I would disagree. Many people join the military as a job and not purely due to patriotism or competition. Any conversation with a superior always has the implicit threat of their authority over you whether intended or not but I understand this is a broader reading of Intimidation than you might prefer.
Okay, but "an implicit threat of authority" is still not super useful if you aren't an authority. And, if you are and it is an implicit threat that is constantly there.... why am I rolling? What are the chances of failure? They don't think I'm their boss anymore?
That is one way Intimidate can be used. I picked up on the dracolich example because somebody said there was no need for a check in that case, and I disagreed.
It is certainly not the only way. The point of Intimidation is to convince somebody that you can and will cause harm to them if they don't do what you want. Whether you actually can and will cause harm to them is a separate question. Maybe you can. And then again, maybe you can't. Or maybe you can, but you won't. Bluffing an enemy who is, in actual fact, stronger than you is a valid and potent use of Intimidation.
Comparing Intimidation to Persuasion and Deception, Intimidation carries the highest risk of landing you in a fight, but it can accomplish things that Persuasion can't ("Give me your magic sword, right now, for nothing"), and it doesn't require as much knowledge of the target as Deception does.
So, you want to take away from the deception skill and give it Intimidation? Because if you are lying, that is deception. Or performance.
And deception doesn't require any knowledge of the target. I can lie to anyone. Sure, certain lies won't work against certain people, but that is a situation where I'm not actually rolling the dice anyways.
Also, I'll repeat this, Intimidation like "Give me that magic item for free" is going to backfire. It is always going to come back and bite you in the butt unless the DM ignores the consequences of your actions.
So yes, if the DM ignore the fact that you just blatantly stole a powerful and expensive item and allows you to whistle on out of town with no repurcussions, then intimidation can be great. But if you want a game with realism, that sort of thing lands you in a lot of trouble, and is generally not worth the effort.
No, because failing or succeeding persuasion does not change someone's stance on how much they don't care about you. Especially if they're unwilling to even listen in the first place.
Okay, fine.
Yes, if your DM decides the check is impossible, then it is impossible. Congrats.
The Guard is also physically incapable of being afraid of you, so intimidation doesn't work either.
Proud, stupid masterminds who think they're above the likes of filthy medium sized humanoids. Especially when they have transcended death itself.
The world is watching this moment. Maybe not literally, but if you live, they will not be treated as the threat they are known for being. They cannot yield or look weak. They will feel the need to challenge you, perhaps against their better judgement.
Ok, so intimidation only works on the weak and the stupid. My villains don't tend to be stupid though.
If I transcended Death, then the decade of terror I will need to inflict to remind people that I am a threat is nothing but a drop in the bucket. I have eternity. Unless I die today for attacking when I can just wait and get my vengeance later.
And if people get uppity because I was weak once? A prison where the flayed souls of everyone the person who did that to me held dear are kept in screaming agony might remind them of the cost that person paid for my temporary embarrassment.
You think these ants are your workforce? Lol, nah. These guys are just disposable insects. Your workforce are the 4-5 high level NPC's you treat very well. You keep your useless goons barely fed, barely educated, and barely alive. You remind them that there is no escape. If any of them want to start a coup, well, they're going to need to deal with your very loyal 4-5 key supporters first. The ones that can manage the ant farms while you give them money and power. If one revolts, the others will be there to protect you and they'll be replaced. If all revolts, you've done something horribly wrong because they don't want to have to go through all the trouble to find someone else to bring them as much or more wealth and power as you do.
This is what it means to run an organization on fear and it's alot more successful IRL than you seem to give credit to.
You seem to forget that for every long running tyranny, there a dozen warlords who lasted less than a month. It takes as much luck and skill as it does fear to make that sort of thing work long term, and even then those people are dealing with near constant turmoil.
Also, you've described something evil. So, I guess intimidation is only useful for the sociopaths who don't care for human life. Not my style of game or character.
...The idea that Intimidation is a bad strategy in real life is kind of mind-boggling.
Every empire in history has been built on Intimidation: Do what you're told, and send your tribute payments, or face the wrath of the Emperor's army. Every non-representative government* in history, which is to say, most of them, has relied heavily on it, too: Do what you're told, or face the wrath of the ruling class and their enforcers. It's an incredibly potent way for a small group of people to control and exploit a large one.
Hell, even animals use Intimidation as a low-cost alternative to actually fighting. Why does a rattlesnake shake its rattle and hiss, instead of just biting you? Because there's a good chance that the rattle and hiss will get you to back off, and then the snake does not have to expend venom or risk that you might retaliate for being bitten.
If you don't think Intimidation works in reality, I just... don't even know what more there is to say.
*And plenty of representative ones are not shy about using it, either.
Of course it
can work, but not for very long, and not without a massive disparity between large groups of people.
A country ruled by fear, like that Empire, generally has dozens if not a few hundred people living well and happy. Not just 5 people, but a whole structure of people. And those people aren't being kept in line by fear. Maybe one of them is, but you need loyalty in the ranks or them being too greedy to care and too lazy to try and usurp you, or else the entire system crumbles.
And even if you have that, you are left with a recipe for revolution.
There is a reason most conquerors lost most of the land they gained within two generations. It is why there is that quote that you can't be called a kingdom until you have crowned your fourth king. Because the first one might have been able to take the land, but violence and fear lead to instability that the second and third generally can't handle.
Ghengis Khan had one of the largest empire's ever. It was mostly gone by the time of his Grandson. Alexander's empire crumble with his death.
Sure, an established kingdom can do it and enforce their will on another state, but generally the capital is a safe haven for the people of the original country.
Rome may have subjugated large parts of the world, but when they weren't in civil war (which they were a lot of time) the average roman citizen did not live in fear of the Roman Empire. The army protected them, not oppressed them.
