Since Ravingdork did retroactively change them into an illusion, then the party didn't fireball the children. The children didn't die, and you cannot, I say again cannot punish the characters because they didn't solve this encounter the way you wanted them to.
Now, if RD had forced them to accept the consequences of their actions, and the children had been killed by the fireball, certainly the characters would suffer in game. From the parents of those kids up to the court mage of the Emperor whose nephew just got char-broiled. But he didn't. He changed the rules, and made their actions no longer evil.
Master Arminas
We are venturing into theology here, but isn't good and evil all about intent? If they intended to commit mass-murder of innocent children, but were foiled by an illusion, doesn't that still make it an evil act. Whether the act is evil or not has nothing to do with whether you succeeded in the evil act, only that you intended to commit it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Paladins are being played wrong for not being suicidal or handing over everything with no real guarantee that things will be better?
Let's say for instance the Paladin and everyone else give up, throw away all their stuff, and hand themselves over to the BBEG to let the children go. BBEG could now slay them all with ease (since they don't have their magical gear and are likely guarded and bonded) and in the mean while have one of his guys burn down the annoying village since the pesky, interfering "heroes" are out of the way. BBEG doesn't even have to break his word, he just needs to use the loopholes (which the demand was full of) just like any devil would.
The biggest problem here is that you placed them with an "impossible" choice that requires thinking out of the box. If your players do not show signs of constantly coming up with clever ideas and doing so enthusiastically, then you're only frustrating them. By frustrating them, they will frustrate you with their actions. They'll give up and take the easy way out along with it consequences and both sides of the screen will be frustrated.
Before you fall into a wreck on why your player's did this "heinous thing", you should probably spend some time with your players and see what they actually enjoy. If you wouldn't enjoy running what they'd enjoy playing and they don't enjoy what you enjoy running then this will end in a train wreck.
AS FAR AS THE PARTY KNEW, the children were already dead. Giving up your weapons, your equipment, your magic against a promise that they will be released? And the villian threatens to kill them if you don't? Sorry, they are collatereal damage, nothing more, nothing less. It isn't a good act, but neither is it an evil one.
And since they were merely an illusion (by ACT OF THE DM), it most definately was not an evil act.
Master Arminas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread really makes me appreciate the group of friends I play PFRPG with. Many both play and GM. Almost every GM has created sinister puzzles of this sort for the players, and every time we have come up with clever and morally consistent solutions to these puzzles. Never once has anyone at the table decided that instead of trying to find a solution they would commit evil acts to spite the GM. We have at least once been captured rather than let innocents suffer, and escaped using our characters' abilities and fought our way out without equipment, until we found our confiscated equipment.
This whole issue is an issue of trust. RD has created some interesting and enjoyable scenarios, but his players are making the assumption that he is in it to screw them, so they do everything they can to try and derail his efforts. Perhaps this is RD's fault, perhaps he has broken trust with his players in the past. Perhaps his players are just feeling collectively peevish.
His players need to make a choice: do they want to trust RD to create interesting, challenging and enjoyable content for them to participate in, or do they think they would enjoy someone else's creations more? Either way, they are not going to get what they want by trying to derail his efforts at every turn.
I personally think RD is doing some cool creative stuff which challenges his players not only to play their characters in the most optimal way to "win", but also to explore exactly who their characters are and what they are really willing to do when the chips are down. If his players are not interested in such deep exploration of their characters, and just want to fight unambiguously evil enemies through an improbable endless dungeon, then they should say so. They should also find a new GM, because I doubt RD would have any fun at all running a game like that.
I'm sad to say, based on a large number of the posts on this thread, that I doubt I would have much fun playing with many of you. Anyone who thinks that trying to "blow up" the campaign is an appropriate way to deal with challenges you feel are unfair is going to make me retreat into silence until the session is over, and never play with that person again. RD, however, I think would keep me giggling, shaking, biting my nails and pacing the floor in delight and dread throughout the night, until I go home and dream about the dastardly villain who almost killed us all.
AS FAR AS THE PARTY KNEW, the children were already dead. Giving up your weapons, your equipment, your magic against a promise that they will be released? And the villian threatens to kill them if you don't? Sorry, they are collatereal damage, nothing more, nothing less. It isn't a good act, but neither is it an evil one.
And since they were merely an illusion (by ACT OF THE DM), it most definately was not an evil act.
Master Arminas
No, as far as the party knew, the children were in danger of death without the PCs intervention.
They ALSO knew the BBEG, while being a BBEG, was one of his word; he'd kept it in prior encounters.
And choosing to slay them REGARDLESS of the retcon making them illusory IS STILL EVIL. Not only evil but vile.
Abandoning innocents to the role of collateral damage is evil; moreso, the execution of innocents to MAKE them collateral.
Rule #1 in my book is you aren't their daddy, so you cannot and should not "punish" the players. HOWEVER, if you have a reasonable expectation in-game, of their actions being discovered, you should go down that route, and let the cards fall as they may. Just don't force the punishment.
As to the greater meaning behind all of this, I have been doing this for more than 30 years now, and in that time you see a lot of bad behavior from gamers, both in-character, and out, that cannot be readily explained. Let this thread sit here long enough, and you will see it here, too, with posters showing up to debate the nature of the characters' and players' actions and thoughts, and the eventually devolution of the thread into total madness where some people go so far as debating whether blowing up children is actually such a bad thing to do.
Lol, Bruunwald so called it on page 1.
And then the party gets to be Steve McQueen and engineer "The Great Escape" after they are captured. Come on, what's cooler than a jailbreak?And you remember what the outcome of the great escape, pritty much everyone f@~~ing dead. And that is why surrendering is idiotic.They did it because the first duty of a captured officer is to escape. They knew they would most likely die, but they took the risk because it was their duty.
And maybe the players are trying to roleplay their characters, not make a movie?
Not saying that blasting the children was the right thing, but if I were in their position I would not see how giving up everything would improve anything. You're asking them to play the "heroes" who give up everything to do the right thing, but that's not what they're trying to play.
Yes it is very touching when someone will give up everything to do the right thing and it is outstanding when it works out in the end; however I will never expect that someone should be that way nor will I even expect that they should pretend to be that way. It's a difficult thing to do, even more difficult when you've seen hard work go in vain. To demand such a thing is to be a sanctimonious, controlling hypocrite.
From a Role-play stand-point only ONE of those characters should have made that decision. The neutral character. The Neutral good characters are "good" above everything else...do good without regard to the law, though laws are good for protecting the innocent. The Lawful Good character having been tasked with returning the children should probably give his life in such an attempt.
It was a role-playing failure, based upon frustration from repeated "railroad" perceptions having read RD's other threads. Players went psycho, that's why I would have called it a night before the characters went all psycho...
I hesitate to wade back into this having already given my opinion of the scenario and the whole moral dilemma situation, which is one of the most frequently abused GM self-indulgences....
But since there has been so much posted about the act of targeting the enemy with area of effect spells that deliberately did not exclude the children...
That is definitely an evil act. It can perhaps be argued that it is a "necessary" evil (an argument I don't make, but I acknowledge it could be made) but evil nonetheless.
Several people have commented about all the brilliant schemes they would have performed to attempt to save the children and defeat the enemy without using fireball or otherwise contributing to the harm of the children. Some have made bald-faced comments about how the children would survive even if the bad guys attempted to murder them because they would not take coup de gras actions in combat.
Well... I'll just say that being told that the hostages will be killed if you attack, and then attacking anyway has some elements of the same sort of callous disregard of the children's fate as the use of fireball itself.
It's not as bad for sure... but is it bad enough to be evil?
You could ask the kids' parents I suppose.
Frankly I do think the right approach would have been to attempt to negotiate some exchange to save as many of the children as possible. Or else to allow the enemy to "flee" so that the final showdown occurred in a less precarious situation where the children were not so clearly going to be collateral damage.
Had I been the paladin I would likely have attempted to negotiate an exchange of the children for myself as hostage, and promised not to attempt to escape on my honor as a paladin, if all the children went free. Failing that I might even offer the exchange for as many children as I could manage to get free.
AS FAR AS THE PARTY KNEW, the children were already dead. Giving up your weapons, your equipment, your magic against a promise that they will be released? And the villian threatens to kill them if you don't? Sorry, they are collatereal damage, nothing more, nothing less. It isn't a good act, but neither is it an evil one.
And since they were merely an illusion (by ACT OF THE DM), it most definately was not an evil act.
Master Arminas
Already dead means they have no pulse. The party KILLED THEM. They were still alive. Chosing to only view the situation in the most pessemistic light does not justify killing them. You can't even get them accidental they chose to fry the kids.
The party gave up . . .
The party chose to murder, this is completely different than if they attmepted to save the kids and the kids died anyway. Yes the kids are dead but they attempted to save them. Failure in meeting the goal while doing the right thing does count for something unless doing the right thing is not important to you!!!!!!
The party chose to not view the situation creatively, use an illusion themselves, cause a distraction, use a spell that might incapacitate those guarding the kids. They further chose not to engage in further negotiations and potentially change the situation.
The players also gave up in a metagame sense. They walked into an encouter the GM arranged for them and chose to see it as unwinable. In a game you can't win. I get why the characters viewed the situation as unwinable, but the players essentially knocked over the blocks because they were not getting things going their way perfectly.
Kill em all, then just raise dead the kids, easy way out.
Because that removes the trauma of being burned to death? Still an Evil act...
