PCs who kill everyone that attacks them

[Jakathi]

To die or not to die: that's the million coin question

hmmm. it's pretty stupid to kill everyone. A it brings the same on yourself. B it gives you a naughty rep. C who's gonna pay you when you're done blowing the town away?

I'd kill the purely evil ones and the one's who simple don't take 'go away and be a good boy now' and save the others for questioning and ransom.

Cuz remember, the one's you left alive will spread the tale of your impressive way of killing, which will eventually make you a buncha money or make you a bunch a enemies. or a little bit o column A and B.

Of course, i'd still loot everything not nailed down. But then, I'm a closet kleptomaniac at heart.

 

[kigmatzomat]

If you were attacked by or putting down bandits, I am pretty sure that all captured bandits would be "hanged from the neck until dead". I'm no expert on medieval times, but in some places wasn't the punishment for stealing to have a hand lopped off?

My players love bandits; they're like candy. The rogue's phrase is "why steal when there are people volunteering to impale themselves on your blades so you can take their stuff and collect a bounty?"

IMC there are bounties on known bandits. Normally a bandit would have to have hit some noticeable targets to be identified and worthy of bounty but since the PCs are militia they get "beer money" from bandit ears. (One advantage of being a known hero: people tend to believe you.)

They accept surrender; heck, they've figured out that a surrendering person will often bargain with all the loot kept at the lair. (If I roll up a set of Plate +1 for a dex 22 Rogue he keeps the plate someplace safe)

 

[Elf Witch]

That's one of the problems with not using alignment. The players think that they can get away with nasty stuff, since the DM can't accuse them of being evil.

Geoff.

What the DM needs to do in a case like this is have logical things happen and if the players complain say hey theNPCs are not evil. I am a great believer in you reap what you sow. Being ruthless gets you lots of enemies who will be as ruthless and blood thirsty as you were. Show some compassion and then the same good things should happen to you too.

 

[hong]

What the DM needs to do in a case like this is have logical things happen and if the players complain say hey theNPCs are not evil. I am a great believer in you reap what you sow. Being ruthless gets you lots of enemies who will be as ruthless and blood thirsty as you were. Show some compassion and then the same good things should happen to you too.

In practice, that just gives the PCs all the more reason to be selfish and cynical. Everyone they meet is being nasty to them, so why should they start being nice?

If you want a game where the PCs are nice guys, then you should mention it to the players up front. A preferred gaming style isn't something that's easy to convey in the game itself.

 

[Norfleet]

Heh, the best solution in a group is the old "good cop, bad cop" dichotomy. When you pair a more merciful guy up with a bloodthirsty attack dog, what you have is a ripe opportunity for people to surrender, since if they don't, the bloodthirsty psychopath will be turned loose on them, and they'll die messily and painfully.

The way I run things in my campaigns, player acts which are merciful lower the character's dread rating, whereas being merciless and bloodthirsty increase the character's dreadfulness. Characters who had a reputation for producing bloodbaths and general unpleasant dreadfulness had the ability to cause an entire noisy tavern to go to a hushed silence on entry. People rightly feared them. Of course, it's difficult to find friends when people are trying to avoid you, and those that *DO* decide they must fight you are going to do so with the expectation that the decision is not reversible.

 

[mmu1]

I think that one thing that's being missed in all these comparisons to ficitonal heroes is practicality.

The sheer volume of combat most parties go through (and where the combat usually takes place) makes it impossible to approach taking prisoners in anything resembling a "real world" fashion. What are the PCs supposed to do, leave neatly tied bundles of enemies along their trail for later collection and shipping back to the town prison?
Depending on the enemy, that amounts to a)Letting them go, for all intents of purposes (those with decent Escape Artist or associates that can help) and b)Letting them starve to death or be mauled by monsters (anyone who can't readily break out of bonds).

Small wonder many people try to simplify matters and get on with the game - they want to play adventurers, not cops.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think that one thing that's being missed in all these comparisons to ficitonal heroes is practicality.

The sheer volume of combat most parties go through (and where the combat usually takes place) makes it impossible to approach taking prisoners in anything resembling a "real world" fashion. What are the PCs supposed to do, leave neatly tied bundles of enemies along their trail for later collection and shipping back to the town prison?
Depending on the enemy, that amounts to a)Letting them go, for all intents of purposes (those with decent Escape Artist or associates that can help) and b)Letting them starve to death or be mauled by monsters (anyone who can't readily break out of bonds).

Small wonder many people try to simplify matters and get on with the game - they want to play adventurers, not cops.

Maybe in your game that is how they like to play. But I don't like games like this it takes the role playing out of it. I enjoy dilemas and trying to figure out the best way to solve them. And one big dilema is what to do with prisoners. If you are lucky you have a paladin who can cast a spell that puts them in a pocket of interdimensional space sort of like sticking them in a haversack that is what our paladin does he's got three prisoners in one now.

 

[Elf Witch]

In practice, that just gives the PCs all the more reason to be selfish and cynical. Everyone they meet is being nasty to them, so why should they start being nice?

If you want a game where the PCs are nice guys, then you should mention it to the players up front. A preferred gaming style isn't something that's easy to convey in the game itself.

Sure you should talk about what kind of game you want upfront. And if your players are playing blood thirsty maniacs then maybe you should open your mouth and say you know what guys just so you know the NPCs are going to behave this way too.

But to be frank if your players are not young kids then to have to say something like this seems to me that the players are not to bright. Unless of course they only want to play in a game where everything is in the PCs favor and they get special treatment just because they are PCs.

 

[hong]

But to be frank if your players are not young kids then to have to say something like this seems to me that the players are not to bright.

Spoken like a not too bright DM.


Hong "I hear there's a vaccine for that" Ooi

 

[clark411]

I don't see how this is terribly surprising.

Anytime a character is attacked by an opponent who isn't explicitly attempting to deal non-lethal damage, someone is trying to *Kill* that character. Responding in kind is a natural progression save for characters with rather unique personal motivations.

One of my favorite such personas was Shagga from Song of Ice and Fire... she took the ears of her opponents and left them alive. The only true courage, the barbarian argued, was in leaving your enemies a chance to avenge their lost face or finish their plots of hatred towards you... that way you could show your superiority over them again and again.

A dnd character however, may not have the luxury that someone in a novel has. Just consider the volume of foes!