Persuasion or Intimidation?

[Shiokara]

I was wondering, since I have a character in review, about how players and DMs view these skills in relation to an evil character. My current belief is that persuasion would be a roll to augment the effect of a logical argument while intimidation would represent a threat, but this gets muddled when I consider where the power of suggestion and passive aggressive solution fits in. So here's a hypothetical situation:

Let us say that the evil character meets up with another character, and wishes for that character to perform a task. Now, the evil character makes clear what he wants the other character to do, and explains how it would be in his best interest to accept the task (because it would be money in his pocket, and a rewarding opportunity to develop as a human being by taking up a new challenge). The other character then has the choice to accept or decline the task. If he accepts, great. If he declines, then there is no consequence, and the character will be escorted by the help who brought him in, to guarantee safe passage.

Of course there is no literal threat made here. It is implied by the atmosphere, and by not mentioning where the help will escort him to. Rather, the actual conversation is a persuasive argument about how it would behoove the listening character to accept the task. So is this persuasion or intimidation?

[Pseudonym]

My rule of thumb - go with whatever is my highest modifier and then justify later. Pseudo's tip #67.

[Acacea]

Not everything relies on social skills. Someone that is about to be walked off a cliff does not need to be intimidated or persuaded to stop walking except in extreme situations. One would just need to be clever enough to manipulate their backs to the cliff in the first place. So if you are an evil genius with no aptitude for public speaking, simply outsmart them in such a way as to leave them no choice.

Milara is an unfortunate example. What need for diplomacy or intimidation when your backs are to the wall! You need something I have something, let's make a deal! Unfortunately if you don't, the world will collapse. I'm not bluffing or charming, that's just seriously how it is. Ta!

You're not wetting your pants in terror at a barbarian towering above you, you're just railing against the cage someone put you in that you noticed too late, and it has been left to your abilities to attempt the escape. Social skills are usually then directed inwards at fellow party members as they try to persuade the others not to be crushed by the rock while the other half threatens great harm if anyone in turn gets them smashed by the hard place.

Anyway. The highest modifier rule seems pretty common too, heh.

[Gulnyr]

If you'd like a little more polished version of Pseud's advice, suitable for company, consider that skills (and skill levels) are representations of what a character can do and how well he can do it.  If a character is good at Intimidation but not at Persuasion, he's going to Intimidate a lot more often.  Even if the character is not consciously aware that's what's happening, the player is justified in that action by the numbers on the character sheet; that character is Intimidating but not Persuasive.

In the generic example up there, if I were a DM controlling a target NPC, I would probably think it was an attempt at Persuasion.  The character made an argument about the benefits, not about the consequences of denial.  If the player wanted it to be an attempt at Intimidation, it wouldn't hurt to say so on the DM channel.  Thus for any potentially ambiguous case.

[Hellblazer]

Personally I don't think that Intimidation in it self maybe evil. It's how you use it, that will say so or not. Example if you threaten someone with his life.

On the other hand. Someone of great stature, example a king, could be very intimidating to stand next to. That in it self is not evil.

[Acacea]

I don't think anyone claimed it was evil. It is not intimidation until you are using it to get something, however. Kings can certainly intimidate with their presence and position, but their "presence" is more determined by their charisma. It is not intimidation until it is used to change the actions of another to one more suitable. One more thing that might be useful is to remember the attitude of the NPC following an attempt. NPCs that are intimidated will change temporarily in your favor but afterwards will like you less for having been bullied by whatever means suits your character. The same is not true of persuasion, so consider before using them interchangeably what the difference implies.

I don't really like the "highest modifier" game for all-the-time use because I see a lot of things I really don't think apply at all, but that's just me heh. For example, I've gotten both persuade and perform checks for bold faced lies, and I don't like bringing it up over something little like that. Leeway and creative wiggle room is different from just sinking everything into a single skill that you then want to use for everything. If you want it... invest in it.

Something more like wiggle room to me is deception without "technical" deceit or any element of untruth. That is, lies of omission, bardic or Lucindite truths, heh. I think bluff is still applicable, but I don't think I would balk at a persuade. Because my character's persuade is pretty high, I don't like using it with the people I play with most because it doesn't seem deserving of a full roll. So there we often use CHA vs WIS for... stating a fact. Just a change from standard off the top of my head that is personal preference but still has a main skill that covers it.

[lonnarin]

In Broadway Musicals & Disney movies, persuade and intimidate are supplanted by the perform skill, in which everybody on the screen begins to sing and dance at random moments and the best singer influences the situation.  Wish we had more "musical numbers" on quests! Would love to hear the people of Prantz singing lowkey about how safe and freedomless they are, with a baritone interlude by Rael himself insisting that he's not a bad man, just a responsible one.  All the little deep gnomes on the chopping block could join in for a counter-chorus.

[Hellblazer]

I don't think anyone claimed it was evil.

yep I know but my comment was in regard of this

I was wondering, since I have a character in review, about how players and DMs view these skills in relation to an evil character.

[RollinsCat]

someone read my play. Curse you, Farros!

[Acacea]

Oh! One more (I promise...) comment that might help differentiate the two skills is the consideration of counters. Experience lessens the odds of being easily bullied. Multiple war vets, planewalkers, demon fighters, masters of the equations of the cosmos, corsairs that steal Black Pearls, rogues that have stolen from Rofirein's sanctuary, whatever your bag is... are a lot harder to stare down and push around. This is reflected in the counter to Intimidate: 1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear.

I realize I should have combined all those thoughts into a more concise response instead of scattered rambling ones!

[LightlyFrosted]

Part of it is intent, and part of it is which part you suspect to be the active part of the persuasion.  If you're trying to play up the 'nothing bad will happen to you (But something bloody well COULD)' part of the attempt at persuasion, it's intimidation.  If you are genuinely trying to be persuasive by more usual means, it'd be persuade.

If, as you suggest, you're trying to leverage one to assist in the other, I would probably moderate it as a GM to have you make an intimidate roll - representing the subtle threat - and depending on the quality of that roll, I would give a bonus to your persuasion.  Thus, you are being intimidating - which is to say, making it clear that you possess the means and will to do the person harm in a persuasive way - but since it is more subtle, you are principally persuading with the intimidation simply affecting the susceptibility of the subject.