Would you allow Diplomacy the ability to insult as well as negotiate?

[Goddess FallenAngel]

A long time ago, back in the early days of D&D 3e, I played a rogue with a very high diplomacy. Being the type of personality she was, she used the skill to insult people as often as she used it to negotiate and calm people down (long story involving character personality, roleplaying, the campaign, and the gaming group, and really unessential for this discussion – we basically started a war). We rolled in reverse on the Influencing NPC Attitudes table to see how much she could enrage someone. (The die roll was always accompanied by roleplaying, if that matters in your opinion.)

Disclaimer: I never got any bonuses for skills, attacks, damage, etc for this use of the skill - it wasn’t taunt. It was just for roleplaying purposes and didn’t affect the mechanics of the game beyond the changed attitude of the NPC – which can be done with a simple botched Diplomacy roll anyway, per the rules. Now that the disclaimer is out of the way – let’s set aside the issue of game mechanics with this… that’s not what I’m curious about, and I don’t want to devolve into a discussion of what the mechanics of this should be.

What I would like to know, for discussion purposes, is if you would allow something like that in your game. My viewpoint is that if you know the exact right thing to say in any given situation (reflected by a high Diplomacy skill check), you would also have to know the exact wrong thing to say, if for no other reason that to avoid saying it.

What do you think?

 

[The Levitator]

I hadn't considered using Diplomacy to insult someone, as I immediately thought of using Intimidate when I was reading this. But if one of my players approached me with this character concept and idea on how to use Diplomacy in this way, I would totally allow it.

Unlike some DM's, I actually encourage my players to come up with creative ways to use their character's skills, feats, abilities, etc. to make their experience more fun. I would se this example as a really fun way to increase roleplaying. Besides, anything a DM allows in a game can always have bad as well as good consequences for the character. Part of the fun for me as a DM is balancing out potentially great consequences with potentially terrible consequences.

 

[SavageRobby]

I think there is a difference between pissing someone off by crafting a well worded insult, and taunting someone to the point of enragement - not a big difference, but enough (skill-wise) to merit seperate skills. I also think that there is enough difference in reverse - some folks are gifted at needling people, but wouldn't be able to speak nicely if their lives depended on it.

In Savage Worlds - a game with relatively few skills (about 20 all told, IIRC) - they use Persuasion and Taunt to reflect that difference.


Edit: I could definitely see Diplomacy used to get someone to declare war, whereas Taunt is would be used to getting someone to throw down then and there. YMMV.

 

[Mark]

What do you think?

I think I like the way you think.


If you have not already, you might want to look into Skill Focus: Talking from Second World Simulations.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

This would be a great way to simulate the courtier who knows how to drive a fellow court hanger-on to get into duels, cause problems while still staying above the fray themselves. Think "Dangerous Liasons" for examples...

 

[Lord Zardoz]

If I were running a game, I would suspect that the ability to get someone enraged through insults is probably not too difficult. I do think that setting it up so that the other guy appears to be the aggressor would be an ideal use for Insult Diplomacy, as would getting them to act violently when doing so would be against their own best interests.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Mallus]

Would I allow it? Of course. I'm all in favor of small lists of broadly applicable skills.

(...and which are either Trained or Untrained. Down with granularity for granularities sake!)

 

[physics_ninja]

I would allow it in a heartbeat. It's the art of being catty.

"Darling, I just love that dress you're wearing. It takes a bold, daring, and individualistic person to pull of last years fashions like that."

The actual words used are complimentary, but the tone (and final result) of the sentence is desultory.

 

[Umbran]

Some would say that diplomacy is the art of insulting while retaining plausible deniability.

Yes, I'd certainly allow someone with diplomacy to negatively influence NPC reaction. A character with diplomacy always knows what not to say - and can then choose to say exactly that.

 

[Relique du Madde]

It's common business practice. Just look at how effective several press releases which we seen in the last week and a half were at creating outrage.