How do LG characters intimidate

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

That sounds Lawful Neutral to me.

 

[KrazyHades]

That sounds Lawful Neutral to me.

Yah, they are mostly, but they are fiercely dedicated to the destruction of evil and the support of good. They just think that their good is the only "pure" good. They valiantly fight the BBEG (The Dark One) and his creatures, but sometimes they are misguided. They are sincerely trying to fight the evil and bring the light of the creator to the world.

 

[Kestrel]

"The Power of Christ compels you!"

/spray with holy water

Rinse, repeat until the evil gets out.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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?

No, because the spell is specifically [evil] or [chaotic]. Lying is neither [evil] nor evil in the specific sense.

Again, we're back to whether "LG characters tell the truth" means "LG characters *must* never lie." IMHO, there is a good reason why the text does not use the words "must" or "always." Or are we now saying that if an LG character's wife says "Honey, does this dress make me look fat?" it is an evil (or even explicitly non-good or non-chaotic) act for him to give a false answer?

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.)

It's an Intimidate skill check, actually.

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.

A systematic *pattern* of lying? Sure. But promising harm that you have no plans to deliver on an Intimidate check or two? I doubt this is a real deviation from LG.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Basically anything Robert E. Howard's Solomon Kane ever said to a villain. I can't pick one example out because there's just too many good ones.

 

[Kestrel]

This was popular in the 90's

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee. "

 

[Imperialus]

"You have commited evil acts for most of your life, monster." Draws weapon "I forgive you."

This would scare the crap out of me if done just right.

Brilliant. I'll have to poach that at some point. Perhaps not as an interrigation technique but it'd still be damn cool.

 

[Quartz]

Can I cite OOTS 410: Summon Conscience? Really, most of the earlier responses have IMHO detailed a LN response, not a LG one.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The threat of lawful punishment can be quite intimidating methinks. I particularly like the CSI scenes where Detective Brass insinuates just how many orifices of the suspect will be raped in prison if he does not comply. I gotta admit that would get me talking.

That's definitely intimidation. It is something that might or might not happen, and it is something very terrible, and the interrogator/ intimidator is not responsible for it.
I must admit, I don't like this method, but if I think about it, it seems honest and fair - warning the suspect what can happen (and it's even relatively realistic, I am afraid) if it doesn't cooperate, without planning or implying to make things worse (in fact, you imply you could make things better!)