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

[N0Man]

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.

Saying NPCs "have to" do something in opposition to what a DM wishes for them to do usually perceived as very rules lawyery.

The rules support it, they dont' dictate it. Even without invoking DM fiat, the rules explicitly say that the DC can be modified by the DM as they see fit.

A band of adventurers who ever develop a reputation of slaughtering opponents who surrender should definitely face higher DCs.

 

[N0Man]

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.

In your attempt to prove that you are right, using tools of condescension, hyperbole, and taking my statements out of context, you are attacking an argument that I'm not even making.

Despite what you seem to be trying to imply, I'm not talking about a circle of hippie gamers donned in flower covered armor, shooting rainbows at a Lich until the Lich says "Uncle, I promise to be good!" and the adventurers then spare him and offer him cake.

This is about a PC demanding a surrender (with the implication they will be spared from death... at least on the battlefield) and then turning around and slaughtering them once they are defenseless.

THAT is what I initially (and continue) to say is non-heroic.

 

[fuindordm]

Despite what you seem to be trying to imply, I'm not talking about a circle of hippie gamers donned in flower covered armor, shooting rainbows at a Lich until the Lich says "Uncle, I promise to be good!" and the adventurers then spare him and offer him cake.

Looks like both sides are guilty of hyperbole. ;-) NOMan, KarinsDad, settle down, OK?

The question of what sort of adventurers and what sort of culture would offer surrender as an option to their enemies is an interesting one, but you're opening a whole 'nother can of worms and arguing about which ones are slimier.

Some enemies need to be slaughtered by any means necessary, including lies and treachery if such means are expedient. Some enemies are mortal, yet honorable in their own way, and deserving of a certain respect. Some enemies are violent but potentially redeemable, others misguided, and others simply the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding.

Where a given enemy falls on the spectrum depends entirely on the campaign world and the individual PC. Generally speaking, the whole party can get behind slaughtering abominations, undead, and evil outsiders. Humanoids are in the grey area.

Would an evil lich let itself be intimidated into surrendering? Definitely not, since it knows the party wants to destroy it. It might pretend for a round or two, to prepare an escape or a surprise attack, but it would never let the party render it helpless.

Ben

 

[Flipguarder]

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.

That's blatant misrepresentation of that situation, ignoring all factors for possible circumstances. Say the party fights some evil things who speak common and are part of a large organization (common enough scenario).You fight and get them to surrender, and then give you information. You are suggesting its blatantly thuggish, and unreasonably evil to kill it with the idea in mind that the world is better off without this thing.

Also being pissed off enough to attempt to kill something, then it surrenders. An unaligned person could completely just decide that he is too pissed at this guy to let him live. That is 100% within the realm of unaligned.

Going out and seeking innocent people to hurt is evil. Ridding the world of a drow bent on the complete destruction of your species, even after he surrenders, is not.

Honor has no place in deciding whats good and evil. Its an arbitrary moral code thats based on definitive answers to globally accepted moral gray areas.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is about a PC demanding a surrender (with the implication they will be spared from death... at least on the battlefield) and then turning around and slaughtering them once they are defenseless.

THAT is what I initially (and continue) to say is non-heroic.

Heroic morals in a DND type FRPG are not necessarily knightly ones. Killing is core to the DND game system. Virtually every PC kills (except for really strangely played PCs). There are FRPGs like superhero games where heroics equate to not killing, but DND is not one of these.

Saving the world from a dragon is heroic, regardless of tricking the dragon. Not every heroic PC acts like a "chivalrous knight". You are equating mercy and chivalry to heroics. I am stating that your definition of heroics in a FRPG is way too narrow. Many good PCs do what they need to do to save a village or save the world. They are still heroic. They are just not necessarily chivalrous or merciful. And actually, facing and killing monsters was a major part of what medieval knights considered chivalrous, just as important as mercy (which was for oppressed people, not for monsters).


I find the argument "just killing the foe is heroic, disabling the foe and then killling it is not heroic" to be specious at best. The monster is dead in either case.

