|
One of my PC's is playing a Favored Soul with the vow of peace and non-violence or some such nonsense. Anyway, to make a long story short, the diplomacy skill seems broken to me. He has a high skill, you can Diplome as a full round action, and only need a 25 to make any creature "indifferent". Indifferent says it is normal social interaction. My sticking point is that there is no defense against this, and by time they are high enough level, he'll be able to get anything pretty much to friendly, no matter how powerful the creature is. He may just Diplome Demogorgon from his plans...I'm pretty cheesed about this skill. Is there any errata or anything I am missing here? There is no active defense, and it dosen't matter how powerful the creature is? A 0 level peasent or a Pit Fiend can be made friendly with the same lame roll?
Eric, James, Nicolas, anyone...I need some clarification before making a gaming group member of 20 years pissed off by killing his character....
It may help to know that trying to use Diplomacy during combat invokes a -10 penalty. If the monster attacks before the PC starts talking...
|
Here are some ideas:
1) Be realistic and hard-nosed about the definitions provided in the PHB for what indifferent, friendly, and helpful people will do. After all, the "socially expected interaction" between Demogorgon and a mortal in his domain is for him to eat their heart.
2) Focus the interpretation of diplomacy check as influencing the attitude of the target to the specific proposition, not the speaker. Depending on whether Demogorgon is friendly or not to the proposition that he should lie down and let the PCs walk all over them, he might let them regenerate after he eats their heart.
The above two are valid interpretations of the rules, but they might leave your player feeling like it's up to your whim whether or not his diplomacy-monkey gets to be awesome in the way he was designed to do. You might want a more mechanical solution so that it's up to the dice, not DM interpretation. To do that, you'd need to introduce some rules tweaks:
3) Give creatures a bonus to the DC to diplomacize them equal to half their hit dice, similar to the sense motive defense from a bluff in combat. Or give them a half-CR bonus - this departs a little further from existing rules, but has the effect of making a drow wizard harder to sweet-talk than a hill giant, which is as it should be.
4) Check out the rules variant here: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html
I'll second giving these diplomacy rules a try. I've been using them in my campaign, and it really helps to make social interaction something that scales depending on the level and ability of your opponents as well.
Variant Diplomacy Skill at Giant in the Playground
Also, it doesn't take much to adapt this to intimidate checks as well.
You could also make the player roleplay the situation. Have them say whatever it is they're going to say, then roll the Diplomacy check to see if it works. If they say something that could not reasonably work, don't bother to roll; just have the monster act appropriately. For example, if the PC tries to 'Diplomacize' his way out of a combat with a fiend who had just been ordered to attack by Demogorgon, then simply saying, "Can't we all just get along?" isn't going to work.
|
You could make Diplomacy an "opposed roll" skill where the listed DC's are what you need to beat an combat opponent's roll by in order to change their attitude.
Effectively, you would be subtracting a random number off the player's diplomacy result to model how well the opponent is counter-arguing.
-Skeld
|
There are several rules that are broken in a bunch of different supplements. You have just seen the Vows. Talk to the dude and say "Listen, you need to do something about this character. He IS going to break the campaign. I can't have you rolling a die and making an evil god 'see the light'. It is ridiculous and I think you see that. I as the DM can also be ridiculous if I need to..... a pit trap that only opens for Favored Souls and leads through a portal to the Demiplane of Gelatinous Cubes, wherein your PC is engulfed by the largest most assinine cube ever imagined and killed beyond any means of resurrecting. I don't want to do something like that but it is either we come to an agreement or the game is basically on borrowed time. Either you break it or I have to save it. Your choice."
That's what I would say.
|
|
I'll second giving these diplomacy rules a try. I've been using them in my campaign, and it really helps to make social interaction something that scales depending on the level and ability of your opponents as well.
Variant Diplomacy Skill at Giant in the Playground
Also, it doesn't take much to adapt this to intimidate checks as well.
I was gonna suggest that also. Rich Berlew came up with a good one there.
|
|
..... a pit trap that only opens for Favored Souls and leads through a portal to the Demiplane of Gelatinous Cubes, wherein your PC is engulfed by the largest most assinine cube ever imagined and killed beyond any means of resurrecting.
That would be funny, but it's total DM fiat. But along these lines, you could also insert some bad guys with high diplomacy and have them talk the players out of a fight. You could turn their own tactics against them.
