To get an idea of what I mean, I've flavored the Inspiring Word power as something along the lines of "Get up and fight harder, else I'm finishing you off myself." But of course, he can't actually finish anyone off effectively - his to-hit and damage are just plain unspectacular. Now, I don't mean to make myself into a striker because I'm perfectly fine with my mechanics the way they are. It's just that a guy who yells threats all day without ever following them up obviously loses his edge after a while.
So the question is, what can I do purely in terms of fluff to keep his menacing presence a real thing in the game?
You are a cheerleader. Every time you do something, say something. For example /furious smash "Now get your ugly a$$ in there and smash his face!!!"
Or, when you do inspiring word "Does that make you feel less of a pu$$y soldier? get back in combat!"
Paper don't mean crap if you RP it right. Warlords are cheerleaders int/cha based don't matter. You are like a less fruity bard
I play a lot of Warhammer 40K, so I am familiar with the commissar analogy. It may be that I am trying to bring over too much of the analogy, but here are my thoughts.
The commissar has three things going for him in 40K, but in D&D?
1) The commissar is a highly trained professional. This won't transfer well, as you aren't going to be more 'powerful' than the rest of your party.
2) The commissar has specialized weapons (bolt pistol, power fist, etc) which are unavailable to the rank n' file. Again, probably unlikely in D&D, as you are sharing magic item selection with the rest of the party.
3) The commissar is a member of the commissariat, and is allowed to perform battlefield executions and the like, and is backed by Imperial law on this point. You might be able to work this in D&D, if you were an authorized commander of these men, but you have said that you were exiled from military service.
Turning this question around, why do the party members tolerate you? I mean, most parties of adventurers join together voluntarily, either out of comradeship or to achieve a certain goal (defeat evil, make money, etc). If you keep threatening them, why don't they leave, or make you leave? I think you'll need to work out (or explain to me, if you've already worked it out) why the party has to put up with a member who keeps threatening to kill them. If there is some reason why they have to, then that's how he works (he's protected by some god, he's appointed to be their warden, he has the goods on them, he's threatening their families). If there's no reason they can't just dump the threatening jerk, then I'm not sure the character makes sense.
I mean, if a co-worker (not your boss, even) kept threatening to beat you up if you didn't do more work, would you put up with it?
.
.
.
[time passes]
.
.
.
Now, I did have an idea. Perhaps he could be threatening by his 'intelligence' (almost like Hannibal Lecter). Instead of threatening his allies himself, he could just point out the dangers around them, and the opportunities for mayhem.
For example, using his Inspiring Word:
"You know, there's a good chance that these bugbears will actually eat you raw and alive, rather than kill and cook you. Perhaps you should get back up and fight that hungry looking one."
Boosting an Ally's attack:
"These gnolls have sensitive snouts. If you'll just slash your sword directly across their face, the pain should be very effective in dissuading them."
I don't know if this would work with your ideas, but it is a way to be 'threatening' and creepy, without needing to be able to beat up the group.
The real problem is the fact that when I go over the numbers, there's no actual reason for anyone to be scared of him.
He is apparently willing to commit all kinds of brutal, murderous acts. Since when is that a reason not to be afraid of him?
I kind of agree though, you can't really "threaten" other PCs. It's fine as a backstory, but your character is allowed to grow and change, perhaps becoming a better person in the process of hanging out with so many other tough guys you can't push around and who aren't complete jerks all the time.
You can still be a jerk about things, like a "typical" drill sergeant stereotype. "Get up there and fight you maggot!" etc. without being too annoying to the other players.
"Get up or I shall kill you!" isn't all that threatening to PCs in the least.
"Get up or I shall kill you!" isn't all that threatening to PCs in the least.
On the other hand, "get up or I'll cut your nuts off!" is very threatening to any male character.
Try channeling Palpatine in the Dooku/Anakin duel ("Good, good. I knew you could do it. Kill him." "I shouldn't..." "Do it!")
That said, I've also put thought into how to make a good Commissar, and it's kinda tough. As you've mentioned, a Commissar is supposed to be all kinds of badass; however, his role is essentially command and leadership.
I think something to keep in mind is that a normal soldier would be a minion, or (obviously) a soldier, and thus, most likely inferior to a Commissar (hero) in capability.
FOR THE EMPEROR!
Think about your average quarterback. 90% of the rest of the football team could kick his ass, but 100% of the team (at least the offense) responds instantly to his commands and looks to him for direction.
Hell think about the coach. 250lb 6'5" guys cowering in fear because they don't want to be yelled at by some old geezer.
But all that still goes with the premise that the warlord is a pansy. Which I don't buy for a second. Your warlord could kick 90% of the rest of the human population's ass. You are unfairly comparing your warlord's prowess to the other players in the adventuring party, which makes up part of that other 10%. Your warlord is a badass AND a leader. The fighter in your party is just a badass. Therefore he's slightly more of a badass than you are.
don't forget this is a cooperative game
The character can be just fine with torture, or morale-killing tactics like ripping bits off of leaders in front of the enemy forces.
The character's reputation doesn't have to dictate his actions- he was probably thrown out of the army after being brutal to his subordinates, who were too weak or afraid to do anything other than put up with it. When teamed up with the big beefy fighter, he would probably make more empty threats than actually going through with real brutality- the warlord isn't stupid, after all.
It's a different environment than he got his reputation in, so it's logical that his actions wont be the same. Just roll with it.
The one big suggestion I have (since I've seen elitist, loner characters played in my group to the detriment of the entire session), as said by other poster(s), is to let the rest of your group know that is the character you're going to play and get approval. I don't know how hardcore your group roleplays, but if you showed up to my group and just started acting that way, we'd be too polite to say anything while you were there, but we wouldn't invite you back. This happened with a guy we all like, otherwise, so I'd urge anyone taking your path to caution.
Inspiring Word: WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS IS, MAGGOT, NAPPY TIME? YOU WANT YOUR MOMMA TO COME TUCK YOU IN? GET ON YOUR FEET SOLDIER, WE HAVE WORK TO DO!!!
The one big suggestion I have (since I've seen elitist, loner characters played in my group to the detriment of the entire session), as said by other poster(s), is to let the rest of your group know that is the character you're going to play and get approval. I don't know how hardcore your group roleplays, but if you showed up to my group and just started acting that way, we'd be too polite to say anything while you were there, but we wouldn't invite you back. This happened with a guy we all like, otherwise, so I'd urge anyone taking your path to caution.
I second that suggestion.
I think that your character's personality would go over absolutely wonderfully in my group where we all know each other well and most of us like to get in character (I may even borrow it if I ever play a warlord), but if your group does not know you well or have a good sense of humor this could go badly and if someone new joined us I might not like the arrogence. Our last party consisted of my cleric of kord and a friend of mine's paladin of corellon and we each played to the sterotype and spent half the time ridiculing each other's gods (the cleric as a thoughtless brute and the palladin as a dandy). It worked well only because we know each other well and know it is all in fun, but in your case tread carefully at first depending on what your group is like.
FOR THE EMPEROR!
WE HAVE COME FOR YOU!! (Night lords Battle cry)
Something Something Something DARK SIDE.....Something Something COMPLETE....
That said, I've also put thought into how to make a good Commissar, and it's kinda tough. As you've mentioned, a Commissar is supposed to be all kinds of badass; however, his role is essentially command and leadership.
It should also be noted that according to Commissar Ciaphas Cain, most Commissars end up having a rather short career, due to the fact, that battlefield is a messy place and friendly fire happens... more often than not upon Commissars relying on bullying and the authority of the commissariat....
While the drill sergeant angle doesn't seem quite right, I do like the Palpatine idea. I'm also thinking that any time an ally kills an enemy with Commander's Strike, it's just them "weakening" the enemy so I can finish the execution in a particularly brutal style. After all, I am adding my INT to that damage.
WE HAVE COME FOR YOU!! (Night lords Battle cry)
Space Marine battle cries? Please.
TRUE TO THE EMPEROR AND HARD TO KILL!
The thing about a warlord is that, conceptually, it works best if it's the party leader as well, since then he kinda has the "right" to command. This lends itself far more to the heroic, lead-from-the-front officer type, though, than the Commissar type, as heroes would most likely frag a stereotypical Commissar.
For the record, the all the players in the group are friends, so we're familiar with each other. They all know that I wouldn't intentionally harm the party in-game, so there's no danger that in-character intimidation somehow cross to out-of-character. Also, since we're not super serious about our role-playing, I intend on playing this out in a sort of funny-badass kind of hybrid.
While the drill sergeant angle doesn't seem quite right, I do like the Palpatine idea. I'm also thinking that any time an ally kills an enemy with Commander's Strike, it's just them "weakening" the enemy so I can finish the execution in a particularly brutal style. After all, I am adding my INT to that damage.
It seems like most of the suggestions do not convey the backstory. Most of the "drill sergeant" suggestions makes me think that your character is an *******, more annoying and not actually menacing. If you are aiming for unsettling and uncomfortable to be around, you'll need to dance on the line between good and evil.
I suggest A. being unnecessarily mean to NPC subordinates, and B. have a VERY loose definition of the term "enemy." If your character were to execute, on the spot, a naive 18yr old teen for trying to protect his evil father, that would give off the impression that he's not someone to f**k around with, and would be representitive of his actions that would lead to his military discharge.
I don't think there is anything wrong with your concept i just think you might want more emphasis on his ability to back it up.
The way you interact with other players is generally non-negotiable. psudo democracy and fairness are the foundations of most D&D parties.
The way you interact with the rest of the world is what builds your character.
Now, there's nothing wrong with the odd, "get back in that fight or I will gut you myself!" but vary it up to keep it fresh, and understand that the rest of your party will view the threats as non-serious.
Some suggestions. "If you want to keep your balls, show them to me! get out there and fight!"
"those gnolls won't be your biggest problem if you don't keep killing them!"
"If you want to keep that prescious face I suggest you face the enemy!"