How I handle diplomacy checks in my games

[SangoProduction]

I saw a forum thread: "The limits of diplomacy" where the situation was basically "Oh, I walk up to him and roll a 52 for diplomacy."
Well, there's your problem. You didn't even do any role playing. You didn't even describe what the hell you wanted to get out of the diplomacy. The only way I could really see just rolling being good is if the character is going off someplace for an extended amount of time, and you aren't worried about the details (perhaps on a date with some stranger for the night).

So, here I am, with how I handle social-interaction checks. First, you actually say what you intend for your character to say/do. Then you roll. The roll only acts as a sort of modifier to what you say. It's the flourish you put on your words, or how you bungle them.
For instance, an NPC has an item that you want.
For diplomacy, say you said something along the lines of "That trophy is a lost relic of my house, please return it." (obviously with more of a talk than just that, but this is an example) A high roll would indicate that you made yourself seem even more sympathetic, and the NPC would likely part with it for little to no compensation. Whereas a low roll would indicate you made yourself look like an easy mark, and this item is something you would pay well for. In both cases, how the NPC would react would depend on the NPC's need/want of the item, and general personality.

And, I do have an effective 'cap' on the potential effectiveness of the roll, dependent on what's actually been said. If all you said was "where is the restroom?" then at best they are going to lead you to it, not hand over their life's savings, even if you roll a 52. And if you are breaking into someone's house, and they are the violent type, unless you make a good case to them in a sentence or 2, it doesn't matter what you roll (including the rushed modifier), they aren't going to listen.

[OldTrees1]

So, here I am, with how I handle social-interaction checks. First, you actually say what you intend for your character to say/do. Then you roll. The roll only acts as a sort of modifier to what you say. It's the flourish you put on your words, or how you bungle them.

Modifier implies that you take IC social skill + OOC social skill = check result. I am unsure if that is what you meant.

Personally I would suggest having the IC social skill determine the magnitude of the check while what was actually said determined the direction of the check. I have a feeling this is closer to what you meant.



Also I don't think you need to call that a "cap" on effectiveness. It is merely a case of "better than good enough is still good enough" which has less negative connotations than "cap".

[Geddy2112]

I agree wholeheartedly, and I play this way as a player/DM. Taking a complex social encounter or puzzle and reducing it down to a dice roll takes the point out of the encounter. It also de facto makes certain players the "face" as the party bard/rogue/sorcerer just rolls through the encounter, and the Wizard/druid/monk/I dumped charisma people are forced to sit quietly in the corner. I don't think it is very fun when your character only gets to play the parts of the game they are mechanically good at. Now, its certainly going to be easier for cha based classes to tell taller tales and recruit friends, but the poor fighter should still be able to make an impassioned plea to a king, and the wizard should not have to bring the rogue shopping to ensure he can negotiate. In my current group, the party alchemist is very sociable but has no ranks in diplomacy and a 10 in charisma. He talks more than the bloodrager who has an amazing intimidate, but is fairly stoic and level headed. The party paladin has diplomacy through the roof, but the rest of the group does not live in fear of talking with NPC's without him present. On the flip side, the paladin and bloodrager still do their thing when it comes to showing force or talking down a rabble. Players should play to their strengths, but not be afraid to play their mechanically weaker aspects, particularly when it comes to social skills.

I normally don't just let players roll any social skill, your dice roll comes after what you have said, and even a 100 on a diplomacy roll won't turn a minor request into an ally. For a lot of things, good roleplaying alone will succeed in the check. Normally after x amount of banter, the player either asks for a roll or the DM offers one, based on the nature of the request. And rolling high/low does not mean that you sucked or fumbled your words-sometimes they are just not listening to what you say, and sometimes you just happen to catch people on a good day.

[Flickerdart]

Taking a complex social encounter or puzzle and reducing it down to a dice roll takes the point out of the encounter.
Then don't? It's up to the DM to design encounters that can't be beaten by a single check, whether it's Diplomacy or Knowledge or Climb.


It also de facto makes certain players the "face" as the party bard/rogue/sorcerer just rolls through the encounter, and the Wizard/druid/monk/I dumped charisma people are forced to sit quietly in the corner.
It makes certain characters the face. If you let someone's RL charm count in-game, you run into the problem you indicate, where players become the face - and unlike characters, in the next game, those players will still be the face.

[prufock]

How I do it:

1. The player says what his character says.
2. I apply circumstance modifiers depending on the player's speech. Usually there is no modifier here, but if he's particularly eloquent or well-reasoned, I'll give him a +2. If he fumbles greatly over his words or says something that would anger the target, I'll give a -2. Situational modifiers may also apply. I tell the player his modifier.
3. The player rolls a diplomacy check to see how well the target perceives his words.
4. The NPC's attitude changes depending on the check, and lasts until something changes it.

There are times when I rule that they are actually negotiating, and roll an opposed check. If the PC is not being entirely sincere, I'll roll a sense motive so that the NPC gets a "hunch," in which case, see #2 above.

[Grooke]

While I agree rolls should not dictate a whole social interaction, Flickerdart is right about player/character distinction. A charismatic player shouldn't be automatic face, and a non-charismatic player shouldn't be barred from being one.


How I do it:

1. The player says what his character says.
2. I apply circumstance modifiers depending on the player's speech. Usually there is no modifier here, but if he's particularly eloquent or well-reasoned, I'll give him a +2. If he fumbles greatly over his words or says something that would anger the target, I'll give a -2. Situational modifiers may also apply. I tell the player his modifier.


This penalizes players who aren't good at what they want their characters to be good at. My immediate thought here is a shy player (with a stutter for added dramatic effect) who really wants to play a party face bard, but keeps getting penalties because he fumbles IRL.

Its like asking an un-athletic guy playing a monk to throw a high-kick IRL, and applying a penalty if it isn't executed properly.

I'm not saying the principle is inherently wrong, but care must be taken to ensure fairness, and especially allowing players to play what they want to be, not what they are.

[Brookshw]

Yup, I handle diplomacy roughly the same as the OP as I'm reading it though for clarities sake the roll is how well the character delivers the message/whatever.

From what I gather in a lot of these threads it sounds like people perceive the actual roleplay as acting as the modifiers on the roll/dc. I don't believe that's what anyone's actually proposed though and suspect this whole topic gets dragged into pointless debate thanks to the wonderful medium of conversation that we call the internet.

[mashlagoo1982]

I have the player clarify what they are trying to accomplish with their Diplomacy roll.

If they roll BEFORE I fully understand, that roll is ignored and a new roll will be made after an explanation has been provided.

There are times where an explanation isn't necessary when character intent is obvious.

Example with obvious intent.
DM: There is a guard at the town gate investigating all people entering.
Player: I use Diplomacy to speak with the guard.
DM: Please roll a Diplomacy check.

It is pretty obvious the intent of the player is to make it past the guard and into the town.


Example without obvious intent.
DM: A guard is approaching your location (where character did something against the law).
Player: I use Diplomacy to speak with the guard.
DM: What are you planning on doing? You could try to bribe the guard or convince them to just go away amoung other things.
Player: *Clarifies and decides to try bribe*
DM: Please roll a Diplomacy check.


If the player wants to speak for their character that is fine, but it is optional. The validity of the argument may boost or hinder the player's position and thus either decrease or increase the DC.


If a player wants to sway the opinion of a NPC that is fine, I still eventually need to know what the player wants the NPC to do. Sometimes the action may not be valid.

Example of swaying disposition and valid request.
DM: A guard is approaching your location (where character did something against the law).
Player: I approach the guard away from the crime and use Diplomacy to improve the guard's disposition toward me.
DM: Please make a Diplomacy check.
Player: *rolls Helpful*
DM: The guard is feeling Helpful toward you. What did you want to to ask of the guard to be Helpful?
Player: Please carry this message to my friend at such-and-such Inn. It is very important and private (assuming this is true there are no Bluff checks).
DM: *The guard turns around and walks off in the direction of the inn.*


Invalid request.
Player: *rolls Helpful*
DM: The guard is feeling Helpful toward you. What did you want to to ask of the guard to be Helpful?
Player: Please help me hide the body of this person I just murdered.
DM: *The guard raises an alarm and draws his sword to defend himself until support arrives (the guard just realized the law was broken).*


EDIT: So for me, Diplomacy is what the character would say. But I still need to know what the words are trying to accomplish.

