Combat Etiquette [Archive] - Wizards Community

Combat Etiquette [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Braekor Dragonfang
02-03-06, 08:22 PM if the pcs are fighting villains who fashion themselves as honorable or sophisticate, what kind of tactics or actions in combat might they use? how would they conduct themselves? what kind of leniencies might be granted in accordance with their 'ethics'?
Morka
02-03-06, 10:53 PM Well, it depends on the situation.
If they are defending their land against some intruders, they could wait for them on top of an hill, and ask them to leave their lands, or the intruders will be dealt with diligently. The goal for the defensers is to show how strong they are, and hope it'll be enough to affraid the invader. A variant could be a country known to put half their force on the top of the hill, while the rest is hidding nearby.

You could also go like the beginning of the movie Troy, and send a champion on each side, who fight to death.
Blackavar
02-04-06, 02:59 PM Once combat starts, I think no-one would discount any tactic as "dishonorable". Sneaking up on your opponent at night and killing him/her in his/her sleep would be dishonorable, but casting sleep on the battlefield and then attacking would not. I think that an honorable adversary would give the PC's a chance to surrender, but, if the offer was refused, make every effort to win the battle.
Pavitra
02-04-06, 03:40 PM Once combat starts, I think no-one would discount any tactic as "dishonorable".(emphasis added)

...

So, if a paladin coats her arrowheads with an illegal poison that infects the target with lycanthropy, that's okay?

Ethics do apply, even in combat.
Especially in combat, because it's a matter of life and death. That's when it really matters.
Morka
02-04-06, 05:06 PM So, if a paladin coats her arrowheads with an illegal poison that infects the target with lycanthropy, that's okay?

I doubt that a poison inflicting lycanthropy would be really effective on the battlefield, since a character newly infected by this curse becomes a lycanthrope only on the next full moon.
It's true that poison in general is considered dishonorable, except perhaps a poison inducing sleep, as for the pseudodragon venom. Strangely enough, the race considered the most "dishonorable", the drows, use a poison inducing sleep...
As for a paladin, it's the opposite extreme: not only should they always fight with honor, but none of their acts should be woolly enough to be interpretted as dishonorable. In an adventurers group, the paladin should be the one asking the foes to surrender, while the rogue & ranger could be hiding nearby, "just in case".

In Middle Age, the only honorable way of making war was a bunch of mounted knights on one side, and another bunch of mounted knights on the other side, and each one had to choose an opponent of their level or higher. The crossbow was specifically considered dishonorable (and almost illegal) because any peasant was able to fire it with enough precision to kill an honorable mounted knight from a distance.
Harrow Blade
02-05-06, 09:49 PM In my opinion truely honorable comabt would only ever be 1 v 1 with no resorting to sneak attacks from flanking. Feinting and those sorts of in combat tricks would be acceptable but when an opponent is tripped or disarmed they would be allowed to regain thier footing and or weapon. There would be no use of suprise rounds for anything other than announcing the intention to fight. The offer to leave with out fighting or the option to surrender during a fight would be mandatory.

Being villans however if they do win a fight and allow the pc's to surrender then they would probably confiscate thier gear or a sum of gold. It would also be advisable for them to have a way out should the fight go badly for them, eg a few well hidden archers awaiting a prearranged signal to pin down the pc's to allow the escape.
aleshandre
02-05-06, 11:11 PM When it comes to kill or be killed, the only thing that any true warrior considers is their own life. Poison implies an intent to kill at the first oportunity, which is why it is frowned on. It is premeditation in the first order. Carrying a weapon, however may not be so, rather it could be carried simply for show, to indicate an intent to protect one's own or other's lives to the death, etc.

That said, when it comes to combat, the only difference between an honorable combatant and a dishonorable one is the preparation that went into it before combat starts. It is before and after a battle that one can tell if the person they are fighting is honorable. During the battle, it all boils down to "how can I do enough damage to this person to prevent them from killing me/my friends/family/etc." Whether that means that the person is dealt just enough to stop them or killed outright is all out of the picture.
Blackavar
02-06-06, 05:56 PM So, if a paladin coats her arrowheads with an illegal poison that infects the target with lycanthropy, that's okay?

