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

[Flipguarder]

I learned that I hate alignment discussions.

Hate is evil.

 

[KarinsDad]

And I'm attempting to say that there is at least ONE situation out there where a creature could surrender and would be evil enough to justify killing after the surrender and have it not be an evil act.

Now you are misrepresenting what I have said. I said it was a chaotic and dishonorable (which may or may not be evil) act.

To request surrender, and then turn around and execute those surrendering is an evil, uncivilized and dishonorable act.

Must be the new English language.

 

[N0Man]

Must be the new English language.

I think you're the first person I've encountered on EnWorld that comes across as condescending, sarcastic and rude in most of their responses to me... Maybe it comes across different than intended, but that's how it seems...

You are taking a contradiction from the beginning of the conversation with another statement from the end to make a jab at me, without any consideration of the fact that through the course of this discussion, that I did concede that it may not *always* be evil, However I maintain that it is a chaotic and dishonorable act (of course not all PCs are lawful or honorable), and very likely (as in the context that it was earlier presented) metagaming.

So yes, through the process of discussion, I did modify my viewpoint slightly and also helped narrow down in my own mind what about it that bugged me.

If discussion doesn't lead to either new ideas, opinions being either changed or at least better understood, then what's the point of it? There's no prize for "winning" a forum debate.

Anyway, I think that there are some fundamental differences in the way that my friends have collectively viewed the game worlds than some players here, and I believe some of these differences are behind the disparity of opinions and viewpoints.

I actually even brought this thread up with a few of the folks I game with and discussed it with them, and I joked with them that I found out that all of our friends have been playing D&D wrong. ;-)

 

[N0Man]

So it was decided to disarm them and take away their mounts and leave them to the own devices. To make a long story short on the way back to civilization they started to come across murdered farmers, and eventually a couple of razed villages, and eventually seeing wanted posters for the party in their involvement in this death and destruction. The big bad made sure to leave a couple of folks alive to spread the word about who was ultimately responsible for this b/c they had captured him and let him go. The kingdom came down hard on them for letting this guy go, they considered the party just as culpable as his band was.

This is definitely not the style of play that I've experienced. It is valid, but I don't think I'd enjoy it.

In our games, DM's avoid punishing players for decisions they make in order to be true to their character or alignment. We certainly have had situations came up where we were forced into difficult decisions where we had to consider our character's alignment, knowledge, or character, but they were decisions where we generally understood what the ramifications of our decision would be.

The games I'm used to, choices that are made that are true to character and/or make the story more interesting and fun tend to be rewarded (or at least less severe) than decisions that are not true to character or are uninteresting.

The most severe result of players showing mercy and letting an opponent go after intimidating it and interrogating it, was they got to the BBEG of the adventure and found the freed opponent dead in the room. The BBEG found out about his cowardice and punished him for it.

 

[BendBars/LiftGates]

If I were DMing Azhad's campaign, I would have definitely done things differently. It's true that perhaps if you captured villains and then let them go rather than slay them, that some people might hold you responsible for their later crimes. But it's also possible that people might empathize with your dilemma and agree that, in a difficult situation, you were forced to go easy on them and they took advantage of your mercy.

Maybe it's gamist rather than absolutely simulationist, but a DM has to make some decisions based on what kind of game he wants to play. It might be interesting to see what happens when you get mistaken for a villain, but a DM ought to understand that when you punish players for allowing surrendered opponents to live, you give them strong incentive to execute their prisoners.

If you Intimidate some bandits into surrendering and then let them go free, I refuse to believe that whether or not they turn on you is a question of realism. Did your act of kindness rub off on them? Maybe, particularly in a world of high fantasy where good and evil do battle. Will they instead hold a grudge and come murder you in your sleep when you make camp next? That's also possible, but they don't have to. When there are plenty of ways the choice could go, a DM should revert to the choice that encourages the sort of game he wants to play.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think you're the first person I've encountered on EnWorld that comes across as condescending, sarcastic and rude in most of their responses to me...

Actually, I've been thinking the same of you. Look in the mirror dude.

Maybe it's because if you go back and re-read what you wrote in this thread, you've on multiple occassions took minor statements as personal attacks and told not only me, but others how their behavior is bad, how they misrepresent you or what you said, how what you say is taken out of context, how other people are rules lawyers because they follow the rules of intimidate, etc. Just because they disagree with you.