[Hrugner]

I just let it go honestly, if the target will given ten minutes(or a full round) that is. If someone throws that much into making a diplomacy check they get the whole slew of debunked pseudo science tied up in brainwashing, neurolinguistic programming and seduction. I'll role play it out so they realize they are manipulating someone into doing something they really don't want to do; and using diplomacy to convince someone to do something they would actively not do is often treated as evil. Creating fanatics is always evil.

I don't think my house rules would really work well outside my group though.

Now my group uses pathfinder though, which limits mood improvements to 1 or 2 levels which makes it less of a problem.

[Flickerdart]

using diplomacy to convince someone to do something they would actively not do is often treated as evil.
Convincing people is evil? Try not to let paladins close to them there debate halls Jimmy, they'll go on a rampage!

[nyjastul69]

I ask the player what the character wants to accomplish. The player then rolls the dice. The character is either successful or not. I don't expect the players playing martial characters to be proficient with swords. I don't expect a player playing a charismatic character to be proficient with words. There are dice in the game for a reason.

[Brookshw]

Convincing people is evil? Try not to let paladins close to them there debate halls Jimmy, they'll go on a rampage!

Is it time for another Sanctify the Wicked brainwashing debate already?

[Crake]

It's worth noting that diplomacy is all about influencing someone's attitude, not necessarily getting them to something in particular. That bit comes later, when they've become your friend.

Think of diplomacy as saying "Can't we all just be friends?" to the bandits who are attacking you, and the bandits deciding that, yeah, you're not so bad, ok, they won't rob you. Hell if you get them to helpful, the might give you the route that will be quickest, with the least likelihood of getting held up again. They won't however hand over their life savings if you ask, due to their alignment, and asking such a thing may likely reduce their attitude toward you, simply for asking something so brazen.

The way I've always run diplomacy is making someone like you, as opposed to how everyone else seems to do it, which is making someone do something. Whether someone will do something for me depends entirely on how much they like you, and their own personal ethics and morals. There gets a point where a request becomes unreasonable, despite how much someone likes you. Asking a mizer for money wont get you anywhere, no matter how much he likes you.

[MukkTB]

mashlagoo1982 has a pretty good system. You don't want to penalize someone who isn't eloquent out of game, but you do want to have npc interaction be more than just rolling a number.

[Hrugner]

Convincing people is evil? Try not to let paladins close to them there debate halls Jimmy, they'll go on a rampage!

Yes, it's absurd if you remove the requirement that it be an action that they would actively not take otherwise.

[mashlagoo1982]

mashlagoo1982 has a pretty good system. You don't want to penalize someone who isn't eloquent out of game, but you do want to have npc interaction be more than just rolling a number.

Thank you. I encourage the rp portion of rpg. But, I also understand that our real life counterparts don't have the skills to match our PCs.

From a simply logical stand point, I can't always tell what a player is trying to accomplish when they want to make a check.
That is why a roll without additional information (as appeared to be part of the issue in the other thread) doesn't always work.

I don't know if I would have had a paladin behave in the same manner.
If so, I would have outright stated that such an action was impossible to the player and that there are indeed rules to support that (impossible and practically impossible) as well as explained those rules.

[Flickerdart]

Yes, it's absurd if you remove the requirement that it be an action that they would actively not take otherwise.
If you wanted to vote for Jimmy Candidate and I convinced you to instead vote for Johnny Incumbent, I convinced you to take an action you would otherwise not take. Am I evil?

[thethird]

If you wanted to vote for Jimmy Candidate and I convinced you to instead vote for Johnny Incumbent, I convinced you to take an action you would otherwise not take. Am I evil?

Trick question, you are evil for promoting voting.

[prufock]

This penalizes players who aren't good at what they want their characters to be good at. My immediate thought here is a shy player (with a stutter for added dramatic effect) who really wants to play a party face bard, but keeps getting penalties because he fumbles IRL.
Yes, though a simple stutter or shyness isn't worth a penalty. It's more like if the player intends to say "We killed the king" when he means to say "We killed the kingpin." Or, for a more dramatic example, "I tell the guard that I killed his family and laughed as they perished" - (rolls diplomacy) - 35!"


