What to do with prisoners?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 60 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

GreyRaist05 wrote:
You know, I actually would insist the convicted get a choice on the whole death of personality thing. I think even the basest monster of a human being still has a right to die who they are rather than be forced to be someone else.

There's a very long and convoluted discussion that could arise from this, which probably doesn't belong on a game board, but which IS one of the reasons why RPGs in general are just awesome.


GreyRaist05 wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:

Just a couple of points:

1) You can never "know" that a prisoner you release is going to go on to commit more crimes. You may suspect it, but you can't know. Even diviniation magic gets pretty wonky when it comes to predicting future actions.
2) Most Good religions include some concept of the possibility for atonement and redemption. An NPC who is killed out of hand has no chance to change his ways. You could even take the view that you have granted a victory to the dark side by killing him while his soul is evil.

All that said, it is difficult for lawful and/or good parties to operate in a city where the law itself is corrupt. I don't think there is any one, absolutely perfect one-sixe-fits-all answer to their dilemma. Good PCs just have to make their decisions as best they can, on a case-by-case basis, trying to balance mercy and justice to advance the greater good as much as possible.

Right, you can never know, but is it really worth a bet on the fantasy version of Ted Bundy's salvation to let him walk free in the hopes that some day you'll bring him back to Jesus? Or Iomedae, or Mishakal or whomever? What about the people who were already good that he terrorizes and murders? Is trying to redeem him worth ending the good lives they were ALREADY leading?

That being said, I think you hit it right on the head with your last paragraph. Each case is a judgment call. Mercy is a virtue, but like all things, in moderation. I just fall farther on the don't-risk-innocent-people-just-because-you're-squeamish side of the argument both in D&D and real life :)

No argument. I was just pointing out a potential argument some good characters could make for sparing a criminal's life. These are the tough decisions all good characters need to make, and as we agree, there is no "right" answer that will work every time, in every situation. And sometimes even decisions arrived at in good conscience will turn out to have bad consequences.


GreyRaist05 wrote:


Hmm, and how does leaving them around to kill more innocents qualify as "good?" Sparing their lives when you know they will kill more innocents doesn't qualify as "good." It doesn't, it qualifies as moral cowardice. Your characters aren't doing what's right, they're doing what makes them feel good about themselves.

Now, I'm all about working within a functional justice system when available, but if the courts are hopelessly rigged and innocent people are living under the bootheels of the criminals, it's time to go Wyatt Earp, "I see a Red Sash, I...

It's a case by case scenario.

As a rule, the baby killing psychopaths never make moral checks. They know surrender is the same as death.

Same with the BBEG. When Megaevil shows up it's usually a fight to the death.

However, it's impossible to know what the future holds for any random bandit or mugger. Just because they pulled a knife on you does NOT mean you can't teach them a lesson, show them some mercy and send them away with a limp for the rest of their lives.

Love the gandalf quote, "Many who live deserve death, and many who are dead deserve to live... Can you choose?" Or something like that...

My guys kill when they have to, and don't if they can avoid it.


phantom1592 wrote:
GreyRaist05 wrote:


Hmm, and how does leaving them around to kill more innocents qualify as "good?" Sparing their lives when you know they will kill more innocents doesn't qualify as "good." It doesn't, it qualifies as moral cowardice. Your characters aren't doing what's right, they're doing what makes them feel good about themselves.

Now, I'm all about working within a functional justice system when available, but if the courts are hopelessly rigged and innocent people are living under the bootheels of the criminals, it's time to go Wyatt Earp, "I see a Red Sash, I...

It's a case by case scenario.

As a rule, the baby killing psychopaths never make moral checks. They know surrender is the same as death.

Same with the BBEG. When Megaevil shows up it's usually a fight to the death.

However, it's impossible to know what the future holds for any random bandit or mugger. Just because they pulled a knife on you does NOT mean you can't teach them a lesson, show them some mercy and send them away with a limp for the rest of their lives.

Love the gandalf quote, "Many who live deserve death, and many who are dead deserve to live... Can you choose?" Or something like that...

My guys kill when they have to, and don't if they can avoid it.

Sure, I'm not all about the draconic code, I don't think a Lawful Good hero (or any Good hero, really) should be lopping off heads, or even hands, for petty theivery, or just because someone picked a fight with them. But if the aforementioned socio/psychopathic baby killer is intelligent enough to recognize the heroes will be squeamish about killing him if he surrenders, even without a court system to string him up legally, it would be perfectly viable for him to try and take advanatge of that weakness in order to live to fight another day. In which case I don't think it's an alignment violation for a Good character, after appropriate agonizing, to lop the sucker's head off. Now, they should realize they're walking a dangerous line in doing so, but it could be the best of bad options, and hence, the right thing to do.


