Diplomacy Question

[Samothdm]

Here's the scenario:

A group of town guards (not necessarily evil) have been given orders to ambush a group of PCs and arrest them for treason. The characters are, in fact, technically guilty of treason by the letter of the law (greater good and all that).

So, my questions:

1) Would the town guards approach the characters as "hostile" or "unfriendly"? There would be like 19-20 guards for only about 4 PCs, and the guards are veterans, so they wouldn't necessarily be afraid of the PCs.

2) If a character with high Charisma made a Diplomacy check and got a total of 26 (enough to turn hostile guards to 'indifferent'), how would that affect the guards' intentions and actions? Would that check be enough to try to talk down the guards, reason with them, and perhaps get out of being arrested? Perhaps a follow-up Bluff roll with a circumstance bonus for having rolled such a high Diplomacy check?

 

[domino]

Between unfriendly and indifferent, depending on how they feel about the crime. If it's something they'd take personal offense to, unfriendly. Assuming they aren't interested in attacking them right out. If they're just doing their job, indifferent.

Hostile is for things like "You killed my family, now I'ma gonna kill you."

If they were turned indifferent, or even friendly, they'd still try to arrest the people, because that's their job. They might give helpful advice, such as telling them how to act to get out of it, or to explain their actions. Or try to talk the PCs into coming along peacefully, rather than attacking them, for everyone's health.

But I wouldn't say that they would be able to talk their way out of getting arrested with just a diplomacy check. The guards don't make those decisions, and they know it.

 

[Henry]

1) Would the town guards approach the characters as "hostile" or "unfriendly"?
2) If a character with high Charisma made a Diplomacy check and got a total of 26 (enough to turn hostile guards to 'indifferent'), how would that affect the guards' intentions and actions?

Keep in mind:

1) A diplomacy check takes one minute to work. A rush job of a full-round action gives a -10 to the check.

2) The guards would probably start out "hostile" - they are, after all, willing to take risks with their bodies to harm or detain the PCs.

3) Moving them to "indifferent" won't mean they go away -- it means that they are less sure about the PC's guilt, are less emotionally invested in bringing them in, but they still have been charged the rightful duty of taking the PCs in to custody.

4) Even with a helpful reaction, they don't just forget their duties; however, they might be willing to "give the PCs a head start," or "swear they'll never be seen in the area again." If the PCs push the issue (flaunting their escape, for instance) the guards will be forced into their duty.

5)A DM would be well within his rights to force multiple diplomacy checks for converting a group of people hostile to them, or to impose a penalty, because while it might be easy to empathize with one or two guards, it's harder to change minds for a group of people, due to the crowd mentality. A crowd mentality will generally keep its disposition. As a suggestion, assume the guards act as an "aid another" using the lowest guard's sense motive or diplomacy score. that's a +38 for 20 guards. Or if you want to be less hard nosed, assume a -1 penalty for each guard, or even -1 per 2 guards, for a -19 or -9 penalty. I just can't see it as that easy to convince a crowd NOT to do something, especially if they are veterans. Heck, Stirring up a mob is easier than calming one down.

 

[Samothdm]

Yeah, I wasn't thinking that a Diplomacy check (no matter how good) would convince the guards to just give up and not do their duty. However, I think a reasonably good check woudl at least get them to stop and listen to what the PCs have to say regarding their actions, and (as Domino suggested) perhaps get the guards to give pointers to the PCs when they face the magistrate, or even (with a really good check) allow the guards to speak for the PCs' innocence when in front of the magistrate.

I don't think it should be a simple "They're guards, and they're unphased." Otherwise, why take the skill?

 

[Henry]

I don't think it should be a simple "They're guards, and they're unphased." Otherwise, why take the skill?

It's not so much that, as, "they're a group of guards, and the more in the posse, the less likely you are to convince one of them to let you slip away." I think you've hit on a better solution with the guards possibly willing to speak on behalf, though.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

check out Rich Burlew's Diplomancy Rules

Its the best method I have seen for actually using Diplomancy checks.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Yeah, I wasn't thinking that a Diplomacy check (no matter how good) would convince the guards to just give up and not do their duty. However, I think a reasonably good check woudl at least get them to stop and listen to what the PCs have to say regarding their actions, and (as Domino suggested) perhaps get the guards to give pointers to the PCs when they face the magistrate, or even (with a really good check) allow the guards to speak for the PCs' innocence when in front of the magistrate.

I don't think it should be a simple "They're guards, and they're unphased." Otherwise, why take the skill?

I agree.

1. They'd approach them as Hostile. They are ready to risk their lives to apprehend the PCs, and are willing to do violence upon the PCs if they resist. Hostile does not necessarily mean cruel or sadistic, here it clearly does not.

2. Indifferent might cause the guards to be more gentle in their dealings with the PCs. They might not (you mentioned they didn't feel threatened by the PCs,) require that the PCs all be bound, for instance. They would probably not go out of their way to humiliate or inconvenience the PCs more than necessary to carry out their duty (though they wouldn't go out of their way to make the PCs comfortable, either, unless they'd been moved to Friendly.)

With a Friendly attitude, I'd rule that the guards would, as was mentioned, give the PCs some pointers on how to behave, work the system, perhaps even the name of a particularly fair magistrate. At Helpful (and only Helpful) I'd have the guards willing to speak on the PCs' behalf. Speaking for the PCs means the guards are risking their reputations and possibly livelihoods for the PCs' sake. Not something you do for just anyone.

And as was noted earlier also, Diplomacy requires at least a minute of talking. If the guards are under orders to (or just feel like) gagging the PCs or ignoring their words, Diplomacy isn't possible, except perhaps rushed at the very beginning of the encounter.

 

[dcollins]

Start out Hostile. Consider the movie The Fugitive, when Harrison Ford pleads that he's innocent. A successful check makes the difference, as he is apprehended, of Tommy Lee Jones' early response of "I don't care!", to his late response of "I know!".

 

[Stalker0]

I think the others have given great advice. Diplomacy is sometimes an uber skill that can get abused in these kinds of situaitons, so don't let the players get away with too much. It would take something like intimidate to actually get the guards to back down and not perform their duty.

 

[nittanytbone]

You could consider this a "case argued before a third party (i.e., the authorities vs the PCs debated in front of the guards)" and roll a diplomacy, intimidate, or bluff check for the guard's leader or boss as an opposed roll. They'd get some significant helping rolls and a circumstantial bonus.

If the PCs win then they manage to convince a majority of the guards that their boss is in the wrong -- while that doesn't mean that they get let go, perhaps that could be exploited if they work on the weaker minded individuals and/or use magic. For example, maybe Larry on the third shift night watch is swayed by the PCs, gets charmed (either through magic or or personality), and is convinced to set them free.

If the PCs lose the opposed check, then the guards are unphased, most of them think their boss has good reasons to bring in the PCs and/or supplies appropriate inducements, and they do their job professionally.