Its like asking an un-athletic guy playing a monk to throw a high-kick IRL, and applying a penalty if it isn't executed properly.
It's more like a player making a poor tactical combat decision when his character is supposed to be a seasoned warrior.

[Killer Angel]

How I do it:

1. The player says what his character says.
2. I apply circumstance modifiers depending on the player's speech. Usually there is no modifier here, but if he's particularly eloquent or well-reasoned, I'll give him a +2. If he fumbles greatly over his words or says something that would anger the target, I'll give a -2. Situational modifiers may also apply. I tell the player his modifier.




This penalizes players who aren't good at what they want their characters to be good at. My immediate thought here is a shy player (with a stutter for added dramatic effect) who really wants to play a party face bard, but keeps getting penalties because he fumbles IRL.

While i tend to agree with Grooke, it must be said that +2 / -2 isn't that great. It's the kind of modifier you can have also in combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm), if you're able (or not) to exploit the landscape.
If a player is not versed in tactic and wants to play a melee expert, he will be somehow penalized because he's not good as his character.

[Hrugner]

If you wanted to vote for Jimmy Candidate and I convinced you to instead vote for Johnny Incumbent, I convinced you to take an action you would otherwise not take. Am I evil?

"actively not take" and "not otherwise take" are also not the same thing. A better analogy would be convincing someone that changing their vote to the opposition would be better for the candidate they support.

[Killer Angel]

And if you are breaking into someone's house, and they are the violent type, unless you make a good case to them in a sentence or 2, it doesn't matter what you roll (including the rushed modifier), they aren't going to listen.

Ah, the rushed modifier.
I've never really understood it. Especially when you're dealing with hostile or unfriendly beings.
you need to stop their reaction right now, and diplomacy is a slow art. If you're trying to be not killed in 6 seconds, IMO what you're effectively doing is a bluff... you gain time to use diplomacy.

I don't mind if players use diplomacy with rushed checks, but it baffles me.

[Flickerdart]

"actively not take" and "not otherwise take" are also not the same thing. A better analogy would be convincing someone that changing their vote to the opposition would be better for the candidate they support.
A small child actively avoids vegetables because they taste yucky. I convince the child that he should eat his veggies to grow big and strong. Am I evil?

[dascarletm]

A small child actively avoids vegetables because they taste yucky. I convince the child that he should eat his veggies to grow big and strong. Am I evil?

Yes, you monster.

[Hrugner]

A small child actively avoids vegetables because they taste yucky. I convince the child that he should eat his veggies to grow big and strong. Am I evil?

I'm not entirely sure discussing child development is a good way to spend our time here, and I'm pretty sure we'll be outside of the site's expectations if we do so for too long. However, by convincing the child to eat the vegetables without thought, rather than teaching the kid the value of the vegetables and hoping that sways his decision, you are training the child to be subordinate; training a pet rather than raising a child. So, I'd say it's close enough to evil to satisfy the needs of a D&D game.

[Ettina]

I'm not entirely sure discussing child development is a good way to spend our time here, and I'm pretty sure we'll be outside of the site's expectations if we do so for too long. However, by convincing the child to eat the vegetables without thought, rather than teaching the kid the value of the vegetables and hoping that sways his decision, you are training the child to be subordinate; training a pet rather than raising a child. So, I'd say it's close enough to evil to satisfy the needs of a D&D game.


using diplomacy to convince someone to do something they would actively not do is often treated as evil.

No mention of how you convince them, and yet now you're saying how you convince them matters?

Anyway, Diplomacy is not charm person. You're not taking away their free will. You're just talking with them, presenting arguments of some sort to convince them to do what you want.

For the child eating veggies example:

'Eat your veggies because they're good for you, and you'll grow up big and strong' would be a Diplomacy roll.

'If you eat your veggies, your mommy would be proud of you' would be a Diplomacy roll.

'Eat your veggies or I'll give you a smack' would be an Intimidate check instead of a Diplomacy roll.

Also keep in mind that Diplomacy is not Bluff. If you're lying, it should be a Bluff check, not a Diplomacy check. So, Diplomacy is saying things you honestly believe in an attempt to convince another person to see things your way. How is that evil?