-Skeld
|
|
..... a pit trap that only opens for Favored Souls and leads through a portal to the Demiplane of Gelatinous Cubes, wherein your PC is engulfed by the largest most assinine cube ever imagined and killed beyond any means of resurrecting.
That would be funny, but it's total DM fiat. But along these lines, you could also insert some bad guys with high diplomacy and have them talk the players out of a fight. You could turn their own tactics against them.
-Skeld
And that isn't DM Fiat? Especially with a high enough Diplo to do that. Just a different style of Fiat.
You could also make the player roleplay the situation. Have them say whatever it is they're going to say, then roll the Diplomacy check to see if it works. If they say something that could not reasonably work, don't bother to roll; just have the monster act appropriately. For example, if the PC tries to 'Diplomacize' his way out of a combat with a fiend who had just been ordered to attack by Demogorgon, then simply saying, "Can't we all just get along?" isn't going to work.
I usually have the PCs talk out what they are going to say, and assign a bonus or a penalty based on what they come up with in real life. If they aren't the best or most imaginative (not a problem I've had often), I don't penalize them for not being too brilliant in their conversation, but if they say something completely pointless or something brilliant, I do modify the roll with a circumstance bonus.
|
|
And that isn't DM Fiat? Especially with a high enough Diplo to do that. Just a different style of Fiat.
Yes, I didn't communicate that effectively. My comments were geared more toward a "if you want to go the fiat route, here's another option" as opposed to "that's fiat, but this isn't."
But you are correct: they are different styles of fiat. One is "turn about is fair play" and the other is "if I don't like it, I utterly destroy it."
-Skeld
I really like that variant Diplomacy write-up by Mr. Burlew. I think I'm going to incorporate it into my next campaign (for which I'm planning on using the Iron Heroes system. In IH, skill bonuses can potentially be much higher than in D&D).
Nope, it's not just you. The diplomacy rules are pretty much busted custard as soon as you can get a decent diplomacy check. If you add in the Epic Diplomacy Rules then it gets even more broken. The DC to make someone a fanatic is actually doable way before epic if you are really trying.
If you are having problems with Diplomacy, the problem is the rules, not yours, which means it needs a house rule to fix. I reckon the best is the alternate diplomacy rules that others have linked to already. They provide a "defense" against what your PC is doing, that make sense and are hard to whine about. Although expect your player to whine anyway, and at the very least you should probably allow him to either rebuild his character or play a different one if you nerf his favorite tactic.
Factiod: The "socially expected interaction" (mentioned under indifferent) of demons is to... chew your guts out. Basically, Diplomacy skill can overcome irrational conflicts. But many conflicts are rational (especially in a DnD world), and cannot be so easily bypassed. Diplomacy might make a very good impression, but sometimes all that does is make you the preferred and pampered sacrifice.
But the real problem here seems to be that that player and you have different ideas about what the game is all about. Trying a "simulationist" approach here can lead to issues. Explain that Diplomacy can be used (and there are many chances to use it) where appropriate for the drama of the story, but there are also occasions where it simply doesn't fit.
|
|
Peer pressure is a great way to make players see sense.
Whatever books they're using, whatever classes, feats, skills or spells, whatever 'imaginitive' interpretation of a rule they can come up with, just make them aware that all of these are weapons in the NPCs armoury too.
And you can add them to any creature or template in the Monster Manual; not just the dozen or so playable LA+0 races they use.
Don't be snotty about it, or adversarial ("Think you're clever, huh? Well eat this!"). Doing so will simply make you seem arbitary and out for revenge against one player, and will quite likely make the others take his side.
It's best to act a little surprised, maybe even confused, but accept the ruling ("Oh; I didn't realise the rules worked like that. Good for you!"), even let them get away with it on a minion or two, then just come back at them next week with an enemy bard with maxed out CHA and Diplomacy skill, preferably when the problem PC isn't with the rest of the party (to counter-Diplomacise). Have them ask (very nicely) that the PCs stand down and surrender their weapons, then roll the dice ("Oh; DC40! Looks like you all do it, no save"). Then sit back and watch the show...
Your other players are sure to come up with tons of reasons why results like this are impossible, and appeals to their sense of fairness (Well; I did let Jim do exactly this last week...") will be met with a chorus of "Well Jim's a munchkin dick, and his character's a broken joke!". You then have 4/5 people on your side, to persuade him to retire the character, change focus, or accept that the skill will not be as powerful as he had hoped.
As soon as you assume the position of 'DM vs players', you lose their respect. Far better to give the impression of a kindly, fair DM, who wants to run the rules as written, but "Hey, it's your game too! If you guys want to change the Diplomacy rules, then I'm willing to go along with you..."
When a demon takes interest in a person because of their words, it usually goes something like this.
"Huh. You make a good point mortal. Let me finish slaughtering these other mortals and then we can talk."
In the group I DM there is a swashbuckler in the group with a +25 diplomacy skill, but this character understands that there are some creatures that are just not swayed by words, that is why there are spells such as charm monster if you really want to try and go down that route.
Sure you migh be able to improve a Demons attitude towards you, I would think that would mean he would kill them quickly not toy with them. Demons don't really get friendly with anyone, it is not in their nature. They follow due to fear or power.
The only reason the don't turn on each other all of the time is because many fear each other. A demon lord like Demogorgon wouldn't be swayed by any words, one head would laugh in their face while another would strike him/her dead....
In all of the other situations that make sense, his diplomacy is used to great effect!
A successful Diplomacy check may change the attitude of a creature regarding points raised by the character initiating the Diplomacy check; however, this change in attitude may be short-lived. The spell Charm Person changes a target's attitude to helpful (or friendly, I forget), and this could very well shut out enemies who are not immune to mind-affecting effects. But, attack someone under the effects of your charm person spell, and you certainly can (and should) expect that the effects of the spell are effectively moot.
My suggestion with Diplomacy is that even in combat situations, consider what it is to alter the opponent's attitude. It may be enough to turn a hostile opponent into a helpful one with a successful check, and some enemies (given the multitude of them in the AP) might make for even more interesting encounters if their hostility is quelled; others, however, may only defer from attacking that individual as long as the diplomatic character does not attack him, or aid those attacking him.
Diplomacy is one of the few areas in D&D 3rd Ed where the rules really should defer to common sense. (One of our favorite arguments regarding RAW vs. Common Sense is whether a displacer beast who is grappled still forces foes attacking him to have a 50% miss chance.) One way of offering bonuses/penalties for Diplomacy checks to influence attitude made in combat is to put the PC on the spot to come up with a reasonable argument to dissuade the enemy from attacking them/him, awarding +2 or -2 bonuses/penalties regarding the strength of your player's argument.
Monte Cook did a rewrite on the diplomacy skill a few years back that you might like, I believe it was less complicated than Rich's system.
...a pit trap that only opens for Favored Souls and leads through a portal to the Demiplane of Gelatinous Cubes, wherein your PC is engulfed by the largest most assinine cube ever imagined and killed beyond any means of resurrecting.
Now you've got me thinking. What sort of bizarre symbiotic creatures would be swimming around in the Demiplane of Gelatinous Cubes? Would there be currents, turbulence, or other "weather conditions"?
Diplomacy is ripe for house-ruling. There have already been a few good suggestions; another, off the top of my head, would be to add the target's Will save to the skill DC. (This means that spellcasters would be harder to persuade than warrior-types, which just reinforces the stereotype. This may or may not be a good thing.)
Isn't diplomacy a full minute interaction? How many rounds of standing around talking can a character expect to survive blows from Demogorgon or the bully in the bar?
I suggest taking a closer look on which feats you allow (especially feat combos) in the future. For the non-core stuff I pre-approve one splat book per character (so you can play the tundra dwarf, while you pal plays the duskblade) or have a real good argument to allow various combos.
In one players case this argument usually lasts three character levels, by which time I have given them something else to think about. Wish I would have thought of the demi-jelly plane. O:) My usual bouncer is a half-black dragon troll with a ring of fire resistance.
I like Rich Burlew's system, it's the one we use.
Though it does bear repeating that Curaigh is right, it's a full minute of interaction required, and that means 10 consecutive full-round actions. If you want to do it in a round, it's a -10. If you do it after combat has started it's another -10. That -20 should make it a bit tougher, especially considering that while Diplo man is talking, the monster is chewing on his arm.
