Dragon Article: To Live Defeated

[Ryujin]

I don't still don't understand how blinding/maiming is morally more repugnant than murder/execution.

Well there is the thought that life-long suffering can be worse than a quick death by the headsman's axe, but such a quick death doesn't provide as much of an object lesson to others.

As I said; expedient.

I think what the sidebar is trying to say is, "Don't punish your players for choosing an alternate punishment by having its effects easily negated by the bad guys."

And I get why he says it. And think it is one of the terrible flaws in his design of this article.

That sidebar should have said, "Think of interesting stories that can develop from these fates. Here are some ideas. Here are some guidelines. Think up your own developments based on your own campaign."

Instead they basically said, "Hey, here is what happens to this people. As a DM, try to avoid letting anything change this. Don't let your desire to tell a story with your own campaign overwrite my stories as the writer of this article."

That's one of my biggest problems right there - the writer of the article was way too focused on sharing his own stories, rather than encouraging players and DMs to tell their own.

Yes, there are so many ways that this sort of thing could be worked into a campaign story arc. The Wizard you blinded, so that he wouldn't be a danger anymore, ends up with a familiar he uses to see, then tracks and dogs the party's footsteps causing mischief.

And you don't really need an article, in order to state what happens to slain monsters and NPCs. The Warlock's patron takes the soul of the slain, causing their eyes to be burnt out when they drop. The Ardent's targets become mindless husks, feeding his power to aid his party members. That sort of thing. "Dead" can merely mean "no longer an imminent threat" also.

 

[Pbartender]

I'm filing this under "A Good Idea Poorly Implemented".

I think the important point to take away from this article is that defeating an enemy is just another mechanical construct of the game, and it can be reflavored just like any other ability, power or feat.

You defeat an enemy and one of two results happens: Unconsciousness -- temporarily put out of commission -- or Death -- practically permenently put out of commission. So long as the mechanical effects and consequences of the Unconscious and Dead conditions aren't changed, what's the trouble of describing them in a non-standard way?

My Paragon-tier Illusionist doesn't knock enemies unconscious, he temporarily overloads all their senses with illusionary nothingness, effectively cutting them off from any meaningful interaction with the real world.

He always doesn't kill his enemies, sometimes they lose themselves within his illusions. The real world becomes an vague dream to them and they become an indistinct apparition to the real world. They remain in this dream-like illusory state until someone can perform a ritual (Raise Dead!) that will restore their "realness".

It's another way to make a character stand out a little on occasion.


Something else...

I've been rereading the Harry Potter novels, and am currently about halfway through the seven book series. It's interesting to note that thus far, most of the suggestions the author of the article gives show up in those books in one form or another, often in combination (though usually only in temporary fashion). In fact, in the books, death is the rarest form of dealing with one's enemies -- even amongst the bad guys -- and is generally considered amongst the most evil methods.

It's also fascinating to note which methods are used by the various good guys and bad guys. For example...

Imprisonment, crippling, cursing, disfiguring, cutting off from magic, denying a patron, eternal torment, isolation, oubliette, plague, petrification (paralysis, really), transmogrification, waters of Lethe, and world bound are all used by good guys at one point or another (although other good guys don't always look highly upon it). Often they are not even used to defeat an enemy, but are used as practical jokes on other good guys, for humorous intent by the author, or are used on innocent bystanders to cover up a mistake.

 

[Shroomy]

FYI, this article was cut from the final compilation.

 

[Aegeri]

Good move from Wizards that, it really didn't need to be in there. I am somewhat surprised they didn't just chuck it into Dungeon though.

 

[FireLance]

Good move from Wizards that, it really didn't need to be in there. I am somewhat surprised they didn't just chuck it into Dungeon though.

"To Live Defeated" in the Dungeon?

Makes sense.

 

[Savevsdeath]

I guess I would disagree with the idea that you need a way to stop a villain from coming back to do more harm...for more on this read about 70% of the fiction I enjoyed as a child. Good folk SHOULD, if they don't dispatch the evil, jail it or take some other action that shows they are merciful and in fact "better" than the villain.

recurring villains are a good thing

Screw that. I'm making sure that not only will my enemy not come back, but anybody else who considers trying what you did or getting revenge on me thinks twice about it. I might not render a 'fate worse than death' unto every enemy, but i would do it when it might make a difference, or is poetically appropriate. If i could transform my defeated evil enemy into a fully aware sword that i use to defeat evil, i would. But if i catch a skin-eating innocent-sacrificing villain with his pants down, guess whos going to get skinned and/or eaten alive by something? That guy, thats who. And you know why? Because sometimes justice demands what goodness cannot stomach.

And if theres a decent chance the guy can be redeemed, then i'll take that chance too. But only if i believe theres a good chance.