Age old question: Handling of prisoners

[Celebrim]

Honestly? Give them more redeemable enemies, enemies that they could reasonably save...

So far, I don't think this approach has really occurred to the party.

The thing is, the cult leader wasn't a completely unredeemable character. She believed that the world was ruthless and unforgiving and brutal, and because of that anything she did was justified to change the nature of the world. She actually has a sympathetic motivation (which I'll currently keep quite about), but suffice to say that it could be summed up as she wants a world with less pain and grief.

As far as the cult leader is concerned, she's a hero. She thinks she is one of the good guys, and the behavior of the party is exactly the sort of ruthless brutality she would have expected of those that call themselves 'good'.

In fact, to give a bit of a campaign level secret away, the literary idea animating the entire evil organization is "there is no evil a man will not do when he believes that he has been wronged". It was my intention to make most of my villains for this campaign be at least two-dimensional complex individuals who were people that the players could come to like, respect or even empathize with to a certain degree. Many of my villains are or are going to be quite charismatic. They are intended to 'tragic heroes'. In fact, I strongly suspect that with some groups at EnWorld, they'd end up joining sides with them because a lot of their motivations and self-identity parallel popular sorts of thinking today.

A lot of the reason that players are bloodthirsty is that they have learned, from gaming experience...

This group of players is largely inexperienced. About half of them are playing for the first time. So, while there is some truth to what you say, I don't think that is the primary reason PC's tend to be ruthless and bloodthirsty. I think the two primary reasons why PC's tend to behave like bandits and murderers is firstly that they are playing a game and so (somewhat reasonably) have foremost in their minds a competitive mentality. And secondly, I think that PC's tend to behave in a quite bloodthirsty manner because humans tend to be quite bloodthirsty and goodness is so rare that people have a hard time relating to it or even imagining it. We are, in Tolkien terms, largely 'orcs' and are heart is given to the wrong gods. That is the reason that evil is so easy and good is so hard. That is the reason that when we imagine and fantasize about our superpowers whether in movies, books, games, or any portion of our fantasy life, they tend to revolve around beating people up good and making/commanding other people do what we want them to do.

 

[Tharkon]

As far as the cult leader is concerned, she's a hero. She thinks she is one of the good guys, and the behavior of the party is exactly the sort of ruthless brutality she would have expected of those that call themselves 'good'.

What would detect evil say?

This group of players is largely inexperienced. About half of them are playing for the first time.

This just makes the experience of the current game weigh more.

That is the reason that when we imagine and fantasize about our superpowers whether in movies, books, games, or any portion of our fantasy life, they tend to revolve around beating people up good and making/commanding other people do what we want them to do.

This is also funded by the fact that they want to do what they normally can't do without retribution. People want most that which they can't have.

If there'd been some means of permanently stripping her of her magical abilities and protecting her from the townsfolk, then I could see leaving her alive to try to redeem her; I wouldn't choose to do so myself, but I can see where a Good person might, if he had that option available to him. Given the situation as it occurred in game, it would have been entirely out of the question.

In a game where people are so afraid of sorcery I would expect some good wizards helped form prisons with permanent anti-magic fields cast on them. Aside from that when bound and gagged even a sorcerer will need both Still Spell and Silent Spell to cast most spells (a few spells exist lacking somatic components).

What I am also wondering is if there is any sign that the PCs drive behind this was indeed the prevention of further victims by the cult leader. Since there are multiple PCs I assume they talk with each other and discuss things. If there is an NPC amongst them you can directly or indirectly lead a conversation to reminisce what happened to the cult leaders, but if they really contemplated the reasoning behind killing any of these cult leaders while they were at that time harmless then I would assume they had a discussion about it with each other at that time. If a party of mainly good characters stand around an incapacitated opponent and one of them suddenly slices that opponent's throat without saying anything I'd think most would be surprised if not shocked.

 

[Celebrim]

What would detect evil say?

It would say she is Evil. She would say, "Yes, but Evil is good." Just because you agree to the label doesn't mean you agree to its normative value. She would say, "The alignment commonly called evil is the one which describes the proper way to behave."

This is also funded by the fact that they want to do what they normally can't do without retribution.

In some cases, yes. However, as the case of the commoners poisoning you in your sleep should suggest, you can't in fact do whatever you want without retribution in my games.

People want most that which they can't have.

I'm not sure that I agree. However, it's not worth arguing over.

In a game where people are so afraid of sorcery I would expect some good wizards helped form prisons with permanent anti-magic fields cast on them. Aside from that when bound and gagged even a sorcerer will need both Still Spell and Silent Spell to cast most spells (a few spells exist lacking somatic components).

Spellcasters above 9th level are assumed to be extraordinarily rare in my world. While its concievable that a good one might make it his lifes work to go around putting permenent anti-magic fields up in prisons, its equally concievable that another one might make it his life work to go around destroying same. Since destrutruction is easier than creation, it would take only a small percentage of spellcasters motivated to destruction to largely overwhelm the ones motivated to create. Hense, you would expect that in the vast majority of cases, such institutions wouldn't exist. Which isn't to say that they don't, but that they are rare and confined to the few areas where high level spellcasters aren't virtually unknown.