Brian Bachman wrote:
GreyRaist05 wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:

Just a couple of points:

1) You can never "know" that a prisoner you release is going to go on to commit more crimes. You may suspect it, but you can't know. Even diviniation magic gets pretty wonky when it comes to predicting future actions.
2) Most Good religions include some concept of the possibility for atonement and redemption. An NPC who is killed out of hand has no chance to change his ways. You could even take the view that you have granted a victory to the dark side by killing him while his soul is evil.

All that said, it is difficult for lawful and/or good parties to operate in a city where the law itself is corrupt. I don't think there is any one, absolutely perfect one-sixe-fits-all answer to their dilemma. Good PCs just have to make their decisions as best they can, on a case-by-case basis, trying to balance mercy and justice to advance the greater good as much as possible.

Right, you can never know, but is it really worth a bet on the fantasy version of Ted Bundy's salvation to let him walk free in the hopes that some day you'll bring him back to Jesus? Or Iomedae, or Mishakal or whomever? What about the people who were already good that he terrorizes and murders? Is trying to redeem him worth ending the good lives they were ALREADY leading?

That being said, I think you hit it right on the head with your last paragraph. Each case is a judgment call. Mercy is a virtue, but like all things, in moderation. I just fall farther on the don't-risk-innocent-people-just-because-you're-squeamish side of the argument both in D&D and real life :)

No argument. I was just pointing out a potential argument some good characters could make for sparing a criminal's life. These are the tough decisions all good characters need to make, and as we agree, there is no "right" answer that will work every time, in every situation. And sometimes even decisions arrived at in good conscience will turn out to have bad consequences. ...

Right on.


[QUOTE/] Love the gandalf quote, "Many who live deserve death, and many who are dead deserve to live... Can you choose?" Or something like that...

Which has always been ironic to me given that Gandalf and Aragorn were very much in the business of deciding who lived and died amongst both good guys and bad guys. Oh, there turned out to be a rational reason to keep Gollum alive, he got them to Mordor. But in war time, all decisions should be tempered with cold-blooded pragmatism and not reliant upon sentimentality. I'm not saying the ruthless Kill Them All, God Will Surely Know His Own solution is always necessary, but I don't think how well the hero sleeps at night is enough reason to leave a dangerous enemy alive at your back when the fate of the freaking world is at stake.

I've always enjoyed characters who stay true to their core principles but are willing to make hard choices and do things that do not make them feel good about themselves when it's clear that salving their conscience will only make things worse and get more innocent people hurt or killed.

Now I recognize the slippery slope there, and seeing a character wrestle with the Abyss is part of the fascination for me, because if real conflict shows us anything, it's that very few people get to oppose the forces of evil in a literal way, and still come away with a completely clean conscience.

Silver Crusade

Brian Bachman wrote:
GreyRaist05 wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:

Just a couple of points:

1) You can never "know" that a prisoner you release is going to go on to commit more crimes. You may suspect it, but you can't know. Even diviniation magic gets pretty wonky when it comes to predicting future actions.
2) Most Good religions include some concept of the possibility for atonement and redemption. An NPC who is killed out of hand has no chance to change his ways. You could even take the view that you have granted a victory to the dark side by killing him while his soul is evil.

All that said, it is difficult for lawful and/or good parties to operate in a city where the law itself is corrupt. I don't think there is any one, absolutely perfect one-sixe-fits-all answer to their dilemma. Good PCs just have to make their decisions as best they can, on a case-by-case basis, trying to balance mercy and justice to advance the greater good as much as possible.

Right, you can never know, but is it really worth a bet on the fantasy version of Ted Bundy's salvation to let him walk free in the hopes that some day you'll bring him back to Jesus? Or Iomedae, or Mishakal or whomever? What about the people who were already good that he terrorizes and murders? Is trying to redeem him worth ending the good lives they were ALREADY leading?

That being said, I think you hit it right on the head with your last paragraph. Each case is a judgment call. Mercy is a virtue, but like all things, in moderation. I just fall farther on the don't-risk-innocent-people-just-because-you're-squeamish side of the argument both in D&D and real life :)

No argument. I was just pointing out a potential argument some good characters could make for sparing a criminal's life. These are the tough decisions all good characters need to make, and as we agree, there is no "right" answer that will work every time, in every situation. And sometimes even decisions arrived at in good conscience will turn out to have bad consequences. ...