[squiggit]

I'm not entirely sure discussing child development is a good way to spend our time here, and I'm pretty sure we'll be outside of the site's expectations if we do so for too long. However, by convincing the child to eat the vegetables without thought, rather than teaching the kid the value of the vegetables and hoping that sways his decision, you are training the child to be subordinate; training a pet rather than raising a child. So, I'd say it's close enough to evil to satisfy the needs of a D&D game.

subordination is law/chaos, not good/evil.

[Elbeyon]

A small child actively avoids vegetables because they taste yucky. I convince the child that he should eat his veggies to grow big and strong. Am I evil?

[...]close enough[...]:smallbiggrin::smallamused: Ah, man that cracked me up. Watch out for the kids paladins! Tell them not to play in the street and you will fall. Man, I'm glad modern dnd got rid of alignment for the most part. :smallamused: I'm going to miss these alignment arguments one day.

[Brookshw]

Diplomacy is not Bluff. If you're lying, it should be a Bluff check, not a Diplomacy check. So, Diplomacy is saying things you honestly believe in an attempt to convince another person to see things your way. How is that evil?

So if I tell a kid to eat food I've poisoned because "mommy and daddy will never have to worry about feeding you again", its a diplomacy check and definitely not evil right? :smalltongue:

[Hrugner]

No mention of how you convince them, and yet now you're saying how you convince them matters?

Anyway, Diplomacy is not charm person. You're not taking away their free will. You're just talking with them, presenting arguments of some sort to convince them to do what you want.

For the child eating veggies example:

'Eat your veggies because they're good for you, and you'll grow up big and strong' would be a Diplomacy roll.

'If you eat your veggies, your mommy would be proud of you' would be a Diplomacy roll.

'Eat your veggies or I'll give you a smack' would be an Intimidate check instead of a Diplomacy roll.

Also keep in mind that Diplomacy is not Bluff. If you're lying, it should be a Bluff check, not a Diplomacy check. So, Diplomacy is saying things you honestly believe in an attempt to convince another person to see things your way. How is that evil?

I'd treat it as multiple diplomacy rolls, the first to convince them that their desires can be satisfied by taking some action, in this case eating the vegetables. Then the second one to make them act on and adopt the new activity, actually eating the vegetables. Honestly, only 20 minutes of debate with a child to get them to eat something they don't want to eat seems really generous here.

Replacing the first social with a bluff or an intimidate is of course an option that would speed things up and change the morality of the action itself. Using diplomacy to just fast talk someone into doing something without them being on board seems evil enough for play.

Remember, we aren't talking kids into eating things in the general course of play, and that isn't something that leverages 50+ diplomacy check which is the context of the conversation here. We're talking about getting guards to leave their post, enemies to give up sensitive information, knights to abandon their king, and a whole slew of other things.

[Hrugner]

:smallbiggrin::smallamused: [...]kids [...] play in the street [...]

yes, I see what you're saying here

[Elbeyon]

I'm glad. Hopefully, you see how what a ridiculous idea it is now. Wait! Did I just commit an evil act? Dang it! Noooo.

[Flickerdart]

Remember, we aren't talking kids into eating things in the general course of play, and that isn't something that leverages 50+ diplomacy check which is the context of the conversation here. We're talking about getting guards to leave their post, enemies to give up sensitive information, knights to abandon their king, and a whole slew of other things.
All the acts you listed are Chaotic, not Evil. Getting knights to abandon an Evil king would be a Good act, even.

[Hrugner]

All the acts you listed are Chaotic, not Evil. Getting knights to abandon an Evil king would be a Good act, even.

I would say you are encouraging chaotic acts, but that convincing people to act against their own convictions is evil.

[Elbeyon]

What if their convictions are rape and pillaging?

[Flickerdart]

I would say you are encouraging chaotic acts, but that convincing people to act against their own convictions is evil.

From the SRD:

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Meanwhile,

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Nope, definitely chaotic. Unless you're going to stand here and tell me that something like haggling or bribery is oppressing someone?

[Hrugner]

Nope, definitely chaotic. Unless you're going to stand here and tell me that something like haggling or bribery is oppressing someone?

Again, looking at making 50+ checks to manipulate someone. We aren't talking about haggling at that point, people would probably just give you stuff. At that point you are certainly oppressing someone.

[Hrugner]

What if their convictions are rape and pillaging?

