| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re-read Lawful Good.
it just means "inclined to obey and uphold laws" and "inclined toward being helpful, giving, and generally good natured."
It doesn't mean you can't scare the piss out of someone if they are causing a problem.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can be LG and still be intimidating. A lot of it can come from the implication of force - actual torture isn't really effective at getting information anyway.
In terms of an interrogation, think more along the lines of "cooperate and things will go easier on you."
For your example with the kobolds, what is your eventual plan for your prisoners? Whatever it is, offer a more lenient version if they talk.
Edit: Another way to think of it, is how would Captain America interrogate a prisoner?
|
Intimidation can also be "displays of prowess." Just standing there in an awesome pose and speaking in a serious but thundering tone is enough to frighten the kobolds.
Indimidation is not through words or direct actions. It can be done through the way one walks, the way he talks, one's mannerisms; similar to the auras around characters in anime. A good example are the Intimidations of the anime Toriko. Characters display their power through their auras, taking the form of huge monsters.
A Lawful Good character reveals his prowess as a warning to his enemies to not underestimate him and to avoid unnecessary battles.
Intimidation, that is causing fear in others, is in general not a good action. Fear is typically less bad than physical harm, but it is an evil. Also keep in mind that torture is 90% intimidation.
There will be situations where intimidation is the lesser evil, but speaking in a general manner, intimidating someone is causing them to suffer an evil and is such at the very least not a good action.
On the other hand, 99% of all essentially good outsiders are combat monsters, which kind of suggests that good and evil on Golarion are less moral categories but rather just sides of the lower/upper planes distinction. Angels and Demons all kill, torture, maim and intimidate, it's only their justifications that differ.
Or you can adopt an imperial ethos: everything I do is good, because I do it and I am the good guy.
Addendum:
Lawfulness doesn't really figure into it, unless there are laws prohibiting or prescribing intimidation (hard to imagine in a general case, but a government could outfit its military or police force to appear intimidating e.g.). It is ime purely a matter of good vs evil. And thus, a neutral or chaotic good character might have more issues with it, since they would not by equally inclined to excuse their actions by recourse to laws.
Imagine e.g. a lawful good torturer in a generally good country where the law prescribes torture as punishment for some crimes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, 99% of all essentially good outsiders are combat monsters, which kind of suggests that good and evil on Golarion are less moral categories but rather just sides of the lower/upper planes distinction. Angels and Demons all kill, torture, maim and intimidate, it's only their justifications that differ.
So - in your opinion everything that's good should be pacifist hippies? Also - nowhere does it say that angels torture. Torture is evil. Intimidation is not. Not unless you think that the classic good/bad cop is evil.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"You speak Taldane? That is good, now listen up scale-face: I wanna know where your master is, and I want you to tell me -now-"
"PAH! The ssimple, pink man-thing wantss uss to betray the masster. Never! Riizgrin iss a mighty coussin of dragonss! The ugly man-thing only won because itss hairy, ugliness stung Riizgrin'ss eyess and made hiss warriorss fight blind! Not talking, man-thing!"
"I'm gonna go ahead and insist that you talk, you little s&~$. You see, if you don't tell me what I want to know, I'm gonna bend and stretch stuff on you in ways you'd rather I didn't"
"HAHAHA!! YIP-YIP! You boasst man-thing, but Riizgrin knowss your sshiny, metally kind. With your moralss and your sschivalry! You will not bend anything on Riizgrin while Riizgrin iss prissoner! Sstop lying and go away, wait... why iss it cutting Riizgrin'ss bondss?"
"Here you go you little turd, there's a large stick on the ground over there, you'd better see if you can get it before I beat you back into unconciousness"
"AEYY! NO FAIR! Man-thing musst untie Riizgrin'ss legss as well!! Sstop! Not ready!"
"Too late you little, green mongrel. Start hopping. Pray to your dragon goddess you get the stick before I'm finished stretching, or they'll be calling you gumgrin. OH NO EVERYONE! THE KOBOLD IS ESCAPING! REALLY, REALLY SLOWLY! HE'S GOING FOR A WEAPON, EVEN MORE SLOWLY! I'LL GET HIM!! Now come here, it's playtime!"
"NO! NO! AEYYY! WAIT! LET RIIZGRIN GO! LET GO OF TAIL! Wait! WAAIT! Riizgrin tellss! RIIZGRIN TELLSS!!"
