I know we had a couple of such threats lately, but haven't found this question answered (it has probably been in there but I really didn't feel like reading 300 pages).
NPCs usually have the same dying rules as PCs, from what I know at least. That means they have to reach negative Con to die. Which means usually they're not dead but simply unconcious and dying/stabilized when combat is over, especially at low levels where your hits don't do 100 damage yet.
Or the last enemy tosses his weapon away and yells "Stop! I surrender!"
This is assuming they're evil people, bandits and the like that started the fight, or evil races like goblins, etc. Animals and undead etc are easy, but sometimes you fight actual humanoids.
What do you do with them as a good character, probably even as a Paladin? Let them lie there and possibly die/get eaten by animals? Tie them up, take them with you? Execute them?
Is it a difference if you're inside a city, near a city or far out in the wilderness days away from any civilisation?
I mean that's a serious dilema as long as there's any survivors in a fight. I'm always glad when the DM handwaves it and assumes the NPCs are all dead, but sometimes it comes up.
Allia Thren wrote: What do you do with them as a good character, probably even as a Paladin? Let them lie there and possibly die/get eaten by animals? Tie them up, take them with you? Execute them?
Is it a difference if you're inside a city, near a city or far out in the wilderness days away from any civilisation?
Well if you're of Good alignment, I'd say bury the dead. If the enemies were evil and the paladin knew them to be evil, he'd want to slay them all (or attempt to redeem them, depending on the paladin).
After that, things start getting complex. If your paladin holds a high value on life and believes strongly in the law of the land being to arrest wrong-doers, then you should find a way to take them with you. If you can't take them with you (for example you're heading to a dragon's lair, not to a town), you'd have to find a way to redeem them. No paladin would ever be OK with simply letting them go.
Of course, if the paladin knows the laws of the land to allow him to act as an executioner for the crimes committed then the sentence can be carried out and the wrong-doers slain then buried.
That said, just because one group member wants to arrest the enemies and shuttle them off to town doesn't mean that the rest of the group has to comply.
I play a paladin in one playgroup who doesn't kill unless he absolutely has to. He uses a merciful blade (which drives my party members and the DM nuts with the nonlethal damage) to try to subdue without killing, which allows you to get out of combat, restrain the enemy, and question them to determine their fate.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
I say play it based on the characters and party in question.
Because everyone. In and out of character. Is going to have a different opinion on this.
And its not going to be pretty.
Depends a lot on the character I'm playing. Alignment and whether the class is paladin are only two minor things in the consideration. The situation has much more to do with it.
Do I feel they are likely to come after me and my group if I patch them up, or are they more likely to lick their wounds and scamper off?
Are they guilty, to my knowledge, of serious crimes (murder, rape, necromancy, demonology) or are they just "bad guys" (stick up artists, cut-purses).
Is leaving them to bleed the same as killing them myself? Or are they likely to be found by companions of theirs or someone else likely to patch them up?
Also, I wouldn't put goblins and human bandits in the same category, nor would I put animals and undead in the same category.
Well, it's kinda murky.
Just because they are alive doesn't mean its apparent they are alive. Some characters might be 'efficient' and go to finish off downed characters. (either to prevent them from returning or to give them a merciful end)
But battle is ugly.
It also depends on 'how you want to train the group'
If the players don't check over every 'corpse' and make sure it's captured or dead and the character ALWAYS comes back...well, then Coup de Grace will be the dessert of ever battle.
if every character hauled into a local magistrate for sentencing escapes, they will stop doing that. But not every crime earns you a hanging. Work camps, prisons, stocks, all these things are viable and I personally think players should be rewarded when exploring non-death solutions to problems. Even an evil bandit doesn't need to be killed. 5 years in prison, loss of a hand, etc all are pretty severe.
As for surrendering foes, they can be a good sense of dynamic tension. Does the paladin (who accepts the surrender) risk the greater mission to make sure the pick pocket he captured doesn't escape and can be brought back for trail?
Again, it follows the same rules though. If accepting a surrender ALWAYS 'screws' the party, the party will try not to. If it always is a huge pain, drain on resources, game time to manage prisoners, etc it will get old fast. Like anything, if used in the correct doses with the right timing it can add to the tension of the game and make choices even more rewarding and complex.
technically, if we were outside of rpg roleplaying land, killing unconscious people would be a definite act of evil. So it would be pretty simple, if you are not an evil or falling person, killing unconscious bad guys would be bad. You would need to restrain them and take them to whatever the closest source of legal justice was. Hopefully they won't have the death penalty at this place.
Otherwise, stick to the moral code of dnd. Killing bad people is always good. Assume people that fight you are bad people. Rinse and repeat.
It prolly has more to do with the cultural background than alignment, but it's a factor too if you use alignments.
Also, you need to know how the dying rules work for NPCs.
I.e. If the DM houserule that and says that a dying NPC can be healed but will loose a limb anyway, that trying to heal an NPC will only prolong the suffering, or something like that, prolly assisted suicide and coups of grace are seen as a good thing.
Playing with actual rules you know that you can fully heal most creatures, so you have to do whatever fits your character. If your character wants to preserve lifes when possible he should try to heal them. If your character is allowed to judge and execute, then you should apply the law (whatever it is). If the character trust justice he should get them to the local authorities. If the character believes in self justice he will do whatever he thinks is fair. If the character is a psycho he will prolly spent a while making sure that everyone is dead and maybe doing some mutilation and torture. Etc..
Quote:
What do you do with them as a good character, probably even as a Paladin? Let them lie there and possibly die/get eaten by animals? Tie them up, take them with you? Execute them?
Is it a difference if you're inside a city, near a city or far out in the wilderness days away from any civilisation?
I don't know about Paladins because the DM has to specify the exact rules for Paladins in his campaign.
If you are very very good, you have a lot of respect for laws, and there is nothing that allows you to do something different (like a religion that says that good people eats the hearts of their enemies), you should take them with you. How difficult taking a prisoner is doesn't make killing someone more evil or more good unless you are speaking about something very extreme, it just makes it more or less convenient.
If you're like my current Kingmaker group, you tie them up and take them with you back to town, without variation. Two LG chars, one NG, and one CG, all of whom seem to strongly believe killing a defenseless person is Wrong, and one N who doesn't care what happens to downed foes = we are SO going to get bit in the a-- by this down the road... XD
Our paladin actually used LoH to revive an unconscious enemy leader last game in hopes that this act of mercy would loosen her tongue, but instead he ended up having to knock her out again. :P It's nuts, and probably our last day will be seeing hordes of our spared enemies bearing down on us, but it IS fun to play.
Cultural expectations are big here, I agree---probably moreso than alignment.
Most cultures in games that I run have the expectation that under most circumstances, people will accept surrenders and typically offer a ransom. Ransom is often a very large fraction of one's rewards during warfare, the amount typically centering around three years of the average income of someone in the social standing of the person ransomed. This is where the expression 'a king's ransom' comes from.
There are some cultures that don't play ball with this (drow, kua toa, some tribes of orcs and trolls), and they are generally considered KOS by everyone else.
As I see it, accepting an enemy's request to surrender is mostly a lawful thing (even combat has "rules" you should adhere to) and possibly non-evil, as in you value their life somewhat. From then on it depends on the PCs views and culture. A devotee of Sarenrae and a devotee of Erastil may have very different views on how petty (or not petty) criminals are to be handled. It also depends on issues such as the available options the party has, their social status, etc. For example, if the party paladin belongs to an order that has the prerogative to dispense justice, s/he can judge and sentence the bandit right there, and dispense punishment if s/he believes it necessary. If they can call a minor lawful outsider, they could ask it to escort any prisoners to the nearby town, etc.
In general, I'd expect a good PC to accept surrender (possibly except personal vendettas) and ensure the wrongdoer is brought to justice. It may seem like hassle, but stories of great heroes bringing lawbreakers back are one of the classical heroic tales. Naturally, some compensation or another act of appreciation from the community would not go amiss...
As for downed foes, well, as I see it, it's up to fate. The vast majority of time, they'll stay down - either dead or killed soon afterwards by marauders, criminals, wild animals etc. If one survives by an act of fate, so be it. While a PC making sure a particularly troublesome foe stays down might be overlooked, if the party decaptitates every fallen enemy I'd expect them to face some consequences. There are likely to be some taboos about despoiling the bodies of the dead, and it may be a blasphemy for a few Powers out there.
EWHM wrote: Cultural expectations are big here, I agree---probably moreso than alignment.
Most cultures in games that I run have the expectation that under most circumstances, people will accept surrenders and typically offer a ransom. Ransom is often a very large fraction of one's rewards during warfare, the amount typically centering around three years of the average income of someone in the social standing of the person ransomed. This is where the expression 'a king's ransom' comes from.
There are some cultures that don't play ball with this (drow, kua toa, some tribes of orcs and trolls), and they are generally considered KOS by everyone else.
Except that most of the time the PCs aren't soldiers and aren't fighting wars. The things they get involved in are very different. There isn't a big battle or two followed by negotiations and and exchange of prisoners.
Nor, in general, do you have facilities to take care of those prisoners
You're 4-5 guys wandering through the wilderness trying to prevent some catastrophe or another. Hauling a ton of prisoners around with is more than not practical it just isn't possible. If I was the BBEG and knew my enemies were such an honorable party I'd send minions out to surrender to you because they'd handicap you more that way then by trying to kill you.
Especially if you apply the same dying rules to NPCs as to PCs you will have a ton of prisoners, at least at low level.
At some point it becomes less of an issue. You become powerful enough to have some legal standing, followers, places to imprison people and/or fast means of travel to get them there.
In the real world, these customs mostly applied to nobles anyway. Who'd bother ransoming a peasant conscript.
Indeed it is a sticky situation. I agree with prost that it depends on the character alignment but if sparing them seems to always come back to bite the party in the a**, it would encourage the party to take no survivors regardless of whether they surrendered. This would be more of an example of bad DMing. Regardless of whether the character is a paladin, barb or bard, if they are of a good alignment, I would say they should take the individual alive or at least hesitate to kill the surrending foe outright.
A while back, there was a thread topic similar to this one. It involved a gnome druid who just wanted to kill every single troglodyte in the tower the party had come across. The player argued that his character was neutral good but had a racial hatred towards reptilian folk etc. This was where I disagreed with that being a valid argument. A racial foe is one thing and the hate can be strong but neutral good has also been called "true good". The point was that the gnome should be weary, suspicious and all that but there is a big difference between not trusting someone and watching them carefully as opposed to just wanting to kill them all outright without knowing the slightest thing about them.
The point is that killing foes is more convenient than taking them alive to be handed to the authorities or trying to persuade them to cast aside their evil ways. Practical and pragmatic however don't necessarily go with doing the correct moral thing. Especially so for good-aligned characters. I read in that thread one post which was arguing that sometimes to be heroes requires the players to kill innocents which was completely laughable. A desperate attempt to justify cold pragmatism was along the same path as the morally right thing to do. The erson who made that post was recommended to look up the definition of hero in a dictionary. Sorry I digressed, just thought I'd add that in as an example.
thejeff wrote: In the real world, these customs mostly applied to nobles anyway. Who'd bother ransoming a peasant conscript. Eh, depends. One with a useful trade, such as a blacksmith, carpenter, or the like could be worth something. As for the regulars - it depended on the morality of the victor. One could just take their arms and send them home - especially if chances are he's going to be taking over said home soon. Another one might decide to punish them for fighting against him. Alignments, religion, culture etc could provide a framework for handling that.
As for bandits, usually it's worth something delivering them. Sure, if you are in a hurry to get to the AToD (ancient temple o'DOOM), you don't have time for them, but if you are just going to the next town, why not? There might even be a bounty on them, if helping the law doesn't matter to you.
The Shaman wrote: In general, I'd expect a good PC to accept surrender (possibly except personal vendettas) and ensure the wrongdoer is brought to justice. It may seem like hassle, but stories of great heroes bringing lawbreakers back are one of the classical heroic tales. Naturally, some compensation or another act of appreciation from the community would not go amiss... Sure bringing the lawbreaker back to justice is the stuff of heroic tales. Letting him escape (or continue his plans) while you drag his minions back to civilization... Not so much.
thejeff wrote: EWHM wrote: Cultural expectations are big here, I agree---probably moreso than alignment.
Most cultures in games that I run have the expectation that under most circumstances, people will accept surrenders and typically offer a ransom. Ransom is often a very large fraction of one's rewards during warfare, the amount typically centering around three years of the average income of someone in the social standing of the person ransomed. This is where the expression 'a king's ransom' comes from.
There are some cultures that don't play ball with this (drow, kua toa, some tribes of orcs and trolls), and they are generally considered KOS by everyone else.
Except that most of the time the PCs aren't soldiers and aren't fighting wars. The things they get involved in are very different. There isn't a big battle or two followed by negotiations and and exchange of prisoners.
Nor, in general, do you have facilities to take care of those prisoners
You're 4-5 guys wandering through the wilderness trying to prevent some catastrophe or another. Hauling a ton of prisoners around with is more than not practical it just isn't possible. If I was the BBEG and knew my enemies were such an honorable party I'd send minions out to surrender to you because they'd handicap you more that way then by trying to kill you.
Especially if you apply the same dying rules to NPCs as to PCs you will have a ton of prisoners, at least at low level.
At some point it becomes less of an issue. You become powerful enough to have some legal standing, followers, places to imprison people and/or fast means of travel to get them there.
In the real world, these customs mostly applied to nobles anyway. Who'd bother ransoming a peasant conscript. PCs frequently have a few men at arms and the like who can take charge of prisoners, and frequently operate fairly close to their base of operations. For instance, say you fight a ton of bandits or the like a day's journey away from your base town. A few of them surrender. In most circumstances you'd deliver them back to your town for ransom or justice. However if you honestly don't have any capacity to take prisoners---you're on a mission that can't be interrupted, you don't have to accept a surrender. Do that too often though and you'll get a reputation that might hurt you if you have to surrender yourself though. If you don't have time to bother with the details of arranging ransoms and exchanges, most local magistrates (if they're friendlier to you than the ones you are ransoming), would be more than happy to cover all the administration for a 20% or so fee.
In the real world, the customs almost always applied to nobles, but they also were applied in many cases to those of less than noble rank---their ransoms were just a lot less lucrative, and often waived in the case of exchanges. But a 1st level warrior man at arms is still worth a decent bit of coin--3 years of his income isn't totally trivial.
The Shaman wrote: thejeff wrote: In the real world, these customs mostly applied to nobles anyway. Who'd bother ransoming a peasant conscript. Eh, depends. One with a useful trade, such as a blacksmith, carpenter, or the like could be worth something. As for the regulars - it depended on the morality of the victor. One could just take their arms and send them home - especially if chances are he's going to be taking over said home soon. Another one might decide to punish them for fighting against him. Alignments, religion, culture etc could provide a framework for handling that. Again, we're not at war. We're not soldiers. All of that stuff could happen, but it's likely not going to matter to the PCs
The Shaman wrote: As for bandits, usually it's worth something delivering them. Sure, if you are in a hurry to get to the AToD (ancient temple o'DOOM), you don't have time for them, but if you are just going to the next town, why not? There might even be a bounty on them, if helping the law doesn't matter to you. Sure, if we've got nothing better to do. But that's very rare in games I've been in. There's down time, sure, but we don't tend to take prisoners in down time. When we're out "adventuring", there's a reason and usually a deadline.
Of course, if you're playing in anything like a real medieval setting when you bring the bandits to the local lord, he may reward you and then hang them himself and put their heads up on pikes. What else are you going to do with them?
EWHM wrote: PCs frequently have a few men at arms and the like who can take charge of prisoners, and frequently operate fairly close to their base of operations. Interesting, because I've very rarely played that way. I don't think I've ever had men at arms or the equivalent and we tend to chase all over the world.
City adventures being an exception, but different rules apply there, as long as the rulers are, at least nominally, the good guys.
I wonder how much of the disconnect on this is due to this kind of difference in playstyle. You're thinking of it as a minor hassle handled by flunkies, I'm picturing Aragorn trying to sheperd a dozen orcs the rest of the way to Minas Tirith.
Jeff,
You might not be at war, but you are most assuredly doing what would be recognized as raiding---preferably raiding groups that are enemies of your particular culture. That's what most adventuring is, the sort of thing that medievals would recognize as raids. People on raids often accept surrender, and most assuredly love to collect ransoms. Sometimes the ransoms are the entire point of the raid.
As to the bandits, if the bandits are preying on areas friendly to the lord, he'll probably want to hang them or do whatever his culture prefers to do to such malefactors. If not, he may be more than happy to have them ransomed (if there's anyone who'll pay) or indentured as servants (if he or his culture is relatively nice) or sold as slaves (if it isn't).
As to campaign style, I lean much heavier towards the simulationist style than, I suspect, does your group. That means I almost never apply artificial time constraints solely for the sake of limiting downtime. My players typically start by researching to determine what sort of targets or objectives are available and meaningful to them, and approximately how difficult/dangerous they're likely to be. Then they decide what they want to attempt or go after. Sometimes another group will decide to go after them in retaliation or reaction for something they've done, but that's not the norm at lower levels.
thejeff wrote: Sure, if we've got nothing better to do. But that's very rare in games I've been in. There's down time, sure, but we don't tend to take prisoners in down time. When we're out "adventuring", there's a reason and usually a deadline. The "clock is ticking" adventure theme is common, but by no means ubiquitous. Sometimes you have a deadline, sometimes not, depending on the DM. Same with enemies surrendering or not.
thejeff wrote: Of course, if you're playing in anything like a real medieval setting when you bring the bandits to the local lord, he may reward you and then hang them himself and put their heads up on pikes. What else are you going to do with them? Question him, convert him, let him go, kill him/take mementoes, sic your pet tiger on him (big cats need a lot of food to keep going, you know), whatever you want. The thing is, technically the lord has the right to dispense justice. A set of adventurers - not necessarily. Sure, they can defend themselves (and in the scenario of the OP presented - the last surviving enemy surrendering - they darn well did), but killing unarmed people is not self-defense. For some parties, it could be perfectly ok; others may want to do this "the right way." Yet others could just disarm the man (weapon, armor etc) and tell him to get out of their sight before they change their mind.
thejeff wrote: EWHM wrote: PCs frequently have a few men at arms and the like who can take charge of prisoners, and frequently operate fairly close to their base of operations. Interesting, because I've very rarely played that way. I don't think I've ever had men at arms or the equivalent and we tend to chase all over the world.
City adventures being an exception, but different rules apply there, as long as the rulers are, at least nominally, the good guys.
I wonder how much of the disconnect on this is due to this kind of difference in playstyle. You're thinking of it as a minor hassle handled by flunkies, I'm picturing Aragorn trying to sheperd a dozen orcs the rest of the way to Minas Tirith. Jeff,
By mid level most parties in my games will have at least a dozen or so minor henchmen between them and maybe a major henchman or three. Such minions usually don't go into dungeons or similar extremely high threat areas, but they do hold your base camp normally.
As to how I see it, I think you're pretty close. Tolkein Orcs aren't terribly likely to surrender (I think the only time they did that was after Sauron was defeated)---but lets say a bunch of Dunland clans under Saruman's banner surrendered to Aragorn. My guess is he'd toss them over to some nameless Rider of Rohan if the author didn't have Aragorn take the moment to prove his fundamental worthiness to rule by swaying their loyalties towards him and having them kneel before him and swear fealty, being so impressed by his coupled battle prowess and great mercy. Tolkein Orcs would also likely be viewed as KOS in my games, only a healthy minority of tribes of orcs in my games are quite that hardcore.
The Shaman wrote: thejeff wrote: Sure, if we've got nothing better to do. But that's very rare in games I've been in. There's down time, sure, but we don't tend to take prisoners in down time. When we're out "adventuring", there's a reason and usually a deadline. The "clock is ticking" adventure theme is common, but by no means ubiquitous. Sometimes you have a deadline, sometimes not, depending on the DM. Same with enemies surrendering or not.
thejeff wrote: Of course, if you're playing in anything like a real medieval setting when you bring the bandits to the local lord, he may reward you and then hang them himself and put their heads up on pikes. What else are you going to do with them? Question him, convert him, let him go, kill him/take mementoes, sic your pet tiger on him (big cats need a lot of food to keep going, you know), whatever you want. The thing is, technically the lord has the right to dispense justice. A set of adventurers - not necessarily. Sure, they can defend themselves (and in the scenario of the OP presented - the last surviving enemy surrendering - they darn well did), but killing unarmed people is not self-defense. For some parties, it could be perfectly ok; others may want to do this "the right way." Yet others could just disarm the man (weapon, armor etc) and tell him to get out of their sight before they change their mind. Most lords aren't going to get too upset if you fail to accept a surrender of some bandits that he's not fond of (i.e., they're not effectively his proxies). But they're actually very likely to appreciate it when you bring them back so that he can exercise his High Justice in view of his subjects. A lot of this is based on status, not morality. The lord appreciates the symbolism of the gesture you've made---you've implicitly acknowledged and strengthened his authority and right to rule. This gives your party a lot more respectability in noble circles, moreso than a band of murdering hobos.
Once they hit 0, they're dead.
Unless we want to keep them alive.
EWHM wrote: As to how I see it, I think you're pretty close. Tolkein Orcs aren't terribly likely to surrender (I think the only time they did that was after Sauron was defeated)---but lets say a bunch of Dunland clans under Saruman's banner surrendered to Aragorn. My guess is he'd toss them over to some nameless Rider of Rohan if the author didn't have Aragorn take the moment to prove his fundamental worthiness to rule by swaying their loyalties towards him and having them kneel before him and swear fealty, being so impressed by his coupled battle prowess and great mercy. Tolkein Orcs would also likely be viewed as KOS in my games, only a healthy minority of tribes of orcs in my games are quite that hardcore. For the Aragorn example I was thinking more of if they'd somehow wound up with prisoners while still traveling with the Fellowship. But there really wasn't good place for that to happen, I suppose. Maybe if they'd taken an orc early in Moria, but orc were pretty much KoS, I agree.
Or, better yet, one of the suspicious men from Bree follows them far enough to be trouble then gets caught. Human, thus redeemable. Kill him out of hand. Let him go to report to the Nazgul. Leave him tied up to die. Bring him with you and the RingBearer all the way to Rivendell. Take him back to Bree and turn him over to the authorities?
All bad choices, which is why the author doesn't have that happen, unless he wants to force the issue.
Edit: Of course, Aragorn is Chieftain of the Dunedain and thus probably legally entitled to cut his head off right there. But that's beside the point.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
My players have taken to killing their down oopponents. Because if they're dead they can't come back to try and kill them.
well at high lvls you take a page from the Book of Vile Darkness for the spell Mind Rape it is an Instant duration so it can't be undone easily and you get to remake them in to a respectable worthwhile person as you can reprogram the entirty of the past memorys and actions.
Thous "Killing" them the bad guy for a second chance at life libarty and happiness.
Allia Thren wrote:
Or the last enemy tosses his weapon away and yells "Stop! I surrender!"
Sadly, I'm under no obligation to accept their surrender. Thus they never surrended.
EWHM wrote: Jeff,
You might not be at war, but you are most assuredly doing what would be recognized as raiding---preferably raiding groups that are enemies of your particular culture. That's what most adventuring is, the sort of thing that medievals would recognize as raids. People on raids often accept surrender, and most assuredly love to collect ransoms. Sometimes the ransoms are the entire point of the raid.
Rarely really. My adventuring is not usually driven by money. And frankly, going back to earlier takes on this debate, if that's the kind of adventuring you're doing you're probably not good to start with and the question won't really arise. Exceptions for tactical/strategic raiding during times of open war or the like.
EWHM wrote:
As to campaign style, I lean much heavier towards the simulationist style than, I suspect, does your group. That means I almost never apply artificial time constraints solely for the sake of limiting downtime. My players typically start by researching to determine what sort of targets or objectives are available and meaningful to them, and approximately how difficult/dangerous they're likely to be. Then they decide what they want to attempt or go after. Sometimes another group will decide to go after them in retaliation or reaction for something they've done, but that's not the norm at lower levels.
