Persuade rolls from one player to another

[Indur Dawndeath]

Hi HotSnow,
I understand, that you don't like Shadow as a way to encourage players to stay in the story, because some might think of it as a bonus. Or did I misunderstand your post?
In Warhammer there is party tension rulles to keep players in line. For our group Shadow could work in a similar way to penalize players if they argue too much.
As for PvP skill tests, then all physical tests are ok. Who is faster and who is stronger...
But once you open the door to persuade, players will feel that they loose control. Believe me we have tried it and it didn't work. It may be realistic that the intelligent Hobbit has the best arguments, but the rest of the party will not have fun, if he can control their actions just because of that.

All I'm saying is: Be very carefull. You end up having allowed one PvP test and your players ask for more to win arguments. Everyone gets frustrated when this becomes frequent. Been there done that.

[Stormcrow]

One player-character using Insight to detect the lies of another player-character when the latter is not aware of it is not an opposed roll; there is no opposition from an unaware target. Insight Action as normal. Moderate difficulty, modified for how well the listener knows the speaker.

If the speaker were aware of the listener and wanted him to think he was telling the NPC the truth, that'd be an opposed roll of Insight versus Persuade.

[HotSnow50]

All I'm saying is: Be very careful. You end up having allowed one PvP test and your players ask for more to win arguments...

Good point, and I can TOTALLY see this happening with my buddies, but I have enough firmament to slam the door shut on that style of playing. I think we've agreed on most points here, and it's true that I like to allow the players to task their characters with persuade tests but really this only occurs when there is a one-off impasse between the players.

[HotSnow50]

What would you guys say should happen (Shadow Points-wise) when the players are skulking through an Orc encampment and see a sack of silver pennies or maybe a brace of throwing knives on a table and decide to snatch em... That's theft, should that get a Shadow Point? I'm mainly asking, unless it's torture or wanton destruction, should things like theft, lying or general destruction of the enemy (which would in other circumstances give you a GUARANTEED Shadow Point) should that be something which deserves a Shadow Point?

[Majestic]

What would you guys say should happen (Shadow Points-wise) when the players are skulking through an Orc encampment and see a sack of silver pennies or maybe a brace of throwing knives on a table and decide to snatch em... That's theft, should that get a Shadow Point? I'm mainly asking, unless it's torture or wanton destruction, should things like theft, lying or general destruction of the enemy (which would in other circumstances give you a GUARANTEED Shadow Point) should that be something which deserves a Shadow Point?

I probably wouldn't assign one in that case. If that were an Elven sanctuary, or a Woodman camp, then I would view it as theft and they would likely get one. I suppose it would depend on intent and what the players described. But if they simply rationalized that "these knives could be used to hurt the Free Peoples" or "this silver would help the poor back home far more than it would these evil creatures" then I most likely wouldn't (give a Shadow Point).

[Glorelendil]

I keep harping on this point in the various threads about shadow points, but I wouldn't look at it as a question of whether unethical behavior deserves punishment. Rather ask, "Does this action chip away at the hero's inner resolve, the mental armor that helps shield him(her) from the seduction of the Shadow?"

By way of illustration, in a case where there is a true dilemma...i.e. you can only save one innocent, and the other will die...you're gonna get a shadow point, or at least roll Corruption, either way. It's not that you made the wrong choice, it's that any choice raises that inner voice that asks if you did the wrong thing, if you're not such a hero after all, etc. The Enemy knows how to exploit those doubts.

I don't know how exactly to the apply that to the scenario you mention because I don't have all the details, but I think you have to look at what's likely in their hearts (of the heroes and/or the players), and not whether a court of law would absolve them of the actions.

[Majestic]

Good point, Elfcrusher, and I agree completely. To me it would really come down to motives and what their intentions were. And we'd probably need a lot more details to really know whether it was deserved or not.

The whole issue of theft/stealing would probably come down to whether it was a Misdeed or not. Of course for Misdeeds there's no Corruption roll, just the allocation of Shadow Point(s) (if deserved).

It's probably worth noting that certain types of adventurers (like Treasure Hunters) might face different motivations, too (because if it's greed motivating the taking of the silver, then that's probably a Misdeed).

[Corvo]

(...)
It's probably worth noting that certain types of adventurers (like Treasure Hunters) might face different motivations, too (because if it's greed motivating the taking of the silver, then that's probably a Misdeed).

Agree.
To make another example, after The Marsh Bell my all-wardens fellowship deliberated that the lost city was a death-trap, and many foolish people would die while looking for its riches.
So they had the dwarves promise to not divulge the presence of treasures in the lost city, and they kept silent about it.
A selfless act?
Yes, it was. But they are Wardens, whose weakness is the Lure of Power.
They choose to take away the freedom of choice from the people they were defending: they did it to protect these peoples, but many tyrants start this way.

The players agreed they needed a shadow point for it.
Had they been, say, Slayers, probably they wouldn't have incurred in the Shadow Points, because that isn't their weakness -their road to damnation-

[Glorelendil]

Hrmm, I don't think keeping dangerous information secret, and asking others to do the same, is "taking away the freedom of choice" from others.

Using magic to command them to keep it a secret, on the other hand....

[Corvo]

Hrmm, I don't think keeping dangerous information secret, and asking others to do the same, is "taking away the freedom of choice" from others.
(...)

"Dangerous knowledge..."

Think about it this way:
Who are you to choose for them? Their elected leader? Their father?
They aren't kids, they aren't your subjects.
Maybe one of them is the hero who can re-conquer the lost city.
Maybe that gold can spell the difference between life and death, the next winter.
But we wouldn't know, because they had their choice taken away. Their freedom. Their chance to be the masters of their own life.

And finally... Would you like someone else to choose for you?
"You aren't cut to be an hero, an adventurer... You are just a farmer: stay home and let the big Men have adventure and glory..."

That's not what Gandalf said to Bilbo and Frodo. Maybe Saruman would have said these things, though