Seduction...how do you like to handle it?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I swear you all are doing it wrong...

Philter of Love + Syringe Spear = Seduction in a can.

I like to call it the 'Cupid Solution' (and yes, that phrase is totally copyrighted, lol). After all, why waste time seducing when magic can do it for ya ;)

Just remeber kids, a succubus isn't the only one who can 'work her magic' to get what she wants :P All it really takes is one little potion and a stick with a needle.


Duskblade wrote:

I swear you all are doing it wrong...

Philter of Love + Syringe Spear = Seduction in a can.

I like to call it the 'Cupid Solution' (and yes, that phrase is totally copyrighted, lol). After all, why waste time seducing when magic can do it for ya ;)

Just remeber kids, a succubus isn't the only one who can 'work her magic' to get what she wants :P All it really takes is one little potion and a stick with a needle.

Thanks for showing me that item, I have got to houserule it to t least allow a save...


Duskblade wrote:

I swear you all are doing it wrong...

Philter of Love + Syringe Spear = Seduction in a can.

I like to call it the 'Cupid Solution' (and yes, that phrase is totally copyrighted, lol). After all, why waste time seducing when magic can do it for ya ;)

Just remeber kids, a succubus isn't the only one who can 'work her magic' to get what she wants :P All it really takes is one little potion and a stick with a needle.

Sounds like the Rohypnol school of rape, sorry seduc..., no sorry rape.


If the seduction is unimportant to the game then it happens, possibly involving a Social roll if the character is particularly unpleasant.

If the seduction is more important then I used to use a system taken from Pendragon. The seduction is split into stages (I used 4) and each must be passed to move to the next stage. The different stages require rolls and PC actions, and I would suggest at least a week go by for each stage. Failure at any stage requires another week and another attempt at a small penalty (-2?). Increase the DCs as each stage is reached, the target's attractiveness/CHA and relative social/financial standing should determine what the DC is. Any roll 5 over the required DC results in a +2 to the following stage's roll, a critical skips the next stage. Any fumble (natural 1) means the relationship is irretrievably over.

For example:

Stage 1. Impress the lady into believing you are worth her time: a thoughtful gift (not just expensive) plus a roll on diplomacy or perform. Imaginative players can substitute another roll (Ride, Handle Animal, Craft and so on). The idea is to become interesting.

Stage 2. Woo the lady, spending time alone with her (but fully clothed!). Some chaste kissing may result, together with trips to the theatre or whatever. This is generally perform or diplomacy as you are trying to be charming. Bluff might work in some situations. Intimidate probably not.

Stage 3. Become intimate with the lady, but not fully-on intimate.... We are talking passionate kisses and fairly explicit love letters. This stage is mostly about convincing her that you are worth pursuing so more gifts are in order. I'd probably go for diplomacy again. Bluff might work at this stage but at a small penalty because you are spending a considerable amount of time together.

Stage 4. Either a proposal of marriage or becoming an established lover, depending on what the aim of the seduction was. A GM might want the target of the PC's affection to request a 'small favour' here. A mini scenario in the making. In any case, more gifts are in order!

Dealing with seduction like this makes it into a small adventure rather than just a sterile roll, and makes the end result worth more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not at all. When we've had such things previously, they've always ended up either:
1. Squicky.
2. Seriously sexist.
3. Silly, in a bad way.
Often all three.

We do have romantic relations sometimes, but mostly between PC's or PC-controlled NPC's (cohorts etc). I as GM don't feel comfortable roleplaying romantic reactions to some quickly-scripted up NPC.

So I just prefer not to deal with it, and most of the people I've played with agree.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

(They may even be killed).

Quote:
Not in a Good-aligned religion.

Without going into this TOO much, fornication and adultery are not in a nation's best interests. There are tons of statistical proof regarding children who lack one or both parents do worse in school, have higher crime rates, etc... (Although there are exceptions to this rule, and not every parent was placed into said position by choice. It's a generalization, but it's true). As fornication and adultery increase, more families are broken up, or are started without two parents, causing higher and higher percentages of children in families without both parents.

As for "not in a good aligned religion", why not? (This is a really, really touchy subject mind you, calling someone's real world faith lawful neutral or lawful evil is not very tactful). As for reasons stated above, does a "good" deity have to have laws that make everyone happy? Or does a "good" deity enact laws that are in the best interests of a nation? I think either can be determined as good, at least according to Pathfinder. In my opinion, however, good for a nation follows a more lawful approach...

This - I just, wow, what?

I mean, REALLY? I know we all want to be respectful of others' beliefs, but is nobody else shocked or disgusted that somebody would make the argument that a good society could approve of killing "fornicators"?

Disproportionate retribution against people who disobey societal norms is textbook lawful evil - I think there is a tacit admission to that in the fact you were so quick to warn posters against trying to put alignments to real world religions. That anybody could hold MURDER as a morally justifiable or even righteous punishment is mind-boggingly unethical. (Worse so if one says any premarital sex is tantamount to adultery.)

Posts like this remind me why religion is definitely best left to the realm of fantasy.

And for the record, societies with more open attitudes about sex and sexuality do fare better. Comparisons between places with progressive attitudes towards sexuality and premarital sex - Sweden, Denmark, etc. - and places with regressive attitudes - the Middle-East, the conservative parts of the US - strongly favor the fornicators.


If a PC wants to seduce an NPC I'll use the relationship rules. I give my players a lot of freedom to do what they want (almost always with repercussions) but the relationship rules are drawn out enough to discourage seduction attempts that generally are only good for a couple of brief laughs from the others at the table and otherwise are only good for flattering one player's ego. Of course, if an NPC wants to seduce a PC, it's entirely up to the PC how they want to react.

Both of the gaming groups I run have a married couple and a single woman in her 'dirty thirties' as players. The couples are too afraid to instigate romantic and sexual liaisons with NPCs while their partners are sitting next to them while the single women don't have the patience for love and just want to get down to the sexy stuff. With one notable exception who spends a lot of time and money with prostitutes, the other four male players are too embarrassed to do anything in the presence of a couple of women.


I'm not going to comment much on the viewpoint introduced by frodoofthe9rings since he is obviously not able to distinguish RL religious/cultural practices and the term: Fantasy Role Playing Game..

(All I'm saying about it is; Killing "fornicators" is a disproportunate punishment and thus placed securely in the L/E department)

In my games we run the gamut, from using 3rd party splatbooks to just using diplomacy/bluff/profession(giggolo/Harlot)/Perform(seduction) or similar skill rolls. The end results (if successful) are fade to black worthy though. No reason to do too explicit sexual RP since it drags on way too long (except if using 3rd party splat books and the campaign revolves around adventures of a more carnal nature (has happened once))

In short, it all depends on the scope and theme of the story we're creating at the table.


Jacob Saltband wrote:

If a players wants to seduce you farmers daughter/son, barmaid/bartender, merchants daughter/son, etc how do you like to handle it? How/what game mechanics do you allow/use for this type of thing? Is it strictly a RP thing in your games?

How about just making friends and contacts?

Mix of RP and Charisma/Diplomacy/maybe Bluff checks (or Reaction % Rolls in AD&D, 2d6 in BX, etc).

IME I normally only ever see seduction in my online games, which are usually AD&D or BX D&D, and it's rarely "love em and leave em", the NPC is more likely adventurer-class and PC/NPC usually end up as a couple who adventure together, or a long term romantic relationship if the NPC is not an adventurer. Off hand I can only recall one short term liaison in the past several years of play. Sometimes it's the NPC who initiates it, and sometimes the PC responds - in one case a good-hearted NPC noble girl, Tabitha Kallent, fell in love with a pretty evil PC, Garrick (he'd killed his previous wife while drunk, and initially planned to murder Tabitha's family so he could become Count of Kallent), and she ended up effectively converting him to Good! Not that she ever knew that, to her he was always her hero, but her love for him and her belief in him turned him around from a faker to the real thing. And I'd say the player fell for her, too. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:

Not at all. When we've had such things previously, they've always ended up either:

1. Squicky.
2. Seriously sexist.
3. Silly, in a bad way.
Often all three.

We do have romantic relations sometimes, but mostly between PC's or PC-controlled NPC's (cohorts etc). I as GM don't feel comfortable roleplaying romantic reactions to some quickly-scripted up NPC.

So I just prefer not to deal with it, and most of the people I've played with agree.

Funny, the one relationship I find squicky is the the PC and Player-controlled NPC cohort, where the two are run by the same player! I believe there's a word for that... >:)

Whereas I'm fine playing love-interest NPCs. They tend to be long term relationships IMCs though. I recently played a male NPC proposing marriage to a female PC, I spoke in-character and that was tough though, but in much the same sense it would be IRL, especially when the player took 20 minutes to give an answer (she said YES!) :D


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:


However, in the past, it was highly frowned upon. When I say frowned upon, I also include that fornicators in the law of Moses were stoned to death. Muslims still have strict rulings in regard to Chasity.

