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

[Nail]

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.

<chuckle>

"It's clearly...." is often not as clear as you would suppose. Kinda like common sense not being very common.

 

[N0Man]

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.

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.

The original point was not whether or not things should be intimidated. I would certainly put occasional restrictions when they made sense, but I certainly wouldn't go overboard with the restrictions. However, Demons might be an example of a foe I would not allow it to work on.

Furthermore, I'd increase the DC for any creature that had Resistance to Fear, and would consider creatures immune that had Immunity to Fear effects.

The real debate wasn't whether the skill in general can work, or should work, but the morality (roleplay wise) of using intimidate on foes in general, and then executing them once you interrogated them. Again, I think it's possible for players to be able to do that, but I'd consider it an Evil (if not Chaotic Evil) act. That was what sparked the debate, and what I seem to be bumping up against opposition on.

 

[Nail]

The original point was not whether or not things should be intimidated.

True! But that's where you took it, so ...<shrug>

FWIW, the "original point" was:

Consider a combat where each PC is dueling one or more opponents. The fighter bloodies his foe, then cows him into submission. The enemy gives up his weapon; then what happens?

Some monsters might just run away, never to be seen again. Others might move to the outskirts to watch the fight, joining in again if the tide turns. The fighter could tie up or guard their defeated foe, at the cost of not participating in the fight for several rounds, but this hardly seems productive. The conflict has not been resolved, only deferred.

The point is that the DM still controls the creature's actions. It is not out of the fight--it has just agreed to stop fighting for the moment.

The real debate wasn't whether the skill in general can work, or should work, but the morality (roleplay wise) of using intimidate on foes in general, and then executing them once you interrogated them.

I'm not sure if that's the "real" debate, but ...it's an interesting discussion.

You've said executing surrendered foes is Evil. What are the consequences of this? Alignment has been largely removed from the game, and if there are no survivors, who would tell the next group of bad guys that the PCs execute those that surrender to them?

 

[Flipguarder]

Sorry if Im putting wrong words in your mouth NOMan

But I believe he has two problems with this:

1. Its stupid to have a skill option that effectively kills people because you choose to kill those who surrender. Its over powered.

2. D&D has always been molded around the basic idea that most pc's are good, and that the strategy to kill those who surrender to you was evil and therefore not accounted for in the intent by wotc while designing the intimidate skill option because pcs are not supposed to do that most of the time.

Which then got us to: Why is it always evil to do kill surrendered enemies?

My last point on THAT discussion is what if the world is just overall better off without the enemy remaining alive?

 

[N0Man]

True! But that's where you took it, so ...<shrug>

Actually it's not... And when I say the original point, I don't mean for the first poster... I mean this tangent of the discussion that seemed to have exploded when I made an off-hand comment of being surprised that some players actually would use intimidate on opponents and then turn around and kill them is an evil act.

This seemed to have erupted into another tangent where I was informed that this was the norm, and I was the freak here... and whether or not it was actually evil.

I'm not the one that started bring up extreme evil corner cases, that was someone else trying to debunk the notion that it was evil, so no... that is not where *I* took it. I did however comment that I don't think that players using intimidation on some creatures was even valid (or believable), and hence another sidetrack.

And here we are...

You've said executing surrendered foes is Evil. What are the consequences of this? Alignment has been largely removed from the game, and if there are no survivors, who would tell the next group of bad guys that the PCs execute those that surrender to them?

See, this is part of the reason the idea bothers me. Justification of using skills in implausible circumstances with the justification of that RaW allows it, and defending morally questionable (at best) acts because the rules don't explicitly restrict alignment are two extraordinary metagamey attitudes.

It's just not in the spirit of the game.

And for the record, can't there ever be non-involved witness that can survive and tell the tale? Perhaps a nearby enemy the player was unaware of, or a nearby villager who witnessed the event? This might have an impact on future encounters in a variety of ways, depending on the circumstances and what events transpired.

 

[Flipguarder]

I say again in a world where devils, aberrations, demons and races that have wanted nothing more than the complete obliteration of eachother (drow and elves), your idea of chivalry and honor derived from this world may not be considered good.

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.

On earth we have a basic understanding that everyone can change. In D&D this option simply doesn't exist for some races/beings.

And your earlier point about devils not surrendering makes no sense to me. Not all devils answer to mephistopholes himself, and nowhere in any book does it say that devils are simply incapable of surrender.

To try to meet you halfway I will say that to accept surrender from an unaligned and intelligent being, only to kill him after is almost always going to be an evil act.

 

[Nail]

This seemed to have erupted into another tangent where I was informed that this was the norm, and I was the freak here...

FWIW, I sincerely hope I haven't implied you are a freak.

It's just not in the spirit of the game.

That's a "YMMV" comment, eh? Try to avoid blanket statements like these. They don't help.

And for the record, can't there ever be non-involved witness that can survive and tell the tale? Perhaps a nearby enemy the player was unaware of, or a nearby villager who witnessed the event? This might have an impact on future encounters in a variety of ways, depending on the circumstances and what events transpired.

It would be helpful (I'm bring serious) if we brain-stormed a list on this, for DMs of all stripes to use. Alignment is not a "big deal" in 4e any more; there is lots of support for this. This means the DM can't easily use the crude "it's against your alignment" argument anymore.

So: If the PCs execute surrendered opponents, how can the DM bring that back into the story in later encounters, with at least some shade of legitimacy?

 

[Flipguarder]

So: If the PCs execute surrendered opponents, how can the DM bring that back into the story in later encounters, with at least some shade of legitimacy?

Order of the stick style. Witness goes to his hometown and informs a bunch of uptight paladins of their unalignedness. They search the party out to try to bring them to justice.

dead surrenderer's brother vows revenge.

They meet the surrenderers family later on, who are now homeless due to their breadwinner being killed. Moral dilemma ensues

Thats all I got for now.

 

[Nail]

And your earlier point about devils not surrendering makes no sense to me. Not all devils answer to mephistopholes himself, and nowhere in any book does it say that devils are simply incapable of surrender.

Agreed.

I think a cool story-arc would start with "...so the demon surrenders to you...."

 

[ExploderWizard]

They meet the surrenderers family later on, who are now homeless due to their breadwinner being killed. Moral dilemma ensues

So the party kills an orc chief who surrenders and is then supposed to feel bad for the orc's family? In a great many campaigns with clearly defined evil races this just isn't the case. The kill things and take thier stuff focus of the game sort of assumes a black and white type of morality.

I know individual campaigns will vary and moral dilemmas can make for great campaign drama so I think leaving such things to the DM is a good decision.