Bringing the bandit to the authorities for a trial and imprisonment is what I figure the LG version of "strike down evil" is.
Ultimately, it comes down to a case by case. If doing that is not feasible or would just be too hard (or would derail the campaign) it is best to settle for something else.
In general, I take it as a "you shouldn't refuse a call to bring down evil and cause order if you are a champion of goodness and order". As long as they confront the bandit in one way of another instead of letting them be is fine by my book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Read the whole Anathema for Sarenrae
Anathema: create undead, lie, deny a repentant creature an opportunity for redemption, fail to strike down evil
Accepting a surrender and then refusing it, is a form of lying. You are pretty much stuck with a legal process if you accept a surrender.
If they think there is a reasonable chance the creature might be repentant then they need to follow through. Which means you almost always will accept a surrender.
Failing to strike down evil is last on the list. It is also clearly modified by the presence of the previous 2 factors. If they weren't there, then you could justify slaughter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, if the party agreed to let the orc go in exchange for valuable information then Sarenrae really doesn't seem to be the type to go "No, you failed to strike down evil by not killing the orc."
It really depends on the information. If it's one to fight evil, then it's for the "greater good" and as such it's fine. If it's purely selfish information, then I see Sarenrae being very mad at your character.
But if the party just decided to execute the (unrepentant) orc for his crimes I don't think that would bother Sarenrae either.
Quite the opposite in my opinion. Unless someone in the party is a judge or have this kind of power then it's just a murder, and a convenience one if the issue is that the party doesn't know how to bring the orc to the justice.
Taking prisoners is a burden, but one good characters should accept. I have played numerous dungeons/explorations with a prisoner inside the party.
No, this isn't trying to trap a player of mine or anything, if anything it's the reverse.
Say the party captures an extremely unrepentant, I dunno, Orc who has definitely done Evil things.
What would quality as failing to strike down evil in this circumstance? The Orc might have surrendered (just to try to save his skin) or been knocked unconscious by the party.
Obviously if the party woke the orc up and healed it and said "Go have fun killing more people" then that wouldn't fly.
However, if the party agreed to let the orc go in exchange for valuable information then Sarenrae really doesn't seem to be the type to go "No, you failed to strike down evil by not killing the orc." But if the party just decided to execute the (unrepentant) orc for his crimes I don't think that would bother Sarenrae either.
I realize part of the whole point is that edicts/anathema establish boundaries of behavior rather than The One True Path, I'm just trying to get more opinions on what boundaries the "Fail to Strike Down Evil" sets.
P.S. Also obviously if an ancient red dragon landed and said it was taking the orc with him as his new warleader the party wouldn't be required to try to fight the dragon in a suicidal battle.
So it's important to remember that edicts and anathema are set up in order of importance.
Failing to strike down evil is the least important of Sarenrae's anathema, though still anathema. I would consider giving her minor curse for a bit. Though I'm assuming the champion did whatever they could to "strike down evil" in whatever the appropriate form is.
As to what "striking down evil" means. In my mind, whatever form of justice you can bring that would prevent that person from perpetrating more evil. So, killing them would qualify for sure. But so would imprisoning them. For evil, but non-violent crimes (think financial crimes) making financial restitution and paying extra fines might be appropriate. Basically I just view it as "don't let evil go unpunished".
Also, you don't need to go fighting battles that are above your league. Sarenrae doesn't demand you get yourself killed pursuing someone that you can't defeat. That would mean she loses a champion and get's nothing out of it.
Sorry, I always confuse Iomedae and Sarenrae in my head haha
As to what "striking down evil" means. In my mind, whatever form of justice you can bring that would prevent that person from perpetrating more evil. So, killing them would qualify for sure. But so would imprisoning them. For evil, but non-violent crimes (think financial crimes) making financial restitution and paying extra fines might be appropriate. Basically I just view it as "don't let evil go unpunished".Yeah, these are violent and significant crimes like slavery, murder, raiding and pillaging, etc.
So the party is traveling through the wilderness and finds an ogre camp that's been preying on other travelers, what would be the party's obligation in regards to the last surviving ogre who surrendered out of fear but is otherwise an evil and unrepentant monster? Again assuming the party is level 3ish or something so Ogres are a serious threat to them.
