How do LG characters intimidate

[ruleslawyer]

There is, actually. It's right in the rules. It's not lawful specifically, but it is part of being lawful good - the line "She tells the truth." Now, that might not mean "No lying" to you, but it certainly does to me.

I don't agree. In that context, "telling the truth" isn't about perfect slavish adherence to correct representation of the facts, all the time, to everyone; that's what wearing a ring of truth is about (i.e., a curse). IMHO, it's more about general honesty... much like keeping your promises (which is also part of the LG credo). Threatening a captive with an imaginary punishment isn't really about genuine dishonesty; you're not making a misrepresentation that's likely to result in any harm.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Vimes believes in laws applying to everyone equally, but is willing to push the boundaries enough when needed to count as NG in my book. I'd say he's CG in nature but keeps himself under control enough to be NG in his actions.

His "pushing the boundaries" is just part of being a policeman. Really, the only one who truly tries to do everything completely "by the book" is Carrot.

But I'd still argue that Vimes is lawful. He lives under a very strong set of self-imposed rules, because he fears what he would become if he didn't adhere to rules. He would never actually mistreat a prisoner, or threaten a prisoner with violence. He insists on a large amount of discipline among his subordinates - not the "spit-and-polish" kind of discipline which he despises, but the discipline that ensure that they always behave how coppers ought to behave.

I recommend Vimes as a model for any Lawful Good character who has lost his naivity but not his ideals.

 

[Particle_Man]

Nonsense. There's nothing about being lawful that means you have any compunction about lying.

p. 104, phb, under "Law and Chaos": "Lawful characters tell the truth..."

and under "Lawful Good": "...She tells the truth..."

To the extent that one sticks to one's alignment as lawful, presumably one tells the truth (and thus does not lie). To the extent that one lies, presumably one is beginning to stray from one's lawful alignment, in either a major or minor fashion.

In any case, lying is more a use of the Bluff skill than Intimidate skill, and thus is a separate matter.

 

[Particle_Man]

I don't agree. In that context, "telling the truth" isn't about perfect slavish adherence to correct representation of the facts, all the time, to everyone; that's what wearing a ring of truth is about (i.e., a curse). IMHO, it's more about general honesty... much like keeping your promises (which is also part of the LG credo). Threatening a captive with an imaginary punishment isn't really about genuine dishonesty; you're not making a misrepresentation that's likely to result in any harm.

Your interpretation is not supported by the text. It says nothing about "lying only when it is unlikely to result in any harm". It says "Lawful characters tell the truth". There are no exceptions listed. And since it is separately noted that a lawful character "keeps their word" in the same paragraph as it says "tell the truth", then presumably to tell the truth means *more* than merely to "keep one's word".

To the extent that one lies, one is acting against the lawful alignment (perhaps in a minor way, so that one can remain lawfully aligned in general, but it edges one closer and closer to a non-lawful alignment nontheless).

 

[KrazyHades]

Think "The Children of the Light" aka "the Whitecloaks" from the Wheel of Time series. Lots of threats about hell and darkness and "I'll destroy all evil I encounter, and if you don't talk, you must be serving the Dark One and need to be eradicated" kind of thing.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Your interpretation is not supported by the text. It says nothing about "lying only when it is unlikely to result in any harm". It says "Lawful characters tell the truth". There are no exceptions listed. And since it is separately noted that a lawful character "keeps their word" in the same paragraph as it says "tell the truth", then presumably to tell the truth means *more* than merely to "keep one's word".

Actually, I'd suggest that having "tell[ing] the truth" and "keep[ing] their word" in the same paragraph suggests that these are *examples* of LG conduct rather than strictures. My point hinges specifically around the fact that it does not say that LG characters "must tell the truth at all times." It uses truth-telling as an example of LG conduct; of course I agree that telling the truth is precisely that. BUT, it does NOT say that an LG character must not or cannot lie. That, IMHO, is an overly restrictive definition of an LG alignment.

Now, does lying all the time edge a PC away from LG conduct? Of course; "telling the truth" is an important element of being LG, as the text notes. But lying out of otherwise LG motives, and in a completely harmless way, is not specifically contrary to overall LG conduct.

 

[Particle_Man]

Now, does lying all the time edge a PC away from LG conduct? Of course; "telling the truth" is an important element of being LG, as the text notes. But lying out of otherwise LG motives, and in a completely harmless way, is not specifically contrary to overall LG conduct.

In that case, we are not far different. I assume then that a good sorceror casting Summon Monster X to summon an evil outsider, but for a good cause (or a lawful sorceror casting it to summon a chaotic outsider, but for a lawful cause), would fall under a similar "escape clause" for you?

 

[interwyrm]

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

He probably wasn't lawful good, but that is something a lawful good character could say. The six-fingered man was an evil person, and had committed a crime. Granted, that's more of a demoralizing intimidate than a 'get information' intimidate.

 

[takyris]

Not an example a lot of people here are familiar with, likely, but J.D. Robb's "____ in Death" series has a cop whom I consider LG (although shading toward NG because she lets her computer-hacker husband give her information that she knows he gets through illegal hacking). She does some great interrogations.

In a D&D world, a LG fighter with ranks in Intimidate would, in my book, be more likely to talk implicitly than explicitly about consequences. The "you're going to get ____ in prison" thing doesn't work for me as Lawful Good, personally -- I consider that chaotic behavior. (For the record, I consider implicit "I'm going to allow ____ to happen to your wife/sister/children" to be evil.)

Examples of things I'd be perfectly fine with:

"You don't want to talk to me? You don't want to TALK to me? Somebody's summoning demons to KILL people, and you know something that can make that stop. Let me make this clear to you. When I find out where the summoner is, I'm going to go there, and I'm going to kill them. If they summon the demon, I'll kill the demon. If they've got guards, I'll kill the guards. Innocent people are being killed in ways that would make you sick. I will kill ANYONE between me and my goal. Where do you think you're standing right now?"

"Your boss told you not to let anyone through that door, huh? I get that. I respect that. Two things to think about, though. First, how are things working out for your boss these days? You've seen the bodies, you've heard the rumors. You want to be be around when he loses it entirely, when he's killing everyone he can see? And second... I'm confident enough to take on your boss, man-to-man. Unless you can say the same, you're out of your weight class. Now, either get out of my way or give me your best shot."

"Why should you work with me? I'm trying to save this city from something that would kill every living person inside these walls. That includes sewer scum like you. If you help me, I'll forget about the scar on your left hand or the faint accent you're trying to hide, and if the time comes when I come to take you down, you have my word that I'll give you a fair chance to surrender. And if you DON'T help me? I'll take you down. Not your organization -- there will always be a guild. I mean YOU. Personally. Destroying your little empire will be my pleasant diversion when I'm not dealing with REAL problems. Are we clear?"

"I need to know where the wizard is, and I need to know NOW. I can't take prisoners, and I can't wait for the guard to take you in. For that, I apologize. Tell me where the wizard is, and I let you run. Lie to me or keep that stoic silence, and though the deed may haunt me for the rest of my life, I will execute you now. I have neither the time nor the inclination for torture."

 

[roguerouge]

LG intimidate

I'm going to have to agree with "Particle Man" here on the LG's use of a lying: it's a bluff skill check and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. (After all, it gets easier to justify each time you do it.) And even if they wouldn't know, the LG character would know that they're lying. And getting a confession by half-truths and lies is the very definition of a harm. Presumably, an LG would want to keep open the possibility of redeeming or reforming the captive, which would be hard to do with lies and manipulations.

Laying out the cold truth of their deeds and talking about the eternal consequences of their actions I can see working nicely, however.