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



## fuindordm (Jun 17, 2009)

I've followed the Intimidate thread with interest, but it's getting too cluttered.

I think the point people have been missing in that thread is that an opponent who surrenders can change their mind later on.

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. 

Here's my own success story:

Saul the fighter and his companions found themselves in an intersection with opponents on all sides. While his companions were fighting a trio of wights in adjoining rooms, a giant lizard was moving up the corridor. Saul placed himself between the lizard and the intersection, and started duking it out. 

4 or 5 rounds later, the lizard (a big bag of HP, no doubt) was finally bloodied and had been weakened by another party member's power. Saul, after briefly dipping into bloodied territory himself, was fresh at the moment with nearly full HP.

Rather than spend another 4 or 5 rounds finishing off the bag of HP, Saul tried to intimidate the lizard with a ferocious display of animal rage. The roll was good, exceeding the lizard's Will defense +5 by several points.  The DM had the lizard back off, retreating down the corridor.  Saul was free to help his companions fight the wights. Fortunately, the wights were already nearly defeated. A couple of rounds later, all three were destroyed. With the leaders dead, their kobold servants deserted the site, presumably taking the lizard with them. 

But was the lizard gone? Hardly! In all likelihood, had the fight with the wights dragged on, the kobolds would have goaded it into attacking the party again. Maybe their animal handler would have calmed it, or it would have approached from another direction. Maybe they would have given it an enraging drug. Who knows? But I suspect it would have returned one way or another.

In this situation Intimidate helped a lot, that's for sure!

Ben


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 17, 2009)

The type of situation you described is a great result of an intimidation check. Surrender as a cessation of hostile action is completely the right definition to use for this. 

A dumb animal such as a lizard will most certainly try and flee if it fears for its life. Intelligent opponents might flee if they think they can get away, stop fighting and watch if the battle looks close, or submit as a captive if escape looks impossible and the battle appears lost. 

Consider that even mind control in 4E only allows the controller to chose a limited proscribed course of action for the victim. Allowing a player to dictate the exact result of an intimidate check would mean giving the skill greater power than mind control magic.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 17, 2009)

In the game I'm in, successful intimidates have:

1. Caused foes to attempt to flee
2. Caused foes to surrender... until they realised there was still a pitched battle going on with their unbloodied and unintimidated buddies
3. Gotten information out of targets during questioning

Situations 1 and 2 effectively robbed those foes of actions (which in itself is very powerful).

Situation 1 lead us close to chaining fights together.

Situation 2 would have resulted in a total capitulation if we'd actually bloodied every foe before trying it.

All in all: intimidate as we've used it is worthwhile yet sensible, and most of all it makes the game more interesting, rather than less.


----------



## LittleFuzzy (Jun 17, 2009)

We can all come up with niche situations and specific examples where it can and should work out differently, but in general if you a player tries and succeeds at intimidating an enemy with the intent of making it surrender, and the DM keeps bringing the enemy back in, it's going to be at the worst possible moment for the PCs because that promotes the dramatic tension which makes the game fun.  Then players are going to A) get pissed of, and B) stop using intimidate because it's not particularly helpful and can, in fact, be harmful.  It would be unwise, for instance, to try and intimidate lurkers because they LIKE backing out of the fight for a little while and coming back in.  Most players are trying to control the battlefield and make it function in more predictable ways, to limit the enemy's options and increase their own.  Intimidate used as outlined in this thread increases the enemy's options and limits the players.

Intimidating a monster into surrendering should generally be functionally equivalent to death, because if it's not fairly predictable then players simply aren't going to do it.  It will also make those situations where something different happens more exciting, fun, and memorable.


----------



## IanB (Jun 17, 2009)

Even if you turn it into the equivalent of "stops fighting (save ends)" or whatever, it is still far too powerful a combat effect to grant to everyone as an at-will IMO. 4e is otherwise very careful about parceling out combat attacks for balance reasons, and I think it is a gross misinterpretation to use the Intimidate skill as such.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 17, 2009)

It IS limited by DM fiat...
the best way to handle it. Really.

The system is robust with proposed DC´s and it should be usable at will, but you shouldn´t expect it work all the time.

And as a power, even a daily, intimidate is too powerful.

So you have one power which you should use wisely. Decide when its the right time to try intimidating a foe to surrender or flee...


----------



## Nail (Jun 17, 2009)

LittleFuzzy said:


> Intimidating a monster into surrendering should generally be functionally equivalent to death....



Let's investigate that word you use: "should".

Should a skill use be able to cause "functionally equivalent death"?  As you think about your answer, consider how easy it is to pimp out a skill check.  

Additionally, consider the power of other At-Wills available at 1st level.  Which of them can cause a bloodied target to "functionally die"?

"Should" is the wrong word to use here.  "Shouldn't" is better.


----------



## IanB (Jun 17, 2009)

No, I think I understand what he's saying. It is "should" from a mechanical perspective without taking balance into account. If the results are completely unpredictable players won't do it at all, and generally you give people abilities because you want them to use them; if you *are* going to allow intimidate to surrender to work, it needs to be applied in a way that players can predict.


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 17, 2009)

Well, some interesting responses.

To those who think that using a social skill to force surrender, however temporary, is too powerful--isn't it also too powerful for characters with Diplomacy to transform potential enemies into friends, or characters with high Stealth and perception to bypass encounters altogether? While 4E may look like it's all about combat, *skills are there to provide the characters with an alternative means of handling encounters.* If they can't serve this role, they have no place in the game. I don't think using Intimidate halfway through a combat is any worse than using Diplomacy or Bluff before a combat starts.  And this is why the skill description invokes DM fiat! As with Diplomacy and other social skills, only the DM knows all the factors that the NPC will consider when reacting to the skill.

A DM who assumes that their prepared combats are inevitable may be justified in complaining that Intimidate ends them early. A DM who prepares encounters that may or may not lead to combat, depending on how the party handles them, is more likely to consider 'combat avoidance' through social skills a viable strategy.