Well, as you observe level plays an important role in the situation. A level 3 party doesn't have a lot of options. A higher level party might have followers or access to magic that can help them resolve this in a non-violent way. But at level 3 you don't have much options. Presumably you don't have time to back track to civilization with an ogre in tow in chains.
You could attempt to have an impartial trial, though it would be rather hard. Basically you would ask the ogre "Did you commit these crimes that we suspect you did based on the guts, arms, heads of the dead people we see laying here?" If the ogre admits to things, well you can punish them however the law would, which is probably death.
If someone in the party is particular lawful, and a trial doesn't seem reasonable you could make a deal with the ogre. "We cannot give you a fair and impartial trial, and you are too much a danger to us to keep around. Nor do we have the time to drag you back to society. So we are going to make a contract. The terms of the contract are that we are going to end your life as painlessly as possible, and we are in a position to do so we will resurrect/true resurrect you to face justice at an appropriate location with appropriate representation, defense, and legal proceedings. The outcome may again be your death, or imprisonment with hard labor, etc. Will you agree to this? The alternative is that we end your life as punishment for the crimes we suspect you committed, but we admit it would not be a punishment mete in a "fair" and "legal" way."
One similar situation happened to my Paladin, with a prisoner in the wilderness. My Paladin told the prisoner that they will bring them to elven authorities and that they will be judged for their crimes and certainly killed for that. But if they didn't want to face this fate then she was ok to end their life according to their beliefs, including handing them a weapon if they want to die a weapon at hand.
The GM clearly felt that the whole "prisoner" thing would be a mess to handle for no real pleasure and the prisoner asked for a last fight.
I think a monstrous creature like an ogre sees being handed to human authorities as something extremely humiliating, unpleasant and ultimately fatal. They may prefer a proper way to die, more inline with their beliefs and vision of life. That can actually be considered mercy to allow a creature to die on its own terms instead of dying (or worse) on someone else's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that taking it prisoner and having a trial does is remove the responsibility for the creature's ultimate death from the PCs.
"Separation of power? That's just irresponsibility! And stop calling me a dictator!!!!"
I think the read on the intent of that portion is incorrect. The points I have so far seen debated are about treatment of defeated enemies and punishment as opposed to action and that is already covered in the 'deny a repentant creature an opportunity for redemption' section.
Evil is usually defined by actions and 'Failing to Strike Down Evil' probably refers more to standing idly by while evil actions are committed which seems much more in line with Sarenrae's characterization than punitively executing prisoners without trial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that taking it prisoner and having a trial does is remove the responsibility for the creature's ultimate death from the PCs."Separation of power? That's just irresponsibility! And stop calling me a dictator!!!!"There is no separation of power. Laws are only enforced by people who have the personal power to enforce them. A typical adventuring party of sufficient level is immune to all man made laws because no one can stop them aside from other people of similar power. Only their willingness to play by society's rules.
This is a setting where only certain locations enjoy a highly developed system of courts to mete out justice. And most of them are corrupt--because that leads to adventure. Useful and functioning civic services impede the usefulness of adventurers, so they can't be too useful or too functioning.
And, depending on where you are, religious doctrine isn't a basis of law. Its possible to execute people totally in line with Sarenrae's edicts and anathema and still commit murder in the eyes of society at large. Laws protect all people equally.
Yeah, but some players want to play good characters, too. Lawful Evil is not everyone's cup of tea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because PCs are above the law doesn't mean they're bad people, it just means that no one can stop them from doing whatever they want.
Thinking that being powerful puts you above the law is definitely an Evil mindset.
Three weeks into wilderness, having been attacked by orcs or ogres, the PCs have no legal system on which to avail themselves on
If they are three weeks into the wilderness then they can just knock the orc/ogre unconscious and leave them be. They won't be much of an issue to civilization.
Also, there is a reason you are 3 weeks into the wilderness and this reason gives you a legal environment. If you are 3 weeks into enemy territory, then it's the law of war: You can kill soldiers but not civilians. If you are mandated for a specific purpose, then it should give you information on how you should behave.