Monte Cook did a rewrite on the diplomacy skill a few years back that you might like, I believe it was less complicated than Rich's system.
Do you got a link?
Rich's system does not actually work - not for a player who is really trying. Its slightly harder to use diplo power on very high level creatures but most things ar enot very high level. There is an interesting example he has in the article where the PC offers the King a piece of dirty string in exchange for his castle. Its meant to be a a funny example but I worked out that its not really that hard for a player thats really trying to overcome those modifiers and be in a position convince the king to give up his kingdom for a piece of dirty string.
Beyond that the skill can still easily be abused. I used this example on a another thread regarding this skill. So the bard comes upon the Virgin Princess on her wedding day about to marry Prince Charming who saved her from the Forlorn Tower of Yuckyness- Since she is only 16 years old she's not very high level. Maybe 2nd or 3rd at best. So he diplomacizes her to sleep with him - He offers to "rock her world". If he is a mid level bard putting any real effort into Diplomacy she essentially has no choice no matter what the DM thinks is true or false within her personality or belief system. She must drop her wedding plans so that she can engage in some elicit sex with a stranger potentially destroying everything she has dreamed about and ruining her plans to marry Prince Charming. The is basically no chance she can turn down the offer to "rock her world".
In my experience the best solution is that Diplomacy only comes into play if its written into the adventure. DC X diplomacy skill and you get Y. Otherwise Z occures. Pretty much every other ruling I've seen on it simply breaks. For a character that is really trying its not actually possible to control them - not without making it so normal characters that just sunk a few points into Diplomacy and have just a good charisma like 14 can do anything at all.
I'd bite the bullet right know and basically house rule Diplomacy out of existence. Maybe go with some kind of a 'charisma check' system which can somewhat sway people that are not actually intent one way or the other on a course of action. Really thats what we all want from the diplomacy system - not some way of making it so that dragons give up their hoards but a mechanic to allow one to convince the board guard standing in front of the noble's ball to let us in even if we are not on the guest list. But this character is no good even for this sort of gaming. One wants the odds stacked in the players favour but its not really very interesting gaming if its automatic that all guards will always say yes.
well if Rich Burlew's diplomacy system is as "good" as the one he uses for polymorph... I will pass on it. Because that "system" was the worst 'improvement' I ever saw. he does a great comic, but that's all he does....
Then again, I never had a problem with the "diplomacy" skill, since basically it only affects the attitude of your opposing party (check the skill description in the PHB ) .
And only in a very abstract way - if you have just hacked your way through the king's cherished bodyguard and faithful knights - no way he will agree to your terms, even if he finds your offer charmingly phrased, well presented and respectful... whatever.
Because Diplomacy does not overrule "reason" or "free will" - neither if used against PCs, nor when used the other way round. And situational modifiers like bloodbaths, imbalance of power and emotional state of the parties involved are utterly up to the GM's discretion - both if they allow rolls at all, and to their exact amount.
Take a page from real life - however charming you are, the car salesman is no going to give you the car for free (even if you roll a natural "20" and have maxed skillranks ), is he, however well you sweet-talk him ?
Why ?
Because it is not in his interest or nature ! He may like you, give you a free drink and not even throw you of the premises despite chewing his ears off, but you won't get a/the car for free.
He might consider a rebate, or call you if he finds a sweet deal. But he is not going to shoot himself in the leg due to (abused ) diplomacy rolls..... And neither are VV, Cold Captain Wyther, Iggwilv, Charon, Orcus or Demogorgon, to name a few . And whatever Malcanteth agrees too, best check your limbs and digits afterwards... twice !
Anyway, with major powers, who will readily stab a "friend", even a cherished possession or lover in the heart for personal gain ( like Demogorgon did with Shami Amourae for being "too nosy") without a second thought - there is nothing they will give up that is not utterly to their advantage, even if on "ally" terms.
Because mortals usually don't have anything worth as currency to such beings in the first place, and second, because their egos and selfish nature get in the way.
Currency is the currency of diplomacy, in the end, not hot air.
As for "use as a full round action" - that is a definite caveat, with a limited applicable frame, exemplarized in the skill description, and definitely nothing you could do to actually win someone over in the midst of a bloodbath.