Now, having said that, one could certainly make the case that the DC for
forcing surrender is too easy.  There was some interesting analysis in the other thread on this subject. Broadly speaking, it is a Cha vs. Will test with heavy bonuses on the PC side (skill training and skill focus can give +8,
while the monster has no access to feats that boost their Will save by
a similar amount).  Whether those DCs should be modified is a separate issue, but one that can be easily resolved if the DM asks him- or herself how often the tactic should work. 

Personally, I think it should work quite often (~70%) against intelligent, self-interested opponents.  In a one-on-one duel, any sensible person will take the opportunity to surrender once it becomes clear the combat is going against them.  But this is for an ideal case: the PC is healthy, while the NPC is bloodied and has no backup.  If both parties are bloodied, or the tide of a larger battle has not yet turned, or the NPC is a coward/fanatic, the odds should change accordingly; certainly in some of these cases they should be low enough that only a highly trained PC should have a shot at forcing surrender.  By establishing a handful of benchmark cases for your campaign, it is easy to figure out whether the PC should be targeting Will, Will+5, or some other number.

Ben


----------



## IanB (Jun 17, 2009)

fuindordm said:


> Well, some interesting responses.
> 
> To those who think that using a social skill to force surrender, however temporary, is too powerful--isn't it also too powerful for characters with Diplomacy to transform potential enemies into friends, or characters with high Stealth and perception to bypass encounters altogether?




Not at all. Those checks will be occuring in the context of a skill challenge (or at least an impromptu skill challenge), which is the design space they're intended to operate in. Likewise, I would have no issue with Intimidate being used in that sort of scenario. The problem comes in when the balance of the combat 'space' is impacted by using something that wasn't designed to fit with it.

Combat-usable Intimidate should really be handled the way any other 'bonus' power from taking a feat is handled; it needs to use more resources to be balanced for combat use, like the warforged Improved Immutability feat, or the Channel Divinity ones, and it needs to have a power block that states exactly what it does, keywords, etc.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 18, 2009)

If the intimidate skill is acceptable as fight ending skill check then what was wrong with spells such as the 3E Hold Person? At the spell rerquired the use of a resource to end the fight for one opponent. Intimidate does not.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 18, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> If the intimidate skill is acceptable as fight ending skill check then what was wrong with spells such as the 3E Hold Person? At the spell rerquired the use of a resource to end the fight for one opponent. Intimidate does not.



Well, first off the 3E hold person did not have an official option for the DM to grant the NPC a  save bonus of _plus whatever DM wishers_.


----------



## Runestar (Jun 18, 2009)

> If the intimidate skill is acceptable as fight ending skill check then what was wrong with spells such as the 3E Hold Person? At the spell rerquired the use of a resource to end the fight for one opponent. Intimidate does not.




Isn't such a use of intimidate in 4e tantamount to a virtual save-or-die? Either you waste a standard action achieving nothing (because you failed the DC check) or you spent a standard action neutralizing a foe outright. I thought this was the sort of thing 4e was actively trying to discourage.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 18, 2009)

I don't see what the problem is.  If he wants to build his character to kill more effectively, fine.  If he wants to build it to be less lethal but have non-killing options, that's fine too.

Truth be told, it's  more heroic to let their enemies think over the situation and retreat rather than forcing your players to fight to the death.

As a DM, there are several questions to ask:

1) Is this individual enemy too important to allow for intimidation, or is there a story reason to prevent it?

2) Is it a type of enemy that intimidation is even reasonable against?

3) What's their reaction?  Do they surrender, or run away? (Or even commit suicide to avoid capture!)

4) Do you want to adjust the difficulty due to how many of his comrades are still up and doing well, or that have fallen?

I think it's completely reasonable to adjust the DC based on how many of his allies are either still non-bloodied, bloodied, or dead (and the same for your side).

This is a rules forum, and not a house-rules forum, but you could try creating your own little table of modifiers to make it more dynamic, if you really want to go through the trouble.

Here's an example table with DC modifiers:



> +4 per unconscious or dead PC
> +3 per non-bloodied Solo enemy in the encounter (including itself)
> +2 per non-bloodied Elite enemy in the encounter (including itself)
> +1 per non-bloodied Normal enemy in the encounter.
> ...




Just a thought.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2009)

Of the two groups I've ran, Surrender has resulted in the following responses:

Group 1: Players kill the surrendering enemies after they have taken their weapons.

Group 2: Players ask, "What will you give us to make us accept your surrender?"


----------



## Nail (Jun 18, 2009)

Be honest: a successful intimidate usually ends in death for the monster.  
A PC successfully intimidates a bloodied monster, assuming whatever other foes are (already) dispatched.
The intimidated monster pleads for mercy.
The PCs ask the monster some questions.
The PCs make up some reason to kill the monster.

It's just a prolonged version of a Save-or-Die power, only wrapped into a skill.  It's a free, additional At-Will power, far more powerful than any other At-Will power in the game.

I wonder: How would PCs respond if monsters used Intimidate on them, to force _them_ to surrender?


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 18, 2009)

Nail thats a great point. Id imagine that the pcs would want a save of some sort.

So I suppose the monsters should get a save as well


----------



## tmatk (Jun 18, 2009)

My speculation - I think the designers liked the idea of a combat intimidation mechanic, but saw the potential for abuse. The best, or easiest, solution was to leave it up to the DM to make judgment calls, thus "...or a DC set by the DM" was included.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 18, 2009)

Nail said:


> Be honest: a successful intimidate usually ends in death for the monster.
> 
> A PC successfully intimidates a bloodied monster, assuming whatever other foes are (already) dispatched.
> The intimidated monster pleads for mercy.
> ...








> Of the two groups I've ran, Surrender has resulted in the following responses:
> 
> Group 1: Players kill the surrendering enemies after they have taken their weapons.
> 
> Group 2: Players ask, "What will you give us to make us accept your surrender?"




