It may not be heroic, but if it prevents the BBEG from accomplishing his Evil Dastardly Plan (tm) then it's the right thing to do. Being heroic and doing the right thing don't always coincide.
You just need to have your BBEG fight even dirtier.
You have the party to do the dirty job. Youhave the bard to write down the version of the story for the public, where everyone looks heroic ;)
|
Sunshadow--
In this post, you appear to have actually been answering one of my posts at least as much as the post from thejeff, although he has ably answered many of your points, including the one that directly responds to a quote from him.
You focused solely on one aspect of what most adventurers are trying to do; to most, a paycheck is nice and helpful if they want to do silly things like eat, but the bigger issue is survival, and for that, when dealing with anything other than mooks, and sometimes even them (as mooks can provide warning to their bosses), there are a lot of questions that have to be dealt with, and often enough, the DM who is pushing them to consider this course of action doesn't want to think about them himself, making it a moot point.
I must have been playing with a very rare set of GMs for last couple of decades that I've been gaming-- because the people I game with, including all of the GMs, usually do think about all of those questions.
If they take prisoners, how do they take care of them while they finish the primary task, and more importantly, what can they realistically expect to do with them afterwards? It's well and good to have good intentions, but the party cannot constantly be stopping their mission/goal/task to deal with prisoners, especially in a world where the general rule is "you draw a sword, you better hope you can use it better than your opponent." You are trying to apply the modern sense of "good" tactics in combat and war to a completely different type of warfare and mindset, and that simply doesn't work.
On this, quite simply, I disagree. You think that, any time shooting's going on in modern war, the modern soldier isn't primarily concerned with making sure that he and his buddies are a lot better at killing the enemy while staying alive than the enemy is? (which is the direct equivalent to your "you draw a sword..." line.) I think you'd also be surprised, considering how much has changed in warfare over the centuries, how many similarities there are between the attitudes of professional soldiers today and the attitudes of professional soldiers throughout history. War is still, as Clausewitz famously put it, "politics continued by other means." It always has been. It is still the fine art of killing the enemy, in order to force his country (or now, with stateless enemies), his organization to bend to your side's will. The tactics have changed because the weaponry, logistics, transportation and other capabilities have changed... the end purposes have not changed as much as modern man would like to think. And the parts of the mindset that I do carry over into game, would be familiar to Roman Legionnaires, French Musketeers, Landsknecht mercenaries, Condottieri, and British Redcoats of the 17th century on up to the present.
Of course, the completely different mindset may well apply to Adventurers-- after all, however skilled they are, they are usually not "professional soldiers".
Also, while I fully respect your enlightened views on war, and treatment of people in those situations, very few DMs actually setup scenarios where those enlightened views can actually work, and that is the biggest issue I've seen in most games.
Hmmm... I'm used to games where the GMs always set up scenarios where moral questions are involved, can be thought about, and can be solved in many different ways. Sometimes, we do get the opportunity to try to figure out which is the 'lesser evil' and go with it, because no morally "good" solution exists... Not the only place where I've found my usual experience in games differs drastically from many of the people on these boards, so YMMV.
In a generally lawless land, which is a fairly typical setup, why should an independent party worry about taking prisoners at all? I can see letting the random harmless mook who surrenders to feed them all the information he knows before the party lets him flee, but anyone who is going to be a genuine possible threat (or who might warn his buddies of the PCs activities/intent) down the road is another matter entirely, and the DM has to lead the way if he wants the party to consider anything other than death. DMs who want the PCs to act all "heroic" and "honorable," than make it so the only thing truly "honorable" characters end up being is dead or a catalyst to make the overall situation even worse than they found it, another fairly typical reaction I've seen when the scenario does come up, are setting themselves up for failure. Even the best intentions are only as good as the situations the DM puts them in, especially when they still have other tasks to accomplish.
I agree with you that the GM must take the lead in offering situations where such responses are possible and will not just lead to the party being screwed over for "doing the right thing". However, IMO, a game where such possibilities do not exist, and it's always kill or be killed, slaughter everything because "it's evil", etc.-- really should toss out the alignment system altogether, because, IMO-- "good" and "evil" have about as much meaning as "team blue" and "team orange" in such a game-- there isn't really anything left that you can point to and identify moral choices that truly are 'Good' or 'Evil' beyond entirely artificial labels based on which side you're on.
