Surbrus's page

You are arguing that the PCs should have submitted themselves to save the kids but there was no guarantee they would be safe. "Oh yes I agreed to let them go but I did not guarantee safe travel back to the village" would let the LE bad guy live up to his deal while pulling the classic devil small print. "I guaranteed that I would not harm them. The gnolls made no such deal" There is also the possibility that other creatures of ill intent could attack or eat the children. I can think of a hundred ways where surrendering does not guarantee the children's safety.

A better way to carry out the bargain would be to release the children, and even escort them safely back to their village, to make sure that some wild animals or bandits do not harm them. Make sure that they are well fed and comfortable on the long detour back to their village. When they finally arrive safely back at their village, it is nothing but smouldering ruins (because the BBEG sent a stronger group up ahead to attack and destroy the village). Bonus points if the blame is put on the PC's.

If you are the LE BBEG, might as well not half ass it.

That's why surrendering your life to a LE BBEG is not how you "save" the hostages that they are holding, especially if they are so LE that they are dealing with devils in plain sight of everyone.

Was it the player or the character that has a history of excessive force? If it really was the player, then that is metagaming.

Also, what was the purpose of retconning the children away if you are simply going to pretend that you didn't? With how things turned out, however he had done it, the Sorcerer called the (LE) guy's bluff.

Russia's probably the only country that's actually been completely faithful to these rules-- and regarding use of force-- though a lot of people died the last time I'm aware of the Russians attempting a hostage rescue-- the Russian anti-terrorist units still did not deliberately target the hostages.

The last hostage incident I can think of that targeted Russians was that Beslan school incident. It incident was very unfortunate, but it emphasizes that taking Russian hostages is not a valid strategy. Off the Horn of Africa any Somali pirates that get caught by Russians simply disappear, and how many Russians have those Somali pirates held for ransom? None... it is pretty much only Westerners that get targeted by Somali pirates because we reward that behaviour.

Back to the main topic of this thread, perhaps if word gets out on how ruthless the PC's are when it comes to hostage situations, any potential hostage takers will simply give up their hostages since they are only slowing them down... or perhaps baddies will make sure not to lie to the PC's since they have learned of their almost supernatural ability to call bluffs (they were able to catch this BBEG in his first bluff ever told, thanks to the retcon).

It is not metagaming to not want to lose your gear. In character, most characters understand how important there gear is... otherwise they would not be spending so many thousands of gold to upgrade their gear all the time.

Metagaming would be killing the kids because you know that the DM will simply retcon the situation to being back on track.

Also, you can't retrieve your gear if you are dead.

If any Paladin, or Good aligned character would simply give up their own life whenever they get into a hostage situation, there simply would not be any Paladins or Good aligned people left. Do gooders screwing up your plans?.. just take a kid hostage and have those do gooders surrender. That not only would result in many Good aligned characters being easily killed, but would drastically increase the rates of kidnapping and holding kids hostage, actually making it more dangerous for those kids.

Dealing with hostages takers only encourages more hostage takers. There is a reason why hostage takers in South America/Africa/Asia target Westerners and Japanese/Koreans, and never target Russians... because they know that Westerners will often times cave in to the demands... whereas the Russians will just come in and kill the hostage takers (and most of the hostages). What is more "Good"? Promoting the practice of hostage taking, or making sure that it does not happen in the first place?

Actually, the assassin idea sounds good.

Perhaps even just the threat of assassins may be enough. In one game my group had, the LE Sorcerer put ~5-10% or so of his income into as assassin fund. He would literally hand over ~5-10% of his income to an assassin guild, that would come to is call should he need some work done for him, or to avenge him if and when he fell (to party members or other enemies). He called it his "gardening fund", talked about them as if they were farm hands, and often dropped a phrase about having to "prune the weeds" or similar play on words, as an intimidation to other party members.

Well technically not an infinite number of times a day, you would be restricted to 14400 as there are only 14400 rounds in a 24 hour day.