Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BendBars/LiftGates" data-source="post: 4837236" data-attributes="member: 58779">If I were DMing Azhad's campaign, I would have definitely done things differently. It's true that perhaps if you captured villains and then let them go rather than slay them, that some people might hold you responsible for their later crimes. But it's also possible that people might empathize with your dilemma and agree that, in a difficult situation, you were forced to go easy on them and they took advantage of your mercy.Maybe it's gamist rather than absolutely simulationist, but a DM has to make some decisions based on what kind of game he wants to play. It might be interesting to see what happens when you get mistaken for a villain, but a DM ought to understand that when you punish players for allowing surrendered opponents to live, you give them strong incentive to execute their prisoners.If you Intimidate some bandits into surrendering and then let them go free, I refuse to believe that whether or not they turn on you is a question of realism. Did your act of kindness rub off on them? Maybe, particularly in a world of high fantasy where good and evil do battle. Will they instead hold a grudge and come murder you in your sleep when you make camp next? That's also possible, but they don't have to. When there are plenty of ways the choice could go, a DM should revert to the choice that encourages the sort of game he wants to play.</blockquote>