Dragon Article: To Live Defeated

[TerraDave]

I will just jump on the bandwagon: I also like seeing articles that are different, but this was a weak article. You could have done about as much with a couple of sentances allowing the PCs to inflict alt injuries and then listing some.

Beyond that, many of these deserve there own powers/items etc (and in fact have them, or did so in past editions), but should not just be an automatic option. As noted above, it does little to satisfy those who would want truly non-violent alternatives.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

A laundry list of (mostly) evil things to do to a defeated foe was not what I was expecting. Frankly, nothing presented in the list is new to anyone who has seen more then a dozen sessions of DnD.

However, the ridiculous side-bar that Remove Affliction is for Heroes and not NPCs takes the cake. Why would afflictions on evil NPCs be more permanent then afflictions on good PCs. Ted the Fighter gets blinded. Ted's fellow adventurers/friends are going to go out of their way to see him restored to his original glory. Xultazan the High Priest of Xog is blinded. Does he not have even one loyal henchmen to lend a hand?

 

[Ryujin]

Xultazan the High Priest of Xog is blinded. Does he not have even one loyal henchmen to lend a hand?

Not after the PCs have killed them all.

Some of the things might not be what you would call good, but they aren't necessarily evil, in a medieval context. Striking the hand from a thief. Branding a criminal so that he's announced to the public. Putting the eyes out of a spy. These are things that I would have called Lawful Neutral, in the old games.

 

[Klaus]

Not after the PCs have killed them all.

Some of the things might not be what you would call good, but they aren't necessarily evil, in a medieval context. Striking the hand from a thief. Branding a criminal so that he's announced to the public. Putting the eyes out of a spy. These are things that I would have called Lawful Neutral, in the old games.

Cutting off a hand or gouging out eyes? Evil. Capital "E" evil. Branding a criminal would still be Unaligned, but D&D has the Mark of Justice, which is a foolproof, invisible mark that harms the recipient if he tries to repeat his crime (like immediate retribution).

 

[Aegeri]

Not after the PCs have killed them all.

Some of the things might not be what you would call good, but they aren't necessarily evil, in a medieval context. Striking the hand from a thief. Branding a criminal so that he's announced to the public. Putting the eyes out of a spy. These are things that I would have called Lawful Neutral, in the old games.

That sounds Lawful Evil to me and not Lawful Neutral.

 

[Ryujin]

Cutting off a hand or gouging out eyes? Evil. Capital "E" evil. Branding a criminal would still be Unaligned, but D&D has the Mark of Justice, which is a foolproof, invisible mark that harms the recipient if he tries to repeat his crime (like immediate retribution).

I would rather say Capital "E" expedient, rather than evil. The thief with one hand is a far less effective thief. The blind spy isn't much of a spy. These are things that were done in a world much like that of Dungeons and Dragons, that didn't have the benefit of deus ex machina.

 

[pemerton]

I don't still don't understand how blinding/maiming is morally more repugnant than murder/execution.

 

[Runestar]

I would rather say Capital "E" expedient, rather than evil. The thief with one hand is a far less effective thief. The blind spy isn't much of a spy. These are things that were done in a world much like that of Dungeons and Dragons, that didn't have the benefit of deus ex machina.

It also seems irresponsible and needlessly cruel.. How are these people supposed to make a living now that they are blind or missing 1 hand? Not saying they can't (there are many disabled people getting by just fine on their own), but...

I can see context specific uses for them, such as blinding a medusa so she can't use her petrifying gaze any more (assuming it works that way).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Remember, these kinds of punishments existed in a society where the alternative was to execute the criminal. It was thus both practical and in a sense merciful. The good of society HAD to be maintained. In the real world it doesn't exist by magic. Thieves can't be tolerated.

Anyway, a lot of these situations are complex and you could go back to all sorts of heroes of legends and characters from both history and fiction and find where they committed acts we would consider barbaric but were in the time and place neither unusual nor considered especially cruel. In a game world like that, which any 'PoL' type world would most likely be justice will harsh and summary. Nobody will consider it evil to condemn a group of goblin women and children to death or exile in the desert or something equally bad.

As for the silly "make something up at 0 hit points" thing... I'm all for creativity and if a player in my game sprang up and declared they'd like to do X and it can be done in a cool way that is fun for everyone, then it will happen. But I have to agree that the image of characters just flitting around delivering ultimate doom on all left and right is both hilarious and a bit much, at least for level 1! Now, I bet someone could pull off a level 30 ending story arc with that idea though, hehe.

 

[MrMyth]

A laundry list of (mostly) evil things to do to a defeated foe was not what I was expecting. Frankly, nothing presented in the list is new to anyone who has seen more then a dozen sessions of DnD.

However, the ridiculous side-bar that Remove Affliction is for Heroes and not NPCs takes the cake. Why would afflictions on evil NPCs be more permanent then afflictions on good PCs. Ted the Fighter gets blinded. Ted's fellow adventurers/friends are going to go out of their way to see him restored to his original glory. Xultazan the High Priest of Xog is blinded. Does he not have even one loyal henchmen to lend a hand?

I think what the sidebar is trying to say is, "Don't punish your players for choosing an alternate punishment by having its effects easily negated by the bad guys."

And I get why he says it. And think it is one of the terrible flaws in his design of this article.

That sidebar should have said, "Think of interesting stories that can develop from these fates. Here are some ideas. Here are some guidelines. Think up your own developments based on your own campaign."

Instead they basically said, "Hey, here is what happens to this people. As a DM, try to avoid letting anything change this. Don't let your desire to tell a story with your own campaign overwrite my stories as the writer of this article."

That's one of my biggest problems right there - the writer of the article was way too focused on sharing his own stories, rather than encouraging players and DMs to tell their own.