Personally, I don't entirely disagree with what you are trying to say, but the PCs must have a legitimate in game reason if you expect them to actually practice it. All the Paizo APs and modules I've seen do a pretty good job of setting that kind of scenario up in a realistic manner that doesn't penalize the PCs, which is probably one reason they do so well, but most home games and adventures from other sources I've dealt with in the past don't do nearly as well in that department. So ultimately my point is, don't rail on the players unless you have specific circumstances where a party is consistently doing stupid things like killing anyone who surrenders. If you want to fix what you see to be a problem, go after the DMs; they set the tone of the game for the most part, not the players.
I agree with you here. As you've also said in subsequent posts, a lot of this does depend on the GM giving the players a chance to act in moral ways and not just get screwed over every time they try. And yes, I blame the GMs at least as much or more than the players for setting up the situation where there are no meaningful 'moral' choices that establish your characters' actions as 'good' or 'evil' (or neutral-- not every action, even in the games most heavily laden with moral contexts, has any moral relevance one way or the other). My problem with such games that do not concern themselves with any of these things is also expressed above-- it makes the alignment labels artificial and rather meaningless, IMO (and again, YMMV-- this is my opinion, it's not the only opinion or the only way to game, so I am not insisting that I'm right or that everyone has to agree with me).
As I've said above, in most of the home games and adventures I've been playing in for many years, in many different RPGs (including games with no alignment systems), moral concerns (including surrendering enemies and prisoner dilemmas as one example of it) have been a major feature of play. And, I prefer games that way-- even if I'm playing a character who is nominally neutral or even 'evil' (which is a very rare character for me anyway as a player-- handling 'evil' NPCs is something I did of course when I was running games-- and of course, if I'm portraying a character who is evil, you can count on the fact that he/she is going to be some sort of really nasty type under the surface, who has earned that 'evil' alignment. Most of my characters in aligned systems are some variety of 'good'; most of my characters in other RPGs would be 'good' if you looked at the sum total of their actions, background, and personality and tried to plug them into D&D alignments).
|
|
Who said the adventurers are looking for those kind of scenarios? As I said, a lot of what the adventurers are dealing with is shaped by the DM, and very often, the party doesn't look for those situations, they are put in them by the DM. Too often, the DM has the party in a "go recover this item being guarded by a zealot cult who will hunt you down once you have said item" type situation and then complain that the party isn't following their good alignment when they slaughter everyone to get what they need. I completely agree that if the party is regularly looking for that kind of scenario, they are probably not good, but most of the complaints come from scenarios the party had little control over shaping. While this does not completely absolve the party, it does put equal blame on the DM who put them in that situation to begin with.
Can't really argue with this point, so long as the GM is forcing this situation on the players and/or giving the players sufficient motivation/necessity beyond cold, hard mercenary cash for needing to retrieve the item from the zealots. If the GM gives you that situation, there's two things: 1. Zealots usually fight to the death, so prisoners aren't likely to be an issue. 2. This is one of those occasions where the 'lesser evil' is to go ahead and wipe out the zealot cult, rather than leave that threat behind you (presuming it really is a necessity, for a good cause that outweighs the 'evils' to be committed in the retrieval). And yes, it's on the GM who built that into the adventure, as much or more than it is on the players, who have to deal with the situation they're given.
If the DM is constantly peppering the party with forced moral dilemmas, he has to expect the party to react by saying "it's not worth the effort to worry about morality; at some point, we have to get our goals accomplished." The whole "what do we do about prisoners" scenario is fine if it's not something that comes up every single encounter and it fits with the current in game scenario, but you can't shove that kind of thing down an average party's throat, and expect them to play along for very long. The game is simply not built around that particular assumption; it assumes a much more black and white morality where killing evil because it's evil is not only normal, but expected.
It depends... is the party 'Good'? The party may remain good aligned, overall, while committing a few evil acts out of frustration and/or the need to accomplish necessary goals... but if they always throw morality out the window, IMO they're not going to remain 'good'. I think the GM does have to strike the right balance, rather than always be f***ing with the players on really nasty, "no right answer" moral choices in every scene.