I don't think diplomacy can easily be reduced to a mechanical "he becomes friendly and does whatever you tell him." If you interpret the rules (either PHB or Rich Burlew's or whatever) too simplistically, diplomacy quickly replaces "dominate monster" in value, which is not the concept behind the skill.
Implicit in the PHB version of the skill is the idea that what someone does when "friendly" or "indifferent" depends upon the context. Diplomacy can convince a cranky and crotchetty dwarf-lord to do something that was more or less in his material interest all along when his pride gets in the way of seeing it. No amount of diplomacy can convince a hungry demon to give up its plans to eat you, if it thinks it is powerful enough to do so. Neville Chamberlain had twenty ranks in diplomacy, but it didn't save Czechoslovakia from Hitler. Truman had about ten ranks in diplomacy, but he had a big enough arsenal that Stalin backed off on his attempt to force the US to abandon Berlin.
Your min-maxed PC will probably be able to talk all the big baddies like Orcus and Malcanthet into the best-case scenario noted in Enemies of My Enemy, but they certainly won't have said demon lords eating out of their hands. And their minions won't necessarily be friendly either, because their demonic overlord can do far worse things to them than the PCs can.
Bottom line--diplomacy is always situational, and it doesn't work on confirmed enemies unless they have a good reason to listen to you talk. And diplomacy never takes away an opponent's free will. That's not just a house rule, it's a widely accepted convention.
The point of building a diplomatic character is to make the roleplaying encounters more favorable to the party, not to have trolls and dragons eating out of your hand.
|
Another thing of note. Just because they like you, doesn't mean they wont kill you for your lewt.
And, Players can easily start out Hated.
Or not speaky his language.
Or not care. IE Skellys and other mindless undead.
Turn the tables on him. Have a diplomatic demon role diplomacy on him. Let the players see how rediculous these rules interpritations can be. I've had players try some just stupid stuff that is in accordance with the rules. Invoke rule 0. DM dictates action is retarded, try again Mr. Player.
The truly demonic have no problem turning on their "friends" if it would be to their advantage. When dealing with such "allies", the best one can hope for is the creaure concluding that "he could be useful to me".
Even a godlike Diplomacy check shouldn't be allowed to change things beyond what is reasonable and possible. So Orcus Really, Really likes you? How do you think he will react when you turn down his offer to make you a favored minion?
Most Demon Princes don't like being told "no".
The truly demonic have no problem turning on their "friends" if it would be to their advantage.".
Hehe, my players used some good Suggestion spells last session based on this. First one Demon was confused. Then another demon was suggested that "He's been controlled by magic, better kill him before he kills you." Makes perfect sense for a chaotic evil creature - though I might not always be so lenient.
Monte Cook did a rewrite on the diplomacy skill a few years back that you might like, I believe it was less complicated than Rich's system.Do you got a link?
There you go.
I also make Diplomacy an opposed roll most of time. Of course, I also don't allow the use of the splat books so I don't usually have anyone trying to talk their way out of more than a bar fight. My players seem to know when it's better to buy a round of drinks to forgive and forget and when to move on to the warhammer upside the head.
I also make Diplomacy an opposed roll most of time. Of course, I also don't allow the use of the splat books so I don't usually have anyone trying to talk their way out of more than a bar fight. ...
Yeah but then again, that is a rule from the PHB itself, check the sidebar on Diplomacy in the skill description.....
And opposed rolls might not really be a feasible action if someone/-thing does not have any skill ranks in Diplomacy, but a pretty hostile attitude regarding the characters.
Usually it's not the "splat books" causing game imbalance (but it is popular to blame them ) , but people not actually reading the rules although having opinions on what they are saying. At least in my experience, YMMV
Then again, I never had a problem with the "diplomacy" skill, since basically it only affects the attitude of your opposing party (check the skill description in the PHB ) .
And only in a very abstract way - if you have just hacked your way through the king's cherished bodyguard and faithful knights - no way he will agree to your terms, even if he finds your offer charmingly phrased, well presented and respectful... whatever.
Because Diplomacy does not overrule "reason" or "free will" - neither if used against PCs, nor when used the other way round. And situational modifiers like bloodbaths, imbalance of power and emotional state of the parties involved are utterly up to the GM's discretion - both if they allow rolls at all, and to their exact amount.
Can't be used against PCs (p. 128 DMG).
