The Myth of Force of Personality (Plus Diplomacy Houserules!)

[Dan_Hemmens]

On another thread, people have been strongly arguing that a player should be able to use their social-fu on other PCs, effectively allowing the player to dictate how other people should roleplay their character.

This seems to be justified in terms of a nebulous concept called "force of personality".

People seem to believe that the act of altering a person's beliefs is roughly equivalent to a wrestling match. If you say one thing, and I say another, we will fight about it (in the social sense) until such a time as your greater "force of personality" overwhelms me, and I decide to agree with you.

People seem to take this as axiomatic despite the fact that it is obviously complete nonsense.

I have never, never, never seen anybody actually have their mind changed by a forceful argument. I have seen people latch onto a forceful argument to confirm beliefs they already had. I have seen people who have found a forceful argument validated or clarified their beliefs, and of course lost, vulnerable, directionless people can be manipulated into adopting the beliefs of charismatic individuals, but "force of personality" never actually changes anybody's mind. Ever.

The evidence for this is fantastically easy to find. Look at the most charismatic people in history, the great public speakers, the incredible leaders. Guess what: they had enemies. Not just big enemies, little enemies, tiny petty enemies who don't have the charisma of a watermelon. When Martin Luther King stood up and said "I have a dream" I guarantee you that thousands of died in the wool racists listened to him and remained racists. Thousands of people listen to charismatic preachers every day and hang on their every word, but those people already want to believe. Send a skeptical atheist to a revival meeting and they're more likely to get angry than to get religion. Does that mean they have an iron will? Of course not, it just means that charismatic talk, on its own, doesn't convince anybody of anything they don't already believe.

So where does that leave our Diplomancers? Exactly where they are now. Against NPCs it does no harm whatsoever for the PC to make a roll and win the NPC over. Part of what the roll represents in this case is whether the NPCs is susceptible to persuasion on this particular issue (just like when you make a Knowledge roll, you aren't rolling to see if you can remember this thing right now, you're rolling to see if you ever actually learned this particular bit of information). Against a PC, however, all the random factors go away. If your Cleric tries to convince my Barbarian to worship his god, then you have to damned well convince me of it in character because we're talking about actual character development here and you can't just dice roll it. Social interactions between PCs are by definition roleplaying, they're not just a strategic clash between two people with different resource sets. I don't care if you have Charisma 27 and I have Wisdom 3, I'm going to make my roleplaying decisions based on my character's personality, not on the farcical, fatuous and unsupportable notion that a "strong" personality will automatically dominate a "weak" one.

The title of this thread promised houserules, because it is a bit of a shame that a high-diplomacy character gets nothing in PC-on-PC interactions. My proposed houserule is this: if you successfully make a Diplomacy check against another PC, you may ask the other player, out of character "what would it take to convince your character of this?" and expect them to answer honestly. This gives the diplomat and advantage which they can leverage, but does not override the other player's right to control his character's personality.

[Crow]

Good read, and not a bad housrule.

*bump*

[Newtkeeper]

Myself, I have had (minor) tenets of belief altered by logic. Most of them relate to minor details of RPG rulesets, and none of them changed my life, but they themselves changed.

And yes, the most charismatic speakers had enemies. But, by and large, they were enemies with a preexisting reason to hate the speaker ("I have believed all my life that your race is inferior" has got to be, in D20 terms, a fair sized penalty on the diplomacy rolls)*. And people have changed views based on rhetoric- in reality, but especially in the 'cinematic fantasy' DnD strives to emulate. The speaker who brings the light of truth to all with open ears is as valid an archetype as the warrior who brings stabbity death to all who oppose him.

However:
I would not advocate using the diplomacy skill against PCs. It may be realistic. It may make for good narration. But taking free will away from the player (with no save) is no fun for him. And, in the end, we all play for fun. Taking that fun away is wrong~bad.


*GURPS, my favored RPG, handles these prexisting hatreds with 'Intolerance quirks', which, amoung other things, will provide a hefty penalty on any reaction roll (the GURPs equivalent of the diplomacy roll) from a given source.

[theMycon]

Let me preface this with "a simple die roll" is a bad idea. The actual argument someone is using (in the real world) should be what does it. The die roll is because this is a fantasy, and we don't suddenly become as charming as our characters once we start playing them.

It is very hard to put it into concrete numbers- if you, the person, thinks "hey, that idea makes some sense, but I'm not sold," then the comparative scores (Diplo/bluff* Vs. Sense Motive**, or straight charisma Vs will) should be thought about- then it becomes a debate on number crunching I really don't care about. If the argument's completely against your character or totally unconvincing, throw the numbers out.

With that said, here's why your argument fails-


I have never, never, never seen anybody actually have their mind changed by a forceful argument. ... "force of personality" never actually changes anybody's mind. Ever.
No-one's ever convinced you you'd rather have Chinese for lunch instead of Mexican? Convinced you to have a salad instead of a cheeseburger "because it's better for you?" Made you watch a movie you didn't want to see, by making you think it was a better idea than whatever you were going to do, or just making up reasons why it is better, and it takes long enough to find the holes in his/her argument that you've already committed yourself? You've never seen it done?

If you say "yes", you're perfectly normal. You're just conflating change of scale with change of subject. There're folk charismatic enough in this world to convince folk to try Heroin or do other suicidally stupid things they don't want to- and they don't have decades of training or experience in diplomancy.

If you say, "yes, but that was just a matter of opinion for a little while," or "yes, but I wondered why five minutes later.." That's exactly what the players are trying to do, and what you're saying is impossible.

If you say "no, but I stopped objecting & went along anyway," that's the mechanic I tried to model above.

If you say, "No, flat-out", I'd wonder if you've ever met another human being.



The evidence for this is fantastically easy to find. Look at the most charismatic people in history, the great public speakers, the incredible leaders. Guess what: they had enemies. Not just big enemies, little enemies, tiny petty enemies who don't have the charisma of a watermelon. When Martin Luther King stood up and said "I have a dream" I guarantee you that thousands of died in the wool racists listened to him and remained racists. Thousands of people listen to charismatic preachers every day and hang on their every word, but those people already want to believe. Send a skeptical atheist to a revival meeting and they're more likely to get angry than to get religion. Does that mean they have an iron will? Of course not, it just means that charismatic talk, on its own, doesn't convince anybody of anything they don't already believe.


Common logical fallacy. You're saying "Some A are not B, therefore A implies not B." In less formal wording, "because a charismatic person can't convince everyone flawlessly, no person (no matter how charismatic they are) has ever convinced anyone of anything." I don't think I can make the problem here any clearer than that.

*Which is more appropriate, not which the player prefers. I count prevarications as bluffs.
**Yes, for both. Before this board, I didn't know there were people who didn't use Sense Motive against diplomacy. Everyone I've played with saw immediately "he's convincing me of something not for my benefit, I should wonder why."

[Zocelot]

A houserule that I find works very well for diplomacy is that the player will say something in character, and then I assign a DC based on how well they diplomized.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Here we have a sticky subject...

As theMycon said, force of personality does play a major part in diplomatic relations. Just look at the political system of any representative government (and I am *NOT* going to get into politics here, suffice to say that any representative government has people in office who won that position by force of personality rather than any talent that individual may have at performing the job at hand).

However,

By allowing a dice roll to affect how players interact, you can make some players literally puppets of other players, ruining their fun. Suppose you have a Diplomancer with an insane bluff/diplomacy check. Unless someone has a similarly insane Sense Motive check, he could effectively move the other players around as he sees fit, with sufficent Diplomacy/Bluff rolls. In other words, why have the other players around the table, when he's the only one playing any of the characters? This is not fair to the other characters, even if it is fairly realistically representative of what might actually happen when you have a very charismatic person leading multiple individuals.

Therefore,

What we have here is reality of the game vs playablity and enjoyment of the other players. In this case, reality must take a back seat to the enjoyment of the players, therefore I would not allow any player to effectively run any other player's character by simply making sufficently difficult bluff/diplomacy checks. Now then, I might allow a 'double blind' if a dishonest character wished to try to sneak some extra loot behind the other characters' backs, of course, he might get caught, which will be dealt with by the party. I'm a big fan of "GM's should leave party interaction to the party". Of course, I'm generally also of the opinion that arguing loudly in hostile territory is likely to attract unwanted attention, and arguing does not make for very observant individuals...

[Lord Tataraus]

As theMycon said, your argument is invalid and I know this simply because I am living proof. I do not have a very strong conviction and I have one particularly charismatic friend. This guy is amazingly charismatic otherwise he wouldn't have any friends, one of those types who is such an ass, but you for some reason go allow with it. There have been a number of instances where I suddenly think to myself, why the heck am I doing this? Purely because my friend talked me into it.

So, I believe that either a) you have very strong conviction or b) you've never actually met someone (on a neutral basis) who is very charismatic. Now I say on a neutral basis as in, you can't have any preconceived or die-hard beliefs going against what this person wants since in those situations it is highly unlikely to you would have given in, though there is this nasty little thing called peer pressure that is the exception.

In short, your claim is preposterous and you obviously have no knowledge of the subject (I do not mean this in offense of your person, but your claim was made in an arrogant tone).
[hr]
On the subject of the houserule, I use something like that myself.

[JaxGaret]

Good points, theMycon. The Juffo-Wup is strong.

[sikyon]

On another thread, people have been strongly arguing that a player should be able to use their social-fu on other PCs, effectively allowing the player to dictate how other people should roleplay their character.


I agree that this is bad. However, it's not worse than casting dominate person on them.



I have never, never, never seen anybody actually have their mind changed by a forceful argument.

What, like how people were convinced that the earth actually orbits the sun when presented with overwhelming evidence? How you probably believed F = m*v before you learned F = m*a? How small children think something is unfair but have their mind changed once it is explained to them?



The evidence for this is fantastically easy to find. Look at the most charismatic people in history, the great public speakers, the incredible leaders. Guess what: they had enemies. Not just big enemies, little enemies, tiny petty enemies who don't have the charisma of a watermelon. When Martin Luther King stood up and said "I have a dream" I guarantee you that thousands of died in the wool racists listened to him and remained racists.

Does that sound like a wrestling match of wills and a debate of logic to you? No, it's not a debate, it's one sided preaching. Different from diplomacy. Your example is non-relavent.


Thousands of people listen to charismatic preachers every day and hang on their every word, but those people already want to believe. Send a skeptical atheist to a revival meeting and they're more likely to get angry than to get religion. Does that mean they have an iron will? Of course not, it just means that charismatic talk, on its own, doesn't convince anybody of anything they don't already believe.


"likely"

There you just admitted it's possible. Clearly if it fails then the arguments were not persuasive enough.


I don't care if you have Charisma 27 and I have Wisdom 3, I'm going to make my roleplaying decisions based on my character's personality, not on the farcical, fatuous and unsupportable notion that a "strong" personality will automatically dominate a "weak" one.


Yes because wis 3 isn't gullible or anything. Mental statistics are by far and large very difficult to roleplay. You COULD play it in this situation, but with charisma 27 and you having wis 3 he'd probably get something like 5 hours to think of his next statement while you get a whole 3 seconds before you have to respond. Your character's personality may be headstrong, unwilling to listen to others, but with wis 3 he's an idiot and his headstronginess is easily circumvented and misdirected and convinced to do what the other person wants without realizing it. This isn't a reflection on you personally or anything, but mental stats are infact the weakest stats (aside from caster considerations) because their consequences are rarely enforced by DM's in my experiance. When was the last time you came up with a cunning plan to kill the enemy wizard as your barbarian, only to have the DM say "nope you can't use that plan as you only have int 6 and arn't smart enough to have thought of it" or what was the last time you had an int/wis 40 character and told the DM "I have int/wis 40. What is the solution to this puzzle you have given us."

