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

[Nail]

There's a reason the spell "Detect Evil" was taken out of the game.....

 

[ExploderWizard]

Being asked to make a list of possibilities for story lines involving a previously surrendered enemy, I provide the option you quoted.

Taking that option, you provide the example of orc, and then assume my plan should apply to it. Then you go on to say that that doesn't make sense for the pcs to feel bad for the family.

So no, you didn't say that I said orc or call me ridiculous. But you did use poor logic to make my idea seem worse.

Obviously none of those ideas will work in all campaigns, I was simply trying to brainstorm some possibilities for story options and it seemed to me that you were intent on unnecessarily invalidating them. That's the only reason I'm feeling defensive.

No offense was meant. My intent was to simply point out that morality with regard to surrender is very subjective and isn't really part of the rules governing the intimidate skill. The issue at hand is the exact effect of successful use which is independent of any morality issues at all.

 

[Flipguarder]

My understanding of NOMan's point is that it should be.

I believe he thinks that since PCs can kill those who would surrender to them that it would be an evil act and that means it wasn't intended to be used in that way by WOTC. That means that intimidate by RAI would mean you CAN'T kill those who have surrendered to you.

My point actually conisides with your point. I believe that there ARE times that a good or unaligned pc would accept surrender and then kill them. My point is that intimidate vs bloodied opponents by raw IS an I-WIN button, and should be fixed in some way.

Furthermore I believe that its completely legit to have evil pcs. And I do believe that WOTC takes into account that some people make them, and it IS in the general spirit of a fantasy role-playing game.

 

[N0Man]

NOMan is attempting to say that killing someone who has surrendered to you can NEVER be accepted by PC's....

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.

And let's keep in mind what the context of the original discussion that I commented on that has started this mess.

This isn't about capturing an evil villain with the intention of taking him as prisoner, then interrogating him and finding out what a terrible, vile, irredeemable foe he actually is, and maybe killing him in a moment of indignant rage or flash of vengeance. I can definitely see that happening, and it may not be an evil act, it would still be a chaotic but possibly justified act.

This is about using Intimidate to defeat combat encounters, to get opponents to surrender and win the combat earlier, with the intention of killing them afterward.

Making this style of combat into your party's MO is either extremely chaotic (even when it's not evil) or possibly (and perhaps probably) metagaming.

 

[Flipguarder]

Sorry bout that NOMan, didnt mean to misrepresent you.

I think i see what you mean now. Its wrong to do it at a metagame level. To say to your friends "hey!, lets intimidate this encounter over"

 

[Regicide]

There's a reason the spell "Detect Evil" was taken out of the game.....

Because alignment was. I don't even use 4E alignment. To be fair 3E didn't do alignment all that well either. The most common player alignment I've seen wasn't even present, Murderous Greedy.

I had a player who was surprised when I changed his alignment from good when he slaughtered a unconscious human captive he'd bushwhacked in the middle of the street at night. "What do you mean sending my servants off to their death is an example of why I can't use an exalted prestige class?"

 

[N0Man]

Because alignment was. I don't even use 4E alignment. To be fair 3E didn't do alignment all that well either. The most common player alignment I've seen wasn't even present, Murderous Greedy.

I had a player who was surprised when I changed his alignment from good when he slaughtered a unconscious human captive he'd bushwhacked in the middle of the street at night. "What do you mean sending my servants off to their death is an example of why I can't use an exalted prestige class?"

I don't think of 4E as taking out alignment, but rather taking out mechanical enforcement of alignment. Perhaps it's a minor difference to some.

But yes, your example and much of this thread clearly shows how people can have very different views on what is evil or chaotic, and mechanics that enforced alignment created a minefield of issues.

Even on things that one person feels is perfectly clear, another person will argue. That's not even considering issues where there is real moral ambiguity.

 

[Ahzad]

Letting someone live who is by their very nature evil could actually be considered an evil act in itself. Things are not as simple as they would be in 1200s england.

I've actually had this happen in one of my games. The party captured the baddie and a handful of his minions after a battle b/c they wanted some info from them. The party make up was heavily good, so after they got the info the one shady character wanted to kill them, but was slapped down b/c that would go against good/honor/etc.. Unfortunately for the party they were way out in the hinterlands so there was no place to turn them over for custody. 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.

It was quite fun, for me, and the players as they had to figure out how to go about clearing their name if they could, which they ended up not being able to and having to flee the kingdom for other parts.

But most times when they did this the bad guy would disappear never to be heard from again, maybe come after them personally, or reform. This time the guy came after them indirectly and it made for some fun times and it made them stop and really figure out what to do with baddies that surrendered from that point on.

 

[Rechan]

[/list]


Wow... what kind of players do you play with there?

Pragmatic ones.

A foe left alive = a recurring villain, or at least a thorn in their side.

Or a player who didn't care about good or evil, he was just an opportunist who wanted something out of offering surrender.

And, I have had a few demons try to surrender. Namely because it was near death, and wanted to live.

There's also the issue of, if the PCs are hired to say, stop some bandits, and the bandits surrender... then the bandits go back to their banditry.

The 'kill monsters and take their stuff' approach is a bit problematic if you're interested in a game dealing with moral dilemmas from time to time.

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.

 

[Rechan]

But yes, your example and much of this thread clearly shows how people can have very different views on what is evil or chaotic

Trust me. Hang around messageboards enough, and you learn that there are very different views on EVERYTHING. Alignment especially.

I'm a veteran of far too many "Can an assassin be good?", "What alignment is Batman", and "Is it okay to kill baby orcs" threads. I learned that I hate alignment discussions.