What do your PCs do with prisoners?

[Kzach]

I'm gonna go with "because it's an imaginary game with imaginary consequences."

If you cared to notice, I had already acknowledged this fact in previous posts on the matter. The thing I am lamenting is that it seems to be fundamental to human nature to take the easiest, most beneficial course of action, irrespective of morality. I just find that... sad.

 

[SHARK]

But this is my point.

Why should there be any reward for moral behaviour?

Again, I get that it's just a game, but I'm talking about the fundamental nature of human beings. It seems that people, absent consequences, will do whatever is best for themselves no matter the morality of the situation. Even in an imaginary game where the 'difficulty' amounts to some more XP and in-game time that can be hand-waived, the immediate reaction for most people is to do the most selfish thing possible.
If you're playing a heroic character and you can't even be bothered doing the right thing in an imaginary game where the effort required to do so comes down to little more than saying, "Ok, we go back to town," what about when the chips are really down in real life and it's DIFFICULT to do the right thing?
This is why I find zombie apocalypse scenarios so fascinating. When the world collapses and the consequences for your actions are no longer governed by law or social mores, morality becomes an inconvenience and a luxury; and then, you meet the REAL person.

*Bolded sections by me for emphasis*

Greetings!

yeah, Kzach. I hate to have to inform you, my friend...your illusions of people being "inherently" good...of sincerely willing to do the moral thing...NOT.

Idealistic philosophies, whether political, religious, or social have been kicked around and embraced--typically by well-heeled, educated types insulated from the real blood, death, rape and cruelty that exists every day for the majority of humanity for a very long time.

I'm not criticisng you, or mocking you by the way. Just contrasting your sincere ideas as outlined above.

Throughout history...ancient Greece, Ancient Rome...Ancient Persia, Ancient China...hell, even the Ancient Celts...yeah, the vast majority of people, *most* of the time...will be more than willing and capable of killing...murdering...torturing, raping, imprisoning, poisoning, bankrupting, or otherwise ruining anyone and everyone that stands in their way of personal wealth, glory, power, and pleasure. Men and women alike have poisoned, slaughtered, or imprisoned their own children, their own siblings, even their husbands or wives, to get rid of them so *they* could get all the wealth, power and pleasure for themselves.

It's a sad fact of history, my friend. and of human nature. Oh, and it's not limited to merely being expressed by the wealthy, powerful, or royalty...history is full everywhere...of the poorest people being quite willing to throw their friends or family under the bus, or sell them, or otherwise betray them, if the price is right.

Too often, this kind of behaviour and ruthless selfishness is the *rule*...the *norm*....rather than the exception.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Janx]

What's a "prisoner" and a .... "survivor"? My players have no clue what either of these words mean.

I don't recall the last time we had a prisoner.

the fight is over when the last enemy is dead or runaway.

Not sure where prisoners come from out of that.

 

[Hussar]

Last time my group took prisoners, we were in no condition to deal with them in the long term, and they weren't all that much to blame.

So they were a "test" for the GM. We let them go, with the understanding that if we ever saw them again, they'd get murdered. And we wouldn't bother taking any more prisoners, either.

Y'know, that's not a bad way to look at it. Particularly if you're sitting down at a new table. Certainly not a bad litmus test for whether or not there should be some conversating going on after a game.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The thing I am lamenting is that it seems to be fundamental to human nature to take the easiest, most beneficial course of action, irrespective of morality. I just find that... sad.

Except you're still making the weird jump from, "When playing this make-believe game, people will avoid [doing X] because it leads to less fun" and landing in "Man, in the real world, people totally suck."

The one does not lead to the other and, frankly, I don't get the abstraction you're making.

 

[WHW4]

If you cared to notice, I had already acknowledged this fact in previous posts on the matter. The thing I am lamenting is that it seems to be fundamental to human nature to take the easiest, most beneficial course of action, irrespective of morality. I just find that... sad.

Here's my simple answer: people do those things in-game because it is extremely liberating to not be constrained by modern ideas of "right and wrong." How many times has someone cut you off in traffic, smirked and drove off, confident that you have no recourse except to call in their license plate number and (in all likelihood) get no closure (and the police will probably do nothing).

Now imagine that stupid orc just nabbed your coinpurse, smirked at you and walked around the corner of the tavern. Yeah, there's a satisfaction in being able to handle this yourself.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

In all seriousness, I've never understood people's issues over taking prisoners back to an authority. It's an imaginary game where such things can be hand-waived as, "We take him back and hand him over to the law, and then return to the dungeon," and then continue the adventure. Ooh, five seconds, so much hassle and bother.

Handwaving can not always work, but I do like it when it does. However, not all environments are Dungeons at the edge of the town.

Pyramid of Shadows. Who are the authorities and how do you get there? And back?

 

[JediMasterGunner]

Isn't that the nature of what we are discussing, though? After getting killed twice in different genres as prisoners with the same GM one may think that is the nature of the game being played. Sometimes the GM and players need to talk out of game to reset the status quo.

 

[JediMasterGunner]

I'm emphasizing the message I took from this.

That is one of the most metagamey things I have ever heard.

I agree! Players start playing the game from past experience rather than the current situation. I should have said that this is the track groups can go through when results are repeated. At some point there needs to be an intervention, as the GM did in our Star Wars game.

The PCs wouldn't surrender, the bad guys wouldn't surrender, so every fight went to the death or ended through magical escape like teleports as reactions and multiple Bracelets of Friends.

 

[nedjer]

Problem-solved; bumped in the end of old Charlton Heston cannibal movie Soylent Green yesterday. You get to use every part of the body and it's all in a good cause.

In the real world, this summer saw the Parallax Corporation start to sell a green wafer biscuit, said to contain plankton, under the brand name Soylent Green