Overall, your 3 last posts are painting a Lawful Evil mindset (laws are enforced by the strong on the weak, I can be judge, jury and executioner, death penalty is so ubiquitous that it's the only valid sentence for their crimes, etc...).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because PCs are above the law doesn't mean they're bad people, it just means that no one can stop them from doing whatever they want.Thinking that being powerful puts you above the law is definitely an Evil mindset.
I don't think they've said the character thinks like that. Only that this is a fact of life. A place where laws cannot be enforced is a place that for all practical purposes has no law, and authority that lacks power to enforce its will lacks effectiveness. Even if some legal authority over the horizon lays claim to the territory, unless they can actually do something about it, this claim remains in name only. The same goes if no legal authority has the power to enforce those laws without your permission.
It's what a given character still cares about the law in these cases that determines their alignment--mainly on the law/chaos axis.
Mind you, there's a thing to be said for the fact that most civilizations probably care little for the laws or customs of so-called savage peoples such as ogres, so it may not be that thus 'wilderness' has no laws, but that nobody involved care much about what the ogre thinks (which is fair enough given a situation where the ogre has already tried to kill, maybe eat, you, and demonstrates no interest in changing its evil ways)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think they've said the character thinks like that. Only that this is a fact of life.
Not really. You are not above the laws because you are powerful. You can use your power to put yourself above the laws, but there's a moral choice in doing so.
A place where laws cannot be enforced is a place that for all practical purposes has no law
Definitely. And that's also the moments where you can see the real morality of a person, when all restraints are removed.
It's what a given character still cares about the law in these cases that determines their alignment--mainly on the law/chaos axis.
I can't agree more. Maybe Kasoh's posts were describing something factual, but words have power and presenting a fact from a Lawful Evil point of view is definitely not the same than presenting it from a Good point of view.
A Paladin in the wilderness will follow the laws, obviously not the ones of the place they're in, but the general laws of good and maybe the laws of the closest civilized place, especially if it has an official claim on the territory.No, but they could attack other people in the future and have definitely committed evil crimes.
You are in no position to judge them for whatever crime they have committed. And you release them 3 weeks away from civilization, not in the middle of a nursery. Sure, things can happen, but the consequences are certainly small.
Sometimes, you are powerless. Making justice by yourself is definitely a path that leads to, at best, very Lawful Neutral. That's not the path of good.Orc/ogre/giant soldier surrenders when they're about to die in a fight in the middle of orc/ogre/giant territory.
Pirates had the red flag.
You don't have a duty of taking prisoners if there's no way for you to handle them. Stating clearly that you won't take prisoners, either through a symbol or just saying it out loud when an enemy wants to surrender, is fine. But taking prisoners and then realizing that it's an inconvenience and just ditch their corpse in a hole, that's not a good thing to do.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW little off topic but I wanted to throw a kudos into this thread for remaining on topic and more or less pleasant as of 21 posts in.
--
You don't have a duty of taking prisoners if there's no way for you to handle them.
Speaking of the edicts of goodness, a typical Sarenite has no duty to accept a surrender, but a divine adherent of Shelyn does. Even so, I find the point compelling that if you are indeed actually a whole 3 weeks away from any manner of civilization or other authority, the amount of trouble a lone weaponless, and badly injured person could be expected to inflict is limited. If there were innocents out here to harm, you wouldnt be in this dilemma. Inform the individual that if you catch their unrepentant self causing trouble again in these parts, you'll finish what you started, by your goddess' will.
--
PS I've been looking for a citation on the notion that deity anathema go in order of severity, bit while this is unambiguously true for the tiers of the Champion Code, I haven't found anything yet about anathema having any meaning ascribed to the order listed.
Speaking of the edicts of goodness, a typical Sarenite has no duty to accept a surrender, but a divine adherent of Shelyn does.
Some Edicts and Anathema are just super hard to follow, depending on the campaign. Qi Zhong "you won't deal lethal damage" is the best example.
You are in no position to judge them for whatever crime they have committed.Just to clarify, if you're traveling and some Fire Giants attack you to take you as slaves, one surrenders when the others are dead, and you discover they're holding slaves in their nearby outpost who can testify to the cruelty of the Fire Giants...your position is that your adventuring group has no right to judge the surviving Fire Giant?
No, you're not. You're in a good position to testify at a trial, but not in one to judge them. Giving justice by yourself, being judge, jury and executioner, is not justice.
I generally agree, but I'm thinking circumstances matter.
I'd not say that it's a question of circumstances but more that, sometimes, you have to accept to do something far from good. Would a Cleric or Paladin at my table fall for that? No, definitely not. But if they start repeating the same scenario without trying to find a more moraly acceptable way of handling it then their god will certainly become quite angry.
That's more or less my point. But, I'm also a person who thinks that all adventurers commit Evil as a matter of course in adventuring and overall can still have Good alignments.
I fully agree that this is a situation that has to be handled with nuance. Condemning entirely is as stupid as endorsing completely. Being good doesn't mean always doing good things. But it has to be clear that something wrong is happening.
Perhaps from a legal standpoint, but several Good religions encourage this. Sarenrae empowers her agents to strike down evil, as does Ragathiel, and in my opinion, Iomedae would not frown upon dispensing death as justice to enemy combatants sans trial. PF1 had prestige classes dedicated to that very concept.
They don't encourage to do it outside any structure, all on your own. And Ragathiel is a bit problematic for a LG deity.
The situation of a party of adventurer is one that can easily slip into ugliness. For sure, the job of adventurer puts you in an ideal position to make justice by yourself, and sometimes you have to. But if you go too far in that direction, you become your own enemies. It's a thin line that must not be crossed, one that is not easily visible.
Even so, I find the point compelling that if you are indeed actually a whole 3 weeks away from any manner of civilization or other authority, the amount of trouble a lone weaponless, and badly injured person could be expected to inflict is limited.
I'm reminded of an old thread in which it was discussed how best to keep magical prisoners detained. In the end, sorcerers were deemed the most dangerous, because their power could not be taken from them unlike a wizard's book, witch's familiar, or a cleric's faith.
Ultimately, most decided that the safest bet to contain a sorcerer was either something like permanent petrification, or death.
I agree, but I also think its reasonable to accept an enemy's surrender and and kill them mercifully if there's no other choice. The enemy did surrender to you after all. Unless they solicited a condition of survival on their surrender, their life is literally in your hands ...That is perfectly practical, but not at all Good.
"Taking care of this POW is inconvenient, I'll just kill him" is evil. Lots of POW massacre stories out there; all the ones I know of call the perpetrator a war criminal.
Can't be a war criminal if there was no war. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, you're not. You're in a good position to testify at a trial, but not in one to judge them. Giving justice by yourself, being judge, jury and executioner, is not justice.
That is certainly the case today. But not in other times, other worlds, other religions, cultures and justice systems.
In game a character needs to reflex their moral code as a member of their society would see it. That can be different and situation dependant.
No, you're not. You're in a good position to testify at a trial, but not in one to judge them. Giving justice by yourself, being judge, jury and executioner, is not justice.That is certainly the case today. But not in other times, other worlds, other religions, cultures and justice systems.
In game a character needs to reflex their moral code as a member of their society would see it. That can be different and situation dependant.
Golarion uses an objective and testable morality. If your acts are not good in the great scheme of things your character won't be good, whatever the religion, culture or justice system they live in. So I disagree with this statement, that can lead to truly problematic things (like the "I come from Cheliax so slavery is not evil for my character"...).
Golarion uses an objective and testable morality. If your acts are not good in the great scheme of things your character won't be good, whatever the religion, culture or justice system they live in. So I disagree with this statement, that can lead to truly problematic things (like the "I come from Cheliax so slavery is not evil for my character"...).No, you're not. You're in a good position to testify at a trial, but not in one to judge them. Giving justice by yourself, being judge, jury and executioner, is not justice.That is certainly the case today. But not in other times, other worlds, other religions, cultures and justice systems.
In game a character needs to reflex their moral code as a member of their society would see it. That can be different and situation dependant.
The default world is relatively light on detail. It is not always as objective as you might think. Certainly a point of process like we are discussing is not covered.
I consider your approach to morality as too tied to modern culture and will make it very difficult to understand and roleplay in other cultures. I'd rather use multiple lenses.