No, because infecting your opponent with lycanthropy is not trying to win the battle. It has a good chance to put you at greater risk, so the paladin in question would be going out of her way to make her opponent suffer rather than hilling him/her. I know that the paladin's code of honor specifically forbids "using poison" (which, by the way, lycanthropy isn't), I interpret this as not sneaking poison into someones food or drink, while I have no problem with a paladin using a poisoned blade (try to kill the paladin at your own risk, she is not responsible for any death you can and probably will receive as a result of this battle, and you are attempting to kill her of your own free will). If you don't let a paladin used a poisoned arrow, can she use an arrow of slay living? A vorpal sword against opponents with heads? If someone evil is trying to kill a paladin and is offered and refuses a chance to surrender then the paladin is free to fight back with whatever weapons she has, even if she knows she will win.
Pavitra
02-07-06, 01:49 AM Okay, here's a more straightforward example: Suppose the paladin has access to a magic item that lets her use contagion (an [ Evil ] spell) on her enemies. She could inflict, say, red ache (1d6 Str damage), which would be perfectly justified from a battle-tactical perspective, and could even make the difference between victory and loss.
But no paladin would ever do that. Or at least, if they did, they wouldn't still be a paladin afterwards.

It's not just about winning and losing. To some people, survival is secondary to honor. If you don't think like that, well, then that's sort of the whole point of roleplaying isn't it -- to taste what it's like to be a different person.

Blackavar, aleshandre, your opinions are perfectly logical and self-consistent from their own positions -- they just don't jibe with the position described in the original post.

...

Now that I've told other people that they're wrong, I suppose I'm obligated to attempt to get it right myself.

These ethics could be (1) cultural standards or (2) personal codes of honor.
-- If it's a personal code, it could actually be anything at all. Perhaps the PCs believe that their enemies should die peacefully, and will therefore knife them in their sleep. If the PCs have a compunction against killing outright, they may leave their enemies to bleed to death slowly and painfully in the wilderness (letting the forces of nature do the dirty work). (These are deliberately bizarre examples. Personal codes are certainly allowed to be more normal.)
-- In the case of a cultural standard, the interagreement of many people is necessary, and the ethical code should make more sense. Special rules may apply for a battle between two "gentlemen" (as opposed to one ethical fighter and one lawless ruffian), such as concession of the fight after first blood. Regardless of one's opponent, the PCs could be expected to observe various acts of courtesy and dignity, such as standing back to allow one's opponent to safely retrieve a dropped weapon, apologizing at the moment of victory, or performing proper funerary rites for the deceased enemy. Your PCs may decide that all ranged weapons are dishonorable, or that cure potions should be given to disabled foes.

Above all, remember that standards of what is ethical and inethical change across cultures, and your ideas may not resemble your characters' consciences. (Take the druid's weapon and armor restrictions as an example of this culture gap -- do you have a moral problem with wearing metal armor?)

Let your imagination run wild, and have fun with it.
KenBlackbird
02-11-06, 03:43 PM if the pcs are fighting villains who fashion themselves as honorable or sophisticate, what kind of tactics or actions in combat might they use? how would they conduct themselves? what kind of leniencies might be granted in accordance with their 'ethics'?

It depends on what you mean by 'honour'.

The fantasty version of honour is one were they would offer them a chance of llife (ie surrender).

In the real-life version (medieval) they would slaughter commoner or peasants (they don't count), but aristocrats and other 'honourable' people (most likely including the PCs), surrender would be offered, as well as mercy. The PCs would be taken down to the villains' castle and offered only the finest food, wine, hunting, etc.

It's up to you.
Branto
02-12-06, 12:47 AM Honor can be kind of hard to explain sometimes... I think I might have an easier time if I'm given specific circumstances to explain how the honorable character would likely behave in.

The one most important thing to remember, though, is that Honor is all about respect. Every honorable act you see, all of the effort to provide fair fights and all of that, is out of respect.

Why would the character refuse to use a crippling poison on his foe? Because that would be disrespectful. It would suggest that the poison-user doesn't think their opponent worth a real fight. Same goes for striking them while they are down, or unaware, taking attacks of opportunity, or using excess numbers and/or force to fight them.