Wow... what kind of players do you play with there?  I've never seen a game where the players executed surrendered opponents or would only spare them in exchange for a bribe.

That's not very heroic.  I'd say it's even an evil act.

In all the games I've played (and ran), when opponents have surrendered, I've never once seen players kill them.  I've seen them run off, interrogated, beg for mercy, change allegiance, captured, and even turn over a new leaf... but never just killed in cold blood.

Perhaps allow the occasional witness to the event, which might spread the word of this merciless lot.  They might find in the future they might run into enemies that have heard the tales of their dishonorable actions.  Maybe a friend or loved one will hear the story and vow revenge.

D&D is NOT a video game, and a DM can and should think of repercussions for the actions of players (good or bad).


----------



## Regicide (Jun 18, 2009)

Runestar said:


> Isn't such a use of intimidate in 4e tantamount to a virtual save-or-die?




  Seems more like a fail-or-die(in-a-couple-more-hits).


----------



## Nail (Jun 19, 2009)

N0Man said:


> Wow... what kind of players do you play with there?  I've never seen a game where the players executed surrendered opponents.



I could ask you the same.  

In all my years of gaming, with many, many, many groups, with many, many, many game systems, the usual M.O. with captured monsters is....to kill them.  (Or passing them off to the local constabulary to be killed....same difference.)  

It takes alot of GM mojo (and Plot Power!) to reverse that tendency.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 19, 2009)

Nail said:


> I could ask you the same.
> 
> In all my years of gaming, with many, many, many groups, with many, many, many game systems, the usual M.O. with captured monsters is....to kill them.  (Or passing them off to the local constabulary to be killed....same difference.)
> 
> It takes alot of GM mojo (and Plot Power!) to reverse that tendency.




I don't know how to answer that.  I've just never seen that happen.  I mean, if that was the M.O. then it seems like monsters wouldn't generally ever surrender (unless they were very dumb and gullible).

In fact, one of the last times players used intimidation on an enemy, our Warlock sparred a kobold and commanded him to go and do no more harm to the civilized folk.  She bluffed it into believing that if he broke this commandment, that her curses would find him and make him regret ever breaking his word.

If I hadn't of moved across the country... my plan was to bring him back one day, as a Kobold who was an aspiring hero trying to follow in the footsteps of that warlock who made such an impression on him. ;-)


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 19, 2009)

And see NOMan, if you just kill all who surrender to you, you won't have to deal with pesky, crappy kobold sidekicks. 

I think we all learned a valuable lesson here today.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 19, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> And see NOMan, if you just kill all who surrender to you, you won't have to deal with pesky, crappy kobold sidekicks.
> 
> I think we all learned a valuable lesson here today.




Oh, he wasn't going to be a sidekick.  When I talked about bringing him back, it would be just to see him again, not to join them.

Actually I made sure he scurried off before the party got a chance to consider such a thing. ;-)


----------



## LittleFuzzy (Jun 19, 2009)

Nail said:


> I could ask you the same.
> 
> In all my years of gaming, with many, many, many groups, with many, many, many game systems, the usual M.O. with captured monsters is....to kill them.  (Or passing them off to the local constabulary to be killed....same difference.)
> 
> It takes alot of GM mojo (and Plot Power!) to reverse that tendency.




Same thing I've seen.  My minotaur warlord intimidated a kobold into surrendering very early on in KotS, and the bugbear rogue shived the minion before I even got a chance to start asking questions.  And when we came across Splug, my warlord just casually lopped off his head after we'd finished with our questions.  We weren't about to let that sneaker try and get his chief's favor back by ratting us out.  I'm generally not in favor of such a bloodthirsty approach *though it's rather in-character for my warlord* but the rest of the table has made it pretty clear they just don't want to deal with the headache of prisoners in that campaign.  Now, if they try that sort of thing when I'm DMing my Eberron campaign, they're more liable to regret it.  Different sort of world, different social environment.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 19, 2009)

Nail said:


> In all my years of gaming, with many, many, many groups, with many, many, many game systems, the usual M.O. with captured monsters is....to kill them.  (Or passing them off to the local constabulary to be killed....same difference.)
> 
> It takes alot of GM mojo (and Plot Power!) to reverse that tendency.



Luckily this doesn't reflect my experience at all. I wonder if this is because none of my players was introduced to roleplaying with D&D?

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.


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 19, 2009)

Hmm...

@Nail et al.:  If in your campaigns monsters who surrender are always killed, it seems clear to me that they would stop surrendering pretty quickly. Of course, if your PCs constantly move from place to place, outrunning their reputation, or just do dungeon crawls where the slaughter has no consequences, then I agree with you allowing the party to end entire combats through intimidate would be overpowering... at least 'on paper'. Still, I would think that as soon as a witness escapes to tell the tale, the tactic will no longer work at that adventure site. 

If you view it as a way for the party to end a combat that they're winning anyway, however, then maybe it's just a way for the party to keep the story moving and get through more encounters in a session? Do you feel the party has not 'earned' their XP if they only get through 2/3 of the combat round by round, then use a skill check to truncate the grind? I would make it very difficult for the party as a whole to intimidate all the monsters in the encounter at once, unless the monsters were already clearly losing (or thought they would lose).

----

On a more general note, there is a philosophical gap in this conversation that we probably won't be able to bridge.  Some people feel that when the party enters combat, they enter a sub-game where only 'power cards' are allowed to affect monsters and the only exits are victory or death.  Outside of combat, obstacles are to be overcome using skill challenges or possibly role-playing. 

Personally, I am more comfortable with a game where the border between combat and role-playing is fluid or non-existent. I think players should be able to transform a combat challenge into a role-playing challenge in some circumstances, for example:
*ambushed by bandits, after 2-3 rounds of combat while the party is trying to avoid killing, the cleric manages to convey to the leader that the party was coming to negotiate with a certain NPC wizard in the outlaw band. 
*A nasty bar fight breaks out, but a PC manages to organize it into a more civilized wrestling match.
*The party wizard receives a telepathic message that the Frixian ambassador is really an assassin, who will try to kill the king during negotiations. Passing the word to his colleagues, the party jumps up during a diplomatic meeting and attempts to capture the spy.

Would everyone consider these reasonable situations that D&D should be able to handle?  The first two clearly involve one PC using diplomacy while the others are fighting, to change a combat scenario into a noncombat scenario.  In the third, a non-combat scenario (perhaps a skill challenge that the DM has put great thought into) is interrupted by the party and gives way to combat. 

Furthermore, Intimidate isn't the only skill with combat uses--consider Bluff! This is an at-will power for rogues to gain combat advantage against their opponent. Too powerful?  As for the other skills, the DMG explains how clever stunts with athletics, acrobatics, or whatever the player can justify should have an effect on combat--if the player meets a certain DC, they can even do damage on the scale of an encounter power. 

So I put it to everyone listening that (1) skills are meant to be used in combat, not just in skill challenges; (2) the players should and do have the power to change the arena of a conflict from combat to role-playing and back again, using player skills and their own creativity; (3) yes, monsters/NPCs have a similar ability. 

If a black dragon has the party on the ropes, wouldn't they accept an offered truce?  That doesn't mean they will stand by and meekly let the dragon slaughter them if the encounter turns back to combat. Likewise, while a monster or NPC may stop fighting due to an Intimidate check, their withdrawal is always provisional--for the moment--until I can get the jump on you! 

So when the party intimidates a bunch of monsters to end an encounter early, it is merely a storytelling convenience to do away with the last few rounds after victory is almost assured. When a single PC intimidates a single monster, they still have to deal with that monster--if it runs, it may come back (and soon!), or run off to bear news of the encounter to allies; if it drops its weapon, a PC will still have to guard it, etc. So that situation is more akin to grappling--it might take a PC and a monster out of the fight.

All right, I think that's enough for now. To sum up--Intimidate might be too powerful an option in some campaigns, but I have trouble thinking of situations in my own campaign where it would cause problems.

Cheers,
Ben


----------



## N0Man (Jun 19, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> Luckily this doesn't reflect my experience at all. I wonder if this is because none of my players was introduced to roleplaying with D&D?
> 
> 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.




I don't think that's it.  I was introduced to roleplaying through D&D, and so were the majority of the players I've played with that I referenced earlier.  Our games have always involved moral dilemmas and hard decisions.  Roleplayed decisions were always important to us.  We just never played it strictly as kill them and take their stuff.

What's funny is that when we got a new player that would play the game in the way some of you seem to describe, we thought of them as an anomaly, and not really what D&D was about and we usually didn't continue to play with them.  Now maybe I wonder if we were the anomaly. 

I actually talked to one of the guys I regularly played D&D with over the years, and happened to mention this thread.  He was surprised that it was so common for players to execute their prisoners.


----------



## Nail (Jun 19, 2009)

Interesting discussion! 


fuindordm said:


> @Nail et al.:  If in your campaigns monsters who surrender are always killed, it seems clear to me that they would stop surrendering pretty quickly.



How would anyone know?  Isn't it usually the case that all enemies engaged in battle fall in battle?

As a general question to everyone: _"Do you find that at least one enemy escapes from most battles?  Or are they all killed?"_


fuindordm said:


> Furthermore, Intimidate isn't the only skill with combat uses--consider Bluff!



Bluff doesn't allow a PC to remove an enemy from combat.



fuindordm said:


> If a black dragon has the party on the ropes, wouldn't they accept an offered truce?




An interesting omission.  Do you see it?

Intimidate says "surrender", not "accept an offered truce".  So when a DM uses intimidate, it's a truce in which the PCs won't get "meekly slaughtered".  But when PCs use it, it's "surrendered"?


fuindordm said:


> Likewise, while a monster or NPC may stop fighting due to an Intimidate check, their withdrawal is always provisional--for the moment--until I can get the jump on you!



I think you'll find the OP (of the orginal thread) was claiming "_surrendered_" did not mean "_hold on to weapons, and fight again if the opportunity presented itself_".


----------



## Nail (Jun 19, 2009)

N0Man said:


> I don't know how to answer that.  I've just never seen that happen.



You've not been to GenCon or a LRPG then, I take it.


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 19, 2009)

Nail said:


> Interesting discussion!
> How would anyone know?  Isn't it usually the case that all enemies engaged in battle fall in battle?
> 
> As a general question to everyone: _"Do you find that at least one enemy escapes from most battles?  Or are they all killed?"_
> ...


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 19, 2009)

N0Man said:


> [/LIST]
> Wow... what kind of players do you play with there?  I've never seen a game where the players executed surrendered opponents or would only spare them in exchange for a bribe.
> 
> That's not very heroic.  I'd say it's even an evil act.
> ...




Heroic? Evil?

I guess you do not understand the term "outlaw".

DND monsters are, for the most part, outlaws. Outside the law. In a points of light setting, PCs are often hundreds of miles from the nearest major settlement. The local villages cannot hold a monster in their jail. The PCs cannot just let the monster go because it will just go back to terrorizing the locals.

It's called summary justice.

You are thinking in modern cultural moral and legal terms. 1000 years ago (and even today in some cultures), people were tried and convicted on the spot, especially in military situations.

That's what DND monsters are. Monsters. Foes. Enemies.

One does not just let their enemies go.


In a town or city setting where the foe is a humanoid, yes, that's different. The good PCs should often accept surrender and take the foe to the local authorities if the situation calls for that. But, even then it is dependent on the situation.


Granted, my players have a moral dilemma just killing any surrendering foe. But if they decide to kill the surrendered foe, I as DM do not usually have an issue with it except in some rare cases like the foe is a Duke and the PCs decide to kill him without using local justice or some extreme case like that. That might have roleplaying repercussions.


DND is typically wrapped more around medieval morals in many campaigns, not modern morals. A DM should be carefuly of forcing his current morality of good and evil into a game where many players view it as a non-modern setting. If a DM told me that killing a surrendered foe is evil, I'd laugh at him. DND is designed around breaking and entering, murder, and theft. No matter how you slice it, every PC does that eventually and it's allowed because of non-modern morality.


----------



## Nail (Jun 19, 2009)

fuindordm said:


> When there are a lot of opponents, then yes, some usually escape rather than be killed.



Neat!  I do that in my games too...and the players usually HATE it => just hate it with a passion.



fuindordm said:


> a successful intimidate check can provoke a wide range of responses from the opponent, depending on circumstances. Furthermore, the opponents are very unlikely to surrender in such a way that renders them completely helpless.



 I agree!  (FWIW)

.....and there are some who would disagree, and say that the only monster option is surrender, and the only way to surrender is to drop weapons, fight no more, and meekly obey the Intimidator's every command.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 19, 2009)

I can see it now, PHB 4, epic destiny requiring a bonus to intimidate > 35 and having successfully intimidated over 50 enemies.

Evil Lord, all of its features and abilites have to do with the fact that you have an army thats forced to do your whims.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 19, 2009)

Nail said:


> Neat!  I do that in my games too...and the players usually HATE it => just hate it with a passion.




  Mine did too until it was explained to them that they still get the XP.  Then they only hated it if the monster who got away had loot with it.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 19, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Heroic? Evil?
> 
> I guess you do not understand the term "outlaw".




You're being a little condescending now, aren't you?



> You are thinking in modern cultural moral and legal terms. 1000 years ago (and even today in some cultures), people were tried and convicted on the spot, especially in military situations.




The origins and concepts of chivalry and knightly conduct began more than 1,000 years ago.  Conduct in minor skirmishes, battles, or wars vary from culture to culture, but mercy is certainly not a part of a new modern moral construct.



> One does not just let their enemies go.




Actually, sometimes one does.  Not all the time, but sometimes.  Sometimes it's the wise choice, and sometimes it's not (and the same is true for the opposite choice).



> DND is typically wrapped more around medieval morals in many campaigns, not modern morals. A DM should be carefuly of forcing his current morality of good and evil into a game where many players view it as a non-modern setting. If a DM told me that killing a surrendered foe is evil, I'd laugh at him. DND is designed around breaking and entering, murder, and theft. No matter how you slice it, every PC does that eventually and it's allowed because of non-modern morality.




That doesn't make those characters particularly "heroic".  I'd consider this kind of behavior to be more like ruthless vigilantism at best.  If that's your style of game, fine, but it isn't the style that my circle of gamers play.

I'd agree that D&D typically does draw from medieval morals rather than modern morals.  However, this includes the idea of chivalry and knightly conduct (or at least the myths of them) that we have.

That includes mercy at times.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 19, 2009)

N0Man said:


> The origins and concepts of chivalry and knightly conduct began more than 1,000 years ago.  Conduct in minor skirmishes, battles, or wars vary from culture to culture, but mercy is certainly not a part of a new modern moral construct..
> 
> I'd agree that D&D typically does draw from medieval morals rather than modern morals.  However, this includes the idea of chivalry and knightly conduct (or at least the myths of them) that we have.
> 
> That includes mercy at times.




All you've described is the lawful good alignment.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 19, 2009)

N0Man said:


> KarinsDad said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sorry, but I don't believe you.

I doubt very much that your games do not ever revolve around "breaking into the lair of the PC's enemies", "killing said enemies", and "looting the bodies". Trespass, murder, and theft.

I don't believe you at all.

Do that in the real world and you get the electric chair, regardless of individual motives.



N0Man said:


> However, this includes the idea of chivalry and knightly conduct (or at least the myths of them) that we have.
> 
> That includes mercy at times.




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.


----------



## IanB (Jun 19, 2009)

N0Man said:


> I don't know how to answer that.  I've just never seen that happen.  I mean, if that was the M.O. then it seems like monsters wouldn't generally ever surrender (unless they were very dumb and gullible).




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.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 19, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> All you've described is the lawful good alignment.




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.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 19, 2009)

IanB said:


> 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 (Jun 19, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> 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.
> ...




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 (Jun 19, 2009)

N0Man said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2009)

N0Man said:


> 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...
> 
> ...





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 (Jun 20, 2009)

N0Man said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2009)

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 (Jun 20, 2009)

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 (Jun 20, 2009)

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 (Jun 20, 2009)

Regicide said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2009)

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.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 20, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2009)

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


----------



## N0Man (Jun 20, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2009)

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 (Jun 20, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2009)

N0Man said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2009)

Nail said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Jun 20, 2009)

N0Man said:


> 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.



N0Man said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

Nail said:


> ...
> 
> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

tmatk said:


> 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. ;-)


----------



## Nail (Jun 21, 2009)

tmatk said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

Nail said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Jun 21, 2009)

N0Man said:


> 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:







fuindordm said:


> 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.







N0Man said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

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 (Jun 21, 2009)

Nail said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

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 (Jun 21, 2009)

N0Man said:


> 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.



N0Man said:


> 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.



N0Man said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

Nail said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> 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.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 21, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> 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.




I never said orc, so please stop putting words in my mouth and then calling it ridiculous.

Obviously that option would be used in a more sympathetic situation. For instance a group of humans attack you and you later find out that a dragon convinced them you were evil and attempting to kill their children or something. Obviously if this were the kind of circumstance I was talking about earlier in which the pcs were not doing evil, but eliminating an evil being it wouldn't work out since feeling sorry for a devil or orc's family would prove difficult to impart upon a party.

