Question about Antagonize feat

[The Princess Lair]

Hello

I know there is a general consensus about the antagonize feat, that it is broken and such.. I don't really care about what part.

I want to know, whether it is usable outside of combat? The following examples are only a question about the intimidate version of the feat.

Example 1: Marrick with Antagonize is on a tavern, drinking. He sees the guy who shacked his girl, but he knows that beating him up will make him lose his hand. So he decides to go up to him, and use the Anatagonize-feat on him, to make him initiate the fight.
In the example above, the character with the antagonize-feat knows something about his intended target.

Example 2: Marrick arrives at a city he has never been in, and decides to go to the local tavern. He gets a little drunk, and wants a good fight. So he picks the biggest and most grim-looking guy in the tavern, and decides to taunt him to initiate the fight.
In this example, the characte rwith the antagonize-feat has never met his intented target and there is no particular tension between the two characters.

So what do you guys think? Can you use the antagonize-feat like that?

And a little side question.. Would a hell knight use the antagonize feat like in the first example and try to get people convicted he doesn't like? The hell knight is probably LN or LE.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Yes, you can use Antagonize outside combat. No, you don't need pre-existing tension, though having it might be worth a small circumstance bonus depending on the GM.

On the side question, entrapment is a tried and true police tactic, but of which alignment(s) is hard to say. It's illegal in America (and will get a case thrown out) and I think is at least heavily frowned upon in other modern civilized countries, but it has certainly been used anyway by cops who undoubtedly consider themselves LG. IMHO LN/LE hellknights would probably go for it as long as it wasn't outright illegal in the area.

[Pizza Lord]

Yes it will work, but it will be very obvious that you are the one who initiated the altercation. Everyone will clearly know it was you who was taunting him, saying you were going to assault his child, kill his mother, murder him in his sleep, etc. Whatever it takes for you to have caused someone to have flown into a rage. Unless fighting words and threats are perfectly legal to use to initiate fights (and they aren't in most places), everyone is likely to either say that you deserved it or that you clearly tried to start the fight.

The only way it might work is if you know the target and know that there's a certain topic that sets them off which wouldn't set off a 'normal' or 'reasonable' person. For instance, if you know he killed someone and you casually mention that person and let a few clues slip, but that is not what the Antagonize feat does (though it makes you better at it.) Using Antagonize is you making threats, insults, taunts, and intimations to influence someone and it's not secret, it has to be understandable and audible.

[Oddman80]

Fuzzy Wuzzy & Pizza Lord nailed it. i don't have anything to add. I am only bothering to comment because i know when i look on the rules forum for answers to questions, if a post only has 1 or 2 replies, i don't feel the issue actually reached a consensus.

[VRMH]

Oddman80 wrote:

I am only bothering to comment because i know when i look on the rules forum for answers to questions, if a post only has 1 or 2 replies, i don't feel the issue actually reached a consensus.

I now feel empowered to add a: "me too".

Me too.

So there.

[Ravingdork]

Oddman80 wrote:

Fuzzy Wuzzy & Pizza Lord nailed it.

And that kids, is how fuzzy pizza is made.

[toastedamphibian]

Throw in a dc 20 bluff check and deliver your intimidation as a complex hidden message. So maybe it takes 12 seconds instead of 6, your not in combat yet.