Given that you freely admit it is not built correctly, what benefits can we gain by pretending this is not the case and talking about a hypothetical scenario where it did what it was supposed to do?

The benefit is in asking a question- what do we get if it did work, does it do what we want? Do we want that? Maybe we want something else- maybe that doesn't sound fun at all. Tabletop gaming in general is an environment that does not ask questions like this. By using the hypothetical as a springboard, I personally wanted to ask myself at the very least what could be. It is subjective, but discussion is generally healthier than rote repetition of oft-retread analysis.

Think about this- by having this very conversation, we are ostracizing other people from interacting, because it's yet another re-tread of a long repeated topic. It has devolved from potential insights into 'Exalted Argument #24326576'.
 
To add to Shyft's sentiment, @Jon Chung, "it worked, yay" is itself a subjective and extremely variable sentiment, which depends entirely on what the mechanic is intended to do. If you don't know what you want a mechanic to do, then by definition, it cannot work, and cannot be fixed.
 
The benefit is in asking a question- what do we get if it did work, does it do what we want? Do we want that? Maybe we want something else- maybe that doesn't sound fun at all. Tabletop gaming in general is an environment that does not ask questions like this. By using the hypothetical as a springboard, I personally wanted to ask myself at the very least what could be. It is subjective, but discussion is generally healthier than rote repetition of oft-retread analysis.

If it did work we would have a working social combat system and people wouldn't try to use it and have it explode in their face. It does in fact do that, a lot. We presumably want a working social combat system that works and doesn't explode in people's faces, because I am pretty sure we do not want a non-working social combat system that explodes in people's faces. That tends to ruin their gaming experience.

We could talk about what a working and non-explosive social combat system might look like, but talking about stuff as if we already had such a thing seems like it's missing a pretty important bit there.

Think about this- by having this very conversation, we are ostracizing other people from interacting, because it's yet another re-tread of a long repeated topic. It has devolved from potential insights into 'Exalted Argument #24326576'.

Well, what potential insights from this that you think might come up that have not already come up in Exalted Social Combat Arguments #0000001 to #24326575?
 
If it did work we would have a working social combat system and people wouldn't try to use it and have it explode in their face.
Define 'working'.

Yes, yes, I know, 'does not produce nonsense output'. Define 'useful output'.

(Before you say it: Yes, I know you won't do that because you're not being paid to. This is a rhetorical point, not an actual entreaty for you to start designing a system.)

Like, you're saying
We could talk about what a working and non-explosive social combat system might look like, but talking about stuff as if we already had such a thing
but that's not what Shyft is doing. Shyft is not missing a step, dude. They are fully aware that the social combat system is explosive and nonfunctional, but examining what it wants to be is a useful step in the hypothetical design process of making a working system. So, you know,
Well, what potential insights from this that you think might come up that have not already come up in Exalted Social Combat Arguments #0000001 to #24326575?
Give us a bit (say, more than 8 hours) to actually discuss and talk about Shyft's analysis and derive insight first, and maybe we'll have something on that.
 
To add to Shyft's sentiment, @Jon Chung, "it worked, yay" is itself a subjective and extremely variable sentiment, which depends entirely on what the mechanic is intended to do. If you don't know what you want a mechanic to do, then by definition, it cannot work, and cannot be fixed.

Define 'working'.

Yes, yes, I know, 'does not produce nonsense output'. Define 'useful output'.

Sure. My definition of "It worked, yay!" is "Allow a player to engage mechanically with social scenes without blowing up the game because the social system has insane incentives."

I'm not applying very high standards here. I'm pretty sure everyone here will agree with my definition of "it worked, yay!", yeah? I'm entirely happy to talk about hypothetical systems that satisfy this condition!

Shyft is not missing a step, dude. They are fully aware that the social combat system is explosive and nonfunctional, but examining what it wants to be is a useful step in the hypothetical design process of making a working system.

How about first defining what player behaviour we actually want the system's optimal path to incentivise, as opposed to trying to divine the intent of whoever wrote the social combat chapter of the 2E book? I mean, they are definitionally not very good at their job, yeah? Surely we can do better than them?

Like, I'd say what I want to see is "Social characters who invest in their social skills should be able to sway other characters in a manner that adheres to their player's sense of what (possibly a tad exaggerated) normal human social interaction is capable of, without the use of magic". This excludes "Social characters who... should be able to go beyond what normal human social interaction is capable of, without the use of magic", but I think this is fine and allows us to escape headaches later.

So, let's say we assume for sanity's sake that a player of a character will make a good-faith effort at roleplaying the character's personality as written down in their character sheet, the description of what they care about strongly enough for it to have an effect on how they behave. If we take this assumption as true, then, what we fundamentally need is a) the ability to describe what a character cares about and b) a way to modify the list of what a character cares about in such a way that we don't violate the "possible with normal human social interaction" clause up top (that comes with magic later, and we don't want to violate that clause because then the player might stop their good-faith effort at roleplaying what's on that sheet, as they now no longer think the sheet is valid).

Do Intimacies allow us to do this properly? Are they enough?
 
Last edited:
Speaking of social systems breaking and incentivizing bad stuff...

So, with mod permission, I'm going to talk about Celestial Bliss Trick and why it basically breaks the social system. I've been kinda dancing around this one for a bit, but it's a big problem with the social system as it stands and it's hard to address without talking directly about CBT.

Ok, so the long and short of it is CBT is a fastest and most direct way to 'win' the social system, with win here defined as 'make the character do what you want'. It does this with the help a few other charms that basically cuts the legs out of the social system. The big one is Rose-Lipped Seduction Style, which lets characters bypass the 'unacceptable orders' part of the social system.

Just to put this in perspective, this is one of two effects in the game that does this, and the other is Dawn Anima power to scare automatons. That one is considerably more reasonable, in that it targets a particular subsection of unacceptable orders, ei the ability to cause fear in robots. Rose-Lipped Seduction Style on the other hand bypasses all of the usual requirements for getting people to do things in the social system- Intimacies of any degree, and the baked in rule 'if your orientation doesn't match, that's a hard no'. You can still tap Intimacies to resist, but one of the big safe guards against random orders is gone. It also completely bypasses Righteous Lion Defense, which is another problem since that's one of the cornerstones of the Solar defense suite.

Now, this is still defensible, mechanics wise- Resolve still needs to be beaten, and the big defense of the social system, Intimacies, still apply. However, for best effect to stop this you need a Defining level Intimacy basically aimed at 'not being seduced'. Which is less then ideal on a lot of levels, Red Rule or not.

Now, on it's own Rose-Lipped Seduction Style would be sketchy, but not unduly problematic mechanically, though I'd probably say it should be Psyche keyworded charm. But then enters CBT, and it's ability to impose a Defining level Intimacy focused on pleasing the bearer, and to cap it all off, bonus successes to boot.

...ok, leaving aside the squick factor here (no seriously, leave it aside, that's the reason this topic is mod locked) Defining level Intimacies are basically the "I win" button of the social system, if you can get them lined up up properly. That is normally hard to do, because you've generally built to get the behaviors you want to play into the character, and using the Instill action to create and raise one to an appropriate level requires some careful prepwork (playing off existing Intimacies like the desire to protect a home is how you do this normally). But CBT bypasses all of that, and gives them some bonuses on top of that.

Net effect, CBT hits a person, by the rules as written, they have a very good chance of shaping them exactly how they want to through that defining Intimacy.

...dammit, I wanted to avoid this, but at this point there is no way to: this is creepy as all hell. This is how the rules work, and in theory the Red Rule should stop any attempt to do this to PCs dead, but even just applied to NPCs this is extremely creepy. You brainwash people through sex. How the hell is this not Psyche key worded?

Ok, creepiness... put to the side, because it is all kinds of an issue, but I want to focus on mechanics here. Mechanically this is basically a 'I win social influence' combo provided the character can get the initial persuade action through, and unless you take steps for it not to happen, it probably will. It bypasses most of the interesting interaction with the social system you'd have to do with anything else. It is, by far and away, the most effective way to drop social influence on a person mechanically. Even the other ways to drop a Defining level Intimacy on a person that bypass the social system are capstone level Martial Arts attacks, and those are tightly constrained by the styles: Righteous Devil centers on repentance or burn, while Crane centers on ethics and philosophy and requires you knock them out (as an aside, Crane + Black Claw is a hilarious and terrifying combo that is Adorjan approved). Both require successful decisive attacks, which is a general bad things happen point. The only other way I can find is the Lore charm that creates or strengthens an Intimacy you have in another, in exchange for giving them XP.