As far as the party knew the chlindren were alive and breathing before their eyes. Surrender in that situation is not the best option but blasting the clindren? Their mission was about rescue some HOSTAGES, what they were thinking that the devils would relsease the clindren for free?Illusion or not the spell was cast with the intention to kill the clindren, that is an evil act.
Just as a general point based on what I've read their mission was not to rescue some hostages, their mission (given to them by the emperor) was to kill the BBEG the saving the hostages thing was a favor they were doing for the court mage.
Now yes they could have done something else but based on the fact that they were members of the Emperor's military his orders supersede the request from the mage so if saving the kids lets the BBEG go free then they would have been acting against their mission.
Ideally they'd figure out a way to do both at once but failing that accomplishing the primary mission then bringing back the bodies of the children to be raised from the dead out of pocket or in exchange for whatever reward they would have gotten from the Emperor would have also been an acceptable way to accomplish their goals.
That would work as an excuse for a group of lawful neutral characters who are honor bound to kill the BBEG at all costs, but not an LG and 2 NGs...
AS FAR AS THE PARTY KNEW, the children were already dead. Giving up your weapons, your equipment, your magic against a promise that they will be released? And the villian threatens to kill them if you don't? Sorry, they are collatereal damage, nothing more, nothing less. It isn't a good act, but neither is it an evil one.
And since they were merely an illusion (by ACT OF THE DM), it most definately was not an evil act.
Master Arminas
As far as the party knew the chlindren were alive and breathing before their eyes. Surrender in that situation is not the best option but blasting the clindren? Their mission was about rescue some HOSTAGES, what they were thinking that the devils would relsease the clindren for free?
Illusion or not the spell was cast with the intention to kill the clindren, that is an evil act.
And it was a pretty unrealistic mission. Somehow, the teleported in group manages to catch up with the gnolls and the BBEG and the barbed devils, standing on a bridge over a chasm, despite the head start they had to get away with their victims. Somehow, the BBEG is expecting them and demands their immediate surrender, or I'll kill the kiddies.
Now, if I had been playing one of RD's characters, I would have just stopped and said the following:
"No. We aren't going to surrender; and these children's death is not on our heads. It is on you if you kill them. Did you know that one of those wailing brats you kidnapped is the nephew of the Emperor's own court mage? That's right, the baddest bad-ass wizard in the entire freaking Empire. Touch one hair on that kiddies buttocks, and you are so freaking screwed; you know he can bring your soul back from the dead and torture you yapping hounds for all of eternity, don't you? Now hand over the kids, and I'll consider letting you go. Or kill 'em. Your choice."
But there is no way in hell that I, as a player character, am surrendering my weapons, my armor, and my items to some jack-off evil minion who deals in diabolic contracts. The kiddies die? No skin off my nose.
Master Arminas
The party KILLED THEM. They were still alive. Chosing to only view the situation in the most pessemistic light does not justify killing them. You can't even get them accidental they chose to fry the kids.
Oh no. The party did not kill them. Because RD retconned the whole thing into an illusion. THE CHILDREN ARE NOT DEAD. And he did it at the time in game (the BBEG going, 'Damn, you have seen through my dastardly deed' or some such), keeping the little brats alive. So the party didn't kill them, now did they?
Master Arminas
AS FAR AS THE PARTY KNEW, the children were already dead. Giving up your weapons, your equipment, your magic against a promise that they will be released? And the villian threatens to kill them if you don't? Sorry, they are collatereal damage, nothing more, nothing less. It isn't a good act, but neither is it an evil one.
And since they were merely an illusion (by ACT OF THE DM), it most definately was not an evil act.
Master Arminas
As far as the party knew the chlindren were alive and breathing before their eyes. Surrender in that situation is not the best option but blasting the clindren? Their mission was about rescue some HOSTAGES, what they were thinking that the devils would relsease the clindren for free?
Illusion or not the spell was cast with the intention to kill the clindren, that is an evil act.
And it was a pretty unrealistic mission. Somehow, the teleported in group manages to catch up with the gnolls and the BBEG and the barbed devils, standing on a bridge over a chasm, despite the head start they had to get away with their victims. Somehow, the BBEG is expecting them and demands their immediate surrender, or I'll kill the kiddies.
Now, if I had been playing one of RD's characters, I would have just stopped and said the following:
"No. We aren't going to surrender; and these children's death is not on our heads. It is on you if you kill them. Did you know that one of those wailing brats you kidnapped is the nephew of the Emperor's own court mage? That's right, the baddest bad-ass wizard in the entire freaking Empire. Touch one hair on that kiddies buttocks, and you are so freaking screwed; you know he can bring your soul back from the dead and torture you yapping hounds for all of eternity, don't you? Now hand over the kids, and I'll consider letting you go. Or kill 'em. Your choice."
But there is no way in hell that I, as a player character, am surrendering my weapons, my armor,...
Just for the record if you stopped before final rant about how you would never give up weapons that would have been a great way to face teh situation. Roll your intimidate. It might have even saved the day!
