Aura of Courage: At 3rd level, a paladin is immune to fear (magical or otherwise).
'Magical or otherwise' seems pretty telling, and what is intimidation but a fear effect? I've never heard of Paladins being immune to Intimidate before though - am I missing something?
Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.
Shaken is a less severe state of fear than frightened or panicked.
Paladins are immune to fear -> shaken is a fear condition -> Paladins are immune to demoralizing via Intimidate
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is the thing with Paladins. They have no fight or flight reflex only a fight or fight some more reflex. Also trying to torture information out of a Paladin is any exercise in frustration.
|
Hmm...Paladins should totally get benefits from their deity (a permanent augmentation to Divine Grace, say, or a bonus feat related either to physical fortitude or divine magic) for enduring torture and doing a good job of showing their torturers the futility of their ways.
Well, mechanically, all torture for information is is a description for an Intimidate check. So they're immune already.
|
Hmm...Paladins should totally get benefits from their deity (a permanent augmentation to Divine Grace, say, or a bonus feat related either to physical fortitude or divine magic) for enduring torture and doing a good job of showing their torturers the futility of their ways.Well, mechanically, all torture for information is is a description for an Intimidate check. So they're immune already.
Yes, but enemies won't necessarily get that, so if they DO get tortured, I'm saying they should get rewarded for not just heroic defiance, but if they manage to 'break' their torturers rather than the other way around, as a Paladin would likely be especially capable of doing (then again, the same would go for any PC who manages such a thing).
@Trekkie90909: There ya go!
Antipaladins can demoralize paladins. They have to be close to do it though.
Fun fact:
The primary ability of Intimidate lacks the language on Diplomacy that prevents NPCs from using it on PCs.
So paladins certainly can be made to do what the intimidator wants, if only for 1d6x10 minutes.
Fear effects include spells with the fear descriptor, anything explicitly called out as a fear effect, anything that causes the shaken, frightened, or panicked condition, and all uses of the Intimidate skill. Intimidate, in particular, is a mind-affecting fear effect, so fearless and mindless creatures are immune to all uses of Intimidate.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fear effects include spells with the fear descriptor, anything explicitly called out as a fear effect, anything that causes the shaken, frightened, or panicked condition, and all uses of the Intimidate skill. Intimidate, in particular, is a mind-affecting fear effect, so fearless and mindless creatures are immune to all uses of Intimidate.
The italicized portion would be an interesting twist if it were true. Where do you see that?
Fear effects doesn't list all uses of intimidate, and neither does the Paladin immunity to fear, either.
I'm not accusing you of making it up; I just don't know where you got that from.
nm, I see it in the FAQ. A bad ruling if you ask me, but noone is. Que sera sera.
Fear effects include spells with the fear descriptor, anything explicitly called out as a fear effect, anything that causes the shaken, frightened, or panicked condition, and all uses of the Intimidate skill. Intimidate, in particular, is a mind-affecting fear effect, so fearless and mindless creatures are immune to all uses of Intimidate.Fun fact:
The primary ability of Intimidate lacks the language on Diplomacy that prevents NPCs from using it on PCs.
So paladins certainly can be made to do what the intimidator wants, if only for 1d6x10 minutes.
Like that time I tried to use Blistering Invective on a room full of vampires. The only person who caught on fire was the dominated thrall. Good times, good times...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, it makes sense.
The paladin's facing down an ancient red dragon and has so much divinely fortified courage they don't even need to save against its terrifying presence, and can shrug off the powers of a fear-focused wizard or bard or even the fricking Boogeyman without trouble.
You think some smelly thug in a dark alley is really going to phase them by giving them the stink-eye?
It makes sense for the Demoralize action under the Intimidate skill, yes.
It makes less/no sense for the primary ability (which is a coercive shift of attitude rather than an amicable one covered by diplomacy). Yes, you might use threats of force to do so, and that's perhaps arguably a fear effect if you roleplay the intimidate check that way.
OTOH there is no requirement nor should there be a presumption that the primary use of Intimidate entails direct threats from NPC to PC. A shopkeeper could use an intimidate check on a rogue to keep him from stealing from him not through threats of force, but by explaining that "Yes I see what you're doing. By the way, the chief constable is a friend of mine. You really don't want to do that." A successful Intimidate check by the shopkeep forces the rogue to be "friendly" and removes the option of thievery against that shopkeep from the rogue's player for 1d6x10 minutes.
