Dealing With Prisoners

[Klaus]

Wouldn't that depend on the laws of the land? If the paladin was given the legal right to act as judge, jury, and executioner then this would be acceptable. What if the law states that suspected crimminals who surrender are to be brought before another authority for trial? How would the paladin remain lawful good then?

This isn't even considering the evil involved in killing a captive if promises were made to spare their life in exchange for cooperation.

Re: Laws of the Land: The easiest way to avoid this trap is to ask the DM "what are the laws of the land?".

Re: Promises to captives: that's another matter entirely. If you promise freedom in return for information, it'd be evil not to uphold your end. Of course, there are degrees to what promises are made. Releasing an orc with 2 days of ration and a dagger is different than letting him walk away with his armor and battleaxe. Promising a hobgoblin to execute him with a weapon in hand so he can join his deity in Acheron's battlefields is more merciful than letting him live in defeat.

And let's not forget, it's an proven fact that the D&D world has an afterlife, and when you execute a prisoner he goes to whatever eternal reward is allotted him by his religion.

 

[TheYeti1775]

Sometimes question and let loose.
Sometimes no quarter given.
Sometimes you let them run.
Sometimes you drag them in for justice.

In low levels, capturing enemies actually happens quite often as your blows aren't as powerful to drop straight through -10 window.
Many times that we have caught low level prisioners this way, we question and release unless close to town to be brought forth for jusitice.
Many fall for the bluff of the Wizard/Sorc cursing them if they do x.

I think this is one of the things done right in 4E. The status of bloodied and what not for a DM's descriptions really pay off in ways to take prisioners if possible. Though for visual effect I would rate it in quarters vice half.

 

[Stoat]

My players occasionally take prisoners. It usually becomes more of a time sink than anything else. There's usually a fairly long "interrogation", and they always want the poor bastard to lead them through the rest of the dungeon, pointing all traps and ambushes along the way.

Plus, prisoners bring out the cruel, bloodthirsty side of my group, and I'm not down with that.

As to paladins, in my campaign, it depends on the code established by the Paladin's Order. Those who follow the LG god of righteous warfare must respect an honorable surrender and treat prisoners of war in a humane fashion. Those who follow the other main LG church are given discretion to act as they will.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Re: Laws of the Land: The easiest way to avoid this trap is to ask the DM "what are the laws of the land?".

Yes. I would further say that any lawful character would know these (assuming familliar territory) even if the player does not.

Re: Promises to captives: that's another matter entirely. If you promise freedom in return for information, it'd be evil not to uphold your end. Of course, there are degrees to what promises are made. Releasing an orc with 2 days of ration and a dagger is different than letting him walk away with his armor and battleaxe. Promising a hobgoblin to execute him with a weapon in hand so he can join his deity in Acheron's battlefields is more merciful than letting him live in defeat.

Agreed. If no promise is made to spare life in exchange for surrender then no promise is broken.

 

[frankthedm]

As a player - do you take prisoners?

Only if I have to.

What do you expect to get from taking them?

Information IF we are lucky with our dice rolls and time wasting moral quandaries since the GM probably has not properly defined the game's moral code & won’t provide a straight answer even if they did..

What do you do with them afterwards?

Really depends on the situation. Since they are helpless and not fighting us, it will probably live if it is not something that obviously needs to be put down.

As a DM - how do you react to the player's taking prisoners?

by having the prisoner react as appropriate to the situation & their moral compass. Also by having already decided what the proper behaviors are for the game setting’s moral compass. For d20, the players getting the answers is done through a knowledge religion check.

Is this something you encourage or discourage?

The DM should not be doing either, the situation should encourage or discourage the taking of prisoners.

Is it a great role playing opportunity or huge time sink?

Both.

 

[frankthedm]

A paladin wouldn't kill a prisoner? What's this, a Superman comic*?

In too many campaigns paladins wind up being...

​

 

[Hussar]

/snip

The DM should not be doing either, the situation should encourage or discourage the taking of prisoners.Both.

I disagree with this last bit, although I generally agree with the rest.

The DM can most certainly encourage or discourage this. If the DM, through "determining the moral compass of his world" has determined that every prisoner will always resist to the death rather than reveal any information, then he's certainly discouraged taking prisoners.

And, how far does the DM's determination go? Sticking with D20, do you over rule the dice? If the dice declare that the prisoner co-operates, such as through a successful intimidate check, do you co-operate or not?

Saying that it's entirely situational removes any responsibility from the DM and I totally disagree with that. This is almost entirely on the shoulders of the DM.

For example, you call this a huge time sink. Why? Why is it a huge time sink? Shouldn't it, in d20 anyway, be a single or a couple of die rolls and then answer the questions or not? I don't see why this should be any more difficult than any other NPC interaction.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Unless I'm playing a real goody-two-shoes or have a solid campaign reason to do so, I rarely take prisoners.

As a DM, it doesn't make any difference to me. If players want prisoners, they need to treat them properly...or there may be repercussions.

 

[Merkuri]

My experience with it in a recent play-by-post game was that it was nearly a disastrous experience for the game...

The one player experience I can think of I had with taking prisoners ended up similarly to IronWolf's story, though the players didn't take it personally and we moved on with the game after a while.

We were playing in Eberron and the party was a group of misfits working for the Brelish government (it's been a while, so I forget the name of the group we were a member of... was it the Blades?). My character was a knight (this was a 3.5e game) trying to be honorable to work off a curse given her by the Silver Flame. (It's a long story, but that character had some very complicated motivations.)

We were attacked by bandits while traveling and due to circumstances we managed to defeat them in a way that left most of them alive. We had not intentionally done so, but we had prisoners.

Me and another PC argued about it for a while whether we should take them to a nearby town for a trial or just hang them here as bandits. I argued that not only was my character extremely lawful, but we were playing members of law enforcement in a setting that prided itself on being a more "modern" fantasy setting with governments that should (in my opinion) believe in things like "innocent until proven guilty" and "trial by peers". The other PC (who was actually played by Hussar) argued that, as members of law enforcement, we had the authority to hang them right here as bandits.

I think we actually turned to the DM here and asked him what his interpretation of the law of this world. I don't remember what he said, actually, but I seem to recall that he wasn't sure how to rule here (he was a new DM and this was his first game as the DM). I don't think we actually executed them in the end, but honestly I don't remember what happened to them. I think we figured out some way to get them to the nearest town without us actually taking time out of our quest to bring them there.


In the one and only game I DM'd I had one of the kobold raiders surrender after he saw his companions cut down in a matter of seconds. I think the players had a lot of fun with that captive. I had him escape once, but he was headed in the same direction as the players so it was not that difficult for them to capture him again. They threatened to execute the little bastard several times but never actually went through with it, and I at the end of that mini-campaign they decided to keep him as a sort of pet.


I'm a believer that prisoners should be taken when appropriate, and the players shouldn't necessarily be "rewarded" or "punished" for it. It really depends on the world and the opponents. There are cases where it's acceptable to take prisoners, get them to talk, and execute them, and there are cases where anyone not killed in battle should be brought to a place of justice to face a trial. It depends on the type of campaign you're running.

 

[Falkus]

The group that I DM for has dealt with prisoners on several occasions now, either knocking them out for interrogation or them surrendering during the fight when it goes south.

Their policy is two strikes and your out: After interrogation, they'll let the prisoner go with a firm warning never to cross them again. If he attacks them against at some future point, and gets captured again, they kill him after interrogation.