This question came up during another question regarding the use of cursed items as offensive weapons; however, I think there's a more general question that's otherwise identical:
If a PC X succeeds on an intimidate/diplomacy check against NPC Y, and proceeds to instruct Y to perform some seemingly harmless action, does Y have to do it? What if the action will actually result in Y's swift and messy demise, though Y would have no obvious way of knowing?
Like I said before, I'm try not to play rules lawyer, just curious about this. Some examples follow:
- Cursed item: PC intimidates enemy, instructs enemy to interact with item. Enemy is temporarily friendly towards PC, uses item, and suffers curse.
- Trap: PC persuades enemy, instructs enemy to move into position. Once in position, PC springs the trap.
In both cases, an objection might be that you'd need to use bluff if the NPC asked for an explanation. This seems to be easily countered:
- Intimidate: Because I said so; Don't test me; Do it or I kill you.
- Diplomacy: I though we had a deal; Don't you trust me; All he cool kids are doing it.
- Even bluff: It's a surprise!
One addendum: in many, likely most circumstances, there's some skill check the NPC could try to realize the danger. Some of these are passive - perception, sense motive for bluff, etc. - and some are active - casting, etc. The premise is that the treachery is something that gets by passive detection. If the NPC were in the habit of casting detect and dispel magic, remove curse, etc. on his boots every morning, then your cursed boots would also need to beat that; however, for most people that aren't dysfunctionally paranoid, having a friend (or boss) tell you to do something (apparently) harmless isn't going to prompt you to be very cautious.