Because that is the way you properly roleplay mental stats.

[Aquillion]

Was it really necessary to start another entire thread for this? You could just have replied in the old one.

Anyway, to answer your entire long essay in a brief paragraph: D&D is not reality. Your assessment of reality is not important. D&D explicitly has a statistic that describes your force of personality (Charisma), and one that determines how difficult you are to deceive or influence (Wisdom).

If you do not like these things, feel free to play a different system, but in the D&D system, everyone has a statistically quantifiable personality that directly impacts all contested interactions with other people (including, per RAW, Intimidate, Bluff, and Sense Motive checks made against other PCs.) Arguing that PCs should be able to ignore it simply by virtue of being PCs is silly.

Now, as I said in the other thread, I do feel that to keep games running smoothly using social skills on another PC should be considered a 'hostile' act, akin to hitting them with your sword or paralyzing them with a spell (and only done under circumstances that would warrent such an act); and the existing diplomacy system is badly broken in all sorts of ways and needs elaboration before it could be used in contests between players..

But the tack you've taken in this thread is flatly wrong. Force of personality in the D&D world is very, very real. Your argument that a Charisma-focused, entirely diplomacy-oriented Bard should be absolutely and completely defenseless against a PC barbarian (when he could easily convince most NPC barbarians to, at the very least, not kill him) is patiently absurd.

Sure, if you say your PC would never do XYZ, there could get an obscenely high circumstance penalty to use any social skill to try and convince you otherwise... but saying "Nope, my character is never intimidated, period," amounts to godmoding.

I would favor a system in which players describe their goals, likes, dislikes, and so on as part of their character. Then, social 'attacks' and 'defenses' are used -- sense motive and the like are used to discover your weak points, and intimidate or other skills are used to 'twist the knife', to apply the carrot or stick as appropriate.

I would require that everyone pick a few 'social weak points' -- everyone in the real world has them, as you know if you've ever gotten into an argument with a relative. Maybe you have a temper, say, or you're easily intimidated by physical threats, or jealous of others, or overly-concerned with your honor -- whatever they are, they can be used to manipulate you, to win arguments against you and to get you to respond in certain ways.

Characters would also have things that they care about -- they could be ambitions, they could be devoted to their nation or religion, or they could have people they love. They might be able to overcome their weak points where those things are concerned (a normally shy person willing to engage in physical confrontation to defend those they love, say), but conversely, those things can be weak points as well. If you're devoted to your religion, it will be harder for you to resist a social attack that successfully uses the tenets of your faith; if you're devoted to your nation, an appeal to your patriotism is going to be more effective.

If a character is enarmoured of his daughter, for instance, and has the social weak point of a nasty temper, someone who determined this could use a 'taunt' skill to vocally threaten the daughter, a bluff skill to convince them that someone else has, or a normal diplomacy/communication skill to simply tell them that someone else has (when they actually have), effectively attempting to use social skills to force them into an attack... they'd have to make some sort of roll based on their temper to avoid being enraged. Likewise, someone who's social weak points include excessive empathy could be manipulated via appeals to this sense.

Rolls to these things for PCs should not be necessary, and in an optimal game would never be called for. However, if it reaches a point where PCs are fighting each other, diplomatic characters should be able to use their (in-character) knowledge of other PCs to try and handle the situation, and the other PCs shouldn't just be able to say, for instance, "You know, I never really liked my daughter anyway."

(Social strengths would exist, too... there really are people who can harden their heart and say "Send me a cup of the soup! (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0402/feature1/index.html)" when an enemy threatens to boil their father alive. But that would simply be a case of having, for instance, ambition or devotion to the nation as a higher focus than your family, and they could still be diplomacied into action by a successful appeal to those attributes.)

[Yahzi]

I have never, never, never seen anybody actually have their mind changed by a forceful argument.
Diplomacy isn't about forceful arguments. You're mistaking debate and logic with manipulation and deceit.

If you've never seen this in action, consider yourself lucky.