"Damn right you're telling, you little cur! Now out with it! Where's your master!!?"
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lawful good district attorney intimidates all the time. He just isn't threatening personal physical violence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the character actually has the authority over the prisoner then intimidation will be very effective. In some ways it will be more effective when done by a lawful good character. For example if the character is a knight with the right of low justice and he is questioning bandits who ambushed him, he is well within his rights to order the execution of the bandits. The bandits know this and will probably be more inclined to cooperate with the knight. Following the proper procedure can often be more effective than just blustering and threatening someone.
Intimidate is also a good way for the character to show mercy while still doing something about the situation. A bandit let go by a knight after a trial and warning to change his ways will probably be more likely to actually cause the bandit to change his ways then a rogue beating him up.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sarenrae:
"Are you familiar with the teachings of my goddess? She believes in redemption. A good first step towards that would be giving us the information we need."
<pause>
"Of course there is more than that to it. She also prescribes what to do to those who reject redemption. Perhaps I should tell you more of that before you decide to tell us everything we need to know."
I imagine that several would rather talk than listen to someone lecture on the teachings of their church.
From Sarenrae's Paladin code:
"I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will redeem them by the sword."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Iomedae demands the destruction of the irrevocably evil. Prove to me that isn't you."
"Do you see that human there? He's an inquisitor of Asmodeus. He claims you're wanted by the Chelaix government banditry. The punishment there is life long servitude. Give me a reason not to turn you over to him."
"You are caught, dead to rights. You're looking at lifetime imprisonment. I hold great sway over the baron. If you cooperate, things will go much easier on you."
"I can protect you from Big Bart the Barbarian but I need your help first."
"The path you walk is leading you to an eternal to torment on Hell. I am your absolution. Repent and be saved or face an eternity at as a devil's plaything."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Superman, calm and stern: "Your days of stealing from little old ladies are over."
Crook: "Yikes!" [throws up hands in surrender]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recall from one of the paladin fall threads a rather awesome quote from the perspective of a paladin facing his fall. In it the paladin describes how his enemies shouldn't want him to fall, and they should fear the day that law and good are no longer enough to keep him from giving in to his emotions and desires, because that is the day he would become his enemy's relentless nightmare.
That is what I think of when were talking about paladins being intimidate. If someone could find that quote, I think that would make a great point of reference here.
@Cuttler: I respect the whole "I fear what my master would do to me, more than I fear you". It's a classic, and it can be used to really drive home a point about the potential nastiness of an important character.
With that said, I cringe most times I see it xD. I've been overexposed to that line, because I've had a GM who did not like to roleplay NPCs that weren't in control.
If a character is truly so jaw-droppingly scary, that his henchmen would rather risk torture and execution (don't know what kinda party you're running, but hey, not judging), than he'd risk his masters ire, then yeah, I'd say you're justified in increasing the DC of the intimidate check. Naturally, characters who do not fear dying should be few and far between, or the tone and importance of such conviction becomes utterly pointless.
I'll go so far as to say that it SHOULD be possible to scare a minion into fearing you more than he fears his master, even if his master is a horrible monsters who fights with 2 +5 cheesegraters. In nearly all cases should you be able to scare an NPC, provided you roll high enough. Now I know someone is thinking he's about to correct me and say that if you don't completely disallow certain NPCs being intimidated, then this or that plot cannot function, because the identity of A or B must remain secret, and the NPC in question, knows said identity. Thing is, if the entire structure of your campaign hinges on the players not learning that one piece of information, maybe you should review the structure of your campaign.
Sorry, that turned into ranting by the end. I do hope some of the above is helpful to you xD
-Nearyn
|
I recall from one of the paladin fall threads a rather awesome quote from the perspective of a paladin facing his fall. In it the paladin describes how his enemies shouldn't want him to fall, and they should fear the day that law and good are no longer enough to keep him from giving in to his emotions and desires, because that is the day he would become his enemy's relentless nightmare.
That is what I think of when were talking about paladins being intimidate. If someone could find that quote, I think that would make a great point of reference here.
I remember this too. A very good read that is 100% pure terror for one who is used to relying on the Paladin's code to protect them.
I remember only vague bits, unfortunately. Not enough for my google-fu to find it. I do remember that the bad guy in question bragged that he knew the Paladin couldn't touch him and to not bother threatening violence. The Paladin then went into great detail about how every Paladin knew that someday they would find a cause great enough that it would be worth the fall, and that it would be wise not to be that cause. The bad guy spilled pretty quickly after that.