In traditional patriarchal societies (eg Mosaic, ancient Roman, many others) this is something enforced against daughters and against married women by their own birth-families and then by their husbands, possibly with state sanction. It was not something generally applied against widows, or against men. Although a man who had sex with a married woman might sometimes be killed, this was less common - the woman's family might not wish to get into a vendetta with the family of the dead man. Also most societies had a significant class of prostitutes and other unattached women who had left their families and against whom the law was not applied, because it was primarily family law, not state law. If the state intervened at all it would be to prevent, punish, or sanction the actions of the family.

So you could have a fairly traditional society in your fantasy campaign setting, while still having sexually independent female characters, detached from their families. Although they may be regarded as 'loose women', it's unlikely that anyone will try to kill them for fornication.


S'mon wrote:


Funny, the one relationship I find squicky is the the PC and Player-controlled NPC cohort, where the two are run by the same player! I believe there's a word for that... >:)

Yeah that'd seem weird. No, we've mostly had one player character fall in love with another, as well as two cohorts falling in love.


Ilja wrote:
S'mon wrote:


Funny, the one relationship I find squicky is the the PC and Player-controlled NPC cohort, where the two are run by the same player! I believe there's a word for that... >:)
Yeah that'd seem weird. No, we've mostly had one player character fall in love with another, as well as two cohorts falling in love.

Ah, that's be fine then. :)

Don't think I've ever seen intra-PC romance though, except in one Titanic-themed PBEM eighteen years ago where I was one of the players. Can't recall seeing it in a traditional tabletop D&D game ever. Typically the players don't even consider the possibility even if it'd make sense for their PCs, whereas they are happy to fall for NPCs.


I see no reason for this to be anything other than a diplomacy check, unless perhaps not even a diplomacy check but instead just a charisma check. Bringing a bunch of rules into it to complicate it for no reason seems pointless. If they want to RP it out, let that check determine how you play the response

Liberty's Edge

S'mon wrote:

Ah, that's be fine then. :)

Don't think I've ever seen intra-PC romance though, except in one Titanic-themed PBEM eighteen years ago where I was one of the players. Can't recall seeing it in a traditional tabletop D&D game ever. Typically the players don't even consider the possibility even if it'd make sense for their PCs, whereas they are happy to fall for NPCs.

In the LoF game I ran, the party Fighter (male Half-Orc) actually married the party Barbarian (female Human) between chapters 1 and 2. Both players were male, too. It was less awkward than it might sound...rather sweet really, they were both ex-slaves who really enjoyed killing things, so they had quite a bit in common. Good times.

The game sadly ended after Chapter 2, but it was interesting. One player also lost a character and his second one was a Tiefling Rogue who was dating Haleen (for those unfamiliar with LoF, Haleen was the NPC sister of another PC). So...yeah, that game had a surprising amount of romance given the relative isoation of that AP.

Relationships with NPCs are quite common in my games, but between PCs is a lot rarer (though it's happened a few times other than the one above). I like the characters in my games to be fully realized people and that includes things like friends, family, and romantic relationships, so I make sure to include opportunities for such things whenever possible.

I also don't have a particular problem with PC/Cohort relationships, though that may have to do with the fact that in games I've both run and played in cohorts get roleplayed like any other NPC outside of combat (the player does control them during combat...but that's not exactly 'romance time').


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I played out a PC whose NPC cohort was her lover without any problems. The relationship wasn't something that was at the forefront of the RPing, it was just something everyone knew about.

Having a PC seduce his/her NPC cohort in play might be a different matter to starting off with a relationship, I suppose.

Rather more... odd is that my new character will also have an established relationship, but with her Animal Companion. She's a skinwalker werewolf-kin shapeshifting druid/barbarian with enough ploughed into shapechanging (including Beast Totem Raging powers) that I have classified her as a wolf who changes into a human rather than the other way around (I'll have to see what the GM says about subtyping and so on). No, I'm not a Furryphile either! I just thought it an interesting twist on the norm.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


I also don't have a particular problem with PC/Cohort relationships, though that may have to do with the fact that in games I've both run and played in cohorts get roleplayed like any other NPC outside of combat (the player does control them during combat...but that's not exactly 'romance time').