This leads into another point:

It's all well and good for good intended shows of mercy to backfire every now and then, but when GM's do it as a matter of course and as the standard when the players are trying to play idealistic PCs...

Either the GM needs to be clear that he wants to run a misery porn-based game or the players need to find a GM that can run a game that doesn't cut itself. (or to put it more diplomatically: GM and players should talk about the tone of the game they want and find something they're all comfortable with)

Not criticizing your point, so much as those that take it to an extreme. Bad past experiences.


Mikaze wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:
GreyRaist05 wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:

Just a couple of points:

1) You can never "know" that a prisoner you release is going to go on to commit more crimes. You may suspect it, but you can't know. Even diviniation magic gets pretty wonky when it comes to predicting future actions.
2) Most Good religions include some concept of the possibility for atonement and redemption. An NPC who is killed out of hand has no chance to change his ways. You could even take the view that you have granted a victory to the dark side by killing him while his soul is evil.

All that said, it is difficult for lawful and/or good parties to operate in a city where the law itself is corrupt. I don't think there is any one, absolutely perfect one-sixe-fits-all answer to their dilemma. Good PCs just have to make their decisions as best they can, on a case-by-case basis, trying to balance mercy and justice to advance the greater good as much as possible.

Right, you can never know, but is it really worth a bet on the fantasy version of Ted Bundy's salvation to let him walk free in the hopes that some day you'll bring him back to Jesus? Or Iomedae, or Mishakal or whomever? What about the people who were already good that he terrorizes and murders? Is trying to redeem him worth ending the good lives they were ALREADY leading?

That being said, I think you hit it right on the head with your last paragraph. Each case is a judgment call. Mercy is a virtue, but like all things, in moderation. I just fall farther on the don't-risk-innocent-people-just-because-you're-squeamish side of the argument both in D&D and real life :)

No argument. I was just pointing out a potential argument some good characters could make for sparing a criminal's life. These are the tough decisions all good characters need to make, and as we agree, there is no "right" answer that will work every time, in every situation. And sometimes even decisions arrived at in good conscience will turn out to
...

Indeed. It's all a matter of degree. For instance, I like the difficult choices and their consequences dynamic, but I want the decisions to be difficult, not completely hopeless as in the emo-goth cut myself campaign you mentioned.


How about looking at this from the other side.

What about when it is one or more characters who are prisoners.

If the characters have gone out of thier way to execute the hill bandits who are raiding the caravans because the harvest failed and the local lord kicked them off his land then to them the characters are just another bunch of evil mercenaries working for the evil lord.

If the players found out why the bandits were raiding and tried to help then when one or more of them is found unconcious after a battle and taken prisoner the bandits will have an entirely seperate view of and attitude towards the character.

There is a lot of talk about paladins and Evil. As a note aside from priests of Evil gods and demons/devils/Undead etc etc not a lot of things show up as evil on a detect evil. Your baby killer will be evil and will radiate an aura of Evil. Your unpleasant bandits may be robbing merchants but unless they are going out of thier way to torture and kill helpless people fighting and killing guards for food to feed the family is not Evil.

Characters who make the effort to deal fairly with anyone not Evil can be treated in the same way. Characters who murder every helpless prisoner first time should expect the same treatemtn if any of them fall. Characters who make an effort to take prisoners, treat them well and deal harshly with those that return to thier evil ways afterwards should get a better deal than "hey its that evil adventurer who killed bob, fred and charlie after they surrendered. He is down and his cleric is out of spells. Cut his head off before his friends get back"

Liberty's Edge

Wolfsnap wrote:
RPG theology is weird. I once had an argument with someone about whether it was possible for someone in a fantasy setting to "lose faith".

Of course they can. People lose faith in real things all the time. It's not like evident miracles of the everyday variety will keep people significantly more faithful than the absence thereof. In fact, in the absence of faith I'd say it's pretty much impossible for gods to recruit followers via miracles.

This is because humans (and presumably other humanoids) are irrational. When confronted with evidence that challenges their current beliefs, they are more likely to hold fast to the old beliefs than they are to change beliefs.

This extends to all of us, including bussinessmen, scientists, journalists, and senators, and not just fringe religious groups. Though it most certainly applies to them as well.

On the original topic, I'd have to say that the best course of action in this case would be to talk to the person. If it's possible to offer them some way out of their current predicament, it might be wise to do so. If they don't seem at all penitent, are clearly guilty of great crimes, and will clearly do more in the future, sometimes execution is the only option you have left.

Sometimes you can banish them or reform them. Or turn them over to an extralegal organization of similar alignment that knows what to do with such individuals.

51 to 60 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What to do with prisoners? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion