What would you have done?

[twofalls]

I've been running a 3.0 FR game now for just over 3 years (the characters are now 13th level), and a year ago I had a situation that really bothered me and nearly broke up a game group that has been strong for over 8 years. I handled it poorly, and it's water under the bridge now, but I wonder how other GM's would have dealt with it.

I run a game that addresses moral issues, and the overall story arc is about the evils of the Zhentarim and their slave trade/evil practices. The party was adventuring in the Spiderhaunt woods going through a heavily modified version of the Sword of the Dales/Randal Morn adventure series. They were camped out in a bog in a ramshackle hunters shack when they were quietly cut off by one of several groups of Zhentarim combat squads sent out to eliminate them. After a long bloody fight the PC's prevail and take three captives. One was a Zhent mage, and two were Zhentarim soldiers. All were tied up with rope and forced to their knees in the muck. Keep in mind, all the PC's are of various "good" aligments save one who is true neutral. ALL the PC's had taken grevious wounds in the fighting and were tired, dirty, and in pain... and very angry.

They began to question them by threatening to torture them if they didn't talk. The Neutral character (a fighter called Gnaut) brandished a wicked looking dagger before them. The mage silenced the two soldiers by invoking the name of the Diety of Tyranny Bane, and Gnaut quickly slit the Mage's throat. He gurgled pitiously and then after a few seconds dropped over and bled to death in the muck. The two soldiers reacted differently. One, a young fellow began to weep silently, the other a grizzled vetran sat up stiff and straight and refused to look at any of the PC's. They turned to the vetran, told him that if he talked they would free him, otherwise he was worm food. They asked him questions about his masters and the number and compliment of the forces sent out to find them. He answered with his name, rank, and the regiment he was attached to but nothing else. Gnaut slit his throat. By this time I was extremely upset, but was holding my tounge.

Next they turned to the young soldier and asked him the same questions. So terrified that he lost control of his digestive system he told them everything he knew. Once they had soaked him for all the info they could, they cut his bonds, gave him a waterskin and a short blade and turned him loose into the Spiderhaunt (essentially consigning him to a slow death).

I was beside myself as a GM, I couldn't believe that my party of "Heroes", all friends of mine who are 30 - 35 in age would behave in such a barbaric manner when claiming to play good characters. I let them have it, but good. I ended the game session, told them that I thought their behavior was cowardly and reprehensible and asked for an explanation. I was told that even American soldiers would do such if in the same situation (in enemy territory, hunted, and in need of intelligence). We have a two campaign US war vet in our game group, but he was absent that day to refute these claims (which he did do later in absolute disgust). Everyone went home and I fumed over it for some time.

I wrote an email to the group explaining that every good character in the game was in alignment violation, and that I was only going to award 1/4 xp for the fight they had worked so hard at during that session. The neutral character didn't have a history of such behavior so I wasn't going to doc him xp unless it became habitual. I wasn't going to force alignment changes over just one incident, but the priest and the aspiring Paladin (wasn't a Paladin yet) needed to atone for their actions.

I was later told that my reaction to the situation had offended my friends on a personal level, and that several of them had thought about leaving the game group entirely after my email went out. I did really let me fury and disapointment show in that email (I took it too seriously... but I suppose I do that with my games as I invest a lot into them). After hearing this, I realized that no game was worth pissing off my friends and wrote an apology and dropped the whole affair. Since then they have been very careful in dealing with enemies that surrender on a battlefield and their treatment of captives.

What would you have done?

 

[Crothian]

I keep in al;l in game. I see no reason they would get less XP based on alignment violations, that's a rule that should be diuscussed at campaigns start and not thrown in 3 years into the campaign. I don't know if you've used it beofre or warned them about it, but it didn't seem like it.

