Hi, One of the characters in my camp. is a cleric of heironeus. He killed filge, while he was begging for mercy. He got a lecture from the big cleric in diamond lake about it, basically stating that the Lawful Good God Heironeus always grants quarter.
Now I dont want him to lose his spells (I think he would have to do this several times for an actualy effect), but we are having an argument on whether or not the god would frown upon this. My players think he was evil and should be killed... What do you guys think? . I want to know if I am being anal, how would you rule if it was your campaign?
Creative Director
|
My take: the lecture should be enough. If the character develops a habit of slaying NPCs who are begging for mercy, he'll eventually become Chaotic (or Evil if he draws out the execution or administers the killing blow in a particularly cruel manner), at which point he'll certainly lose his cleric powers and will need to have an atonement spell.
Done right, the moral implications of how to handle prisoners or surrenduring evil NPCs in D&D can be fun and thought-provoking. Killing someone just because they're evil isn't very lawful, but it's certainly in keeping (I think) with a chaotic good character. Maybe your cleric could decide to change his faith further down the campaign due to this difference in opinion?
Also: If your PCs do accept the surrendur of evil NPCs, make sure to reward them for that now and then. I'm not just talking about ad-hoc experience point awards. If every NPC starts using the act of surrenduring as a way to escape to plot another day, your PCs are completely justified in adopting a "No Quarter" attitude. Some of those evil NPCs who are granted mercy should live to atone for their deeds, or even repent.
Thank you James, gives me a bit of confidence.
I agree with James on one point- That you have to be consistent, and that if you encourage the PCs to turn over captured opponents, that they can only come back to haunt them occasionally.
I don't know if I agree about his interpretation of LG though. There are lots of variations on alignments. If your PC had been for instance a priest of St. Cuthbert, or Helm in the FR, I would say that as deities with crusading zeal they might actually approve of killing filge. I have always personally viewed them and Pholtus and being LN mainly because they have a 'ends justify the means', 'do whatever is necessary' sort of attitude towards eradicating evil.
Heironeous on the other hand is more a deity of Chivalric Duty, and Honor, and it certainly is not Chivalrous to chop the head off of a begging Filge.
That being said I think that any LG deity would take into account the nature and depth of the evil in the recipient of a quick death after surrender. Certainly and without question Neutral characters should be turned over to the authorities since they are redeemable. However there are many NPCs and Monsters that have fallen so deeply into evil that they cannot be redeemed for the most part. Certainly a surrendering demon or devil would be given no quarter. I would think that evil necromancers , blackguards and clerics as opposed to evil rogues, fighters etc.. might be considered irredemable due to their active participation and service to the dark powers.
Filge with his callous use of the Land bodies and the zombie dinner party might just fall into that category. From a human perspective animating the dead shows a perversity of spirit that might just be worh eliminating out right.