Yes, good stuff - cohorts should be played as proper NPCs. My mistake was running 3e years ago, because Cohorts seemed to be a player-side resource via the Leadership feat, I let the players create & play their cohorts. Big mistake: umpteen beautiful female Clerics, non-speaking!. I'll not do that again; any cohorts will be proper NPCs, recruited in-play from among NPCs actually encountered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Barry White records and a bottle of Night Train.

Seriously, though, off camera. One of my guys wanted me to really go into detail about a night his character was having with a prostitute and I finally offered him $20 to go down the street from the FLGS where they hung out on the corner if he needed to know that badly. He shut up about it, then.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since I got my righteous indignation out of the way (and nice to see I wasn't the only person flabbergasted), I suppose it is only polite to respond to the actual subject of the post.

For seduction, it depends. If it is part of an ongoing plot, it is usually role-played out without too many rolls. In fact, when it comes to story advancement, we try to lay low on the mechanics and let things develop naturally. It has not happened often, but I did once have a very amusing exchange between a Hobgoblin warlord and an incredibly oblivious (7 WIS) Sorcerer PC that played a major role in the final battle.

For throwaway down time or random bar maid/hunk I usually have the character roll a single Diplomacy/Bluff check based on the type of seduction they're playing at.

"I couldn't help but notice you from across the room, and I just knew I had to talk to you." - Diplomacy

"My (REDACTED) is the size of a Pit Fiend and can grant twice as many wishes." - Bluff


Unless it's already an established part of the NPCs character, which it rarely is, I...

[

    *]Roll 1d10 to see if they even have a chance, using the absolute simplest statistics for sexuality (1-6 hetero, 7-9 bi/pan, 10 homo).
  • Do a flat Charisma roll and decide how interested they are based on the number (1 = no chance in hell, 20+ they're really paying attention)
  • Roleplay everything else.

It's never had to get more specific than that. I've only really had Bards even try it, so the low CHA/high STR aspect has never come into play. I imagine, once you've established that the other person is interested, there are ways to sell yourself using any of your ability scores, from telling a phony story (bluff), trying to look smart (knowledge), bragging about all the fights you've won (any physical) or even just impressing them with magic.


How do you handle seduction? You handle it well I hope! :P In all seriousness though, I have no problem with it being included in my campaigns.

I have several resources on the subject, but unless the seduction carries a tangible benefit, I usually just treat it as roleplaying. Now, if it carried tangible benefits, such as benefits of being married to a ruler, seducing a shopkeeper for a discounts, or 'rolling in the hay' with a succubus to reduce the cost of her services, THEN I would use rule.

For 'love' based seductions, PCs use CHA skills, sans Intimidate for obvious reasons, and get bonuses from performing deeds for their would-be lover and for giving gifts. It is also modified by the NPCs attitude towards them.

As for 'lust' based seductions, these are a combination of STR, DEX, and CHA modifiers, added to whatever social skill they use (Sans Intimidate! A PC tries to rape someone and they go on 'the list', which is to say, the 'GM decides a meteor made out of adamantine falls on you for being a freaking creep, don't even bother looking at your AC or HP' list!), modified by a table rolled on what the NPC finds attractive, with each match sporting varying amounts of bonuses.

Or you know, everyone could be a Drow and automatically succeed! Seriously, has anyone noticed how there have been very little Drow shown in a NON-SEDUCTIVE manner? :P


Seduction is a jumble of different things, specifically two. The first is when your goal of the endeavour is to simply get into the other's pants. The second is when you want to get something else through getting someone into bed, whether directly, through a promise, through blackmail, or some other way.

Both would probably use the same mechanisms, though I could see the case for making the first off Diplomacy and the second off Bluff.

As a result of the second, the guard may disregard you and your friends passing him by, the merchant might tell you something vital, the judge could deliver a lenient sentence, or the like. The point is, the person KNOWS it's a bad idea, but they could agree anyway if you manage your dice well. It's certainly an open question how long such a promise is worth anything.

You could even have two people trying to seduce one another, with the winner ending up with whatever the conflict concerns, once the horizontal tango has passed. It's a complex area and a good change of pace from combat.


I home-brewed something disillusioningly (not a word) similar to Necropunk's social interaction system for just those sort of encounters, Sis.

Lantern Lodge

EntrerisShadow wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

(They may even be killed).

Quote:
Not in a Good-aligned religion.

