Pathfinder 1E How much can you get with Intimidate?

[ObjectivePerspective]

Last thread involved a Paladin getting intimidated by an evil party of monster pcs. Paladin now intimidated becomes "friendly" toward the party for 10-60 minutes. Is the effect of intimidate strong enough to get the Paladin to reveal town defenses and such to the evil party knowing full well it will endanger the lives of the people he has sworn to protect? Or does it just take him down to willful conversation where he would then try to bluff as much as possible to lead the evil party astray/minimize the damage they could do?

 

[delericho]

Last thread involved a Paladin getting intimidated by an evil party of monster pcs. Paladin now intimidated becomes "friendly" toward the party for 10-60 minutes.

With Diplomacy (and Intimidate) it's important not to overstate the effect. Otherwise, these two skills can become game-breaking in their potency.

In general, I would go for a "friend of a friend" analogy - imagine you had just been introduced to a friend of a friend. In this case, you would be friendly towards this person, but you wouldn't yet be friends, right? Now, imagine what you might do for such a person, and imagine also what you wouldn't do. (My guess is that you would probably be happy to converse with them, might offer some advice, but would stop short of giving up any significant amount of time for them, wouldn't lend them money, and certainly wouldn't do anything illegal for them.)

That's the effect of a single successful Diplomacy or Intimidate check.

Now, there are two other factors at play as well. Firstly, there is the possibility of a sweetener - for Diplomacy this would be a gift or bribe, for Intimidate the threat of torture (or, in the case of the Paladin, the torture of someone else). This swings things, potentially significantly - if the friend of a friend can offer a big enough boon in turn, what you would do for them is likewise increased.

Secondly, there is the possibility that through continued acquaintance (repeated Diplomacy or Intimidate checks), the "friend of a friend" may become simply a "friend", and in that case it's likely you would do more for them. But that's a longer-term proposition, not merely a matter of a single check.

Is the effect of intimidate strong enough to get the Paladin to reveal town defenses and such to the evil party knowing full well it will endanger the lives of the people he has sworn to protect?

No. Note that the charm person spell states that if you order the target to do something he wouldn't normally do, you have to make an opposed Cha check. Intimidate, being non-magical, should be less potent than that - your attempt automatically fails. (Again, unless you can throw in a sweetener.)

(If entrusted with confidential information, by an employer or similar, you wouldn't reveal it to a friend of a friend. Heck, you generally wouldn't reveal it to a friend. Although given sufficient incentive, you might.)

Or does it just take him down to willful conversation where he would then try to bluff as much as possible to lead the evil party astray/minimize the damage they could do?

I don't think so. In fact, I would have said that it was an unsuccessful Intimidate check that would result in an attempt to deceive. I would expect the intimidated Paladin to simply say nothing about those areas where he can't reveal the truth.

 

[Starfox]

Technically, a paladin is immune to fear, and therefor immune to intimidation, since it is a fear effect.

 

[ObjectivePerspective]

Technically, a paladin is immune to fear, and therefor immune to intimidation, since it is a fear effect.

LOL, That's what I said in the original thread about it working at all on a Paladin. The argument was that if an innocent is threatened as part of the intimidate that the Paladin could be affected out of concern for another.

 

[delericho]

Technically, a paladin is immune to fear, and therefor immune to intimidation, since it is a fear effect.

LOL, That's what I said in the original thread about it working at all on a Paladin. The argument was that if an innocent is threatened as part of the intimidate that the Paladin could be affected out of concern for another.

Starfox is actually correct - Paladins are immune to fear, and therefore can't be intimidated. Additionally, while a Paladin could be influenced by concern for another, that would not be as a result of a successful Intimidate check - it would be a conscious choice on the part of the Paladin (and so the Paladin can reveal as much, or as little, as he chooses, and can attempt to deceive in whatever manner his honour will allow).

However, replace "Paladin" with "Fighter", and the scenario still plays - and in that case, "how much can you get" is still a relevant question to ask.

 

[delericho]

And, in fact, having now read the specific text of the Intimidate skill from the Pathfinder SRD (always a useful step)...

If our theoretical Fighter were to be intimidated, he would indeed give them the information that they sought *, and limited physical assistance. He would only attempt to deceive if they failed the check by 5 or more.

* Even here, I would rule on the side of minimalism. Because he's intimidated, rather than truly friendly, I would rule that he would answer the questions asked, and only the questions that are asked. So, if there's a password, he won't reveal that unless the enemy specifically asks. If there's a Helm's Deep-style weakness in the wall, he would only reveal that if the enemy happened to ask. And ask specifically - a general "anything else we should know?" question wouldn't gain any useful information!

 

[Starfox]

It is actually a pretty hard situation to role-play. It is hard to imagine being truly immune to fear. A friend of mine claims all paladins are a little touched in the head, and in a way that is literally true - they have been touched by the hand of (a) god.

I recently ran the "intimidate with hostages" scenario on another player (and his group) who had earlier claimed this was a surefire way to get the PCs in trouble. The PCs didn't bulge - and there were no real repercussions, since the villains were not serious about the threat. They negotiated an escape for the villains instead. I can certainly still use this situation in later discussions with him.

He would only attempt to deceive if they failed the check by 5 or more.

That is not how I'd read the rule. I'd say that if an Intimidation roll used for interrogation fails by 5, you get erroneous information - the way a person under pressure gives any response just to get out of trouble, saying what he things the interrogator wants to hear. This is not the same as someone with an agenda using Bluff to give a false report of something.

 

[Starfox]

Note that the charm person spell states that if you order the target to do something he wouldn't normally do, you have to make an opposed Cha check. Intimidate, being non-magical, should be less potent than that - your attempt automatically fails. (Again, unless you can throw in a sweetener.)

Note that Charm Person says the target becomes friendly - not helpful. Now I think the text of Charm Person is actually older than the attitudes defined under Diplomacy. But if real literally, Charm Person is actually quite a lot weaker than continued Diplomacy.

Jahson Buhlman actually commented on that, as quoted on http://www.d20pfsrd.com. Note that the question explicitly uses "friendly" as defined in Diplomacy, but Jason does not in his reply, he says "The charm person spell (and charm monster by extension) makes the target your friend." which is quite open to interpretation.

In other words, I agree with delericho here. Charm Person is stronger than regular Diplomacy. But that is not at all clear from the spell description. And there is nothing in Charm Person that would make the target forget its own allegiances - he may like you, but he does not forget his ordinary loyalties and your pals are still suspect. Which is why Charm can actually be most effective on chaotic evil creatures who are willing to desert their friends on a whim than on reliable, ethical creatures.

 

[delericho]

It is actually a pretty hard situation to role-play. It is hard to imagine being truly immune to fear. A friend of mine claims all paladins are a little touched in the head, and in a way that is literally true - they have been touched by the hand of (a) god.

Quite. Being literally immune to fear is a very bad thing.

I recently ran the "intimidate with hostages" scenario on another player (and his group) who had earlier claimed this was a surefire way to get the PCs in trouble. The PCs didn't bulge - and there were no real repercussions, since the villains were not serious about the threat. They negotiated an escape for the villains instead. I can certainly still use this situation in later discussions with him.

Yep. The whole "intimidate with hostages" thing relies on the PCs actually being invested in keeping those hostages alive (moreso even than any "we don't negotiate with terrorists" principle), and on having villains who are serious about their threats.

That is not how I'd read the rule. I'd say that if an Intimidation roll used for interrogation fails by 5, you get erroneous information - the way a person under pressure gives any response just to get out of trouble, saying what he things the interrogator wants to hear. This is not the same as someone with an agenda using Bluff to give a false report of something.

It's a bit of an odd rule, since any failure on Intimidate should mean that the target is free to act, which may or may not include an attempt to deceive. But the text, as written, did seem quite unambiguous - if you fail by 5 or more, they will attempt to deceive.

Not that it particularly matters, I think - that clause will only ever apply to an NPC, and the DM is free to interpret it any way they see fit. It's not even as if the players are in a position to complain - by this time they've failed the check, after all!

 

[Starfox]

That is not how I'd read the rule. I'd say that if an Intimidation roll used for interrogation fails by 5, you get erroneous information - the way a person under pressure gives any response just to get out of trouble, saying what he things the interrogator wants to hear. This is not the same as someone with an agenda using Bluff to give a false report of something.

It's a bit of an odd rule, since any failure on Intimidate should mean that the target is free to act, which may or may not include an attempt to deceive. But the text, as written, did seem quite unambiguous - if you fail by 5 or more, they will attempt to deceive.

This makes sense to me - as I said above, someone under pressure will say anything just to get out of the pressure. They will not speak the truth, but instead what they think the inquisitor wants to hear. This is exaggerated under torture. A good torture rule might be that it inflicts some Con damage and allows an Intimidate reroll - but any failed result gives erroneous information. Better get that Sense Motive skill up!

The target can always use Bluff to pretend to give in, and then lie. Since Bluff only takes a standard action while Intimidate takes at least a minute, the Bluff would always get in ahead of Intimidate. Maybe that's why Hollywood interrogators like to begin by asking meaningless questions - while the target tries to Bluff in response to those, intimidate has time to take.