Anyway I agree with you but the rules don't exactly support this contention. If your hacking up the Kings Body Guard then he's in the category of Hostile. If you make a good diplomacy check he changes categories possibly becoming Friendly. Friendly NPCs chat, advise, offer limited help and advocate. None of which sounds much like trying to kill you.
Really, if one is going to use these dumb tables at all their ought to be two categories of hostile. So hostile that no die roll can change things and some kind of hostile where its possible to change ones opinion. The Ogre out looking for a fight is hostile but not overwhelmingly so. She can probably be bribed into another state of mind without having to bend common sense into a pretzel. On the other hand if you have just killed some ones toddler on purpose then that NPC should not be a possible target for diplomacy. But, as it currently stands, their is just hostile and all hostile NPCs can have their attitude changed. The only real DM refuge is the circumstance bonus - The DM can circumvent the worst abuses of this by applying ungodly circumstance penalties so that its impossible to change an NPC out of hostile.
Another problem with the diplomacy skill is its possible, with a good diplomacy build, to make NPCs Fanatic - they are willing to face overwhelming odds and will readily die for you. The amount of abuse PCs can get up to with this is nearly limitless.
Can't be used against PCs (p. 128 DMG).
I don't exactly see why, except for metagaming (e.g. bad or miserable roleplaying ) reasons, if one is angling (as the initial post did) for concrete choices akin to those by a "suggestion" spell.
Anyway I agree with you but the rules don't exactly support this contention. If your hacking up the Kings Body Guard then he's in the category of Hostile. If you make a good diplomacy check he changes categories possibly becoming Friendly. Friendly NPCs chat, advise, offer limited help and advocate. None of which sounds much like trying to kill you.Really, if one is going to use these dumb tables at all their ought to be two categories of hostile. So hostile that no die roll can change things and some kind of hostile where its possible to change ones opinion. The Ogre out looking for a fight is hostile but not overwhelmingly so. She can probably be bribed into another state of mind without having to bend common sense into a pretzel. On the other hand if you have just killed some ones toddler on purpose then that NPC should not be a possible target for diplomacy. But, as it currently stands, their is just hostile and all hostile NPCs can have their attitude changed. The only real DM refuge is the circumstance bonus - The DM can circumvent the worst abuses of this by applying ungodly circumstance penalties so that its impossible to change an NPC out of hostile....
And herein lies - IMHO the problem with your view of the Diplomacy skill (which does not make it wrong, just causes it to misbehave).
In your view, the target of a diplomacy check functions utterly passive, forgetting its own best interests, events just witnessed, prior knowledge of the players etc. The players simply press buttons (making skill rolls ) and the target complies.It simply becomes a "reaction-vending-machine". And you yourself see this as a non-applicable result if used versus player chracters, because free will is (presumably) subjourned.
Which rests on your (possibly mistaken) assumption that "helpful" or "friendly" means the very same for Asmodeus or a Raging berzerker as they meet for a friendly old granny - regardless of interests, personal power and initial alignment.
If this is the way the cookie crumbles, why haven't the powers of good simply worked their way through the Nine hells and the Abyss with legion of sweet-talking focused diplomats stacking boni, aiding eath other and slowly converting each and every archfiend into a friendly responsible and non-despicable pillar of the community ?
Or vice versa (if I can make you do "good" things, I can make you do the opposite as easily...) ?
What is actually meant by the tables is the way they deal with you - even the vilest tyrants can be charming and polite in the right social surrounding and apperantly even pleasant and gracious, which doesn't change his heart or core values one iota . Just read a biography on Mao or Stalin, for how this orks in real life.
A grumpy old dwarven king despising ousiders and pointy eared elves might still be good and lawful underneath his veneer and can be gotten to behave nicely and helpful.... because he is basically good.
The STAP BBEGs are definitely not. Nor are most other bad guys involved in DnD plots.
And as for "hopstile" being "hostile"... ahem, a "hostile" (lg) dwarven High king may let a diplomatic party approach and even leave his presence alive, because however much he despises them, hostility for him does not include wholesale slaughter of everyone. He might declare war on their people or likewise, but he will follow the tenets of his core belives and attitudes (aka "alignment").
In the case of Abyssal rulers --------> feel free to eat the diplomats, or despoil/tear apart/molest in every imaginable way their rotting corpses. And that is even on neutral or friendly, if not even "helpful", unless the BBEG really fears (and/or needs) their backers, if any.