What I'm getting at in all of this is CBT is basically unique in how it bypasses defenses and gives you access to another character- in a lot of ways its more powerful then things like Hypnotic Tongue Technique- wait you can chain this off HTT. There is nothing stopping the character from chaining CBT off Psyche keyworded charms, and there is no save against CBT.

...I really hate CBT right now.

ARGH. Alright, so it's more powerful then those Charms in some ways by allowing easy access to inflict mostly permanent changes to a character. And you just need to have a means to get them to... urgh. Perform the act, and it works.

Jesus Christ why.

Ok, I'm going to wrap this up and then bleach my brain, because this is pretty sickening working through the implications. Leaving aside the incredibly awful optics here for the effect, CBT is basically a bad touch effect in an edition that set out to avoid those. As a result it warps the social system towards either blocking it or achieving it on a personal level, because that pretty much lets the user place the influence they want on the target in the most direct manner.

From a mechanics standpoint its game warping, and from a decency stand point its a nuke it from orbit already one.

Everything works better if you ignore it exists.
 
Last edited:
Information: MISTAKE NOT
mistake not Gentle reminder for everyone to stay chill, civil, and calm.

And yes, the CBT post above has been vetted and approved for posting by Staff. Please to not take this as permission to start an extended discussion of CBT, as the post above well explains why it is a banned item.
 
Last edited:
(Note the Appearance bonus dice key off the difference between Resolve and Appearance- even with Awakened Carnal Demiurge that's still 9 vs 6 assuming maxed pools and a Defining Intimacy tapped, so no bonus dice/successes.)
Nah, Appearance vs Resolve is calculated before any bonuses to resolve (pg 218, right column, end of second paragraph)

I completely forgot the Intimacy bonus to resolve though...

That said....
Thousand Courtesan Ways+Awakened Carnal Demiurge+Harmonious Presence Meditation(+Tiger's Dread Symmetry) preactivated

Appearance+Presence(Seduction Specialty) for the roll, 7+5+1,
13 dice, dice cap of 12
Harmonious Presence Meditation gives an automatic 3 dice(and a 1m discount on all social influence charms), Tiger's Dread Symmetry gives another, Listener-Swaying Argument (2m), adds 1 success and 1 non-charm dice for ever 2 resolve added by any means, as such it adds the max (3) to the roll(our target raised their resolve by 5 with charms and 4 with an Intimacy), next is Impassioned Discourse Technique (2m) it gives 1 success automatically but also dice based on if you are arguing from a Principle you hold. This seem fairly generous and we can assume our Don Juan Solar has sort sort of Defining Pro-Sex/Lust principle they are arguing from and got for it adding 4 dice.
Now some quick math, and remember successes count as 2 dice,
3+1+2(1)+2(1)+4=12, our dice cap. For 4m. Now we do have 15m in committed charms, but still, that's some value there.
On top of that we have 3 non-charm dice from Listener-Swaying Argument and 2 more from Appearance (We have Appearance 7, for our seduction attempt Awakened Carnal Demiurge lowers the target's Resolve by 1, from 6 to 5, meaning we get 2 dice). To top it off we activate Blazing Glorious Icon(2m) to get a non-charm Success if we are at least Glowing (we could get another non-charm dice if we were totemic, but that getting a bit silly even for this thought experiment) and Rose-Lipped Seduction Style (1m,1w) for the double 9s

So, we have 3 successes and we roll 25 dice with Double 9s, which should average about 60% of the dice in successes or about 15 dice, giving our Don Juan Solar around 18 successes on average for 7m, 1w vs our Defender's 14 Resolve.... I'm not sure the exact bellcurve on that, but I think that's a fairly good CoS.
Kylar covered the defense half of your post fairly well, but for Fulminating Word, it's important to note that you can only actually use it when the influence you're trying lines up with a defining intimacy of yours in some way.
No....? It think you're confusing it with Impassioned Discourse Technique but even then it's...not really the big of a restriction as described in the
Speaking of social systems breaking and incentivizing bad stuff...

So, with mod permission, I'm going to talk about Celestial Bliss Trick and why it basically breaks the social system. I've been kinda dancing around this one for a bit, but it's a big problem with the social system as it stands and it's hard to address without talking directly about CBT.
...Yeah, all that.

Though even past just CBT I fell like Seduction gets a lot more power than any other form of Social Influence with Intimidate being a far second.
 
Last edited:
CBT is basically a bad touch effect in an edition that set out to avoid those.

Out of curiosity is CBT unique in its bad touch status in 3E, or have other zeal like effects passed through quality controls to become defining charms for there style of combat. Such that you either build your character optimising for them, or you build your character with mitigating against them being your primary concern?
 
Last edited:
People don't approach 3e the way they approached 2e. There don't seem to be builds, exactly.

Might be partly the product of a different culture surrounding the game, but I think the main reason is just that 2e got played a lot more.
 
People don't approach 3e the way they approached 2e. There don't seem to be builds, exactly.
I'd say they don't approach it the same way because there's no need to approach it the same way. Try playing 2e without optimizing and oops the ST accidentally killed you with his mortal ambush because you didn't have a surprise negator or whatever. Try playing 3e without the kind of optimization Kylar talks about and...things still work just fine. You can still use the social system to convince people, nothing breaks down.
 
Not really?

Like, certain charms that-shall-not-be-named aside, it's hard to make a character do something they don't want to in Ex3. At the same time, you've put what your character wants to do on your sheet- that's Intimacies.

Social encounters tend to be more about figuring out what they want and using that. Or brute force making them care about something (that you can tap appropriate Intimacies to resist).

If anything, I'd say the current system favors 'defense' but you need to have your defenses in place and setup properly, and if someone is trying to convince you to do something in line with your defenses, they work against you.

It's really context sensitive, but it means you can do things like getting a Solar Brawl monkey to stop attacking by offering him pizza with stuffed crust.
Mmm, a little complicated, but a simple breakdown of the challenges involved:
Assuming no charms yet on either side
-No major intimacies inherently opposed:
--Read Intents, suss out their existing intimacies relevant to your argument.
--Hit them with an Instill, leveraging said intimacy to generate a more usefully themed minor intimacy. Generically convenient is to seduce or befriend them, giving you a Minor positive tie you can leverage for nearly anything. Owing to having no opposed intimacies, they find it hard to just willpower-blow-you-off.
--Use your new intimacy to undermine their existing minor opposing intimacies.
--Leverage a Persuade to seal the deal, OR take that minor intimacy as your argument to start building a major intimacy. Which would take a lot more work, but I hope you can pull off at least three novel angles on why they like you :p.

This works well enough to subvert a minor opponent in combat time if you're a social spec, though I would heartily recommend solid defenses because its also enough time to beat your face in.

On the other hand even one major intimacy in opposition turns it into hell. It's very hard to pry off major intimacies, especially inter-supporting intimacies.

I.e. if you are trying to make someone buy you a drink it's easy. If you're talking down a mugger, its not too hard for a social spec, but even a social specialist would have problems making you betray your family in one session.
 
Just wanted to clarify two things,

1. Rose lipped Seduction style primarily gives you double nines on a seduction roll. It does not bypass unacceptable influence as a matter of course. Though the possibility is there as a story teller call it does not seem that big of a deal. Or at least I have not found it to be in play. For the record the one character I had who had this used it like the dawn anima power to get past golems and other stuff like that.

2. What exactly has been your play experience with CBT that makes you think it is so powerful? like generating defining intimacies is extremely useful but you can do that easily enough just through the instill action. CBT is extremely fast (assuming the character wants to have sex with you) but the end result isn't different from normal social influence. A defining intimacy is a a defining intimacy and I have found it a lot easier working the context of a scene around a current one then trying to create a new one regardless of charms.
 
Question. In exalted/ mortal terms, how good is a +2 in strength increase when punching or lifting? Something which boosts arm strength?
 
1. Rose lipped Seduction style primarily gives you double nines on a seduction roll. It does not bypass unacceptable influence as a matter of course. Though the possibility is there as a story teller call it does not seem that big of a deal. Or at least I have not found it to be in play. For the record the one character I had who had this used it like the dawn anima power to get past golems and other stuff like that.
Yes, it does. The text explicitly says "The Solar may even seduce a character for whom such influence is unacceptable." Which is, uh, really creepy.
 
*snip*

...ok, leaving aside the squick factor here (no seriously, leave it aside, that's the reason this topic is mod locked)

*snip*

...dammit, I wanted to avoid this, but at this point there is no way to: this is creepy as all hell. This is how the rules work, and in theory the Red Rule should stop any attempt to do this to PCs dead, but even just applied to NPCs this is extremely creepy. You brainwash people through sex. How the hell is this not Psyche key worded?

