Diplomacy, roleplaying, and International Politics

[Wizzardman]

Alright, learned GiantITPforumites, here's my question, and some background to go with it:

So, about a year ago, several of my friends and I were playing a nation-building game, based in a homebrewed setting, and using standard D&D rules as the basic rules for individual characters (the leaders of each player's nation, and said leaders advisors and sidekicks.) Players were encouraged to make "fluff" characters, as national leaders weren't required to personally wage war, negotiate treaties, or anything like that--although, to be fair, those that did would get bonus experience.

My nation, the Primarchy, was a mostly-warforged semi-communist dictatorship revolving around the nation's founder, who also happened to be the guy who created the majority of the people in it. This character, called "the Primarch," was a Warforged Artificer/Juggernaut with permanent Enlarge Person cast upon himself. This build, terrible as it is, meant that he was great for surviving assassination attempts (as he was pretty much immune to most things, and was quite good at making Contingency Spells), awesome for improving the nation's technological edge and military capabilities (via being an artificer), and generally terrible at personal combat or diplomacy (to the point where he had a -1 in Diplomacy despite having four ranks in it).

The problem is, in character, he was one of the few national leaders any good at it.

I'm not saying I was playing him off as the greatest diplomat ever. The Primarch, for all his greatness, was absolutely terrible at jokes, frequently misinterpreted local customs (with hilarious results), failed every diplomacy check he was asked to make, made no attempt to impress people with his wit or intellect, and was quite, quite blunt, as a Warforged Juggernaut should be. However, because he was very much a big, softhearted, nerdforged, and he felt that a good relationship with his neighbors was important for efficiency and growth, he always tried to be very polite to the diplomats and leaders of other nations (to the point of actually addressing self-proclaimed royalty as "your majesty), frequently went out of his way to compromise with them, brought gifts to the leaders of every nation he visited, and things like that. Little things.

And I'm not saying that the leaders and diplomats of the other nations had worse diplomacy scores than he did. Most of them, in fact, had the diplomacy score you'd expect from someone of their level. They just never used them.

Heck, the leader of the local non-evil necromancer state (as odd as that was) was supposedly an incredibly highly skilled diplomat. And yet, at the same time, he rarely compromised, showed little respect for several other national leaders (such as the Empress of the military strong Paladin-based empire directly to my North, whose people were already clammering for the necromancers' destruction), and would frequently engage in what is best described as "tiffs" with other national leaders. The Paladin Empress was little better--in fact, she often provoked or antagonized said Necromancer Leader (whose nation was directly to my south).

Now, I'm not saying they were bad at roleplaying; their actions made a lot of sense, considering. However, it left me wondering:

Is it considered bad roleplaying if a character who has a very low total diplomacy score is good at international diplomacy, but only because he's the only one trying to be friendly and diplomatic?

[Crossblade]

Way I see it, is that is that your character won people over by being kind. This would be an intelligence thing, not a charismatic thing.

It would be like bringing the leader rare, exotic and expensive spices... then eating soup with your hands...

vs

Your cat bringing a dead bird into the living room and laying it at your feet, then rubbing up against your legs, purring happily.

[Random832]

The "skill roll" diplomacy system - either RAW or even Rich's version really probably isn't designed to be applied beyond the simple tactical "talk your way through situations" scenario that it comes up for adventurers in.

[Wizzardman]

Way I see it, is that is that your character won people over by being kind. This would be an intelligence thing, not a charismatic thing.

It would be like bringing the leader rare, exotic and expensive spices... then eating soup with your hands...

vs

Your cat bringing a dead bird into the living room and laying it at your feet, then rubbing up against your legs, purring happily.

The "skill roll" diplomacy system - either RAW or even Rich's version really probably isn't designed to be applied beyond the simple tactical "talk your way through situations" scenario that it comes up for adventurers in.

Both of these make sense. It just feels somewhat awkward when the Warforged Juggernaut leader of a totalitarian communist dictatorship is a better diplomat than the leaders that actually have diplomacy as a class skill.

[woodenbandman]

I made a character like that. Playing him right now, in fact.

The way I play it is the character wants everyone in his unit (in the military) to work together. It's very important that they work well together, because if they work efficiently, they win more often. He has no ranks in diplomacy, but he does diplomacy more than anyone. The secret he has is that he already knows what he wants, and he just asks people until it happens.

For example, he convinced, like, 7 other characters to help out in the construction of a fort, so that he could make sure that everything meshed together, and the group would grow closer together and learn to depend on each other.

And how did he do this? Just went up to people and said "will you help us out?" And if they said no, he explains the situation, and says "I would really appreciate if you'd help us out."

Other than that, he's very bad at diplomacy. He doesn't use fancy language, or make empowering speechees, or anything. He just happens to make sense all the time.

I guess I'll toss out some other information about the character: He's a buomman bard. He's not actually allowed to speak, but the DM let me get a talkbox in-game so he can talk with his guitar. He's part of a cult (for lack of a better word) of people who worship the god of creation and destruction, the real mechanical benefit of which being that the DM has allowed me to take Words of Creation and Dark Speech at the same time.

The reason that he tries to get what he wants by using diplomacy is because he's totally unafraid of failure. As he sees it, every action is either creation or destruction, and either one is fine with him. He believes that everything is already ordained, so if he doesn't get something, oh well. Not to say that he won't keep trying, but he won't be disappointed with failure. Thus, he has no problem trying something, because if he fails it'd be fine.

[bosssmiley]

Is it considered bad role-playing if a character who has a very low total diplomacy score is good at international diplomacy, but only because he's the only one trying to be friendly and diplomatic?

No. It is hilarious win. Someone who simply doesn't understand the professional orthodoxy of diplomacy as zero sum game, and who changes the nature of the game through untutored sincerity, is an iconic figure.

Just because a character doesn't know understand the calculus of Realpolitik, it doesn't mean he can't change the world anyway. Character often has a gravity expedience lacks. The Peter Sellars movie Being There is probably relevant here...

[boomwolf]

He is not a good diplomat at all.

Is his a good ALLY.

He works to increase efficacy-not from greed.

And as it is most efficacy to be friendly and make as many alliances as possible, and others know that it is efficient for him to do so and efficacy is his thing, they know they can trust him-and that they too will benefit from allying him.