However, I disagree with you that the game requires the "much more black and white morality" that you mention in closing this paragraph. I don't think the alignment system really has meaning, if you paint all things in such absolutes-- IMO, it becomes code words for 'my side' and 'their side' rather than referring to genuine moral stances of 'good' and 'evil' if you portray it that way.
|
|
If you're really concerned about that level of morality, I would probably suggest looking at other systems that focus on that much more and much better than the base D&D system ever will. The whole alignment thing is not a strong point of D&D, nor is it the focus of the system, never has been, and never will be.
I've been gaming for well over thirty years, and have played over 50 different RPGs. Truthfully-- I do prefer not to have a rigid, artificially defined, alignment system such as D&D uses... I've found games that don't use alignment at all still give more than enough room for players to have their characters make moral choices and stand as more or less good, or more or less evil, or somewhere in between-- without needing an alignment label to tell them where they stand. An alignment system is not necessary to present moral choices facing the characters in the game world.
However, I don't find the D&D alignment system to be antithetical to worlds "drawn in shades of grey" rather than "black and white" when it comes to morality, ethics, and moral choices in the game. This is something where we're just not going to agree-- my long experience with the game clearly leads me to different conclusions than your experience with it has led you to (YMMV-- having different play styles on alignment doesn't mean either of us is wrong-- just means we have different views on what we see, or would like to see, in games we've played). I don't think the D&D alignment system is a strong or weak point-- it's just something that is, and taken as guidelines (rather than absolutes), it's not so bad. What "level of morality" is going to be involved in play in the game is a choice for both players and the GM to make, and make sure that all parties understand what the expectations are going to be from the start-- this applies to any game, not just games with alignment systems-- but it is particularly important for all to understand how this is going to be handled in game, when there is an alignment system that has concrete, mechanical effects on the characters.
|
|
<Stuff cut for space, since the original post is close by>
Even if Bill is a dedicated servant of evil, in most instances discretion will dictate that letting the bunch of do gooders who handed his backside to him on a plate go ahead and do good today is his best option.
Nice post. See, this is one of the situations/reasons why sometimes you can just afford to let someone go, and not worry about it screwing you up later. Sometimes the guy who surrendered to you just isn't a threat anymore... although it's clearly better in choosing to let him go if he's just a mercenary in the BBEG's employ rather than a dedicated servant of evil...
There are any number of moral dilemmas that can be constructed to explore whether an act is "evil" or not. One of the classics is whether it is evil to torture a terrorist to learn the location of a nuclear bomb that is going to wipe out a city.<stuff cut for space>
AD--
Good post... I can pretty much agree with everything you said in it.
However, I don't find the D&D alignment system to be antithetical to worlds "drawn in shades of grey" rather than "black and white" when it comes to morality, ethics, and moral choices in the game.
In and of itself, the basic alignment system doesn't favor either approach, but how it has typically been used in published adventures and worlds clearly favors the latter. Even Paizo with their world clearly draws a line between the good races and the evil races. This doesn't mean that a DM can't make their own world that differs from this, but it does mean that he better be prepared to explain the differences to new players before they start, because they may well be coming from a background of organized play or be used to playing in published adventures/worlds where many of the rules, including the alignment system are clearly presented in a different manner.
Nice post. See, this is one of the situations/reasons why sometimes you can just afford to let someone go, and not worry about it screwing you up later. Sometimes the guy who surrendered to you just isn't a threat anymore... although it's clearly better in choosing to let him go if he's just a mercenary in the BBEG's employ rather than a dedicated servant of evil...<Stuff cut for space, since the original post is close by>
Even if Bill is a dedicated servant of evil, in most instances discretion will dictate that letting the bunch of do gooders who handed his backside to him on a plate go ahead and do good today is his best option.
I don't disagree, but there are a few things to keep in mind here.
1)If the DM screws the party over even once, throw this out the window immediately, because the party will not let themselves get burnt again.2)This can work if it's simply hired muscle for a single BBEG, but at some point the party is going to go up against a group or organization, and there will be a lot more pressure for even the hired muscle to warn everyone else of the danger.
Out of curiosity why do we assume that evil bill has to be a threat to the party in order to make it good to kill him? If the party lets him go evil Bill may just walk back into town and murder and rape women steal s@@@ and cause general trouble since he's an evil guy who wasn't above doing evil or murdering people thus far.
In that sense you could consider just killing him instead of letting him go free to be a good act since you're preventing all the murder rape and theft that he'd engage in if you let him go.
Golly perhaps that is what police should do.
So we should get Batman off the streets because he is responsible for everthing the Joker has ever done?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that what's good for the PCs is good for the monsters/NPCs too. Let the five PCs encounter five monsters/NPCs that all focus on a single PC at a time, attacking until he/she is dead before shifting to the next. Obviously healers need to drop first and other casters are a priority too (and they tend to drop faster as a bonus). Evil isn't stupid, and no arguments about stifling fun since this is the way the PCs think it should be done.
Another fun option is to turn that option on its head: Have your villains, or possibly "villains", behave more heroically or honorably than the PCs.
Have that hobgoblin troop that's on the edge of LN/LE insist on taking the party alive and treat them fairly when they're prisoners. Have them LN Kuthonites give PCs a chance to repent. Have those kobolds take an extreme "don't leave a kobold behind" mentality, often making self-sacrificing decisions for the sake of their comrades. Have that Gorumite orc warrior refuse to strike his opponent while they're down.
And on top of that, let people in the setting know about it.
Now of course Dastardly McMoustachetwirl style big bads probably shouldn't engage in stuff like that, but other entities in the setting that might fall under "villain" status could.
Good don't mean nice.
Golly perhaps that is what police should do.
So we should get Batman off the streets because he is responsible for everthing the Joker has ever done?
Point of order the police do pretty much do this it's called lethal injections and life imprisonment they exist because letting those people go is considered worse than killing them or permanent confinement.
Now if you have abilities that would make sparing the enemy an acceptable option like entomb spells or the ability to wish them to another plane or if you beat up the vagabonds just around the corner from the local jail then maybe you could make an argument that they could safely avoid finishing off the ones who surrender that's something but out in the field *shrug*
Also ffs yes heroes and villians in superhero comics need to commit to killing each other because whenever they don't it blows up in their faces. How many people has the joker killed who can say that just killing him wouldn't have been the better option?
Well someone already pointed out that the police who keep their jobs and do not end up in jail themselves are the ones who do the executing.
As for heroes in comics some kill all the time some don't because they believe people can change, or they are chosing not to be come monsters themselves. It is one thing to kill someone standing toe to toe with you and something completly different to coup de gra them while they are unconscious. Also once the supes beat them into submission they make sure they are taken into custody or they move on because of pressing matters. I get it that sometimes leaving people alive might mean that that particular villan might do something worse in the future but that does not grant the hero summary execution rights.
That said this is one of those things that need to be discussed prior to a campaign begins. In a world with a complex justic system like ours and clearly defined law enorcement and military killing criminals might be very much out of place if the are beaten or surrender. In worlds more like mideval society or ancient times, it might be generally the citizens responsibility to act. When the traveling magistrate comes to town and finds that some local do gooder fought defeated and then let a murderous bandit go such a do gooder might get scolded for suffering a murderer to live.
it's amazing how far the topic has wondered from its origin.
|
|
Remember that what's good for the PCs is good for the monsters/NPCs too. Let the five PCs encounter five monsters/NPCs that all focus on a single PC at a time, attacking until he/she is dead before shifting to the next. Obviously healers need to drop first and other casters are a priority too (and they tend to drop faster as a bonus). Evil isn't stupid, and no arguments about stifling fun since this is the way the PCs think it should be done.
Ummm....
Yes. I didn't think this was in doubt, in a game where the foes are not presumed to be tactically stupid card-board cut-outs. Usually (IMO), the enemies are not able to focus on each PC one at a time, because the PCs don't give them a chance to do that-- and because even if you'd like to drop that healer first, you really need to pay attention to the big bruiser who's in your face and is going to maul you if you take your attention off of him... Also, usually (in the games I've been playing in), the PCs pay a great deal of attention to protecting the casters and healers directly and in using misdirection and distraction to keep the enemies from having as clear an idea of who the serious damage dealers and healers in the party are.Likewise-- it'd be nice and convenient if the enemy let the PCs focus entirely on one target at a time, drop it, and move on to the next-- doing a thorough job of "defeat in detail" on the opposing group. However, usually the enemy's using sufficiently good tactics and maneuvering that if we tried to go one target at a time, take it down before moving to the next one... our "squishy" party members would get mangled by some of the targets we weren't keeping adequately occupied....
Personally, I despise games where the monsters and other enemies are always played 'stupidly', instead of as rational, frequently intelligent foes, who know how to fight and win, and who therefore are a real challenge. Enemies who should be smart enough to use tactics, yet don't, are every bit as bad as the player who insists on playing a Paladin as "lawful stupid" (IMO).
|
|
In and of itself, the basic alignment system doesn't favor either approach, but how it has typically been used in published adventures and worlds clearly favors the latter. Even Paizo with their world clearly draws a line between the good races and the evil races. This doesn't mean that a DM can't make their own world that differs from this, but it does mean that he better be prepared to explain the differences to new players before they start, because they may well be coming from a background of organized play or be used to playing in published adventures/worlds where many of the rules, including the alignment system are clearly presented in a different manner.
You have something of a point here, but-- what makes the "evil" races evil? What makes the "good" races good? If it's simply "just because", or some other such tautology-- "They're evil because they're evil"-- then alignment has no real meaning other than an artificial label. Yes, that seems to be the way many adventures are written and many games are played. It's still the problem of "good, isn't really good in any meaningful way, and evil, simply means they're on the other side".
And, I haven't played in games that were run that way (outside of a convention game or two) in a long, long time. I suppose any new player who'd gamed in the style that you're telling me has taken over the D&D community, would have to be given a lot of explanation before he or she could happily join the groups I currently game with. Is it really that rare to find groups that give a damn about this stuff?
I don't disagree, but there are a few things to keep in mind here.
1)If the DM screws the party over even once, throw this out the window immediately, because the party will not let themselves get burnt again.
2)This can work if it's simply hired muscle for a single BBEG, but at some point the party is going to go up against a group or organization, and there will be a lot more pressure for even the hired muscle to warn everyone else of the danger.
On this-- depends on what you mean by "the DM screws the party over even once..." (and I'm not so sure I agree anyway). If, every now and then, you show mercy to a fallen (but still alive) or surrendering opponent-- and it comes back to haunt you, well-- guess you don't show that S.O.B. any mercy next time, because he/she/it had its chance. Doesn't mean you turn into a cold-blooded killer on every fallen or captured foe, so long as the GM isn't screwing you every time, and there's reasons (in the form of being able to understand the foe's motivation) for why that individual tried to screw over the party after being given a reprieve from "summary execution". It also means the characters work on getting better at reading people, and knowing when they can afford to be merciful, and when being a little more ruthless becomes "the lesser evil".
Which brings me to your 2nd point: sometimes, depending on the situation (as I think has been mentioned many times in this thread, whacking the enemies who attempt to surrender/killing the prisoners becomes the "lesser evil" and therefore, is a situational necessity. I don't think I've ever denied that that may become necessary in some situations in this thread-- I've been arguing all along that when you have to do that, it is still an intrinsically evil act that can only be excused (and not count against one's conscience as doing evil) if the consequences of not doing it, are worse than the evil involved in doing it-- and that it shouldn't be an automatic response, without any thought about whether this really is the least worst of the alternatives the party could choose to do.
it's amazing how far the topic has wondered from its origin.
Well I think that is a little unfair. The OP had concern about heroic behavior and we are still discussing nuances of that issue.
|
|
Yes but the modern equivalent to this would be someone who's in a crazy homicidal cult(possibly involved in human sacrifices) then attempts to murder you along with a bunch of his friends after you fight off his friends he then begs for mercy and asks you to let him go ... he's clearly okay with murder and was involved in it prior to this and therefore most likely he has the ability to murder random people particularly since as a PC you're a relative badass unless this is level 1.
Do you have proof? Do you have the right to be judge, jury and executioner? Now, yes it's situational. I can see situations and enemies, where, given the opponent's background and history-- you probably could justify "summary execution" as an acceptable and not necessarily evil act. I'd prefer to see the PCs considering the options and alternatives, and actually having proof of this individual's foul and criminal acts in the past, and likelihood to continue if they don't do something about it-- beyond the "well I did a detect spell, and it says he's evil..." excuse; but yes, I can see that sometimes the characters are dealing with a sufficiently evil bastard, that you can't let him go free to just set up and start murdering and oppressing people elsewhere. Particularly if the PCs also have some good, in-game reasons for taking the task of dispensing justice on themselves, beyond simply that they feel like it.