At most I'd let the party continue as they want , run into a true good hero who condemns them and refuses to help them since they are not being god. Have spells stop working from good divine casters, and let them find a way to redeem themsewlves. I'd keep it all in game.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I run a game that addresses moral issues

Well, for starters, I wouldn't have done this. My group includes people all over the philisophical spectrum and my morals and how I address them are not the same as the other guy's. I'm not being dismissive of your problem here, just pointing out a hazzard of a mature game.

They began to question them by threatening to torture them if they didn't talk ... I was beside myself as a GM, I couldn't believe that my party of "Heroes", all friends of mine who are 30 - 35 in age would behave in such a barbaric manner when claiming to play good characters.

OK, if you're asking my opinion, the mistake was made at the word torture.

PLAYER1: I tell the guy we'll torture him if he doesn't talk.
DM: No. Evil people torture. Good and Neutral people use the intimidate skill. You can intimidate or bluff them if you get a high enough roll.

I wrote an email to the group explaining that every good character in the game was in alignment violation, and that I was only going to award 1/4 xp for the fight they had worked so hard at during that session.

I understand your actions and I would have done the same thing. But this is why I don't run campaigns based around moral issues. Your players were acting on shades of grey, which is what the campaign was initally set up for. Again, I would have done the exact same thing. Which is why I head these kinds of situations off at the pass.

Incidentally, it says a lot for your group that you were all able to drop this and move on.

 

[Samothdm]

I had a similar situation happen in my first or second session (edit: of my current 3.x campaign). Same age-range (roughly) as your players, but most were newbies.

After a battle in which the NG sorcerer used sleep on some guards, the CN rogue character walked through the guards and used the coup-de-grace action to slit their throats. The LG Paladin, CG Rogue, CG Bard, and NG Rogue (yeah, we had a lot of rogues) all just looked on and didn't say anything.

I basically just started talking out-of-game and questioned the CN Rogue player on why he did that, and also tried to explain to the good-aligned newbies that if they were to witness that, they might not really be comfortable with it. It took some prompting, but finally the Paladin and the sorcerer started tying the guards up rather than killing them.

A few sessions later, a similar situation happened, and the CN Rogue did it again (slit the throats of the magically asleep guards). I pulled the player aside later and talked to him about it. Despite the chaotic nature of the character, I wasn't sure why he was doing this and he didn't really seem to have a good reason, so I told him that if this pattern continued I was going to change his alignment to evil. Killing helpless individuals for no purpose might seem to just be chaotic, but I felt it was also evil. He disagreed but was cool about it and later just changed characters since he couldn't play that one the way he felt he wanted to without changing alignment to chaotic evil.

In general (and this is "life advice", not just "how to deal with a gaming problem advice"), I find it's usually better to talk to the person face-to-face rather than put stuff in writing. While you can craft your thoughts better in a letter or e-mail, it can be taken as being too passive on the part of the person receiving the e-mail, and no matter how the situation resolves itself later, there is always still a document with your angry thoughts floating around. That's not a good thing. Take a breath or two, maybe wait a day or two until you aren't so angry, and then talk to the person directly and explain why the situation bothered you. Chances are they'll be much more receptive to your point of view than if they just receive an angrily written e-mail in their inbox.

 

[TheEvil]

I think you may be confusing Exhalted good (as per the Book of Exhalted Deeds) and regular D&D good. I think you judged harshly for the following reasons:

1. From the sounds of it, they were in no position to turn the survivors over to anyone. As killing them was wrong and letting the guy go was wrong, what exactly did you expect to do with captives? Bring them along to escape and/or perhaps give away their position later? In areas not under anyone's control, frontier justice is not unreasonable.

2. Unless there is something you didn't mention, they are freelancers, not soldiers. Whether or not american soldiers would behave as they did is moot. They are not shielded to any military codes, nore would I expect them to act by them.

3. I don't see how they acted cowardly. They acted expediently and harshly against a cruel, brutal opponent.

I would guess that their was a difference in expectation in what Good meant in alignment terms.

 

[Odhanan]

I think that anger doesn't solve anything, though your amazement and disgust at your players' explanations, namely the whole US-soldiers-do-that-usually thing, is perfectly justified.

I would have ruled much like you did, with an heavy lecture about alignments. I would probably have insisted more on the RPG-fiction aspect of the whole thing, that they aren't playing "real" soldiers but heroes as in fantasy fiction, and that this behaviour doesn't fit at all with the D&D definition of the word "Good".

The explanation your players gave you is definitively concerning, and I'm happy to read that the war veteran at your game table was there to make a point afterwards.

 

[Runesong42]

It's only a game

Well, first of all, way to introduce moral dilemmae into your game. A lot of players I used to play them with wouldn't even consider taking prisoners, since Zhentarm are evil and they're good and good guys are supposed to kill the bad guys.

This reply may seem fragmented, but it's only because I'm addressing everything at once.

First of all, what "good" alignments did you have? Second, where is the Spiderhaunt woods located: in "home" (PC's) territory, Zhentarim territory, or 'neutral' ground? Third, just how 'moral' do you expect your players to be?

IMO, as a DM:
Lawful Good: The LG guy negotiated a peaceful surrender with the opposition, and treated them fairly. If the bad guys could not be brought to justice to answer for their crimes of war, they would have to be released. If releasing the prisoners would result in a threat to the party, they would have to be rendered ineffective, even if it means killing them. The LG guy left that task to the Neutral guy, disgruntled that there was no other option but repulsed by the action nonetheless. BUT... did these Zhentarim actually commit slavery, or did they just serve an army that condones slavery? Without such things as Know Alignment, they LG guy can't know for sure...

Chaotic Good: The CG guy wouldn't care if they were taken prisoner or not. As members of a known evil organization, the CG guy would gladly use, abuse, and execute them so long as he got what he needed. They're evil, after all, and "what's wrong with street justice?" No sense letting them live. Releasing them into the wild with a sword and flask seems fair enough, and somehow fitting. "Let the monsters kill one another, God willing."

Neutral Good: The NG guy is ambivalent. As far as he's concerned, his "mission" is to protect the party and defeat the Zhentarim's evil regime. Knowing that the Zhentarim soldiers would be a threat to the party left alive, the party's decision to execute the soldiers seemed a viable option. Releasing the third soldier to his fate in the woods seems fair as well. What if the Zhent soldier knew of a stronghold he could retreat to, inform his commander of the PC threat, and return with a greater force? More's the better - let the soldiers come to him so he may dispatch them one at a time.

If I were in a similar situation, I would have let the guy go and had him followed to see if he could lead me back to a base camp. Who knows? Perhaps if I saved his life enough times, he would quit the Zhen army and join us - especially if the soldier isn't evil. If I DM'd and the PC's tried a similar tactic, I probably would have fudged the guy's alignment to good or at least LN and allowed the PC's attempt to convert him.

As for your reaction, yes, I do believe it was a little much. It is only a game, after all. We enjoy games because we can do actions in game that we would not have the opportunity to do or even consider doing in reality. It seems pointless to argue with the players' actions and punish them, unless they were all Paladins of the U.S.A. *LOL* War is war, and even the nicest, most moral soldier kills because he must. If the players are guilty that their military mindset sinks into their role-playing, so be it. Let 'em be soldiers. If they actually have a commanding officer, and they reported the event (like Good guys would), it'd be up to the CO to mete out punishment.

Just my take on the situation. Sorry if I offended.

- Dru

 

[Storm Raven]

I wrote an email to the group explaining that every good character in the game was in alignment violation, and that I was only going to award 1/4 xp for the fight they had worked so hard at during that session. The neutral character didn't have a history of such behavior so I wasn't going to doc him xp unless it became habitual. I wasn't going to force alignment changes over just one incident, but the priest and the aspiring Paladin (wasn't a Paladin yet) needed to atone for their actions.

I wouldn't have docked them experience points, I would have shifted their alignments to evil, or at least neutral. Alignment follows actions, and torturing and killing prisoners fits into the D&D definition of "evil", no matter what real world people might or might not have done in similar situations.

I was later told that my reaction to the situation had offended my friends on a personal level, and that several of them had thought about leaving the game group entirely after my email went out. I did really let me fury and disapointment show in that email (I took it too seriously... but I suppose I do that with my games as I invest a lot into them). After hearing this, I realized that no game was worth pissing off my friends and wrote an apology and dropped the whole affair. Since then they have been very careful in dealing with enemies that surrender on a battlefield and their treatment of captives.

They should have been ashamed, not offended. Their "good" characters acted in a textbook evil fashion, and you called them on it. They were in the wrong, not you.

 

[Runesong42]

I basically just started talking out-of-game and questioned the CN Rogue player on why he [killed the slpeeing guards], and also tried to explain to the good-aligned newbies that if they were to witness that, they might not really be comfortable with it. It took some prompting, but finally the Paladin and the sorcerer started tying the guards up rather than killing them.

A few sessions later, a similar situation happened, and the CN Rogue did it again (slit the throats of the magically asleep guards). I pulled the player aside later and talked to him about it. Despite the chaotic nature of the character, I wasn't sure why he was doing this and he didn't really seem to have a good reason, so I told him that if this pattern continued I was going to change his alignment to evil. Killing helpless individuals for no purpose might seem to just be chaotic, but I felt it was also evil. He disagreed but was cool about it and later just changed characters since he couldn't play that one the way he felt he wanted to without changing alignment to chaotic evil.

I don't see why you were so upset with the CN character. The CN is a "Free Spirit", free to act as he pleases in any given moral situation. Heck, just for fun, I'll quote the SRD on Chaotic Neutral:

"Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal."

Nothing from a moral standpoint would prevent him from murdering the guards in their sleep, especially if they were enemies. While the Paladin and Sorcerer may have questions and berate him for his bloodthirsty tactics, the CN guy doesn't have to answer to anyone, Good or Evil. Killing someone is a means to an end, and in this case, it means dispatching enemies so they are no longer enemies.

These posts are examples of why I stopped using alignment altogether. While i find that they provide a decent concept of how I'd like to play a charater, I never would bind a player to an alignment just because the book says so. Like I said in an earlier post, even the most moral and just character will kill when he must.

 

[twofalls]

I think you may be confusing Exhalted good (as per the Book of Exhalted Deeds) and regular D&D good. I think you judged harshly for the following reasons:

1. From the sounds of it, they were in no position to turn the survivors over to anyone. As killing them was wrong and letting the guy go was wrong, what exactly did you expect to do with captives? Bring them along to escape and/or perhaps give away their position later? In areas not under anyone's control, frontier justice is not unreasonable.

Okay, I can see that this is your opinion and accept that. They were in no position at all to take the captives back to civilization for justice. They were on a timetable to save a Gnome village and knew there were other Zhent patrols out to get them. There was no discussion about any of this, the fighter just slit their throats and the others looked on and did nothing about it. No other options were discussed. Had it been me, yes, they would have been taken with me as captives. They would have been an incredible pain in the ass to deal with, and a liability, but I saw that as the only civilized solution at the time. Ironically, the game group purchased both the book of Exaulted Good and the Book of Vile Evil out of the group treasury the very next session in order to gain a common ground understanding of the game concepts.

2. Unless there is something you didn't mention, they are freelancers, not soldiers. Whether or not american soldiers would behave as they did is moot. They are not shielded to any military codes, nore would I expect them to act by them.

I included that only to illustrate the rationalizations they were offering me to justify their actions.

3. I don't see how they acted cowardly. They acted expediently and harshly against a cruel, brutal opponent.

I agree to disagree.

Incidentally, it says a lot for your group that you were all able to drop this and move on.

Yeah, thank you. They are a really great group of friends and we are past this. It still bothers me when I think about it, but I don't ever bring it up at the table anymore. Everyone has been very careful about how they treat NPC's after that incident. We have a lot of fun together.