What do your PCs do with prisoners?

[Mishihari Lord]

On the issue of the morality of killing prisoners, often killing them is the moral choice. Suppose you capture some bandits that have been robbing and murdering travelers through a wilderness area. There isn't any higher authority to turn them over to - it's a wilderness. If you let them loose, they'll continue robbing and murdering innocents. The best option here is to just kill them.

 

[JediMasterGunner]

This question has come up a lot in the d20 Apocalypse game I am playing in. Our game started during an epidemic and during the fourth session the Bombs fell. There is a lot of uncertainty because we have not found any continuity of government in our region. My character was a cop (Smart level 1 with Diplomacy and Gather Info as occupation skills). He has consistently been trying to preserve life.

Dealing with prisoners is really difficult. In the beginning we faced a lot of questions about where to draw the line. I tried to parley before anyone was shot or stabbed. When the shooting started I try to dig in and talk people down. What do you do when the guy on the other side is just looking for medicine or food and you are competing? This avoids the prisoner problem.

We could turn some prisoners over to the National Guard or the Army as we encountered them but the group wasn't thrilled about the extra weight, especially when resources are limited. Often the party suggests trying to distract my character so they can murder the prisoners while he is away. I have to point out the "Good does not mean stupid" phrase that a lot of paladins should consider. We have had PCs fight each other while a battle was taking place because one wanted to honor the deal and thought another was going to kill the prisoner.

After the fight we often leave the unconscious and stabilize the dying but don't take them with us. It depends on if the fight was between professionals or if it was an ambush. If it is clear this was a group of slavers or cannibals then my character has accepted that some losses need to be cut. We haven't executed anyone yet: all of the party kills have been in the heat of battle.

So far, no prisoners have caused problems for us. It may be that the GM doesn't want to derail the planned missions. If he really doesn't want us talking to a guy, they've met with foul ends before we get the chance. Sometimes I'll take a prisoner and the bad guys kill their own guy to prevent him from talking. This in turn presents a new opportunity for a mission.

Recently we ran into a new hurdle. Our group is working for a town where a lot of refugees have holed up. We have encountered a highly organized raiding party (picture advance teams of Caesar's Legion from New Vegas) and we were able to capture a handful of guys. We brought them back to town for intelligence and they were executed by the town while we were out trying to stop another raid. This is a problem because my character talked them a couple of them into surrendering.

These events have been frustrating to my character but rewarding as a player. Playing a character with moral or ethical constraints in some settings is for the challenge because there are no mechanical benefits. My badass-book worm wasteland cop isn't going to lose spells or a magic horse if he does evil, just the reputation he has been earning over the last seven levels. It is a great opportunity for roleplaying.

 

[the Jester]

The pcs in my current group tend to make allies out of foes an awful lot, regardless of who captures whom.

 

[The Shaman]

I am really surprised at the number of people whose enemies fight to the death. Especially considering how "Enemies shoudln't fight to the death; it's unrealistic" is a common complaint around here.

Last major fight in our Flashing Blades campaign resulted in three dead, two fled, and two prisoners. The previous big battle ended up with something like four wounded, one killed, two prisoners, and one escaped.

Only once did the adventurers kill all their opponents, during a duel in an alley; one of the duelists would've surrendered, but he end up with a rapier's foible two handspans deep in his chest before he could drop his own blade.

 

[JediMasterGunner]

About fighting to the death: important questions might be, "Have the players ever been prisoners? How did the adventure conclude?"

My characters would fight to the death to avoid capture with the perspective that getting captured and losing all our gear would just make everything worse. Bad experiences being captured led to that POV.

This was changed when the GM of our Star Wars game wanted to do an escape adventure. We were a starfighter group similar to Wraith Squadron and couldn't escape an Interdictor. The GM told us straight that if we watch Star Wars of Indiana Jones the good guys get captured in every movie. We could go along with it or our ships could be obliterated in the docking bay with us in them. It was a bit meta but a week later we went along with it and had a great time.

If the party is killing all the prisoners it might be time for an out of character chat.

 

[Kzach]

The choice to be moral is a valid option, but, not when every time you take it the DM is going to go out of the way to screw you over.

Again, it comes down to convenience. Sticking to one's ethics is easy when there's no pressure or challenge to them.

I constantly get 'burned' for doing the right thing yet I still try to do it. Which is why I'm not surprised that most people will, in an imaginary game with imaginary consequences, take the easiest, most convenient option, irrespective of moral value.

One of the reasons this constantly bugs me is that I prefer to run heroic games. And yet, most people don't seem to want to play heroic characters; they'd rather play characters that do whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want and do it all without boundary or restriction or consequence. I find this... odd.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Which is why I'm not surprised that most people will, in an imaginary game with imaginary consequences, take the easiest, most convenient option, irrespective of moral value.

I'm gonna go with "because it's an imaginary game with imaginary consequences."

Ergo, you know, not real.

Who cares if I acted cold-bloodedly towards the orcs; they don't actually exist! No one really cries when the orc warrior is slain, he doesn't actually leave any orphans behind.

And this goes doubly so if, every time I try to be nice to the orcs in the game, they try to stick a sword in me. Eventually, you reach the point where "I curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!" is no longer fun, and merciful gets relabled as Lawful Stupid.

 

[Hussar]

Again, it comes down to convenience. Sticking to one's ethics is easy when there's no pressure or challenge to them.

I constantly get 'burned' for doing the right thing yet I still try to do it. Which is why I'm not surprised that most people will, in an imaginary game with imaginary consequences, take the easiest, most convenient option, irrespective of moral value.

One of the reasons this constantly bugs me is that I prefer to run heroic games. And yet, most people don't seem to want to play heroic characters; they'd rather play characters that do whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want and do it all without boundary or restriction or consequence. I find this... odd.

Call it what you like, but, it's still the most logical course of action. If doing X will never benefit you and only cost you (sometimes signficantly) then no one will ever do it. If something doesn't benefit you but also doesn't particularly cost you either, then people probably will do it if they think it's the right thing to do.

But, if you're constantly outright punished for a particular action, negative reinforcement makes a pretty effective teacher. Or it turns into this massive time sink that no one really wanted anyway - the players take a prisioner, but, knowing the DM is now going to do everything in his power to screw them over for it, begin trying to cover every possible base like they suddenly got granted a Wish spell.

Three hours of real time later, the prisoner has escaped, stealing the wizard's spell book and the players are yet again pissed off.

So, no, it comes at no surprise to me that players automatically off prisoners.

 

[Rechan]

My characters would fight to the death to avoid capture with the perspective that getting captured and losing all our gear would just make everything worse. Bad experiences being captured led to that POV.

I'm emphasizing the message I took from this.

That is one of the most metagamey things I have ever heard.

 

[domino]

Last time my group took prisoners, we were in no condition to deal with them in the long term, and they weren't all that much to blame.

So they were a "test" for the GM. We let them go, with the understanding that if we ever saw them again, they'd get murdered. And we wouldn't bother taking any more prisoners, either.