NPC seducing/other a Player Character

[DukeGurren]

ok, this may be somewhere but after a few hours of looking around on the inter webs, I can't find an actual ruling for this subject.

The context of my plight is that I plan to have an NPC seduce a PC with a dice roll, however i do typically believe in allowing the player to make what they will about most social interactions.

So, I wanted to know what the consensus is or if there are actually rules for these things somewhere where the diplomacy rolls are coming from the NPCs to influence the PCs or not.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Diplomacy does not affect PCs.

Seduction is hard to do mechanically. You're going to have to roleplay it out. If that is too creepy, don't do it at the table. Make a deal with the player beforehand. Ask them: "I want to do plot thing XYZ, what do you think, want to play along?".

[Geddy2112]

Second that diplomacy does not affect PC's.

Overall, you should be very cautious with this kind of thing. Planned seduction sounds like a red flag to me-as a player, I would not take that kind of thing very well. That is my 2 coppers, you know your players and table so if that is the kind of thing they like go for it.

As far as execution, you normally don't need to go much further than "it is clear the (insert NPC name/race/class/occupation) is into you in that way. What do you do?" If the player is digging it, they will let you know, if not, they can walk away. Really all diplomatic encounters can go this way. Sometimes players don't realize what an NPC wants or is asking, and there is nothing wrong with just outright saying "The queen would like your assistance against the goblins in the north, and will pay you handsomly" or whatever the heck the NPC wants.

[Zanos]

Thirding that diplomacy doesn't effect PCs.

Also adding that building an NPC to seduce a PC and boiling it down to a dice roll has never played out well at any table I've ever been at, and I probably wouldn't respond to it well as a player.

[Malimar]

By RAW, the above commenters are wrong. (Not that Diplomacy doesn't work on PCs, that much is true; wrong that it's a function of Diplomacy at all.)

The 3.0 Sword and Fist (of all sources) gives seduction (or at least, being seductive to gain something other than bangin' from the target) as a use of the Bluff skill, which is a skill that does work on PCs.

(Just because I'm a masochist, I also checked for you what the 3rd party Book of Erotic Fantasy has to say, and it also puts seduction -- real seduction this time, with intent of bangin' -- as a use of the Bluff skill, too.)

But that is of course extremely silly. It should be Diplomacy (especially by the Giant's superior rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2), which function around one-time "deals" rather than long-term Attitude). ...which, yes, doesn't work on PCs.

So by best-practices play, the above commenters are of course correct.


EDIT: In practice, when seduction does come up, I usually actually boil it down to a die roll from the target (usually a d%, perhaps modified in some way by the seducer's Charisma and the target's tendency to chastity or lustfulness) to determine how receptive the target is to the seducer's advances. This better reflects where all the power actually lies in this situation. By this practice, too, your NPC has no power to seduce the PC if the PC isn't into it.

[flappeercraft]

Fourthing the Diplomacy on PCs thing

I honestly wouldn't mind the seduction plan but I definitely would recommend not making it a dice roll dependent thing.

[Nifft]

ok, this may be somewhere but after a few hours of looking around on the inter webs, I can't find an actual ruling for this subject.

The context of my plight is that I plan to have an NPC seduce a PC with a dice roll, however i do typically believe in allowing the player to make what they will about most social interactions.

So, I wanted to know what the consensus is or if there are actually rules for these things somewhere where the diplomacy rolls are coming from the NPCs to influence the PCs or not.

DM: "Hey, player-name. This NPC named NPC-name apparently thinks your PC is attractive, and the NPC is making obvious romantic and/or sexual overtures. Is NPC-name also attractive to PC-name? Does PC-name want to reciprocate?"


In my games, things like this only happen to a PC with the player's full, informed permission.

[Mordaedil]

You set a DC and you ask the player to make a Sense Motive check against that DC.

Success tells them that the NPC seeks their affection and failure tells them that the NPC seems to seek their affection.

As a DM you shouldn't be concerned with rolling against the PC's, just provide the PC's barriers to be overcome.

[Crake]

Second that diplomacy does not affect PC's.

Overall, you should be very cautious with this kind of thing. Planned seduction sounds like a red flag to me-as a player, I would not take that kind of thing very well. That is my 2 coppers, you know your players and table so if that is the kind of thing they like go for it.

As far as execution, you normally don't need to go much further than "it is clear the (insert NPC name/race/class/occupation) is into you in that way. What do you do?" If the player is digging it, they will let you know, if not, they can walk away. Really all diplomatic encounters can go this way. Sometimes players don't realize what an NPC wants or is asking, and there is nothing wrong with just outright saying "The queen would like your assistance against the goblins in the north, and will pay you handsomly" or whatever the heck the NPC wants.

I'm guessing what you mean by that is the planned success, aka railroading, right? Not that a villain might have planned ahead of time to seduce a character because it would be beneficial to him and an acceptable choice of action for him, right? You'd be fine with the latter?

