Surrender != death (Forked Thread: Intimidate in combat)

[fuindordm]

Interesting discussion!
How would anyone know? Isn't it usually the case that all enemies engaged in battle fall in battle?

As a general question to everyone: "Do you find that at least one enemy escapes from most battles? Or are they all killed?"

When there are a lot of opponents, then yes, some usually escape rather than be killed.

Bluff doesn't allow a PC to remove an enemy from combat.

I realize that, but it can still be pretty potent in the hands of a rogue. It was just meant an another example of a skill with an explicit combat use.

An interesting omission. Do you see it?

Intimidate says "surrender", not "accept an offered truce". So when a DM uses intimidate, it's a truce in which the PCs won't get "meekly slaughtered". But when PCs use it, it's "surrendered"?

That's my fault... I was just trying to vary my vocabulary.

Let's look at it this way, then. If a dragon has nearly defeated the party, and says "throw down your weapons, and step into that cave or DIE!", would the party be likely to do it? I think so. Will they consider themselves obligated to meekly do whatever the dragon tells them? Maybe not. If the dragon follows them into the cave, which has no other exits, questions them a bit, then attacks again to kill, will the PCs act to defend themselves? Of course.

Monsters surrendering to PCs should have exactly the same attitude. If the party has enough time and strength to disarm and tie up all their opponents after a surrender, then of course they can kill them later. But will their opponents consider letting themselves be tied up a viable option? Depending on circumstances and the party's reputation, maybe they will and maybe they won't. Monsters who don't trust the party to keep their word, rather than letting themselves be made truly helpless, will probably choose to run or resume attacking.

I think you'll find the OP (of the orginal thread) was claiming "surrendered" did not mean "hold on to weapons, and fight again if the opportunity presented itself".

Which brings me back to my original point: a successful intimidate check can provoke a wide range of responses from the opponent, depending on circumstances. Furthermore, the opponents are very unlikely to surrender in such a way that renders them completely helpless.

Ben

 

[KarinsDad]

[/LIST]
Wow... what kind of players do you play with there? I've never seen a game where the players executed surrendered opponents or would only spare them in exchange for a bribe.

That's not very heroic. I'd say it's even an evil act.

In all the games I've played (and ran), when opponents have surrendered, I've never once seen players kill them. I've seen them run off, interrogated, beg for mercy, change allegiance, captured, and even turn over a new leaf... but never just killed in cold blood.

Heroic? Evil?

I guess you do not understand the term "outlaw".

DND monsters are, for the most part, outlaws. Outside the law. In a points of light setting, PCs are often hundreds of miles from the nearest major settlement. The local villages cannot hold a monster in their jail. The PCs cannot just let the monster go because it will just go back to terrorizing the locals.

It's called summary justice.

You are thinking in modern cultural moral and legal terms. 1000 years ago (and even today in some cultures), people were tried and convicted on the spot, especially in military situations.

That's what DND monsters are. Monsters. Foes. Enemies.

One does not just let their enemies go.


In a town or city setting where the foe is a humanoid, yes, that's different. The good PCs should often accept surrender and take the foe to the local authorities if the situation calls for that. But, even then it is dependent on the situation.


Granted, my players have a moral dilemma just killing any surrendering foe. But if they decide to kill the surrendered foe, I as DM do not usually have an issue with it except in some rare cases like the foe is a Duke and the PCs decide to kill him without using local justice or some extreme case like that. That might have roleplaying repercussions.


DND is typically wrapped more around medieval morals in many campaigns, not modern morals. A DM should be carefuly of forcing his current morality of good and evil into a game where many players view it as a non-modern setting. If a DM told me that killing a surrendered foe is evil, I'd laugh at him. DND is designed around breaking and entering, murder, and theft. No matter how you slice it, every PC does that eventually and it's allowed because of non-modern morality.

 

[Nail]

When there are a lot of opponents, then yes, some usually escape rather than be killed.

Neat! I do that in my games too...and the players usually HATE it => just hate it with a passion.

a successful intimidate check can provoke a wide range of responses from the opponent, depending on circumstances. Furthermore, the opponents are very unlikely to surrender in such a way that renders them completely helpless.

I agree! (FWIW)

.....and there are some who would disagree, and say that the only monster option is surrender, and the only way to surrender is to drop weapons, fight no more, and meekly obey the Intimidator's every command.

 

[Flipguarder]

I can see it now, PHB 4, epic destiny requiring a bonus to intimidate > 35 and having successfully intimidated over 50 enemies.

Evil Lord, all of its features and abilites have to do with the fact that you have an army thats forced to do your whims.

 

[Regicide]

Neat! I do that in my games too...and the players usually HATE it => just hate it with a passion.

Mine did too until it was explained to them that they still get the XP. Then they only hated it if the monster who got away had loot with it.

