Creature/critter/gribbly behaviours -

[Prodromoi]

I am currently creating a creature for a new publication, and planning (well, hoping!) to include a wide variety of types of creature. In deciding which behaviours to choose for one of them, it occurs to me that 'hijacker' and 'intimidator' have a lot of overlap. So I'm now debating whether one of the gribblies I've written up needs to be changed from one to the other.

The descriptions in the core rulebook (both editions) read, including a Terran example for each as follows:

Hijacker (lion): Scavengers that steal the kills of others through brute force or weight of numbers are hijackers.
Intimidator (coyote): Scavengers that establish their claim to food by frightening or intimidating other creatures. Intimidators have Persuade.

The two descriptions are very similar. Having initially chosen 'intimadator' I am now inclined to change to 'hijacker'. But that's all good fun behind the scenes.

The question is: What other examples of Terran (i.e. real!) creatures might fit the two above descriptions? What else might you classify as a 'hijacker' or an 'intimidator'? And why?

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Wolverine, hyenas, humans.

 

[rinku]

Tasmanian Devils are definitely Intimidators.

 

[boggo2300]

Tasmanian Devils are definitely Intimidators.

the most terrifying thing you can hear in a tent at night (when you are in the tent, not the devil) which is how they got their name

 

[rinku]

They're not exactly sweethearts, but bark is defintely worse than their bite. But it's a really bad bark... the bite is not trivial.

 

[Galadrion]

I would say the the distinction between the two types is this: a Hijacker is fully prepared and equipped to back up the threats, whereas the Intimidator is rather more likely to be bluffing. When faced with opposition which doesn't capitulate, a Hijacker will tend to attack, while an Intimidator will tend to back down (or lurk in the background until the opposition relinquishes the target). (Note the verb, here: tend to. These aren't necessarily absolutes; if the opposition is unusually weak- or strong-appearing, this can alter behavior. But the tendency is there.)

 

[Prodromoi]

I would say the the distinction between the two types is this: a Hijacker is fully prepared and equipped to back up the threats, whereas the Intimidator is rather more likely to be bluffing. When faced with opposition which doesn't capitulate, a Hijacker will tend to attack, while an Intimidator will tend to back down (or lurk in the background until the opposition relinquishes the target). (Note the verb, here: tend to. These aren't necessarily absolutes; if the opposition is unusually weak- or strong-appearing, this can alter behavior. But the tendency is there.)

That's exactly how I read it as well. The intimidator may be all bark and not much bite, while the hijacker has plenty of bite (and may have plenty of bark too!).

 

[Galadrion]

I would caution you to not underestimate how much "bite" an intimidator may have; coyotes and hyenas have killed plenty of people who underestimated them, especially when the critters perceived themselves as cornered. Intimidators can still fight, it's just that they're less inclined to in the face of unforced risk. And they don't necessarily need to actually be cornered, just to think they might be.

But the players stand a better chance of chasing off intimidators than hijackers. Trying to bluff a lion or a tiger is chancy at best.

 

[G'Naakbusters]

I know this is about non-sophonts, but both the Dishaan and the Gl'lu are examples of sophont species descended from intimidator stock; that might also give some insight into how intimidators work.

The Dishaan are pure intimidators; they have a "do anything to get ahead" mentality, looking for angles at all times, and are very socially-attuned in a way a hijacker wouldn't be. A hijacker would just force its way in; an intimidator is always "playing the game" and calculating. In Dishaan it all stems from their ancestors' squabbling over a pecking order for access to corpses; "how can I get ahead and bully my way through but not actually face a physical confrontation?". It's worth noting that Dishaan in the Interstellar Wars did have a reputation for producing "berserkers" who would be let loose by the Vilani to rampage through Terran positions, so there's apparently a secondary aspect to their psychology -- if you can't "fake it", you can sometimes "make it" by just going full "I'm crazy!! Make way, I'll do anything! I'm totally out of control!!"

The Gl'lu are more general scavengers that can potentially be classified as leaning into an intimidator specialty. They're less dedicated to the role than the Dishaan, it seems, since it's more a matter of appearance than overall mentality; they're rather pleasant by human standards and just look alarming with their stalk eyes, waving limbs, and reared-up body ("look at me, being big and scary! Fear me!!") That said, their stubborn insistence on standing their ground in the face of their world's upheavals might have some relationship to their intimidator leanings? It also might play into the demonstrative altruism that the elite class are involved in regarding the rest of the population. When life hands you lemons, you make a big show of making lemonade to impress everyone around you. But again, there is none of the pure confidence of a hijacker, especially since the lemons are going to explode at some point and you'll have to rebuild the lemonade stand.

 

[boggo2300]

I would caution you to not underestimate how much "bite" an intimidator may have; coyotes and hyenas have killed plenty of people who underestimated them, especially when the critters perceived themselves as cornered. Intimidators can still fight, it's just that they're less inclined to in the face of unforced risk. And they don't necessarily need to actually be cornered, just to think they might be.

But the players stand a better chance of chasing off intimidators than hijackers. Trying to bluff a lion or a tiger is chancy at best.

Very much so
The Tasmanian Devil is VERY much an intimidator...

When factoring in their size, Tasmanian devils are said to have the strongest bite force. This is largely due to the structure of their skull. Their jaws can extend to about 75-80 degrees to administer a very painful bite. They weigh in at around 9kg, but their bite force quotient is found to be the strongest in carnivorous mammals. The Tasmanian devil’s strong bite actually aids them in eating, as it helps to crush their food (even bones!) into smaller pieces so that their stomach can digest their food.

 

[Tom B]

Very much so
The Tasmanian Devil is VERY much an intimidator...

When factoring in their size, Tasmanian devils are said to have the strongest bite force. This is largely due to the structure of their skull. Their jaws can extend to about 75-80 degrees to administer a very painful bite. They weigh in at around 9kg, but their bite force quotient is found to be the strongest in carnivorous mammals. The Tasmanian devil’s strong bite actually aids them in eating, as it helps to crush their food (even bones!) into smaller pieces so that their stomach can digest their food.

And the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine) was worse.

 

[boggo2300]

And the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine) was worse.

well it was a chaser rather than intimidator, and it's yaw, while opening to an astonishing degree had nowhere near the crushing power of a Devils