|
If I'm fighting someone, and they drop to their knees, drop their weapons, and say "I surrender," what options do I have without being evil about it to reject their surrender? Note that this is not really an alignment question, just looking for suggestions and input for playing a reasonably honorable character who doesn't want to take prisoners.
Is it reasonable to insist they pick up their weapon and fight? Should I just tell them to flee, if I don't want a prisoner? Assuming they're violent criminals (attacked with intent to kill in a crowded marketplace), would it be unreasonable to just execute them?
I'm curious what people think about this issue. I expect (and hope) many players have very different opinions on this topic and I'm interested to hear them all.
|
It's pretty hard to reject a sincere surrender while not being evil, I'd say. Someone no longer wishes to fight you, so if you go on fighting them, you're the one engaging in violence, not them.
That said, you might not trust the person who just surrendered. Maybe he'll try to stab you in the back if you're distracted by a wandering monster. You don't have to accept the "word of honor" of someone known to be dishonorable.
If you're some sort of semi-law-enforcement kind of person (including border guards, bounty hunting e.a.), you might want to invest in some sets of manacles to lock up prisoners.
Also, just because someone's surrendered doesn't mean they don't deserve punishment, but the non-evil way tends to involve a trial first.
What do you mean, not accept it? To be honorable, yet to not accept the surrender of an enemy is a hypocrisy. If you want to play an "honorable" character you would always accept the surrender of someone. You might not take them as a prisoner. Heck if there are no authorities around you might just hand them over to the local people to adjudicate justice as they see fit. If you inflict any harm on an enemy that has disarmed themselves and willingly submits to you, you have just waved bye-bye to honorable, and you can watch it trail down the road behind you in your violent rear-view mirror.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
A lot of it depends on the character's specific code of honor and the legal system where this takes place.
Generally it's bad to summarily execute a surrendering person. But, sometimes people surrender with an intention of backing out on it later. As you note sometimes it's very inconvenient to take a prisoner - it's one thing to march them a couple blocks to a jail in town, another when you're two week from civilization in the middle of the wilderness.
Obviously you can't force someone to fight you. Letting them run away is probably the best "good" option if you can't take a prisoner...but that also depends on circumstances. A hired thug is a lot different than an unrepentant serial killer, for example. Taking away their weapons is something that makes good sense in town, but could be a prolonged death sentence in the Forest of Eternal Nightmares. Leaving them tied up is a viable option along a busy road, again not so much in the middle of nowhere.
Your marketplace example is one where I'd turn them in to the local guard and let the legal system deal with it. Geas/quest is also an option once you get to higher levels to enforce terms of surrender.
It's entirely possible to just ignore the surrender and kill them, but that's not really the actions of "nice" people, or ones that respect the law - unless your PC has actual legal authority. Also you risk gaining a reputation for "doesn't take prisoners."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An honorable person would always accept a surrender. But that's the law/chaos axis,not the good/evil one.
A good person would always act to preserve life and minimize injury. I don't see how forcing someone to fight would do that.
So if you're lawful evil, you might accept their surrender, then kill them once they're in chains. If you're chaotic good, you might despoil them of their valuables and tell them to take a hike. If you're chaotic evil, just kill them outright.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let us not forget Torag:
Against my people's enemy I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them and scatter theirs families. Yet, even in the struggles against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
So, in some circumstances your god can demand that you do not accept surrender. Nay, in fact you are commanded to show no mercy and to "scatter" their families.
Depending on the reputation and power of the offender it is completely reasonable to say "NO QUARTER GIVEN" and to tell him to pick up his weapon or choose death. Of course, this should be reserved for those with reputations of great violence or of escaping after surrender, etc. It is unlikely to be justified if some drunken street vagrant picks a fight with you for bumping into him. When he asks for mercy you can probably just let him go after his beating, or at most walk him down to the local constables office.
The problem is a question like this depends very heavily on circumstances. Who is the person surrendering? Where are you? Is he likely to try to escape? Does he still pose a significant threat even if he can be taken to a legitimate authority? Am I a legitimate authority to summarily execute him? (Almost always going to be no unless you are far from civilaiton or ruler of your own naiton).
Let us not forget Torag:
Against my people's enemy I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them and scatter theirs families. Yet, even in the struggles against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.So, in some circumstances your god can demand that you do not accept surrender. Nay, in fact you are commanded to show no mercy and to "scatter" their families.
