What if your PCs don't finish defeated foes?

[Mark Hoover 330]

It's funny you all mention the "when a foe hits 0 HP they're dead" thing followed by the "what if you want to keep an NPC alive" thing. A tactic employed by these players twice now in this game has been: 1. attack with all lethal damage, 2. go among the defeated and find one that is in negative HP but not ACTUALLY dead yet, 3. tie them up, 4. cast Stabilize and then expend some charges from the Wand of CLW so that the foe awakens, 5. question the foe, 6. slay captured foe, specifically noting a coup de grace.

Please note: the first time they ever tried this they were level 2 attempting it on a group of gnolls and the players DID ask me if they could do it first, so we set a precedent that using the Heal skill to check vitals could ID eligible foes and such. The point is though that these players asked to metagame around the concept of death NOT occurring right at 0 HP, implicitly for the purpose of keeping an NPC alive long enough to question them.

I would agree with Warpy McSav upthread and others though. I've communicated MY expectations to my players, that monsters will be replacing their fallen and if we're following the precedent that 0 HP doesn't equal death that some of these replacements may simply be those left laying about.

I guess I started this thread just wondering if anyone else does any of this or if it's just me. It might just be me then.

[Insapateh]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

It's funny you all mention the "when a foe hits 0 HP they're dead" thing followed by the "what if you want to keep an NPC alive" thing. A tactic employed by these players twice now in this game has been: 1. attack with all lethal damage, 2. go among the defeated and find one that is in negative HP but not ACTUALLY dead yet, 3. tie them up, 4. cast Stabilize and then expend some charges from the Wand of CLW so that the foe awakens, 5. question the foe, 6. slay captured foe, specifically noting a coup de grace.

You have my sympathies. My players just couldn't do it. They left the sap tied up, knowing (because I told them) that he would be discovered within 8-10 hours and then booked it to do what they came to do, in the hopes that they could beat that clock. I even specifically reminded them of the CdG rules at the time, because they did discuss it and they're not always super hot on the rules.

Quote:

I would agree with Warpy McSav upthread and others though. I've communicated MY expectations to my players, that monsters will be replacing their fallen and if we're following the precedent that 0 HP doesn't equal death that some of these replacements may simply be those left laying about.

I guess I started this thread just wondering if anyone else does any of this or if it's just me. It might just be me then.

In the situation that you specifically called out, I might have them convalesce enough to be added to combat again, just like happens in the real world. But the conversation kind of got beyond that very quickly to the whole 'recurring NPC who won't die thing' which is related but separate.

I think you've made the right call and I reckon my players would be okay with it. They definitely wouldn't think they were being 'gotcha'd'.

ETA: I don't think it's just you. And I think for nameless troops it's an amazing idea, and one I will be stealing. But when it comes to named NPCs, I'll be sticking with my Checklist-of-Unlikely-But-Possible-Return (TM, patent pending).

[SheepishEidolon]

One of my issues with regular throat slicing is: It's not good aligned at all, even if the target is evil to the core. As a good person, you stop threats to others and yourself - but once the monster is unconscious, it's helpless and no longer a threat. It might recover and proceed with evil deeds, but that's a) just a possibility at the moment and b) something you can address with other means (prison, take them with you, let them swear to relocate far away etc.).

So if a PC's class features depend on being Good (paladin is the most obvious case), the player IMO risks them with both throat slicing and allowing throat slicing to happen. Even if a PC is "just" good aligned, with no class features attached, IMO every throat is a little step towards neutrality.

[Kasoh]

SheepishEidolon wrote:

One of my issues with regular throat slicing is: It's not good aligned at all, even if the target is evil to the core. As a good person, you stop threats to others and yourself - but once the monster is unconscious, it's helpless and no longer a threat. It might recover and proceed with evil deeds, but that's a) just a possibility at the moment and b) something you can address with other means (prison, take them with you, let them swear to relocate far away etc.).

So if a PC's class features depend on being Good (paladin is the most obvious case), the player IMO risks them with both throat slicing and allowing throat slicing to happen. Even if a PC is "just" good aligned, with no class features attached, IMO every throat is a little step towards neutrality.

Like all things relating to alignment and morality, that's a GM call. The GM is the arbiter of the setting's objective morality. Leaving an unconscious foe to stabilize and possibly get back up on their own is decidedly neutral, but making sure it is dead isn't really any more evil than the initial decision to kill the creature to begin with.

[Insapateh]

SheepishEidolon wrote:

One of my issues with regular throat slicing is: It's not good aligned at all, even if the target is evil to the core. As a good person, you stop threats to others and yourself - but once the monster is unconscious, it's helpless and no longer a threat. It might recover and proceed with evil deeds, but that's a) just a possibility at the moment and b) something you can address with other means (prison, take them with you, let them swear to relocate far away etc.).

So if a PC's class features depend on being Good (paladin is the most obvious case), the player IMO risks them with both throat slicing and allowing throat slicing to happen. Even if a PC is "just" good aligned, with no class features attached, IMO every throat is a little step towards neutrality.

I was talking about exactly this with a friend who plays 5e and not my campaign earlier.

We decided that Batman (holy alignment thread!!) is a great example of this.

Batman has decided that he won't kill regardless of villain (yes, we know, for the most part, what about that time he...?). That has caused a lot of problems for Gotham in the long term. But a Batman that kills everyone is a very different beast and creates just as many problems for Gotham.

Generally, unless you're playing a specific type of campaign, you're probably going to be facing a lot of people who don't necessarily deserve to die just for opposing the party, even if it's convenient. And killing for convenience is, as you say, not on the 'G' end of the alignment spectrum.

But there will always be some villains that just need to be put down.

My players enjoy that distinction. some don't.

[Insapateh]

Kasoh wrote:

...isn't really any more evil than the initial decision to kill the creature to begin with.

Why was the original decision to kill the creature (or person) and not merely to end the fight as quickly as possible, accepting that this might result in killing the creature (or person)?

They are very distinctly different decisions with very distinctly different alignment implications.

Edit:

It's personal story-time folks!!!

I live in a city and country that has (had, I dunno) a fairly sizeable heroin problem, especially in its cities. I've been mugged more than once at the point of a blood-filled syringe.

Heroin addicts are... not know for their high DEX, high init. bonus, possession of the Combat Reflexes feat, or anything else that would make this a good idea for them to do.

I defended myself more than once, despite not being the most amazing of warriors in the universe (see above penalties for chronic heroin use).

I would be a very different person if I decided to 'finish them off' when they were down.

IME, plenty of player fights amount to little more that this and a CdG goes far beyond necessary into alignment-shifting behaviour.

[Kasoh]

Insapateh wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

...isn't really any more evil than the initial decision to kill the creature to begin with.

Why was the original decision to kill the creature (or person) and not merely to end the fight as quickly as possible, accepting that this might result in killing the creature (or person)?

They are very distinctly different decisions with very distinctly different alignment implications.

Again, ask your GM how they deal with settings with objective morality.

If a PC gets into an encounter and retaliates with lethal weapons, then the PC has to accept that killing their opponent is a natural consequence of the encounter. A PC has options if they wish to resolve the encounter non lethally. Namely a -4 to attack rolls or using weapons that do not deal lethal damage.

So, the moment a PC decides to attack with lethal force, they've made the decision to kill. Either that action was evil or it was not. Some might say that any action taken in self defense is not evil. Others might say that all killing is evil. I don't care one way or another how any one table makes that decision.

I try to rule alignment questions based only on the results of actions of the players, not their intentions. But I also wouldn't raise an alignment question of finishing off downed opponents--that doesn't play into the kind of stories I want to tell. (And to be honest, my players are more likely to stabilize still living foes after a fight and to save myself headaches, I have them all be dead anyway.)

I'm not ignoring your example, but I will not relate in game mechanics of morality to the real world. One is a game, the other is not.

[Insapateh]

Kasoh wrote:

Again, ask your GM how they deal with settings with objective morality.

I am my GM (pretty sure I've said that a few times now) and, as I think my other posts show, including the one you responded to regarding an already downed enemy, I disagree with the rest of your post almost entirely.

There are many other options besides slitting throats and a non-Evil party should at least explore them.