Ok, creepiness... put to the side, because it is all kinds of an issue, but I want to focus on mechanics here.

*snip*

Jesus Christ why.

Ok, I'm going to wrap this up and then bleach my brain, because this is pretty sickening working through the implications.

*snip*

*snip* and from a decency stand point its a nuke it from orbit already one.

Everything works better if you ignore it exists.

*snip* Which is, uh, really creepy.

Ugh, if we're doing this can we just take a page from Manacle & Coin on this one? Please?

This book is about horrible things - slavery, drug addiction and the socially endorsed exploitation of the inhabitants of the Threshold and the Blessed Isle by the competing forces of the Guild and the Realm. This book does not waste time pointing out how terrible any one specific part of this arrangement is. It was our belief that the evils depicted needed no emphasis and that pointing out how ghastly these matters are would be an insult to the reader's intelligence. Instead, the text portrays them as they are seen by inhabitants of the Second Age of Man - as terrible and unfortunate realities thrust upon everyone by the times and by practical necessity. I'm sorry if you're one of those people who thinks that unless you include a ritual denouncement every time you describe something bad you're somehow endorsing it. I guess if you are one of those people, you'll just have to either get a grip on reality or just not read this book.

Repeatedly coming back to how squicked out you are is basically useless to the conversation. Yes, it does awful shit. I get it.
 
Last edited:
Ugh, if we're doing this can we just take a page from Manacle & Coin on this one? Please?



Repeatedly coming back to how squicked out you are is basically useless to the conversation. Yes, it does awful shit. I get it.

Can I just say that while I understood the point that that quotation was trying to make, it made it in the way that made me least likely to want to read the book?
 
... I'm not even sure of the point of that, because, like... you can already seduce someone without a hint of sex being involved. You can seduce someone with power or money or revenge just as easily as lust. It just means "entice (someone) to do or believe something inadvisable or foolhardy".
 
It's hard to argue about things because... I don't even know where we are? CBT is threadban worthy, so I don't know what ground we're on? But it seems to me like it's a mistake to privilege one sort of action over another when it comes to seduction/charming people.

That is to say, a power that activates only on the doing of Sex makes everything (or at least one segment of everything) about sex, and that's not necessarily a good thing?
 
Christ, if we're doing this can we just take a page from Manacle & Coin on this one? Please?
Do you understand it, though? Because the two things here cannot be more set apart from eachother. Manacle & Coin can get away with recounting its horrors in a dry, anthropological perspective because the things it recounts are things people can and have dealt with in real life in many cases, and while there are recorded instances of these things, they are bad but not universal, and there is the option for fighting against them by having the knowledge of how they work and why. It is an informational text. This does not parse with a key, if not headlining, mechanical component of the noncombat supernatural powerset of the Corebook to a roleplaying game which says "you callously disregard the boundaries and comfort-level of others through overt, magically-enchanced sexual manipulation."

I can understand you not wanting "its creepy" to overshadow the other actual point being made of "it is also mechanically suspect, to matter how many sidebars exist which say not to use it." But given how the line itself has had multiple crippling failures with regards to keeping its hands clean here, and the very Corebook it comes from was headed-up by a serial harasser and those fully willing to stand in his defense, "this is creepy, and by being an optimal path to power requires players to either implicitly sign onto or begrudgingly tolerate sketchy behavior they did not potentially want to engage with when they purchased this Demigod Fight Game, this is Non-Ideal" is a crucial component of the argument which shouldn't be lost sight of. Even the nature of the oft-touted "Red Rule dismissal" here requires that the Charm itself become a Discussion Point for a group, and it stands to reason why this game requires me to have that discussion. Maybe I just want to play a cool hero, not explain why the book includes the option of sexual abuse via metaphysical power dynamics.

Because more to the point, Manacle & Coin did not present itself as a How To Enact Drug-Trade And Slavery manual with Helpful Tips. Meanwhile this power, by its very existence, presumes that someone is or will be skimming the Solar charm set looking for ways to bypass these things, and logically that you should want too because the Charm text explicitly lays out the sexual preferences and even willingness of others to resist your advances is an Obstacle to be overcome in pursuit of a goal. That's the "gameplay" being promoted here, placed in the same section as playing a musical instrument Really Well, and trying to create some kind of unspoken equivalence between the two.