The same should be true for paladins. The thieves' guild headmaster gets cornered in an alley by the party paladin. The NPC turns and says "You better not attack me. Here are the reasons why doing so will bring unpleasant repurcussions down on you.." Maybe the GM should say that even if the intimidate check was successful, the "friendly" paladin could still capture and deliver the NPC to his corrupt friends in the city watch who just turn around and let him loose. But my point is, the FAQ, if taken literally, says the Paladin is immune to persuasion by virtue of being immune to fear. It's a poor rules decision on the part of Paizo because this has very awkward and very counter-intuitive implications for Diplomacy and Charm Magic. The FAQ should have said "and use of the Intimidate skill to perform the Demoralize action".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fear effects include spells with the fear descriptor, anything explicitly called out as a fear effect, anything that causes the shaken, frightened, or panicked condition, and all uses of the Intimidate skill. Intimidate, in particular, is a mind-affecting fear effect, so fearless and mindless creatures are immune to all uses of Intimidate.
The italicized portion would be an interesting twist if it were true. Where do you see that?Fear effects doesn't list all uses of intimidate, and neither does the Paladin immunity to fear, either.
I'm not accusing you of making it up; I just don't know where you got that from.
nm, I see it in the FAQ. A bad ruling if you ask me, but noone is. Que sera sera.
Honestly, it makes sense.
The paladin's facing down an ancient red dragon and has so much divinely fortified courage they don't even need to save against its terrifying presence, and can shrug off the powers of a fear-focused wizard or bard or even the fricking Boogeyman without trouble.
You think some smelly thug in a dark alley is really going to phase them by giving them the stink-eye?
When I think intimidate, I think less smelly thug, moreso hellkight commander capeable of skipping the shaken condition entirely.
It bugs me much more that intimidate is blocked by anything immune to mind-effecting effects.
As if a wall from magical mind changes prevents you from having base fear.
-----
As for Paladins being immune to persuasion VIA intimidate, well...
Really, I'd assume they are.
Mostly becuase "immune to fear" would, locically include-
The fear that your actions may hurt others
The fear that you might be wrong
The fear that your teammates might be at risk
"Immune to fear"
If taken literally, means a lot of bad things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Immune to fear"
If taken literally, means a lot of bad things.
Only if you confuse immunity with ignorance.
Only if you confuse immunity with ignorance."Immune to fear"
If taken literally, means a lot of bad things.
Good counter-argument.
I don't have an answer to it, so...
Good!
Kender paladins, they fear nothing in the known universe.
|
Hmm...Paladins should totally get benefits from their deity (a permanent augmentation to Divine Grace, say, or a bonus feat related either to physical fortitude or divine magic) for enduring torture and doing a good job of showing their torturers the futility of their ways.Well, mechanically, all torture for information is is a description for an Intimidate check. So they're immune already.
ive always seen torture being a creative use of the heal skill than intimadate
|
|
ive always seen torture being a creative use of the heal skill than intimadate
There's a reason I specified 'mechanically'. There are no rules for using Heal to cause anyone to do anything (like give information or break in any way).
Realistically, yeah, Heal's probably involved in any extensive torture (or, alternatively, healing magic). But then, as I mentioned, realistically torture doesn't accomplish much of anything.
This actually caused an unfortunate gaming night. The regular group hadn't gotten together in a while so three of the six (Brian, Casey, and Doug) decide to track down Raxnar the Unborn (the anti-paladin of Asmodeus) and put an end to him.
The bugbear Raxnar was lvl 7 and they were only fourth level. They were upwind of Raxnar and had goblin scouts, so he knew they were coming. Raxnar invited them into camp for a parley. They came on in and I started my timer.
After 15 minutes IRL, I said, "Okay, I get to make Raxnar's Intimidate check now." Raxnar is built to do that; Casey & Doug fail their checks and are now 'helpful' for the duration. Brian, the paladin, is immune so he, of course, doesn't stand down.
I tried to encourage him to look to his comrades but he was having none of it. They managed to kill Raxnar, but his minions killed Casey and captured Doug & Brian. The shaman used Brian's still beating paladin heart to bring Raxnar back to life.
I knew Raxnar was too tough for just three, but Brian Immune To Fear sealed their fates.
This actually caused an unfortunate gaming night. The regular group hadn't gotten together in a while so three of the six (Brian, Casey, and Doug) decide to track down Raxnar the Unborn (the anti-paladin of Asmodeus) and put an end to him.