Given the general fear of the populace of arcane spellcasters, there is an additional factor weighing against your theory. Any spellcaster of any alignment would have to consider whether or not such a prison would ultimately contain its maker. Afterall, a prison is only as just as the magistrates who put it to use.

I should also say that long term imprisonment is a fairly rare punishment. Prisoners are usually flogged for minor crimes, sold into slavery or banished for more severe ones, and executed otherwise. Long term imprisonment is generally confined to political prisoners.

You are correct that even harsh precautions are of little avail against a high level character with Silent and Still metamagic feats. Hense, the further reason for fear. However, they are at least somewhat effective. And the general understanding that society is experienced with dealing with problems of the sort the PC's could make, helps impress upon the players that they can't get away with everything.

What I am also wondering is if there is any sign that the PCs drive behind this was indeed the prevention of further victims by the cult leader.

Not that I can tell. I'm not sure really what the motivating force is here, but I'm inclined to feel that it isn't a rational one. For example, I've made it clear that full XP is forth coming as a result of victory whether or not the NPC dies. They've exhibited the same behavior in cases where a prisoner was a significant logistic burden, and when a prisoner was no logistic burden. They've exibited the same behavior when the prisoner was important and dangerous, and when the prisoner was little threat and merely a minion.

So far, only one prisoner (a bandit) has managed to avoid getting murdered after falling into their hands. I'm not entirely sure what he did to earn parole but I am probably going to see if I can replicate the experiment to see if I can get some more data.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

This group of players is largely inexperienced. About half of them are playing for the first time. So, while there is some truth to what you say, I don't think that is the primary reason PC's tend to be ruthless and bloodthirsty.

Okay, I didn't know that. In that case, they may not even be aware that dynamics other than "destroy evil" are available, and it might be worth your time to talk about that with them. On the other hand, I stand by my assertion that you are forcing their hand considerably by your choice of villains; however "understandable" her motivations may have been in your mind, she doesn't present anything to the PCs but an urgent threat that must be destroyed immediately, and the attitude of the "goodly" NPCs supports that.

I think the two primary reasons why PC's tend to behave like bandits and murderers is firstly that they are playing a game and so (somewhat reasonably) have foremost in their minds a competitive mentality. And secondly, I think that PC's tend to behave in a quite bloodthirsty manner because humans tend to be quite bloodthirsty and goodness is so rare that people have a hard time relating to it or even imagining it.

I can agree with both of those notions. The vast majority of people are Neutral, but consider themselves Good, and an even greater majority of the people who are actually Evil also consider themselves Good.

On the other hand, I still think a lot of the behavior you're labeling as "bloodthirsty" on their part is completely and totally justified, and that even the most saintly of Paladins would agree with them, at least as far as your cult leader is concerned. The fact that she's a hero in her own mind and that she has her reasons for acting as she has does nothing to diminish this; like I said, everyone believes they're Good.

If your standards for Good are so high that we as human beings cannot even relate to them, you are effectively eliminating Good as an option for your players. If being Good forces them to behave in a fashion that staggers the imagination-- such as showing mercy to the cult leader-- then nobody is going to play Good.

If a party of mainly good characters stand around an incapacitated opponent and one of them suddenly slices that opponent's throat without saying anything I'd think most would be surprised if not shocked.

Unless that incapacitated opponent is so damned Evil that they're all thinking the same thing.

It would say she is Evil. She would say, "Yes, but Evil is good." Just because you agree to the label doesn't mean you agree to its normative value. She would say, "The alignment commonly called evil is the one which describes the proper way to behave."

You realize that this does not, in even the slightest capacity, make her more sympathetic? Human frailty can be explained and forgiven, but a person who does Evil out of moral conviction and who shows no remorse cannot.

 

[Celebrim]

You realize that this does not, in even the slightest capacity, make her more sympathetic? Human frailty can be explained and forgiven, but a person who does Evil out of moral conviction and who shows no remorse cannot.

Yes, I realize that. However, would it help to point out that she is a sorceress in a world that doesn't see treating fairly those born with magical talent as it's first priority, a woman in a culture that tends to be mysogynist, a person who has suffered great personal tragedy, and someone who has been drawn into the charismatic sphere of someone who is promising not just vengence on those that she thinks is responcible but a new and brighter world?

I'm not suggesting that she is right necessarily. I'm only suggesting that a person who does evil out of the moral conviction that evil deeds will ultimately serve good ends, and that injustice must be perpretrated so as to bring greater justice in the end might be past a point where they are capable of change. But they might not be. The PC's are far from being at a point where they have the information that they need, but there are places where even Mrs. Danth wasn't willing to go or follow.

And more to the point, if the world was to stand in judgement, and Mrs. Danth was to speak for the prosecution, none of the actions of the Heroes would consitute of a strong rebuttle by the defense. Indeed, when she declares (or would declare) that there is no real good in the world, and that when the chips are down and survival is at stake everyone acts alike, where is the refutation of that? So far the assassin's assessment of the party stands out as true: "You'll do exactly what I would do - slit their throats and go through their pockets for coins."

 

[Tharkon]

In some cases, yes. However, as the case of the commoners poisoning you in your sleep should suggest, you can't in fact do whatever you want without retribution in my games.

I was referring to the dreams and fantasy of being almighty, in which case I would have immunity of poison, in fact, I would have DR 100/-, SR 100, Fire, Sonic, Acid, Electricity and Cold immunity, Regeneration 100/-, be immune to poison, stunning, disease, flanking, critical hits and death effects and negative energy effects. I would not have to eat, drink, breath or sleep, have a permanent Freedom of Movement effect on me and be able to cast a Silent Still Quickened Wish at will as a supernatural ability.

They've exibited the same behavior when the prisoner was important and dangerous, and when the prisoner was little threat and merely a minion.

See what they do when the prisoner is (and they know it is) harmless but useful, yet still responsible for a lot of evil. Like maybe an artificer or something, who created powerful constructs that destroyed and killed but is himself fragile, and without access to his workshop quite harmless.

On the other hand, I still think a lot of the behavior you're labeling as "bloodthirsty" on their part is completely and totally justified, and that even the most saintly of Paladins would agree with them, at least as far as your cult leader is concerned.

Largely depends on their code. A Paladin's code with a 3rd-degree tenet in the Prisoner's section would list:

All prisoners are sacred – the paladin may not kill any who have surrendered to him, not even the most depraved and despicable individuals. The paladin may take whatever reasonable steps are needed to prevent a prisoner from escaping, but they should still be treated humanely.

A Paladin's code does not usually list many 3rd-degree tenet's of course.
The basic paladin described in the PHB is listed as having a 1st-degree Prisoner tenet:

The paladin must scan all prisoners with detect evil. Those who are evil may be slain out of hand – those who are not evil should either be freed or tried by the secular authorities. A prisoner under the paladin’s care must be healed to prevent them from dying and must be given food, water and a certain amount of dignity.

I am personally in favor of making things as clear as possible, that's why I think material like that is almost required for if a DM and a Paladin's player are to get along well. If you want I can list the entire code of the default Paladin.

Unless that incapacitated opponent is so damned Evil that they're all thinking the same thing.

I'd still expect them to mention it at some point afterwards. Either a compliment if they agreed that much, a remark if they were opposed, or a question about it if they are neither.

 

[Celebrim]

I am personally in favor of making things as clear as possible, that's why I think material like that is almost required for if a DM and a Paladin's player are to get along well. If you want I can list the entire code of the default Paladin.

I don't have 'Paladins' in my game. I don't even use the class, but instead a homebrewed Champion class. You can get very close to a Paladin under my rules by playing something like a Champion of Justian with the Guardian and Righteousness portfolios, but you can also play something so very far removed from that it is difficult to compare the two. Only the Lawful deities will bother I think with extensive formalized lists. The Chaotic champions will rely instead on something like the Golden Rule or the Wiccan Rede and leave the interpretation up to the individual.

My champion's diety does have a formalized list (the deity is LG, though the champion is NG), but he's the God of the Dead and Travellers and therefore there is barely an overlap between his code and stock Paladin save on high level notions of what is 'good'. Primary tenents would be things like not violating the dead and punishing those that do, never failing to offer protection to innocents, and never refusing a stranger hospitality. Secondary tenents would be things like seeing that bodies of the free peoples are properly buried, that pilgrims are safe on their journeys, and helping little old ladies across the street.

 

[jcbdragon]

Their specific goal is to load up several wagons with dirt. Seriously, just dirt. A particular type of dirt, mind you, but dirt.

In that case, another option would be to get the bad guys conscious and offer them a choice: if you're willing to do manual labor for us, filling these wagons with dirt, then we'll heal you up. If you're not willing to do that... well, here's a dagger and a few days' rations -- good luck!

 

[Greenfield]

The bad guys were a problem on several levels. First off, they weren't "bad", in that they didn't trip a Detect Evil. They were simply soldiers from a country that's in conflict wit the Empire the PCs come from.

Second, they were Human. No rationalization of, "They're just Orcs" or anything like that. Their Adept (who they captured) even worships a good deity.

Fortunately they worked something out. The prisoners negotiated a ransom, to be paid in gold, along with terms that they're supposed to leave unmolested any other farmers heading up here for dirt.

It got paid, and all was well. The party Rogue and the enemy Rogue/Assassin were like a pair of cats facing off, each ready to go the moment the other twitched, but the exchange went smoothly.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

To offer a suggestion to the OP, I'd consider shoving the prisoners bodies into bags of holding, leaving thier heads sticking out and the mouth of the bag tied snuggly around the neck.
I'd then secure the heads to a player's hip, or the side of the horses. They'd be encouraged to serve as extra Spot and Listen checks.
Prisoners would be rewarded for behaving with things like quality food instead of poor quality, being conversed with as a human being, and being allowed out occasionally for pee breaks and a shower. Misbehavior would be punished depending upon the severity, such as an ear flick, being blindfolded, or covering with honey and (threatening) placing the head by an anthill, or reminding them now easy a Coup de grâce would be in thier given condition.
Cooperation or being uncooperative would affect ultimately what happens to the prisoner and how quickly.