Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 826114" data-attributes="member: 259">Kahuna, I see what you're saying, and I think I somewhat agree with you.  But many games involve battles against dedicated, powerful creatures.  And if you don't kill these folks, they're not likely to repent their wicked ways and become productive members of society.  And many campaign worlds don't have prison facilities capable of containing dragons, demons, fire giants, or even powerful wizards.If the DM has established such a world, then it's perfectly appropriate for characters to decide that the only way to prevent evil is to kill the evildoers.  And if they've decided to take that course of action, and if a new character tries to prevent them from doing so without offering a reasonable alternative, then I'd expect those characters to ditch the new guy.We're playing through RttToEE now, and we've had in-depth discussions about this issue.  Eventually we decided this:  if people surrender, we'll take them prisoner.  And we'll talk with them.  If they seem like mercenary types who aren't in it for a fanatic belief system, then we'll strip them of their weapons, give them a few coins, and let them go with a warning that if we ever encounter them in battle again, they'll not be able to surrender.  If they seem like fanatics, then we'll kill them.  Our campaign world doesn't make allowances for prisons for powerful beings, and we can't risk their killing of more innocent beings.I know that we wouldn't accept someone in our group who tried to overrule this decision we'd made.  We'd wish them luck in their nonlethal approach to vanquishing evil and send them on their way.Unless, as I noted before, they offered an effective alternative.Daniel</blockquote>

Verification