The bugbear Raxnar was lvl 7 and they were only fourth level. They were upwind of Raxnar and had goblin scouts, so he knew they were coming. Raxnar invited them into camp for a parley. They came on in and I started my timer.
After 15 minutes IRL, I said, "Okay, I get to make Raxnar's Intimidate check now." Raxnar is built to do that; Casey & Doug fail their checks and are now 'helpful' for the duration. Brian, the paladin, is immune so he, of course, doesn't stand down.
I tried to encourage him to look to his comrades but he was having none of it. They managed to kill Raxnar, but his minions killed Casey and captured Doug & Brian. The shaman used Brian's still beating paladin heart to bring Raxnar back to life.
I knew Raxnar was too tough for just three, but Brian Immune To Fear sealed their fates.
At 3rd level, an antipaladin radiates a palpably daunting aura that causes all enemies within 10 feet to take a –4 penalty on saving throws against fear effects. Creatures that are normally immune to fear lose that immunity while within 10 feet of an antipaladin with this ability. This ability functions only while the antipaladin remains conscious, not if he is unconscious or dead.
This actually caused an unfortunate gaming night. The regular group hadn't gotten together in a while so three of the six (Brian, Casey, and Doug) decide to track down Raxnar the Unborn (the anti-paladin of Asmodeus) and put an end to him.
The bugbear Raxnar was lvl 7 and they were only fourth level. They were upwind of Raxnar and had goblin scouts, so he knew they were coming. Raxnar invited them into camp for a parley. They came on in and I started my timer.
After 15 minutes IRL, I said, "Okay, I get to make Raxnar's Intimidate check now." Raxnar is built to do that; Casey & Doug fail their checks and are now 'helpful' for the duration. Brian, the paladin, is immune so he, of course, doesn't stand down.
I tried to encourage him to look to his comrades but he was having none of it. They managed to kill Raxnar, but his minions killed Casey and captured Doug & Brian. The shaman used Brian's still beating paladin heart to bring Raxnar back to life.
I knew Raxnar was too tough for just three, but Brian Immune To Fear sealed their fates.
Wait, did immunity to fear seal their fates? (Aside from the anti-paladin immunity canceling aura). Or did player stubborness/stupidity seal their fates? (It really looks like the latter to me). Just because a 3rd level paladin is immune to the ancient red dragons fear aura, doesn't make it a wise move to engage the dragon in battle. The paladin, alone, engaging the red dragon anyway is foolish. Not considering the backlash at his certain failure to his friends/the city he wants to protect/etc is....
|
Honestly, it makes sense.
The paladin's facing down an ancient red dragon and has so much divinely fortified courage they don't even need to save against its terrifying presence, and can shrug off the powers of a fear-focused wizard or bard or even the fricking Boogeyman without trouble.
You think some smelly thug in a dark alley is really going to phase them by giving them the stink-eye?
It makes sense for the Demoralize action under the Intimidate skill, yes.
It makes less/no sense for the primary ability (which is a coercive shift of attitude rather than an amicable one covered by diplomacy). Yes, you might use threats of force to do so, and that's perhaps arguably a fear effect if you roleplay the intimidate check that way.
OTOH there is no requirement nor should there be a presumption that the primary use of Intimidate entails direct threats from NPC to PC. A shopkeeper could use an intimidate check on a rogue to keep him from stealing from him not through threats of force, but by explaining that "Yes I see what you're doing. By the way, the chief constable is a friend of mine. You really don't want to do that." A successful Intimidate check by the shopkeep forces the rogue to be "friendly" and removes the option of thievery against that shopkeep from the rogue's player for 1d6x10 minutes.
The same should be true for paladins. The thieves' guild headmaster gets cornered in an alley by the party paladin. The NPC turns and says "You better not attack me. Here are the reasons why doing so will bring unpleasant repurcussions down on you.." Maybe the GM should say that even if the intimidate check was successful, the "friendly" paladin could still capture and deliver the NPC to his corrupt friends in the city watch who just turn around and let him loose. But my point is, the FAQ, if taken literally, says the Paladin is immune to persuasion by virtue of being immune to fear. It's a poor rules decision on the part of...
If you are trying to be diplomatic.... use diplomacy to get the paladin to be helpful, your examples of intimidate are close to the diplomacy skill as it is, although rightly still intimidate as you are still threatening the player albeit with clever words rather than with force.
In your example you are trying to make the paladin afraid of repercussions upon himself for continuing his course of action on attacking or apprehending the guild master. Pretty much the paladin doesn’t care, your threats mean nothing to him, repercussions upon himself? He will say "bring it on, I will take down your entire network of evil or corruption or die trying if you send people after me" he is still doing the right thing by his code and you cannot frighten him out of that, even in the face of death.
Diplomacy doesn't work against PCs, hilarious as it would be.
That is the thing with Paladins. They have no fight or flight reflex only a fight or fight some more reflex. Also trying to torture information out of a Paladin is any exercise in frustration.Getting information via torture is generally not nearly as effective in real life as it is for Jack Bauer. The CIA after all sponsored overseas torture mills for decades, and yet still got caught flatfooted in 9/11.The CIA was caught flat footed because they didn't act on the information, not because they didn't have it. And you're assuming the people they tortured actually knew the details of what/where/when/how, which they wouldn't have if you are working against a cell organization. The whole point of which is to compartmentalize information so if people get caught they don't have information on what the other cells are doing.
It's a fact that torture gets information from people. The problem is that there is a pain threshold at which the average person will confess to anything. So using torture to elicit confessions in which you are telling the person what they need to confess will lead to false confessions. This phenomenon is well documented with police and law enforcement who are notorious for obtaining false confessions in order to get convictions.
This can be used in games, too. If the players go for the Jack Bauer method, the GM can either make stuff up, or ask some leading questions about what the players are looking for, so he can have the victim of torture confirm their suspicions.
I'd also give anyone from a class or character background that specializes in effective interrogation the in-character knowledge that torture tends to elicit false confessions, and suggest that they could find another way to do this.
Different races might react differently to torture vs. interrogation, as well.
Raxnar, being an anti-paladin of Asmodeus, is the Lord of Darkness archetype, which means that his Aura of Command replaces the Aura of Cowardice; that's why that didn't apply.
And, yea, verily it was player stubbornness more than anything else.
Casey even admitted, "Yeah, we were all, 'We've driven out here tonight, so we ARE DOING THIS!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Diplomacy doesn't work against PCs, hilarious as it would be.
"How longs this guy been talking to us?
"54 seconds
"One round left before he diplomances us... KILL HIM!
Only if you confuse immunity with ignorance."Immune to fear"
If taken literally, means a lot of bad things.
Well int IS their only real dump stat...
Well int IS their only real dump stat...Only if you confuse immunity with ignorance."Immune to fear"
If taken literally, means a lot of bad things.
Depends on how you build your Paladin. Surely the ones that survive to high level are the smart ones.
Fearless does not mean 'cannot assess the danger presented by a foe so one wastes their life and possibly their companions on an impossible task'.
Surely a deity or the overall power of good would choose champions who would have at least a chance to do their job properly?
Arguably, paladins should be some of the most reasonable people on the planet, since fear can never taint their decision-making.
This is a great social question to ask in a game. Seeing as how fear, as a root motivator, fuels so many problems with a persona make up, Paladins would be some extremely exceptional people.
Fear would not slow them down if they were in love or cause them to think that their efforts could not help or make them unwilling to try new things or make them unable to help others or do things others may think would make them look silly or stupid.
Fear is at the root of so many negative emotions and actions that those who are immune to it would be very potent people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's one way to play a paladin, but by no means the only way, NN.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the flip side, roleplaying a paladin as being purely immune to emotions like nervousness or shyness can end up producing a pretty weird and almost flat character. So it's the exact same thing as NN's interpretation.
Personally, I like to see paladins as being fully susceptible to fear, but only on the inside. They're just possessed of the willpower to not let it affect them in battle. It doesn't restrict how I roleplay nearly as much as the "literal" method.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not replying to the post right above me. That's a ninja. A paladin ninja. Oops, he just did something sneaky or some s!$# like that. An ex-paladin ninja.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify, a paladin can still be afraid, can still hold back from confessing her love for someone out of nervousness, and can obsess inwardly with feelings of self-loathing, terror, or hesitance. A paladin can still be led to fall (or worse) because these feelings get to be too much for her.
What matters is that what she does is impacted solely by her own decisions. A paladin can still make bad decisions out of fear. But it's not "fight-or-flight" fear. It's not the instinct—the paladin is immune to that instinct taking over, barring blackguards. It's the feeling. It's the wear and tear that fear can have on their mind over time.
A paladin is immune to their base instincts of terror. Not their own personal demons.