Alignment Situations II

[RigaMortus]

I think the next time something like this happens in my game, I'll just let the other Good characters deal with it. I personally think it's a death trap and won't want the thing anywhere near me. Best to let the other Good characters learn the hard way I guess.

My, how Chaotic Good of you

 

[Vaxalon]

"Your surrender is accepted. As punishment for your crimes, you will be branded, and will have the fingers of each hand cut off at the second knuckle."

The brand would read "I surrendered to the humans" and would be as indelible as the PC's can handle... scarification, tattoo if possible. It would be in a prominent place, such as forehead or cheeks.

That should neatly take him out of the fight.

 

[RigaMortus]

"Your surrender is accepted. As punishment for your crimes, you will be branded, and will have the fingers of each hand cut off at the second knuckle."

The brand would read "I surrendered to the humans" and would be as indelible as the PC's can handle... scarification, tattoo if possible. It would be in a prominent place, such as forehead or cheeks.

That should neatly take him out of the fight.

So you think a Good person would torture and mame a prisioner? Interesting...

 

[JacktheRabbit]

This is completely wrong. You do not need a Geneva Convention to "do the right thing".

It seems like you want to kill the giant because it is convient to do so. You can't contain him, you can't feed, he might escape and hurt others... All viable concerns, but being a Good guy, it is up to YOU to figure this stuff out. Could magic help here? What resources do YOU have available? You can't be Good only when it is convient for you to be good, that isn't how it works.

This has nothing to do with the "right" thing. You are being dumb here.

You accept the surrender of someone you cannot control and who will put a huge burden on a city that is fighting for its very survival.

So the next day 2 dozen fire giants "surrender" to your Lawful Stupid character. You dutifully lock them all up. Within the week the city meekly surrenders, its food and water stocks have been run down to nearly nothing by the addition of the 25 giant mouths to feed.

 

[RigaMortus]

This has nothing to do with the "right" thing. You are being dumb here.

You accept the surrender of someone you cannot control and who will put a huge burden on a city that is fighting for its very survival.

So the next day 2 dozen fire giants "surrender" to your Lawful Stupid character. You dutifully lock them all up. Within the week the city meekly surrenders, its food and water stocks have been run down to nearly nothing by the addition of the 25 giant mouths to feed.

It is an alignment question, so it most certainly has to do with "doing the right thing."

I don't think sparing someone's life is dumb, it is Good. How you treat that prisoner from that point on might be dumb.

If you are going to make up a stupid scenario, it's going to look stupid.

I can make up a sceario just the same as you:

You spare the fire giant's life and he begins to talk. He tells you why they are invading, where they are attacking, and what their goal is. After learning such valuable information the Mage casts a Charm Monster spell on him and befriends him. Not only do you now have valuable information, you have a strong ally. Things you would not have had you outright killed him.

Yeah, that sure is a dumb thing to do

 

[Sejs]

LG, NG, CG: Accept the giant's surrender. Disarm and unequip the giant. Blindfold, bind his arms behind his back, and connect that rope to bonds at his ankles to limit his stride. Inform him that he is a prisoner, and that any attempt at escape, communication with his allies, or attacks on his captors will mean his immediate execution. Take giant back to camp, where you interrogate him thoughly on any and all information concerning the enemy, using truth-verifying spells if possible. Mind read if neccessary. After interrogation, use him as a bargaining chip with the enemy side for prisoner exchange ... assuming they've taken any prisoners. Keep the giant as unaware of information on your side as possible, possibly including feeding him false information. If they other side doesn't take prisoners, release back to his allies to relay the false information you've fed him, and to inform his supperiors that no further surrender will be accepted.


Alternatly, if said giants have shown themselves to be without mercy or compassion - not taking prisoners, raping, killing non combatants, etc. You could just kill the surrendering giant. They gave no quarter to your people's cries of succor, you are then under no obligation moral or otherwise to accept theirs.

 

[RigaMortus]

Alternatly, if said giants have shown themselves to be without mercy or compassion - not taking prisoners, raping, killing non combatants, etc. You could just kill the surrendering giant. They gave no quarter to your people's cries of succor, you are then under no obligation moral or otherwise to accept theirs.

Tsk, tsk...

While your reasoning sounds very sound, don't you think "Good" PCs (who are supposed to be "heroes" here) should be held to a higher standard than an evil NPC giant?

 

[apsuman]

Tsk, tsk...

While your reasoning sounds very sound, don't you think "Good" PCs (who are supposed to be "heroes" here) should be held to a higher standard than an evil NPC giant?

While not the person you asked, I will answer here (for myself only). Yes they should be better. But the real answer is "it depends"

My point is that it is entirely possible for good character to deem it reasonable to kill (or mame) a fire giant, and still be good.

You don't have to accept the surrender.

If the Fire Giant just says "I give up." I would be less likely to accept than if the the Fire Giant assumes a fetal position covers his head and starts screaming "don hit me no mar!" and sobbing like a baby.

The truth is that it would actually be somewhere between those extremes.

g!

 

[Sejs]

While your reasoning sounds very sound, don't you think "Good" PCs (who are supposed to be "heroes" here) should be held to a higher standard than an evil NPC giant?

In the situation described, they're in a way, being held to a higher standard almost by default. The heroes arn't attacking a city, they're defending it from invasion. They're not killing the elderly, murdering children, and raping women. The surrendering giant was a combatant until he thought he could save his life by surrendering. In the No-Mercy scenario, that giant wouldn't have let the PCs surrender if he had come out on top, instead of the other way around.

If the giant were instead a fire giant child, or non-combatant like a cook, or seamstress or something.. someone who didn't fight the PCs and then surrendered when the other fire giants they were with had been killed.. that's a different story. A non-com surrendering wouldn't be killed, they'd be sent back unharmed to their camp, or told to just quit the field and go home.

 

[RigaMortus]

In the No-Mercy scenario, that giant wouldn't have let the PCs surrender if he had come out on top, instead of the other way around.

Exactly! That is what makes the fire giant Evil, and the heroes Good. One of the differences between Good and Evil is that one shows mercy, and the other does not. Do you know which is which?

If the giant were instead a fire giant child, or non-combatant like a cook, or seamstress or something.. someone who didn't fight the PCs and then surrendered when the other fire giants they were with had been killed.. that's a different story. A non-com surrendering wouldn't be killed, they'd be sent back unharmed to their camp, or told to just quit the field and go home.

/Agree