I don't think simulationist is the difference. (Though you're probably partly right. I tend to be more simulationist than the rest of my group.) It's more that there is some kind of overarching threat that the PCs come across by one means or another and wind up having to deal with, rather than a series of targets or objectives. We get to figure out, once we've picked up enough info to have any ideas, what we think we can deal with and what is necessary to do anyway.
I don't think "artificial time constraints solely for the sake of limiting downtime" is really relevant. We may have down time, but not in the middle of something. When we're out adventuring, there's a reason.
Jeff,
Parties frequently dress up the fact that they're raiding. For instance, the might be raiding a tribe of (nasty but not KOS) orcs who their culture is at war with. That's considered a perfectly acceptable adventure in my book, and a frequent activity of characters up to at least 6-8th level, depending on the size and allies of said tribe. Sometimes they also clothe what they're doing in the language of 'seeking their fortune', 'looking for the main chance', or the like. Occasionally its 'taking the war to the enemies of mankind'. All perfectly acceptable for good or neutral PCs and fairly frequent in fantasy literature (particularly the older stuff).
Yeah I've had a player in my game want to execute their "racial" enemies (they were a gnome) when they were surrendering and cowering. Even carving through a pc trying to protect the cowering to get at them, and kill them when they were no longer fighting.
And then, they tried to claim they were neutral good (both the gnome and the protector of the surrendering enemies were actually). After spouting CE Nazi like sayings calling for the death of their racial enemies. It was baffling. Pulled up character on it and the possibility alignment would change, this wasn't neutral good. Character fumed, left. I'm quite okay with that actually.
I try to add something to my games on this point. Putting questions out there like:
Why are you adventurers?
What type of jobs will you take or not take?
Is there something you are serving or protecting?
Will you give brigandage a go, or try to stay fed and prosperous by not resorting to that?
From these, the questions of whether to coup de grace unconscious enemies comes forward. A really good character will even stabilise an opponent, recognising that sometimes, they were just following orders, don't need to die here, were not actually horrible creatures.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
In my group, we usually use what I call the military mindest (no offence intended to any in that profession) : leave no living enemy behind you, because they could attack you in the back later. Or they could give vital clues about you to other enemies.
If we had the means (supporting personnel mostly) to handle captured enemies (ie, transfer them to a secure prison far behind the lines of the fight), we would likely take prisoners.
As such is usually not the case in RPG adventures, we kill them/let them die (which is not by itself an evil act as they are not "innocent life").
An enemy who surrenders (a very very rare instance) is likely a plot hook from the GM and thus we will not kill him on the spot but try to get info from him.
On an alignment point of view, only Loyal characters have to accept (and respect) an enemy's surrender. And even then, exceptions can be made depending on the setting (for example, it is okay for a human/elf/dwarf ... to surrender but an orc who surrenders is planning trickery and you are under no obligation to accept it).
Non-Loyal but Good characters could accept it nonetheless because of their ingrained respect for life.
However, we also play under the assumption that each character is accountable for his decisions. If you kill someone in cold blood, you'd better have good reasons for it and it had better not attract punishments on your fellow PCs. Similarly, if you keep a captive enemy alive, you are responsible for his actions and you'd better make sure he cannot hinder the group's progress.
EWHM wrote: Jeff,
Parties frequently dress up the fact that they're raiding. For instance, the might be raiding a tribe of (nasty but not KOS) orcs who their culture is at war with. That's considered a perfectly acceptable adventure in my book, and a frequent activity of characters up to at least 6-8th level, depending on the size and allies of said tribe. Sometimes they also clothe what they're doing in the language of 'seeking their fortune', 'looking for the main chance', or the like. Occasionally its 'taking the war to the enemies of mankind'. All perfectly acceptable for good or neutral PCs and fairly frequent in fantasy literature (particularly the older stuff).
Right. Glad you know that my party (and thus me in this debate) is just dressing up the fact that we're raiding. Thanks for clearing up what my game is like.
I think we're talking past each other at this point.
Which just reinforces my earlier point that the opposed positions on dealing with unconscious/wounded/surrendered enemies depends on play style. Not in terms of good/evil, but in terms of what resources you actually have available to deal with prisoners.
Lazaro wrote: My players have taken to killing their down oopponents. Because if they're dead they can't come back to try and kill them. Reeeeaaaallly, is that what they believe? How wonderfully naive, thinking only the living can hurt you.
No matter how you try to justify it. If you catch a criminal in the forest and you execute him instead of bringing him to the local authorities because you are too busy chasing Barrabas you are breaking the law, unless you are the law or there is no authority in that forest. Searching for excuses isn't what lawful good characters do, they search solutions.
Knock them out
1. face hump them
2. put a girdle of sex change on them/gloves of fumbling/helm of sleep
3. put a mark of justice on them.
