Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8063419" data-attributes="member: 6801228">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?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.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. 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 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification