What would you have done?

[Amal Shukup]

They began to question them by threatening to torture them if they didn't talk.

Now,

Did you have them (or roll secretly yourself) Intimidate checks? Including substantial modifiers for situation and theatrics (tied up, middle of the swamp, drawn dagger)?

Or simply decide that the captives remained quiet? (creating additional challenges for the PCs).

And if so, why? Just to screw the players over by confronting them with an insoluble dilemma? Then freaking out when they picked a solution you didn't like?

Paladins MUST be held to a very high standard of conduct - they live by a code (which ought to be detailed and cover the 'rules' when it comes to treating prisoners - including when it's okay/mandatory to execute them). Lawful Good/Lawful Neutral Characters might be a bit 'stuck' as well, depending on the ethos/Laws of their deity or culture.

That's part of the fun of playing those alignments...

Other than that? It's a tricky situation with lots and lots of 'WRONG' answers, very few if any 'RIGHT' answers. What did you expect them to do?

Keep the prisoners?
What about the risk of their turning the tables later? Killing friends/allies? More importantly (from a law/good perspective) What about the Risk to the MISSION? (Rescuing a gnome village full of innocents? Aren't THEIR lives more important?).

Let them go?
Again, risk to the party and to the Mission. Even if that all goes well, what if the freed prisoners go on to take more slaves, ruin more innocent lives?? Kill a child??? Aren't YOU (as the putatively good and/or lawful character) responsible for the end result of your blatantly irresponsible actions (freeing these evil prisoners to their own devices)?

You, as the DM, maybe KNOW that they could keep the prisoners AND stay safe AND even complete their mission. Players/Characters have NO WAY to know these things and must make their call on the fly, in the absence of surety. Even given all the facts, Good people, acting in good faith, will find room to disagree on the best course of action...

Me, PERSONALLY, as a human being that despises uncalled for violence? Given no societal support or context to rely upon (out in the middle of no-mans land) and a choice between:

a) The lives of SLAVERS belonging to an aggresively evil organization

b) Extreme risk to me/my fellow party members PLUS a significant chance of derailing our Mission to save village full of innocents PLUS the very real possibility of recidivism on the part of the released captives

Who knows? QUITE POSSIBLY I'd leave some bodies in a swamp (and feel very very sick for a very long time). Some armchair quarterback gives me crap afterwards? Yeah. I'd be pissed off too.

---------

As for the Chaotic Neutral Rogue habitually cutting the throats of sleeping enemies? It's icky, but well within the parameters of Chaotic Neutral (well, except for the 'habitually' bit - that could denote a slide towards evil). However, the watching Paladin MUST intervene or be in violation of his code (In my opinion). To the point of risking his own life and possibly injuring or even killing the CN Rogue if it became absolutely neccesary. Good characters, particularly Lawful ones, should similarly (if less emphatically) take steps to intervene in un-neccesary slaughter.

A'Mal

 

[kigmatzomat]

Yes he will hang them. No, he is dispensing Justice and IMO this is consistant with his Paladin's code. He must protect the meek, and though he dislikes executions this is his decision. He as the ruler of Shadowdale DOES have the moral duty to met out death as punishment. This gets into moral muddy waters, but that was my decision as a GM at the time of the game. I'd do the same now.

Just a small quibble. Morngryme has legal authority to meet out punishment. Anyone who is an adherent of a strong moral code has moral authority. Paladins in evil lands weild moral authority, not legal authority. Blackguard agents in evil lands weild legal authority, not moral authority.

Whether or not you have the moral authority to meet out death depends on your morals and if you are a hypocrite. Hypocrites have no moral authority. Someone who's morals are untested under stress has questionable authority. A legendary paladin's morals should be impeccable.

The group didn't have the moral authority to play judge, jury,and executioner once the active resistance to end their lives had stopped.

And this is the real crux of the issue. You are confident they did not. They feel that they did. I'd say the boards are 3:2 in favor of the players having the moral authority to execute prisoners under these circumstances. This means there's enough difference in opinion that you should be sure to inform players in the future what you determine to be good/neutral/evil choices in just such a scenario so there's no confusion in the future.

 

[D+1]

D+1 - I bascially agree with most everything you said. I think this thread has become so large and so intricate with other peoples suggestions and assumptions though, that you are assuming some things about my play style that aren't accurate. So I'm not going to address your post point for point... Yep, I made a mistake. I've made quite a number of mistakes over my career as a GM, and have learned a lot about managing small groups because of them. I've broken up a group because of a bad decision before. In the final analysis however, I'm a darn good GM and have had a lot of accolades over my career for it. Right now I have a lot of people who want to play in my games (many more than I can fit in my groups), and all of this is why I know its true. So mabye cut me a few feet of slack please?

Well I've made a few mistakes myself from time to time - or so I'm told. Don't take it personally. While I tend to be really forceful on certain subjects I don't have any control over the slack you get. Take it for whatever you feel its worth. But you DID ask...

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Let's see here, if I have this right...

PC's: Wounded, good characters, just got thier butts kicked pretty bad, but pulled through.

Spiderhaunt Woods, a bog.

Little resources.

Tied up Zent mage.

Tied up Zent NCO.

Tied up Zent private.

Mage invokes name of Bane, get's throat slit. OK, that's tough luck for him. He shoulda kept his flopping mouth shut.

NCO refuses to give data. PC cuts throat. medievally, that's OK. Sure, we shy away from it, with modern morals and expectations. If I had been captured, I wouldn't have expected it, and I never did that to any prisoners I took in several theaters...

How to stop THAT from ever happening? One word: Revenant.

The PC's violated a rule of warfare. They didn't even give hiim a chance at ransom or parole (a long standing practice), he could have even been released on his own honor.

BUT: Was it a mercy? Was he too wounded to survive being released?

The Private: They sentenced him to death, plain and simple, realistically. Even if he gets out of the woods, his leaders will kill him.

He will blame the party for it.

My solution?

I would have had the private come back as a revenant and the NCO come back as a fairly nasty undead.

I think it wasn't handled too good, but I'd also like to say this...

As a former US soldier, with multiple theaters under my belt...

Tell your group, for me, to eat a bag of manure. I've NEVER tortured or executed prisoners. I'm a professional, not a vigilante.

Then have the two revenants rip thier PC's lungs out.

 

[D+1]

Danger! Hijack warning!

I curious for two reason. First,several people claimed that this sort of thing is clearly and undisputably Evil. Neutral is not Evil. I'm more curious about the claim that it's always Evil.

A lot of people really just have no clue about alignment. Good people kill - they just generally kill evil people because evil people generally have it coming. But there is nothing that says that a good-aligned character must ALWAYS perform good deeds and NEVER do anything non-good in order to remain good - paladins and other very specifically alignment-restricted characters excepted of course. But there is plenty of indication that alignment doesn't prevent you from doing a bloody thing, that one act will not necessarily alter your alignment, that even good characters might occasionally do bad things - and that's all VERY good for roleplaying.

Second, there is the claim that heroes don't do this sort of thing. Does a hero necessarily need to be Good?

Not at all. There is, in fact, the anti-hero type of character so often seen in movies. A character who doesn't do the right thing but we cheer him on because he kicks ass.

Of course to other issue that comes into play is whether Good characters are obliged to stop a Neutral character from doing something that is not Good but also not Evil. In other words, maybe a Good character wouldn't execute a bound prisoner who works for an Evil force but are they obliged to stop a Neutral character from doing so?

Good characters are allowed to execute prisioners - particularly evil prisoners who only shortly before were trying to kill them. It is POSSIBLE to play a good-aligned character who will refuse to ever kill a prisoner or allow one to be killed - but it is FAR from the only possible characterization. Paladins in particular are often walking exectution machines awaiting only the justification of seeing evil being perpetrated before killing those responsible both savagely in battle, and dispassionately executing prisoners after the battle is over. Other LG characters who are NOT paladins are a bit freer yet with being able to push the envelope a bit now and again when circumstances are right.

The purpose of alignment for PC's is to act as a GUIDE, to assist players with a general reference of morals and ethics. No character is EVER restricted by alignment to performing ONLY certain acts, and the occasional ruthless behavior when backed by circumstances within the game isn't the same as WILLFULLY taking actions that are intended to alter a characters alignment.

So there is also the thorny issue of redemption with respect to forgiving the sins of those who do horrible things. If they repent, should they be punished anyway or should they be forgiven?

Well the whole point of redemption is in PAYING for past transgressions. If you were obnoxious and abusive to people then you redeem yourself by being pleasant and kind - but you still have to accept that people might continue to dislike you for what you've done to them in the past rather than forgive you. If you were a cold, heartless murderer before then there's only so much you can do to try to redeem yourself - but it would include laying down your own life for the sake of someone who hates you.

Should they be forgiven for whatever they've done? Should they receive no punishment if they repent? Is forgiving them the only Good option? Is punishing them anyway Neutral, Evil, or could it be Good? Can this assessment even be made without consideration of the religous context of the setting and how the afterlife is handled? (I'm talking about a game settings religion -- I don't want to discuss real religion and invite the wrath of the moderators.)

You can't EXPECT forgiveness even if you repent, and depending on the severity of your past behavior it is quite understandable that you might not EVER be forgiven. Forgiveness is certainly a good thing to do - when forgiveness is indeed warranted, but forgiveness isn't the same thing as complete absolution of responsibility.

Darth Vader achieves a measure of redemption by killing the Emperor in Star Wars - but even had he survived he doesn't just pick up where he left off as a Jedi does he?

There's no one answer to cover it all, no formula or universal rule to apply. It depends on circumstances, motivations, and goals as to whether forgiveness is deserved, punishment exchanged for pardon, and whether religious tenets takes precedence over personal philosophy and desires, or secular law.

 

[Ds Da Man]

Let's see here, if I have this right...

PC's: Wounded, good characters, just got thier butts kicked pretty bad, but pulled through.

Spiderhaunt Woods, a bog.

Little resources.

Tied up Zent mage.

Tied up Zent NCO.

Tied up Zent private.

Mage invokes name of Bane, get's throat slit. OK, that's tough luck for him. He shoulda kept his flopping mouth shut.

NCO refuses to give data. PC cuts throat. medievally, that's OK. Sure, we shy away from it, with modern morals and expectations. If I had been captured, I wouldn't have expected it, and I never did that to any prisoners I took in several theaters...

How to stop THAT from ever happening? One word: Revenant.

The PC's violated a rule of warfare. They didn't even give hiim a chance at ransom or parole (a long standing practice), he could have even been released on his own honor.

BUT: Was it a mercy? Was he too wounded to survive being released?

The Private: They sentenced him to death, plain and simple, realistically. Even if he gets out of the woods, his leaders will kill him.

He will blame the party for it.

My solution?

I would have had the private come back as a revenant and the NCO come back as a fairly nasty undead.

I think it wasn't handled too good, but I'd also like to say this...

As a former US soldier, with multiple theaters under my belt...

Tell your group, for me, to eat a bag of manure. I've NEVER tortured or executed prisoners. I'm a professional, not a vigilante.

Then have the two revenants rip thier PC's lungs out.

Well, seeing how the US Armed Forces have specific rules and guidelines for handling and treating POWs, and fantasy/midevil D&D characters don't (unless DM specifies such things as what he considers to be evil), your statements don't really help. I mean, as a modern soldier, you could just have the huey swingdown and pick them up after radioing into HQ. I'm sure numerous times through other wars before WW2 (and maybe during WW2), this problem did present itself, and was solved close to how the PCs handled it.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Well, seeing how the US Armed Forces have specific rules and guidelines for handling and treating POWs, and fantasy/midevil D&D characters don't (unless DM specifies such things as what he considers to be evil),

And why not? Many medivel nations had specific codes regarding the treatment, ransom and parole of prisoners of war. Mercenaries did back then, and still do. While some nations were particularly barbaric, others took good care of the prisoners, often holding them for prisoner exchanges, money, or what not.

your statements don't really helpn, as a modern soldier, you could just have the huey swingdown and pick them up after radioing into HQ. I'm sure numerous times through other wars before WW2 (and maybe during WW2), this problem did present itself, and was solved close to how the PCs handled it.

Actually, it was not. The Nazi's were reviled for thier practice of shooting the wounded.

And the idea that your average element could call for helicopter support at any time is laughable at best. That's not how it went as recently as 1994. You got to walk them out, bring them in the truck, or wait for the MP's to come get them. You treated them humanely, gave first aid to the wounded if it was feasable, and treated them like human beings.

The same thing that many middle ages nations demanded be done for prisoners.

POW camps are not a recent invention. Many men taken prisoner during the Crusades returned, and in feudal Japan, it was not usual for prisoners to be taken to gain honor, and treating the prisoner correctly earned much honor.

Sorry, but it's your statements that don't hold water. Mine are based on historical evidence, military history courses, and personal experience.

Besides, let's look at something else...

A dustoff was quoted as being able to be used, but what about teleport, geas, and other spells to bind or guarentee the behavior of prisoners? There are lots of options available to a D&D party. A charm person, with the reciepent deliberately blowing the save, could be a probationary measure. Any spell that allows you to communicate over long distances could ahve brought in a party to take the prisoners to a cell.

It'll last long enough for the party to get to safety.

Slitting the throat, IMNSHO, was lazy. Not evil, per se, but definately will result in the Zents being more gung-ho toward killing them, and maybe even taking steps they normally wouldn't have taken, like hacking off the heads of the PC's loved ones.

 

[Ds Da Man]

So what your saying is that through all wars and all situations, every prisoner that was captured, even while being surrounded by the enemy, was taken out by truck, or wagon, or heli?Come on, generally regular troops ween't even bartered or ransomed, they only cared about the officers. Also, Germans wren't the only ones to shoot or kill wounded prisoners. Every army has done it. But most troops are trained or informed by higher command of what to do with POWs. Now I'm sure not every prisoner was excuted on the spot, but I bet if a group of Rangers, etc. were infiltrating an enemy location, and wounded a soldier along the way, they aren't going to jepordize the mission by A. letting said prisoners go, B. trying to escort said prisoner to friendly lines. They would make the kill as clean and painless as possible, and go on with their job, UNLESS SPECIFIED TO DO OTHERWISE!
Regardless, what they did would be no more then I would have my characters do, in the middle of Spiderhaunt Woods, in battle with the Zhents, and already wounded. Now the paladin wannabe I would have some problems with him letting the CN guy slit their throats. Other then that, I have no problem, nor do I think that it would be morally wrong to drop enemy combatants after they surrendered, in their situation.
Does anyone remeber Saving Private Ryan, when the German they let go, came back to kill them?

 

[Runesong42]

bump my question to twofalls and everyone else

Just wanted my opinion to be re-heard.

My theory as to why this debate is so heated is because the prisoners in debate were human. It's perfectly natural to identify with the villains and to possibly over-humanize them as a result. I can't help but wonder if any of this debate would have a similar bearing if the prisoners in question were any of the "staple" evil DnD humanoids, such as Orcs, or Goblins, or Ogres, or even Drow, just to name a few examples. Assuming that the prisoners in the above example are now some sort of evil humanoids working for the Zhent army, how "humane" would the paladin (and company) be expected to treat them?

I realize it is difficult to quote on "what ifs", but what if?

Maybe this should be a separate thread... I dunno...

 

[Amal Shukup]

And why not? Many medivel nations had specific codes regarding the treatment, ransom and parole of prisoners of war.

Your points are well taken, but expecting PCs to follow these rules (I realize that you aren't proposing this, but for puroses of discussion) requires the presumption that a Nation State or similar context exists against which this party's decision is being made.

If such a context existed, it hasn't been communicated to us. At least two elements would be required:

A) Rules/Guidelines: Modern armies have them, you had them, Crusaders and Saracens had them too (observed more in the exception, perhaps, but absolutely there). The Party? I don't know. I presumed NOT - most campaigns against evil in D&D seem to be more along the lines of Total War ('Warre', 'war to the knife', 'war with an absence of all restraint') rather than a 'contentious state' between Nation States with a deep and abiding interest in moving towards a lasting peace (under new and excitingly favorable terms, of course) and cohabiting in a fraternity of nations.

At any rate, if DMs WANT their parties to behave with the 'restraint' (sick coff) of a modern army or even that of a medieval force, then Guidelines have to be provided. An understanding between the Zhentarim and wherever the PCs are from that is habitually observed, say.

B) Support: A Huey/Other Party/Depot that could maybe take the Prisoners off the party's hands? Sure, you (and lotsa folks) had to walk prisoners back (_after_ your mission!) or transport them by truck. To those who would expect the same of our PCs, I point out that you had both a Truck and a place to drive it to. Not to mention a logistical supply chain and units that operated in support. PCs in D&D often (usually??) have no such support. (at higher levels, magic DOES open up a number of options - but even with Geas and Teleport, you need to know a) where you're supposed to take them and b) you actually need a place to take them to).

It's NOT at all like an army conducting operations in theatre. It's more like 'Guns of Navarrone' or 'Where Eagles Dare'. Clint (who is already violating a dozen 'laws of war' by wearing an enemy uniform behind enemy lines and, under those laws, can expect nothing better than summary execution if captured - much like certain PCs I could mention.) is supposed to take captives and transport them back over enemy lines before proceeding with their mission? I don't think so.

A lot (most) of the campaigns I've seen involve PCs in conflicts that are distressingly absolute. Given a background with no context of restraint (basically Total Warre) and a complete lack of Guidelines and Support, it certainly does NOT surprise me that PCs quickly throw rules of civilized behavior out the window.

The 'problem' is NOT the PCs - who are simply acting as people DO when put in situations like that (QED). Context is the responsibilty of the DM... Expecting one response while presenting context that pretty much mandates another response is a tad unfair.

All that said - I think it would be very interesting to play/DM a campaign where the PCs and the Baddies were both subscribed to some overriding set of rules that they could both - in the main - be expected to follow. Orcs/Zhents (mindflayers??) could surrender, give their parole and expect to make it back to their homelands someday. PCs would be expected to accept that parole, tend wounds, keep prisoners fed and watered, and make good faith efforts to get prisoners back to base. PCs could surrender...

Be a fabulous environment for role playing...

But a party of characters, grievously wounded, undersupplied, under fire, under pressure to complete a mission against an implacably evil enemy, hunted by groups of equally implacable, (yet completely different) enemies, in a hostile environment, with defiant prisoners, NO Guidelines, and NO base of support?

...And they're expected to do what, exactly? Take 'em where? How? At what cost?
Almost certain death at the hands of enemies PLUS the failure of their mission and the likely the capture/death of a Village the party is trying to protect? At higher levels, it's often 'the end of the world'...

Nope. That's a recipe for dead prisoners.

A'Mal