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

[Wellby]

Now....what happened...

Wow, what an excellent community. Much more fruitful discussion than I'd even hoped.

Of all the points I took away from this, perhaps the most useful was: these guys aren't evil all the time. They have families (indeed, one of the Frost Giant warriors had a wife in the complex, a servant), children, live lives, etc. Kind of a 'solid, upstanding and kind SS officer' idea.

I walked through many of the points raised in this thread, then let the PCs play it out. The two lawful good characters wanted to march the Frost Giants back to the Dwarves with the expectation of years of slavery then some kind of release. The two chaotic neutral characters had a much more interesting time. They were all against slavery. One recommended the oath, then set them free. Another did not believe in oaths (perhaps the true libertarian?) and simply said let them go and believed they were smart enough to avoid the PCs at all cost in the future. Finally, the last character, actually chaotic good, was a Gnome Giant Slayer and thought the PCs were absolutely criminally idiotic in thinking that any evil Giant should ever be allowed to live.

So, when an impasse was reached, the PCs decided there would have to be compromise. The two servant Frost Giants, and Frost Giant cook, and two helper ogres, who had not fought, swore an oath and were allowed to go. The four warriors were marched into slavery (and, in a 'touching' Frost Giant moment, the servant who was married to one of the warriors gave up her freedom to join him in slavery...one of those little shock moments for the PCs to indicate the complexity of alignment/morality, this was a chaotic evil giant making this decision...), and finally, the Giant Slayer got his way in that it was decided that the nasty surviving wife of the Jarl would be executed. (in one final turn, he marched her into a room to 'tell her about the oath', then started attacking her, she managed to grapple him and squeeze him within an inch of his life, at which point he happily offered the 'oath and freedom' option...so no executions...)

Anyhow, it was a lot of fun, added a nice element of role-playing to the game, and I thank you all very much for this thoughtful discussion.

 

[Dandu]

(in one final turn, he marched her into a room to 'tell her about the oath', then started attacking her, she managed to grapple him and squeeze him within an inch of his life, at which point he happily offered the 'oath and freedom' option...so no executions...)

Good bargaining on the giant's part.

 

[Dozen]

Of all the points I took away from this, perhaps the most useful was: these guys aren't evil all the time. They have families (indeed, one of the Frost Giant warriors had a wife in the complex, a servant), children, live lives, etc. Kind of a 'solid, upstanding and kind SS officer' idea.

Man, all I ever get on this site is praise! You guys are the best! Thank you!


The Giant Slayer character is a perfect example of how a Good character can be mean and a bother to those around him. You might want to introduce Racist McMurderer to the Pact Primeval through a character with decent points in Knowledge(the planes) or Knowledge(religion). Because, had he succeeded at killing the Giant, he would have committed what qualifies as Cold Blooded Murder(+6 corruption of soul) coupled with perverting justice for personal gain(+3) which means that as per the agreement of the Lawful Outer Planes(Yes, they can, apparently, do this), he would have irrevocably ended up spending his time after death in one of the afterlifes in the 'ventral direction'. That should give him a scare. And a need to take a bath/atonement spell.

 

[trancejeremy]

In one of the basic D&D sets, there is an illustration of 3 PCs with a surrendered critter. (Actually two different versions in different sets)

One, representing chaos, is about to execute him, while another, representing law, is grabbing his hand, while the third, representing neutral is indifferent to the scene.

Underworld Cleaning Service: Alignment in Old School D&D

This one is from the French version and is by Larry Elmore

GROGNARDIA: French D&D Images

 

[frankthedm]

Do they swear them to an oath to never return to the valley?

An oath that they could and would likley swiftly break? And even if they kept their word, which is usually worthless, they would become another area's problem. Even a Geas's damage would not be enough to keep the giants to their word. Sadly there isn't much in the default D&D setting that really "binds" an Oath.

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?)

Well if you want to call penal labour slavery, that kind of loads the issue. Though I do think that is exactly the kind of issue Lawfuls and Chaotics clash over. Regardless, do the dwarves have the kind of power, resources and desire to keep giants in check?

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?

I'd say so. If the giants attempt surrender, I'd expect lawful good characters to be upfront about not accepting said surrender.

"Lest ye think yourselves innocent, pick your weapons back up! The wicked will not be spared, only those who our magic shows have lived a life without evil will be taken prisoner to face Dwarven justice."

...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.

Sadly IIRC the only time wotc gave any concrete alignment examples was in The Hero Builder's Guidebook and Online Alignment Test

 

[Ashtagon]

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.

I disagree. Good is not Nice.

The nice thing is to let them go.

The good thing is to consider what will result in the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.

 

[Dozen]

I disagree. Good is not Nice.

The nice thing is to let them go.

The good thing is to consider what will result in the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.

Good point, in a way. Letting monsters with a criminal record roam around without supervision is not the best thing to do. Yet it's not as if it's a morally bad choice; it's Good and incredibly stupid at the same time. After all, it wasn't you who killed innocent peope after the fact, the giants were. The blood of those who suffered from the hands of the giants are still on your soul and everyone has the right to blame you for it, but you haven't actually done anything wrong, you just launched a trail of events that led to something wrong. It's of course an entirely different matter when you are able to consider the ramifications, but still let them go anyway. I can think of some (time-consuming) plots that'd make everyone - giants, the party, and squishy commoners - happy too, so letting the Giants go eventually is viable.

An oath that they could and would likley swiftly break? And even if they kept their word, which is usually worthless, they would become another area's problem. Even a Geas's damage would not be enough to keep the giants to their word. Sadly there isn't much in the default D&D setting that really "binds" an Oath.

There kinda-sorta is. It's called Pact magic. The punishment for breaking an oath which has such life-changing consequences can be quite dire. If nothing else, Mechanus dispatches some Inevitables to hunt the oathbreaker down. A lone Kolyarut has a CR of 12, Frost Giants wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[green slime]

The good thing is to consider what will result in the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.

I disagree completely with that shallow statement.

Your 1-liner philosophy rapidly devolves into permitting genocide, rape, and other atrocities.

What measure of benefit? Worldly possessions? Spiritual (try measuring that!)? Which races/people get counted? To what degree?

 

[green slime]

I'd say so. If the giants attempt surrender, I'd expect lawful good characters to be upfront about not accepting said surrender.

"Lest ye think yourselves innocent, pick your weapons back up! The wicked will not be spared, only those who our magic shows have lived a life without evil will be taken prisoner to face Dwarven justice."

And that is perfectly acceptable behaviour, IMO. The distinction is, having accepted their surrender, to then slaughter them, can in no way be construed as a "good" act. The difficulty approaches when the Frost Giant scullery maid has had no weapon.

But I would differ and say that even surrendering giants too, should be shown the path, and if they break their oaths, they can then expect no such mercy. I guess it all depends on how strongly you feel they as individuals are likely to break an oath, if there are alternative areas free from human / demihuman population for them.

Tragic to be defined as an individual by the general behaviours of your race / religion / country.

Personally, I prefer such acts of kindness to have positive reverberations later on in the story line, if only for the reason that it is so unexpected for the PC's: A hint or message at a vital moment, a knot loosely tied on a captive PC by a cousin Frost Giant, a fight avoided to cross a bridge / chasm:

"This once, human! For the sake of my cousin Ffarthinger Bedcracker. But next time, you'll be a bleeding mass of soon-to-be haggis at my feet!"

 

[Dozen]

I disagree completely with that shallow statement.

Your 1-liner philosophy rapidly devolves into permitting genocide, rape, and other atrocities.

What measure of benefit? Worldly possessions? Spiritual (try measuring that!)? Which races/people get counted? To what degree?

While I understand what you mean, I implore you to take the statement at face value, i.e. as it was intended to be. There obviously were no implications of deeds you enumerated. Ashtagon is not trying to found a philosphy which Evil people could twist to justify their actions, (s)he is just making a point.