Tom Cashel
First Post
Yep...kinda ironic, isn't it? Glad someone picked up on that.
Can good characters let evil characters die?
BlackMoria
First Post
Our group has had the situation of capturing evil character(s) happen all the time.
If time and circumstance allows, we turn them over to the proper authorities to do with what they will.
If time and circumstance doesn't allow, depending upon the party level and resources, we have done the following in the past.
Used Suggestion, Charm Monster or Dominate Person/Monster as a control mechanism. Usually suggestion/charm/dominate them and send them on their way, usually with an order to turn themselves in to the authorities.
We have use Geas on special prisoners.
When the above methods aren't possible, our party has cut off the thumbs (assuming they have thumbs) of the evil prisoners and sent them on their way. Evil spellcaster have their tongues split.
Why thumbs.... try swinging a sword, picking a lock or casting a spell without an opposable thumb. It is nearly impossible or very problematic to do any serious adventuring type things without thumbs. A split tongue allows a person to eventually learn to talk properly, but only after some time. In the meantime, it prevents proper pronunciation of verbal spells and command words.
A minor maiming is preferable over outright butchery of prisoners - the prisoner gets to live and go free and with time, can learn to cope with or overcome the handicap.
YMMV.
If time and circumstance allows, we turn them over to the proper authorities to do with what they will.
If time and circumstance doesn't allow, depending upon the party level and resources, we have done the following in the past.
Used Suggestion, Charm Monster or Dominate Person/Monster as a control mechanism. Usually suggestion/charm/dominate them and send them on their way, usually with an order to turn themselves in to the authorities.
We have use Geas on special prisoners.
When the above methods aren't possible, our party has cut off the thumbs (assuming they have thumbs) of the evil prisoners and sent them on their way. Evil spellcaster have their tongues split.
Why thumbs.... try swinging a sword, picking a lock or casting a spell without an opposable thumb. It is nearly impossible or very problematic to do any serious adventuring type things without thumbs. A split tongue allows a person to eventually learn to talk properly, but only after some time. In the meantime, it prevents proper pronunciation of verbal spells and command words.
A minor maiming is preferable over outright butchery of prisoners - the prisoner gets to live and go free and with time, can learn to cope with or overcome the handicap.
YMMV.
Last edited:
Artoomis
First Post
I think that, oddly enough, a choatic - to - neutral good party would have more trouble with what to do with defeated opponents than LG.
Why? Because they are closer to "pure" good" than LG who always feel bound by his lawful nature as well, and more easily declare himself the local law and deal with the captives as the law would do were they back in town.
Anyway, the decision is a tough one, and the game is much more fun if they DON'T kill the defeated enemies for moral reasons. This makes it much tougher on the PCs, and that's usually a good thing. Heck, there's not much point in being "good" if you feel like you can just slaughter the bad guys - that's an awful lot like being a bad guy, isn't it?
Usually, the ultimate goal for "good" is less to DEFEAT evil as it is to CONVERT evil over to the side of good whenever even remotely possible. Just as evil is always trying to get good characters over to the "dark side."
Why? Because they are closer to "pure" good" than LG who always feel bound by his lawful nature as well, and more easily declare himself the local law and deal with the captives as the law would do were they back in town.
Anyway, the decision is a tough one, and the game is much more fun if they DON'T kill the defeated enemies for moral reasons. This makes it much tougher on the PCs, and that's usually a good thing. Heck, there's not much point in being "good" if you feel like you can just slaughter the bad guys - that's an awful lot like being a bad guy, isn't it?
Usually, the ultimate goal for "good" is less to DEFEAT evil as it is to CONVERT evil over to the side of good whenever even remotely possible. Just as evil is always trying to get good characters over to the "dark side."
Bob Aberton
First Post
"He who fights monsters must look to it that he does not become one. When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you."
-Frederick Nietsche
Take whatever meaning you will from above quote.
-Frederick Nietsche
Take whatever meaning you will from above quote.
birdboy2000
First Post
It depends on the character. Pretty much any paladin would not kill a helpless foe however. I wouldn't say it was against any alignment, but it violates the type of code of honor a paladin should have.
Creamsteak
Explorer
I would have (PC perspective) unbound them and given all of them their gear, completely untarnished. Then they are free to fight us again right then and there if they want (and you know nobody that just got beaten unconscious going to get back up and want to fight again). If they follow us, great, a bunch of back stabbing NPC's to make everything fun. If they run home to mommy, great, no big deal. If they go tell the local authorities that we ambushed them... then I'd have to drink twenty truth potions and talk. Either way I don't want to kill them, just cause its a waste of adventurers.
Geoff Watson
First Post
I vote for not killing them.
They are fellow/rival adventurers.
They're not crazed Tharizdun cultists or irredeemable demons.
You never know when you might meet them again or need their help.
Geoff.
They are fellow/rival adventurers.
They're not crazed Tharizdun cultists or irredeemable demons.
You never know when you might meet them again or need their help.
Geoff.
Dragonblade
Adventurer
The problem with these debates is that you have to first determine some basic alignment guidelines for your specific game and campaign.
In some people's games an NPC could register as evil just because he is a jerk. These are the kind of people who get all hot and bothered when people like SHARK come on and advocate the execution of evil wherever it is found. But in SHARK's games and my own the definition of evil is quite different. Being evil means an individual thoroughly relishes inflicting cruel pain and death upon innocents. That is why good characters in our world don't hesitate to dispense death in judgement of evil beings. Because if they are evil then they are EVIL and they have more than earned death as a punishment.
But if in your game a character merits as evil simply because he is mean to puppies then a death sentence for showing up as "evil" on a detect alignment spell is way out of line. So it all depends on your interpretation of alignment. Otherwise debate is pointless.
In some people's games an NPC could register as evil just because he is a jerk. These are the kind of people who get all hot and bothered when people like SHARK come on and advocate the execution of evil wherever it is found. But in SHARK's games and my own the definition of evil is quite different. Being evil means an individual thoroughly relishes inflicting cruel pain and death upon innocents. That is why good characters in our world don't hesitate to dispense death in judgement of evil beings. Because if they are evil then they are EVIL and they have more than earned death as a punishment.
But if in your game a character merits as evil simply because he is mean to puppies then a death sentence for showing up as "evil" on a detect alignment spell is way out of line. So it all depends on your interpretation of alignment. Otherwise debate is pointless.
Last edited:
Tom Cashel
First Post
Not necessarily...
The problem with these debates is that someone (usually several people) feel the need to claim that they are useless.
Assume that I'm using the guidelines set forth in the 3E Player's Handbook. They're a lot less sketchy than they used to be.
The crux of THIS debate is: what should a group of mostly chaotic and neutral (but good) characters do with a captured rival adventuring group (mostly lawful to neutral) that has two neutral evil members. It's not a debate about whether one should use the detect spells or whether one should abolish alignment. We're just wondering about some different ways we might have handled the situation...many have been suggested. I still think the "heal one fully and fight them to the death" answer is the best.
Hey, no offense, Dragonblade--I just think that if we keep it down to earth instead of rising to those lofty heights of speculation about what alignment "means," this debate might actually retain some clarity and usefulness.
Cheers,
Tom
Dragonblade said:
The problem with these debates is that someone (usually several people) feel the need to claim that they are useless.
Assume that I'm using the guidelines set forth in the 3E Player's Handbook. They're a lot less sketchy than they used to be.
The crux of THIS debate is: what should a group of mostly chaotic and neutral (but good) characters do with a captured rival adventuring group (mostly lawful to neutral) that has two neutral evil members. It's not a debate about whether one should use the detect spells or whether one should abolish alignment. We're just wondering about some different ways we might have handled the situation...many have been suggested. I still think the "heal one fully and fight them to the death" answer is the best.
Hey, no offense, Dragonblade--I just think that if we keep it down to earth instead of rising to those lofty heights of speculation about what alignment "means," this debate might actually retain some clarity and usefulness.
Cheers,
Tom
Similar Threads