Keep in mind that there are usually many ways to accomplish any goal. Not every character will have the skills or abilities to use every way. It seems like you are focusing on intimidating the kobold and ignoring all the other ways. Intimidating someone into giving you the information you need is a valid method, but it is not the only one. If the kobold fears the Boss you are essentially pitting your intimidate vs that of the Boss. If it was a game I was running I would have you roll your intimidate and compare it to the bosses intimidate. If you can overcome the bosses intimidate the kobold would talk. If the Boss is a dragon or similarly scary creature you probably don’t have a good chance.
Instead of trying to intimidate the kobold you may have a better chance at tricking, or bribing him. Bluff would be used to trick someone, where diplomacy might work for bribery. Sense motive is going to be needed to verify anything he tells you no matter the method you use. Of course magic can probably accomplish this easier than anything. Detect thoughts can be used to read surface thoughts as long as the kobold fails his save.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bam, extra crispy, and original.
I don't remember which book I remember reading it in, but there was one section where it said Intimidate is good for Lawful Good who prefer not to kill because Intimidated and Demoralized enemies will prefer to surrender than fight to the death.
Bam, extra crispy, and original.
That's exactly what I was thinking of. Thank you Tacticslion.
:)
To be fair, with the Lawful Good Hellknights (and especially their Paladin members) are pretty specific to one or two orders. You typically only work with others of your order, so you are unlikely to have a Lawful Good Hellknight working with a Lawful Evil Hellknight, the way I understand the organization.
Indeed. Even in the case of "But master will kill me" there are ways to pull off intimidation. The other option being to make the kobold more frightened of you than he is his master.
"Your master's not the one you should be afraid of. He's not here. I am."
Intimidate is not a bad action. Hell it's somethings parents will do with their children to stop them from doing wrong, acting out, or as a way to prevent the kids from doing something.
As a lawful good person using intimidate, think of it as someone's who's intimidating telling someone you shouldn't do that. Ed. Think of a western and of a cowboy sheriff with a bandit. Bandits got his hand on his gun ready to pull, and the sheriff simply looks all intimidating like and tells the bandit not to pull that trigger, and the bandit thinks twice before letting his hand off the gun and thinks twice.
When I was younger, I got in with a bad crowd, after almost being arrested, the cops had me travel with them to the station, where they grilled me for a bit, to scare me enough to not get myself involved in any more trouble.
They behaved in a lawful good manner, and did no evil by intimidating me.
If you are not torturing someone, then your intimidation matters less than WHY you are intimidating them.
Thats my two cents anyway.
You can be LG and still be intimidating. A lot of it can come from the implication of force - actual torture isn't really effective at getting information anyway.
Don't believe everything you see on TV. It's extremely effective.
As to the original question: I've always hated the stereotype that Lawful Good means you have to be an absolute boy scout going around saying "golly gee wiz" and the like. A self-righteous LG character who feels like their way is the only way, can be very scary.
|
You can be LG and still be intimidating. A lot of it can come from the implication of force - actual torture isn't really effective at getting information anyway.Don't believe everything you see on TV. It's extremely effective.
It's effective at making someone give you some information. If that information is accurate or not, who knows. Better have a good sense motive score.
"A truly good man does not need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many."
You can be LG and still be intimidating. A lot of it can come from the implication of force - actual torture isn't really effective at getting information anyway.Don't believe everything you see on TV. It's extremely effective.
Funny, in almost all the movies and TV shows I've seen, when it comes up it's shown to be really effective, while every serious article I've read about it tells me that it's really ineffective and unreliable.
When I was younger, I got in with a bad crowd, after almost being arrested, the cops had me travel with them to the station, where they grilled me for a bit, to scare me enough to not get myself involved in any more trouble.
They behaved in a lawful good manner, and did no evil by intimidating me.
If you are not torturing someone, then your intimidation matters less than WHY you are intimidating them.
Thats my two cents anyway.
Have to agree with that; so long as the intimidation itself doesn't involve any overtly evil acts, the morality of it all boils down to motivation. Law enforcement agencies use it all the time while pursuing (generally) Lawful Good agendas. Everything from scaring kids straight to interrogation tactics to ordering someone to surrender before they shoot.