Without going into this TOO much, fornication and adultery are not in a nation's best interests. There are tons of statistical proof regarding children who lack one or both parents do worse in school, have higher crime rates, etc... (Although there are exceptions to this rule, and not every parent was placed into said position by choice. It's a generalization, but it's true). As fornication and adultery increase, more families are broken up, or are started without two parents, causing higher and higher percentages of children in families without both parents.

As for "not in a good aligned religion", why not? (This is a really, really touchy subject mind you, calling someone's real world faith lawful neutral or lawful evil is not very tactful). As for reasons stated above, does a "good" deity have to have laws that make everyone happy? Or does a "good" deity enact laws that are in the best interests of a nation? I think either can be determined as good, at least according to Pathfinder. In my opinion, however, good for a nation follows a more lawful approach...

This - I just, wow, what?

I mean, REALLY? I know we all want to be respectful of others' beliefs, but is nobody else shocked or disgusted that somebody would make the argument that a good society could approve of killing "fornicators"?

Disproportionate retribution against people who disobey societal norms is textbook lawful evil - I think there is a tacit admission to that in the fact you were so quick to warn posters against trying to put alignments to real world religions. That anybody could hold MURDER as a morally justifiable or even righteous punishment is mind-boggingly unethical. (Worse so if one says any premarital sex is tantamount to adultery.)

Posts like this remind me why religion is definitely best left to the realm of fantasy.

And for the record, societies with more open attitudes about sex and societies with more open attitudes about sex and sexuality do fare better. Comparisons between places with progressive attitudes towards sexuality and premarital sex - Sweden, Denmark, etc. - and places with regressive attitudes - the Middle-East, the conservative parts of the US - strongly favor the fornicators.

Not going to say much, as this does stray from the topic, though I do feel I have a right to explain myself, and not be labeled as "that guy who thinks this absurd thing".

I began simply talking about how some real world religions have severely punished violations of Chasity, and how that would affect the mindset of people. I related this because Pathfinder does get a lot of it's atmosphere from the real world.

Then, people began discussing how that killing people because of fornication was not part of a "good aligned religion". I was defending several real world religions with my post (any religion that believes the God of the Old Testament).

So, please don't get all flabbergasted, or filled with "righteous indignation" against comments defending faiths. I give religions the benefit of the doubt, and say to myself that they believe in a higher reason for why things like this are done. I try not to be short sighted either, perhaps it doesn't make sense because all I know is this life, but maybe the law was because of something that'll happen after this life or because of something that happened before.

Lantern Lodge

By the way, do you have any evidence that societies do better BECAUSE they have more open attitudes about sex? I'd really like to see it, but all I get when I search for related statistics is things like "more single parent families" and "decreasing population because of low birth rates". I didn't know either of those were good for nations...


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
By the way, do you have any evidence that societies do better BECAUSE they have more open attitudes about sex? I'd really like to see it, but all I get when I search for related statistics is things like "more single parent families" and "decreasing population because of low birth rates". I didn't know either of those were good for nations...

I can't find any links for you, but assuming more open attitudes correlates with use of contraceptives, then a major advantage is a reduction of maternal mortality in childbirth.

Basically, the more pregnancies a woman has already had (and probably the closer they are together) the higher the risks of a fatality during pregnancy and birth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree that most in game sexuality should be "off camera". Sometimes we'll give a subtle hint about just how the succubus gets the soul out of the body, but it is strictly for humorous purposes.

@Frodo - As mentioned previously, please consider the lesson of "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". Misrepresenting Christianity hardly amounts to "defending" it. Stoning people to death for adultery or fornication is barbaric and unacceptable.


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

Is it wrong that my answer to the thread title is "hey, if I'm handling 'it', rather than the seductee, I'm clearly doing something wrong"?

Lantern Lodge

So there are both positives and negatives to it, but to say that the prosperity of these nations is because of their open view of sex is a far fetched statement. Any statement like that (Such as our Nation's current downfall is because of X, Y and Z) has to have a lot of evidence.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't misrepresenting Christianity, if the Old Testament is true, then the same God who said, in effect, that fornicators be put to death also later said what you did. Unless a Christian faith says that the Old Testament is false, then those two beings are one in the same (Ignoring the different beliefs regarding the trinity at the moment).

Do Christians believe in stoning people now? No, they just believe in a God, who at one point, commanded such. I can't speak for Jews, but I do know that they will stone your car if you drive it on Saturdays (in certain parts of Isreal).