Honor is such an admirable thing, because when two people fight with honor, their respect for each other only grows. Complex relationships - almost friendships - can even begin to form between the enemies (assuming, of course, that they don't kill each other along the way)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Braekor Dragonfang 02-03-06, 08:22 PM	if the pcs are fighting villains who fashion themselves as honorable or sophisticate, what kind of tactics or actions in combat might they use? how would they conduct themselves? what kind of leniencies might be granted in accordance with their 'ethics'?
Morka 02-03-06, 10:53 PM	Well, it depends on the situation. If they are defending their land against some intruders, they could wait for them on top of an hill, and ask them to leave their lands, or the intruders will be dealt with diligently. The goal for the defensers is to show how strong they are, and hope it'll be enough to affraid the invader. A variant could be a country known to put half their force on the top of the hill, while the rest is hidding nearby. You could also go like the beginning of the movie Troy, and send a champion on each side, who fight to death.
Blackavar 02-04-06, 02:59 PM	Once combat starts, I think no-one would discount any tactic as "dishonorable". Sneaking up on your opponent at night and killing him/her in his/her sleep would be dishonorable, but casting sleep on the battlefield and then attacking would not. I think that an honorable adversary would give the PC's a chance to surrender, but, if the offer was refused, make every effort to win the battle.
Pavitra 02-04-06, 03:40 PM	Once combat starts, I think no-one would discount any tactic as "dishonorable".(emphasis added) ... So, if a paladin coats her arrowheads with an illegal poison that infects the target with lycanthropy, that's okay? Ethics do apply, even in combat. Especially in combat, because it's a matter of life and death. That's when it really matters.
Morka 02-04-06, 05:06 PM	So, if a paladin coats her arrowheads with an illegal poison that infects the target with lycanthropy, that's okay? I doubt that a poison inflicting lycanthropy would be really effective on the battlefield, since a character newly infected by this curse becomes a lycanthrope only on the next full moon. It's true that poison in general is considered dishonorable, except perhaps a poison inducing sleep, as for the pseudodragon venom. Strangely enough, the race considered the most "dishonorable", the drows, use a poison inducing sleep... As for a paladin, it's the opposite extreme: not only should they always fight with honor, but none of their acts should be woolly enough to be interpretted as dishonorable. In an adventurers group, the paladin should be the one asking the foes to surrender, while the rogue & ranger could be hiding nearby, "just in case". In Middle Age, the only honorable way of making war was a bunch of mounted knights on one side, and another bunch of mounted knights on the other side, and each one had to choose an opponent of their level or higher. The crossbow was specifically considered dishonorable (and almost illegal) because any peasant was able to fire it with enough precision to kill an honorable mounted knight from a distance.
Harrow Blade 02-05-06, 09:49 PM	In my opinion truely honorable comabt would only ever be 1 v 1 with no resorting to sneak attacks from flanking. Feinting and those sorts of in combat tricks would be acceptable but when an opponent is tripped or disarmed they would be allowed to regain thier footing and or weapon. There would be no use of suprise rounds for anything other than announcing the intention to fight. The offer to leave with out fighting or the option to surrender during a fight would be mandatory. Being villans however if they do win a fight and allow the pc's to surrender then they would probably confiscate thier gear or a sum of gold. It would also be advisable for them to have a way out should the fight go badly for them, eg a few well hidden archers awaiting a prearranged signal to pin down the pc's to allow the escape.
aleshandre 02-05-06, 11:11 PM	When it comes to kill or be killed, the only thing that any true warrior considers is their own life. Poison implies an intent to kill at the first oportunity, which is why it is frowned on. It is premeditation in the first order. Carrying a weapon, however may not be so, rather it could be carried simply for show, to indicate an intent to protect one's own or other's lives to the death, etc. That said, when it comes to combat, the only difference between an honorable combatant and a dishonorable one is the preparation that went into it before combat starts. It is before and after a battle that one can tell if the person they are fighting is honorable. During the battle, it all boils down to "how can I do enough damage to this person to prevent them from killing me/my friends/family/etc." Whether that means that the person is dealt just enough to stop them or killed outright is all out of the picture.
Blackavar 02-06-06, 05:56 PM	So, if a paladin coats her arrowheads with an illegal poison that infects the target with lycanthropy, that's okay? No, because infecting your opponent with lycanthropy is not trying to win the battle. It has a good chance to put you at greater risk, so the paladin in question would be going out of her way to make her opponent suffer rather than hilling him/her. I know that the paladin's code of honor specifically forbids "using poison" (which, by the way, lycanthropy isn't), I interpret this as not sneaking poison into someones food or drink, while I have no problem with a paladin using a poisoned blade (try to kill the paladin at your own risk, she is not responsible for any death you can and probably will receive as a result of this battle, and you are attempting to kill her of your own free will). If you don't let a paladin used a poisoned arrow, can she use an arrow of slay living? A vorpal sword against opponents with heads? If someone evil is trying to kill a paladin and is offered and refuses a chance to surrender then the paladin is free to fight back with whatever weapons she has, even if she knows she will win.
Pavitra 02-07-06, 01:49 AM	Okay, here's a more straightforward example: Suppose the paladin has access to a magic item that lets her use contagion (an [ Evil ] spell) on her enemies. She could inflict, say, red ache (1d6 Str damage), which would be perfectly justified from a battle-tactical perspective, and could even make the difference between victory and loss. But no paladin would ever do that. Or at least, if they did, they wouldn't still be a paladin afterwards. It's not just about winning and losing. To some people, survival is secondary to honor. If you don't think like that, well, then that's sort of the whole point of roleplaying isn't it -- to taste what it's like to be a different person. Blackavar, aleshandre, your opinions are perfectly logical and self-consistent from their own positions -- they just don't jibe with the position described in the original post. ... Now that I've told other people that they're wrong, I suppose I'm obligated to attempt to get it right myself. These ethics could be (1) cultural standards or (2) personal codes of honor. -- If it's a personal code, it could actually be anything at all. Perhaps the PCs believe that their enemies should die peacefully, and will therefore knife them in their sleep. If the PCs have a compunction against killing outright, they may leave their enemies to bleed to death slowly and painfully in the wilderness (letting the forces of nature do the dirty work). (These are deliberately bizarre examples. Personal codes are certainly allowed to be more normal.) -- In the case of a cultural standard, the interagreement of many people is necessary, and the ethical code should make more sense. Special rules may apply for a battle between two "gentlemen" (as opposed to one ethical fighter and one lawless ruffian), such as concession of the fight after first blood. Regardless of one's opponent, the PCs could be expected to observe various acts of courtesy and dignity, such as standing back to allow one's opponent to safely retrieve a dropped weapon, apologizing at the moment of victory, or performing proper funerary rites for the deceased enemy. Your PCs may decide that all ranged weapons are dishonorable, or that cure potions should be given to disabled foes. Above all, remember that standards of what is ethical and inethical change across cultures, and your ideas may not resemble your characters' consciences. (Take the druid's weapon and armor restrictions as an example of this culture gap -- do you have a moral problem with wearing metal armor?) Let your imagination run wild, and have fun with it.
KenBlackbird 02-11-06, 03:43 PM	if the pcs are fighting villains who fashion themselves as honorable or sophisticate, what kind of tactics or actions in combat might they use? how would they conduct themselves? what kind of leniencies might be granted in accordance with their 'ethics'? It depends on what you mean by 'honour'. The fantasty version of honour is one were they would offer them a chance of llife (ie surrender). In the real-life version (medieval) they would slaughter commoner or peasants (they don't count), but aristocrats and other 'honourable' people (most likely including the PCs), surrender would be offered, as well as mercy. The PCs would be taken down to the villains' castle and offered only the finest food, wine, hunting, etc. It's up to you.
Branto 02-12-06, 12:47 AM	Honor can be kind of hard to explain sometimes... I think I might have an easier time if I'm given specific circumstances to explain how the honorable character would likely behave in. The one most important thing to remember, though, is that Honor is all about respect. Every honorable act you see, all of the effort to provide fair fights and all of that, is out of respect. Why would the character refuse to use a crippling poison on his foe? Because that would be disrespectful. It would suggest that the poison-user doesn't think their opponent worth a real fight. Same goes for striking them while they are down, or unaware, taking attacks of opportunity, or using excess numbers and/or force to fight them. Honor is such an admirable thing, because when two people fight with honor, their respect for each other only grows. Complex relationships - almost friendships - can even begin to form between the enemies (assuming, of course, that they don't kill each other along the way)