I don't roleplay to preach morality and feel comfortable but to explore different situations. I don't typically roleplay with people who require coddling. Public games I keep fairly light, but that is not much of my gaming experience.
The default world is relatively light on detail. It is not always as objective as you might think.
Good and Evil are objective on Golarion. These are measurable things. If you do good, you'll end up Good, if you do bad, you'll end up Evil.
I consider your approach to morality as too tied to modern culture
I consider Pathfinder approach to morality to be extremely tied to modern western culture. I'm still waiting for a Tenet of Good that would blow my cultural mind.
I don't roleplay to preach morality and feel comfortable but to explore different situations. I don't typically roleplay with people who require coddling. Public games I keep fairly light, but that is not much of my gaming experience.
You can choose that "Killing a prisoner is not evil" in your games, and that's fine.
Still, there's an underlying assumption in this discussion that the OP is basing their Golarion morality on modern western morality, because otherwise the discussion would be pointless.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can choose that "Killing a prisoner is not evil" in your games, and that's fine.
This is my problem with your statement. I was talking about a poor process of justice as being acceptable, and you have come back twice now with extreme examples
Still, there's an underlying assumption in this discussion that the OP is basing their Golarion morality on modern western morality, because otherwise the discussion would be pointless.
No it wouldn't. It would be more interesting, but yes also beyond a portion of the general public. But what is role playing if not taking us outside of our own personalities and philosophies, and doing something different?
No it wouldn't.
I hardly see how we could help the OP with morality questions if they don't base their world on a morality system we all know about. Hence the pointless.
Having discussions about different culture's and epoch's moralities must be a thrilling discussion, but it's also one I can't help on.This is my problem with your statement. I was talking about a poor process of justice as being acceptable, and you have come back twice now with extreme examples
But the discussion was not about a poor process of justice but of a lack thereof. Deciding, all on your own, to kill someone because they have commited crimes (mostly against you) is not justice, it's an execution. Your sentence may be just, but your process is not.
And from the discussion about casting Divine Lances on random people in the street, it looks like people tend to agree that if the process of justice is not fair then your acts are not good.
I agree, but I also think its reasonable to accept an enemy's surrender and and kill them mercifully if there's no other choice. The enemy did surrender to you after all. Unless they solicited a condition of survival on their surrender, their life is literally in your hands ...That is perfectly practical, but not at all Good.
"Taking care of this POW is inconvenient, I'll just kill him" is evil. Lots of POW massacre stories out there; all the ones I know of call the perpetrator a war criminal.
This is a very modern take on morality.
The rights of POWs were guaranteed by modern international treaties agreed to by various countries because they didn't want to see their own people be killed, and so agreed not to kill their prisoners.
However, such is not the case in the setting of Golarion.
And while I agree the good thing to do if you take prisoners is to treat them fairly and take them for trial for crimes suspected, I would argue that generally speaking no one is obliged to accept surrender and 2, executing prisoners for wrong doings you know they committed may not follow a greater judicial policy of the area but I wouldn't consider it evil (although definitely not good). I would consider it neutral.
It would only be evil if you killed them for false reasons, even if you are not the duly appointed judicial representative.
The reasoning is that modern morality tends to combine lawfulness with goodness and unlawfulness with evil. So it is unlawful (and possibly chaotic) to execute a prisoner without proper judicial process, but not necessarily evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
executing prisoners for wrong doings you know they committed may not follow a greater judicial policy of the area but I wouldn't consider it evil (although definitely not good). I would consider it neutral.
Only in theory.
The big issue of this way of doing is that it works fine... as long as you don't make a mistake. The second you make a mistake and kill an innocent you perform an evil act. You can't say it's a mistake because you were fully aware you were not following a proper judicial process and still made the choice to go on with it. So the full responsibility of their death is on you. And because you can't have perfect knowledge, you will perform evil acts because of it.
Second, because this way of making justice only works if you don't make a mistake, you also commit to the underlying belief that your judgment is perfect and never altered. Even if it's not an evil act by itself, it is definitely a state of mind I'd link to evil (pride is a sin on Golarion). It's made even worse in the described situation as you are both judge and party, and as such you know your judgment is altered.
So even if on paper you can say it's neutral, practically speaking it's a very quick path to evil.
executing prisoners for wrong doings you know they committed may not follow a greater judicial policy of the area but I wouldn't consider it evil (although definitely not good). I would consider it neutral.Only in theory.
The big issue of this way of doing is that it works fine... as long as you don't make a mistake. The second you make a mistake and kill an innocent you perform an evil act. You can't say it's a mistake because you were fully aware you were not following a proper judicial process and still made the choice to go on with it. So the full responsibility of their death is on you. And because you can't have perfect knowledge, you will perform evil acts because of it.
Second, because this way of making justice only works if you don't make a mistake, you also commit to the underlying belief that your judgment is perfect and never altered. Even if it's not an evil act by itself, it is definitely a state of mind I'd link to evil (pride is a sin on Golarion). It's made even worse in the described situation as you are both judge and party, and as such you know your judgment is altered.So even if on paper you can say it's neutral, practically speaking it's a very quick path to evil.
True-ish. But in the scenario the OP presented where you have a monstrous humanoid who has attacked the party (normally that would be considered a crime) and when questioned is unrepentant and has only surrendered in the hope of saving themselves (again, the party is under no obligation to accept surrender in the first place) I would say the party has done what they can to verify the crimes and finding them unrepentant can punish them.
Ideally, unless someone in your party is obligated to accept surrender simply don't accept surrender in a situation where you are unable to guarantee your and their safety.
It's also worth noting that in the OP's scenario there is no "proper judicial process" to follow. They are in a hostile nation weeks from civilization.
True-ish. But in the scenario the OP presented where you have a monstrous humanoid who has attacked the party (normally that would be considered a crime)
Not in a context of war. And if the PCs just stepped on their lawn, there are circumstances. The attack is definitely not a nice thing to do but is not a reason to be executed all by itself.
Also, they have been attacked by many enemies but captured one. They know the crimes done by the group but don't know the actual crimes this specific individual has done. Punishing them for the crimes of their comrades is not fair.and when questioned is unrepentant
Why would they be?
and has only surrendered in the hope of saving themselves
That's the whole point of surrendering.
the party has done what they can to verify the crimes and finding them unrepentant can punish them
Well, what crime?
That's the problem of being judge and party, you are not fair.Overall, I don't say that in this specific case the enemy is not guilty. I just say that without a proper trial, there is an uncertainty (a bigger, as trials are not perfect, too). Ignoring that uncertainty, considering one's judment to be flawless, is definitely very grey. If it's exceptional, I'd just leave it be. But a party who considers they are in their full right in doing so and repeat it over and over again will very surely move toward evil around my table.
Overall, I don't say that in this specific case the enemy is not guilty. I just say that without a proper trial, there is an uncertainty (a bigger, as trials are not perfect, too). Ignoring that uncertainty, considering one's judment to be flawless, is definitely very grey. If it's exceptional, I'd just leave it be. But a party who considers they are in their full right in doing so and repeat it over and over again will very surely move toward evil around my table.
Then honestly at your table I would end up killing all my enemies and never accepting surrender unless they have some very specific purposes I can use them for, one in which their value exceeds the risk they represent. Because honestly your response feels like a punishment to players, "oh the enemy has surrendered will you be evil and kill them or will you ruin your timeline of the adventure because now you have to take this monster back to society for a "trial" where they're almost certain to kill it". It feels like a catch 22.
As the GM you get to decide if a monster surrenders in the first place, and if they're going to try and escape and harm the party in some manner. And telling me that if I don't take the enemy accept the risk that it makes me evil...well it just feels kind of s@*!ty.
Then honestly at your table I would end up killing all my enemies and never accepting surrender unless they have some very specific purposes I can use them for, one in which their value exceeds the risk they represent. Because honestly your response feels like a punishment to players, "oh the enemy has surrendered will you be evil and kill them or will you ruin your timeline of the adventure because now you have to take this monster back to society for a "trial" where they're almost certain to kill it". It feels like a catch 22.
As the GM you get to decide if a monster surrenders in the first place, and if they're going to try and escape and harm the party in some manner. And telling me that if I don't take the enemy accept the risk that it makes me evil...well it just feels kind of s!!&ty.
You jump to conclusions a bit too fast. There's no catch 22 around my table as my enemies don't surrender unless the PCs express that they want to capture them alive. I consider that enemies don't surrender because in their culture (an evil one, as the whole situation speaks of evil enemies) there's no respect for prisoners. As such, surrendering is as bad as dying (and maybe even worse sometimes).
But I fully agree with you that an enemy asking for surrender in a situation where the party can't handle them properly is some kind of catch 22. It may, in some circumstances, be a nice moral conundrum to the PCs. But used by an adversarial GM, it can just be a pain.
Fair, I did jump to a conclusion but as you note this is exactly the kind of situation a GM can use to "abuse" his players.
I think the difference is, I don't consider the purposeful interjection of moral conundrums to be good for the game or fun for players, unless we talk about running exactly that kind of game beforehand. It's one thing if players create a problem for themselves, but a monstrous enemy surrendering in a situation where the players can't easily pass them to an authority, weeks away from safety, and with an important mission to accomplish in a timeframe is a bit of a jerk move.
I think that to satisfy this sort of situation players need some sort of mechanical way to observe that the captured enemy is:
1) Not actually repentant
2) Only surrendered because they think humans/"civilized races" might not kill them
3) Has an intention to betray the party by running away and or harming them, and such harm can include merely telling others (with a greater capacity than themselves) that the party is coming/in the area.
The third item is particularly important. If the players knew factually that the enemy really intended to do it, I think executing the prisoner is justified.
Surrender implies that you are agreeing (in exchange for your life and well being) that you will not seek to harm your captors.
Fair, I did jump to a conclusion but as you note this is exactly the kind of situation a GM can use to "abuse" his players.
I think the difference is, I don't consider the purposeful interjection of moral conundrums to be good for the game or fun for players, unless we talk about running exactly that kind of game beforehand. It's one thing if players create a problem for themselves, but a monstrous enemy surrendering in a situation where the players can't easily pass them to an authority, weeks away from safety, and with an important mission to accomplish in a timeframe is a bit of a jerk move.
It's a GM tool. As with all tools, it's good when properly used and bad when badly used. I may think of something like that for a big bad evil guy or other important enemy. But I don't want to lose much time with the "random monster 17".
The third item is particularly important. If the players knew factually that the enemy really intended to do it, I think executing the prisoner is justified.
Gagging and proper bonds should forbid the prisoner to do much harm. I don't let a prisoner in a situation where they can harm the party.
Gagging and proper bonds should forbid the prisoner to do much harm. I don't let a prisoner in a situation where they can harm the party.
Perhaps in PF2 that might be effective, I hadn't double checked to be sure.
If PF1, most of your standard ropes/manacles/etc weren't going to hold certain enemies (especially barbarians). And with spell casters you don't know if they have silent still spells prepared to get them out of the situation.
I think in PF2 it's probably less risky, supposing you have manacles, rope, and gags. But if PF1 I never found it be effective.
If my group needed to keep someone captive (and we didn't have any really goody types that we couldn't convince) we would do some pretty messed up stuff (breaking arms and legs, sometimes cutting them off and then healing to keep them alive) to prevent them from having any chance of escape or harming the party. We knew such actions were not acceptable morally, but the party would already not be leaning to the good side. Usually we would explain to the individual what we were going to do, without malice, and let them know that once we got back to civilization we would pay for/cast regeneration and modify memory so that they can get past the experience. Want to stress again, not good. But worked in a party of lawful neutral/lawful evil characters.
|
Thinking that being powerful puts you above the law is definitely an Evil mindset.
Questions of whether or not one respects “the law,” for whatever reason, strikes me as an issue on the Law/Chaos axis of alignment rather than the Good/Evil axis.
If Al thinks being powerful puts him above the law and justifies his committing unlawful acts of evil, then Al is likely either Neutral Good or Chaotic Good.
If Bob thinks being powerful puts him above the law and uses that power to commit unlawful acts of evil, then Bob is likely either Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil.
If Carl thinks that even though he’s powerful enough to disregard the tyrant’s evil laws, but nevertheless mercilessly enforces them because they’re the law, Carl is probable either Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil.
If Dredd believes that he is the law, he’s probably Sylvester Stallone.