4. repeat step 1
5. repeat step 1
6. leave them in a compromising position
7. repeat step 1
Revenant time eh shaman?
Boogie-woogie-woo!
Most impressive lobolusk.
Yes you could kill them, or you could go for the k.o, mark them up and turn their sex around. I'm not going to cover the face humping, forcing oral is just a bit much.
Wild man, wild.
thejeff wrote: EWHM wrote: Jeff,
Parties frequently dress up the fact that they're raiding. For instance, the might be raiding a tribe of (nasty but not KOS) orcs who their culture is at war with. That's considered a perfectly acceptable adventure in my book, and a frequent activity of characters up to at least 6-8th level, depending on the size and allies of said tribe. Sometimes they also clothe what they're doing in the language of 'seeking their fortune', 'looking for the main chance', or the like. Occasionally its 'taking the war to the enemies of mankind'. All perfectly acceptable for good or neutral PCs and fairly frequent in fantasy literature (particularly the older stuff).
Right. Glad you know that my party (and thus me in this debate) is just dressing up the fact that we're raiding. Thanks for clearing up what my game is like.
I think we're talking past each other at this point.
Which just reinforces my earlier point that the opposed positions on dealing with unconscious/wounded/surrendered enemies depends on play style. Not in terms of good/evil, but in terms of what resources you actually have available to deal with prisoners. Jeff,
Raiding is nothing to be ashamed of. The archetypical dungeon crawl, is, after all, what amounts to a raid. The alignment aspect of raiding is primarily who you are raiding, not the mere fact that you're raiding. I think you may have inferred a pejorative into what I've said when none exists.
3.5 Loyalist wrote: Most impressive lobolusk.
Yes you could kill them, or you could go for the k.o, mark them up and turn their sex around. I'm not going to cover the face humping, forcing oral is just a bit much.
Wild man, wild.
clothes on humping it is the act of domination not sex that sets you apart form the weaker non alpha males
right tiny coffe golem! eh eh! (nudges with elbow)
Kill them or turn them over to the authorities. WHichever is faster. Nothing good comes of keeping prisoners.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
IkeDoe wrote: No matter how you try to justify it. If you catch a criminal in the forest and you execute him instead of bringing him to the local authorities because you are too busy chasing Barrabas you are breaking the law, unless you are the law or there is no authority in that forest. Searching for excuses isn't what lawful good characters do, they search solutions. Frankly, if you are "adventuring", you either are the law or you're acting outside the law. Which isn't necessarily breaking it, as you suggest you could be in a lawless area or the local law may not care what you do to certain elements.
Strictly speaking , lawful characters shouldn't adventure without legal sanction. This kind of armed mercenary behavior wouldn't be tolerated in the modern world.
If you just happened to be attacked and defend yourself that's one thing. Going out looking for trouble will get you in trouble with the authorities even if you do bring some of them back alive.
Now, bounty hunting or guard duty would be fine. You might have to get permission to explore strange ruins or that might be assumed by default. If you're hired by the local authorities to deal with a threat, then the might specify how to deal with prisoners or leave it up to you.
EWHM wrote: Jeff,
Raiding is nothing to be ashamed of. The archetypical dungeon crawl, is, after all, what amounts to a raid. The alignment aspect of raiding is primarily who you are raiding, not the mere fact that you're raiding. I think you may have inferred a pejorative into what I've said when none exists.
No. I'm saying that's not what we do. Unless you broaden the definition of raiding so far it can't support your original argument. Remember this started with "adventurers do raids" and "raiders most assuredly love to collect ransoms."
Since then you've been arguing that whatever is happening in my games is really raiding and I'm just denying it:
Quote: Parties frequently dress up the fact that they're raiding. they also clothe what they're doing in the language of 'seeking their fortune', 'looking for the main chance', or the like. Occasionally its 'taking the war to the enemies of mankind'. All of which implies that whatever I, or my characters, say about their motivations, they're really out for themselves, in it for the loot, or the ransom. They are not 'seeking their fortune' or 'looking for the main chance'. They're not 'taking the war to the enemies of mankind', though they may be 'taking the war to those guys who've been attacking the town', which seems slightly different to me.
Of course, if you stretch the meaning to goes somewhere, fights or threatens someone and/or takes their stuff, then we raid, but that's not what I inferred from your quotes above and if it's what you meant then it has no relevance to ransom, which is where this whole thing started.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Starbuck_II wrote: Allia Thren wrote:
Or the last enemy tosses his weapon away and yells "Stop! I surrender!"
Sadly, I'm under no obligation to accept their surrender. Thus they never surrended.
Er......but surrendering foes is one thing while not accepting surrender is something else. If you didn't accept surrendering foes, it still doesn't change the fact that they've surrendered.
The equalizer wrote: Starbuck_II wrote: Allia Thren wrote:
Or the last enemy tosses his weapon away and yells "Stop! I surrender!"
Sadly, I'm under no obligation to accept their surrender. Thus they never surrended.
