Prisoners

[Wasteland Knight]

Prisoners, what are those?

 

[Umbran]

As I just noted in another thread - taking prisoners is a thing large organizations do. Police, military, and intelligence organizations take prisoners, because they have resources that can be dedicated to the management of those prisoners.

Your typical D&D group of five do-gooder vigilante adventurers do not have reources for managing prisoners. So, no stuff it becomes a problem.

 

[Wasteland Knight]

As I just noted in another thread - taking prisoners is a thing large organizations do. Police, military, and intelligence organizations take prisoners, because they have resources that can be dedicated to the management of those prisoners.

Your typical D&D group of five do-gooder vigilante adventurers do not have reources for managing prisoners. So, no stuff it becomes a problem.

Exactly.

In most games I’ve played, and all the ones I run, prisoners are the exception not the rule.

Even for organizations larger and with more resources than an adventuring party, a prisoner is someone exceptional who has notable value alive.

Otherwise, the LG Paladin-approved result for surrendered baddies is a quick death. The evil sorts tend to do the same, it just tends to take a lot longer.

 

[Umbran]

Otherwise, the LG Paladin-approved result for surrendered baddies is a quick death.

So, you have different paladins where I come from (which is okay, just noting the difference, though).

The LG Paladin-approved result of surrendered mooks is, "Throw down your weapons and depart, post-haste. If we see you again we will consider it that you have broken your parole, and no further quarter will be given."

And, so long as you aren't a Rat Bastard GM and not matching your game to the player's preferred genre, that works and is fine. Arguments of the form, "But in reality..." do not enter into it.

 

[uzirath]

When I run games for younger children, they usually take prisoners, treat them well, and release them (often with gifts). Admittedly, they haven't read Game of Thrones yet.

With my adult groups (whether as a player or GM), what to do with captives is a regular challenge. Often captives provide opportunities for good roleplaying and to learn more about the enemy. In recent games, any of the following have occurred:

• Left bound for others to deal with.
• Turned over to the authorities.
• Convinced and/or paid to work with the party (whether as henchmen or spies).
• Allowed to flee into the wilderness.
• Prisoners convinced the party that they were working for the wrong team (or at least that the ethical issues at stake weren't as simple as their patron had led them to believe).

I ran a campaign a while back where the PCs were in a series of adventures featuring the same villain. They were alternately captors and captives of the guy and got to know him quite well. Later in the campaign, they ended up working with him against a mutual enemy. (Oh the glorious debates that raged around that decision!)

 

[Jd Smith1]

So, you have different paladins where I come from (which is okay, just noting the difference, though).

The LG Paladin-approved result of surrendered mooks is, "Throw down your weapons and depart, post-haste. If we see you again we will consider it that you have broken your parole, and no further quarter will be given."

I've never seen LG paladins run that way. Turning evil creatures loose to wreak havoc upon the common folk? Inconceivable. Major alignment failure for aiding the machinations of evil at the expense of the innocent. Welcome to life as a plain fighter.

Of course, I quit using alignments a long time ago precisely because of these sort of debates. Now in the rare occasions I run fantasy, paladins oaths are to kill evil creatures and thwart their efforts. And the 'nits become lice' argument is a cornerstone.

 

[Eric V]

I've never seen LG paladins run that way. Turning evil creatures loose to wreak havoc upon the common folk? Inconceivable. Major alignment failure for aiding the machinations of evil at the expense of the innocent. Welcome to life as a plain fighter.

Of course, I quit using alignments a long time ago precisely because of these sort of debates. Now in the rare occasions I run fantasy, paladins oaths are to kill evil creatures and thwart their efforts. And the 'nits become lice' argument is a cornerstone.

Do the paladins run campaigns of genocide against orcs, goblins, et al? I imagine they would.

 

[Umbran]

I've never seen LG paladins run that way. Turning evil creatures loose to wreak havoc upon the common folk?

So, that's a genre choice thing. If you've never seen it, you've just always made that particular genre choice the same way.

Of course, I quit using alignments a long time ago precisely because of these sort of debates.

So, you see, without alignments, what I say is easier, because you don't have to justify "alignment change", or worry about "evil creatures loose" or anything like that. They are just creatures. They can be convinced to be different.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Do the paladins run campaigns of genocide against orcs, goblins, et al? I imagine they would.

Yep. Only you can prevent the Waaaaaagghhh.

 

[Jd Smith1]

So, you see, without alignments, what I say is easier, because you don't have to justify "alignment change", or worry about "evil creatures loose" or anything like that. They are just creatures. They can be convinced to be different.

Trying to convince them might work. Killing them always works.

Therefore, if you truly care about the innocent, there is only one course open to you.