D&D General Was the court Wizard right to Polymorph The heir from A Teenager into A Baby because she knew the villain would kill A Teenager but not A Baby?

[James Gasik]

Oh if assuming the polymorph would be permanent until removed somehow, and that it would be an extra step (find someone who can undo it)? Maybe it's contrived, but so's things like Malificient/Carabosse putting a princess to sleep until some guy comes along to kiss her.

Nothing wrong with some traditional fantasy, right?

 

[Charlaquin]

I've had a better idea on how to protect her

Since the palace has Slaves how about I add in A 5 month old Slave Girl and The Court Wizard use's 2 more Polymorph Other Spells, 1 to swap The appearance of The now 5 month old Princess with that of The 5 month old Slave Girl and the other swaps The appearance of The 5 month old Slave Girl with that of The Now 5 month old Princess, it won't work for more then A week but that should be long enough

…why? If the villain won’t hurt an infant anyway, what does putting someone else in the princess’ place even achieve, except the unnecessary death of the decoy?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Why not polymorph the villain into something harmless?

 

[JMISBEST]

Why not polymorph the villain into something harmless?

I will admit that I once had a good reason for not polymorphing the villain into something harmless but I came up with this idea so many years ago that I've forgot what the reason was

 

[Bill Zebub]

I will admit that I once had a good reason for not polymorphing the villain into something harmless but I came up with this idea so many years ago that I've forgot what the reason was

Saving throws?

 

[James Gasik]

Polymorph immunity, magic resistance, spellcaster allies- there's any number of reasons that I wouldn't want to rely on a "save or suck" spell to take a dangerous opponent. Heck, for all we know, the court Wizard only has like a 17 Int so their save DC isn't exactly optimized.

 

[JMISBEST]

Also, I find myself not very impressed by a “villain” who balks at killing a baby. It’s just not very villainous. Don’t villains have some sort of guild to uphold standards of professionalism?

Their are some things that are so evil that some villains won't do them or won't do to certain people or types of people

For example A Crime Lord that came from A Poor Family may refuse to allow his followers to steal from the poor

 

[MonsterEnvy]

For example A Crime Lord that came from A Poor Family may refuse to allow his followers to steal from the poor

This does not tend to be true very often.

 

[Bill Zebub]

For example A Crime Lord that came from A Poor Family may refuse to allow his followers to steal from the poor

That’s a slippery slope, narratively.

If the so-called “villain” has a moral compass, he might be redeemable. And if he (or she…or it) is redeemable, then don’t I have an obligation to try to help with redemption, instead of immediately putting them to the sword?

And if I can’t kill them, how am I gonna get their stuff? And what about my XP?

 

[JMISBEST]

That’s a slippery slope, narratively.

If the so-called “villain” has a moral compass, he might be redeemable. And if he (or she…or it) is redeemable, then don’t I have an obligation to try to help with redemption, instead of immediately putting them to the sword?

And if I can’t kill them, how am I gonna get their stuff? And what about my XP?

On the matter of how to get The XP if you don't kill them I'd suggest that you change the XP rules from only getting it for foes they kill to getting it for foes you defeat

As for how to get their stuff if you don't kill them I'd suggest ransom. 1 example is that if you kill and loot A 4th level Thief you may only get 700 Gold worth of valuables, 220 Gold Coins in cash, 3 dose's of magic potion and 1 Magic Shortsword but if you ransom him/her you could get 4,400 Gold worth of valuables, 1,180 Gold Coins in cash, 5 dose's of magic potion, 2 magic items and 1 Magic Shortsword