Prisoners are a lot of work. Murder is much easier, and a lot more fun.
If the party is willing to take prisoners back to town, then that is probably the best option for maintaining Good alignment. Accidentally not creating any prisoners, like what the Wizard did, is always good, too.
From a game standpoint... escort missions suck. Babysitting is not why people play fantasy games. Nobody wants to split their rations with their prisoners. Nobody wants to double up fire guard to watch the prisoners. Nobody wants to protect the prisoners from harm. Prisoners just slow down the game and distract from the fun stuff.
Ah, yes. Nothing adds to a sense of excitement and high adventure like moral quandaries!
First thing, define as much as you can, as clearly as you can, as early as you can. It's your game; even if you've got an ethics professor at your table, you have the absolute final say on matters of morality within your story.
With that in mind, you'll want to figure out what kind of a story you're telling. Are Good and Evil quantifiable, physical forces that make up reality, or are they philosophical perspectives?
I think Tolkien's work is a great place to look for a world where the good vs. evil argument is simple and straightforward without being boring. The wild men are tricked into evil deeds, but are not evil at heart. They can be redeemed. The orcs, however, are beyond hope. They were born of wickedness; take that away, and there is nothing left.
George R. R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" is the opposite. There's a world where many people believe they are right or "good", even as they fight and kill opponents who feel the same way about themselves.
If you pan back too far, you end up with conversations like "is this drowning priestess *really* evil? I mean, she was raised by evil people; what choice did she have?" --which do not lend to fun, dynamic games. I mean, in a world like that, two paladins from opposing faiths should be able to smite each other. Maybe not even opposing faiths. They could belong to different factions of the same church, or just live in different countries.
I try to keep things simple and streamlined. If you're good, you help those who need it, you don't hurt those who aren't trying to hurt you, etc. If you're evil, you either enjoy other's suffering or are remarkably cold. Goodnight does not equal nice, though. Those are separate qualities.
For your situation with prisoners, I'd look to Tolkien again. Requiring your foe to swear an oath to never take arms against you again, etc., and then having them be moved by the PC's mercy/awed by their power so they actually follow through. Evil is underhanded and tricky, but if your players are eternally punished for trying to be the good guys, they may run out of reasons to stay good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eat them.
Extra provisions and you still get skeletons for the necromancer to use.
I'm totally chaotic neutral! Whee!
Eat them.
Extra provisions and you still get skeletons for the necromancer to use.
I'm totally chaotic neutral! Whee!
I love this. It made me laugh until I stopped. I especially enjoyed the assumption that every party has a Necromancer in need of skeletons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Send them...to the Sharkticon pits!
MUHAHAHA...
...HAHAHA...
...HAHAHAH...
...HAHAHAH...
...HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always try to make sure it doesn't become an event that the players regret.
'You quickly overwhelm the rest of the kobolds, who surrender their weapons and beg for their lives.'
"We tie them up." the players say.
'You tie them up' I as the DM say, and the event is over, and the PCs will not be punished for 'leaving' enemies behind that chew out of their ropes and quickly wish to pursue and give vengeance to the players as they adventure on through the dungeon.
Don't ever make taking prisoners as a thing that comes back to bite the group in the ass. Because they never will try it again. I always just make it a non-issue that the event has occurred, and that they still get full experience. A couple of hold persons, one last Non-lethal blow; tie up the enemies, and know that there aren't negative repercussions for doing so.
Make it something easy to accomplish, and maybe they'll even come back to the well to do it again.
I always try to make sure it doesn't become an event that the players regret.
'You quickly overwhelm the rest of the kobolds, who surrender their weapons and beg for their lives.'
"We tie them up." the players say.
'You tie them up' I as the DM say, and the event is over, and the PCs will not be punished for 'leaving' enemies behind that chew out of their ropes and quickly wish to pursue and give vengeance to the players as they adventure on through the dungeon.Don't ever make taking prisoners as a thing that comes back to bite the group in the ass. Because they never will try it again. I always just make it a non-issue that the event has occurred, and that they still get full experience. A couple of hold persons, one last Non-lethal blow; tie up the enemies, and know that there aren't negative repercussions for doing so.
Make it something easy to accomplish, and maybe they'll even come back to the well to do it again.
I think it depends on the party, but if you continually punish the players for mercy they will stop awarding it.
In one AP I'm running, the PCs have captured a number of cultists. They've considered executing them, but have stayed their hand. While it's possible their fellow cultists may attempt to free them, I don't plan to automatically undo their hard work instead of just a CdG and done.
I did have to explain to a player that torture and mutilation are unquestionably evil acts in this setting... so there's that too.
Preface: My group has done some questionable things to keep "important" characters alive but otherwise completely incapacitated (while not having access to the magics that make it easy).
We have:
Broken hands
Broken legs
Bound
Gagged
Blindfolded
Manacle (hands and legs)
Placed lamellar heavy armor on (for spell casters arcane spell failure chance)
Sovereign glued hands together
Sovereign glued a tower shield to their hand
Gouged out eyes
Continuously kept unconscious via repeated beatings with non-lethal damage
When we went to these sort of extremes it was undeniably evil.
If we had good characters in the party who were too squeamish for it we usually just stuck to the beating unconscious with non-lethal damage for spell casters) and bound/gagged/blindfolded for others.
If we had someone capable of casting spells like stone to flesh or something else that made a creature "compliant' without killing them we preferred to use that method instead.
Bear in mind we only did these sorts of things when it was absolutely essential to keep an NPC alive but also knew they would not just give up if left alive. We all admitted what was done was evil, but used the excuse of the greater good and felt little guilt since it was being done against a (greater) evil person.
And I guess to earlier posters points...as a group we've been burned by too many occasions where mercy toward an enemy has lead to more trouble. We have carried that with us between campaigns and it will probably never leave.
The nicest mercy we can give is a quick and clean death.
I feel like it depends on whether the NPC is even capable of escape.
A BBEG is far more likely to be competent and less easily cowed than their minions.
A religious fanatic is far less likely to bargain than a mercenary.
Often, I'll have baddies beg for their lives, giving up information and promising to never get in the PCs way again. If this is honored, they almost never go back on this.
Keep in mind, the party usually demonstrates their combat prowess quickly and violently. Any intelligent survivors are well aware what a second encounter will look like.
Prisoners are completely allowed to harbor a grudge. They can even try get revenge. All of that is fine.
Just don't have prisoners wiggle free of their bonds to coup de grace the party later, or whatever.
As for the Kobolds of Konnektion, the party is going to reduce their very last scale to ash if the Kobolds don’t cease and desist their hostilities towards the Ratfolk, immediately. Therefore, in a rare stroke of reason, the Kobold leader calls a ceasefire and arranges for a diplomatic solution to the ongoing territory dispute.
With how many dead bodies the average adventuring party creates or finds out in the wild, it'd almost be irresponsible not to have one around.I love this. It made me laugh until I stopped. I especially enjoyed the assumption that every party has a Necromancer in need of skeletons.Eat them.
Extra provisions and you still get skeletons for the necromancer to use.
I'm totally chaotic neutral! Whee!
I'm beginning to wonder if adventures are the primary cause of undead...
Eat them.
Extra provisions and you still get skeletons for the necromancer to use.
I'm totally chaotic neutral! Whee!
No, you are chaotic evil whether you know it or not.
We are playing "Way of the Wicked" and had a large group of prisoners, including one of the Barons of the realm, the highest rank outside the royal family.
My character used psychic reconstruction to max out her Profession, chef skill and knowledge of bugbear dietary preferences.
She then cooked the prisoners alive while the bugbear army watched and fed the prisoners to the bugbears.
2. They defeated (fireballed) several kobolds on level 1, after resurfacing from level 2 below.
3. Since they are lower level and don't have any sort of teleportation magic yet, they know of only one way down to level 2 right now, which goes right past an area controlled by koboldsSo, if they'd have taken prisoners, the kobolds would know where they come and go from level 2 AND would have a reason for vengeance. How, in that situation, do I NOT have the kobolds retaliate?
Let's say in my game, my party had taken some kobolds prisoner, intimidated them into giving away information, and then (naive fools!) simply released them.
I could have the kobolds retaliate, or I could have them be amazed and delighted to still be alive. (If the situation had been reversed, they'd certainly have eaten the party.)
When the party meets these specific kobolds again they could be (a) vengeful, (b) grateful and willing to negotiate, or (c) terrified of these dangerously whimsical outsiders who defeated them so easily last time they fought.
It depends on the type of story I want to tell, and the personalities of the kobolds in question.
If they don't want to fight, then we have an interesting role-playing situation. If they do? Well, that's more XP & loot for the PCs.
The risk of having them vengeful is that I might be teaching the players that they should execute all prisoners after they've finished torturing them for information, and that's probably not the game the Paladin wanted to play.
Maybe one kobold asks the PCs to kill the cruel kobold king who's been oppressing them, and once they've done that she takes over and becomes an ally?
Of course, even if I've planned a nice redemption arc, that doesn't mean the players will know what to do. To avoid endless arguments, I'd let them use tools like Detect Evil and Sense Motive to give them a feel for who can be trusted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I'd point out is that, while "punishing" player choices for being merciful can lead to some unfortunate consequences, being "The Good Guys" isn't supposed to be consequence-free. It's hard. That's the temptation of evil. It's easier. And that's why paladins are supposed to get so many awesome things; they're gonna need them.
One thing I'd point out is that, while "punishing" player choices for being merciful can lead to some unfortunate consequences, being "The Good Guys" isn't supposed to be consequence-free.
The problem is, sometimes only some of the party are trying to be the good guys. If the paladin tries to do the right thing by keeping his word and freeing co-operative prisoners, and this nearly gets the party killed, that could lead to severe conflict between the players. For example, the Paladin getting kicked out of the group for being a liability (since he's unlikely to stop trying to do the right thing), or the Paladin walking out on the group when they start executing prisoners in front of him.
If the entire party is trying to do what's right, then tough moral dilemmas aren't a fatal problem; the players will work through them together. But if half the party is only in it for the loot, then the easiest way to keep the adventure on track is for the GM to make sure that the heroic thing is also the most profitable thing. That's why common adventures tend to be 'rescue the kidnapped child and receive a fabulous reward' or 'slay the dragon that's been attacking the villagers and then help yourself to its hoard'.
Have prisoners sign a contract of good behavior....if they break it their right to quarter is revoked should they cross that paladins path again.
god of contracts and obligations after all.
Maybe at high level you find some way to give him access to a lesser geas type effect that works based on signed agreements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you are chaotic evil whether you know it or not.Eat them.
Extra provisions and you still get skeletons for the necromancer to use.
I'm totally chaotic neutral! Whee!
Nope. It says CN on my sheet. You're trying to railroad my character! You're a bad GM and shouldn't be allowed to play Pathfinder ever again! I'm just doing what my character would do so you can't tell me how to roleplay... (devolves into frothing whiney gibberish)
:P
So... there is a good possibility that the party takes and interrogates prisoners. What do you do with said prisoners? What are the LG, general "good" or moral implications if you take prisoners?
Hm. My current campaign, featuring a party of good and neutral characters operating in a largely LG-dominated region in which the party is also the authorities, has featured the following ultimate fates after NPC surrender/capture and any interrogation that may have been needed:
-roleplay and diplomacy leading to joining forces against other enemies
-offered a second chance at life, in a new line of work with better pay and benefits than banditry
-held prisoner until the overall conflict was over, then set free
-accepted the enemy's offer of a wish in return for being spared (this was an efreet)
-stripped of gear, told to GTFO of the adventure site and don't let themselves meet us again (for monsters/dungeon denizens)
-exiled and expropriated (for "civilized" enemies, rotten nobles and the like)
-kept in custody and relegated to a term of hard labor on public works
-death sentence, clean death on the spot
-kept on as a minion and trained up as an assassin against the rest of the party (this one came from the more chaotic side of the party)
-grisly torture-execution in a dark and bloody druidic rite to earn the favor of the fey Winter Court (this one also came from the more chaotic side of the party and, naturally, sparked some drama. Included for completeness, but not likely to be the solution of a LG character who wants to stay that way)
So we picked from the above based on moral (how much of a bastard has this NPC been?) and pragmatic (do we think this option has a decent change of working out and not backfiring?) considerations.
We're in a large scale war right now and depending on the state of things when the fighting is done, ransoming prisoners might or might not end up being added to the above. Ransom has that medieval feel, and while it is likely Neutral at best and open to abuse (such as starting conflicts specifically to gain prisoners to ransom, also known as kidnapping), without abuse it probably isn't going to imperil LGness.
So, general considerations about moral implications of prisoners?
Make case-specific decisions using the character's best judgment. Good alignment in general isn't, I think, amenable to one-size-fits-all approaches to most things, and that includes prisoners. Exercise of judgment is necessary. Even LGs, which has lawfulness and the social order to look to as guideposts, need to be using their judgment at the end of the day if they aren't going to turn into some LN modron lawbot. If they aren't interested in doing that personally, they can go the "take prisoners back to town" route and outsource the exercise of moral judgment to a LG-compatible authority.
The problem is, sometimes only some of the party are trying to be the good guys.
And that's another reason why a session 0 is so important.
I've heard a few players complain about how "they just don't really see why their character would be hanging around with these people/doing this stuff", after I gave them an extremely clear understanding of the setting, the tone, the theme and the general direction of the game. And every time, I want to beat them over the head with a rulebook.Making sure a character fits within the world and is motivated and invested in the story takes two people.
Paladins traveling with jaded mercenaries or well-meaning sorcerers wrestling with their demonic heritage can make for great stories. But everyone needs to be on board for it.
A lot of this falls on the DM. If you make every prisoner try to wriggle free and murder the PCs in their sleep / steal their horse and ride off / is otherwise be a massive logistical pain in the neck - then congrats, you were the one that turned the players into murderhobbos. Even if it was in your last campaign, not this one.
Its the same as how DMs who have the PCs' families and NPC friends kidnapped or murdered start wondering why every new PC's backstory covers how they are an orphaned loner with ties to no one.
So the onus is on those of us running the games to have taking prisoners not prove more trouble than its worth.
Things to consider
- other NPCs of the same group more likely to surrender
- foes being more willing to negotiate with the party
- ransoms being paid
- ability to exchange captured NPCs for something else you want "release the kidnapped villagers and you can have your shaman back!"
- released prisoners being afraid enough of the party they don't want to fight again
- use of prisoners as hostages in exchange for safe passage through a group's territory
- prisoners who'll give their word and keep it - look up the Napoleonic history around captured soldiers giving their parole - e.g. give us your word you'll not fight against our country again
- willingness of the opposition to show mercy to the party (more on this later)
willingness of the opposition to show mercy to the party (more on this later)
I think this is a big part of the problem in Pathfinder and similar games.
Normally the biggest incentive to show mercy is that word gets around and you might expect mercy in return.
Trouble is, the game is so gear dependent that surrendering and probably losing all your magic items will utterly cripple many characters. If you get to roll up a new one with wealth by level when your character dies, surrendering and losing your equipment might actually be a fate worse than death!