That was the most recent occurence of "someone misrepresenting what you said".

Other people do not do this when people disagree with them.

Get over yourself. It's a discussion. Discuss the topic, not the posters.

When you stop doing that, I will stop laughing at you and take your opinion more seriously. People who disagree with you should not be targets.

 

[Jhaelen]

Personally, I've found that games with strict alignment systems do not breed moral dilemmas and alternative philosophies. For instance, moral relativism doesn't work in a world with acts that are designated as Evil, no matter what the justification.

I agree. It's one of several reasons I'm all for getting rid of alignments in D&D. In my experience, having alignments in a game causes people to stop thinking about the way their characters behave.

The 3E Eberron setting was a first tentative step in the right direction. Now, it's about time to go all the way and replace alignments with a fully developed character concept, i.e. with a believable background and personality traits that can be used as a basis for moral decisions.

Absolute alignments make only sense for beings like demons, and even that is debatable.

All of this is completely IMHO of course. It's just my personal preference.

 

[N0Man]

Actually, I've been thinking the same of you. Look in the mirror dude.

Maybe it's because if you go back and re-read what you wrote in this thread, you've on multiple occassions took minor statements as personal attacks and told not only me, but others how their behavior is bad, how they misrepresent you or what you said, how what you say is taken out of context, how other people are rules lawyers because they follow the rules of intimidate, etc. Just because they disagree with you.

That was the most recent occurence of "someone misrepresenting what you said".

Other people do not do this when people disagree with them.

Get over yourself. It's a discussion. Discuss the topic, not the posters.

When you stop doing that, I will stop laughing at you and take your opinion more seriously. People who disagree with you should not be targets.

I was having an idea attributed to me that was contrary to what I had been saying for the last several posts and I'm not allowed to point out that is not a fair representation of what I'm trying to express? Perhaps I could have used a better word than misrepresent (such as misunderstand),

I suggest you go back and reread your posts as well... Your very first post to me leads off with a condescending comment. Your next you reiterate that you think I'm lying about my past experiences. Then you go on to mischaracterize a gamestyle I prefer, again in a condescending tone, as "horsies on parade". Then you move on to juxtaposing 2 statements from 2 seperate parts of the discussion to try to show contradiction rather than taking into account that I did bend some on my original statement over the next several posts in the discussion.

Even now, when I point out that you seem to come across with an antagonistic tone, and state I might be misreading you, you respond with a "no, you are!" response.

I'd prefer to keep to the subject at hands, so can we both please drop the snark?

 

[Rechan]

The games I'm used to, choices that are made that are true to character and/or make the story more interesting and fun tend to be rewarded (or at least less severe) than decisions that are not true to character or are uninteresting.

Except that in my experience, dilemmas are when the situation is stacked against the character's preferred choice. I.e. the character doing what they think as right will have Consequences. Doing what they see as Wrong is the easy out.

That's a very common trope in fiction. Having your ideals questioned, or ending up in situations where they don't apply/do you no good, or at least make things much more difficult for you.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "reward". It's more rewarding to me, story wise, to put a character's morals on to the test. If they violate their own code or whathaveyou, I find it rewarding to see how that changes the character/the character copes (instead of the player just ignoring it). If they chose to stick to their morals and thus have a harder road ahead, that's also more rewarding.

And it's totally fair to have negative consequences come from any action. As long as it's not heavy handed DM fiat.

 

[Flipguarder]

To KarinsDad:

You seem like a very sarcastic person. It's ok, I am too. But What I've learned over the time I've spent on the internet and through writing letters is that sarcastic people are treated as much more rude than they intend to be. I believe there is a certain amount of humor in sarcasm that can only be sold in voice.
I would have brought up the issue your sarcastic statement presents in a less inflammatory way because you are already saying something he doesn't want to hear.

To NOMan:

Personally I'm actually glad KarinsDad pointed that out. Sure it's completely within your right to modify your opinion during a discussion. What is not reasonable for you to do, is to tell me I've misrepresented you when I never did.

Since you never actually stated that you thought it was possible for the act to not be evil, then it's well within the discussion for me to represent you that way. It may not be a big deal to you, but I don't feel great when I find out that I apologized for something I didn't do.