What would you have done?

[Viktyr Gehrig]

The PCs aren't a military force, either. They have far fewer members than any military operation would use, they don't have logistics or command support, and they don't have the same expectation of parole and ransom that soldiers would.

Adventuring parties are neither bound nor protected by military codes of justice.

edit: The most apt comparison I can think of for adventuring parties is that they are irregulars or privateers at best; at worst, they're spies.

 

[Pielorinho]

Guys, really, LET'S KEEP MODERN WARFARE OUT OF IT. That's a very dangerous subject area, and probably does not bear on the situation at hand.

Warlord, you do make a good point that medieval warfare (and plenty of fantasy literature) had rules for ransoming prisoners, and I think that such rules would be a great addition to any game; I might suggest to my DM that they be implemented for ours. HOWEVER, I've not seen any indication that the PCs in question had ever heard of ransoming, and it seems likely to me that it was not part of the world as they understood it.

I maintain that if you want PCs to treat prisoners with a certain type of mercy or dignity, you need to set up an infrastructure whereby that is expected before the dilemma arises. Punishing PCs or players for not doing so is inappropriate, I think.

Daniel

 

[twofalls]

I realize I said that I wouldn't post again. I'm retracting that to defend Warlord.

Warlord's post has to do with my player's and their rationale that if they were members of the US military (no mention was given of a time frame, but it was implied modern military) that they as soldiers would behave the same way, and have a perfect right to do so.

John, my US Desert Storm Vet was not there to defend the honor of the United States Military, however when he heard that this was their line of defense he was deeply offended and kind of ripped into the other guys for suggesting it. I didn't include this part of the events that happened to try and turn this thread into an argument over modern military politics or policies. I included it because it upset me that this was one of their lines of reasoning, and my being upset was one of the key reasons relating to how I reacted to the game’s events. Keep in mind, I was ticked and my reaction of disgust and disappointment had put this group of really good people whom I've been friends with for most of my life and whom I love dearly on the defensive. No one was thinking with detached reasoning at this point.

People in this thread keep arguing for the application of a medieval mindset to this situation. This argument has come up many times and I suppose it has some (very minor) validity since D&D is a game very loosely (very very loosely) modeled after medieval western Europe. I wasn't raised in medieval Europe, neither were my friends, so I didn't react within that context and I postulate that neither did my friends. There was no debate about what they were going to do, it was just decided and done. It made things easy and fixed the problem of dealing with the prisoners. I won’t go over how I felt about it since I've been there so many times before already.

I agree that I could have been clearer about what should have been done with the prisoners, what the expectations should have been. I don't tell the players that I expect them to not pull down their pants and flash ladies in waiting while attending court balls. I don't tell the players that I expect them not burn villages and put all males over 12 to the sword while in enemy territory to hurt the opposing government. I don't tell my players that if the Priest of the God of Lathander starts to create undead that he will loose his priestly abilities, rather I kind of expect them to know all this. I can see where this particular situation is more ambiguous and needed clarification, but I didn't that at the time.

Warlord is right to defend himself and the US military in the context of the way the subject was presented in this thread. I almost regret mentioning it now in my original post as I and the people I game with have tremendous respect for our military veterans. The line of reasoning they used was emotionally charged and after John was through with them they regretted using it as a defense. Please, going forward, lets focus on a different aspect of this debate.

 

[Catavarie]

The way I deal with these kind of situations is that I adjust the character's alignment, they can start with whatever alignment they choose, but their alignment doesn't determine their actions, their actions determine their alignment, and I work it into future adventures. Its kinda like the Dark Force points system in Star Wars RPG, if the characters do something "minor evil" they get 1 dark force point, if the do some greviously evil they get ore darkforce points, its kind of a DM's choice as to how many points the gain for an act, and equally if they do something super heroric like save an entire town of peasants from an invading warlord and his army I would subtract say 20 Evil Points, but if they then turn and begin to rape and pillage the town, then i give them 50 evil points (I've had a guy do this before) And eventually if they are evil enough they can't get into towns without massive fights, and they are dogged everywhere by soldiers and mercanaries, but if they are "good" enough the opposite will happen they become not only welcomed in towns they are treated as royalty where people buy them drinks, give them items (weapos, armor, horses, etc...) and even kings themselves are thrilled at the prospect of dining with them. It adds a whole new aspect to the Game, and can be very interesting to preplan for. Thus I always try to end sessions after a dramatic moment, that way i can make sure my next session is tailered to fit better.

 

[Templetroll]

Guys, really, LET'S KEEP MODERN WARFARE OUT OF IT. That's a very dangerous subject area, and probably does not bear on the situation at hand.

Warlord, you do make a good point that medieval warfare (and plenty of fantasy literature) had rules for ransoming prisoners, and I think that such rules would be a great addition to any game; I might suggest to my DM that they be implemented for ours. HOWEVER, I've not seen any indication that the PCs in question had ever heard of ransoming, and it seems likely to me that it was not part of the world as they understood it.

I maintain that if you want PCs to treat prisoners with a certain type of mercy or dignity, you need to set up an infrastructure whereby that is expected before the dilemma arises. Punishing PCs or players for not doing so is inappropriate, I think.

Daniel

Ransom was a very cool part of RuneQuest. You could have a character shout out "Ransom 10 wheels!" (large gold pieces) and even your friends would see that you kept up the agreement since it was necessary to support it for all to get it's value themselves.

 

[Ds Da Man]

Oh, I'm not saying ransoming isn't a viable alternative in this situation for the PCs, but would the Zhents have ransomed for the Enlisted? I seriously doubt it. Also, did you TwoFalls make the Lords wishes known on these subjects? The military is TRAINED to handle these situations, and had developed these rules throughout many years of combat. And to be clear, I say that a LG character in these situations should have taken the high road, but if the LG are always going to be punished for doing what someone else considers wrong, you probably won't have any LG players in future events. Each of us have our own version of what should and shouldn't have happened, and just because my DM thinks his own morals should be mine, I shouldn't be punished.

(I too served in the military from 92-96, so Im very aware of military procedures)

 

[Harmon]

Continued on

Survivor makes it out (by shear luck alone) and tells his boss what happened- names he heard and things he saw.

One of the murdered guys happened to be a nephew of a Lord that was working his way through the ranks. Bounty is set and the campaign goes fugitive.

Or, just let it go.

We have murdered our share of POWs- NG, CG, LN and TN, of course we have teamed with the bad guys too after capturing them.

It all depends.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

People in this thread keep arguing for the application of a medieval mindset to this situation. This argument has come up many times and I suppose it has some (very minor) validity since D&D is a game very loosely (very very loosely) modeled after medieval western Europe. I wasn't raised in medieval Europe, neither were my friends, so I didn't react within that context and I postulate that neither did my friends. There was no debate about what they were going to do, it was just decided and done. It made things easy and fixed the problem of dealing with the prisoners. I won’t go over how I felt about it since I've been there so many times before already.

I think that the "medieval" thing is actually a roundabout way of saying "people without the benefit of modern ideas about combat." Which is to say, they're making reference to the fact that the PCs were obviously not prepared by their superiors to go into a combat situation as soldiers. They are essentially guerrilla civilians, and while they're very good at hurting people with swords and spells and things, they're not trained to deal with situations like the one they were put in. The blame for this situation lies squarely on whomever sent them to fight the Zhents without first running them through boot camp...that paladin mentor, from the sound of things.

If you wish to avoid such a situation in the future, the PCs had better:
1. Be trained to handle situations like this, offering to ransom the enemy or escort them back for captivity.
2. Have a support network that would make such things possible without completely ruining any chance of success at saving the people they're trying to save.
3. Be able to trust the enemy to follow the rules of engagement. If the Zhents hear about a ransom and just say "pfft...keep them" every time, and kill their own prisoners, there's little reason to follow any kind of rules with respect to the Zhents.

 

[S'mon]

IMO their behaviour was inappropriate for D&D Good alignment. It also says something unpleasant about their likely behaviour on a real battlefield. I have to say though that for most of human history it would have been considered normal. I wouldn't have docked XP but I'd have changed all the Good alignments to Neutral. Paladinhood? Fuhgeddaboutit.

 

[S'mon]

BTW I'd say executing prisoners who you have no facilities for & would clearly be a threat to you if released would be a Neutral act, but it's highly iffy - per the modern Geneva Convention you shouldn't accept their surrender in the first place; you're not obliged to accept surrender if it's impractical. Conning people into surrendering then killing them is Evil. Torturing and murdering prisoners as here would be an Evil act.

Edit: I once had an orc surrender to my 1st level Paladin in a dungeon 200 miles from civilisation. Yuck.