However, particularly in the case of "chaotic" PCs, from a moral standpoint-- I don't think this would have to be 'legal' authority from the political leaders of the area... take an extreme example: a devout follower of Sarenrae has just defeated a thoroughly dedicated servant of Rovagug, who is not repentant, is thoroughly committed to Rovagug's service, and is going to go right back to it as soon as he escapes-- I'd say the guidelines Sarenrae gives her faithful are justification enough to "summarily execute" the follower of Rovagug after he/she/it is captured and the options are considered. Less extreme cases can probably also be justified (IMO-- then again, I don't buy into black/white, absolutist, checklist constructions of alignment and morality).
It would also be a safe assumption to make that the evil guy who was trying to murder you for no better reason than either money or because his friends were all doing it will likely do it again. Only this time he's going to pick somebody weak and easy to beat since you kicked in his face recently and he wouldn't want a repeat.
I don't think that's a safe assumption to make, regarding everyone you fight. In fact, that sounds like why an awful lot of PCs keep getting into combats-- for the money, or because their friends are involved-- and they are certainly going to do it again as long as they're adventurers (one hopes they have better motivations than just cash-- but I don't think one can condemn an honorable mercenary for being an honorable mercenary).
Yes, if you have proof this is a bully who's going to go right back to robbing from the weak and innocent... maybe you need to do something about it. What the best option is, depends on the situation-- and unless you have proof and other reasons why you're entitled to be the one dispensing justice-- summarily executing the prisoner may not be that best option (IMO, it's unlikely to be the best option unless you've got quite a bit of reason to know that this is a scumbag whom the world really needs to do without, and you can't turn him over to the local authorities).
Besides which we're talking about another universe for starters and if you use medieval Europe as the starting point for swords and sorcery type games such as Pathfinder(like most people do) summary execution for attempted murderers isn't really that far out of line. Modern law isn't really a great starting point for a world which doesn't match our own.
If you take medieval Europe as the starting point-- Kings, noble lords, and etc., really took a dim view of people taking the responsibility for exacting "summary justice" on themselves without a specific grant of such authority from the King. Now, if you can justify killing the guy on the basis of self-defense, it's one thing... in the middle ages, even killing bandits in cold blood, instead of giving them over to the duly appointed authorities, was frowned upon. Medieval Europe was not as lawless as modern folks seem to think it was-- although the law was not as well-defined or as strict as it is now, and it was heavily tilted in favor of the upper classes.
You have something of a point here, but-- what makes the "evil" races evil? What makes the "good" races good? If it's simply "just because", or some other such tautology-- "They're evil because they're evil"-- then alignment has no real meaning other than an artificial label. Yes, that seems to be the way many adventures are written and many games are played. It's still the problem of "good, isn't really good in any meaningful way, and evil, simply means they're on the other side".
That is something that each DM and party has to reach a consensus on their own. As I've said before, I've played in a lot of different groups, and each one has found their own balance of what alignment means and how much it matters.
And, I haven't played in games that were run that way (outside of a convention game or two) in a long, long time. I suppose any new player who'd gamed in the style that you're telling me has taken over the D&D community, would have to be given a lot of explanation before he or she could happily join the groups I currently game with. Is it really that rare to find groups that give a damn about this stuff?
Overall, the players I've played with wouldn't need a super lengthy explanation, but some kind of brief description of how you as a DM choose to run such things is necessary to avoid irritating little conflicts down the road. As for finding people who care about alignment, it runs the gamut; there are a lot of reasons why people play, and even the same person can have different interests when starting different campaigns/characters. It is not a good idea to simply assume that the players are going to know what you have in mind whenever you start a new campaign or that they are going to be in the mood to play that style right then. Having a brief conversation right away helps put everyone on the same page from the start and reduces a lot of problems down the line. Chances are it won't drive players away or require a lot of in depth conversation, but it will help the players make characters that fit better into your ideas/tone for the campaign. It also helps avoid the DM thinking in modern terms of justice, murder, etc, and the players thinking in terms of how those things were dealt with the time period the game is loosely based off of, the medieval period when there was no strong government to handle such affairs.