Er......but surrendering foes is one thing while not accepting surrender is something else. If you didn't accept surrendering foes, it still doesn't change the fact that they've surrendered. There's a bit of a difference in most people's eyes. The key element is, did you disarm and render them helpless them under the pretext of a surrender where they'd keep their lives and then kill them out of hand. Shouting 'no quarter' back to an 'I surrender' usually means the foeman starts trying to flee or to make a last stand.
There is a bit of fear and worry here.
So what if they come back, try again, try to break free and slit your throat? Beat them again; good honest character with some sense of honour or respect for life, should accept surrenders. Act to reform evil, or punish/chastise and disarm the foes.
If you aren't playing such a person, if it's all evil and profit and murder, then you should be honest (at least on this forum) and insist you aren't playing a good character. The pragmatic I care not for morality and always kill my opponents is a long way from good. Some do see them as neutral, but I think a neutral militiaman would accept surrender in a variety of situations, especially if he isn't exactly relishing the chopping off of heads.
So perhaps that is it, our characters become so good at violence, we become so accepting of doing violence through the characters, we don't see other options as valid or sensible? Of course we should just kill all our opponents, even if they aren't always truly evil, or they are of a hated race/culture.
More enemies should be taken alive, tarred and feathered and released to the sounds of clucking by a bard.
Kill 'em all. The gods will know their own.
But your god will be mightily unhappy if you off your own kind. Especially if you killed them before they reproduced and indoctrinated the next line of muppets.
Amazing how everybody's got a different opinion. I'm afraid my answer is "There is insufficient information to answer the question." But I hope you'll do me the courtesy of reading what I've got to say anyhow.
If you're refusing to accept surrenders and slitting helpless throats, you are committing evil deeds. That doesn't mean you'll become Evil instantly, but always remember that "I had to do it! They made me do it!" is Mad Scientist dialogue. My personal advice is: spare those foes. If the GM is annoyed by your gallantry, let him say so or provide a way out of it.
Speaking from the other side of the table, as a GM I never punish PCs who put up with the inconvenience of taking captives or hauling unconscious foes to the nearest farmhouse. I reward mercy with good karma - not always, but occasionally the PCs can get inside information, clues, sometimes even a new follower. ("Sheriff Bart first man ever whip Mongo!") Good karma is the easiest way to give good PCs rewards that more 'pragmatic' PCs will never even know they missed.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Most likely any/all of us have encountered some variation of this at one time or another in a game.
Unfortunately this is one of those defining moments sort of questions (for characters, players & DM's I suspect.) By defining moment I mean one you don't really know how you will respond to until it happens & after it happens you can't see yourself ever responding differently.
I've played a Paladin who slit the throat of a bound prisoner & didn't even have to atone.
I've played a Chaotic Magus who pissed off party members by wanting to 'Challenge for Surrender' a group of bandits when we still weren't completely healed from attacking their base camp.
It goes round & round. Yes, there were extenuating circumstances in both cases (not to mention both happened in completely separate games, divided by over a decade of real-world time & two game editions...)
Lincoln Hills wrote: Amazing how everybody's got a different opinion. I'm afraid my answer is "There is insufficient information to answer the question." But I hope you'll do me the courtesy of reading what I've got to say anyhow.
If you're refusing to accept surrenders and slitting helpless throats, you are committing evil deeds. That doesn't mean you'll become Evil instantly, but always remember that "I had to do it! They made me do it!" is Mad Scientist dialogue. My personal advice is: spare those foes. If the GM is annoyed by your gallantry, let him say so or provide a way out of it.
Speaking from the other side of the table, as a GM I never punish PCs who put up with the inconvenience of taking captives or hauling unconscious foes to the nearest farmhouse. I reward mercy with good karma - not always, but occasionally the PCs can get inside information, clues, sometimes even a new follower. ("Sheriff Bart first man ever whip Mongo!") Good karma is the easiest way to give good PCs rewards that more 'pragmatic' PCs will never even know they missed.
Yeah I would very much agree with that.
"It was expedient to do so" also sounds like lawful evil/neutral evil dialogue. "We never accept surrender" sounds like chaotic evil. "I don't care I just want their stuff" sounds neutral at best, but slowly crawling into evil through selfishness.
I remember in one game, going through Second Darkness, had a cavalier/knight, and his motto to the dishonourable drow was "We accept surrender" in undercommon. Our elven wizard chuckled. We got a few drow prisoners on rare occasions; and it actually led to a change in my character's alignment, opinion of (surface) elves and class. See they revealed they don't have honour (as much as the elven book says they do), they are skirmishers with no respect for the enemy. They torture drow, off them, etc. The human cavalier and foolish human notions were dismissed. Thus he became more honourable, not wanting to be like the elves.
Another reward you can give the players, is a quick trial of the captured enemies, a public hanging and some praise for the pcs (if it is all situationally appropriate). Everyone loves a hanging.
|
