges other than combat. The lynchpins of that part of the book are the sections RD is highlighting as well as probably the social conflict section, with its advice on building these style of campaigns.
Please tell me what you think about those kinds of topics, including those of you who don't have the book yet, so I can factor it into future conversations we have about outlines and pagecounts!
In a little more detail, in general there are four things I personally am looking for in books:
New rules elements (eg archetypes, feats)
New rules systems (eg called shots, skill unlocks)
Rule/Gameplay discussions (eg familiars and free will, alignment)
World building (eg descriptions of deities, monster ecology)
Not having UI in front of me, it sounds like the stuff under dicussion is "rules/gameplay discussion." While I prefer hardcovers to mostly be rules elements or systems, I also like a bit of gameplay discussion and world building for deeper context. Maybe 10-20 pages of each. Having a lot of rules elements in a hardcover can actually be overwhelming. And UI could probably benefit from more "systems" and "discussions" content than usual because of the holes in the current rules related to Intrigue.
Softcovers I like mostly rules elements and/or world building, depending on topic (eg Weapon Master's Handbook was really rules-heavy, but Champions of the Righteous was mostly world building with rule elements being secondary). Occasionally rules systems or gameplay discussion work in softcovers, though - for example Blood of the Night really benefited from the undead hunger rules and the two pages on running a vampire game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I was probably going to get this for the crunch, but now I'm definitely getting it.Well, most of this is crunch; it's replacing rules or adding new ones, like with simulacrum.Ravingdork's post and Mark's comments make it sound like clarifications of existing rules. As far as I'm concerned, that isn't crunch any more than a book review is a book.
I'm really glad people like these sections! I felt they were a bit of a risk (especially since I asked for the spells of intrigue section to get 50% more pages than it initially was allotted, so we could answer all the questions I had about spells and intrigue) because while I personally thought they were awesome and super-important, I wasn't sure how many people would share my enthusiasm vis-a-vis enthusiasm over classes, archetypes, and the like.
While the blogs so far (including tomorrow's) focus on some of the fun character-building options in here, I feel that the "true power" of this book is in the fact that it makes it so that the game is working with you (you being both players and GM) to play an awesome political/social/thievery/intrigue game with plenty of challenges other than combat. The lynchpins of that part of the book are the sections RD is highlighting as well as probably the social conflict section, with its advice on building these style of campaigns.
Please tell me what you think about those kinds of topics, including those of you who don't have the book yet, so I can factor it into future conversations we have about outlines and pagecounts!
In a little more detail, in general there are four things I personally am looking for in books:
New rules elements (eg archetypes, feats)
New rules systems (eg called shots, skill unlocks)
Rule/Gameplay discussions (eg familiars and free will, alignment)
World building (eg descriptions of deities, monster ecology)Not having UI in front of me, it sounds like the stuff under dicussion is...
Thanks! As always, will add to my giant pool o' data and keep it in mind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would it be accurate then to summarize the advice as constraining the outcomes of the skill system for diplomacy within the mundane and not extending into the fantastic? It sounds from the description above, that silver-tongued tricksters have to rely on magic or supernatural power sources now and cannot achieve the same effect through incredible skill. This is also more consistent with the rest of the skill system and the types of outcomes it allows.That's a solid and concise summary, though I'd say that the full description is more on the side of explaining ways to make things happen over time, have the diplomacied character suggest a compromise, etc (mostly since it has more words in it to explain, not because of any shortcoming in the summary).This is something I'd like to know. Just how limits does the Diplomacy skill and the charm person spell have, according to UI?
- Diplomacy is not mind control.
People thought Diplomacy was mind control?
-Skeld
Edit: Next thing you'll be telling me that people think charm person is mind control!
I'll take Diplomacy.
The basic points are that just because someone is friendly or helpful, doesn't mean they're going to change their own behaviours. Evil necromancer queen might like you a lot, so she turns you into a free-willed undead instead of killing you and animating you as a zombie. Nice woman.
Also, the ability to make requests without annoying the subject doesn't mean they have to do what you ask, just that the act of asking them hasn't pissed them off, and they'll consider your request in a positive way. Even so, asking evil necromancer queen not to kill the rest of your party, pretty please with a cherry on the top, might be at odds with her sworn oath to kill every living thing in the country, so... well, shucks, you're a wight, how about we make your friends all wight, too?
I would summarize it more as "explaining ambiguous phrases in the CRB description and how to adjudicate edge cases such that you have a few concrete guidelines for what a result is, instead of a wide variation".