Against NPCs it does no harm whatsoever for the PC to make a roll and win the NPC over.
Does the same rule apply to attack rolls with a sword?

If your argument is that Diplomacy, as written, is stupid; well, we all agree. But arguing that the PCs should be immune to a power that they don't like is tantamount to arguing they should be allowed to ignore sword blows because they don't like them.


The title of this thread promised houserules,
In one of the best games I ever played in, my wizard was charmed by another player, whose character happened to be his apprentice.

I played it to the hilt. When my apprentice did something really, really stupid (which happened every other game-turn), I would say thinks like, "The apprentice has become the master: her plan is too subtle for me to grasp." And so on.

It was brilliant, right up until her stupidity got us all killed. Actually, even then.

Diplomacy and Charm should totally work on PCs. If you don't want to play that kind of game, don't create parties with Diplomancers and Charmers in it. That's what the metagame is for - just like you don't create parties with Blackgaurds if somebody wants to play a Paladin.

[sikyon]

Does the same rule apply to attack rolls with a sword?

If your argument is that Diplomacy, as written, is stupid; well, we all agree. But arguing that the PCs should be immune to a power that they don't like is tantamount to arguing they should be allowed to ignore sword blows because they don't like them.


Actually that arguement isn't applicable. The entire point of an RPG is to play another character and having freedom of choice as that character. Having that freedom taken away from you can be massivly frustrating and upsetting. Sometimes you won't mind, but other times you will and you will hate people for it. Same principle as railroading.

[Jayabalard]

Actually that arguement isn't applicable. The entire point of an RPG is to play another character and having freedom of choice as that character. Having that freedom taken away from you can be massivly frustrating and upsetting. Sometimes you won't mind, but other times you will and you will hate people for it. Same principle as railroading.That argument looks applicable to me. Getting a sword shoved into your gut can definitely cut down on your character's freedom of choice.

same goes for a spell or other effect that causes the character to be under a magical compulsion.

[Aquillion]

Actually that arguement isn't applicable. The entire point of an RPG is to play another character and having freedom of choice as that character. Having that freedom taken away from you can be massivly frustrating and upsetting. Sometimes you won't mind, but other times you will and you will hate people for it. Same principle as railroading.And... being hit with a Dominate Person, a Finger of Death, or getting battle-axed in the face doesn't take away your freedom of choice?

Obviously, you shouldn't go around randomly hitting PCs with diplomatic skills or Dominate Person, for the reason you said; and whether it's a Finger of Death or a social attack aimed at manipulating them, they should have their chance to resist.

Likewise, manipulating someone into something they're strongly opposed to should be even harder than using Dominate Person to do it (though it should not be impossible, with epic skills. Again, getting you to do something you would never normally do is what an epic diplomacy check would mean.)

But being manipulated socially by someone with epic-level skills in manipulation is not automatically a reflection on your character any more than being influenced by Dominate Person; if your vision of your character was someone who never, ever, ever falls pray to social manipulation, your freedom of choice to represent that was back when you decided on your stats and skills. If you didn't want to play a character who gets manipulated by others, you shouldn't have put that 3 in your wisdom / charisma.

And of course some people won't want to play with social skills at all; that's fine, you can just go hack-and-slash and roleplay social environments (although, remember, this means you can't have a designated "party face"; everyone will be equally good at it.)

[JaxGaret]

And... being hit with a Dominate Person, a Finger of Death, or getting battle-axed in the face doesn't take away your freedom of choice?

Not always :smallsmile:

[valadil]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone actually play with the diplomacy rules as written? We've used them for basic stuff, like getting store discounts or asking allies for help. But if anyone in any group I'm in ever attempted a diplomancer they wouldn't be invited back. For mundane uses of diplomacy, the skill seems to work well enough.

If you liken diplomacy to debate, you have to remember that winning an argument or debate doesn't necessarily change someone's mind. Watch "Thank You For Smoking" if you want some good examples of this.

I wonder how the rules would work if you could only adjust an attitude by one step per diplomacy roll. So no turning hostile to friendly in one fell swoop.

I know we're not supposed to discuss politics here. Can we use it as an example without actually taking sides? I ask because I think Obama is a good example of someone who drips charisma and has changed peoples' minds with his force of personality. I see a couple articles a week about lifelong republicans deciding to vote for the guy after seeing him speak. To me that sounds like force of personality changing someone's mind.

[Corolinth]

No-one's ever convinced you you'd rather have Chinese for lunch instead of Mexican? Convinced you to have a salad instead of a cheeseburger "because it's better for you?" Made you watch a movie you didn't want to see, by making you think it was a better idea than whatever you were going to do, or just making up reasons why it is better, and it takes long enough to find the holes in his/her argument that you've already committed yourself? You've never seen it done?The difference here is scope. You're talking about minor cosmetic details in our daily lives - things that never make it to persuasion rolls in any role-playing game. The original poster is talking about firmly entrenched beliefs that make up the core of who and what a character is. If someone knocks on your door and asks you if you've found Jesus, the best way to get rid of them is to tell them you're Jewish. They'll typically decide you're not worth the effort to convert.

A successful diplomacy check is not going to cause me to alter my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), nor is it going to cause me to change my economic views. It might cause me to still like you on a personal level, despite a vast gulf of differences in our opinions, but it's not going to change them. Repeated diplomacy attempts over a long period of time might, but even then it's unlikely.

People don't change their minds because they lose a debate. I'm sure there are exceptions, but you can't base rules on exceptions. What changes a person's mind is when they are shown that their opinion happens to be based on false assumptions. Even then, the change doesn't happen overnight. Diplomacy really only shines when you're dealing with people who are in that gray area between sides. That's generally where your NPCs are. For the most part, they don't have a vested interest.

[kamikasei]

On another thread, people have been strongly arguing that a player should be able to use their social-fu on other PCs, effectively allowing the player to dictate how other people should roleplay their character.

This seems to be justified in terms of a nebulous concept called "force of personality".

No. You're incorrect.

What I at least am arguing is that, given that there exist rules for a character with the skill and talent to persuade, convince, and charm others into changing their attitudes from him, even going from "wants to kill him" to "will make sacrifices to help him", it is bad design that PCs are simply immune to this skill and bad roleplaying for a player to say that his character, who has no particular strength of will or conviction reflected in his stats, just doesn't find such a character's words at all convincing or persuasive.

This is justified in terms of the player having spent character resources to give his character the mechanics to be a skilled manipulator, deft negotiator, and gifted sweet-talker. If those mechanics don't represent an ability to manipulate, negotiate, and sweet-talk, then they're worthless. If you want to remove the concept of "force of personality" from your games, ditch Charisma, drop Diplomacy, and while you're at it you might as well scrap all the mental stats and make anything to do with personality and aptitude entirely freeform. If you want to play D&D where fully half the base stats describe a character's mental faculties, then accept that the game does have a mechanic for social interaction, however flawed, and that it's metagaming and poor roleplaying for a player to claim that his 6 Wis barbarian with no ranks in Sense Motive just happens to dislike the 18 Cha sorceror with maxed Bluff and Diplomacy, can't ever be even slightly won over, and won't listen to a word he says.

[Raum]

The difference here is scope. You're talking about minor cosmetic details in our daily lives - things that never make it to persuasion rolls in any role-playing game. The original poster is talking about firmly entrenched beliefs that make up the core of who and what a character is. If someone knocks on your door and asks you if you've found Jesus, the best way to get rid of them is to tell them you're Jewish. They'll typically decide you're not worth the effort to convert.

A successful diplomacy check is not going to cause me to alter my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), nor is it going to cause me to change my economic views. It might cause me to still like you on a personal level, despite a vast gulf of differences in our opinions, but it's not going to change them. Repeated diplomacy attempts over a long period of time might, but even then it's unlikely.Whether force of personality changes opinions or not is immaterial and difficult to demonstrate. It does change actions. That is demonstrable throughout history. Hitler sent a nation to war. Ghandi ran a successful and near bloodless revolution. Martin Luther split a religion. A variety of figures (I'll avoid names) started new religions or cults, some of which appeal to more than just the disaffected. Politicians get elected. All of them changed actions using charismatic leverage.


