I just wanted to discuss what you guys think would be realistic behavior in such a situation and if there's no clear answer, what rolls would be involved to decide. I intentionally left the situation as vague as possible to prevent anyone to be influenced by that.
Many behaviours are realistic. Just because doing the right thing (whatever it is) is better than doing the wrong thing, it doesn't mean everyone will do it. Therefore I wouldn't even worry that much about the fugitives taking the 'best' decisions, because it doesn't always happen.
Dice rolls are there also to help the DM make a decision when she is in fact undecided. Which rolls to best use in this case... I can see a few options at least, none of which are especially creative, but the point is just to let the dice decide in your place, so no need to complicate the process. Probably I would go with this one:
- Intimidation check vs Wisdom check
An Intimidation check simply represents the attempt of
making someone do what you want, same as Persuasion and Deception (but using different "methods"). So if the PCs succeed, the fugitives do whatever the PCs want them to, otherwise they don't. I would use a traditional Wisdom check on the fugitives' part to represent "willpower", i.e. stand on your previous decision, but there's a blurred line between Wisdom and Charisma when it comes to representing "willpower". Sometimes, an opposite Charisma checks feels more appropriate to represent a "You will do as I say"/"No I won't" type of contest. Here I'd use the Wisdom because the fugitives are not actively countering the intimidation but rather just trying to resist it.
Important note: this is not about the fugitives figuring out what is best for them! Just to decide if they comply to your will or not. You could also have an Intelligence(Insight) or Wisdom(Insight) check vs static DC to make the most convenient decision, or vs Intimidation if what the PCs want the fugitives to do is different from the fugitive's most convenient.
Keep in mind that the situation is different depending on which side are the PCs on, because you cannot (and should never) override the players' decisions.
If the PCs were the fugitive, I would do mostly the same checks, but the (hidden!) outcome would not force the PCs action, instead it would (strongly) affect the
narration. For example, if the PCs lose the contest, I'd emphasize the narration so that they clearly get the feeling that they
will get caught or killed while fleeing, even if not true!
In the more general situation, a monster good at Intimidation will be often described in my games in a way that suggests it is significantly more powerful than it actually is, possibly causing the PCs to make mistakes (e.g. unnecessarily depleting their combat resources, avoiding an otherwise not so challenging fight, complicating their way through a quest etc...), but certainly without forcing them to obey such monster's wills.