And I'd say you can do some pretty fantastic things, they're just fantastic within the realm of the skill's purview (and there are suggestions for how to extend your success to achieve further results over time). I mean, climbing a slippery ceiling with handholds only at a rate of 5 feet per second, purely on your climbing skill, is pretty fantastic, and the real world record long jump is beatable by a first level character with 1 rank and skill focus. Everything in the game has a little bit of fantasy heroics baked in. And it's pretty fantastic to win the friendship of the necromancer queen who has been betrayed so many times that she just wants to end humanity. She's not going to just change her entire worldview right away (in fact, Diplomacy explicitly limits the length of time that you improve a creature's attitude to a matter of hours unless the GM gives discretion, so it's more of making a good impression at the time), but Diplomacy gets your foot in the door, and afterwards, you might try the influence system, the relationships system, a verbal duel, or even a social conflict to take it even further!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Related to Caedwyr's querry could the social duels subsystem be used to mundanely convince the evil necromancer to not murder the party?
How extensive is that subsystem?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Related to Caedwyr's querry could the social duels subsystem be used to mundanely convince the evil necromancer to not murder the party?
How extensive is that subsystem?
Very clever: You have correctly predicted some of the advice in one of the sections (after a successful Diplomacy, potentially using influence, relationships, verbal duels, or even a full-scale social conflict to convince her).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assume (or rather hope) that verbal duels / influence systems are intended to be more or less a wholesale replacement (or i guess full expansion) of the diplomacy skill. As personally I feel the current diplomacy system is far too binary and or left up to fiat. In that you can only really convince them of something if the DM feels like letting you, your rolls and Diplomacy score doesn't really matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This might interest you RD, and anyone interested in taking his gifting offer up :3Nobody owes me anything, but if you absolutely insist, I wouldn't mind a few more copies of the Core Rulebook to hand out to new Pathfinder/PFS players.
Buying them all myself has started to really make me feel that financial pinch lately.
Ooh...how much is that little baby going to go for?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh...how much is that little baby going to go for?This might interest you RD, and anyone interested in taking his gifting offer up :3Nobody owes me anything, but if you absolutely insist, I wouldn't mind a few more copies of the Core Rulebook to hand out to new Pathfinder/PFS players.
Buying them all myself has started to really make me feel that financial pinch lately.
"Little" Bebe will be $24.99
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is something I'd like to know. Just how limits does the Diplomacy skill and the charm person spell have, according to UI?
I'll take Diplomacy.
The basic points are that just because someone is friendly or helpful, doesn't mean they're going to change their own behaviours. Evil necromancer queen might like you a lot, so she turns you into a free-willed undead instead of killing you and animating you as a zombie. Nice woman.
Also, the ability to make requests without annoying the subject doesn't mean they have to do what you ask, just that the act of asking them hasn't pissed them off, and they'll consider your request in a positive way. Even so, asking evil necromancer queen not to kill the rest of your party, pretty please with a cherry on the top, might be at odds with her sworn oath to kill every living thing in the country, so... well, shucks, you're a wight, how about we make your friends all wight, too?
All that charm spells do is force the attitude of the target, it doesn't affect the target's personality, goals, or behaviour in any way: a charmed drow might still stick a sword in your guts if it sees a chance and the reward is good enough. Charmed evil necromancer queen will still continue her goal to kill every living thing in the country... but might save you for last because you're her friend.
Thanks! A very informative explanation, as well as one that makes me want this book more. Also sounds like it adds some potential humor value to those characters who manage to do very well with Diplomacy (and I assume Bluff). You keep convincing the monsters and villains not to kill you -- yet; but instead they come up with an idea that's even worse!
"I like you. I won't reduce you to a mindless zombie like everyone else in the land. I'll make you my pet ghoul instead. Because hey, then we can still have long talks!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I like you. I won't reduce you to a mindless zombie like everyone else in the land. I'll make you my pet ghoul instead. Because hey, then we can still have long talks!"
That...is uncanny. Your wording is actually really close to an example provided in the book.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand I'm not sure I'm a fan of what looks like putting rules clarifications in a splatbook, especially when many of those rulings and opinions have to do with core spells.In what universe is the Core RPG line considered a "splatbook"??
Well I use the core rulebook to kill those pesky giant spiders
"I like you. I won't reduce you to a mindless zombie like everyone else in the land. I'll make you my pet ghoul instead. Because hey, then we can still have long talks!"That...is uncanny. Your wording is actually really close to an example provided in the book.
Pure luck on my part; I don't even have the book yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And here's the blog! I added that list at the end because of you guys ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it only just came out for subscribers and a lot of people haven't gotten their physical copies yet. People who aren't subscribers haven't even had an opportunity to get it at all.
And because not everyone who liked the book bothers to write reviews.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's not out yet for the general populace.
Thank you Paizo, i wish we could get more clarification for others skills like we got about the social skills in this book. I only missed a bit more clarification about what we should expect to know with Knowledge (Nobility) in face with all Ultimate Intrigue subsystems.
Where do we get this 'clarification on what we know with Knowledge (Nobility)'? I'd like to read that myself.