And besides I'm just brainstorming, theres no reason to get so argumentative about it.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> I never said orc, so please stop putting words in my mouth and then calling it ridiculous.
> 
> Obviously that option would be used in a more sympathetic situation. For instance a group of humans attack you and you later find out that a dragon convinced them you were evil and attempting to kill their children or something. Obviously if this were the kind of circumstance I was talking about earlier in which the pcs were not doing evil, but eliminating an evil being it wouldn't work out since feeling sorry for a devil or orc's family would prove difficult to impart upon a party.
> 
> And besides I'm just brainstorming, theres no reason to get so argumentative about it.




I never said that you said orc, or called anything ridiculous, please point out evidence to the contrary. My point was that morality issues really are not part of the mechanical function of a skill.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 21, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I never said that you said orc, or called anything ridiculous, please point out evidence to the contrary. My point was that morality issues really are not part of the mechanical function of a skill.




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.


----------



## Creamsteak (Jun 21, 2009)

One mans devils and drow are not another mans devils and drow. In some games, a very clear divide seperates the good guys from the bad guys, and killing bad guys might _always_ be the right thing to do. And in another game, anyone can be redeemed, any action might have both good and evil components, and there are rough choices.

Nobody is going to win an argument where you're trying to convince the other guy that the way they deal with these issues is wrong. It's not a rules discussion at that point. There's nothing to be won on either side.

One thing I'm not understanding at this point is whether we are debating what the rules actually do, or what the rules should do? If it's what they actually do... then I think Nail has the right of it. If it's what they should do... that's going to vary from group to group, campaign to campaign, player to player.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> 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.




See, this kind of stuff keeps getting brought up and twisting what I've been saying and clouding the subject.

Here are the points that I've been trying to make:



 Offering enemies a surrender, and then taking advantage of that surrender in order to attack them while they are defenseless is a Chaotic and dishonorable act (regardless of whether it is evil or not).
 Using this on opponents that wouldn't realistically surrender (such ruthless hate-filled creatures bent on destruction of everything) because you know by RAW it should work, regardless of whether it makes sense, is Metagaming.
 Using these tactics in situations where it is clearly evil but justifying them because there are no rules to dictate alignment is Metagaming.
 
The range of examples that keep coming up tend to chaotic, evil, metagaming, or a combination of 2 or more of those things, which means it's not in the spirit of heroic roleplay, which is really what I'm thinking.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 21, 2009)

1. Pcs can be chaotic and dishonorable while still being heros.
2. You still haven't given me any good reason on why creatures completely bent towards destruction can't surrender. I'm not metagaming, Im role-playing. I don't even WANT to use this skill option as written, I just want to point out that your decision on this idea of evil creatures not surrendering is complete arbitrary opinion.
3. Not all D&D characters are good, this is ok.

I think the real question we should be asking here is:

Can evil people be heroes?


----------



## Regicide (Jun 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> 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.




  Obliterating each other, yeah, that doesn't describe France and England at all... noooo.... And lets not even mention the crusades, the mongol hordes.  If you didn't believe in X god or be of Y race, you weren't even considered human.  Women as property, can you murder property?



Flipguarder said:


> 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.




D&D Fight Club: The Succubus Paladin


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 21, 2009)

Regicide said:


> Obliterating each other, yeah, that doesn't describe France and England at all... noooo.... And lets not even mention the crusades, the mongol hordes.  If you didn't believe in X god or be of Y race, you weren't even considered human.  Women as property, can you murder property?




Are England and France two races that have been killing each other for hundreds of years or more since their creation? Have they hated each other almost without exception forever?
And at the end of the day, we all can change, aberrations, demons and devils cannot. Though yes elves/drow are the weak point of my previous statement.


Regicide said:


> D&D Fight Club: The Succubus Paladin



Honestly? I don't say this much but TL;DR. Maybe if you hinted at some sort of a point.

EDIT: read it, so what? it says itself

"Eludecia knows that she can never purge herself completely of her evil nature without magical aid, but for now, she shuns such help because she is determined to "make it on her own." Thus, she must fight each and every day to avoid slipping back into her evil ways. Thus far, she has succeeded admirably."

Does NOT change the fact that she is evil by nature.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> Does NOT change the fact that she is evil by nature.




  So you're of the opinion that when you walk into town you do a detect evil and slay everything that pops up?  Or do you think that a human who murders for pleasure should be allowed to live, but a demon, despite being a (lawful good) paladin, should be slain out of hand?


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 21, 2009)

Everybody has an unlimited hunting permit for creatures from the abyss and the nine hells. I kid... but seriously:


You act as though IM the one making the blanket statement and all you have to do is come up with one exception to prove I'm wrong. NOMan is attempting to say that killing someone who has surrendered to you can NEVER be accepted by PC's.
I'm willing to say that a creature born evil can through some twisted sense of love attempt to act in a "good" way. This does not change the fact that this is an aberration in an ocean of evil. 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.


----------



## Nail (Jun 21, 2009)

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


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Jun 21, 2009)

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 (Jun 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

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 (Jun 21, 2009)

Nail said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

Regicide said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

N0Man said:


> [/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. 



Jhaelen said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

N0Man said:


> 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.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 22, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I learned that I hate alignment discussions.



Hate is evil.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2009)

N0Man said:


> Flipguarder said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






			
				N0Man said:
			
		

> To request surrender, and then turn around and execute those surrendering is an *evil,* uncivilized and dishonorable act.




Must be the new English language.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 22, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Must be the new English language.




I think you're the first person I've encountered on EnWorld that comes across as condescending, sarcastic and rude in most of their responses to me...  Maybe it comes across different than intended, but that's how it seems...

You are taking a contradiction from the beginning of the conversation with another statement from the end to make a jab at me, without any consideration of the fact that through the course of this discussion, that I did concede that it may not *always* be evil,   However I maintain that it is a chaotic and dishonorable act (of course not all PCs are lawful or honorable), and very likely (as in the context that it was earlier presented) metagaming.

So yes, through the process of discussion, I did modify my viewpoint slightly and also helped narrow down in my own mind what about it that bugged me.

