Hussar
Legend
Again though, let's not get too far into the weeds. We're not talking about "ways". We're talking about a single way. Same as a social check with an NPC. You don't allow a persuasion check to force an NPC to do something that the NPC would never do. So, why would it be any different for a PC? The effect has to be plausible, same as it is for an NPC.I disagree here. Killing a character is permanent, yes, but taking them over and making them act in ways contrary to what the player wants is kind of worse. It's akin to mind control in a way, made worse because it's not caused by a magical effect.
So the example of giving away a magic item is right off the table. No NPC would ever give away a magic item based on a persuasion check (barring specific examples of course). So, why would a PC? Now, running away because your courage failed you in the face of seeing horrific things done to the person beside you? Perfectly plausible. The fact that the PC's NEVER suffer any sort of trauma or anything like that is far less plausible at the end of the day. Your character can never be influenced by a persuasive argument? Not very plausible. So on and so forth.
Comparing a single event in the course of a campaign to the death of the character seems a bit over the top no? It's like @Maxperson's examples of how losing control of an NPC for a single check is okay because he has millions of NPC's, but is totally different from a player losing a tiny bit of control for a short period of time in a campaign.
Heck, you even double down on the players not being trustworthy with:
So, players cannot be trusted to act in good faith, thus we should not have social rules.Because you can't. Because why should they? Nearly every other roll involves the players choosing to do something, or else succumbing to magical compulsion. This sort of roll has neither choice nor a good reason beyond GM fiat for the players to accept.
Last edited: