Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jay Verkuilen" data-source="post: 7756969" data-attributes="member: 6873517">Part of it is the fact that this particular moral quandary almost inevitably leads to a transparent "he's going to betray you, so don't let him surrender". IMO the DM needs to take the first step to make surrender a possibility. Example: In my not really Planescape or Spelljammer but really bizarre Astral game, the PCs assaulted the pleasure palace of a gith pirate captain. As the gith pirates are important adversaries, this was relevant because the PCs were hoping to steal any star charts there. Regardless, the place was done up in about as baroquely twisted/twistedly baroque a fashion as you might imagine, complete with shaved bugbear eunuch guards wearing Borat-style mankinis firing blunderbusses. The freed brothel slaves ended up joining up with a up and coming ally who'd helped the PCs during the assault and had lost her crew in the resulting escape after the raid. However, two of the bugbears survived and, when they spoke with them, they offered to serve the PCs. One was later killed by a vampire, but the survivor, swiftly dubbed Borat, faithfully served them as a jailer until he was killed by some gereleths later on. He's been memorialized in statue in their town. OK, that's kind of bizarre, but the general point is that the PCs have to feel that surrender isn't invariably going to lead to betrayal. It probably works better in this particular campaign because the PCs have a home base of a sort and thus weren't saddled with a retainer they had to haul around all the time.  Otherwise, prisoner killing isn't going to stop, even for otherwise fairly good PCs.</blockquote>

Verification