If discussion doesn't lead to either new ideas, opinions being either changed or at least better understood, then what's the point of it?  There's no prize for "winning" a forum debate.

Anyway, I think that there are some fundamental differences in the way that my friends have collectively viewed the game worlds than some players here, and I believe some of these differences are behind the disparity of opinions and viewpoints.

I actually even brought this thread up with a few of the folks I game with and discussed it with them, and I joked with them that I found out that all of our friends have been playing D&D wrong. ;-)


----------



## N0Man (Jun 22, 2009)

Ahzad said:


> 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.




This is definitely not the style of play that I've experienced.  It is valid, but I don't think I'd enjoy it.

In our games, DM's avoid punishing players for decisions they make in order to be true to their character or alignment.  We certainly have had situations came up where we were forced into difficult decisions where we had to consider our character's alignment, knowledge, or character, but they were decisions where we generally understood what the ramifications of our decision would be.

The games I'm used to, choices that are made that are true to character and/or make the story more interesting and fun tend to be rewarded (or at least less severe) than decisions that are not true to character or are uninteresting.

The most severe result of players showing mercy and letting an opponent go after intimidating it and interrogating it, was they got to the BBEG of the adventure and found the freed opponent dead in the room.  The BBEG found out about his cowardice and punished him for it.


----------



## BendBars/LiftGates (Jun 22, 2009)

If I were DMing Azhad's campaign, I would have definitely done things differently. It's true that perhaps if you captured villains and then let them go rather than slay them, that some people might hold you responsible for their later crimes. But it's also possible that people might empathize with your dilemma and agree that, in a difficult situation, you were forced to go easy on them and they took advantage of your mercy.

Maybe it's gamist rather than absolutely simulationist, but a DM has to make some decisions based on what kind of game he wants to play. It might be interesting to see what happens when you get mistaken for a villain, but *a DM ought to understand that when you punish players for allowing surrendered opponents to live, you give them strong incentive to execute their prisoners.*

If you Intimidate some bandits into surrendering and then let them go free, I refuse to believe that whether or not they turn on you is a question of realism. Did your act of kindness rub off on them? Maybe, particularly in a world of high fantasy where good and evil do battle. Will they instead hold a grudge and come murder you in your sleep when you make camp next? That's also possible, but they don't have to. When there are plenty of ways the choice could go, a DM should revert to the choice that encourages the sort of game he wants to play.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2009)

N0Man said:


> I think you're the first person I've encountered on EnWorld that comes across as condescending, sarcastic and rude in most of their responses to me...




Actually, I've been thinking the same of you. Look in the mirror dude.

Maybe it's because if you go back and re-read what you wrote in this thread, you've on multiple occassions took minor statements as personal attacks and told not only me, but others how their behavior is bad, how they misrepresent you or what you said, how what you say is taken out of context, how other people are rules lawyers because they follow the rules of intimidate, etc. Just because they disagree with you.

That was the most recent occurence of "someone misrepresenting what you said".

Other people do not do this when people disagree with them.

Get over yourself. It's a discussion. Discuss the topic, *not the posters*.

When you stop doing that, I will stop laughing at you and take your opinion more seriously. People who disagree with you should not be targets.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 22, 2009)

Rechan said:


> 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.



I agree. It's one of several reasons I'm all for getting rid of alignments in D&D. In my experience, having alignments in a game causes people to stop thinking about the way their characters behave.

The 3E Eberron setting was a first tentative step in the right direction. Now, it's about time to go all the way and replace alignments with a fully developed character concept, i.e. with a believable background and personality traits that can be used as a basis for moral decisions.

Absolute alignments make only sense for beings like demons, and even that is debatable.

All of this is completely IMHO of course. It's just my personal preference.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 22, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Actually, I've been thinking the same of you. Look in the mirror dude.
> 
> Maybe it's because if you go back and re-read what you wrote in this thread, you've on multiple occassions took minor statements as personal attacks and told not only me, but others how their behavior is bad, how they misrepresent you or what you said, how what you say is taken out of context, how other people are rules lawyers because they follow the rules of intimidate, etc. Just because they disagree with you.
> 
> ...




I was having an idea attributed to me that was contrary to what I had been saying for the last several posts and I'm not allowed to point out that is not a fair representation of what I'm trying to express?  Perhaps I could have used a better word than misrepresent (such as misunderstand), 

I suggest you go back and reread your posts as well...  Your very first post to me leads off with a condescending comment.  Your next you reiterate that you think I'm lying about my past experiences.  Then you go on to mischaracterize a gamestyle I prefer, again in a condescending tone, as "horsies on parade".  Then you move on to juxtaposing 2 statements from 2 seperate parts of the discussion to try to show contradiction rather than taking into account that I did bend some on my original statement over the next several posts in the discussion.

Even now, when I point out that you seem to come across with an antagonistic tone, and state I might be misreading you, you respond with a "no, you are!" response.

I'd prefer to keep to the subject at hands, so can we both please drop the snark?


----------



## Rechan (Jun 22, 2009)

N0Man said:


> The games I'm used to, choices that are made that are true to character and/or make the story more interesting and fun tend to be rewarded (or at least less severe) than decisions that are not true to character or are uninteresting.



Except that in my experience, dilemmas are when the situation is stacked _against_ the character's preferred choice. I.e. the character doing what they think as right will have Consequences. Doing what they see as Wrong is the easy out. 

That's a very common trope in fiction. Having your ideals questioned, or ending up in situations where they don't apply/do you no good, or at least make things much more difficult for you. 

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "reward". It's more rewarding to me, story wise, to put a character's morals on to the test. If they violate their own code or whathaveyou, I find it rewarding to see how that changes the character/the character copes (instead of the player just ignoring it). If they chose to stick to their morals and thus have a harder road ahead, that's also more rewarding.

