this issue has come up several times both as a player and as a DM...the party defeats in battle a group of evil NPCs say...goblins one or more surrender and the group needs information from them...what can a LG cleric permit or do along the lines of questioning, intimidation etc. Secondly, someone who is captured without surrendering and is being unco-operative...we dont have the resources to guard them perpetually, we are a long way from a recognized source of authority, if we release them we will just have to fight them again and they may bring back allies if they get away...can a LG character allow them to be slain out of hand as a convenience?? Does being an exalted character make a difference to the choices and decisions? does the characters choice of patron deity matter? Can the character in question wander off to investigate another area while the thief questions/disposes of the prisoner? I'm not looking for a diffinitive answer here just some thoughts on guideline and how others would interpret LG and exalted alignment, a little help please?
lawful good and prisoners
- Thread starter Ice man
- Start date
Ice man said:
Here is my take on this situation. If there is no way to turn these prisoners over to the authorities then it is up to the the party ot take care of them in as humane manner as possible. We are talking evil here right not just enemies?End their lives as quickly as possible with the minium of suffering.
There are some ways to handle this first of all if you have no way of offering anything other than death a lawful good person should not accept surrender if they try tell pick them up your weapon and defend yourself you will get no quarter from me. I find it rather evil to accpet a surrender knowing full well that you are just going to kill them later.
I also think it is evil to offer to take a surrender and get infomation by promising them their lives. Don't make promises you can't keep.
And as for the I go off to scout while the rogue of the party does the dirty work is just BS if you know it is going to happen and you walk away your hands are just as dirty as if you did the deed.
Cerubus Dark
First Post
Ice man said:
Depends on the group at the time. I have a great bunch of players who depending on the campaign would actually give enemy a fair chance to change their ways. Of course it also depends on the PC's themselves.
I had one party (made up of the same players) who upon arresting a group of evil clerics the party wizard, thought it would be a good idea to "question" them. Its the method he used a sunrod placed in um... well lets say I had to rule sun rods where like flares for this.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
I'm assuming the rest of your party is not evil or strongly neutral. If not, then it's not only the LG character that should be intervening here.
If someone is captured without surrendering.
1. I assume there was a reason for capturing him rather than killing him, so I'm going to assume there is a need for keeping him alive: he can say where more goblins are, can give some other info, etc.
2. More than likely you do have the 'resources' to watch him. While that may indeed be true if most of the party is wounded with no healing available, that line is usually the first cop-out used when people really want to just kill him and get things over with. Tie him up. You can watch him easily. Unless you've captured Harry Houdini the Goblin, he's gonna stay tied up.
3. Man, why is it the rogue who's always the questioner? Being a rogue (assuming he's not the 'we dredged him up from the dockyards and we have to keep a closer watch on him than the Goblin' type of rogue) doesn't give you an automatic intro to Torture 101.
The short answer is this: you already know the answer if you have to ask the question 'is it alright?'. It's not. The ends do not justify the means: they never have. If the GM says 'Well, torture is the only way you'll get useful info from him', most characters - not just the LG ones - should be shaking their head and saying 'then we just won't be getting that info'. And look into finding another GM.
If someone is captured without surrendering.
1. I assume there was a reason for capturing him rather than killing him, so I'm going to assume there is a need for keeping him alive: he can say where more goblins are, can give some other info, etc.
2. More than likely you do have the 'resources' to watch him. While that may indeed be true if most of the party is wounded with no healing available, that line is usually the first cop-out used when people really want to just kill him and get things over with. Tie him up. You can watch him easily. Unless you've captured Harry Houdini the Goblin, he's gonna stay tied up.
3. Man, why is it the rogue who's always the questioner? Being a rogue (assuming he's not the 'we dredged him up from the dockyards and we have to keep a closer watch on him than the Goblin' type of rogue) doesn't give you an automatic intro to Torture 101.
The short answer is this: you already know the answer if you have to ask the question 'is it alright?'. It's not. The ends do not justify the means: they never have. If the GM says 'Well, torture is the only way you'll get useful info from him', most characters - not just the LG ones - should be shaking their head and saying 'then we just won't be getting that info'. And look into finding another GM.
Eosin the Red
First Post
It depends on you and your group. I suspect that you do not think it is right so as the DM I suggest that you give a legit cause to kill. Have him try to escape or something and make sure that whatever hits him kills him.
The whole prisioner issue carries responsibilities both as the player and the DM.
The whole prisioner issue carries responsibilities both as the player and the DM.
alignment types (at least in the games i've played) only really apply to outsiders and those who deal with them. ummmm. if the character feels it's nessisary, let him do what he needs to do. but and i say but, clearly spell out the consequences of any actions he or she does take if the choice might affect said alignment.
Lhorgrim
Explorer
In my campaign the paladin was more than just a holy warrior. He had the authority to judge criminals, and carry out sentences. In several instances the paladin would list the charges against the prisoner (usually attempted murder if the prisoner attacked the party without provocation). The paladin then meted out punishment as the charges and situation warranted. Trial by combat was the most common when out in the wilderness, but if near a town the party would transport the prisoner to the jail. Of course this all hinged on the paladin having Judge Dredd like authority in the campaign setting. Just my experience, not saying it's for everyone.
WayneLigon said:I'm assuming the rest of your party is not evil or strongly neutral. If not, then it's not only the LG character that should be intervening here.
If someone is captured without surrendering.
1. I assume there was a reason for capturing him rather than killing him, so I'm going to assume there is a need for keeping him alive: he can say where more goblins are, can give some other info, etc.
2. More than likely you do have the 'resources' to watch him. While that may indeed be true if most of the party is wounded with no healing available, that line is usually the first cop-out used when people really want to just kill him and get things over with. Tie him up. You can watch him easily. Unless you've captured Harry Houdini the Goblin, he's gonna stay tied up.
3. Man, why is it the rogue who's always the questioner? Being a rogue (assuming he's not the 'we dredged him up from the dockyards and we have to keep a closer watch on him than the Goblin' type of rogue) doesn't give you an automatic intro to Torture 101.
The short answer is this: you already know the answer if you have to ask the question 'is it alright?'. It's not. The ends do not justify the means: they never have. If the GM says 'Well, torture is the only way you'll get useful info from him', most characters - not just the LG ones - should be shaking their head and saying 'then we just won't be getting that info'. And look into finding another GM.
i use the rogue in this case because the rogue was the character doing the interrogation and the rogue is CN in alignment. the rest of the party is generally CG in alignment with one other CN character and as a whole they did not see any problems in inflicting discomfort upon the prisoner (the rogue was determined to torture for information). the party is very low level (1rst) and lacks the usual magical means of making a prisoner co-operative...lots of in character discussion of ethics, morals and dogma right now and i wanted ot make sure i was getting the LG view point fairly accurate.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