Plus, that this bears no resemblance at all to the actual use of diplomacy (which one is presumably basing the entire mechanism on ) - however friendly. The times where actual diplomacy stopped the hostile power from acting in its own best interest throughout real history are...... well, one hand will suffice for counting.
And herein lies - IMHO the problem with your view of the Diplomacy skill (which does not make it wrong, just causes it to misbehave).
In your view, the target of a diplomacy check functions utterly passive, forgetting its own best interests, events just witnessed, prior knowledge of the players etc. The players simply press buttons (making skill rolls ) and the target complies.
It simply becomes a "reaction-vending-machine". And you yourself see this as a non-applicable result if used versus player chracters, because free will is (presumably) subjourned.
By RAW thats how the tables are designed. They did not even bother mentioning the idea of a circumstance roll which makes the DMs job a tad trickier because the 'rule of thumb' circumstance bonus/penalty of +/- 2 is not going to be enough and the DM is going to have to rule the circumstance penalty exists outside of the game and varies depending on how good the players diplomacy is. If it requires -20 to make it impossible to change the monsters attitude then the circumstance penalty is -20, if it requires -40 then that becomes the new penalty, whatever it takes to make sure that the player can't use his ability really.
And herein lies - IMHO the problem with your view of the Diplomacy skill (which does not make it wrong, just causes it to misbehave).
In your view, the target of a diplomacy check functions utterly passive, forgetting its own best interests, events just witnessed, prior knowledge of the players etc. The players simply press buttons (making skill rolls ) and the target complies. It simply becomes a "reaction-vending-machine". And you yourself see this as a non-applicable result if used versus player chracters, because free will is (presumably) subjourned.
Its not applicable to the players becuase RAW says its not.
Which rests on your (possibly mistaken) assumption that "helpful" or "friendly" means the very same for Asmodeus or a Raging berzerker as they meet for a friendly old granny - regardless of interests, personal power and initial alignment.
If this is the way the cookie crumbles, why haven't the powers of good simply worked their way through the Nine hells and the Abyss with legion of sweet-talking focused diplomats stacking boni, aiding eath other and slowly converting each and every archfiend into a friendly responsible and non-despicable pillar of the community ?
Or vice versa (if I can make you do "good" things, I can make you do the opposite as easily...) ?
No idea why the forces have good have not done such a thing. There is no question that the tables are broken. That said they give examples of what each state (hostile vs. friendly) means and there is nothing in the table or the description that draws a distinction between a haughty wizard and an archfiend. So far as the tables seem to be concerned their one and the same.
What is actually meant by the tables is the way they deal with you - even the vilest tyrants can be charming and polite in the right social surrounding and apperantly even pleasant and gracious, which doesn't change his heart or core values one iota.
I'm unclear how you support your contention that this is what the tables mean. I see nothing really to that effect in the mechanic. I'd say your house ruling these tables instead of adhering strictly to them. Now these tables desperately need to be house ruled so I got no issue with that but you seem to be arguing that they work spiffy as written and that those that are having problems with this table have simply failed to read the rules carefully enough. That I don't buy - the tables and rules surrounding diplomacy are broken and house ruling them is the only viable way forward.
Just read a biography on Mao or Stalin, for how this orks in real life.
A grumpy old dwarven king despising ousiders and pointy eared elves might still be good and lawful underneath his veneer and can be gotten to behave nicely and helpful.... because he is basically good.The STAP BBEGs are definitely not. Nor are most other bad guys involved in DnD plots.
And as for "hopstile" being "hostile"... ahem, a "hostile" (lg) dwarven High king may let a diplomatic party approach and even leave his presence alive, because however much he despises them, hostility for him does not include wholesale slaughter of everyone. He might declare war on their people or likewise, but he will follow the tenets of his core belives and attitudes (aka "alignment").
In the case of Abyssal rulers --------> feel free to eat the diplomats, or despoil/tear apart/molest in every imaginable way their rotting corpses. And that is even on neutral or friendly, if not even "helpful", unless the BBEG really fears (and/or needs) their backers, if any.Plus, that this bears no resemblance at all to the actual use of diplomacy (which one is presumably basing the entire mechanism on ) - however friendly. The times where actual diplomacy stopped the hostile power from acting in its own best interest throughout real history are...... well, one hand will suffice for counting.
