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

[Wolfspider]

I don't think it's possible to know what Cloudgatherer's campaign is like, based on one mishap.

You're right, and I'm not saying his campaign IS grim and gritty. All I can go by is what he posted, and he allowed the child to be killed, so obviously he let the dice fall in a pretty realistic (non swashbuckling) way--in this once encounter, at least.

 

[Kraedin]

Silly.

The replies to this thread tend towards the silly, don't they? Using default DnD magic, death isn't some permanant, horrible thing. Death is a pretty nasty wound, nothing more. You die? Fine, 10 min. later you see the Cleric finishing the incantation, you say your head hurts from when it was cut off by the sword, and you go about your day. If the rouge had wounded the girl in the arm, say, would there be advocates for drawing and quartering the PCs? Of course not. But that's all that happened. What if they had just let the kidnapper get away? The girl's still dead, but no one raises her. That's far more evil. Would people have preferred that? Of course not. I'll admit it would have been preferrable if they had found a method that didn't result the in the hostage's death, such as a Magic Missile or some other spell without an attack roll, but it's not as if anyone suffered severe permanant harm. Just 5% more likely to get ill in the future.

Hmmm, this post tends towards the rhetorical, doesn't it? Oh well. Post it anyway, that's what I always say.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

Well, I don't intend for the campaign world to be grim and gritty. There are many two-faced situations, a couple known plots, a couple hidden plots, and a band of outworld adventurers looking to find a way home. I tend to run the game with a fairly light mood and have only killed 2 PCs and 1 NPC cohort in the several months I've been running the game.

If you really want to get a feel, read the story hour....the player who is the rogue is supposed to post the aforementioned adventure this week, so hopefully it will be up soon.

 

[Mistwell]

Wolfspider, the Speed analogy is accurate because killing and raising the dead is the closest analogy to wounding in real life. As pointed out, there is no rule for wounding. Wounding is an annoyance, a pain in your leg that lasts many weeks or months until it is healed, in the real world. Killing and raising is about the closest D&D thing there is. The analogy can't be perfect when you're comparing D&D to real life (or film, in this case, which is only vaguely real life.) Besides, it was acknowledged that the hostage COULD HAVE BEEN killed in the movie. It was a risk of the plan, just as it was a risk of the party in this example.

I stand by the Speed analogy. It's not perfect, but it's better than the one you offered (which was? Oh, yeah, none at all, other than a judgement completely unrelated to a society, its traditions, its ability to repair injuries, and its ethics.)

This is an interesting discussion

-Mistwell

 

[hong]

This is an interesting discussion

I'm just amazed no-one has suggested changing the party's alignments yet.

People really are pansies on this here Bboard.

 

[Wolfspider]

I stand by the Speed analogy. It's not perfect, but it's better than the one you offered (which was? Oh, yeah, none at all, other than a judgement completely unrelated to a society, its traditions, its ability to repair injuries, and its ethics.)

Getting a bit snarky, aren't you?

I didn't offer an anology because I don't think a good one can be drawn between the D&D game and any particular movie (not even the D&D movie).

The replies to this thread tend towards the silly, don't they? Using default DnD magic, death isn't some permanant, horrible thing. Death is a pretty nasty wound, nothing more. You die? Fine, 10 min. later you see the Cleric finishing the incantation, you say your head hurts from when it was cut off by the sword, and you go about your day.

Well, if this is the way you want to run your games when you're DM, that's fine. But I hope you're able to deal with the other situaitions that crop up when death loses its sting. Undying kings and nobles, normal folks who demand resurrection magics when they see their loved ones fade and die, villains who never really die but just get raised by their cohorts and allies when they are overcome. Overpopulation of the earth, the depopulation of heaven and hell, the possible wrath of the gods--all of these are cans of worms I would rather leave closed. That's why in my campaign life-restoring magics are very rare and only infrequently used. In my mind, if being killed results in just a minor inconvenience (and being completely healed 10 minutes later doesn't reflect a nasty wound as you claim but an injury of paper-cut severity), then things have degenerated into a level of silly that I don't even want to contemplate.

Also consider how an episode as described in this thread could get out of hand later on. If the characters know that anyone threatened by a villian can be raised from the dead with impunity, maybe this will lead to preemptive killing of innocents.

For example, a nasty dragon says that it will wipe out an entire village if the king doesn't surrender his daughter. What will a party of "heroes" do? Well, wipe out the village first, of course! And, just to be sure, they'd kill the king's daughter as well. Now the dragon's threats are empty and they can deal with the annoying reptile at their leisure. And what's the rush, by the way? Anyone toasted by the dragon can just be raised later. So let's just chill....

Silly? Absolutely. But this is the kind of situation a DM may be faced if he or she adopts a completely liberal policy regarding resurrections.

If the rouge had wounded the girl in the arm, say, would there be advocates for drawing and quartering the PCs?

Are you saying that the rouge and the girl should just make up? That the DM should just gloss over the entire affair? That's hardly the foundation of justice, you know.

Yes, I'm shameless, but you won't see me blush....

 

[xjp]

Well I agree that resurrection is way too easy and too common in the standard default DnD universe. In my world, people have heard tales and rumours about miraculous resurrections, but they are certainly not performed at the church every Sunday for rich patrons. And if they are performed the body must be in good condition and the resurrection must be done soon after death, no True Resurrections here. Also I think it would be highly likely that the PC/NPC would come back, but not be quite right.

However, in this thread, in the world desrcibed, I assume resurrection is not so hard to come by and not so detrimental. In this case, with these conditions, I believe that the players took one of the more responsible courses of action. It would be pretty silly to punish them or to change the rules after the fact.

If you are looking for a plot hook you could present an over zealous prosecuter named Tzarevitch. He could dig up some archaic laws and insist they be applied to the characters. The girls and their families would come to the defense of the players, but the prosecuter would dismiss their testimony as irrelevant.

 

[hong]

If you are looking for a plot hook you could present an over zealous prosecuter named Tzarevitch. He could dig up some archaic laws and insist they be applied to the characters. The girls and their families would come to the defense of the players, but the prosecuter would dismiss their testimony as irrelevant.

Who ever heard of dead people testifying? It's... inconceivable!

(insert reference to dead parrots here)

 

[Tzarevitch]

I'm just amazed no-one has suggested changing the party's alignments yet.

People really are pansies on this here Bboard.

I did suggest changing alignments. My original argument is that "kill them all and sort them out later", is not a choice made by a person of good alignment. If the rogue's alignment was LN I'd have little problem with it. A good person cannot maku such decisions and remain good.

Tzarevitch

 

[xjp]

I did suggest changing alignments. My original argument is that "kill them all and sort them out later", is not a choice made by a person of good alignment. If the rogue's alignment was LN I'd have little problem with it. A good person cannot maku such decisions and remain good.

Tzarevitch

Yes, but they may have taken the best course of action that a good aligned party could have made.