Our group has successfully infiltrated an enemy stronghold housing a veritable army of some 200+ infantry, cavalry, air support and a variety of undead & monstrous reinforcements. This stronghold is the army's home base and point of origin for at least three unprovoked attacks against our home nation; one a successful attack against an allied military outpost and the other two failed attacks against civilian communities. Our home nation is aware of the enemy's impending attack and is currently massing their own forces to confront them. Our party was sent ahead to possibly prevent the enemy's march on our nation if possible.
Since our initial entry, our group has covertly captured the enemy leader, destroyed all of their undead forces and dispatched half of their air support; all without yet raising the alarm. Although some of the enemy forces are clearly evil, many of the rank-and-file soldiers are likely neutral in alignment. It remains unclear what will happen to the army without is leader since there appears to be quite a few subordinate commanders left; any of which might assume control and proceed as planned with their full-out invasion plan.
Due to our current circumstances, our group has a chance to dispatch most of the enemy soliders with little risk to us; but our chances would be understandably lessened if the enemy becomes aware of our activities. Being part of a good-aligned group (with a paladin) I'm left to wonder whether proceeding with this counterstrike is the proper thing to do or whether it'd be better to try diplomatic approach even if that means loosing the element of surprise. I've also some doubts that they would even contemplate surrender, despite their losses, considering that they still outnumber us more than 30 to 1.
Thoughts?
I'm going to assume that the war itself is for a good cause and that it's a legal war so the paladin won't get in too much trouble.
Kidnap the leaders and put them in prison. No-one dies, and the enemy gets a huge demoralization.
(moral dilemma)
Thoughts?
IMO, the group should go through extra lengths and extra risks to make sure that the rank-and-file soldiers aren't punished with death. As it is the case with most 'evil' armies in fantasy, many such soldiers probably don't want to be there in the first place. Those who do probably want to better their life or that or their relatives and were probably convinced or tricked in believing that they are doing the right thing in participating in the battles.
Obviously, the army needs to be (at least temporarily) disabled before any attempt to sway the alliance of the soldiers, which will require a certain amount of violence. But this can be done without focusing on the soldiers, nor on what they stand for or what they believe in.
'findel
Killing enemy soldiers, even via stealth and deception is not evil. Its war. It might not be honorable in some circles, but it not evil.
Killing enemy soldiers, even via stealth and deception is not evil. Its war. It might not be honorable in some circles, but it not evil.
I'm under the impression that the concern goes beyond 'not doing evil', but about what is 'the right thing' to do.
I'm going to assume that the war itself is for a good cause and that it's a legal war so the paladin won't get in too much trouble.
Is defending one's home nation from an unprovoked invasion a "good cause"?
Kidnap the leaders and put them in prison. No-one dies, and the enemy gets a huge demoralization.
It's doubtful that we can successfully kidnap *all* of the division commanders without being struck down in the attempt by the rest of the army. And even without it's leaders, there's no certainty that the army won't continue on with their invasion plans. The only reason they haven't yet marched on our home nation is because they're waiting to be joined by additional reinforcements.
Obviously, the army needs to be (at least temporarily) disabled before any attempt to sway the alliance of the soldiers, which will require a certain amount of violence. But this can be done without focusing on the soldiers, nor on what they stand for or what they believe in.
Care to elaborate? As is we're left with a sizeable and largely intact army with its field commanders still in place. If they continue as planned they'll march on our nation and be confronted by our own nation's defending army in a pitched battle which will see numerous deaths on both sides and with a uncertain outcome. In light of that, is it conscionable to risk a war and possible defeat, with all that that entails, to attempt a diplomatic solution so we can forgo any guilt we might have about launching a devastating surprise attack?
Obviously, the army needs to be (at least temporarily) disabled before any attempt to sway the alliance of the soldiers, which will require a certain amount of violence. But this can be done without focusing on the soldiers, nor on what they stand for or what they believe in.Care to elaborate? As is we're left with a sizeable and largely intact army with its field commanders still in place. If they continue as planned they'll march on our nation and be confronted by our own nation's defending army in a pitched battle which will see numerous deaths on both sides and with a uncertain outcome. In light of that, is it conscionable to risk a war and possible defeat, with all that that entails, to attempt a diplomatic solution so we can forgo any guilt we might have about launching a devastating surprise attack?
At this point, information gathering is vital and you may not have the time. Sabotage and removal of key elements might give you time (an army of living creatures cannot function without food/water and people to prepare and distribute it. Similarly, no armies (living or otherwise) can function without weapons and leadership).
But there must be a reason as to *why* the army is pushing to invade your nation (lets assume for the moment that your nation have not been political pricks and arrogant bastards with an aggressive invading policy over the last century).
If the answer is "because this lich commander will kill us all if we don't do its bidding" then you know that defeating the army isn't the solution. Unfortunately, it probably won't be as clear and direct. Nevertheless, if you can find a way to convince the soldiers that they have no reasons to fight, then the elimination of the key leaders (which doesn't HAVE to imply their death) will stop the army for good (and perhaps open options for diplomatic alliances). Alternatively, you can attempt to convince the said leaders. This thus becomes a fully diplomatic mission. If you cannot avoid attacking what the soldiers are standing for (in their faith or believes), then your best chances is to force a stand-off. Convince them, scare them, bargain with them to never come back. This can require some 'muscles', but good character should know where not to cross the line.
Unless it is done in a particularly aggressive and gruesome way and followed by retaliation strikes etc (which good PCs may have problem with), the defeat of this army in battle will only create martyrs, fuel the enmity between the two nations and postpone the confrontation 15-20 years in the future. So the 'kill them all for the greater good' isn't even a standing argument.
Then again, perhaps that nation is really beyond casual evil and really needs to be put in its place (this is fantasy after all); but genocide is *never* a good act.
At this point, information gathering is vital and you may not have the time.
Actually, we've already performed all of the reconnaissance we'll need; mostly through a month-long covert observation of this very base.
But there must be a reason as to *why* the army is pushing to invade your nation.
The army's leader (who we've captured) appears to have been manipulated/controlled/corrupted by a far-distant evil wizard of whom most of the army is likely unaware. As best as I can figure the leader assembled this army with a combination of cultural/political maneuvering and through forging further alliances with promises of wealth and power from the conquered territory.
Nevertheless, if you can find a way to convince the soldiers that they have no reasons to fight, then the elimination of the key leaders will stop the army for good (and perhaps open options for diplomatic alliances).
Unfortunately, based on our group's past experience during earlier attacks by the enemy's forces, they are utterly fearless (to the point of recklessness), are racial supremacists who have trouble conceiving of our kind as people and who are willing to suffer losses of up to 85% before even contemplating surrender (yet with dissent).
On the other hand, we have some pretty awesome diplomacy scores.
At this point, information gathering is vital and you may not have the time.Actually, we've already performed all of the reconnaissance we'll need; mostly through a month-long covert observation of this very base.
But there must be a reason as to *why* the army is pushing to invade your nation.The army's leader (who we've captured) appears to have been manipulated/controlled/corrupted by a far-distant evil wizard of whom most of the army is likely unaware. As best as I can figure the leader assembled this army with a combination of cultural/political maneuvering and through forging further alliances with promises of wealth and power from the conquered territory.
Nevertheless, if you can find a way to convince the soldiers that they have no reasons to fight, then the elimination of the key leaders will stop the army for good (and perhaps open options for diplomatic alliances).Unfortunately, based on our group's past experience during earlier attacks by the enemy's forces, they are utterly fearless (to the point of recklessness), are racial supremacists who have trouble conceiving of our kind as people and who are willing to suffer losses of up to 85% before even contemplating surrender (yet with dissent).
On the other hand, we have some pretty awesome diplomacy scores.
Magically controlled people usually cannot be scared/talked into sense. Social manipulation is less fool-proof but ultimately can make more damage.
For what I can see, either the DM made a game for you to annihilate a whole army (whether that's what the players want is another question) or you should get to the root of the issue (the wizard) sooner then later.
If battle must ensue, then let your mooks battle their mooks. As adventurers, take care of things of your own 'level' such as sabotage, espionage, skirmish, attack on key leaders, or if you think your army is strong enough, go back to your army and do damage control. Traditionally in D&D, offensive wields better results than defense...
I hope that this is helping, but I feel I'm getting sidetracked and somehow missing a point here...
'findel
Win their hearts and minds! I find twinkies and/or mallomars help extensively in these cases.
But seriously, what your party is doing reminds me of the special ops performed during WWII by the allies using info gathered by the breaking of the Enigma code. Obviously WWII was the first war where some serious grey area issues began to permeate the theater of war, and extensive care was often taken by the allies to avoid collateral civilian damage (nuclear bombs and firebombing notwithstanding), even at the cost of fighting a lengthier, less efficient war than could have been...
I won't offer you particulars, but keeping those sort of guidelines (capturing rather than killing enemy combatants, using intelligence to take out key leaders and resources, perhaps using some form of propaganda ala the radio and billeting campaigns of WWII) in mind might help keep your paladin from having a very bad day and would probably make for more interesting role playing than "we wait 'til lunch and fireball the mess hall"...
At this point, I'd talk to the GM and see what he thinks of the this in terms of paladin code.
I'm not particularly worried about the paladin (or any of us) being saddled with a perceived alignment infraction; we're likely well justified in any course of action we choose. I'm just mulling over the whole thing and was wondering how others might view the situation. If it truly matters, the paladin is a follower of Erastil, so make of that what you will.
It does also depend on the chance of diplomacy working, of course.
That's the big question. It seems that the leader we've captured wasn't particularly liked by some in his service, but was rather followed out of sense of cultural obligation. Unfortunately that same sense of duty might lead the army to continue on even in his absence. And, although we might be able to achieve very high DCs in diplomacy it's hard to believe that our fearless and supremacist enemies would be willing to even consider compromising with a meagre handful of inferiors. Having acted discreetly thus far means that they haven't yet seen any reason to consider us a serious threat.
you should get to the root of the issue (the wizard) sooner then later.
The evil mastermind wizard behind it all is currently out of our reach. But his capture/death wouldn't likely affect the current situation since the army's soldiers don't even know he's involved.
If battle must ensue, then let your mooks battle their mooks.
I'm afraid I don't see how throwing away hundreds, possibly thousands of our own soldier's lives would be preferable to the alternative; which would be in having the party defeat the enemy army before it even has a chance to challenge our side. In the former there would be casualties in two armies while in the latter there'd only be casualties in one.
Obviously WWII was the first war where some serious grey area issues began to permeate the theater of war.
I do hope you're kidding.
but keeping those sort of guidelines (capturing rather than killing enemy combatants, using intelligence to take out key leaders and resources, perhaps using some form of propaganda ala the radio and billeting
As stated, we've already used our intelligence to take out key leaders and some resources. Whatever it is we do next is sure to tip off the enemy to our presence, whether it be through straight diplomacy, propaganda billeting or a decisive tactical strike. Also, it'd be good to keep in mind that we're only a handful of adventurers; we have a limited ability to take an entire enemy army into custody.
I hope that this is helping, but I feel I'm getting sidetracked and somehow missing a point here...
I certainly appreciate the help in considering the matter. Thanks. And it is certainly helping me to re-evaluate the various alternatives that I'd already considered. But the question remains the same: is it preferable to risk a diplomatic strategy which might fail or instead try a tactical strike against the army itself which could be decisive and perhaps save our nation's army from having to fight and die on the battlefield later.
So I'm going to quote Sun-tzu (or possibly misquote, it's been a while), "the commander who does not take every action to bring a war to it's swiftest possible conclusion is guilty of the murder of his own men."
