|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ive got two groups that I run with. The first is a beer and pretzels group who just wants to play the game and not worry about moral stuff. For these guys combats are more or less a game to win and the GM shouldn't throw anything that doesn't deserve to die at you. The second group is more into politics and intrigue. They typically are considerate of life and the choices they make when killing something. They expect consequences and world shaping to result from their actions.
So to answer the question of "how much is too much?" really depends on playstyle. For the first group they have removed this quandary for convenience, so there is no limit. The second group operates more under a "good" morality. Killing is always an option, but its never the first option. Our GM often marvels at the lengths our PCs will go to avoid killing a foe. Its not so much a number as it is the intention. If a character kills when they don't have to out of convenience or malice they stop being good at that point. Characters tend to stay on the good side of things, but occasionally they jump from one side of the line and back throughout a campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Allies killed about 2 million Nazi soldiers in WWII. Was that "too many"?
Personally, I don't think anyone should be killed without an explicit and very persuasive reason to kill that particular person. If it's just "they're fighting me" or something, then lower force responses seem far more fitting if at all possible. (And in D&D/Pathfinder lesser force responses tend to be very, very easily available. Compulsion spells, combat manoeuvres, nonlethal damage...)
The reasons for this are many, and include "they might be fighting under a false idea of how hostile your side is", "they could easily have been coerced into the hostile position they're now in", "they might be under a charm or compulsion effect and would cease being hostile if that was removed", to "there is immense value in every single life, even those who are evil, and great good can come from them under the right circumstances".
There's also the meta-reason that recurring characters can be much deeper and more interesting than one-shots. They can have character arcs, multiple personality traits, and generally make for a more enriching playing experience.
It depends on the campaign.. It depends on why player characters kill, and whether or not there are alternatives.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the campaign as mentioned, the characters, the player style. Running Wrath of the Righteous right now and I don't think -other than the demons and battle casualties- the party has killed anyone except by mistake. Stabilize, tie up, put in prison or try to get them to switch sides.
Generally, I do think that there's way too much killing going on for no good reason but the main thing -in my opinion- is mostly bad play. Players don't really think of what their characters are doing as "real", which of course it isn't. So it's "the cleric of Asmodeus that attacked you" not "a girl, in her early twenties, wearing a five pointed star, seems eager / scared whatever". Bad guys rarely talk, bad guys rarely sacrifice themselves for the other bad guy, players think they killed the group cleric, not the warriors best friend since childhood.
Still I prefer more realistic play. Typical scenario... GM throws bandits on party in town, party kills bandits (in inn, on the street) never even considering the option of dragging them to the guard, onlookers act like its no big deal instead of screaming murder-bloody-murder and trying to lynch the PCs.
At one point does the taking of life affect the characters in a negative way?
Up to roleplay I suppose. I make a big deal out of it, unless the character is evil or someone with a background to justify it. I had a character agonize over the one and only unnamed npc human cultist he killed during the whole campaign "Maybe the man had no options. Did he have a family? Was he forced into this?" line of thinking.
Honorable mention: coup de grace, in town, after all the opponents are down to "finish this off" from good party. *cringes*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will point out that in some areas "give them to the town guard" is far, far worse than killing them. No effort made at rehabilitation, horrendous living conditions, sometimes actual torture is used... all in all, it's something that can readily drive people deeply into evil on top of being an utterly miserable experience.
@Alni, did your character investigate the cultist in question? Find his name, family, etc, consider the viability of reincarnating him?
I will point out that in some areas "give them to the town guard" is far, far worse than killing them. No effort made at rehabilitation, horrendous living conditions, sometimes actual torture is used... all in all, it's something that can readily drive people deeply into evil on top of being an utterly miserable experience.
Possibly, also there is the possibility that the town guard won't be able to keep them for long, like with an especially powerful opponent who could even endanger the guard or the city. Still it should be considered, I doubt most groups of adventurers would agree out of battle that killing someone is preferable to sending them to prison, and if they do it would be nice if it was a conscious choice, a stance they are taking.
@Alni, did your character investigate the cultist in question? Find his name, family, etc, consider the viability of reincarnating him?
No, it was a not possible under the circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly, also there is the possibility that the town guard won't be able to keep them for long, like with an especially powerful opponent who could even endanger the guard or the city. Still it should be considered, I doubt most groups of adventurers would agree out of battle that killing someone is preferable to sending them to prison, and if they do it would be nice if it was a conscious choice, a stance they are taking.
Oh, full agreement there. Killing somebody should always be something done with deliberation, I think, and considering whether other options are viable is important to anyone who respects life. (Which is one of the major tenants of being Good, of course)
No, it was a not possible under the circumstances.
Unfortunate, that; it would probably have been a brilliant roleplaying opportunity.
My characters definitely choose to be in the 'avoid killing' camp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly, also there is the possibility that the town guard won't be able to keep them for long, like with an especially powerful opponent who could even endanger the guard or the city. Still it should be considered, I doubt most groups of adventurers would agree out of battle that killing someone is preferable to sending them to prison, and if they do it would be nice if it was a conscious choice, a stance they are taking.I will point out that in some areas "give them to the town guard" is far, far worse than killing them. No effort made at rehabilitation, horrendous living conditions, sometimes actual torture is used... all in all, it's something that can readily drive people deeply into evil on top of being an utterly miserable experience.
Prison was not really a option for thieves, bandits and etc in a medieval society. It was used for debtors, politicians, etc.
They would either execute, maim or exile.
Torture and horrendous conditions were common.
GM throws bandits on party in town, party kills bandits (in inn, on the street) never even considering the option of dragging them to the guard, onlookers act like its no big deal instead of screaming murder-bloody-murder and trying to lynch the PCs.
I neutralized bandits once and helped to bring them to the guards. The GM later told us that the guards simply hanged them. So, as a player, I wondered: Why did I even bother with being just and nice?
So, more generally, it's not just the campaign and the type of players. It's also the GM's style which has some impact.
Whether it's ok to kill someone / something heavily depends on what you are seeing in them / it. A bandit could be noticed as a fellow humanoid (hence your mercy is likely), as a minor nuisance (mercy or brute force is random) or as something to be rooted out (brute force is likely).
Real life has this effect too, but that's another topic.
Prison was not really a option for thieves, bandits and etc in a medieval society. It was used for debtors, politicians, etc.
They would either execute, maim or exile.
Torture and horrendous conditions were common.
Is that written anywhere about Golarion? The world is quite different in a lot of respects so... Not trying to pick an argument, just curious. I assume that there are prisons only in the big cities anyway, not in villages. My cleric, who was sorting this kind of issues in his village, used branding and exile.
GM throws bandits on party in town, party kills bandits (in inn, on the street) never even considering the option of dragging them to the guard, onlookers act like its no big deal instead of screaming murder-bloody-murder and trying to lynch the PCs.I neutralized bandits once and helped to bring them to the guards. The GM later told us that the guards simply hanged them. So, as a player, I wondered: Why did I even bother with being just and nice?
So, more generally, it's not just the campaign and the type of players. It's also the GM's style which has some impact.
Whether it's ok to kill someone / something heavily depends on what you are seeing in them / it. A bandit could be noticed as a fellow humanoid (hence your mercy is likely), as a minor nuisance (mercy or brute force is random) or as something to be rooted out (brute force is likely).
Real life has this effect too, but that's another topic.
The one is murder, the other is -hopefully- justice. Now if your GM said "The guards hanged the 15 year old pickpocket" well ... meh
My general "technical" issue with not killing is having 10 prisoners in a dungeon, ten days away from civilization, with an important quest ahead of you. Though I've had instances where parties took the time and effort to go all the way back to the city or hauled prisoners around forever.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One from the storybooks,
Our group encountered some bandits in the wild. The PCs subdued two of them and were wondering what to do. We were well within our rights to hang them by local law. However, the PCs didn't feel good about that. The PCs made a deal that the bandits were free to go with one single caveat; Give up banditry now and if the PCs encountered them again as bandits, they would kill them.
We ran into bandit #1 a few weeks later and sadly killed him in a skirmish. Though Olar (bandit #2) we ran into a few years later. Olar had returned home to his village and started working for the local tanner. He eventually married the owner's daughter and took over the business. He thanked the PCs when he saw them for saving his life. Was a really rewarding game experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that written anywhere about Golarion?Prison was not really a option for thieves, bandits and etc in a medieval society. It was used for debtors, politicians, etc.
They would either execute, maim or exile.
Torture and horrendous conditions were common.
In Carrion Crown, there's a haunted former prison that used to incarcerate serial killers - suggesting even mass murderers don't necessarily get the death penalty.
In Carrion Crown, there's a haunted former prison that used to incarcerate serial killers - suggesting even mass murderers don't necessarily get the death penalty.Is that written anywhere about Golarion?Prison was not really a option for thieves, bandits and etc in a medieval society. It was used for debtors, politicians, etc.
They would either execute, maim or exile.
Torture and horrendous conditions were common.
Interesting. I've had my character send to Hells in Magnimar, but the GM made it like a series of chaotic planes so no idea what that is supposed to be like...
|
This is something my all-dwarf campaign is dealing with, though admittedly the party does a lot of killing. FR setting, dwarven crusade trying to retake an ancestral homeland that had fallen some five millenia before--by this point more cultural myth than a place they have actual ties to.
The campaign includes some kingdom-building elements, and the problem we have is: what to do with the evil creatures who's territory we've captured? Conquer a hobgoblin city, and even after killing their warriors in battle and driving them back (along with whatever civilians could flee) there are still some who got captured, so now what?
So, yeah, we're at a little bit of a loss now. Do we just give them 3-4 days' of food and say "Your people are that way, we think" and just hope they aren't enslaved by a rival tribe or eaten by Underdark predators? Do we build "reeducation camps" and try to make them Good or at least not Evil, with all the cringy real-world parallels that entails? Not to mention the racial issues--trying to incorporate hobgoblins into a dwarven empire? It's a sticky situation.
For me it's largely just an issue of slaughter fatigue. Between tabletop and video games I've not come across any lack of opportunities to perpetrate wholesale slaughter against orcs, soldiers, aliens, etc. So whenever it comes up, if there's anything else that could be done, my instinct is to try to avoid it if at all possible. Not because of any personal distaste with fictional violence, but it's gotten old and other alternatives have a novelty the direct approach lacks.
I feel like the GM serves this by giving more opportunities to just talk to the monsters. Some of them will be dishonest and are looking for an opportunity to betray you, but assuredly not all of them are. Maybe the PCs, after talking to the monsters, will come to the realization that whoever really needs to die, and that's fine.