And it's totally fair to have negative consequences come from any action. As long as it's not heavy handed DM fiat.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 22, 2009)

To KarinsDad:

You seem like a very sarcastic person. It's ok, I am too. But What I've learned over the time I've spent on the internet and through writing letters is that sarcastic people are treated as much more rude than they intend to be. I believe there is a certain amount of humor in sarcasm that can only be sold in voice.
I would have brought up the issue your sarcastic statement presents in a less inflammatory way because you are already saying something he doesn't want to hear.

To NOMan:

Personally I'm actually glad KarinsDad pointed that out. Sure it's completely within your right to modify your opinion during a discussion. What is not reasonable for you to do, is to tell me I've misrepresented you when I never did.

Since you never actually stated that you thought it was possible for the act to not be evil, then it's well within the discussion for me to represent you that way. It may not be a big deal to you, but I don't feel great when I find out that I apologized for something I didn't do.


----------



## Nail (Jun 22, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Except that in my experience, dilemmas are when the situation is stacked _against_ the character's preferred choice. I.e. the character doing what they think as right will have Consequences. Doing what they see as Wrong is the easy out.



Agreed.

It's just a lot of fun for nearly everyone when a PC choice to "do right" isn't the easy choice.  I've DMed quite a few of those choices, and it's those times that are talked about around the gaming table when we reminisce about old war stories.  "Remember when we had to chose between letting the succubus go or letting that town get destroyed?"



Rechan said:


> And it's totally fair to have negative consequences come from any action. As long as it's not heavy handed DM fiat.



Yep.  The DM has to set it up beforehand, though.  It takes some "narrative work" and "plot crafting" to get the moral dilemas fit into the campaign.


...which means it's often pretty hard to work in the 4e Intimidate combat mechanic straight out-of-the-box.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> . Discuss the topic, *not the posters*.




Um, you realize the irony of this statement, right?  That you are yourself engaged in speaking about the poster, rather than the topic?  Pot, kettle, and all that.

Folks, we have a feature that allows you to report posts to the moderators.  It is a little exclamation point in a triangle, at the bottom of every single post.  If you have a problem with how someone is posting, we strongly request that you use this feature.

We even more strongly request that you not get confrontational and in each other's faces.  So, to all of you, back off.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 22, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> To NOMan:
> 
> Personally I'm actually glad KarinsDad pointed that out. Sure it's completely within your right to modify your opinion during a discussion. What is not reasonable for you to do, is to tell me I've misrepresented you when I never did.
> 
> Since you never actually stated that you thought it was possible for the act to not be evil, then it's well within the discussion for me to represent you that way. It may not be a big deal to you, but I don't feel great when I find out that I apologized for something I didn't do.




As I said earlier, it was a poor word choice.  I was tired, and there had been a small number of statements made during this discussion that I felt either misunderstood , misconstrued, or mocked my viewpoint, and that me feel a tad more defensive than usual.

Looking back, I did say initially I thought it was evil, during the initial shock of hearing that this was as common place as it was.  I think I even may have unintentionally wavered on the keyword "evil".

However, during the discussion I began to avoid describing it as evil (universally) and tried to present my opinion that it is *generally* evil (but varying greatly by campaign/setting/scenario).  I did on at least one point concede that it din't have to be "evil", but maintained that it was chaotic, non-heroic, and possibly metagaming.

You misunderstanding me was probably a combination of my viewpoint shifting slightly through the course of the discussion and me doing a poor job of expressing myself.  I apologize if I came off as implying that any misunderstanding was deliberate on your part.


----------



## IanB (Jun 22, 2009)

Honestly I think we need to just move on from this alignment discussion rabbit hole we've gone down.

Stuff like that is always very subjective from game to game and thus makes a very poor choice for evaluating the intimidate skill from a game balance/rules perspective.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 22, 2009)

IanB said:


> Stuff like that is always very subjective from game to game and thus makes a very poor choice for evaluating the intimidate skill from a game balance/rules perspective.




  Clearly intimidate is unbalanced, expertise doesn't work on it.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 22, 2009)

IanB said:


> Honestly I think we need to just move on from this alignment discussion rabbit hole we've gone down.
> 
> Stuff like that is always very subjective from game to game and thus makes a very poor choice for evaluating the intimidate skill from a game balance/rules perspective.




I'd have to agree with that.  I originally didn't intend to stir up so much controversy with what was intended as an offhand comment or two.  This is probably why they got rid of rules to enforce alignment in the first place. ;-)

So... back on track, I do think that intimidate is valid and legal to use in a combat as it is presented in the PHB (which includes a modifiable DC based on the circumstances and desired results, according to the DM).  How the intimidate effects the enemies, and what the players choose to do with the intimidated foes is up to the DMs.  Your on your own to figure out the ethical entanglements. ;-)

Personally, I don't like the fact that RAW doesn't account for minions to be intimidated (which seem to be the most realistic candidate to intimidate).  I'd personally allow Minions to 

For example of different actions and a few DCs one might use based on the intended effects and circumstances (completely pulled out of the air just to show a progression of difficulty, without examing the actual math so don't take them literally).


DC _- What the Intimidate is trying to accomplish._ *Mechanical effect from Success.*
+0 - _"Stand where you are villain!",_ *Enemy may not perform a move action on his next turn.*
+5  - _"Run away quick, before I change my mind!"_,  *Enemies retreat.*
+10 - _"By the authority given to me by King Guy the Adaquete, I order you to surrender to be taken for trial!"_, *Enemy ceases combat and expects to be taken prisoner.*
+15 - _"Surrender now, and I promise your death will be swift!"_, *Enemy ceases combat and expects execution.*

I might make Minions easier to intimidate in some circumstances, elites harder, a Solo even harder.  Also, some specific story NPCs might be easier or harder to intimidate (based on your story), and there might be other adjustments in *your* game that you feel are valid (Such as a _Tarasque_ or brainwashed cultists).

If players started abusing it and metagaming the encounters, I might pull DM fiat, or at least talk to the players about it, but I don't have a problem with it in general.


----------

