could you maybe explain how that would work ? the charm doesn't say anything about manipulation, just that you get a penalty any time you try to be honest and straightforward, instead of feling like it makes you an unlikeable manipulative bastard this rewrite makes it feels like it turns you into a petty pathological liar. I am having a hard time seeing how the Ebon Dragon atemps to convice the other Yozi of how to make the Infernals didn't self-destruct, weren't all arguments he used basicaly truthfull and direct ?
Yes, the updated version makes you into a better liar instead of being unlikable. You're not a pathological liar, but you're more likely to succeed at a lie than convincing someone you're telling the truth. This fits the Ebon Dragon's splat - he's a lying liar that lies, and enjoys lying when he can. That said, he is very much capable of telling the truth when either it's in his self-interests to do so or it's a horrid truth that hurts or debases the listener.
Remember what his Excellency says:
"He is
self-indulgent and
without conscience but can be trusted to act with
enlightened self-interest at all times, making him the most
dependable and trustworthy of the Yozis so long as those dealing with him don't forget his nature."
The other Yozis could trust him on his suggestions on how to make sure the GSPs weren't going to be useless because it's not in his interests to do so - he wants to escape just as much, if not more, than they do. Advocating a way to make the GSPs more likely to fail would defeat the point of making them in the first place, so the rest of the Yozis can be certain that he's at least somewhat on the level regarding that. And because it legitimately is in his
self-interest to have functioning GSPs to help him
break free of his prison and serve as
antagonists to the gods he's got enough going on within his themes to pump motes into his Excellency and be very persuasive about the whole thing to make up for his handicap on honesty.
It seens I haven't expressed myself well, but you seen to be confunding the descriptions of charisma and manipulation, the dishonest charisma example sounds more like manipulation, you are intentionaly trying to coerce someone, by the description itself charisma doesn't care about the people you are dealing with, it is gravitas, an inate likability, an uncaring magnificence and so I feel it fits Malfeas to just be that awesome and the Ebon Dragon to be that unlikeable.
On the flipside manipulation is an active effort, it is understanding someone and knowing how to make them do what you want, and would fit Malfeas to bad at this since he doesn't care for others opinions and it makes sense for the Ebon Dragon to excel at this since he loves to toy with everyone, and yet this is why I dislike the rewrite, because it dowgrades the Ebon Dragon from a manipulative Bastard to a petty liar, while I believe that the best Manipulators should be able to drive someone to ruin whitout utering a single lie, something that the charm makes practicaly impossible, as if the writer has never heard of the saying about the Devil and the truth
The Charisma example isn't trying to get someone to do anything specific, it's just trying to get them to like you. As an opposite example, think of a slimy used-car salesman. A guy with only one dot in Charisma but five dots in Manipulation. Now, he might be able to get you to leave the lot with a car thinking you've gotten a good deal, but at no point is he going to make you actually like him. His compliments will seem hollow, something will seem off about him that you can't quite put your finger on, or things like that. Charisma and Manipulation work off one another in some ways.
I think the best way to define it is Charisma is that it affects actions that get people to feel something about you that approaches being liked, revered, etc., while Manipulation is about trying to get them to take an action or get them to think something. Given that it's important to remember that the Yozis can do either, but they are restricted to doing so within the context of their themes.
Malfeas understands Manipulation within his splat. Malfeas understands pain. He also understands other people don't like experiencing pain any more than he does. So Malfean Manipulation is all about threatening people with pain and violence. It's crude but generally effective in at least the short term. He can't manipulate you by trying to use your own motivations when he doesn't understand those motivations, but he can still threaten to break your legs if you don't obey. He's not bad at Manipulation, he's just limited in how he can apply it. Malfean Charisma on the other hand is about awe inspiring terror and beautiful dancing, because those things are in his splat. He's generally not going to be giving you compliments about your new haircut, because he gives no shits about that and doesn't understand why he should.
The Ebon Dragon on the other hand understands Manipulation in terms of his own splat. He can make you believe lies, ruin you with horrid truths, get you to take actions that will corrupt you, etc. Overall he's likely a better manipulator than most of the other Yozis, but unless he's going to personally profit from it more than you he's not going to be very good at manipulating you into being a better, more moral person because that goes against what he is. On the Charisma side, he can take actions to make you like him, but only if it's in his self-interest to do so or if he's lying. So if the Ebon Dragon has given you a compliment you can be pretty damn sure he's got an agenda and that it's quite possible the compliments weren't something he really meant, though at the time you might not notice it because he's pumping motes into his Excellency to make it all seem very natural.
Witness to darkness (ES version) doesn't give penalties for telling the truth. It gives penalties for being honest. Is very different. You can still use the Aes Sedai style of talking if you want.
Also this. You can use specific wording that is true but is attempting to get someone to interpret it in a different way than is actually true. I'm not sure if this would give you the bonus as it's not 'inherently deceptive' but since it's not inherently honest either you might not get the penalty.
@Alexander89 can tell us how he's playing that angle, though.
I don't know if this is cognitive dissonance since english isn't my first language, but could you maybe elaborate on how that works ? isn't the whole point of that style to trick people while keeping yourself completely honest ?
The notion is that you're telling the truth (none of the words you say are explicitly false) but your words are carefully chosen and spoken in such a way that the other person is likely to believe something very different than what the real truth is. Example...
Obi-wan: "Darth Vader killed your father."
Luke: "That bastard!"
*later*
Luke: "You said Vader killed my father, but he IS my father! Why did you lie to me? WFT?"
Obi-wan: "The good man who was once Anakin Skywalker was twisted by his inner evil and became Darth Vader. What I said about Vader killing your father is true, from a certain point of view."
Obi-wan believes that the good man Anakin was is gone and will never return, so it's not necessarily false from a philosophical viewpoint to say that Vader killed him. Since telling Luke that Vader is his father would make him hesitate to kill Vader, he feels it is better to tell Luke things using this point of view rather than the unvarnished, completely honest truth. He was not lying, but he was trying to deceive Luke.
