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

[N0Man]

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

And when are you going to see devils and demons surrendering???

As I said earlier, even attempting to negotiate a surrender with diabolically evil opponents is absurd anyway. You have no intention of honoring it, and the only way it would ever happen is if a DM allowed players to metagame it, knowing there is a mechanical chance of it happening even though it makes no sense storywise.

 

[Flipguarder]

Can you explain to me why devils and demons cant surrender?

 

[N0Man]

Can you explain to me why devils and demons cant surrender?

There are just certain types of enemies that you aren't realistically going to see surrendering (as I tried to say earlier). I'd say demons are about as unlikely to surrender as a god is, and I'm certainly not going to get into a debate regarding the morality of slaying a surrendered Orcus.

It's not a matter of whether they *can* or not, it's a matter of whether they would. But if you can't accept that such creatures aren't likely to surrender, how about a quote from the MM?

Fear and mercy are utterly alien to demons’ minds...

Hate and savagery are their only masters, destruction their only pleasure. They care nothing for plans or structure, banding together only in rampaging hordes, not nations or legions. There is nothing subtle about them: They are not manipulators or schemers, nor are they tempters or bargain makers.

This doesn't sound like the type of enemy that is going to stop and make a deal in order to avoid further conflict.


As for Devils...

MALEVOLENT AND CORRUPT, devils are the rebellious servants of the gods now living in the Nine Hells, one of the darkest dominions on the Astral Sea.

They serve gods of the Nine Hells... how afraid do you think they will be of an adventuring party?

Oh, a devil might try to negotiate with a party, but it certainly isn't going to put itself in the position that the party is going to execute it very easily at all. A devil should be the one trying to trick the party, not the party tricking the devil.

 

[Flipguarder]

You didn't answer my question. All you said was that they don't seem to be the type.

Id argue that devils are completely about manipulation and planning. If you had one in a position that looks like surrender or die, then I see no problem with it thinking thats a good idea.
Sure if the pcs are gaining a reputation of killing those who surrender to them then yeah I would raise the dc quite a bit.
But your opinion on what a race would do does not function as an explanation for one of the many exceptions I see in your belief that middle ages Earth ethics apply 100% in a fantasy setting

 

[Regicide]

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

It's not evil, but it is chaotic evil. Chaotic evil is defined as others not mattering and your word meaning nothing.

 

[Nail]

And when are you going to see devils and demons surrendering???

Ask the original thread OP.

The entire point of his PC build was to cause monsters to surrender. Since 4e is exception-based design, and since the descriptions of demons and devils don't include the phrase "immune to surrendering" (or fear, or charm, or whatever), then the OP would argue that they can surrender.

...and you might even find a designer or two that would agree with him.

The point here is pretty simple: the 4e rules support the tactic, even of making Orcus surrender. If, as a DM, you disagree, then you'd better tell such a player that, before it comes up.

Game on.

 

[N0Man]

Ask the original thread OP.

The entire point of his PC build was to cause monsters to surrender. Since 4e is exception-based design, and since the descriptions of demons and devils don't include the phrase "immune to surrendering" (or fear, or charm, or whatever), then the OP would argue that they can surrender.

...and you might even find a designer or two that would agree with him.

The point here is pretty simple: the 4e rules support the tactic, even of making Orcus surrender. If, as a DM, you disagree, then you'd better tell such a player that, before it comes up.

Game on.

It's obvious that I'm not accustomed to the degree of rules lawyerness that apparently exists in some games. I've never experienced players trying to argue that the letter of the rules allowed them to do something so ridiculous as trying to cower a god into surrendering to them, with the intention of killing him off without a struggle. If I was in a game with players that needed to be explicitly warned that they can't do something like that, I wouldn't stay in that group very long.

Besides, the letter of the rules don't require Intimidate to be so cut and dry anyway.

Your Intimidate checks are made against a target’s Will defense or a DC set by the DM. The target’s general attitude toward you and other conditional modifiers (such as what you might be seeking to accomplish or what you’re asking for) might apply to the DC.

Do people seriously play like this? This thread has been a real eye-opening experience and has made me appreciate the games I've played in a little more.

 

[Nail]

It's obvious that I'm not accustomed to the degree of rules lawyerness that apparently exists in some games.

I think you might find this exists more on the internets than in a face-to-face game. Still, I've always found it best -when I'm the DM - to be as clear as I can be about how I interprete the rules. That goes for lax or strict rules interpretations, etc; you don't have to be a rules-lawyer to appreciate that.

I've never experienced players trying to argue that the letter of the rules allowed them to do something so ridiculous as trying to cower a god into surrendering to them, with the intention of killing him off without a struggle.

It's just a question of degree, you know. In 4e at 30th level, demon lords are the new kobolds.

It's clear you think the Intimidate skill has significant limitations on its usefulness as a player power. That's cool (and personally: I agree). It's also clear you think everyone you game with agrees with you on this. Are you sure? Do the players in your game even realize Intimidate can (RAW) cause a bloodied opponent to surrender, and that it's possible to have a really high Intimidate skill?

In one of the games I've played in, two players thought much as the original OP did: Intimidate is an "I win!" button of 4e.

 

[tmatk]

...

In one of the games I've played in, two players thought much as the original OP did: Intimidate is an "I win!" button of 4e.

Did you point them to the PHB to show them they were wrong?

Your Intimidate checks are made against a target’s Will defense or a DC set by the DM. The target’s general attitude toward you and other conditional modifiers (such as what you might be seeking to accomplish or what you’re asking for) might apply to the DC.

It's clearly up to the DM. I don't understand how anyone could not see that, unless they choose to completely ignore the bolded text.

 

[N0Man]

Did you point them to the PHB to show them they were wrong?

It's clearly up to the DM. I don't understand how anyone could not see that, unless they choose to completely ignore the bolded text.

Maybe I should have made that text blink also. ;-)