Are paladins immune to intimidation?

[Hypersmurf]

If it's a PC Paladin, of course, by the Core Rules he's as immune to Intimidate as any other PC...

-Hyp.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I think not, because there is a difference between immune to fear and that he don't think about any consquence.
for example, the group leader from some thugs says to the paladin:
you have a wonderful woman! It would be very sad if she has an accident!. (this is intimidate)
The immune to fear ability has no effect in my opinion, because he (the paladin) is not threated (he own health or life).

Welcome to the boards, Tomiro!

On the question at hand: intimidating is creating that lump in the throat of the enemy: an incertainty, a fear, really, that you're powerless against him, that he's better, or more powerful than you, and there's no way you can stop him. It's not exactly threatening, although often part of threatening (sorry I used an ambiguous explanation last week).

Being immune to fear means that you're immune to intimidate. You can, of course, be threatened. You can find yourself on the horns, even, in a clear lose-lose-situation, but you will be able to consider it cool-headed, without any tricks played on your mind.

Ever read Lords & Ladies (Pratchett's Discworld)? The elves did exactly that: they intimidated everyone. They were stronger than humans, because humans let themselves be made weaker. They thought that they had no chance against the elves, deserved none, because they were nothing, while the elves were shining. Once the spell was broken, they weren't hauntingly beautiful anymore, they were skinni, foxy-faced humands with to small mouths and noses, and to big eyes. And they were weak.

Hear hear. It never ceases to amaze me how many people seem to think that good characters--especially paladins--ought to be at the beck and call of every villain who threatens to do something wicked if the paladin (or good character) doesn't obey them.

Some Paladins will even attack even if they know that they can't save the children, cause it serves the greater good, and that's all that matters to them. They would sacrifice those children.

(Of course, in D&D paladins tend to work with rogues (party balance is a strange thing), so the paladin probably stalls the villain while the rogue sneaks around behind him for the sneak attack (which would disrupt the fireball spell)).

Not every paladin works with rogues, only PC Paladins to that in any frequency. And even then some of them would object to use any underhanded tactics

If it's a PC Paladin, of course, by the Core Rules he's as immune to Intimidate as any other PC...

I don't like that rule overmuch. Of course the DM cannot use anything short of dominate person to control the actions of characters! But he should be able to use Intimidate and the likes to flavor the info the players get: a successful Intimidate check, and the DM will describe the char much more imposant.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't like that rule overmuch.

I loathe it

Nevertheless, in the Rules forum, it seemed a relevant point.

-Hyp.

 

[Stalker0]

If its a PC paladin, just treat it like this. If the bad guy makes a great intimidate check, then he comes across as very crazy and powerful, and will most likely back up his threats. Of course, the paladin is immune to fear- so will not be afraid of this powerful guy- but will treat him a little different than a short weak wizard who stutters as he threatens.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In the case of a PC being charmed, I can slip the player a note saying "You think this guy's your best friend."

In the case of a PC taking a drug with some mental side effects, I can pass a note saying "Just add a tinge of paranoia to your character's personality for a game hour or two."

I don't think it's straitjacketing, or removing the player's free will, if you pass a note saying "He seems like a real nice guy" or "That shook you a little" when an NPC makes a good Diplomacy or Intimidate roll.

After all, the wooden, shy player can have a character with a 17 Charisma and 12 ranks in Bluff, and allowances can be made for the gap between the player's portrayal and the character's performance... the DM should get the same consideration.

It relies on the cooperation of your players, and an awareness and conscious avoidance of metagaming, but the effect of Intimidate doesn't have to be "You run away screaming". It just influences your behaviour or decisions. The player is still the arbiter of the actions his character takes - he just takes into consideration the fact that the character is a little scared by whatever just happened.

Carrying on in the face of that fear is what heroism's all about, after all.

-Hyp.

 

[Endur]

The whole issue of innocents being threatened by an evil doer is complex.

As a frequent player of Paladins, I don't have a single answer to the problem.

Sometimes, it makes sense to attack. Sometimes it makes sense to not attack. Sometimes it makes sense to provoke the evil doer into action.

The idea of raising the victim from the dead is a cheap cop-out in my opinion. If the evil doer is a wizard, you don't know that the victim will be raisable, it might require resurrection. The slain victim might not want to return to life. There might not be a cleric of high enough level. etc. etc.

So I think you have to take action assuming that the evil doer is capable of killing the potential victims. And I think you have to try to stop him if he attempts to hurt them. On the other hand, I also think that you can't let the evil doer just do what he wants. His threat does not give him control.

The Lethal Weapon series handles this situation a lot. Mel Gibson and Danny Glover usually get around the hostage situation through distractions.

Tom

 

[hong]

This whole thread is really a cunningly disguised metaphor for the Iraq situation, isn't it?


Hong "no, I dare YOU to cast your veto" Ooi

 

[Li Shenron]

If it's a PC Paladin, of course, by the Core Rules he's as immune to Intimidate as any other PC...

-Hyp.

Finally someone has found the courage to say it!

The use of Intimidate skill does not cause a character to be shaken, frightened or panicking, but rather simply changes someone's attitude towards the intimidating character.

You cannot force a PC to be afraid against the player's will, unless you are using some mind-affecting spell or supernatural/spell-like ability (maybe also with extraordinary abilities).

In the same way that you cannot force a PC to believe a lie even if he fails a Sense Motive check, and in fact in the case he fails you just don't tell him he recognizes the lie, while if he succeed he "spots" the liar. But even if you tell him that the liar seems perfectly sincere (whether because he is or because the PC failed the SM check) you cannot force the player to act in a specific way.

Of course, good roleplayers will play accordingly, and the DM is free to reward them, but that's beyond the Intimidate skill, which is in fact basically a PC's skill and not a NPC's skill.

 

[Gez]

Hundreds of charred, dead, orphaned babies are in awe of your courage

Bah, they were orphans, they led a poor, sad life, and one of the caretaker was suspected of molesting, and they had spinach every weeks, and there were cockroaches in the bedrooms, and, and, and...

They are better where they are now.

 

[Darklone]

Bah, they were orphans, they led a poor, sad life, and one of the caretaker was suspected of molesting, and they had spinach every weeks, and there were cockroaches in the bedrooms, and, and, and...

They are better where they are now.

Right. That solves the problem with raising hundreds of orphans and will let your paladin lead a nice quiet life as boss of some local militia... without granted powers and so on

Paladins are not immune to intimidate. That skill can be used to impress others, that has nothing to do with fear. I second the mentioning of shaken, frightened and so on...