On this-- depends on what you mean by "the DM screws the party over even once..." (and I'm not so sure I agree anyway). If, every now and then, you show mercy to a fallen (but still alive) or surrendering opponent-- and it comes back to haunt you, well-- guess you don't show that S.O.B. any mercy next time, because he/she/it had its chance. Doesn't mean you turn into a cold-blooded killer on every fallen or captured foe, so long as the GM isn't screwing you every time, and there's reasons (in the form of being able to understand the foe's motivation) for why that individual tried to screw over the party after being given a reprieve from "summary execution". It also means the characters work on getting better at reading people, and knowing when they can afford to be merciful, and when being a little more ruthless becomes "the lesser evil".
I've seen a lot of groups that simply don't take the chance after the first time. While your vision of how you want them to react is great, many players have been trained in the "kill them just to avoid the chance of it blowing it" style. It's less of an issue with newer players, but it can still crop up. There is also the issue that certain character personalities, even those with good alignments, are going to react differently than you might expect them to. This is why it's extremely important to have this discussion this ahead of time, especially if one feels as strongly about as you clearly do.
But there is certain things which bugs me and takes me out of the heroic feel of the game, mainly my player's tendency to use dirty tactics to gain an edge in combat.
I know it is a sound tactic, but is it just me or is it not exceptionally unheroic when the PC's just gang up on their foe and beat him senseless?
I missed if there was a clarification of what you mean by "dirty tactics", but I'll make a guess and use it as an example.
For example, ganging up probably includes flanking. This is a behavior that is reinforced by the rules. In my current group, we have a Cavalier who has the teamwork feat Outflank that he shares with everyone, so people get very focused on flanking and using the AoO the feat generates. There is a reward for flanking and there is no penalty.
Realistically, flanking is a very viable tactic. Even predator animals that hunt in groups use it. So it feels natural to give it a positive effect in a game.
From a fictional standpoint though, it carries with it a certain connotation. For that we can look at professional wrestling. Who usually uses flanking? The villains of the match, at least initially, once the dirty tricks is played it usually becomes fair game for both sides until the villain escalates again.
I don't like to punish certain types of behavior in games, but rather provide different types of rewards.
For example, if you're Good, you get bonuses to AC and Saves.
If you're Evil, you get a big list of dirty tricks that give you advantages.
Now, a Good character can use the Evil characters dirty tricks, but he'll lose his bonuses to AC and saves. Either choice is rewarded, but it now becomes a conscious choice on how to portray the character within a system of morality.
This is present in a system for a game I run where the players are god-slayers. They tap into the same power the gods use, and the more they tap into it, the easier gods are to kill. But if they gather too much power, they risk turning into a god, losing their character and being the groups next target. Players get to strike the balance that they enjoy, scrapping for every victory knowing they'll never turn into what they hate, or taking the easy road and running that risk every session. As the GM then, it becomes my job to challenge them at their preferred speed to make their choices interesting and provoking.
This is one reason I find D&D morality flat. You get to make the choice, but most of the time it doesn't actually mean anything in the game and if it does mean something, it's more of a punishment than a reward. The choice often becomes background or rarely brought up. If something is left entirely up to the GM and players to figure out, that's a "flat system" in my book. It can result in some cool play experiences, but that's a result of the interaction between GM and players and has nothing to do with the system.
it's amazing how far the topic has wondered from its origin.Well I think that is a little unfair. The OP had concern about heroic behavior and we are still discussing nuances of that issue.
Well it wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I created this thread, but I'm satisfied with the advice I have gotten so I have no issues with the derailment. After all, with a topic like this it was bound to happen sooner or later.
missed if there was a clarification of what you mean by "dirty tactics", but I'll make a guess and use it as an example.
I didn't mean things like flanking and sneak attacking, but rather things that causes unnecessary pain and suffering to gain an advantage in battle. Also things like ganging up on a stunned or otherwise helpless foe.
missed if there was a clarification of what you mean by "dirty tactics", but I'll make a guess and use it as an example.I didn't mean things like flanking and sneak attacking, but rather things that causes unnecessary pain and suffering to gain an advantage in battle. Also things like ganging up on a stunned or otherwise helpless foe.
Yup, I figured, but you can replace "flanking" with whatever you like. If the biggest reward is using tactics like stunning and focusing on a single enemy, that is what players are most likely to do if they are making tactical choices.
My suggestion would be to come up with some ideas of bonuses/advantages for the things you want to see.