If saying that Christians believe in the Old Testament God is misrepresenting them, then I apologize.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
By the way, do you have any evidence that societies do better BECAUSE they have more open attitudes about sex? I'd really like to see it, but all I get when I search for related statistics is things like "more single parent families" and "decreasing population because of low birth rates". I didn't know either of those were good for nations...

How about lower rape rates? That's a positive.

And what about the bit of marrying your rapist? She's ruined goods now, only her rapist will accept her.

Or, consider: My wife grew up in one of those sex-only-in-marriage-for-life type societies. When she first came here she was horrified at the bed-hopping she saw. However, over time she's come to see that relationships didn't really last any better in her culture, it's just that when things fell apart the couple would maintain appearances. That doesn't bring happiness for the people involved.

Or what we see here: Sex-only-in-marriage religious groups tend to marry young and thus actually have a higher divorce rate than those who are more open about sex.

Lantern Lodge

Loren Pechtel wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
By the way, do you have any evidence that societies do better BECAUSE they have more open attitudes about sex? I'd really like to see it, but all I get when I search for related statistics is things like "more single parent families" and "decreasing population because of low birth rates". I didn't know either of those were good for nations...
How about lower rape rates? That's a positive.

Statistic please?

Loren Pechtel wrote:
And what about the bit of marrying your rapist? She's ruined goods now, only her rapist will accept her.

Really? I have many friends from societies with strong emphasis on Chasity, who married so called "damaged goods". If you loved the girl, wouldn't you be ok with whatever condition she's in, especially if it wasn't her own choice?

Loren Pechtel wrote:
Or, consider: My wife grew up in one of those sex-only-in-marriage-for-life type societies. When she first came here she was horrified at the bed-hopping she saw. However, over time she's come to see that relationships didn't really last any better in her culture, it's just that when things fell apart the couple would maintain appearances. That doesn't bring happiness for the people involved.

There are exceptions to every rule. Many people born in the worst of circumstances, where statistically they very likely to have a certain lifestyle, but rather become something else entirely. Your wife had a bad experience, but that's only one case. Any statistics?

Loren Pechtel wrote:
Or what we see here: Sex-only-in-marriage religious groups tend to marry young and thus actually have a higher divorce rate than those who are more open about sex.

Easy counter example: Mormons. One Study

Overall Divorce Rates


Sadurian wrote:

If the seduction is unimportant to the game then it happens, possibly involving a Social roll if the character is particularly unpleasant.

If the seduction is more important then I used to use a system taken from Pendragon. The seduction is split into stages (I used 4) and each must be passed to move to the next stage. The different stages require rolls and PC actions, and I would suggest at least a week go by for each stage. Failure at any stage requires another week and another attempt at a small penalty (-2?). Increase the DCs as each stage is reached, the target's attractiveness/CHA and relative social/financial standing should determine what the DC is. Any roll 5 over the required DC results in a +2 to the following stage's roll, a critical skips the next stage. Any fumble (natural 1) means the relationship is irretrievably over.

For example:

Stage 1. Impress the lady into believing you are worth her time: a thoughtful gift (not just expensive) plus a roll on diplomacy or perform. Imaginative players can substitute another roll (Ride, Handle Animal, Craft and so on). The idea is to become interesting.

Stage 2. Woo the lady, spending time alone with her (but fully clothed!). Some chaste kissing may result, together with trips to the theatre or whatever. This is generally perform or diplomacy as you are trying to be charming. Bluff might work in some situations. Intimidate probably not.

Stage 3. Become intimate with the lady, but not fully-on intimate.... We are talking passionate kisses and fairly explicit love letters. This stage is mostly about convincing her that you are worth pursuing so more gifts are in order. I'd probably go for diplomacy again. Bluff might work at this stage but at a small penalty because you are spending a considerable amount of time together.

Stage 4. Either a proposal of marriage or becoming an established lover, depending on what the aim of the seduction was. A GM might want the target of the PC's affection to request a 'small favour' here. A mini scenario in...

OK, that is how women handle it.

For the guys it's, "I ask the barmaid if she wants to step out behind the tavern and discuss 'The nomenclature of pole arms'."
GM flips coin...


I did say that unimportant seductions just happened (with or without a single Social roll). The more detailed version is for more important seductions such as when a PC wants to get intimate with (or marry) an important NPC and the consequence is potent within the game.

Liberty's Edge

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
By the way, do you have any evidence that societies do better BECAUSE they have more open attitudes about sex? I'd really like to see it, but all I get when I search for related statistics is things like "more single parent families" and "decreasing population because of low birth rates". I didn't know either of those were good for nations...