That's because when I play, I play. Hahaha. Thanks, Gnomezrule. We've just about covered this topic, I think, so I am moving on now.
Master Arminas
If he hadn't? Evil. For the player who tossed the fireball; but not necessarily for the rest of the party. And for the record, RD should not have retconned it; in my opinion. Player's have to know that their actions ALWAYS have consequences. Otherwise it becomes a hack-and-slash game.
But since they were turned into illusions? Not evil. Sorry, but that is my thought.
Master Arminas
Okay, I have to ask though would you have the same attitude if one of them was yours?
Probably not; which is why an FBI agent doesn't work a kidnapping case involving his own kid.
Master Arminas
If any Paladin, or Good aligned character would simply give up their own life whenever they get into a hostage situation, there simply would not be any Paladins or Good aligned people left. Do gooders screwing up your plans?.. just take a kid hostage and have those do gooders surrender. That not only would result in many Good aligned characters being easily killed, but would drastically increase the rates of kidnapping and holding kids hostage, actually making it more dangerous for those kids.
Dealing with hostages takers only encourages more hostage takers. There is a reason why hostage takers in South America/Africa/Asia target Westerners and Japanese/Koreans, and never target Russians... because they know that Westerners will often times cave in to the demands... whereas the Russians will just come in and kill the hostage takers (and most of the hostages). What is more "Good"? Promoting the practice of hostage taking, or making sure that it does not happen in the first place?
So, if I'm an FBI agent, and I am dealing with a bank robbery where the robbers have taken everyone in the bank hostage, you are saying I should kill the hostages, so the bank robbers no longer have a bargaining position? Slick.
Well if we're going to tread in the whole actions determine good/evil not intent; it was totally not evil to blow up some illusions.
Seriously though, RD needs to have some serious discussions with his players on what is fun for him as a GM and them as players and how they can get that to synchronize.
All this other nonsense about if it was evil or not and what they could of done is useless and won't help anyone and is just something for people to toss flames at and there will always be someone who disagrees, but none of that matters.
|
AS FAR AS THE PARTY KNEW, the children were already dead. Giving up your weapons, your equipment, your magic against a promise that they will be released? And the villian threatens to kill them if you don't? Sorry, they are collatereal damage, nothing more, nothing less. It isn't a good act, but neither is it an evil one.
And since they were merely an illusion (by ACT OF THE DM), it most definately was not an evil act.
Master Arminas
MA--
I'd consider it an evil act. The party didn't know it was just an illusion-- they thought they were toasting the real children and did it anyway; that they got away without doing real harm to the children does not change their intentions and their understanding of the act as they did it.
Was it justifiable under the circumstances? I'd say no-- but that's a separate argument from the thought that it's basically an evil act (potentially with mitigating circumstances).
I don't disagree with you (at least not entirely) in taking the approach that "the children are already dead" and treating the hostage takers appropriately. However, and this goes right along with modern military understandings of dealing with hostage takers...
Someone else has already brought up this point--
If the hostages die, that's one thing-- unfortunately, that might happen no matter what you do. It's a wholly different thing to shoot the hostages yourself.
(no disrespect intended-- I very much appreciate a lot of your posts; and re: a later post of yours in this thread-- I wouldn't surrender to the hostage takers either)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's pure evil with a dash of greed. "Oh I don't want to lose my items" is metagaming for one thing. Also, what's stopping you from going and retrieving your gear if you did throw it over the side of the bridge?
I think role playing gets lost at times because people are so scared they are going to lose their gear.
|
|
The Americans and the British in "The Great Escape" could have just stayed in the POW camp until the war ended and they were returned to their families - but what a boring movie that would have made.
I'm almost feeling a little offended that the two of you are discussing "The Great Escape" from the perspective of Hollywood melodrama. :P
There was a real escape from Stalag Luft III during WW2, which the movie is very very loosely based on. However, some of the film's details are accurate enough. 76 men escaped from the camp via the tunnels, 73 were recaptured, 50 of those recaptured were murdered by the GeStaPo, on Hitler's orders, in violation of the Geneva Conventions (though they were murdered at different places, singly or in pairs, not all at once in a field, as the movie showed).
One of the real-life motivations for the escape attempt was because the men felt it was their duty to attempt to escape and return home, thence to recover, rejoin their nation's forces, and continue on with the war. Another part of the motivation was to directly assist the war effort, by forcing some small diversion of German forces and effort away from the battle-fronts to recapturing the escaped prisoners.
I find the real story far more compelling than the fictional version-- especially since one can point to it and say "some people actually did that, because they thought it was important", instead of saying "well, that happened in a book/movie/tv show once upon a time..."
|
That's just a silly implication.
It's not silly, because it's exactly what the PC group in question did.
I would advocate that the FBI agent do what they normally do... try to calm down the hostage taker and try to get him to surrender, or stall for time until they can subdue/kill the hostage taker. Simply caving to the hostage taker's demands is just going to encourage more and more hostage takings.
I agree, at least potentially. And that would've been a fine way for them to act. But nobody's saying that it wouldn't be. Nobody. Literally nobody has said they should've flat-out surrendered, not even RavingDork.
What people are saying is that they shouldn't have done what they did; ie. the equivalent of throw a grenade into the middle of the hostages without even trying anything else. Which is pretty evil by any measure.
So, if I'm an FBI agent, and I am dealing with a bank robbery where the robbers have taken everyone in the bank hostage, you are saying I should kill the hostages, so the bank robbers no longer have a bargaining position? Slick.That's just a silly implication.
I would advocate that the FBI agent do what they normally do... try to calm down the hostage taker and try to get him to surrender, or stall for time until they can subdue/kill the hostage taker. Simply caving to the hostage taker's demands is just going to encourage more and more hostage takings.
How is this a silly implication. This is exactly what the PC's in RavingDork's party did. They killed the hostages.
|
|
3) PCs never surrender or let themselves be captured alive in my experience. They always go down swinging. If PC surrender was your intention for this encounter you need to set it up with some in game info about the villain ransoming off prisoners. Set up so that the PCs know that this guy isn't a murderer he's a hostage taker looking for the most profitable ransom. He never hurts the hostage unless pushed...
Here's a critical point for me. I would not have surrendered under these circumstances. I would have tried to find other ways to handle the situation than the PCs in this adventure did, and I wouldn't have nuked the hostages myself... but surrender? No, not an option.
With due respect to others-- one option I almost certainly would have considered, was backing off and letting the enemy get away, rather than risk the hostage's lives in a fight right there at that location. Probably would have considered negotiating for time and/or figuring out other options. Might have tried a little maneuvering and then launched a sudden attack, in the hope that we could take down the enemies threatening the hostages before they could kill them all.
Surrender, however, is something an intelligent soldier never does unless there really is no other choice (besides "suicide by enemy guns"-- if you're out of ammo and it's really "surrender or die", maybe, but even then I'd slash my wrists rather than surrender to an enemy like most of the ones we're currently fighting in the Middle East. In some respects, yes, my personal experience as a soldier in RL does influence some attitudes that nearly all my characters share-- since adventuring is an even more dangerous career choice than serving in the military, and similarly, by necessity, involves being ready and willing to kill others if necessary-- even the pacifist has to go along with a party that kills in every game I've been part of in 36 years of playing RPGs). "Surrender and I'll let the hostages go," isn't something I'm going to believe-- "surrender and I won't hurt the hostages" isn't something I'm going to find acceptable-- because it still means placing yourself wholly into his power and just hoping that he's either going to be stupid enough to give you a chance to escape or turn the tables, or that there is someone else (unlikely if the PCs are the Empire's Heroes) who can bail you out of the jam-- because with you out of the way, there is no one else that you can count on to try to stop this guy.
On the other hand, in spite of the general principle that one "doesn't negotiate with terrorists" (a principle which even Israel, the big proponent of the idea, regularly violates), there are a lot of concessions I might make, short of surrendering to the enemy, in order to ensure the safety of the hostages (though I'd probably be weighing which is the "lesser evil" in any such negotiation, so there are definitely more limits than just the 'not willing to surrender' one).
That's just a silly implication.It's not silly, because it's exactly what the PC group in question did.
I would advocate that the FBI agent do what they normally do... try to calm down the hostage taker and try to get him to surrender, or stall for time until they can subdue/kill the hostage taker. Simply caving to the hostage taker's demands is just going to encourage more and more hostage takings.I agree, at least potentially. And that would've been a fine way for them to act. But nobody's saying that it wouldn't be. Nobody. Literally nobody has said they should've flat-out surrendered, not even RavingDork.
What people are saying is that they shouldn't have done what they did; ie. the equivalent of throw a grenade into the middle of the hostages without even trying anything else. Which is pretty evil by any measure.
Actually, I did say, as one of 4 possible ways to deal with the situation other than killing children, was to surrender. But that's just me, I think the jailbreak after would make a great adventure.
Technically, the illusory children were torn apart by black tentacles, slowly.
Just as a general point based on what I've read their mission was not to rescue some hostages, their mission (given to them by the emperor) was to kill the BBEG the saving the hostages thing was a favor they were doing for the court mage.
Now yes they could have done something else but based on the fact that they were members of the Emperor's military his orders supersede the request from the mage so if saving the kids lets the BBEG go free then they would have been acting against their mission.
Ideally they'd figure out a way to do both at once but failing that accomplishing the primary mission then bringing back the bodies of the children to be raised from the dead out of pocket or in exchange for whatever reward they would have gotten from the Emperor would have also been an acceptable way to accomplish their goals.
They had an ongoing mission to find and assassinate Paegin. It was handed down to them, through the proper channels, by their Emperor.
They were also given a more immediate mission by the Court Mage (a valid military authority) to rescue the children of the village. They were told that the safe retrieval of the children was their absolute top priority.
They were not expecting to encounter Paegin, and as such, never thought to ask which mission superseded which. If they weren't so busy panicking, it might have made for a fun table discussion.
Regardless of whatever mission superseded the other, knowingly and willingly attempting to murder children (even if it is to save your own butt, as one player put it) is an evil act.
So here's the thing. RavingDork's players have shown that they are only privy to the obvious. The two obvious choices were attack anyway or surrender (lose everything and possibly die). That's why they would claim it was an "impossible" choice. I'm not sure why RD put this "think out of the box" challenge in front of them when it's fairly obvious from the railroad thread that they just don't see "other opportunities" unless it's got a glowing arrow pointing to it.
This is why RD needs to talk to his players, find out what they enjoy, because it's pretty clear that they do not enjoy having to come up with clever solutions which RD and others delight in. Not saying that RD's style is bad, it's just not right for his players.
|
|
None of those metafictional securities exist in a roleplaying game. The villain isn't guaranteed to make a plot convenient mistake, nor will there be a plot convenient lucky break. Without the plot on their side the players are left to deal with realistic ethics that account for the possibility of failure. There is a well established ethical doctrine that it is always wrong to negotiate with terrorists. If you don't like your players making you uncomfortable don't put them in moral dilemmas where a common school of real world ethics gives an answer you're not comfortable with.It is very easy to argue that they did the least bad thing they could. In the context surrender would be evil and the good of rescuing the children would not be guaranteed. Indeed, if RD'd been going with the illusion plan in the first place surrender would have been completely futile.
A few other people have already pointed it out, but I'm going to say it again anyway: there's a big difference between the hostages being killed in spite of your efforts to save them and/or inability to save them, and killing the hostages yourself. Also, the doctrine that states that it is "always wrong to negotiate with terrorists" is one that no-one (not even Israel) actually follows in the real world. I actually tend to agree that we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists (especially in the real-world context), yet we as governments and groups frequently do so anyway... and still, no real-world school of ethics states that it's okay to deliberately kill the hostages yourself, as a prime intent of your attack.
The situation as RD has explained it, does not seem to me to be one where there was no way to take out the enemy without including the hostages in the area of effect, so IMO it's not possible to justify the death of hostages as collateral damage in this case (it is possible to make an argument that justifies killing some of the hostages, and I might even agree with it, if the only means available for attacking the bad guys involved the risk or even certainty of "collateral damage" to the hostages as well, and there were solid reasons why you couldn't delay the attack while searching for other alternatives.
Any realistic system of ethics does account for the possibility of failure, and such hostage situations as RD placed before his players definitely involves 'moral dilemmas' and tricky decisions to make-- on that I agree. I've already explained it in another post, but I do not consider surrender under these circumstances a viable alternative at all. If it's truly "surrender or the hostages die", then IMO the deaths of the hostages will be on the BBEG's head-- and as far as the bad guys are concerned, may their gods have mercy upon their souls-- because if they do kill the hostages, there will be no quarter and no possibility of surrender for them after that... one of them tries to surrender? I'm gonna admit, this is one of those places where (even in an RL situation), I'm just "not going to see it"-- he's getting capped anyway, after he's participated in cold-blooded murder of non-combatants (the only ones who will still be considered to deserve the normal courtesies of armed conflict, will be the ones who didn't take part in the blatant crime of murdering the innocents).
|
|
I won't go so far as to say that either playing style is right or wrong. But I will say this: Those players of mine who try to pull off these sorts of things in-game, are also, for some reason, even if only by coincidence, the same friends I do not trust to watch my kid. Those who think of their roles in the game as higher and loftier, also seem to work harder for my trust as friends, as I do theirs, and have earned it many times over.I think this is something the game is holding out to us; offering it to us to help make us better people in some small way. Someday, one of us may have to risk his own life to help somebody...
Bruunwald--
Overall, nice post. And generally I agree with it. The one comment I add, is that in my play-style and approach, I try to consider what some might think of as R-L moral/ethical considerations and schools of thought. Kind of, within the fantastic world (and changes to the laws of reality), how would an otherwise 'real' person react to all of this? Sort of a, if you grew up under these circumstances, had this background, these capabilities, were facing this situation, what would you do? What would you wish you had the courage and moral fiber to do (even if the real you might have, through fear or other impulse, taken the easy way out)?
A lot of my characters do not rise up to the over-top heroics of Captain America, because I consciously try to play them more like 'real people' facing these dilemmas... but I do like to play people trying to be heroes, trying to rise above their limitations, trying to make the world a better place-- because I certainly wish I could do as well myself. So.... I buy into your idea about playing the game in such a way as to try to be a better person within and/or through it.
