roguerouge
First Post
When it comes to prisoners, I expect the DM not to force me to role play his own version of 24. I don't want to be punished for playing nonlethally.
Dealing With Prisoners
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
ExploderWizard
Hero
This also can bring more moral issues into the game. There might be a nice ransom offered for the high cultist but turning him over for the loot means that perhaps the kidnapping and murder activities that he was in charge of will begin anew.
There can be interesting complications that arise from taking captives which can add some richness to a campaign. A situation in my campaign that will be dealt with soon might show the PC's how their mode of operations appears to the world at large.
The players had a quest to discover who was responsible for the missing persons in the area and stop them. (Bring them to justice or destroy them if they refused to surrender)
After sneaking in the secret entrance to an evil temple the PC's discovered the personal quarters of the high priestess, looted the chamber for treasure and evidence then set the room on fire. After this, they moved further into the complex looking for trouble. The party was met by two mercenary guards who were on the way to check out the fire. No words were exchanged, the PC's attacked at once. It was a tough battle, the mercs were a few levels higher than the party and both were elite. After seeing the first merc fall, the second surrendered having only a few HP remaining. The merc was brought back to the keep and currently awaits trial.
This will be an interesting case. The merc is going to try and avoid the noose on the grounds that the party never identified themselves as duly appointed representatives of authority. The PC's were viewed by the mercs as band of wild brigand arsonists. The defense will rest on the grounds that they never participated in any evil doings (or indeed knew or cared what went on inside the place they guarded) and was simply performing the duties of a paid guard and attempting to repel crimminal intruders. The argument will be made that had the PC's identified themselves (and shown proof) then the guards would have led them straight to their employer to verify the truth of any accusations.
This trial is going to be fun to play out.
Rel
Liquid Awesome
I find this to be a very interesting topic that our group has dealt with in pretty much every imaginable way over the years.
Where we have arrived for now (at least in my part as the GM) is an extremely expositional method. If the defeated bad guy(s) in question have meaningful information to impart that is directly relevant and valuable to points of interest in the campaign, that's nothing I want to leave to chance. A million things could go wrong between "Roll initiative" and "you learn some interesting info" that would prevent the PC's from getting access to the information I want them to have.
Based on my general knowledge of the group, the genre and the PC's in question, I'll pretty much just tell them a summary of what happens after the dust settles and the battle is over. Like, "One of the goblins turns out to have only been knocked unconscious for a moment. You have to cuff him about a little but he tells you that the Goblin Chieftain rules by more than simple might: He drinks the blood of the living and seems almost impervious to normal weapons! The goblin swears that he will leave and never come back if you let him live, so you decide to cut him a break this time...unless any of you object strenuously? No? Ok, moving along..."
Now that's railroady as hell. But it took me only a few seconds to convey the same information that we could have gotten from more than an hour of blow by blow roleplay of specific intimidation tactics, bribes, threats and then a HUGE debate on the fate of the prisoner.
I'll of course vary the particulars based on those earlier factors. I might describe the prisoner as being so awed by the might of the party that they spill the beans without so much as a threat. If this is a cutthroat type of game where all the PC's are vicious rogues then I might describe them as killing the prisoner without hesitation (once again giving them the option to do otherwise on a case by case basis). But the simple fact is that dealing with prisoners is not what my games are all about and I don't want debates on the topic to take up a lot of time.
Luckily I've been playing with more or less the same group for upwards of 15 years and so everybody is pretty cool with us glossing over the details for the rank and file prisoners (or lack thereof) after most battles. I give a lot more time and special attention to "named bad guys" of course and those have given rise to some of the more interesting roleplaying moments in my games.
Where we have arrived for now (at least in my part as the GM) is an extremely expositional method. If the defeated bad guy(s) in question have meaningful information to impart that is directly relevant and valuable to points of interest in the campaign, that's nothing I want to leave to chance. A million things could go wrong between "Roll initiative" and "you learn some interesting info" that would prevent the PC's from getting access to the information I want them to have.
Based on my general knowledge of the group, the genre and the PC's in question, I'll pretty much just tell them a summary of what happens after the dust settles and the battle is over. Like, "One of the goblins turns out to have only been knocked unconscious for a moment. You have to cuff him about a little but he tells you that the Goblin Chieftain rules by more than simple might: He drinks the blood of the living and seems almost impervious to normal weapons! The goblin swears that he will leave and never come back if you let him live, so you decide to cut him a break this time...unless any of you object strenuously? No? Ok, moving along..."
Now that's railroady as hell. But it took me only a few seconds to convey the same information that we could have gotten from more than an hour of blow by blow roleplay of specific intimidation tactics, bribes, threats and then a HUGE debate on the fate of the prisoner.
I'll of course vary the particulars based on those earlier factors. I might describe the prisoner as being so awed by the might of the party that they spill the beans without so much as a threat. If this is a cutthroat type of game where all the PC's are vicious rogues then I might describe them as killing the prisoner without hesitation (once again giving them the option to do otherwise on a case by case basis). But the simple fact is that dealing with prisoners is not what my games are all about and I don't want debates on the topic to take up a lot of time.
Luckily I've been playing with more or less the same group for upwards of 15 years and so everybody is pretty cool with us glossing over the details for the rank and file prisoners (or lack thereof) after most battles. I give a lot more time and special attention to "named bad guys" of course and those have given rise to some of the more interesting roleplaying moments in my games.
ExploderWizard
Hero
I try and be free with information from defeated opponents but it is still up to the players to decide if they want to worry about captives or not. I'm not gonna make them jump through hoops to get useful information but they do have to express an interest in gathering the information in the first place.
If the party decides to charge in and do a number 6 and flat out destroy everyone in their path then I let them. I won't take the decision to leave no witnesses away from them. There have been several times the party has found themselves knee deep in dookie because they didn't try and find out more information. It was available and not buried beneath impossible tasks and a mountain of play time but they did have to want it.
Hussar
Legend
Oh, totally. That would be a pretty good example of the DM discouraging taking prisoners.
Rel - that's a pretty decent way of doing it too. I wasn't so much thinking about vital information though. More just incidental stuff - the Goblin chief's barber lives in that cave over there. That sort of thing.
In my campaign, the local noble decides guilt or innocence. The answer to this "technicality" argument by the mercenary would be a series of questions and statements by the noble:
-- Mercenary, eh? What made you think you could sell your sword to people in my barony without asking my permission? What insolence!
-- You're not a cult member, just worked for them? Prove it.
-- What's that, you say you can't prove a negative? It's hardly my problem if you're not clever enough to defend yourself in court. (chuckles from his followers) In any case, you should have been much more careful in choosing who you work for.
-- You say guilt by association is unfair? I says you can usually tell a villain by the company he keeps. (nodding from his followers)
-- Alright, I've heard enough. You are guilty of brigandage for associating with brigands, low treason for taking arms in my barony without permission, blasphemy for being a cult member, and attempted murder for fighting the PC's. The sentence is each case is, of course, death by hanging. But I'm feeling lenient, so I'll only hang you once, and let the crows do the rest. (guffaws from his followers)
-- Appeal? Sure, that is your right. We'll throw you in the dungeon until the circuit judge comes around next month. Manacle him and put him on bread and water, in the darkest part of the dungeon. Next case!
My point: medieval court is not "soft judge" Law & Order. It's going to "get medieval" on people who mess with it!
ExploderWizard
Hero
Heh. All very good points. I am more interested to see how the players react to the defense.