People don't change their minds because they lose a debate.You're correct more often than not - instead actions are changed based on rhetoric and charismatic influence.


I'm sure there are exceptions, but you can't base rules on exceptions. What changes a person's mind is when they are shown that their opinion happens to be based on false assumptions. Even then, the change doesn't happen overnight. Diplomacy really only shines when you're dealing with people who are in that gray area between sides. That's generally where your NPCs are. For the most part, they don't have a vested interest.In spite of real life examples, I prefer not to see PC vs PC influence ruled by game mechanics. But that's because it's not a dynamic I like to see introduced between friends in a social situation, not because it's unrealistic.

There's a political website dedicated to debunking mistakes, errors, and untruths stated by politicians. They wrote why in one essay...it boiled down to a large percentage of people believing what they hear without subjecting the hearsay to critical thinking. That's obvious though, it's what mass media makes a living on. :)

[Roderick_BR]

As a rule of thumb, I treat social checks as ways to convince someone of something. What they'll do with said information is up to the character.
If someone uses a bluff check on a PC to convince him he's trustable, I'll tell the player "he's genuinely telling the truth". It doesn't mean the player will actually do what he was ordered to do.
I do the same thing with NPCs. If a player can convince a NPC of something, but it's not a compulsion spell. ("Yes, I know you have important information to the king, and he was asked to be told personally about any development, but I *really* can't let anyone in without being annouced.")

Also kinda funny to see a character with low charisma trying to convince someone, even when he IS telling the truth ("What, you expect me to believe a giant yellow with red dots monster is eating the cows? Stop screwing around, kid")

[sikyon]

And... being hit with a Dominate Person, a Finger of Death, or getting battle-axed in the face doesn't take away your freedom of choice?


Dominate person takes away your freedom of choice but Finger of Death and being killed does not.

See, Dominate person means someone is taking control over your actions. You have no freedom. Being killed means a state of being has been imposed on you, but you are free to make decisions under this new environmental situation. You can be a ghost in the afterlife, adventure the planes as a spirit and become a pit fiend, what-have-you-not. If you are actually killed then you are free to roll up a new character.

Under dominate person you can not make choices.

If you are dead you can make all the choices you want, given your state.

It's a subtle difference, in that result=/=method.

[BadJuJu]

I agree that this is bad. However, it's not worse than casting dominate person on them.

Yeah, I wouldnt realy stay in a game long where a PC did that. We also dont let ddilplomacy rolls work on PC's, you have to make your argument and hope that sways them. We had an exemplar who wanted to make people fanatic followers, but we shot him down. Just how I roll.

[BRC]

Personally, I think the only time a Diplomacy roll should work on a PC is if their player agree's with you, but they have decided that their character would not.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm confused...I thought it was the default RAW to prohibit Diplomacy from affecting PC's...

[kamikasei]

I'm confused...I thought it was the default RAW to prohibit Diplomacy from affecting PC's...

It is. The discussion started in another thread based on the disconnect between a skilled diplomat PC who could sway the minds of NPCs effortlessly but whose attempts to get a fellow party member to tone down disruptive behaviour were just laughed off with a handwave of, "he doesn't respect you" and the like.

The issue is twofold: the system for using Diplomacy on NPCs sucks, and there's nothing in the mechanics for either using Diplomacy on PCs, or simply recognizing that a high-Dip character should probably elicit different reactions than a low-Dip even without a roll.

[chiasaur11]

A thing that isn't being factored in is the PCs are used to this guy.
Even a Martin Luther King Jr., an Abe Lincoln, or, if you'll forgive the comparison, an Adolf Hitler would be a good deal less likely to sway you if you knew he snored, or you saw him scratch his butt every day.

Diplomacy works a good deal better if the person doesn't think right off "This is the same goober who ate paste all the way into tenth grade".