Maybe sometimes I'll make an exception, where I'm deliberately playing a more ruthless, intentionally closer-to-evil character (though personally, I'll still stop at Neutral rather than going all the way across that line)-- but even then, it will be a conscious exploration of a character-personality with very different motivations and a different approach to life-- never an excuse to say that everything such a character does should be considered morally right or acceptable; because when I have played such a character, I have consciously recognized that that character would (and in game) does do things that I know are morally wrong.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: Also, Paegin, being a LE diabolist known for "deals" and "contracts" has yet to break his word the entire campaign. The PCs had little reason to believe he would murder the children if they turned themselves over. In fact, by killing him, they have shown themselves to be MORE dishonest than he.
RD--
Couple'a comments in general on this thread:
1. If I were in your shoes as GM-- I would have let it stand that they fried the children they were supposed to save, and they would have to deal with the consequences of their actions. Among those consequences: the Paladin loses his powers; the party loses their vaunted status as "heroes of the Empire", the Court Magician wants them dead for killing his nephew; and of course, they're under an aging curse for violating their contract with Paegin.
2. Yeah, that aging curse. IMO, it's time for them to roll new characters... their current ones will be dead from old age soon. Sorry, no good temple will help them after what they've done. :P
3. I still don't think surrender was a good option-- I wouldn't consider anyone low enough to take children as hostages to be someone that I'd trust to honor a surrender agreement. However, with what you've said about Paegin, I think I would have tried negotiating with him, before attacking-- one can apparently trust his word at least that far, to expect him to keep his word once given (on second thought, maybe surrender's an option-- but only after negotiating a very careful, explicit contract that spells every consequence out... and making sure that it's not a "suicide pact" for the PCs).
4. If I were one of the players-- I might have considered the real "no win" situation to be the fact that I have orders to eliminate Paegin, yet I have a contract (with dire consequences on my life and health if broken) to not harm him. Except, as a player-- I'd regard that as a very interesting challenge, dealing with the problem of finding a way around the curse, so I can follow orders and break the contract in the process; or figuring out how to avoid actually carrying out those orders while avoiding the consequences of failing to carry out those orders, because I have a personal contract that's in the way of following them.
5. Your players chose to join the Imperial Military. Being a soldier of the Empire, at a certain point, means "shutting up and following the orders you're given in the Emperor's name". Being in a military game (at least any such game that is in any shape or form believable)-- unless the character is the "commander-in-chief" involves accepting being "railroaded" to a large extent, because following orders and carrying out the missions you are given is part of military life, especially in times of conflict. WTF did they expect? That they could be soldiers of the Empire and no one was ever going to tell them what to do?
If I were in your shoes-- judging by some of the events in the previous thread-- most of these characters would be headed for Courts-Martial and less than honorable discharges from the Emperor's service, for their manifest failures.... and once they're out of the military, maybe then they can complain if someone gives them orders to do something.
|
|
Actually, I did say, as one of 4 possible ways to deal with the situation other than killing children, was to surrender. But that's just me, I think the jailbreak after would make a great adventure.
I'm gonna be honest with ya. An enemy who takes children as hostages, is IMO not one that's going to respect "the rules" covering "care and feeding of prisoners." Likewise, I usually presume that enemies are intelligent and capable, not morons that will read off their grand plot to you and then let you escape.
I'm gonna admit-- if I were GM, the enemy would offer the option to surrender to save the hostages. If all the PCs took it-- most likely, you'd be rolling new characters, tune in next week-- since the PCs have been such a pain in the a** to Paegin so far in the campaign, Paegin (being the man of his word that he is) probably would honor his promise to release the children unharmed (this time), but I don't think there's any ransom or other purpose that could be worth as much to Paegin as "never having to worry about those meddlesome PCs ever again!"
On the other hand: maybe, considering what we (the PCs) should already know about Paegin, contracts, and Paegin's keeping his word-- surrender might be an option, but you'd better get a damn good surrender contract, specifying the exact details, responsibilities, and consequences, spelled out first; and making sure that they are acceptable to you, before agreeing to it.
Machaeus mentioned a link to TV Tropes in post #171: "Take a Third Option"-- IMO, that's the only reasonable solution here... because I don't think surrendering or killing the hostages are good solutions to this at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Atarlost--
I'm surprised that you don't realize that deliberately targeting civilians and/or not taking such matters into account at all is an explicit violation of the Laws of War, not to mention most codes of morality involving warfare. Now, if someone's using human shields, and there is no other way to get them than by killing them and possibly, even probably or certainly killing the hostages they've taken in the process, that can be justified, depending on the circumstances... but unless there's a pressing threat that they represent, one usually takes the time to make absolutely sure there is no other way. One does not ever deliberately target the civilians/hostages, however. And one examines all means available, balances the risks involved, and chooses from among the means available, the method that presents the least risk of harming the hostages while not exposing the rescue teams to excessively increased risk in doing so-- while not giving in to the terrorist's/hostage taker's demands and/or allowing the terrorists or hostage takers to escape.
I'm familiar with the lines of reasoning that insist you treat the hostages as already dead and that they are not to be considered at all in targeting decisions-- I'm also familiar with the fact that taking that approach is a War Crime, potentially a Crime Against Humanity-- and is labelled as such because it displays a callous disregard for human life (an immoral and generally considered to be evil attitude). It violates every principle involved with restraint and responsible use of force.
One also does not deliberately cause "collateral damage"-- one accepts that combat is a very dirty business, that war is messy, that people die-- that some of the people who die will not be combatants, will not be the intended targets; that property is going to get seriously messed up, lives will be disrupted, etc.... but one is still legally and morally required to use the least destructive but still effective means available, not the most destructive solutions. "Collateral Damage" is the unavoidable destruction caused as a by-product of the use of force even when responsibly applied. Yes, if you use force responsibly and with due restraint, and hostages die anyway-- it's on the hostage takers. Even if you knew hostages were going to die when you fired that shot that killed them as well as the hostage takers, so long as that was least amount of force that would have effectively worked.
If RD's tale is correct-- no, there is NO acceptable excuse for immediately going for the most destructive, least restrained use of force at your disposable-- and no possible excuse for specifically and deliberately targeting the hostages, rather than the enemy force-- which is apparently, from RD's description, what they did. It's almost like, with the targeting decision they made, that the enemies killed by those spells were the "collateral damage".
Also, regarding the principles that hostage takers should not be rewarded and terrorists not negotiated with-- yes, I'm familiar with both of those theories, and I generally agree with them. Neither of them involves a moral excuse for using excessive force though. And, as I've already noted-- hardly any nation actually plays by those rules, unfortunately. Israel's been negotiating with hostage takers over the last decade. We've finally stopped negotiating with hostage takers over the last decade. Russia's probably the only country that's actually been completely faithful to these rules-- and regarding use of force-- though a lot of people died the last time I'm aware of the Russians attempting a hostage rescue-- the Russian anti-terrorist units still did not deliberately target the hostages.
Regarding the in-game process-- unless RD and/or his players can confirm that the characters were targeting the bad guys, and there wasn't any reasonable/effective way to target them without striking the hostages in the process-- and that was the only effective way to proceed (yes, this is presuming that surrender is out of the question, and for whatever reason, withdrawing and striking later was reasonably rejected as an option-- and I can see justifications for not letting the bad guys go)-- only way to proceed meaning there really weren't any less destructive but still effective ways to proceed-- it was an evil act. Even though it turned out to be an illusion, the players didn't know that (I do think RD should have let the players face the consequences of their actions)-- so, alignment slip should happen (although one vile act doesn't automatically take you all the way to evil), and the Paladin does lose his powers-- because (given the number of spells evidently tossed-- and the opening shots being counter-spelled), he had time somewhere in there to protest and try to stop the massacre (it wasn't a one-round kill); he could have rushed forward (like the fighter did) and make an effort to rescue/save the hostages; probably lots of other things he could have tried to do...
and he didn't try to do anything to stop it nor take any action to try to save the hostages. As a Paladin-- he's done.
The player that laid down the black tentacles claims he did it because the gnolls had just pumped him full of arrows and he didn't want to die. The children never entered into it. He was taking out the bad guys before they could take him out.
I don't buy it.
The player has a history of happily killing fellow PCs and innocent NPCs whenever he is afforded the opportunity (such as being charmed).
The player's character was under the effects of the fly spell and could easily have flown behind total cover in a single move action, if not two. He could have protected himself without harming the children.
If he REALLY wanted to take out the bad guys quickly and efficiently in order to prevent them getting off another volley, he wouldn't have chosen a spell that was unlikely to kill the bad guys right away, but was almost guaranteed to kill the kids quickly (he chose 1d6+4 black tentacles over something like a 10d6 fireball against gnolls). He even had a CL 10 wand of fireball with ~30 charges at his disposal, so he wouldn't have been missing much.
No. He was, as another player put it, just "being himself."
Definitely going to have a talk with him. Not that I really expect him to care in the slightest what I have to say.
This is the easiest thing in the world for the players to handle without in-game repercussions.
All they need to do is say “I trusted that Mr Summoner (it was he that started the attack?) knew something I did not, and that He/She would not kill children”.
As it was illusions, they were correct to do so, and the only “evil” act of the others was to trust a fellow part member that initiated the combat. To strip a Paladin of powers for that is vindictive to say the least.That fact that from meta perspective things might look different is another matter.
I've spoken with at least one player already, and this is already being said.