Again I agree but thats not how the mechanic of these tables works. Helpful causes specific reactions given as examples under the Helpful category while Indifferent causes different reactions. I suppose one can hypothesize that a Demons version of Helpful is different from a gruff Dwarves version of helpful but I don't see anything in the mechanic that specifies that helpful demons eat you while helpful dwarven Kings provide bodyguards.
Beyond this even if one decides that the Demons version of Helpful or Friendly is to rip you limb from limb does this not simply open a new can of worms? Presumably then thats always the result of a helpful attitude. All creatures that Demons are helpful toward get torn limb from limb. Of course we don't want that blanket rule to be in effect - especially for STAP so what your really advocating is all Demons act in their best interests. Sometimes Helpful means Helpful and sometimes it actually means Hostile depending on what the DM has decided prior to the player making any kind of a roll.
But if one is making these presumptions why bother with the table at all? One might as well rule that the diplomacy check is irrelevant and the NPC is going to do whatever the DM wants the NPC to do? That really seems to be were your heading with this. Archfiends might help, if you as a DM decide that its in their best interest, and the might decide to rip you limb from limb - if its in their best interest. Once we have gotten to this point is there any real reason why a character ought to put any points in diplomacy at all? Or at least not many - presumably the Demon will help you if its in its best interest and kill you if its in its best interest whether the players diplomacy score is +10 or +54.
If the DM is just going to do whatever they want regardless of the table then I don't think the DM should pretend that they are adhering strictly to the table - its misleading to the players and will, quote rightly, cause arguments if a player goes through the trouble of making a diplomacy build only to find out that what the player believes the table says; Helpful means that the target tries to do nice things for you and what the DM has decided it means; Helpful means whatever I want it to mean, either the demon helps you if I decide thats what it wants to do, or it tries to rip your head off and feast on your brains, if I decide thats what is in the Demons best interest.
for one, the ruiles are guidelines. GMs are explicitly meant to use - and ALTER - them as they see fit in order to faciliate a fun and fair game.
Second, the rules apply both to NPCs and PCs. I picked the example of "forcing" specific reactions onto NPCs, essentially because they do not apply to PCs. Any player would rise in fury at such an interpretation of the rules.
By my book - if it does not work on PCs, it does not work on NPCs either. I do not need the RAW to tell me it doesn't work on players - it wouldn't even if the RAW said it should.
The examples of the tables on page 72 are just that - examples. Nothing more, not an absolute and definite list. Simply examples. Because each and every NPC's attitude and PoV is different, and "possible actions" are only possible outcomes.
And the GM is responsible for bringing the NPCs to life, deciding how their morals and cravings affect their reactions and attitude to player characters. Often enough one GM's BBEG will be significantly different from another GM's, even if they run the same AP, and their idiosyncraties will vary. The same holds true for their choice of "help" "risks" and "advice".
A helpful Iggwilv will definitely be and act somewhat different from a helpful Gwenhyfwar. Even if they have similar interest in the party, both being helpful and both being asked the same thing - because Iggwilv is still chaotic evil and if it serves her interests best to "helpfully" kill some of the PCs (say like a bothersome Paladin, possibly by underhand means ) while richly rewarding others, she will do so. Witness her aiding the PCs only to ultimately try to steal Big D's essence for herself. And even if St. Cuthbert and Iggwilv offer the same piece of true and helpful advice, they might spin it in their very own individual ways - and possibly manipulate PCs by that "twist" alone.
Malcanteth's "kiss" will be helpful ( by her standards ) against Demogorgon, yet also be incredibly selfish and detriminal for the PCs.... It is also explicitly noted as a "evil" deed. But it will be 'helpful'
etc. etc. etc.
Indifferent says it is normal social interaction.
Actually it says "Socially expected interaction", the social expected interaction between a demon and a mortal is it eats you.
The "socially expected interaction" between a pirate and his victim is he robs, you and in this cause you are likely to be left alive.
Even with wild empathy the "socially expected interaction" between a T-Rex and his prey is that he swallows it whole.
If anyone else on the diplomats side is actively engaged in combat then it's fine to rule negotiations aren't even possible, since the person isn't going to listen to argument while being stabbed in the ribs.