Yes, at that point the general rule breaks down.

[OldTrees1]

Again, looking at making 50+ checks to manipulate someone. We aren't talking about haggling at that point, people would probably just give you stuff. At that point you are certainly oppressing someone.

I agree with you but you would need to spend more time on that claim before it would be convincing. Maybe something like this:


Imagine I am superhumanly convincing and we both know it. We both know that I can get you to do anything I want regardless of what you wanted initially. We both know that what you want, heh, doesn't matter now that I am here and can dictate what you will do. In fact, let's skip the pretense, you just do as I command when I command and forget about your own hopes, desires, and opinions.

Wouldn't that be oppressive?

[Flickerdart]

Again, looking at making 50+ checks to manipulate someone. We aren't talking about haggling at that point, people would probably just give you stuff. At that point you are certainly oppressing someone.
Being so much better at negotiating than the other guy that you make them agree to something they didn't want to agree to is just as evil as being so much better at blackjack than the other guy that you win his money. The degree of how much better you are is irrelevant.

[NichG]

The proper term for this alignment is 'slimy'.

The used-car salesman, the telemarketter who sells you an upgraded phone package when you were calling for tech support, the spammer who actually manages to get you to buy their product, the manager at work who somehow manages to convince you to time and time again accept an increased workload that isn't your responsibility under your contract and with no actual reward materializing.

[Killer Angel]

Also keep in mind that Diplomacy is not Bluff. If you're lying, it should be a Bluff check, not a Diplomacy check. So, Diplomacy is saying things you honestly believe in an attempt to convince another person to see things your way. How is that evil?

Do you really think that a diplomat believes honestly in what he tells? :smallamused:

[Roog]

Help, I'm being oppressed!

Someone needs to smite the lot of you - I see attempted persuasion everywhere I look.

[mashlagoo1982]

Do you really think that a diplomat believes honestly in what he tells? :smallamused:

For a Bluff check to not be required, what is being said to use Diplomacy MUST be true (if the player specifies anything).

If a person wants to lie while making a Diplomacy check, they must also make a Bluff check.

[Hrugner]

The proper term for this alignment is 'slimy'.

The used-car salesman, the telemarketter who sells you an upgraded phone package when you were calling for tech support, the spammer who actually manages to get you to buy their product, the manager at work who somehow manages to convince you to time and time again accept an increased workload that isn't your responsibility under your contract and with no actual reward materializing.

I think I like this solution a bit better than mine, thanks. Which side does it go on though. Is it "chaotic slimy" or "slimy evil" Can you be "true slimy"?

[Killer Angel]

For a Bluff check to not be required, what is being said to use Diplomacy MUST be true (if the player specifies anything).
.

:smallconfused:
diplomacy is the ability to give others the right impression of yourself, to negotiate and influence others.
And given that bluff gives you a +2, I don't see why you cannot lie.

[NichG]

:smallconfused:
diplomacy is the ability to give others the right impression of yourself, to negotiate and influence others.
And given that bluff gives you a +2, I don't see why you cannot lie.

The point is simply that lying and detection of lies both have specific rules, rules which use the Bluff skill and not the Diplomacy skill. Just because you're lying as part of an attempt at Diplomacy does not mean that that lie is protected from being resolved as a lie in the system, which permits the other party a Sense Motive versus your Bluff. The consequences of having that lie detected can easily change how the Diplomacy check would be resolved (because the other party becomes Hostile, or because they cut off communication, or circumstance modifiers, or whatever).

[Killer Angel]

The point is simply that lying and detection of lies both have specific rules, rules which use the Bluff skill and not the Diplomacy skill. Just because you're lying as part of an attempt at Diplomacy does not mean that that lie is protected from being resolved as a lie in the system, which permits the other party a Sense Motive versus your Bluff. The consequences of having that lie detected can easily change how the Diplomacy check would be resolved (because the other party becomes Hostile, or because they cut off communication, or circumstance modifiers, or whatever).

Ah, OK.
Well, I see the point, but (given that it's not covered by the rules), it must be handled by the DM and house rules.
You can lie with a diplomacy check (the skill's description doesn't say you cannot), but you're at risk of sense motive / detect lies, and so on.

