Dealing With Prisoners

[Hussar]

I wonder if some of the complaints about grindy dungeon crawls could be mitigated by taking prisoners. After all, what better way to parachute in a nice bit of role play than to have a prisoner be somewhat helpful?

 

[Nightson]

In my campaign non-lethal damage has to be announced before the attack (I'm a softie on this though) and if it doesn't do enough damage to knock the enemy out it deals half damage. This makes capturing someone realistically difficult in my opinion.

Once someone is captured I try and have them react realistically. Included in that is that if the prisoner doesn't know the information being asked he'll start making up scenarios which sound plausible if the PCs keep working him over. Also, people react to hearing about torture (in most cases they'll never hear about it) based on who was tortured. Doing it to marauding orcs will probably elicit a pat on the back, doing it to a human bandit will probably cause a neutral, troubled response, and doing it to someone who's done nothing (but has information the party needs) would elicit strong condemnation and reprisal.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

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.

See, there's also the fact that not all parties are good. The last game I ran was a very, very evil party, and they took more prisoners in the span of any 2-3 sessions you could choose at random than I've ever seen any of my other parties ever take in my decade of gaming...combined! Having a PC with Improved Unarmed Strike proved incredibly valuable to them, so they could take enemies alive for various purposes. Whether it be actual practical matters like questioning the person for information, distinctly evil things like torturing for fun or rape, or distinctly evil AND practical matters, like using them as human shields to send forward first against suspected traps or ambushes.

My friends and I made an obsevation that's probably a TV trope, but nonetheless had caught us a little by surprise that game: The "good guys" just plain kill their enemies outright with fireballs and power attacks and other spectacular displays of overkill. The "bad guys" tend to keep enemies alive, so they can use them for stuff later. Kinda funny that massacring things swiftly is the "good" stategy.

 

[ExploderWizard]

My friends and I made an obsevation that's probably a TV trope, but nonetheless had caught us a little by surprise that game: The "good guys" just plain kill their enemies outright with fireballs and power attacks and other spectacular displays of overkill. The "bad guys" tend to keep enemies alive, so they can use them for stuff later. Kinda funny that massacring things swiftly is the "good" stategy.

Looking at the sorts of things the evil party did with captives, a swift death could be considered more merciful.

 

[haakon1]

The second one was a brigand lieutenant who was returned to keep and turned over to the authorities. In exchange for valuable information about the cult, the hanging sentence was reduced to life in a labor camp. The intel was very reliable and proved to be useful to the PC's.

. . .

When the party finally did encounter the leaders of the cult, there was no quarter asked or given. The cultists were all fanatical death priests and would never surrender.

Sounds very similar to my campaign world. Killing intelligent humanoid prisoners would definitely be frowned upon (though what happens in the dungeon stays in the dungeon, for the most part), so most prisoners end up with the proper authorities. Whether those authorities proceed to execute them, let them go, or keep them in a dungeon depends on the circumstances.

The most recent captures by my party:
-- Dwarven mine contractor. He'd hit silver in what was supposed to be a rock quarry, and was ripping off the mine owner (a local noble). More important, he got discovered in this by mobsters who blackmailed him into using the silver to make alchemical silver weapons for a secret organization the PC's have tangled with before. The PC's killed the secret organization people in a "kill 'em hard, kill 'em fast" assault, but captured the dwarf and turned him over to the noble. He's been in a dungeon for a few weeks, as the noble holds on to him and decides what to do. He didn't know much about the nefarious plotting, but he told them everything he knows.

-- The alchemical silver weapon making operation attracted the attention of a group of mercenaries led by werewolves. The PC's captured a werewolf half-orc sorceress in the first fight, and turned her over to the local noble. Nobody is sure if her story of being an innocent victim of lycanthropy, trapped into these life by the others, is true or not, but they are looking into curing her. She volunteered decent intel, which helped them in the next fight and likely saved many civilian lives.

-- In a later fight, they captured the werewolf/assassin/mercenary company leader, and one of his lieutenants. The PC's tried to reason with them to talk. Then the noble and his guard captain took them off screen and tried Intimidate, by unspecified means -- I just rolled the dice. I came up good, so they spilled a little more info, which was then relayed to the PC's. The prisoners are still in the dungeon of the noble's tower (in a cell not adjoining the poor dwarf!). Since they were working for an enemy country in a declared war, there's a chance they could be exchanged for friendly prisoners in the future. If the war ends without that, they'll certainly be executed, on charges of brigandage for trying to massacre a village and attempted murder for trying to kill the noble -- and also because nobody wants a werewolf assassin running free!

In my other campaign, they captured a goblin and tried to Intimidate him, using the old trick from "Untouchables" of "killing" another prisoner (who is already dead) to scare the first guy. It worked, and he answered their questions, but when he didn't know answers and they wouldn't take that for an answer, he just made things up. Eventually, after he lead around for a few hours looking for the "secret back door" to the dungeon that the goblin kept promising must actually be over there, no there -- they actually found it by accident!

Out of character, one player said, "I think the DM is just messing with us. I don't think this goblin knows anything. The DM is just showing us that torture doesn't work -- it gets an answers, any answer, but not necessarily the truth, because the guy may not even know anything, but he'd say anything to save his hide."

I had to admit "bingo" on that one and explained that I'd learned this a CIA memoir about Vietnam, and a friend who was in military intel in a war zone and later was a detective.

The PC's left the goblin prisoner tied up as they explored past the secret backdoor. Not sure what they will do in the end -- likely turn him over to the local authorities. In the past (Sunless Citadel), they made peace with some goblins, agreeing to let them leave if they'd stop fighting.

 

[pemerton]

My players will often seek to take prisoners for interrogation purposes, and will generally accept surrenders. I tend to use a lot of undead and demon encounters, however, which reduces the prisoner quotient a bit.

Over the past 18 months my PCs have taken prisoners on quite a few occasions that I can recall. They captured a bear and it tagged along with the party paladin for a while. They took a mercenary halfling prisoner and let him go in exchange for information. They took a mercenary wizard prisoner and the paladin made her join the party - she ended up getting killed by a swarm of undead hands, and then resurrecting as a wight in the same combat to try and kill the paladin (she failed). They defeated some bandits without killing them, and let them go after negotiating a few deals with them.

They've also taken quite a few goblinoids prisoner - generally letting them go in exchange for information and/or solemn oaths to give up their violent ways. I remember on one occasion it was a bit embarassing for the prisoner, as she turned up in the throneroom of the goblin king a few sessions later (and was viciously targeted by the PCs for it). The PCs recently took some hobgolilns prisoner and made them serve for a couple of encounters as stretcher bearers for a rescued NPC, and then let them go after extracting oaths of renunciation of slavery and violence. Some other hobgoblins captured in the next session weren't quite as fortunate - one chose to be executed in the name of Bane rather than swear a pacifist oath, and some others were put to death by the party wizard (who has a major thing against goblins and hobgoblins) before the oath-extracting PC could make it onto the scene and save them.

As a GM, I'm always happy for the PCs to take prisoners or enter into negotiations. Sometimes I get a bit of surprise at who they will negotiate with, and how generous they are prepared to be to NPCs - but that's part and parcel of playing the game! And I regard the results as skill checks or skill challenges as binding for all this sort of stuff - if I didn't, what is the point of the players spending build points on those skills?

That said, I see this stuff as more relevant to the unfolding of the story than to the tactical capacity of the party. If NPCs join the party - whether prisoners or allies - I like to have them hang at the back rather than take an active role in encounters. If the PCs insist that an NPC help them in combat then I let the players roll for the NPC in question, and dilute XP accordingly.

 

[frankthedm]

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.

He's also made a world where the players probably should know that even if they subdue someone, the residents of DeathbeforedishonorlandWorld won't give an inch.

And, how far does the DM's determination go?

As far as it needs too. Most rule systems have situational modifiers for when a task is easier or harder.

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?

If i would overrule the dice, there would be no need to call for a roll.

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.

As much as all interactions with NPCs. The DM sets the stage, but the players should be the ones deciding their actions. The DM should not [figuratively] put a glowing Neon sign over a mooks head reading "CAPTURE TO ADVANCE THE PLOT".

you call this a huge time sink. Why? Why is it a huge time sink?... I don't see why this should be any more difficult than any other NPC interaction.

Any NPC interaction can be a huge time sink. Also taking a prisoner can easily lead to in game ethics arguments when the combat loving player who wants to get on with the killing, decides to do exactly that with the prisoner the group's thespian was getting Name, Rank & Backstory from.

Shouldn't it, in d20 anyway, be a single or a couple of die rolls and then answer the questions or not?

Depends on the the DM, the game group and how much NPC interactions get played out.

 

[megablake]

I was just thinking about this very subject! Glad there's a thread.

The PC's in my Thursday Pathfinder campaign have taken several prisoners, mostly surrendered survivors out of enemy mercenaries who had the misjudgment to attack the party. There's been many more NPCs who won't surrender (cultists, honor-bound warriors, bosses), but I see no reason to let a reasonably intelligent thug who's just seen all of his allies brutally slaughtered try and save his own hide.

For the most part, the prisoners are interrogated (Diplomacy or Intimidate checks, for what little knowledge they have), then bound and used as pack mules for loot. After they return to civilization, the paladin turns them into the local authorities (sometimes, if the prisoner hadn't made any attempts at escape or underhanding the party, he'll make them swear an oath of peace and goodwill [using geas or just a plain ol' Sense Motive check] and let them go on their way).

We've also got a necromancer in the party, so if the paladin ever kicks it, there's going to be a whole new use for prisoners...

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

The party members thought they were close enough to the city to warrant getting the prisoners back to the city for justice by the city council as they saw fit. The paladin didn't agree.

"Just one orc? Why didn't you kill him?"

I miss Zogonia.

Brad

 

[Leif]

If the pcs take one or more prisoners, what do they do with them while they continue the adventure? An obvious solution is to leave them bound/shackled/imprisoned in the care of an npc. That gives the DM a perfect way to get rid of the complication of prisoners: the "jailer" just gets tired of taking the prisoners' lip and beheads them! Problem solved. Or better yet, the npcs in the persona of the local 'powers that be' put the prisoners on trial for their dastardly deeds, find them guilty, and execute them.