Letting the monster live to do its evil another day is what is not heroic. This is 20th century superheroism intruding on the concepts of medieval heroism. Like I said before "When a good man does nothing, evil wins".


And where exactly is this implication that surrendering foes will be spared from death? People have surrendered for millennium and were often killed right away.

People surrender due to fear, due to a slim hope of survival, for a lot of reasons. Wouldn't creatures do the same? Where exactly is a call to surrender assumed to be a guarantee of survival? A hope of survival? Sure.


Btw, there are over 100 monsters in the MM with the Intimidate skill. If PCs can use it on NPCs, NPCs can use it on PCs.

 

[N0Man]

Yet again, I want to point out that this original discussion was about the PC's calling for a surrender through intimidation, and then killing them after they successfully surrendered.

It's not about using the most evil villains and somehow they are voluntarily surrendering (which I've also never seen happen in a D&D game).

Surrendering is giving yourself up to be taken prisoner or trial (and it might mean possible execution later, but it will be through legal means). That's what surrender is. To request surrender, and then turn around and execute those surrendering is an evil, uncivilized and dishonorable act.

To claim that my objection is merely a construct of modern morality is absurd. There have been codes of conducts for battle that have been recorded as early as in the very pages of the Old Testament Bible.

What is being described is offering "no quarter". This specific term has existed since at least from the end of the Middle Ages. It certainly had it's place, and is well known as being a policy applied to Pirates. Sure, this kind of policy was applied at times, but it certainly wasn't universal. In modern times, it does qualify as a War Crime, but the perception of this being brutal or extreme existed before modern warfare.

However, the extreme examples given to try to refute the legitimacy of honoring a surrender is of egomaniacal evil humans or monsters hell bent on domination. These aren't going to realistically be surrendering anyway. Such villains would likely be too brave or too proud to beg for mercy, or to accept mercy from their enemy (who they'd likely see as inferior). Besides, they will know that even if they are treated justly, their outlook isn't good.

Likewise, if you're in a situation where you know that you can't or won't take them prisoner, you don't call for surrender. Doing so just smacks of someone trying to abuse a game system for more power, and I'd certainly put a stop to that as a DM. If players want to fake offering surrenders, they'll find NPCs that fake accepting them, looking for an opening.

The types to realistically surrender (without some ruse being involved) are going to be underlings, henchmen, and groups that can be reasonably quelled through force. Executing these is most certainly barbaric, if not evil.

 

[Flipguarder]

Here's the issue NOMan, this "universe" cannot yield to this one's moral understanding due to its denizens having a very different basic idea of morality.

This is a world full of entire species devoted to evil and destruction. Entire races have been fighting for the entirety of their existence. Honor and rules of war are fine and dandy when two human races or groups are fighting. They have the same basic inherent conscience.

So while some very basic things remain good (helping the helpless, stopping injustice,) and bad (thievery, harming the innocent) ideas of chivalry and honor go out the window when you are fighting devils.

You can sit there and say that keeping your word is the ultimate good and not keeping your word is always an evil act. But at the end of the day, is letting a devil, fomorian, or gnoll, live to fight another day an act of good? No matter what you agreed to and what you did to get them to surrender, I would say that killing a demon or devil is NEVER an evil act.

 

[Regicide]

Calling for someone to surrender pretty much presupposes that you're offering to not kill them. "Put down your arms or we'll kill you." If you go ahead and then kill them you're certainly breaking your word.

If the PCs intimidate is "Put down your arms and we'll kill you more quickly" then as a DM I'm going to jack the DC up pretty high...

 

[N0Man]

Calling for someone to surrender pretty much presupposes that you're offering to not kill them. "Put down your arms or we'll kill you." If you go ahead and then kill them you're certainly breaking your word.

If the PCs intimidate is "Put down your arms and we'll kill you more quickly" then as a DM I'm going to jack the DC up pretty high...

Exactly.

 

[Flipguarder]

breaking your word to devils, demons and gnolls =/= evil.

Im not trying to say that you can just accept the surrender of anyone and kill them and call it ok, but when you are dealing with things that are by there nature beings of destruction and evil, you can't point to middle ages earth morality and call what doesn't match up evil.