PCs who kill everyone that attacks them

[Nifft]

Certain foes don't surrender -- demons, goblins, lycanthropes under the moon's influence, evil clerics of demon-gods, slaad, and the like.

IMC, the party's usually found ways to avoid or otherwise non-combatively deal with human threats, so the "surrender" issue seldom comes up.

When the people they've pissed off start sending human mercenaries, it will come up, though. So thanks for all the good information in this thread!

-- N

 

[Numion]

Likewise, Good PCs should always accept surrenders.

Um, why? Especially if there's no opportunity to put them to jail.

If you accept surrender multiple times from someone who just always comes back to kill you, surrendering each time if he can't kill you, that's not good. Actually there's a specific word for that. That's stupid.

 

[tonym]

...most pcs Ive seen in games are pretty much of the attitude, if the npcs defend themselves when we attack or they attack us, then we should leave a trail of corpses behind us.

In my experience, if a surrendering NPC hasn't killed a party member during a battle, I'd say that NPC still has a decent chance of walking away alive--even if he or she inflicted some damage on the PCs.

A lot really depends on how the DM roleplays the surrendering NPC, though. Some NPCs have a bad attitude, or aren't cooperative enough. Un-fearful NPCs like that are easier to squish.

Some NPCs you can't help but respect, though. Or pity. These NPCs may live to walk away, even if they DID kill a PC. Again, this depends on how the DM roleplays them.

In other words, it's ALWAYS the DM's fault if his players are bloodthirsty and kill his NPCs.

haha



Tony

 

[Endur]

Heroes accept surrenders.

Batman puts the Joker in the insane asylum. Superman puts Lex Luthor in prison.

Both of them know that their enemies will most likely escape and create more evil in the future.

Why do they send them to prison? Because they are heroes. And there is a chance, the smallest chance, that their enemies might be rehabillitated.

Now, let's take this discussion out of the modern day superhero world and talk about the fantasy medieval world.

Different fantasy worlds are quite different, but most are based on legends about medieval Europe.

In medieval Europe, you could judge a lawbreaker you had captured. Or you could send them to some authority that had the power to judge.

But typically, if you defeated someone in battle, you didn't judge them at all. Instead, you held them for ransom.

When the ransom was paid, you let them go.

Taking prisoners and releasing them had several impacts. First, it made enemies more likely to surrender, which increased your chances of winning a fight. Second, it made enemies more likely to accept your surrender, which increased your odds of living through a lost fight. Third, it made you richer. Fourth, it built your reputation far more than slaying an enemy ever could, which also made you richer.

What about prisoners who have no wealth, freinds, or relatives to ransom them? What did they do about those prisoners? Indentured servitude (or slavery if you are not good aligned). Well, your ransom would have been 100 gold. But you don't have any gold or relatives. If you work for us as a soldier or a farmhand or x for six months, your ransom will be considered paid.

What about the enemy who you capture over and over again? Well, you raise the ransom each time and you get richer and richer.

Obviously, this would not apply to psychopathic killers, but to your average combatant, it works.

 

[takyris]

Perhaps this means that I've outgrown comic books, or at least standard superhero comic books, but Superman and Batman seem stupid by that definition. Sure, Superman has to hold back because he's so poewrful, and he doesn't want to risk becoming evil, but Batman? The Joker always escapes. And he always kills people. The Joker deserves to die. It'll never really happen, because the Joker is a comic-book franchise in and of himself, but really.

I like Farscape more than I liked Voyager. Here's how this is relevant:

Voyager: An evil alien takes over the ship and tries to kill everyone.

Janeway: Well, we've finally captured you, evil alien, and your plans have been stopped. Now, get off my ship. For the record, we're putting a warning beacon around the nebula you live in, so that no one else falls prey to your evil schemes.

Farscape: An evil alien takes over the ship and tries to kill everyone.

Crichton: Hey, you freaky fire-breathing sumbeesh, come get some! (Alien gets blown up, Crichton gets covered in goo, many things explode.)

In a world or campaign where the villains are so clearly beyond the power of standard law enforcement to contain, the hero has a moral obligation to take out the trash himself.

Admittedly, I don't have this problem with, say, Cartoon Network's Justice League, because even though the bad guys are trying to take over the world, they rarely actually kill anyone. It's sort of a gentleman's agreement.

So, if I'm a 9th-level fighter, and I've just broken past the defenses of a 12th-level wizard, and he says, "Alright, I surrender, take my spell components and bind my hands and gag me if you will," and I know that the guy can cast stilled, silent spells, and I know that the local authorities are 2nd-level warriors -- and I know that this guy isn't just coming after me, but is going to kill innocent peasants as well -- then taking care of him is really my problem.

Not every case is that bad, of course, but I don't buy that heroes always have to accept surrenders -- not if they're on a stealth mission, not if they have no way of ensuring that the bad guy doesn't escape, and not if they believe in good faith that the person is just going to kill more people if they let him go.

"Yes, Jane Peasant, your husband the guard was killed by the wizard when he broke out of your pitiful nonmagical town prison -- but you can rest comfortably knowing that I, the hero, didn't kill anyone who was trying to surrender. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to run off and catch the evil wizard and bring him back to your pitiful nonmagical town prison. Who's the replacement guard? Your son? Well, best of luck to you."

 

[Pielorinho]

Good points, Taky. I always thought the reason Batman and Superman took prisoners had nothing to do with their being heroes and everything to do with the Comics Code.

In our games, it's low-level flunkies that get taken prisoner, and occasionally big nasties like hill giants whom we think we can intimidate into retreating into the wilderness. The only way we'd take a high-level wizard captive is if we could turn them over to high-level gaolers, or else we believed they wanted out.

In a recent game, this happened -- an evil cleric surrendered to us, and in the process turned traitor on his previous allies, explaining that the cult he'd joined turned out to be way oogier than he'd originally thought, and that he'd been hiding his inability to cast divine spells for months. We got his help in destroying the cult and then turned him free.

Daniel

 

[Angcuru]

"Yes, Jane Peasant, your husband the guard was killed by the wizard when he broke out of your pitiful nonmagical town prison -- but you can rest comfortably knowing that I, the hero, didn't kill anyone who was trying to surrender. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to run off and catch the evil wizard and bring him back to your pitiful nonmagical town prison. Who's the replacement guard? Your son? Well, best of luck to you."

Nice way to put it.

Unfortunately, I never have a chance to offer surrender in a D&D game, because my DM always adds the 'Diablo' template to his monsters/foes' mentality. I.E. Fight to the death...every time...just because...

 

[Umbran]

The NPCs thoughts afterward:
She heads back to town, thinking what a bunch of jerks...

Yeah, 'cause I know that most good, decent folk who I try to kill will readily let me walk away with my weapons and armor and such. It's only sporting, after all, right? I mean, there's a mess of really violent peole out there, who might try to do me harm on the streets and all...

I dunno about anyone else, but this struck me as a bit odd - where in the world does this NPC get the gall to call her intended victims jerks?

 

[Angcuru]

I dunno about anyone else, but this struck me as a bit odd - where in the world does this NPC get the gall to call her intended victims jerks?

Detroit?

either that or she has a few stones to pass

 

[Elf Witch]

Yeah, 'cause I know that most good, decent folk who I try to kill will readily let me walk away with my weapons and armor and such. It's only sporting, after all, right? I mean, there's a mess of really violent peole out there, who might try to do me harm on the streets and all...

I dunno about anyone else, but this struck me as a bit odd - where in the world does this NPC get the gall to call her intended victims jerks?

Really. But I do think killing everyone is stupid you get a reputation for being ruthless and as other have said your enemies fight all that harder because they know they are going to die. I think PCs who do this should end up dead if ever taken prisoner themselves.

Also killing like this should have other consequences like angry family and friends who swaer vengence on those murdering heros who killed my dad.

Also you never get the information you are looking for.

As for looting umm excuse me confiscating their magic items and weapons well what is good for the goose and all that.

How you treat a prisoner really depends on your alingment and situation there is not one right answer for every situation.