[Claxon]

SheepishEidolon wrote:

One of my issues with regular throat slicing is: It's not good aligned at all, even if the target is evil to the core. As a good person, you stop threats to others and yourself - but once the monster is unconscious, it's helpless and no longer a threat. It might recover and proceed with evil deeds, but that's a) just a possibility at the moment and b) something you can address with other means (prison, take them with you, let them swear to relocate far away etc.).

So if a PC's class features depend on being Good (paladin is the most obvious case), the player IMO risks them with both throat slicing and allowing throat slicing to happen. Even if a PC is "just" good aligned, with no class features attached, IMO every throat is a little step towards neutrality.

I would argue that it's modern morality (at least in part) that creates this viewpoint, and that killing the enemy isn't evil. It's a neutral act, one that if that's all the paladin ever did would make you question why they were a paladin in the first place. But presumably they do good stuff, and I personally treat the action as merely a non-aligned action.

And you could argue that allowing a monster that has done evil acts to live without it being chained up or otherwise overseen as an reckless, chaotic act as you're allowing a threat to others to continue.

Honestly you can argue it all kinds of ways.

[Insapateh]

Claxon wrote:

I would argue that it's modern morality (at least in part) that creates this viewpoint

I would argue that it's a modern and irrelevant morality that creates the opposite viewpoint.

There is nothing in PF rules that allows for a lingering death over several days (or even weeks) as a result of a combat injury (DC10+Neg HP check to stabilise from dying, dead in a matter of seconds to minutes otherwise). So there is no moral imperative to end that non-existent suffering.

That significantly changes the act of throat-slitting to one of personal convenience unless the wider considerations, mentioned above, are considered.

Quote:

Honestly you can argue it all kinds of ways.

You sure can.

FTR, I don't see this as a moral issue IRL and am not judging anyone on that basis. I know this stuff can get touchy, but once we all realise that none of us are espousing the ONE TRUE WAY, I think we're alright.

[UD Sentient Squirrel Swarm]

All of your arguments are folly before the Might of the Swarm. You will all die as soon as you reach negative hit points regardless of whether you stabilize, and be raised into the Perfection of Undeath.

[Kasoh]

If you're the GM, more power to you.

Insapateh wrote:

There is nothing in PF rules that allows for a lingering death over several days (or even weeks) as a result of a combat injury (DC10+Neg HP check to stabilise from dying, dead in a matter of seconds to minutes otherwise). So there is no moral imperative to end that non-existent suffering.

Because pendantry is the Pathfinder National pastime:

PF1 SRD wrote:

Recovering without Help: A severely wounded character left alone usually dies. He has a small chance of recovering on his own. Treat such characters as those attempting to recover with help, but every failed Constitution check to regain consciousness results in the loss of 1 hit point. An unaided character does not recover hit points naturally. Once conscious, the character can make a DC 10 Constitution check once per day, after resting for 8 hours, to begin recovering hit points naturally. The character takes a penalty on this roll equal to his negative hit point total. Failing this check causes the character to lose 1 hit point, but this does not cause the character to become unconscious. Once a character makes this check, he continues to heal naturally and is no longer in danger of losing hit points naturally.

So, yes. A character left alone can take several days to die if they're unlucky.

[Mark Hoover 330]

I'm not trying to debate the morality of the coup de grace here folks. I've curved the rep of my PCs a certain way in my game b/c they have straight up murdered helpless prisoners in their care and resort to force with nearly every encounter they have. They almost never run away; they are, in fact, playing bloodthirsty killers (as evidenced by going out of their way to kill four kobolds who posed no threat and could very simply have been avoided with minimal resource expenditure).

I'm in turn tracking those reputations for specific, mechanical reasons in game. My players use Diplomacy a lot between dungeon delves, asking NPCs for information, help, items or goods that might give them tactical advantage, or negotiating better sale prices on occasional unique pieces of loot. I've also promised since the beginning of the game that these characters would get Leadership as a free bonus feat at level 7.

The starting attitude of NPCs, in regards to Diplomacy checks, can be different depending on the rep of the PCs. A kindly parish priest of Sarenrae might be Indifferent or Unfriendly to a band of ruthless killers that offer no mercy or redemption to a single foe. Also since Leadership scores can take a hit if PCs are known to be brutal or merciless, this will be affected by the players' decisions.

[Hugo Rune]

I believe that in the Dark Ages it was quite common for the victor to recover their wounded from the battlefield and to despatch any of the enemy wounded they came across. In other battles both sides would be on the battlefield collecting their wounded, the victor would need the peasants on the losing side to recover and return to their fields in time for harvest.

Ruling that coup de gracing a wounded enemy after a battle is not an evil act within the morality of the game solves a lot of unfun alignment issues.

[UD Sentient Squirrel Swarm]

Hugo Rune wrote:

Ruling that coup de gracing a wounded enemy after a battle is not an evil act within the morality of the game solves a lot of unfun alignment issues.

These terms are acceptable, but only as long as their corpses are subsequently raised to the Perfection that is Undeath. No death is evil, it is only power.

[Insapateh]

Kasoh wrote:

Because pendantry is the Pathfinder National pastime:

PF1 SRD wrote:

.......Once a character makes this check, he continues to heal naturally and is no longer in danger of losing hit points naturally.

So, yes. A character left alone can take several days to die if they're unlucky.

I mean, sure. But not to the point or frequency that one can claim the moral high-ground for ganking them every time.

It needs:

1. Stabilise (DC10+NEG HP)
2. Regain consciousness (DC10) - No rules for pain if we're unconscious, hourly check, no penalty to the DC10 check. Repeated failure means death in hours, not days.
3. Fail checks to come back to 0 (DC10+NEG HP) - we've already passed the worst of these checks to stabilise unaided - once we pass this once, we recover HP natuarally and are no longer at risk. So we only have to pass once and we're golden. History is on our side.

I recognise that you were being pedantic on purpose, but the rules as they stand don't make this particularly likely at all and tend to make recovery almost a certainty once someone stabilises, despite the flavour text saying it's unlikely.

We sure get to days, if we're really unlucky, but almost certainly never the weeks that made mercy killing a thing.

This even ignores being able to take move actions and seek additional help once stable and conscious when these daily self-heal checks become relevant.

[Insapateh]

Hugo Rune wrote:

Ruling that coup de gracing a wounded enemy after a battle is not an evil act within the morality of the game solves a lot of unfun alignment issues.

Ruling lots of actions that are ambiguous at best to be unambiguous solves a lot of alignment debates but tends to oversimplify things if one gets carried away with it for the sake of expediency.

[Kasoh]

Insapateh wrote:

I recognise that you were being pedantic on purpose, but the rules as they stand don't make this particularly likely at all and tend to make recovery almost a certainty once someone stabilises, despite the flavour text saying it's unlikely.

The rules of the game are somewhat focused on a player centric experience, so when these things come up, its usually because a player character needs it, so erring on 'possible' seems to be the right design decision.

Just like we probably shouldn't look too closely at the game's economic modeling, I expect the rules on recovery and dying work best when not examined too closely.

[Sandslice]

Insapateh wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I can say from experience that the party very much enjoyed encountering the ambushing archers that got away a few levels later when the bard could dimension door the fighters behind them...

I try to have some evidence of the benefits of leveling up at least once per level.

Normally in the form of a bestiary creature that used to be a challenge now just being a minor hindrance to the actual intent of the encounter, or even being come across on it's own and getting stomped into oblivion.

Lets the players feel they're accomplishing things and that they're powerful.

It's also funny when those speed bumps can manage to become serious threats in their own right. A pair of Dire Ferrets would seem to be no obstacle to level 9 heroes, but can outright kill one if it gets a surprise round. It helps when the party has to worry about three and a half tons of fur-duel happening on top of one of their armoured wagons while a blood bramble is trying to eat everything in sight.

(No allied rangers were actually slain in the making of this battle, though she would have been if the ferret had gotten one more turn.)

[Warped Savant]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Warpy McSav

Best nickname ever! (for me)

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

I've communicated MY expectations to my players, that monsters will be replacing their fallen and if we're following the precedent that 0 HP doesn't equal death that some of these replacements may simply be those left laying about.

I guess I started this thread just wondering if anyone else does any of this or if it's just me. It might just be me then.

I've always defaulted to "downed enemies count as dead" (mostly because I don't want gritty details of the group killing unconscious creatures nor do I want to track dying NPCs hit-points... yeah, I'm lazy.) The exception to that was when I was running my group through Hell's Rebels... the group was aware that indiscriminately killing all of the antagonists they came across would upset some of the people they were trying to liberate and they'd lose the support of the town.

With the group being aware of that, almost all of the antagonists for the first book and a half were attacked with non-lethal damage.
It was amazing.
And, because the group was trying to not kill anyone, I'd keep track of enemies that they'd accidentally hit too hard. But once the were at the point where they were actively trying to kill the horribly evil bad guys I stopped keeping track and we were back to "downed enemies are dead" (unless they said otherwise).

[avr]

Kasoh wrote:

Because pendantry is the Pathfinder National pastime:

pedantry

[Kasoh]

avr wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

Because pendantry is the Pathfinder National pastime:

pedantry

Well done. Point to you.

[Warped Savant]

Insapateh wrote:

It needs:

1. Stabilise (DC10+NEG HP)
2. Regain consciousness (DC10) - No rules for pain if we're unconscious, hourly check, no penalty to the DC10 check. Repeated failure means death in hours, not days.
3. Fail checks to come back to 0 (DC10+NEG HP) - we've already passed the worst of these checks to stabilise unaided - once we pass this once, we recover HP natuarally and are no longer at risk. So we only have to pass once and we're golden. History is on our side.

Your second point is wrong.

PF1 SRD wrote:

Recovering with Help: One hour after a tended, dying character becomes stable, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check to become conscious. The character takes a penalty on this roll equal to his negative hit point total. Conscious characters with negative hit point totals are treated as disabled characters (see page 189). If the character remains unconscious, he receives another check every hour to regain consciousness. A natural 20 on this check is an automatic success. Even if unconscious, the character recovers hit points naturally. He automatically regains consciousness when his hit points rise to 1 or higher.

Recovering without Help: A severely wounded character left alone usually dies. He has a small chance of recovering on his own. Treat such characters as those attempting to recover with help, but every failed Constitution check to regain consciousness results in the loss of 1 hit point. An unaided character does not recover hit points naturally. Once conscious, the character can make a DC 10 Constitution check once per day, after resting for 8 hours, to begin recovering hit points naturally. The character takes a penalty on this roll equal to his negative hit point total. Failing this check causes the character to lose 1 hit point, but this does not cause the character to become unconscious. Once a character makes this check, he continues to heal naturally and is no longer in danger of losing hit points naturally.

[Matthew Downie]

Insapateh wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

...isn't really any more evil than the initial decision to kill the creature to begin with.

Why was the original decision to kill the creature (or person) and not merely to end the fight as quickly as possible, accepting that this might result in killing the creature (or person)?

They are very distinctly different decisions with very distinctly different alignment implications.

Edit:

It's personal story-time folks!!!

I live in a city and country that has (had, I dunno) a fairly sizeable heroin problem, especially in its cities. I've been mugged more than once at the point of a blood-filled syringe.

Heroin addicts are... not know for their high DEX, high init. bonus, possession of the Combat Reflexes feat, or anything else that would make this a good idea for them to do.

I defended myself more than once, despite not being the most amazing of warriors in the universe (see above penalties for chronic heroin use).

I would be a very different person if I decided to 'finish them off' when they were down.

Why did the party decide to use lethal damage during the battle, when there are plenty of effective nonlethal options available? Why did you decide to use nonlethal damage fighting the muggers? (You could have carried a knife and stabbed them in the heart, in order to end the fight as quickly as possible. I presume you didn't.)

Making a conscious decision to finish off an enemy orc is a brutal thing to do. But hitting them with a sword and not caring if they die isn't much different. A good adventurer should decide: "Is this someone I should be trying to remove from this world?" If the answer is yes, throat-slicing is acceptable. If the answer is no, then you should work harder to keep them alive, and have a plan for what happens after.

[Thread Necromancers' Guild]

UD Sentient Squirrel Swarm wrote:

Hugo Rune wrote:

Ruling that coup de gracing a wounded enemy after a battle is not an evil act within the morality of the game solves a lot of unfun alignment issues.

These terms are acceptable, but only as long as their corpses are subsequently raised to the Perfection that is Undeath. No death is evil, it is only power.

We have created a monster, and we couldn't be prouder of them.

[Insapateh]

Warped Savant wrote:

Your second point is wrong.

Well spotted. But this only results in a quicker death, so I'm okay with it for the purposes of this discussion.

PF1 SRD wrote:

...every failed Constitution check to regain consciousness results in the loss of 1 hit point...

[Insapateh]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Why did the party decide to use lethal damage during the battle, when there are plenty of effective nonlethal options available?

They're not that effective unless built for. What with penalties and whatnot.

Quote:

Why did you decide to use nonlethal damage fighting the muggers? (You could have carried a knife and stabbed them in the heart, in order to end the fight as quickly as possible. I presume you didn't.)

Carrying a weapon of any kind is illegal in my country.

So yes, I could have carried one, but that carries it's own problems. Just like player decisions have wider consequences.

Since I didn't have a weapon and haven't taken Improved Unarmed Strike, I had no option to do lethal damage.

Quote:

Making a conscious decision to finish off an enemy orc is a brutal thing to do. But hitting them with a sword and not caring if they die isn't much different.

I, and obviously my players, disagree.

Doing whatever necessary to end a fight quickly is vastly different to deciding to finish off an enemy that is no longer a current threat.

There's a reason why the 'bite the kerb' scene in American History X is so memorable.

[Insapateh]

Kasoh wrote:

The rules of the game are somewhat focused on a player centric experience...

I think I've pretty clearly established my position that applying these rules to NPCs is manifestly committing to promoting a wider and more interesting range of player experiences.

So I agree with your statement but think it supports the opposite of your point.

[Kasoh]

Insapateh wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

The rules of the game are somewhat focused on a player centric experience...

I think I've pretty clearly established my position that applying these rules to NPCs is manifestly committing to promoting a wider and more interesting range of player experiences.

So I agree with your statement but think it supports the opposite of your point.

Wider and more interesting is subjective, but if your table is having fun, no one can say you're doing it wrong.

Going way back to the original topic, I have a few interesting experiences with regards to this.

In general, I find "Make sure he isn't getting back up" happens most commonly with named NPCs that get fought--unless the party is in a city where they can hand them off to a legal authority--but fighting the same guy twice is perceived as a failure on the party's part to properly clean up their messes.

In a Mummy's Mask campaign, we were hounded by an undead body of a foe. (Started as a foe, became a revenant, and then I think I ghost or haunt). After that, the party would go out of our way to ensure bodies could not be raised as undead in our wake. This often meant consecrating corpses and avoiding killing people altogether. Since the cultists we fought in Mummy's Mask had a tendency to self destruct, it was less of a hassle than you might think.

In a Carrion Crown campaign, A cleric of Iomedae would summarily judge and execute cultists of the Whispering Way as a practical matter. The trappings of the law made him feel better about killing the fallen foes.

Something that has stuck with me many years is something that happened back in 4E. Playing a game get into a fight with bandits. One survivor, maybe a surrender. I think we're interrogating her after the fight when the party's warlord starts using his Halberd to make sure the fallen are dead with hits to the base of the neck. The DM calls the player out on this, saying that they're only doing it to torture the survivor and the player says that it is a practical, logical thing to do. Leading to an awkward silence at the table. I don't recall all the details, but that tension at the table in that moment I still think about. I think the player of the warlord went out of his way to ensure foes were dead in that fashion for the rest of the campaign entirely out of spite of the GM'ing calling the player out on it that one time.

[Warped Savant]

Kasoh wrote:

Something that has stuck with me many years is something that happened back in 4E. Playing a game get into a fight with bandits. One survivor, maybe a surrender. I think we're interrogating her after the fight when the party's warlord starts using his Halberd to make sure the fallen are dead with hits to the base of the neck. The DM calls the player out on this, saying that they're only doing it to torture the survivor and the player says that it is a practical, logical thing to do. Leading to an awkward silence at the table. I don't recall all the details, but that tension at the table in that moment I still think about. I think the player of the warlord went out of his way to ensure foes were dead in that fashion for the rest of the campaign entirely out of spite of the GM'ing calling the player out on it that one time.

This.

This is why, unless the players are trying to keep someone alive, I have enemies die once they're below 0 hit points.
Some players will have a problem with saying that they're killing unconscious enemies, some will think nothing of it. Those that think nothing of it may or may not have their characters do it depending on what they want their character to be like, those that are uncomfortable with it will (likely) never do it because the player is uncomfortable with the idea. That doesn't help play out the drama in the game, it plays out the drama around the actual table.
I don't want to have that awkward silence and weird tension at my table. Having to figure it out in character is fine, but chances are someone OoC is uncomfortable with it being done and prefer it to be hand-waved.

Kasoh wrote:

Leading to an awkward silence at the table. I don't recall all the details, but that tension at the table in that moment I still think about.

[Insapateh]

Kasoh wrote:

Wider and more interesting is subjective, but if your table is having fun, no one can say you're doing it wrong.

Absolutely, and I hope none of my posts have come across as saying anyone doing it otherwise is wrong either.

Quote:

In a Carrion Crown campaign, A cleric of Iomedae would summarily judge and execute cultists of the Whispering Way as a practical matter. The trappings of the law made him feel better about killing the fallen foes.

This is fantastic and I would 100% support it in my game.

Quote:

...The DM calls the player out on this, saying that they're only doing it to torture the survivor and the player says...

This is a 100% valid reason for a GM to introduce a rule like Warpy McSav has (since they liked the name so much. Credit to MarkHoover :) ).

My experiences are based on the people I've played with across the years and continents (was in Australia when I joined the forum, lurked from there for a long time before joining, in Ireland now).

My current players have had two opportunities to torture someone for information, one my doing* and one their own. In neither case were they able to bring themselves beyond vague threats and hurtful insinuations. They are aware that this may have affected the information they got. They then left both 'interrogation subjects' alive despite knowing that it would allow things to be potentially traced back to them much more easily and also add a time crunch to their current work because one of the victims will be discovered at dawn (likely about two sessions away), which forced them to act a lot more quickly than they wanted to.

*We use the Consent in Gaming checklist, so I knew it wasn't a touchy subject before I introduced it.

[Insapateh]

Warped Savant wrote:

This.

This is why, unless the players are trying to keep someone alive, I have enemies die once they're below 0 hit points.

...

Having to figure it out in character is fine, but chances are someone OoC is uncomfortable with it being done and prefer it to be hand-waved.

This is why I love the above ref'd Consent in Gaming checklist. It means I know all the players red-lines (anonymously if they wish, but my players were fine with just directly stating it and we actually discussed everyone's issues openly around the table at their instigation).

But yeah, these are good reasons for the 0HP rule if you know these issues exist.

And it's totally fine for the GM to be the one who's uncomfortable with it too.

[SheepishEidolon]

Insapateh wrote:

We use the Consent in Gaming checklist, so I knew it wasn't a touchy subject before I introduced it.

Ah, that's a nice helper. Linked for convenience

[Sysryke]

Insapateh wrote:

Warped Savant wrote:

This.

This is why, unless the players are trying to keep someone alive, I have enemies die once they're below 0 hit points.

...

Having to figure it out in character is fine, but chances are someone OoC is uncomfortable with it being done and prefer it to be hand-waved.

This is why I love the above ref'd Consent in Gaming checklist. It means I know all the players red-lines (anonymously if they wish, but my players were fine with just directly stating it and we actually discussed everyone's issues openly around the table at their instigation).

But yeah, these are good reasons for the 0HP rule if you know these issues exist.

And it's totally fine for the GM to be the one who's uncomfortable with it too.

Thanks for that reference. Forgive a slight derail, but you raised a point upthread that piqued my curiosity. American here trying to learn a bit about the wider world.

You mentioned it's illegal to carry any weapons in your country, would that be Ireland, or was that in Australia? If Ireland, the independent nation, or Northern Ireland? Either way, is that a more modern, and universaly applied law on the isles; or is it a hold over from the medieval/Renaissance times when the British made it illegal for all the Celts to be armed? I know a smattering of history, but not super well. Just curious.

[Insapateh]

Sysryke wrote:

Thanks for that reference. Forgive a slight derail, but you raised a point upthread that piqued my curiosity. American here trying to learn a bit about the wider world.

You mentioned it's illegal to carry any weapons in your country, would that be Ireland, or was that in Australia? If Ireland, the independent nation, or Northern Ireland? Either way, is that a more modern, and universaly applied law on the isles; or is it a hold over from the medieval/Renaissance times when the British made it illegal for all the Celts to be armed? I know a smattering of history, but not super well. Just curious.

I've been back in Ireland since late 2018. I'm not sure of Australian laws but believe them to be largely similar but more permissive.

I'm in the Republic of Ireland, so UK government has had no input to our laws for the better part of a century at this point. I believe that the UK actually has significantly more relaxed weapons laws than Ireland. Even fireworks are illegal in Ireland because they can be... reconstituted and repurposed... as Goblin PCs and NPCs are well aware.

Here in Ireland, I can buy a knife (or a gun) for hunting, etc. But if I was discovered to be carrying it, I would need to be able to demonstrate that I was on the way to perform one of those activities and even still it would probably be an issue if it wasn't safely stored in a bag, rather than just on my person. Even carrying a golf club would fall foul of our weapon laws if I wasn't actively heading to or from golf.

It's definitely not an old law by European standards, or if it is, it's not one that just 'hasn't been taken off the books yet'. Ireland is a very anti-weapon country as a whole. Even our police force is largely unarmed, aside from non-lethal batons, sprays, etc. And, in fact, as an organisation, our police don't like to be referred to as a 'force'. Canonically speaking, they are a police 'service' and govern by common consent rather than force of arms (individual mileage may vary, terms and conditions apply, we still killed a black man a few weeks ago). Even the name. An Garda Síochána, literally translates to 'Guardians of the Peace'.

[Claxon]

Compare that to where a lot of the player base lives (United States) where our police force murders people in the streets with nary a care.

And out citizen's carry weapons regularly. Personally I have a pocket knife with me all the time (primarily to cut open boxes or anything like that, it's a convenient tool after all). However, the state I live in recently (like past 3 years) changed our laws so now you don't even need a permit or license of any type to legal carry concealed on your person a firearm.

I know people who concealed carry every day.

To be honest, I think they're mostly idiots looking for trouble, but I must also confess I had the permit/license before the law changed and would occasionally carry when I was going into situations that I was worried could be dangerous (selling or buying something of "high" value such as a car). Given the gun laws, I am concerned someone might try to shoot me over something like this...though if our laws were changed it might be less necessary.

Basically I need a gun to protect myself from the other gun wielding loons and our inadequate gun laws.

[Mark Hoover 330]

First off the Consent Gaming Checklist is a "should have" for all games, IMO. Thanks for linking it here. Graphic torture and a few other things are off limits at my table which is well known to me and my players. While there might be the SUGGESTION of enhanced interrogation techniques they never get the cinematic narrative I use for the rest of my game while running.

Circling back to something mentioned upthread a few times, soldiers used to murder the dying on battlefields in the dark ages as a matter of course, this is true. I don't know if there we dueling rules back then but duels to the death was a thing with swords and later pistols through the 1800's.

However, all of those included rules of engagement. There were understood rules in duels and wars that set the expectation of making sure an enemy was dead. There were also rules on ransom, which was pretty common I guess. Common enough that part of the reason for guilds was so that the organization would pay the ransom of any member if they were abducted.

That's not what an adventuring party in PF1 is though, unless you're playing a specific kind of game. The default to this game makes the PCs opportunistic treasure hunters. Essentially, the PCs are like Viking raiders.

They find the lair (or with the megadungeon I'm running, lairs) of a group they've come to learn are "evil" per the mechanics of the game. They then smash open the doors of this lair, slay everything, and take their loot. If you actually compare the PCs activities in a default game to real world allegories, such marauders were usually condemned as savage brutes and still enjoy negative reputations as murderers to this day.

But real world morality and allegories shouldn't play into these games. Oh sure, I throw in a bit of realism just to keep things interesting but I still follow the mechanics of PF, and that includes alignment. There's an actual measure of Evil, and some PCs such as Paladins can detect it.

Such evil is hinted at as being redeemable, but this is a gray area left up to the GM and players. The default mechanic is that evil will be evil, regardless of the situation, unless something extreme and prolonged occurs or unless said alignment is due to an external condition such as a curse.

So, for all of these mechanical reasons... I have no idea with my players using coup de grace on all fallen enemies. They've at least showed with the Ratfolk they befriended that they don't just slaughter Good or Neutral monsters/NPCs so they're sticking to the game in that way.