Ancient Question: How to handle surrendering monsters....

[Wellby]

I'm sure there are good threads on this, so please just direct me if I'm wasting all of your time on a tired subject.

The group has just largely cleared a Frost Giant stronghold. There are five heavily wounded giants left who watched this powerful party waste everything in front of them, and they are especially scared of the wand of fireballs....

So, cornered...they surrendered. They speak common, giant, and have average intelligence. So, they WOULD surrender...but they are evil, a rehabilitative prison system is not an option in a world in which monsters don't change (!), and well, ....

The mainly lawful good group isn't about to execute them. (although, maybe in the lifeworld of D&D they would, I mean, the 'soldiers of God' in the Old Testament do a helluva lot worse...)

I remember this coming up in my earliest 1980s D&D days, and I still don't have any answer.

Do they swear them to an oath to never return to the valley? Do they turn them in to the nearby Dwarven stronghold that hired the adventurers in the first place? (and would they use them as slaves?) Or, again, is it in holding with a basically Greyhawkian worldview that lawful good characters would execute Frost Giants guilty of raiding and murdering passersby on the nearby Dwarven Road over the last year?

Before anyone answers with: 21st Century western morality has no place in D&D, do whatever you want ... the fact is, D&D, through the alignment system, is not a radically, culturally relative game of anything goes. There is very definitely an attempt to create a moral universe of some fantasy sort, but what that entails is rather obscure.

Any thoughts, very welcome!

 

[Sekhmet]

The Good thing to do would be to let the surrendering enemy go.
The Evil thing to do would be to kill him in order to ensure he can't return to ambush you at a later time.
The Lawful thing to do would be to take him back to be sentenced by the people he has wronged.
The Chaotic thing to do would be to forgive the enemy and let him be, possibly after taking his weapons from him.

My opinions, at least.

 

[Dandu]

Remember kids, brainwashing is alright if you're the good guys!

 

[kstout]

I'm sure there are good threads on this, so please just direct me if I'm wasting all of your time on a tired subject.

The group has just largely cleared a Frost Giant stronghold. There are five heavily wounded giants left who watched this powerful party waste everything in front of them, and they are especially scared of the wand of fireballs....

So, cornered...they surrendered. They speak common, giant, and have average intelligence. So, they WOULD surrender...but they are evil, a rehabilitative prison system is not an option in a world in which monsters don't change (!), and well, ....

The mainly lawful good group isn't about to execute them. (although, maybe in the lifeworld of D&D they would, I mean, the 'soldiers of God' in the Old Testament do a helluva lot worse...)

I remember this coming up in my earliest 1980s D&D days, and I still don't have any answer.

Do they swear them to an oath to never return to the valley? Do they turn them in to the nearby Dwarven stronghold that hired the adventurers in the first place? (and would they use them as slaves?) Or, again, is it in holding with a basically Greyhawkian worldview that lawful good characters would execute Frost Giants guilty of raiding and murdering passersby on the nearby Dwarven Road over the last year?

Before anyone answers with: 21st Century western morality has no place in D&D, do whatever you want ... the fact is, D&D, through the alignment system, is not a radically, culturally relative game of anything goes. There is very definitely an attempt to create a moral universe of some fantasy sort, but what that entails is rather obscure.

Any thoughts, very welcome!

The best thing to do is to refer to the culture of the people in your group. What is considered good to their culture and what is considered good to them. A Lawful good character could execute them for their crimes if it is a paladin whose culture and authority gives him or her the right to do so. In other western cultures, to send them to prison of some sort could work, or by letting them go with an oath. That is the dilemma in alignments. You can justify any act for being good, evil, selfish, selfless, lawful, chaotic.

 

[Dozen]

The mainly lawful good group isn't about to execute them. (although, maybe in the lifeworld of D&D they would, I mean, the 'soldiers of God' in the Old Testament do a helluva lot worse...)

From what glimpses I got from the Bible and pals, I'd guess God or Jahveh or Allah or whatever you want to call him/her is Neutral by D&D standards, not Good. I'm not a Christian/Jew/Muslim, so those more educated can call me out on it.

Anyway, one thing about Evil that most people forget is, they aren't that horrible most of the time. Their moral compass is on the fritz for sure, but those Frost Giants didn't spend all their time on evil schemes while laughing maniacally, did they? Besides, Frost Giants are just often Chaotic Evil; Statistically, that means 3 out of those 5 giants are likely not even bad guys. They also must have some way to get by their dayly life, have friends, families, and maybe a way to justify as to why they raided the countryside aside from enjoying the sort a tad too much. You can make a deal with them based on that, make them your vassals, send them to community service, make them take an oath to return the favor, have them provide you with information, and so on. Based on what you said, the giants know the party is too dangerous to mess with openly, and if you befriend them over time, they could be trusted to a limited degree, maybe even as comrades-in-arms, though that latter would need a lot of work to achieve.

 

[Sekhmet]

[MENTION=6700042]kstout[/MENTION]
Alignment in D&D is absolute, black and white. In life, it is mostly varying shades of grey.
What is evil in D&D is always evil, no matter what. As an example, torturing an enemy to get information that could save millions of lives is evil.
In life, that same scenario is a grey area that the vast majority would overlook for the greater good.

Similarly, alignment is not cultural or regional. A Paladin from the far north would have the same moral code as a Paladin from the far south, although they may stress different parts of the same code. As an example, A Paladin of Heironeous stresses Duty to the People, then Duty to the Arch-Paladin, then Duty to a Lady - they're completely Lawful Good.
A Paladin of Pelor is more of a retributive person, being the burning light of the sun to scour away the darkness of evil. They stress Goodness far more than Lawfulness, and will do just about anything they can in the name of Good.

While they may differ in their approach or dogma, they're both Lawful Good and hold the same morals.
[MENTION=6698275]Dozen[/MENTION] I think Neutral cuts it well enough. Perhaps leaning towards Chaotic Neutral in the Old Testament and Lawful Neutral in the New Testament.

 

[Dozen]

@kstout
Alignment in D&D is absolute, black and white. In life, it is mostly varying shades of grey.
What is evil in D&D is always evil, no matter what. As an example, torturing an enemy to get information that could save millions of lives is evil.
In life, that same scenario is a grey area that the vast majority would overlook for the greater good.

That's because the vast majority is Neutral. And if roleplayed out in the D&D world properly, they would similarly accept it for the 'greater good', which is just about as benevolent as an owlbear's arse - Neutral, but quite disgusting if seen in motion. That doesn't make torture less or not at all Evil, it merely lets it get under the radar.

 

[Lwaxy]

In my game worlds, alignment is never absolute. It would kill everyone's suspension of disbelief.

As for the given situation, if the dwarfs treat their slaves well, or maybe even let them free after a while, I'd go with that option.

 

[Sekhmet]

[MENTION=6698275]Dozen[/MENTION] Here in the real world, good and evil are described and defined by human beings with very little relation to each other and no desire to be a cohesive unit, which means regional differences don't just exist, but are encouraged.

In the D&D universe, good and evil are defined by the immutable word of the Overgod, and championed by immutable and incorruptible Gods. Humans have no say in the matter, so even if a group of humans can see "oh, that is benevolent to us and therefor we think it's good", the Gods don't really care.

 

[Dozen]

@Dozen Here in the real world, good and evil are described and defined by human beings with very little relation to each other and no desire to be a cohesive unit, which means regional differences don't just exist, but are encouraged.

In the D&D universe, good and evil are defined by the immutable word of the Overgod, and championed by immutable and incorruptible Gods. Humans have no say in the matter, so even if a group of humans can see "oh, that is benevolent to us and therefor we think it's good", the Gods don't really care.

I agree with you for the most part, but why are you telling me this? Geez, Sekhmet, you always confuse me the Hell out...