In other words, if your Paladin believes that capturing the enemy leader is enough to end the war then fine, but it sounds like it won't be. So not only is your Paladin justified in continuing the attack, he is morally obligated to do so.
What is the party makeup and level?
Although I don't believe either is particularly relevant to the discussion, we're 11th level with a ranger, rogue, paladin, monk and mystic theurge.
Also, what is the makeup of the enemy army?
200 Giants with some big animal companions. We've already eliminated most enemy spellcasters of note or oddball monsters.
Ok,
If the army was mind controlled, the Pally would have an issue with blasting it, since it's not, it's going to be distasteful, but not a loss of power thing. Couple of things I'd look into...
A) Resources. Not sure what the makeup of the army is, and it sounds like you're doing this already, but if you can find a way to remove more of their equipment/gear, that's a way to go about it. For example, if they use a lot of cavalry, strapping explosives to a dozen of their horses with long delay triggers might be good. Let the horses mingle in the herd, and explode, taking out their cavalry that way. Yes, some sentients will die, but mostly horses. Alternately, if you can mix some poison into the horse feed, that might work as well, especially something that's not immediately fatal (like arsenic, which takes a bit to kill) so all the horses get it before they start keeling over.
B) Impersonation. Not sure if you have the resources, but, since you've caught the commander, if you can replace him with one of your people, you can slow down and misdirect the army. Send units off to scout areas that are a waste of time, delay, feed false information, and so forth. This works even better if you can fool the distant wizard, since you can feed him false information on how the war is going great. Basically do a man-in-the-middle attack on the information chain.
C) Honorable Enemy. You said there are some people who didn't like the guy, and there are some who would stop the war, and some who wouldn't. If you can identify which of his replacements are more likely to negotiate a peace, or at least fight an honorable war, then you can take anyone that would be likely to take over instead of him before you head out, leaving the best of the lot in charge from your stand point. Alternately, if there's a complete moron who's popular, take out who you need to get the moron put in charge, so his army makes mistakes by the numbers.
D) If you can stop the army without a battle, it's probably the best thing you can do, honestly, in the long run. But try to minimize the chances of martyrs. It works better if you can avoid the chirurgeons and healers, that way they are able to help the survivors.
With your particular situation I'd continue on with eliminating squads and subcommanders until you're discovered. Weaken the enemy as much as you can, then bring in the cavalry to mop up.
I believe you may have missed the point in my original post where I said that we have the means to defeat the entire army by ourselves. The issue isn't how to go about it but whether to proceed or try for a diplomatic solution which might fail.
D) If you can stop the army without a battle, it's probably the best thing...
Even if that means that the enemy army will be destroyed?
You mentioned you've captured their leader (whom you know is subjected to some external influence by this BBEG lich). What can you do to remove this influence?
You mentioned you've captured their leader (whom you know is subjected to some external influence by this BBEG lich). What can you do to remove this influence?
The leader is/was the BBEG's apprentice. Whether there was ever any influence beyond mere like-mindedness is unclear.
I figured I'd update anyone still interested with what we finally did. After discussing the means by which we could assail the army if we chose, we opted to test out a diplomatic approach by approaching an isolated sub-leader who we perceived to have some pull with the soldiery. Oddly he seemed to accept our claims that we had already captured his leader and that we would destroy the army if they remained determined to invade our home country. After we revealed some of the dark stuff his leader had been up to behind the scenes the sub-leader told us that he felt released from his oath of loyalty since he'd been mislead. He agreed to leave the area while encouraging others to join him; all without revealing our involvement. We chose to let him do so while discreetly watching his progress from a distance. On the way out he sent another sub-leader he knew to dislike the leader to speak with us. We told her pretty much the same thing and encouraged her to go and try to get as many of the soldiers to leave before nightfall; cause that's when we were going to take matters into our own hands. Together the two of them made the rounds and spread the word around. In the end all of the malcontents and most of the indifferent fence-sitters, nearly 3/4 of the army, deserted. The remaining soldiers we proceeded to magically slay after nightfall.