That would obviously qualify as inhumane behavior, literally treating them as an item. Not sure if you can partially store something in a bag of holding, and if one is big enough to hold a human body anyway.
Age old question: Handling of prisoners
- Thread starter Greenfield
- Start date
That would obviously qualify as inhumane behavior, literally treating them as an item. Not sure if you can partially store something in a bag of holding, and if one is big enough to hold a human body anyway.
RUMBLETiGER
Adventurer
To return to the OP, "Humane" or "Inhumane" was never mentioned. A head out of a bag is more humane than killing them, in the eyes of prisoners who would rather not die. I'm not advocating actually rolling them in an anthill, for example, I'm suggesting it as a threat to keep them cooerative, IF such a thing is needed. I'd advocate of eventually releasing the prisoners once it is convienent for the party, assuming the prisoners didn't do anything worth getting themselves killed for, which they are likely not to.
The OP mentioned the PC's being good, but not "Strictly Lawful Good in a way that insists they have to be as nice as possible in any given situation". In fact, returning to the first page,
As for if a Bag of holding is big enough to hold a human body, The smallest is 30 cu. ft. and holds up to 250lbs. As for if you can partially store something, the RAW is silent either way. You reach in and pull things out, at some point there is partial insertion of persons and items. One can stick an arm in and keep it there for a while as you look around for something.
When you put a bag over someone's head they suffocate, everyone knows that. But I believe to remember something about the rest of the body suffering from something similar too. Not sure if you die, but skin does need to breathe. I also wonder if their nails would grow to the point they could rupture the bag.
Jimlock
Adventurer
First off let me say this.
I've been in En World for about a month now... and up until now this is the most interesting thread...
Without any intention to undermine the OP or the rest of the posters, i believe that the discussion between Celebrim and Viktyr Korimir is one every DM should read and break his head over...
Not that a DM should be a person that advocates his own "morality" through his game....
...but through the game... through the story... players and DM alike should really put their very personal beliefs to the test.
D&D sure is fun for killing monsters, for it's intrigue, for solving riddles... but if it can provide for something more to think over... it's even better.
I totally agree with how Celbrim keeps things in the grey area... without putting neon signs over "good" or "evil"... for that's how real life is as well.
And while i agree that D&D isn't or shoudn't be a simulation of real life (in general...), IMO the ambiguity of morality... the repercussions of actions... should be simulated to the full, for not only is the game more interesting and intriguing, but because there is a small chance that we all learn something out of the experience... about ourselves and about the people around us.
I'm NOT saying that the game SHOULD be played like that, for there are many different ways to play the game and still have fun (simply... killing monsters can be equally as fun, and there's nothing wrong about it). I'm saying that if one wants to employ "morality" in his game... he better go all the way because there is no middle ground.
Enough with saying how cool you guys are...
... now let me be more specific...
At some point... Celebrim argued how there was a possibility that the cultist woman could have helped further with the party's investigation... if she had not been killed that is.
Well... this was a major opportunity for the party to do some more "good" but they have unfortunately missed it. Now, if for example they are late in saving some more peasants, because of the fact that they killed the cultist without interrogating her... well... shouldn't that weight heavily of somebody's conscience? A god... or a third party of lesser "divinity"... seeing things from a distance (or above if you may), deprived of instincts of revenge, is able to "judge" how the act of killing the cultist, no matter her actions or beliefs, was a "bad move" for someone who intends to do "good". In real life this god is within our heads, its our conscience, which... while it is overshadowed when our instincts emerge (and in this case, the instinct of killing the "evil" cultist) it reemerges when our instincts subside. And what defines the difference between good or bad is how one lets his conscience come in the way of his instincts. The fact that the cultist was killed by a neutral character makes no difference whatsoever. A good aligned character's conscience is going to reemerge sooner or later... in his sleep he's going to have nightmares, for the very fact that the cultist "could" have had vital information that "could" have saved more lives, is going to steal his sleep.
As i said above, in real life, this god lives in our heads. And while in D&D this god is a being on its own right, this does not diminish the fact that, symbolically, he is still an archetype of our codes of morality.
Now it is entirely up to the DM on how this influence is resolved.... is it "guilt" in the form of nightmares? is it a "direct" interference from the God itself? ...or perhaps some sort of "indirect" interference?
Is it going to be just a roleplaying occasion?... or is it gonna affect the character's "numbers" in some way so as to mediate the impact of one's actions... this of course is up to each DM's style of storytelling... and up to debate...
I apologize for my english. I hope i made some sense.
I've been in En World for about a month now... and up until now this is the most interesting thread...
Without any intention to undermine the OP or the rest of the posters, i believe that the discussion between Celebrim and Viktyr Korimir is one every DM should read and break his head over...
Not that a DM should be a person that advocates his own "morality" through his game....
...but through the game... through the story... players and DM alike should really put their very personal beliefs to the test.
D&D sure is fun for killing monsters, for it's intrigue, for solving riddles... but if it can provide for something more to think over... it's even better.
I totally agree with how Celbrim keeps things in the grey area... without putting neon signs over "good" or "evil"... for that's how real life is as well.
And while i agree that D&D isn't or shoudn't be a simulation of real life (in general...), IMO the ambiguity of morality... the repercussions of actions... should be simulated to the full, for not only is the game more interesting and intriguing, but because there is a small chance that we all learn something out of the experience... about ourselves and about the people around us.
I'm NOT saying that the game SHOULD be played like that, for there are many different ways to play the game and still have fun (simply... killing monsters can be equally as fun, and there's nothing wrong about it). I'm saying that if one wants to employ "morality" in his game... he better go all the way because there is no middle ground.
Enough with saying how cool you guys are...
... now let me be more specific...At some point... Celebrim argued how there was a possibility that the cultist woman could have helped further with the party's investigation... if she had not been killed that is.
Well... this was a major opportunity for the party to do some more "good" but they have unfortunately missed it. Now, if for example they are late in saving some more peasants, because of the fact that they killed the cultist without interrogating her... well... shouldn't that weight heavily of somebody's conscience? A god... or a third party of lesser "divinity"... seeing things from a distance (or above if you may), deprived of instincts of revenge, is able to "judge" how the act of killing the cultist, no matter her actions or beliefs, was a "bad move" for someone who intends to do "good". In real life this god is within our heads, its our conscience, which... while it is overshadowed when our instincts emerge (and in this case, the instinct of killing the "evil" cultist) it reemerges when our instincts subside. And what defines the difference between good or bad is how one lets his conscience come in the way of his instincts. The fact that the cultist was killed by a neutral character makes no difference whatsoever. A good aligned character's conscience is going to reemerge sooner or later... in his sleep he's going to have nightmares, for the very fact that the cultist "could" have had vital information that "could" have saved more lives, is going to steal his sleep.
As i said above, in real life, this god lives in our heads. And while in D&D this god is a being on its own right, this does not diminish the fact that, symbolically, he is still an archetype of our codes of morality.
Now it is entirely up to the DM on how this influence is resolved.... is it "guilt" in the form of nightmares? is it a "direct" interference from the God itself? ...or perhaps some sort of "indirect" interference?
Is it going to be just a roleplaying occasion?... or is it gonna affect the character's "numbers" in some way so as to mediate the impact of one's actions... this of course is up to each DM's style of storytelling... and up to debate...
I apologize for my english. I hope i made some sense.
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
Since you've only been at EnWorld a month, you might not have picked up on the fact that in real life I believe morality is a absolute handed down to humanity through the provedential care of a real, knowable and living God. Just thought I'd mention that, before you got too carried away in drawing comparisons between my fantasy story and the real world.
As far as how my real beliefs inform my story and my gamemastering, I can't really talk about that EnWorld in any detail except to say that they do so deeply, but that they may not do so in ways that are immediately obvious.
Jimlock
Adventurer
Even so... the fact that i'm an atheist as a person does not affect my opinion/advice that the players' actions should be viewed and dealt with through a prism of "absolute goodness" in the game (as far as the good aligned PCs that is).
...I don't know if its their own conscience that should remind them, or the deity itself in some way...
Even if there are no repercussions, the (good aligned) PCs should understand... somehow... how the missed the opportunity to do greater good. Even if the player himself doesn't think so its of no importance. His character SHOULD think like this. Players should be reminded that they are supposed to "Roleplay". If a player wants to play a character with his own personal belief system, he should pick his alignment wisely.
In this case, a player should understand how his good aligned character is affected by such choices. If he disagrees perhaps he should have picked a neutral alignment.
If your good aligned characters don't see how they should have saved the cultist, it's perhaps that they do not comprehend to its full extent the choice of alignment in the game.
IMHO clearing things up with your players is not gonna affect the grey-ness of your campaign, it is merely gonna clear what their character's beliefs are, and if you do not reach an agreement, perhaps you could allow for some alignment changes (once everything is clear).
IMO "goodness" in the game is not to be taken as lightly... Actions taken or NOT taken weight heavily on a good aligned character's conscience. A character who cares by "convenience" is, at least, neutral.
Similar Threads