Not wanting a game to obliquely advocate to you "this is normal, if not expected. Do some real unsavory pretend shit with your friends, we're all cool here, right?" does not make one oversensitive or a prude for remarking as such. Because in the end, we are all people just trying to have fun with a game which sometimes deliberately fights against us in the process. When we put "creepy" or other moral judgements by the wayside, we are forced to reduce the argument down and get into the nuts and bolts of the mechanic itself, as though the things it is trying to replicate are acceptable in a purely-mechanical context. "How do we make this Less of what it is" absolutely needs to acknowledge that unspoken advocacy, or else we fall into the same trap by trying to legitimize it through "alright but what if ignoring the sexual agency of others was nonoptimal."

Calling a spade a spade is the least objectionable part of this conversation.
 
Last edited:
Warning For Marginal Behavior - There Was Just A Modpost About Staying Civil.
Do you understand it, though?

I didn't stutter, Dif. The squick factor is, as mentioned, a large part of why this topic has been (and barring the recent explicit exceptions) verboten here. Someone says 'and this is baaad btw' and someone replies with 'well actually...' and then we're off to the shitstorm-races, with whatever actual mechanical discussion/question that was nominally the point in the first place left long behind. If we're going to do this (walk the tightrope of discussing the mechanics surrounding the banned argument), I think we have a better chance of it not exploding if we follow the Manacle & Coin example of dispensing with the ritual denouncements. The stuff you're talking about is the subject of the argument ban, and as such I wasn't actually referring to it.

So kindly piss off with your condescension.
 
... I'm not even sure of the point of that, because, like... you can already seduce someone without a hint of sex being involved. You can seduce someone with power or money or revenge just as easily as lust. It just means "entice (someone) to do or believe something inadvisable or foolhardy".

In the Ex3 context - especially where rules text is concerned - seduction refers specifically to sexual seduction.

Mechanically, seduction rolls are usually a type of persuade action, although the page 222 sidebar implies that certain appropriate instill, inspire, or bargain actions can also be considered seduction actions (and so presumably benefit from any charms or effects that generically enhance seduction actions). However, Rose-Lipped Seduction Style specifically enhances only persuade actions (to seduce a target).
 
Last edited:
I didn't stutter, Dif.
Then you are asking for a much worse conversation for everyone involved. "How many penalties and die rolls do we need to make these grievous transgressions against the agency of others table-acceptable." Do you want that conversation here?

The fact you're dropping the "ritual denouncements" canard on a topic about mechanics incentivizing sexually-abusive behavior, as though the only reason someone has to denounce such a thing is signaling what 'team' they're on, should probably tell you alone this is neither the time nor place, not anymore than someone pulling that "well actually," you're so afraid of.
 
Definitely not. The charm starts with "When the Lawgiver argues from one of her defining principles...", and I asked Vance to make sure.
...That's clearly just part of the fluff, no part of it flows in any way that makes that seem like part of the mechanics. It clearly says 'Upon successfully beating a target's resolve...' not 'Upon successfully beating a target's resolve when arguing from a defining principle..."

I mean, I guess if Vance says so, that's the official word (though I notice he does seem nearly as confident in that response compared to many other rulings). That said...
It still feels like a fairly trivial matter that's going to be a non-issue 90% of the time and something you can easily explain away with a little effort the other 10%...

Just wanted to clarify two things,

1. Rose lipped Seduction style primarily gives you double nines on a seduction roll. It does not bypass unacceptable influence as a matter of course. Though the possibility is there as a story teller call it does not seem that big of a deal. Or at least I have not found it to be in play. For the record the one character I had who had this used it like the dawn anima power to get past golems and other stuff like that.

2. What exactly has been your play experience with CBT that makes you think it is so powerful? like generating defining intimacies is extremely useful but you can do that easily enough just through the instill action. CBT is extremely fast (assuming the character wants to have sex with you) but the end result isn't different from normal social influence. A defining intimacy is a a defining intimacy and I have found it a lot easier working the context of a scene around a current one then trying to create a new one regardless of charms.

1) No, it's literally the text of the charm "The Solar may even seduce a character for whom such influence is unacceptable."

2) Seduction is more powerful than other types of Influences, as my math in an above post, you're getting about 18 successes vs a max Resolve of 14, a normal Instill Action is garnering 13 successes versus a max Resolve of 15. Seduction is, literally, the path of least resistance, mechanically.
 
Back
Top