Binding Contract vs. Player Character

[Saeros]

Next week I am going to have the party interact with a Temptress with the Binding Contract class ability. I searched the forums but didn't find much in the way of how people are using this ability, especially when it comes to binding a player character.

Has anyone done this? How did it work out? I don't want to railroad the character, but I do want this element in the plot for a short while. Of course, knowing my players, the temptress probably won't have to resort to using the ability, but better to have the bases covered...

 

[Clovenhoof]

I'd advise against using it, at all. The whole ability should be utterly removed from the game, never mind if it's used by PCs against NPCs or vice versa or in whatever other way. Except maybe to simulate NPC-NPC interactions, but even for that you don't need it as class ability.

The stupid thing is, it's not a magic spell, but it's much more effective than sorcery. A magic spell like Domination will at least grant you a saving throw. Binding Contract grants you nothing except an opposed skill check in a skill that most PCs won't even have. It's broken.

If at all, I'd allow a failed Diplomacy roll to be followed by a Will save (DC set by Temptress Diplomacy score, not the check); and/or grant the PCs their character level as bonus to the Diplomacy check - muh like Feints are averted in combat. (Maybe they changed it that way in 2E, I just know the version from HFallen.)

 

[Vambelte]

I like biding contract, but the sugestion of adding char lvl to the oposed test is a good ideia, since the ability is very powerfull. Never really tought about this subject before, since I didn't used Binding contract in my game, yet.

 

[Krushnak]

I would run it as diplomacy vs. diplomacy or will, whichever one the character wants to use. if the target has the no honour feat then i would say they can break the contact at will and any one with an honour code would risk losing it if they break the contract.

 

[Saeros]

I was thinking about giving the character a Will save every time the choice comes up to keep or break the contract.

The situation is going to be that the Temptress wants the character to find a missing person for her in the city and see that person safely brought to the Temptress, but this same missing person is wanted by the rest of the party for trying to kill them. So Im trying to set up some conflict as to whether this missing person should be killed.

So when given the choice to protect or kill the missing person, the player under the Binding Contract would get another will save. I'm thinking DC 10 + Temptress Level + CHA Bonus. How does that sound?

The idea of Honor is an interesting one... I'll have to read that section a little more to figure out how that would come into play...

 

[Clovenhoof]

The idea is good, but Full level would get way too high (up to DC39!). Rather make that 10 + 1/2 Temptress Level + Cha bonus. That way the Save DC will be in the same region as a save against a Scholar's magic spell, which seems more reasonable.
I empathically repeat that a purely social class ability shouldn't be more powerful than full-blown sorcery.

 

[Krushnak]

well remember its a contract, the pc's will have to be given something valuable for their time and efforts. usually thats enough to sway a party of pc's as they can always kill him later...

 

[Teriudin]

I think it is fine, so long as you give the players a chance to know what they are getting into.

Yes, it is more powerful than a sorcererous spell, but at the same time it is really all temptresses get. It isn't like your are ripping the still beating heart from a player's chest, and it can't make you do things that are against your characters normal behaviour.

You create a situation, the players know that the temptress is making a request with promises. If they say "Sure, I'll do that" they just gave you permission to railroad as needed.

In the future, your players will learn to be as cautious around women as they are with scholars.

Or, the player who makes his diplomacy check lops off her head for her attempt.

 

[Apple]

The stupid thing is, it's not a magic spell, but it's much more effective than sorcery. A magic spell like Domination will at least grant you a saving throw. Binding Contract grants you nothing except an opposed skill check in a skill that most PCs won't even have. It's broken.

It's not as powerful as sorcery. You're not playing it in the spirit it's intended. There is only so much a lingerie model can get a horny guy to do for her... and admittedly that's usually an awful lot, but it doesn't come close to sorcery.

As for using it on PCs, generally not a good idea, none of the social skills like diplomacy and the like come off very well when a DM tells the PCs what their character thinks.

 

[Vortigern]

Mmm. I think there is a middle ground with the social skills/abilities vs. PCs. Intimidation I think should work exactly as written vs. PCs. Diplomacy and Bluff... mmm. I think there should be some compromise and/or negotiation. Should the GM tell you what your character thinks? No. Should you be told 'The noble smiles warmly, plying you with wine, women, and piles of coin for a few hours before giving you his offer. He would like you to <blah blah>. His diplomacy check is 35. Please reflect that in your RP.' ... I think so. If the gm tells me that the NPC has a super duper diplomacy check and I don't have an explicit reason to ignore it, I 'should' go along with it even if my gut tells me not to. That is just good roleplaying IMO.

 

[Demetrio]

His diplomacy check is 35. Please reflect that in your RP

This I think is a good point. There is easily as much skill required, possibly more, to roleplay the result of a dice roll for social interaction as there is for declaring pcs effectivey immune from the social skills being used against them. Very few groups (if any) would countenance this though and I think it a revealing insight into the limits that roleplayers are prepared to go with their charaters.

In principle though there's no reason why rather than the usual: players and GM rp the encounter then roll the dice we should not roll the dice then rp according to the result.

 

[Saeros]

As I mentioned in the opening post, I don't think the Temptress is going to need to actually use the ability. The player involved will meet with her and through role-playing most likely decide that he will fulfill her request without resorting to binding contract, or the roll of the dice. But the character involved, with his code of honor, will play like a binding contract has been placed on him, because he believes that once he agrees to a task, he is obligated to see it through. So...

In reviewing the Binding Contract class ability, I didn't see any meta-game consequences for breaking the Binding Contract - No loss of reputation; no loss of Honor; no penalites applied what-so-ever. There was not any way to get out of a Binding Contract. So the only consequence is not receiving the promised reward, and perhaps the emnity of the Temptress down the road. With no real consequence for breaking the contract, does it really matter? For a character with Honor, would failure to complete a task that was agreed to result in the loss of Honor?

 

[Teriudin]

Most codes of honor specify how they will abide by "contracts" of one sort or another.

I think civilized codes will respect nobility, etc. Barbarian codes respect those who are "worthy" or some such. Mercenary codes would be most binding.

I don't have the book for easy access, but clearly breaking an agreement does have consequences for honor-bound characters.

 

[Ichabod]

If going to play by RAW and not use common sense case-by-case adjudication, you must enforce the contract. The character does everything to fulfill the contract. If that means the victim commits suicide as soon as the contract isn't fulfilled, so be it.

Now, this being a RPG, I'm sure playgroups can come up with how to play within the spirit of the rules without obsessing over the mechanics of something that's rather silly to begin with.

Also, I do think most players will make an effort to roleplay being affected by social skills if the GM makes it clear that they should.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Right, and the problem here is that, depending on how you interpret the RAW, there's hardly a middle ground:
either you say that there isn't any sanction for breaking the BC (because no sanctions are mentioned in the book), then the ability is worthless.
Or you say it is BINDING and you simply cannot break it, and if you fail to fulfill the contract you'd feel compelled to kill yourself. In this case, the ability would be way overpowered and downright broken. It would be more powerful than any sorcery because you don't get a save and it goes against a skill you will most likely not have.

Also, appealing to role-play is nice and well, but imho a mechanism should be able to work under pressure in itself and not rely on vague "role-playing" failsafes.

So, granting a Save as suggested above (DC 10 + 1/2 level + Cha) seems to be a mechanically sound option you can offer a character that might want to get out of the contract.

Or, alternatively, you just make a reality check and think about what happens in real life when you break a contract: the other party can only appeal to a common authority. So a character can break any contract, any time, at will. The Temptress can try to have the character arrested or otherwise coerced by local authorities. He may face fines or jail or other punishments as long as he remains within the authorities' reach. Once the character moves out of her sphere of influence, she's outta luck.

 

[Saeros]

I think I am going to go with the Saving Throw option when a character tries to break the Binding Contract, if they want a chance to break it.

What do you think about applying a point of corruption to those that do break the Binding Contract? A quick read of the Corruption rules seems to imply this might work as a consequence for breaking the contract.

 

[Teriudin]

The corruption option is probably better than any save.

Being honest, it is a poorly written class feature. The nature of a contract is that it can be broken and there is consequences for doing so - that's the whole point of a contract. The ability states that you'll miss out on "favors" that the temptress has portrayed as something you really want. No more, no less. This works very well on NPC's who tend to have less complex goals in place than against PC's whose goals tend to be world changing over time and already firmly in place.

The arguement that it is an opposed skill roll rather than a save doesn't hold much water - using a will save spell against a fighter is not that much different, or a fort save spell against a thief. Just like any sorcerous ability, it is strong against some classes and weak against others.

I would just avoid using any diplomacy type skill with players. If the temptress has binding contract, she can offer to use that to help the players rather than force the players to abide by her will.

 

[Demetrio]

I'd be tempted to treat it as an obsession (that is applied to all classes not just sorcerers). So when working toward the temptress's goal the obsessed gains a bonus to certain rolls and suffers obsession penalties when he is not working toward her goal.

That simulates the temptress's wiles convincing the character that her goal is one that it is worth him pursuing over and above any other.

 

[Vortigern]

I think I am going to go with the Saving Throw option when a character tries to break the Binding Contract, if they want a chance to break it.

What do you think about applying a point of corruption to those that do break the Binding Contract? A quick read of the Corruption rules seems to imply this might work as a consequence for breaking the contract.

I tend to think of corruption as 'otherwordly' or eldritch.

I forget who yet another on this board put it rather aptly. I shall paraphrase.

Murder and mayhem may be quite dastardly deeds and fit our everday definition of 'corrupt' behavior... but they will not make horns grow out of your head.

A high enough corruption score will.

I tend to thus feel that 'Corruption' as a statistic represents instead the degree to which you have either become or been 'corrupted' by something 'else'. Nonhuman. Demonic. Scarey Spookey Stuff From Beyond.

Not giving the hot chick what she wants does not, to me, fit the bill. YMMV.

 

[Clovenhoof]

I second what Vortigern said.