A question.

[Sir Kharn]

The question : if you have a character that is immune to fear should you play that char. as such? ie. if faced with impossible odds do you stay and fight? Does alignment come into it at all? I know that if i played a psychotic banite barbarian that was immune to fear i'd most likely play it as a complete nutter.
Also where do you think things like intimidate fit in? If you feel no fear do you think its possible to be intimidated? I'd probably RP it to a different slant than actual intimidation but i'm not sure, would depend on the opposing char. i think.
Just thought it would be interesting to get some different views, oh and...join the legion

[Peridan]

It's always been my view that if you're immune to fear, intimidation won't work very well if at all. A paladin getting intimidated just doesn't seem to function in my mind, for some reason. And the rules section states that being immune to fear makes you immune to intimidation, so....eh.

As far as being immune to fear, and how it's role played, consider your wisdom score into your RP. You may not feel fear of the Red Dragon as a paladin, but your common sense tells you that it'd be a wise move not to piss it off unless you have some way of defeating it.

[Intrepid42]

The question : if you have a character that is immune to fear should you play that char. as such? ie. if faced with impossible odds do you stay and fight? Does alignment come into it at all? I know that if i played a psychotic banite barbarian that was immune to fear i'd most likely play it as a complete nutter.

I'm sure Search will uncover a previous discussion on this... but I cannot resist.

My take on this is that if your PC is significantly afraid in a situation, then your PC should probably be trying to get out, fighting only if forced to. If you PC is not afraid (either because he/she is immune or the situation is just not scary enough) then your PC may choose to either stay or get out, whatever is more in keeping with their character. Just because you are not afraid doesn't mean you are forced to pick a fight with the Demon Prince.

-=-=-

Also where do you think things like intimidate fit in? If you feel no fear do you think its possible to be intimidated? I'd probably RP it to a different slant than actual intimidation but i'm not sure, would depend on the opposing char. i think.
Just thought it would be interesting to get some different views, oh and...join the legion

The d20 wiki speaks better than I can

Intimidate (Cha)

Check

You can change another’s behavior with a successful check. Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear). If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.) The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile).
If you fail the check by 5 or more, the target provides you with incorrect or useless information, or otherwise frustrates your efforts.

link = http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/intimidate.htm

The Intimidate mechanics were, of course, designed for NPC interactions, as others have said in the past many times. However, the PnP mechanics specifically include a modifier for save vs fear. Being Immune to Fear effectively means an unlimited modifier, hence no need to feel intimidated under the PnP rules.

However, my personal opinion is that Intimidate could also be used to increase the user's perceived level of threat. Generally, I would still allow a check to be made against my Immune to Fear PC, and having my PC judge the other to be more (or less) dangerous based on the result, without being afraid of him/her.

[Doubtful]

I'd say it depends on the type of intimidation.

Sure, Mister Pally might be immune to fear, but that doesn't mean he's immune to doubt.

For instance, a chap squaring off against a paladin and using all manner of unpolite cussings and scaring the paladin would be doomed to failure - However someone who attempts to intimidate by just appearing to be bigger, or better, (blowfish style, to use PL's apt phrase) than they are has a chance of causing the paladin to reassess the situation.

It is afterall an immunity to fear, not an immunity to thinking.

Of course there is a depressing number of people who's characters seem to suffer an immunity to pain and fear, regardless of class, hells, not that long ago I saw someone being tortured (his hands removed via the salami method, teeth and tongue torn out) the low-willpowered character undergoing mutilation happily emoted 'Doesn't make a sound, but stares angrily' several times without even worrying about trying a will save!

He did, however, fail his 'not getting angry' save at getting negative XP.

[TyrannyOfDistance]

Interestingly enough, it seems everyone's saying practically the same thing in this topic, thus far, when it comes to Immune to Fear. Which I'm glad to see, since I'm practically in cahoots.

Just because someone's not afraid or intimidated does not mean they can't look at an impossible situation and say, "This is dumb. Suicide isn't really a good idea. Time to back away and reassess the situation before driving through once again."

We can only dissolve fear so far. I remember many people in my squad, in the Army, used to debate if something was fear or caution. In the end, it really matters little what you want to call it.

For the purposes of the game, I tend to take "Immunity to Fear" as a mechanics thing. They can't be feared through supernatural/magical means, nor can they be intimidated. Beyond that, each individual player who plays a Paladin must decide how their character reacts to a situation that doesn't involve those mechanics. Can they fear for someone's life? I'd say so. I'm sure some would debate, since the word 'fear' is used, and perhaps they'd even try to change the vernacular, as to more appropriately align it with the word 'worry.'

Again, I think it matters little. As long as they're RPing well In Character, I'm game for it.-

[Machiavelli]

It is afterall an immunity to fear, not an immunity to thinking.

This pretty much sums up what I was going to post.

[Sir Kharn]

Good responses, I find it interesting hearing the views others have in this because i pretty much agree with everyone so far..I've had many conversations with people about this subject and I've heard many different opinions, once again pretty much everyone's had the same views. In the end really its always down to the individual and some common sense...

[Fezzik]

"There can't be any Courage without Fear"

... if we look at that though, then one particular Paladin is going to REALLY be courageous... one day


|
|
|
V What he said

[Philosopher]

In my personal opinion, I tend to look at Immunity to Fear more like "Immunity to the Effects of Fear." Can you be afraid for your life, or the lives of others? Sure. Can you fear what that Red Dragon might do to the village? Absolutely. But you will not falter, or lose your wits to fear. Your hand will be steady, and your mind clear and focused.

I suppose this is just a round-about way of saying what has already been said. Just my take on this particular topic.

[nezzerscape]

He did, however, fail his 'not getting angry' save at getting negative XP.

Fantastic! It's truly good to see XP awarded this way.

[AsuraKing]

I got a quick question about intimidation also, is will used to go against intimidation? because i think that's a bad idea... if you think about it if will is than barbarians are scardy cats with big weapons and wizards are fearless dress wearing old guys.