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

[Grogg of the North]

Well I guess the question is, what are your PC's world views? And what do their religions teach? I bet that your players put down a deity on their sheet, even if they do pay only lip service. What were the PCs hired to do in regards of the frost giants? Was it to drive them off, kill everyone, or something in between?

In D&D, a LG character can, if it is within their authority to do so, declare the frost giants guilty of <insert crime here> and execute them. Remember that an Exalted character is supposed to have a modern sense of right and wrong though.

Also, just because frost giants are "usually chaotic evil" doesn't mean they go around all days kicking puppies like cobra commander. They're probably greedy, care only for themselves and believe that might makes right. YMMV though.

Personally, I'd let the PCs debate. You may get some interesting responses from within the group (which may even lead to alignment shifts!). Plus its less work for you as the DM.

If the PCs do decide to take them prisoner or accept an oath of non-interference, I would recommend taking a look at the Book of Exalted Deeds. It has some good advice on surrendering enemies and even rules on trying to redeem evil characters. Your players could even use things like Mark of Justice or Geas to ensure that the giants follow through on their promise.

 

[Sekhmet]

[MENTION=6698275]Dozen[/MENTION]
/quote "in my games, alignment is never absolute" (can't be bothered to quote properly).

Just informing you, in case you were unaware, that RAW does not agree. Play how you like, though. 's all good.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

To answer the OP,

First off, there are no "right" answers. It comes down to how you choose to play.

That said, my suggestion to uphold both the "Good" and "Law"would be to have the Giants swear to something, with the threat of a more severe punishment should they break their oath. The LG players say something like "Now go and never terrorize the populace again, or we shall hunt you down and kill you next time."

This is both kindness, and lawfully binding. In this way, they have the chance to at least curb their evil tendencies, or if they do not, your PC's can kill them with a clear conscience the next time, even if they try to surrender again.

 

[Dozen]

@Dozen
/quote "in my games, alignment is never absolute" (can't be bothered to quote properly).

Just informing you, in case you were unaware, that RAW does not agree. Play how you like, though. 's all good.

You should, because then you'd know I never said that. That was Lwaxy.

 

[Sekhmet]

You should, because then you'd know I never said that. That was Lwaxy.

oh, so true. Sorry.

 

[Animal]

All variants provided in OP are actually viable.
But it all boils down to character's mindset and group's playstyle.
If the character in charge is an unrelenting avenger type, he'd probably execute them all. If he's an ambitious glory-seeker, he'd take them to the closest town so that everyone new how badass he is, capturing a bunch of giants. If he's haughty and self-confident, he might just tell them to get out and vanish, because they're irrelevant to his quest and he earns awesomeness points by being generous to those who he bested. And so on.
As for playstyles, there are groups who feel that dealing with captured foes is a drag and detract from really interesting stuff, so they'd be more inclined to just kill the giants or tell them to get out. While some are roleplay junkies and they'd gladly make a detour from their main adventure.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

This is a difficult question and I don't have the right answers. But I'd like to mention that the PCs are adventurers, right? The alignment isn't the only factor in person's behaviour. These people aren't just taking every piece in their lives one by one and judging it with some alignment-tool. The Big Picture is more important.

If it's impossible or near impossible for the Lawful Good adventurers to do their job - which is adventuring - maybe LG-alignment should be ditched or maybe the Lawful Good guys should have some reasonable compromise with things like prisoners. If having prisoners is a big burden and makes it impractical to continue being an adventurer, then I don't mind if they execute them on the spot.

It's ok if the PC is an adventurer first and (insert alignment) second. It makes everything work better.

 

[Gilladian]

First let me say that I'm addressing my answer with the following specifics;
1) in my campaign alignment is a guide, not a straightjacket; only clerics and paladins MUST follow a code, which includes alignment.
2) I'm all for letting players rationalize what they decide to do within that framework.

a character (such as a paladin, knight or cleric) who is lawful and represents the law of his realm, would have the right to judge the guilt of the giants, and decide their fate. If he had reason to believe the giants would commit more evil, then properly executing them would be justified. If he instead believed they could and would keep an oath, he could be justified in taking their word that they would leave if paroled.

a character who did NOT have the right to make such judgements might feel obligated to take them back to the dwarves and let them judge whether to keep the giants as slaves, or execute them as criminals, or take their oath and free them.

a chaotic character or group would probably execute them simply because it is the "simplest" solution with the fewest likely repercussions later.

Feudal law, which is what I'm trying to loosely emulate in my campaign world, is pretty free and easy with "right to judge" by the nobility; so I figure at least one PC in most any party will end up feeling that they have authority to judge the giants.

So basically; let the PCs decide what they have the right to do, and then play out the results.

 

[Empath Negative]

BoEx allows one to demand an oath of the conquered against future transgressions. Failure to abide by that oath means no paladin or similarly good character need harken to their pleas of mercy and surrender in the future as described under the vow of nonviolence feat.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

 

[green slime]

Surrender or not?

Character's should not care about their alignment. Player's should roleplay their character. Lawful Good is not just a stat on the Character sheet, it is a summary of the character's outlook on life and underlying morals. DM's should explain what is acceptable behaviour in their CW.

Being "Good" aligned, often means doing that which is not convenient or easy.

With regards to the case at hand; Good aligned characters should not be killing those whom surrendered.

IMC, we've roleplayed out these things; one player was shocked when a goblin threw himself out a third storey window and died, when the character wasn't accepting surrender. The goblin figured he had a greater chance to get away, but alas, the fall killed him.

Another thing players should remember; word gets around. If PC's repeatedly do not accept surrender, or kill those that do, enemies fight longer and harder, making fights more bloody than strictly necessary for the party (Time for a circumstance modifier?), or avoid fighting altogether, selecting other methods to forward their agenda.

The same goes for torture; when intelligent enemies start killing themselves en masse to save themselves from the torturing PC's, to prevent information falling into the wrong hands, and without XP reward to the PC's for defeating the foe, players tend to double-take. Think a Goblin Masada.

If word gets around in civilised quarters, of the killing of surrendered troops (frost giants or others), you can be sure that some will shun the perpetrators, others will blame them for other occurances of giantkind actions as "retaliation".