Lower birth rates actually seem to be linked to higher standards of living rather than sexual freedoms. All first world countries have much lower birth rates than, say, third world countries, regardless of the sexual moralities of the places. In poor countries, large numbers of children are needed both because some may not survive, because they can work in the family business, and so they can take care of the parents in old age. In short, economic needs. In first world countries, given schooling costs, the opportunity costs in taking care of them, and the lack of those economic advantages mentioned above, having children is actually economically disadvantageous, so it happens less (especially among lower income families). This appears to be the major reason for declining birth rates in, say, the U.S. I don't have statistics on me, and I'm tired, but I'll try and find you something within the next few days.

Additionally, I'd hesitate to say a declining birth rate is necessarily a bad thing. Not too long ago we were seriously worried about overpopulation, but that worry appears to not be a factor long term if we can just arrange to raise the world standard of living. Low and high birth rates both have potential advantages and disadvantages, which you want depends on circumstances (we want a higher one right now for several reasons, but that doesn't mean you always want a higher one).

Now a strong religious emphasis on large families (Mormons are a good example) counter this tendency (because religions, all religions, can make people do irrational things), but that's an entirely different societal attitude from sex negativity.

And I'll repeat: Kids do better with one happy parent than two unhappy ones. I doubt if most of the divorces that 'don't happen' in more sexually repressive cultures leave the people forced to stay together happy. So...again, a higher number of one-parent families, while unfortunate, isn't necessarily worse for the children than unhappy people being forced to stay together due to societal pressure.

Lantern Lodge

@Deadmanwalking: I agree with you, though I wonder if there's more reason why lower income families have less children... Actually, after looking through another study, it seems that it is the higher income groups that have less children. This study is based on information from the social security system. Though it could be that those upper end families simply have both parents working, increasing their income.

Mormons are great examples of children bearers. Reminds me of a joke I heard from a friend: "Hey jake, why do you Mormons like to have so many children?" "We don't, we just like to have lots of [other word for procreate]". Anyways, I'd want to add Catholics to that list :P, though I wonder if it's really a irrational thing to do... I know many people find joy in their families, it's what brings them their happiness (Including me, I must say).

I wonder though, how much of an issue was overpopulation going to be? I never really did much research on that bit to be honest. I've heard of the movement, I understand the basic concepts, but I never saw any numbers or anything along with it. Was it all just a scare? (as a weird side note, aren't white people expected to become a minority in the US by 2020?)

I completely agree with you on the child part. Though I believe it also depends on how "unhappy" those two parents are. For instance, my parents were considering divorce very seriously. But they decided to "stay together for the kids". They ended up working through it, and after a couple years were happy again (And years after that they met a counselor who helped them become very, very happy).

But anyways, this whole tangent just leads to the idea that there could be a good reason why previous cultures used capitol punishment for fornicators. I didn't mean for all of this to detract from the original post so much. What I should have said, is that that statement could be offensive to some religious people, and left it at that. I apologize guys!

Liberty's Edge

Using the standard Diplomacy rules. Someone single or otherwise open on general principle to the idea is neutral, while someone married and monogamous would be unfriendly or even hostile (other options - vows of celibacy, for instance - are covered similarly) with some characters in the "just no" category as the story demands. Typically, "go to bed with me" is "dangerous aid," but that can vary based on other factors as well. For most people who are married (i.e., reasonably happy and with the presumption of monogamy), "aid that could result in punishment" is where that stands.


Profession courtesan is a Wis based check although in this case i might give a bonus for Cha.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
By the way, do you have any evidence that societies do better BECAUSE they have more open attitudes about sex? I'd really like to see it, but all I get when I search for related statistics is things like "more single parent families" and "decreasing population because of low birth rates". I didn't know either of those were good for nations...

Let's start with a direct comparison of the United States with The Netherlands.

Across the board, the Netherlands has lower rates of STI's, abortion, and teen pregnancy. The Dutch are known for having incredibly liberal attitudes towards sexuality - abortion is accessible and federally funded, prostitution is legal and treated like any other profession - in fact, in general, the concept of treating sex as shameful or taboo is rather foreign. Teenagers are expected to have sex and teenage partners sleeping over is no cause for alarm.

Not coincidentally, The Netherlands also has a lower divorce rate.

In fact, if you look at the best countries to live in ranked by Life Expectancy, GDP per capita, lack of corruption, general life satisfaction among citizenry, etc. - the list is consistently populated by countries who inherited enlightenment ideals and have liberal attitudes toward sex. Australia, Denmark, the aforementioned Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Canada, et al.

To be clear, it was YOU who made an assertion when you indicated in your post a lament that we, as a society, are having issues because we do not hold to Biblical sexual ideals.

Quote:
Nowadays, fornication is a fairly common thing, and marriage is almost like a used tissue thrown into the trash (Very sad generation we live in). Today's society doesn't much pressure on "staying true" and "stay pure"

While it's true that one cannot say any one thing is responsible for the welfare of a country, the facts bear out that having a repressive attitude toward sexuality is unnecessary for a vibrant and happy society. Enforcing mores meant to establish very strict rules, control women's sexuality and demonize homosexuality serve no beneficial purpose.

(As a semi-related aside, the notion of "purity" is probably the most perverse sentiment I can personally imagine. I find it disgusting that we are still raising young women with the notion that they can be reduced to what happens with their vagina. As if having sex somehow creates a stain on her soul that trumps everything else about who she is as a person. How unbearably genitally obsessed and misogynistic.)

But ultimately to the original point, real world religions can push mysterious ways or 'higher reasons' all the want - especially in Pathfinder rules, evil is evil is evil. I, of course, am of the opinion that there's really no excuse for the more disgusting tenets of religion when we can easily find contemporary philosophers and writers espousing far more ethically sound ideas. But while we can debate shifting real world definitions of good, in Golarion there is an objective good and an objective evil. If you're performing human sacrifice or murdering fornicators in Pathfinder, the religion is evil. You can't really claim 'mysterious ways' when the gods plainly interact with mortals.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
By the way, do you have any evidence that societies do better BECAUSE they have more open attitudes about sex? I'd really like to see it, but all I get when I search for related statistics is things like "more single parent families" and "decreasing population because of low birth rates". I didn't know either of those were good for nations...
How about lower rape rates? That's a positive.
Statistic please?

We don't have a good yardstick for open attitudes about sex. We do have a reasonable proxy, though--porn. The more porn in society the lower the rape rate.

Quote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:
And what about the bit of marrying your rapist? She's ruined goods now, only her rapist will accept her.
Really? I have many friends from societies with strong emphasis on Chasity, who married so called "damaged goods". If you loved the girl, wouldn't you be ok with whatever condition she's in, especially if it wasn't her own choice?

Someone who was already in a relationship with her, probably. The issue is whether she can attract a new partner.

Quote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:
Or, consider: My wife grew up in one of those sex-only-in-marriage-for-life type societies. When she first came here she was horrified at the bed-hopping she saw. However, over time she's come to see that relationships didn't really last any better in her culture, it's just that when things fell apart the couple would maintain appearances. That doesn't bring happiness for the people involved.
There are exceptions to every rule. Many people born in the worst of circumstances, where statistically they very likely to have a certain lifestyle, but rather become something else entirely. Your wife had a bad experience, but that's only one case. Any statistics?

Huh? I didn't say my wife had a bad experience. I said that she came to see that the "good" results were an illusion.

Quote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:
Or what we see here: Sex-only-in-marriage religious groups tend to marry young and thus actually have a higher divorce rate than those who are more open about sex.

Easy counter example: Mormons. One Study

Overall Divorce Rates

Because the women there don't really have much choice.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
S'mon wrote:
Don't think I've ever seen intra-PC romance though, except in one Titanic-themed PBEM eighteen years ago where I was one of the players. Can't recall seeing it in a traditional tabletop D&D game ever. Typically the players don't even consider the possibility even if it'd make sense for their PCs, whereas they are happy to fall for NPCs.

We had one intra-party romance in my college RPG group which slowly built up over the course of the campaign and culminated in the female rogue getting down on one knee and proposing to the male paladin. One of the coolest bits of role-playing I've seen -- the entire group broke into cheers and applause all around. (This was all in-character romance only, btw. The female player was dating the GM and the male player was happily married.)

However...

The male player came very close to never showing up again. When he went home that night, he told his wife "I think I have to find a new set of friends." Because his read of the situation, once he was out of the moment, was that we had all been mocking him. (In reality we were just giddy.) Fortunately, his wife convinced him otherwise, but it was a close thing. So this is not a dynamic to put into a game lightly.

But seriously, I've gamed with professional actors, and that whole arc was still the coolest RPing I've ever seen personally.

51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Seduction...how do you like to handle it? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion