Kill All the Hostages! (We'll bring them back...)

[Gnarlo]

Lingering pain and suffering is not a question from the official rules anyhow: "Upon completion of the spell, the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health" Italics mine. Of course, in your campaign YMMV. Statements of the trauma of the hostages at being killed and resurrected may not apply in his campaign. No where is it stated that the resurrected suffer from lingering, psychic turmoil and horror, the trauma to the soul is accounted for in the loss of the level or the drop in Con as the case may be; any lingering resentment or even memory of the event is to be determined per DM's judgement. As before, YMMV.

Something I see as being missed in this discussion is the question of campaign background. It's all fine and well to debate whether something is negligence or manslaughter or even a crime or moral by modern society viewpoints and law, but what is the society like in your campaign, Cloudgatherer? Is it a lawful, well protected society where the knights are responsible for the commoners well being, like Camelot England? Is it a frontier settlement where 8 girls were killed by orcs the previous week and not able to have easily available resurrections? Is it a crushing, early feudal society where commoners are chattel and property, and the worst they could get charged with would be vandalism or destruction of property (not likely, as the villian thought hostage taking was a good idea, but still something to consider).

 

[Wolfspider]

Well argued, Tzarevitch.

 

[Tzarevitch]

Actually, I think the party's actions were quite sensible given their abilites, the game world, and the situation they were in. I don't see why there should be any negative consequences for the party.

One girl was missing and the villian was leaving with the other girl. Who knows what would have happened to the girls if he had managed to escape? The two girls may never have been recovered alive or many other awful things may have happened to them if the villian had escaped with his hostage.

In this case the villian was defeated and the girls are alive and well, minus one consitution point(big deal).

Maybe this was not the intended solution, but the solution was extremely sensible and it worked. Your biggest dilema should be deciding what type of reward they should receive for bringing the girls back.

What?!?

You cannot possibly tell me that "Shoot and hope you hit the bad guy," is the best plan that a party with good PCs could come up with. Why not just meteor swarm the whole area and sort the bodies out later? It is more efficient.

How many PCs are willing to give up a point of their own CON so easily (or a lung or kidney in the real world?) When every player on this board will happily surrender a point of CON PERMANENTLY, because it makes it more efficient to kill the baddies that way, I'll believe that NPCs should be happy with it too.

Tzarevitch

 

[xjp]

The alternative is that both girls may never be heard from again AND the villian eludes justice.

The girls had a close scrape, they escaped minus one CON. Hopefully, getting kidnapped and killed is not a regular occurance for these girls, I think they'll be fine with their new CON.

 

[Matchstick]

Cloudgatherer:

What you did is not WRONG, despite what people may say. This is your campaign, and no one but you can say what's right and wrong.

Don't punish the players because the ENBoards tell you to, if you thought it was a strange encounter, but that's all, then that's all.

Cripes between the Dr Midnight thread and this one I'm surprised DM's post here at all sometimes. Seems to be just asking to be abused.

 

[Wolfspider]

What you did is not WRONG, despite what people may say. This is your campaign, and no one but you can say what's right and wrong.

Cripes between the Dr Midnight thread and this one I'm surprised DM's post here at all sometimes. Seems to be just asking to be abused.

Well, he posted to a message board. What did he expect? Silence?

Nope. This is a place where criticism and commentary are made. If he didn't want those things, he should have kept quiet.

As far as the Dr. Midnight thread goes, he asked for suggestions and got some. If he didn't like the suggestions, that's too bad--it's just part of asking for comments from a highly opinionated group of folks.

This isn't a mutual admiration society, after all.

 

[Aaron L]

In a D&D world where the spells Raise Dead and such are available, death is impermenant. Death is merely another type of wound. The only permenent death is the death of the soul. Of course, that is not to say Ressurections should be commonplace. In my campaign the Church charges very high prices for them, and they can only be performed on a vey special holy day, because the Church doesn't want to disrupt things to badly as a matter of philosophy and dogma.

As an aside, what were the choices the rogue had to choose from? The villian had the girl. He had to choose between certain death for the girl at the villians hands, or the possibility of her survival by killing the villian. Calling what the rogue did callous or evil is a not fair.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

Yes, the encounter could have been better. I make no claims to running any adventure perfectly and only have the feedback from my players to tell me how I'm doing.

Since it was pretty easy, I think that particular bad guy will be making a come back. If the hostages can be raised, then so can he (despite his body being burned by the party).

What I found interesting was the "shoot" approach. I did a little inward frowning when the rogue opened fire. Do good characters even risk the well-being of an innocent person? Do they do it twice? Then to raise them later.... Those are the types of issues I was hoping to foster.

Personally, the rogue has been on the fence for a while as per alignment, so I may shift him to CN from CG.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

Would a good character do this?

Do good characters even risk the well-being of an innocent person? Do they do it twice? Then to raise them later.... Those are the types of issues I was hoping to foster.

I'd say yes. I think of someone like Batman (a CG character if there ever was one), who would never negotiate with a terrorist or give him what he wants. If Raise Dead was an option for Batman, you bet he'd shoot, even risking the hostage's death, and have him raised later. The risk of the villain getting away and killing more would be too great. Even in real life, our SWAT teams, police, etc, have standing policies to not negotiate with terrorists. (Lying to one by pretending to be willing to negotiate with him is ok) The bigger risk by giving in to someone is that you've now rewarded evil behavior, and that leads to more repurcussions by encouraging more kidnappings, etc, etc.

 

[hong]

What?!?

You cannot possibly tell me that "Shoot and hope you hit the bad guy," is the best plan that a party with good PCs could come up with.

Why not? If it worked for Robocop, it could have worked for the PCs. D&D is all about doing crazy, whacked-out sh*t that would never fly in real life. If he'd hit the bad guy, that would have been a stunt to tell the grandkids about. Heck, given the rogue's likely Dex of 18 and their level, they may well have needed to roll a 2 to hit the girl. Even after they hit the girl the first time, they may have been thinking, what's the odds of rolling a 2 again?

Consider the effect that coming down hard on the PCs will have on the _players_. Do you want them to continue doing crazy, swashbuckling stunts? If so, be prepared for the dice to fall where they may, and don't penalise them overly much for a bad roll.