Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
One of the reasons I think Daisy was the more persuasive character was that her seductions came in form of in game dialogues. "I guess my barbarian could try a persuasion check on Dror Ragzlin or I could just assert *authority*"

Sure Daisy was a gold bar hanging over a bottomless pit but imagine if you could make the athletics check, grab the bar and land on the other side of the pit! Doing something even when you know you shouldn't is the heart and soul of temptation. Has no one *ever* decided to reach for just one more drink whilst knowing that would be one drink too many?

Where the Guardian's attempts to seduce me never had a chance - you should "absorb" that tadpole! Lol, no, making the infection worse sounds like bad advice thank-you-very-much.

That's really interesting perspective. I suppose to me the difference between Daisy and another drink is that the drink isn't actively warning you off with over the top, transparent promises of what a good idea it would be. That's the thing for me, Daisy was only ever a sign post reminding us what a bad idea using the tadpole was. Doubly so if you're a good character because the promise of death and destruction is only a deterrence. And even for certain kinds of evil, it's not a given that you're going to want to destroy the city. It would have been better and more tempting if she weren't there. Meanwhile the guardian is more actually tempting, but the thing he's tempting us to do now is more extreme and more foolish on its face. I think that if they went back to the old way where tadpole powers only came from using tadpole dialogues but instead of Daisy we had the guardian, that would be my ideal approach.