What I want to know is what is the goal of this seduction? Is it a long term thing to infiltrate the party? Is it a short term thing to separate the player from the group to ambush him? What's going on here? Coaxing someone away for a night is far easier than gaining their trust and having them spill their secrets, and would involve very different methods.

[Geddy2112]

I'm guessing what you mean by that is the planned success, aka railroading, right? Not that a villain might have planned ahead of time to seduce a character because it would be beneficial to him and an acceptable choice of action for him, right? You'd be fine with the latter?
Yes, but even a planned attempt as far as an event that WILL happen regardless of what the party does is a bit railroady for my taste. If the party is going to approach the villain X, and the villan's defense will be seduction, sure. But if the party goes somewhere else and the villain appears suddenly and starts seducing PC's, that's a bit much.

[Amon Winterfall]

ok, this may be somewhere but after a few hours of looking around on the inter webs, I can't find an actual ruling for this subject.

The context of my plight is that I plan to have an NPC seduce a PC with a dice roll, however i do typically believe in allowing the player to make what they will about most social interactions.

So, I wanted to know what the consensus is or if there are actually rules for these things somewhere where the diplomacy rolls are coming from the NPCs to influence the PCs or not.

Player Agency is paramount for anything beyond a short term save or suck/die sorts of combat, there aren't going to be rules on it. But I think the Idea has merit.

Here's how I'd model it:

Bedding a desirable romantic partner is clearly a positive experience and should be worth XP. Think carefully about this, but I'd generally throw at least a token XP award for that achievement.

Seduction can backfire, where the seducer can be turned. This is the James Bond school of thinking, but like James Bond, the PC probably is not some random guy off the street, and may be good enough to counter-seduce the seductress.

Finally, let's be clear, it's a too obvious trap on its own. There are a lot of counters that would actually be furthered by going forward.

--

Be fair to the player. The choice is theirs to make, but give the PLAYER legitimate reasons why this isn't a "No Way No How" sort of situation. If they accept, they may advance through clever play--it's simply with fair knowledge of the risks. If they reject the gambit, well, whoever tried this will probably never try it on that PC ever again.

[Crake]

Yes, but even a planned attempt as far as an event that WILL happen regardless of what the party does is a bit railroady for my taste. If the party is going to approach the villain X, and the villan's defense will be seduction, sure. But if the party goes somewhere else and the villain appears suddenly and starts seducing PC's, that's a bit much.

That would certainly be odd. I'm giving OP the benefit of the doubt in that the players are already meddling in the villain's affairs and this is his method of.... something? Learning more about them, dividing them from the inside, who knows, it hasn't been specified.

[Nifft]

Player Agency is paramount for anything beyond a short term save or suck

In the context of a discussion about magically enforced seduction, I find some dark humor in the term "save or suck".

[Jay R]

Many players will have different reactions than I do, and that's fine. But this is my gut reaction:

If you force a sexual encounter on my PC against my will, I will walk out of your game forever - and maybe out of your life.

Maybe I'm reacting too strongly. I don't care. This is my actual reaction, and that's what you asked for.

[Crake]

Many players will have different reactions than I do, and that's fine. But this is my gut reaction:

If you force a sexual encounter on my PC against my will, I will walk out of your game forever - and maybe out of your life.

Maybe I'm reacting too strongly. I don't care. This is my actual reaction, and that's what you asked for.

Except nobody asked your reaction? The OP asked for ways to do it in the rules.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Yes, but even a planned attempt as far as an event that WILL happen regardless of what the party does is a bit railroady for my taste. If the party is going to approach the villain X, and the villan's defense will be seduction, sure. But if the party goes somewhere else and the villain appears suddenly and starts seducing PC's, that's a bit much.
Murder, kidnapping, plotting to conquer the world? Perfectly okay behavior for a villain. But stalking a PC? That's a bit much.

[Darth Ultron]

ok, this may be somewhere but after a few hours of looking around on the inter webs, I can't find an actual ruling for this subject.

The context of my plight is that I plan to have an NPC seduce a PC with a dice roll, however i do typically believe in allowing the player to make what they will about most social interactions.

So, I wanted to know what the consensus is or if there are actually rules for these things somewhere where the diplomacy rolls are coming from the NPCs to influence the PCs or not.

There are no rules for such things.

And, in general, you want to avoid ''seduction''.

[Akisa]

Murder, kidnapping, plotting to conquer the world? Perfectly okay behavior for a villain. But stalking a PC? That's a bit much.

**** better not run Aldern Foxglove than...

[Mordaedil]

Many players will have different reactions than I do, and that's fine. But this is my gut reaction:

If you force a sexual encounter on my PC against my will, I will walk out of your game forever - and maybe out of your life.

Maybe I'm reacting too strongly. I don't care. This is my actual reaction, and that's what you asked for.

While agree, I don't really lump seduction immediately into the same category as sexual encounters. I imagined it was flirting, hugs and at most a kiss before anything shaggy going on.

That is bound to be uncomfortable for everyone around the table.