 

[N0Man]

Heroic? Evil?

I guess you do not understand the term "outlaw".

You're being a little condescending now, aren't you?

You are thinking in modern cultural moral and legal terms. 1000 years ago (and even today in some cultures), people were tried and convicted on the spot, especially in military situations.

The origins and concepts of chivalry and knightly conduct began more than 1,000 years ago. Conduct in minor skirmishes, battles, or wars vary from culture to culture, but mercy is certainly not a part of a new modern moral construct.

One does not just let their enemies go.

Actually, sometimes one does. Not all the time, but sometimes. Sometimes it's the wise choice, and sometimes it's not (and the same is true for the opposite choice).

DND is typically wrapped more around medieval morals in many campaigns, not modern morals. A DM should be carefuly of forcing his current morality of good and evil into a game where many players view it as a non-modern setting. If a DM told me that killing a surrendered foe is evil, I'd laugh at him. DND is designed around breaking and entering, murder, and theft. No matter how you slice it, every PC does that eventually and it's allowed because of non-modern morality.

That doesn't make those characters particularly "heroic". I'd consider this kind of behavior to be more like ruthless vigilantism at best. If that's your style of game, fine, but it isn't the style that my circle of gamers play.

I'd agree that D&D typically does draw from medieval morals rather than modern morals. However, this includes the idea of chivalry and knightly conduct (or at least the myths of them) that we have.

That includes mercy at times.

 

[Flipguarder]

The origins and concepts of chivalry and knightly conduct began more than 1,000 years ago. Conduct in minor skirmishes, battles, or wars vary from culture to culture, but mercy is certainly not a part of a new modern moral construct..

I'd agree that D&D typically does draw from medieval morals rather than modern morals. However, this includes the idea of chivalry and knightly conduct (or at least the myths of them) that we have.

That includes mercy at times.

All you've described is the lawful good alignment.

 

[KarinsDad]

DND is designed around breaking and entering, murder, and theft. No matter how you slice it, every PC does that eventually and it's allowed because of non-modern morality.

That doesn't make those characters particularly "heroic". I'd consider this kind of behavior to be more like ruthless vigilantism at best. If that's your style of game, fine, but it isn't the style that my circle of gamers play.

Sorry, but I don't believe you.

I doubt very much that your games do not ever revolve around "breaking into the lair of the PC's enemies", "killing said enemies", and "looting the bodies". Trespass, murder, and theft.

I don't believe you at all.

Do that in the real world and you get the electric chair, regardless of individual motives.

However, this includes the idea of chivalry and knightly conduct (or at least the myths of them) that we have.

That includes mercy at times.

Mercy and chivalry only work sometimes and only when the foe is redeemable. It should be the rare occurrence, not the common one.


Your morally good "circle of gamers" would end up letting the surrendering Dragon go so that it could kill other NPCs later on. That is not good.

When a good man does nothing, evil wins.

Your idea of heroic is skewed. Heroic includes doing the tough things to save everyone, even if they are individually distasteful. It's not all pretty knights on horses in parades.

 

[IanB]

I don't know how to answer that. I've just never seen that happen. I mean, if that was the M.O. then it seems like monsters wouldn't generally ever surrender (unless they were very dumb and gullible).

But the "rule" for Intimidate says they have to, according to one camp.

Look, I'm not saying 'no skills used in combat ever'. I'm saying that the intimidate rule as interpreted by one side is just flat out broken and needs to have official rules specifically defining how it is used - like Bluff does - in order to be allowable.

 

[N0Man]

All you've described is the lawful good alignment.

I can see how you'd say that, but I don't really think it's necessarily the case. Having codes of conduct isn't just for lawful good, they just have a stricter code.

By default, D&D does support and encourage the Neutral, Good, and Lawful good characters and heroic style gameplay, so from that context...

Accepting the surrender of an evil villain who demands a right to trial (even though it appears to be a ploy) might be the action of a lawful good character, but a good or unaligned character might not feel compelled to accept the surrender.

Accepting a seemingly sincere surrender of henchmen for either release or capture (depending on circumstances) would probably be accepted by a lawful good or good character, and possibly by an unaligned, with a bribe and a vow to stop making trouble).

Offering an evil villain a quick and honorable death in exchange for a surrender could reasonably be done by even a lawful good or good character. You might find it difficult to find takers on this offer though.

However, demanding a surrender, with either an explicit or implicit "surrender or die", and then slaughtering them after the surrender? That's certainly not lawful good. It's not even good. I think that's even pushing it for an unaligned. That's cold-blooded killing under a false pretense, even if they deserved it. It's, as I said before, ruthless vigilantiasm.

That might be your style of play, and that's your choice, but it's just not the high fantasy heroic style adventures that I'm used to, my friends play, and is the default style promoted for the game.