Depending on the reputation and power of the offender it is completely reasonable to say "NO QUARTER GIVEN" and to tell him to pick up his weapon or choose death. Of course, this should be reserved for those with reputations of great violence or of escaping after surrender, etc. It is unlikely to be justified if some drunken street vagrant picks a fight with you for bumping into him. When he asks for mercy you can probably just let him go after his beating, or at most walk him down to the local constables office.
The problem is a question like this depends very heavily on circumstances. Who is the person surrendering? Where are you? Is he likely to try to escape? Does he still pose a significant threat even if he can be taken to a legitimate authority? Am I a legitimate authority to summarily execute him? (Almost always going to be no unless you are far from civilaiton or ruler of your own naiton).
Was going to recommend Torag myself. Good on ya Claxon.
Maiming works pretty well in a Torag-esque hard core punishment. Breaking the thug's arm so he can't be a tough anymore, cutting off the thief's hand, executing traitorous scum on the spot by divine right of Torag, all fun stuff you get to do.
Torag is a damn fun deity to play worshiping. You get to freak your party out at times since he's a brutal deity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Acceptance of surrender is not (strictly) an alignment issue, it's a code issue. It's not hard to come up with nontrivial cases to accept or reject surrender for every alignment.
For what reason do you wish to reject surrender? The answer to that might shed more light on your situation.
As stated, a lot depends on the circumstances. I've actually played with a player whose character wouldn't accept surrenders or take prisoners due to a diety they followed. Freedom diety, death was the more merciful option than imprisonment.
|
|
Uhh.......without being evil about it...
...this is not really an alignment question...
I've definitely been on these forums too much. When posting this, I thought to myself "I betcha somebody, probably Jiggy, will see the word 'evil' and make a post about how it's contradictory to mention that it's not an alignment question and also mention not being evil." I literally thought specifically of you. :P
What I meant was, this is not a question of "what am I allowed to do as <alignment x>" because those are pointless. The point of the thread was discussion about various options a character has when a prisoner has surrendered.
Let us not forget Torag:
Against my people's enemy I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them and scatter theirs families. Yet, even in the struggles against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.So, in some circumstances your god can demand that you do not accept surrender. Nay, in fact you are commanded to show no mercy and to "scatter" their families.
Yeah, Torag was actually what prompted this thread. I really like playing "good" characters who are completely extreme in their methods. Heck, the primary antagonist of one of my home games is a Lawful Good deity, whom the entire (non-evil) party has very good reason to defeat.
Acceptance of surrender is not (strictly) an alignment issue, it's a code issue. It's not hard to come up with nontrivial cases to accept or reject surrender for every alignment.
For what reason do you wish to reject surrender? The answer to that might shed more light on your situation.
Could be many reasons. This isn't for a specific character or a specific situation. I'm just thinking about how various characters might react in such a situation and wondering what others think about it.
One of my best times playing was as a paladin. He was honorable to a fault, like any paladin: never backed down from a challenge but always tried for peace first, never lied, condoned torture or other unseemly acts, and was merciful ... up to a point.
He also considered himself a lawful authority. If he found someone truly irredeemable he would happily pass sentence and skewer their CE butt.
Moral of the story: if you want to be a killer LG make sure you have legal authority and don't abuse it
I think it depends on the setting and what honor means. If you are in a wild west sort of setting where frontier justice is the norm, then killing someone for their crimes without trial isnt explicately evil or dishonorable. If you are in a civilized setting with a code of justice, and authorities (or you are a law enforcement authority yourself) then you have to accept the surrender to remain honorable (and probably good).
It is sort of a difficult situation, and a bit of a hassle. I dont particularly like putting my players in the situation unless its plot relavent, so for instance I dont track 'unconcious and dieing' enemies, I just assume they die. Its easier that way even if its a bit of a cop out.
If your code is contradictory, you have to work out with your GM, what your order specifically puts more value on. Whatever that is, is then permissable. That would be the way I handled it at any rate.
Let's say you are a paladin, and you are supposed to act with honour. You have to follow the articles of war, accepting quarter, not using poisons and yadda yadda. But your paladin code also says you are not permitted to let <creature> live. That has to mean that paladins of that order get carte blanche to kill said creature. If it does not, then the existence of that order of paladins does not make sense.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point of the thread was discussion about various options a character has when a prisoner has surrendered.
(1) Hold a quick trial, sentence them to death.
(2) Demand they give you a reason why the world is a better place with them in it. If they don't come up with anything satisfying cut their head off.(3) "Pick up the sword. Pick up the sword. You can die on your feet, or die on your knees. Pick up the sword."
(4) "You have fought bravely, worthy foe. You deserve a fair trial for your crimes. Unfortunately, I'm in a dreadful hurry here..."
(5) Make them dig their own grave. As they do, ask them if they have any last requests, any relatives who need informing, etc.
(6) Weep as you string them up. "I'm sorry, I'm so sorry. I wish I had a choice in this matter."
(7) "If you are not prepared for death, recant your false god and accept the way of Torag!" If he recants, kill him anyway. "Now he will go to heaven. I have saved his soul."
... Heck if there are no authorities around you might just hand them over to the local people to adjudicate justice as they see fit. ..
Hmm... I am trying to remember if there are any cultures that have considered handing people over to the mob to do with as they will was considered honorable.
..
.
I'm not an expert, but I can't think of any. There were times and places where it often happened, however I don't think it was considered honorable.
The line says "against my people's enemy".
One interpretation is that Tprag's code is meant to be applied in times of war, i.e. you don't accept the surrender of those who attack your tribe, country, etc. Which can give you some latitude to those you fight in other circumstances.
If you don't accept surrender under ANY circumstances, it's going to be rather hard to maintain a "good" alignment. And unless you leave no witnesses to your deeds, you will be come known as a killer who doesn't accept surrender. But then again, you can be pretty evil and still be "honorable". "Honor" is a rather flexible concept. Many warrior societies like the Japanese or the Klingons find it easy to determine that their enemies aren't deserving of being treated honorably, and just go full scale brutal on them.
Yarr...thats why I said in some circumstances. Not all. There is no blanket coverage here.
I would take "against my people's enemy" as any of the traditional enemies of the dwarves or maybe those that generally threaten more established societies. Or any group that has become an enemy by declaration of war. Since this is a paladin code, I would probably say any practioner of evil could be considered the people's enemy.
In any event, it was more an example of there are at least some specific situations where honor would demand that he does not accept surrender.
The paladin forbidden to accept quarter should clearly declare that no quarter will be given to the enemies of his people. If an enemy surrenders despite this warning, he should be given the chance to explain his decision. If he is not truly an enemy, he may be able to explain his situation. (This could reasonably fall within the description of "extracting information").
If this foe who has surrendered is not able to satisfactorily explain his actions, he would then be turned over to local authorities for punishment (A settlement of Torag worshippers would likely feature swift, harsh justice). In the absence of suitable authorities, the paladin would then execute justice. A dangerous enemy of his people would be executed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Surrender doesn't necessarily mean a person gets to live. Sometimes it just means a quick merciful death.
Agreed. "my people's enemy" doesn't include anyone who happens to end up in combat with a single character.
Let us not forget Torag:
Against my people's enemy I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them and scatter theirs families. Yet, even in the struggles against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.So, in some circumstances your god can demand that you do not accept surrender. Nay, in fact you are commanded to show no mercy and to "scatter" their families.
The line says "against my people's enemy".
One interpretation is that Tprag's code is meant to be applied in times of war, i.e. you don't accept the surrender of those who attack your tribe, country, etc. Which can give you some latitude to those you fight in other circumstances.
If you don't accept surrender under ANY circumstances, it's going to be rather hard to maintain a "good" alignment. And unless you leave no witnesses to your deeds, you will be come known as a killer who doesn't accept surrender. But then again, you can be pretty evil and still be "honorable". "Honor" is a rather flexible concept. Many warrior societies like the Japanese or the Klingons find it easy to determine that their enemies aren't deserving of being treated honorably, and just go full scale brutal on them.
Now I can't stop thinking of dwarves as 80's black stereotypes.
"Why won't you let me surrender, I didn't attack any of your people."
Dwarf Paladin "My people, is that a race comment."
But in actual response. "My people" is a very loose term. That could mean dwarves in general, that could mean country. I could mean adventuring party.
A lot of what is being stated honorable and not evil, is very much a modern day and US or Western European definition of honorable and not evil. Other cultures and other times were extremely different.
Ever hear of the Crusades? All the elders, authorities, and religious figures were promoting that as what all right thinking Christians should do.
What about the Mongols?
A better approach would be to discuss this with the GM before it comes up in game play. Say "Ok, my character is a Chaotic Good tribal warrior from the Mwangi expanse. He believes in duty to the tribe unto death. He has no respect for those that give in and don't make the ultimate sacrifice if necessary. In X situation is not accepting surrender and killing my opponent still considered acceptable? What about in Y situation?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do we have any military personnel Pathfinder players that can comment on what happens during the 'heat of the moment' in combat when the enemy throws up their arm and says "I surrender"?
This is your last chance,freeleave us, or die.
.
Also, for Torag, it seems very intent on people's enemies, not your own enemies. Your enemies could be among your people after all, or at least be no threat to them. This is the embodiment of Protection, not Vengeance or Justice.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do we have any military personnel Pathfinder players that can comment on what happens during the 'heat of the moment' in combat when the enemy throws up their arm and says "I surrender"?
By the law of warfare, that person's no longer a combatant. You can take them prisoner, but you can't shoot them.
If you kill them "in the heat of the moment," it's murder. That doesn't mean it never happens. You can read about instances of it in the memoirs of some WWII, Korea, and Vietnam veterans, although I can't recall any particular instance I've read about.
For a contemporary look at what can go wrong when you don't shoot the prisoner, read this or this.
That's real-world.
In game, a good character could have any number of reasons for not accepting surrender.
For instance, if you're a good-aligned Andoran navy captain and you've boarded a known pirate ship, you aren't likely to take any prisoners since you'd just make them walk the plank anyways; you'd just kill them all in the boarding action. You're legally (and, IMO, morally) justified in doing so.
Or say you're in Belkzen and the orc raiding party you've been tracking surrenders. Are you going to march them back 100's of miles to some lawful territory so they can get a kangaroo trial, risking the chance that they'll escape or be rescued by other orcs? Are you going to let them go so they can plunder and murder the next village? Probably neither.
Another but harsher way (if by example you are attacking some evil creatures is to begin the fight by saying 'No quarter will be given'THIS! This is the answer I didn't know I was looking for. Perfect - this is an honorable (albeit brutal) way of not allowing surrender in combat.
I think this is the best answer you're looking for as well. The problem is that with this issue, it's very subjective like others have said.
Some will tell you that you absolutely cannot execute a surrendering foe (no matter the circumstances) after they surrender and still be considered "good" or "honorable" (lawful). I personally feel this is a more modern (post Renaissance) view and a noncombatant understanding on how warfare or combat works.
That being said, the best bet, in my opinion, is to understand the character first. You can still be lawful good and execute a surrendering person without it being considered an "evil" act (IMHO). Granted... the circumstances would have to dictate that act, I'm not saying a LG character should be running around slaughtering everyone, but it can, and does happen. Just like an evil character could just as easily say "Hey, I'm not going to kill you." Uh oh! An evil character cannot do that, that's a good act!!! Oh wait... Yes they can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem is trying to claim that it is subjective when in Pathfinder it is not.
There is good and there is evil, and they are objective. Same with law and chaos.
These aren't negotiable. One can't do as the Crusaders did and kill non-christian women and children in their homes and still have the actions be Good. The universe has the last say on what is good/evil and the opinion of a single character has no power to change it.
Playing word games with Honor is much the same. If you have to do verbal or mental gymnastics to make something seem honorable - then it isn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True. But it doesn't make one honorable.
Any more than yelling "it's coming right for us!" means that killing the squirrel was actually self defense.
And then there's the case of an enemy who can't hear/understand what you're saying.
Speaking some words aloud doesn't absolve one from the standards of conduct.
|
True. But it doesn't make one honorable.
Any more than yelling "it's coming right for us!" means that killing the squirrel was actually self defense.
And then there's the case of an enemy who can't hear/understand what you're saying.
Speaking some words aloud doesn't absolve one from the standards of conduct.
true but, honor and good are NOT co-existent, you can be good without being honorable, just like you can be honorable without being good.
that aside. if your party is attacked, you yell "no quarter", and one surrenders, you have the right honorably to kill them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True. But it doesn't make one honorable.
Any more than yelling "it's coming right for us!" means that killing the squirrel was actually self defense.
And then there's the case of an enemy who can't hear/understand what you're saying.
Speaking some words aloud doesn't absolve one from the standards of conduct.
true but, honor and good are NOT co-existent, you can be good without being honorable, just like you can be honorable without being good.
that aside. if your party is attacked, you yell "no quarter", and one surrenders, you have the right honorably to kill them.
You always have the right to "honorably kill them". But killing someone who has surrendered is not honorably killing them.
And what if your party is attacked because they are trespassing on someone else's territory? And the attackers don't speak your language and can't understand you?
Simply yelling out a catch-phrase doesn't absolve one of the obligations of honor.
Honor is not supposed to be easy.
In a vast majority of the games I have played, the combats have not been a war.