[Flickerdart]

Technically, being caught lying doesn't sabotage your Diplomacy check at all. :smalltongue:

[NichG]

Ah, OK.
Well, I see the point, but (given that it's not covered by the rules), it must be handled by the DM and house rules.
You can lie with a diplomacy check (the skill's description doesn't say you cannot), but you're at risk of sense motive / detect lies, and so on.

The thing is, it doesn't even have to be a house rule. Aside from places where the rules specifically override this, the DM chooses the actions that NPCs take just as the players choose the actions their PCs take. So if the NPC decides to stand up and walk out of the room before the PCs' Diplomacy check completes, that's completely within RAW. The result of Bluff vs Sense Motive is likely to impact on that choice.

[Ettina]

So if I tell a kid to eat food I've poisoned because "mommy and daddy will never have to worry about feeding you again", its a diplomacy check and definitely not evil right? :smalltongue:

Lying by omission still requires a Bluff check.

Also, I never said Diplomacy can't be evil, just that it's not inherently evil. If you use it for an evil purpose, you are committing an evil act. Just like you could use a knife to cut your food or to stab a baby. Using a knife isn't evil, stabbing a baby is.

[atemu1234]

I'd treat it as multiple diplomacy rolls, the first to convince them that their desires can be satisfied by taking some action, in this case eating the vegetables. Then the second one to make them act on and adopt the new activity, actually eating the vegetables. Honestly, only 20 minutes of debate with a child to get them to eat something they don't want to eat seems really generous here.

Replacing the first social with a bluff or an intimidate is of course an option that would speed things up and change the morality of the action itself. Using diplomacy to just fast talk someone into doing something without them being on board seems evil enough for play.

Remember, we aren't talking kids into eating things in the general course of play, and that isn't something that leverages 50+ diplomacy check which is the context of the conversation here. We're talking about getting guards to leave their post, enemies to give up sensitive information, knights to abandon their king, and a whole slew of other things.

Someone has never tried convincing a child of anything before...

[Ettina]

Someone has never tried convincing a child of anything before...

It would certainly have a high DC.

[atemu1234]

It would certainly have a high DC.

It would most definitely be practically impossible.

[mashlagoo1982]

The point is simply that lying and detection of lies both have specific rules, rules which use the Bluff skill and not the Diplomacy skill. Just because you're lying as part of an attempt at Diplomacy does not mean that that lie is protected from being resolved as a lie in the system, which permits the other party a Sense Motive versus your Bluff. The consequences of having that lie detected can easily change how the Diplomacy check would be resolved (because the other party becomes Hostile, or because they cut off communication, or circumstance modifiers, or whatever).

This is the way I play and I believe the rules support it.

Some examples that may occur in a game I run.

Setup:
DM: A guard is approaching your location (where character did something against the law).
Player: I approach the guard away from the crime and use Diplomacy to improve the guard's disposition toward me.
DM: Please make a Diplomacy check.
Player: *rolls Helpful*
DM: The guard is feeling Helpful toward you. What did you want to to ask of the guard to be Helpful?
Player: Please carry this message to my friend at such-and-such Inn. It is very important and private.
DM: That is a lie. I need you to make a Bluff vs Sense Motive check.

If the player succeeds the check, the scenario would continue as previously listed.
DM: *The guard turns around and walks off in the direction of the inn.*

If the player loses the check, the outcome could be drastically different.
DM: *The guard notices your nervous behavior.* Is something wrong? Do you have something you want to tell me?

Alternatively, the player could even decide not to provide the conversation context (request to carry message to friend). If that is the case, they could simply ask what they want the guard to do and I may or may not make it an additional Diplomacy check.
DM: The guard is feeling Helpful toward you. What did you want to to ask of the guard to be Helpful?
Player: I want to guard to go away.
DM: Please make a Diplomacy check.
Player: *rolls success*
DM: *The guard walks off in the direction he arrived and leaves the area.*
In this scenario, the player provided no conversation. The only requirement was intent.

[Hrugner]

Someone has never tried convincing a child of anything before...

I have a few kids and do fairly well convincing them to do things, or to accept what I'm saying is true. Maybe I'm being too modest in my estimation of my own skill in diplomacy.

Either that or I use GURPS in real life and rely entirely on fast-talk instead.