What would you have done?
- Thread starter twofalls
- Start date
John Morrow
First Post
bladesong said:
In many if not most cases, yes. But very simple arguments rarely settle an issue unless you are really willing to debate them, at which point minds can be changed. I've actually seen it happen. No, really.
And just as "I never said my opinion was better" is a bit disingenuous, the line, "We're never going to agree but..." often is, too. What it's often used for is a way to say that one wants to state what they think but can't be bothered debating it. There are certainly times to agree to disagree but starting off that way isn't very productive, in my admittedly subjective anecdotal experience.
bladesong said:
Agreed. But that's not so simple because role-playing is generally a group activity and different people also sometimes (if not often) have a different sense of what is "fun". And clearly, in this case, that seemed to be causeing a lot of "unfun".
bladesong said:
I agree, which is why I not only got fairly detailed about alignment in my game but also cut the players some slack when they see things differently. Of course I've also spent a lot of time arguing politics and ethical situations with people I don't agree with so I've gotten pretty good at taking things seriously but not personally. I think the problem here might have been that people started taking things personally.
Steel_Wind
Legend
First off, I commend you on presenting these moral quandaries to your players. It is an entirely appropriate scenario for roleplaying.
I would ignore those opinions on this thread who seem opposed to presenting these role playing and value laden challenges to players. Just because that isn’t the game they want to run – does not mean it’s a game YOU shouldn’t run.
Secondly, you did not do anything wrong by having prisoners defy the party. The prisoners acted appropriately; it was the players who acted inappropriately.
Thirdly, on the matter of how you handled it…
Yeah, that could have been better, but I understand your issue, I really, really do.
Let me explain by way of analogy a VERY similar situation which arose in my own campaign recently.
The Scenario
In a DragonLance 3.5 game set just before the outbreak of the War of the Lance, the Party was behind enemy lines in Lemish. They had assaulted a stronghold of the Chosen of Chemosh, occupied by both human soldiers and hobgoblins soldiers. The guys in charge were members of the Cult of Chemosh, the god of the undead.
At the conclusion of the big fight at the end of the scenario, the bad priest is slain along with the higher ups. What’s left? 2 human soldier types and seven hobgoblins surrender. 1 more imperial soldier is captured later.
The crimes:
The bad guys were clearly slavers -. Human slaves were freed by the party.
The bad guys had also fed slaves to ghouls – human bones were found in the ghoul pit
and testimony from other slaves confirming sacrifice was heard by the heroes.
There are two wannabe Knights of Solamnia in the party. There are three others who profess to be good. And there is one Lawful Neutral dwarf (who, in fact, is played by the player as if the dwarf is Lawful Good).
One of the players is a half-elven chaotic good ranger whose chosen enemy is goblinoids. He hates them. He considers them to be irredeemable monsters who are incapable of free will or redemption. And therein lay the problem.
There is a dispute over what will be done with the prisoners. In the end, the party goes RACIST. They choose to treat the humans differently than the hobgoblins. They will bring back 2 common human soliders and one human imperial soldier (Name rank serial number types) for trial in Solamnia. This is from DEEP behind enemy lines but they choose to do it.
The hobgoblins they dither and hmmed and hahhed over, but in the end, they left them locked in a cage with some cold chisels to bust out later.
That’s the official story.
Except the half-elven ranger who despises goblinoids and considers them irredeemable monsters who will escape to kill and slave again, sneaks away from the party as they are leaving with the intent of letting out the hobgoblins to fight each one, one-on one to the death. The kender player has foreseen this and has foiled this plan by jamming the lock with some wire ahead of time . The half-elven ranger can’t get in to get at them and can’t let them out. So the ranger goes cold and heartless: he get out a cross bow and kills them all – one by-one, with a crossbow through the bars.
How I handled it – the First Time
My problem was a little different. My players know I will not run an evil game and if they stray too far in to the dark side, I’m simply going to pack up my books and the campaign will end (DM Quit – *no save*)
In my case, there was some willful blindness combined with a racial attitude which extended rights to one species and denied them to another.
The ranger was noted in the campaign log “as having strayed from the path of light”. In game terms this means that he committed an evil deed, but atypically so and one which was nevertheless within the boundaries he set for his character. He will have to atone for this at some point: we aren’t done with the one yet.
I did not punish the player with an XP point penalty as the player was consistent in his approach to treating hobgoblins differently and argued powerfully before the act was done as to why it was wrong to let them live. Seeing as goblinoids were his favored enemy and he had treated them that way consistently in the campaign, I did not see the act as departing from his character concept. I let him do it without an XP penalty.
The Next Scenario
The problem of captured hobgoblins surfaced again and the party had become very wary over taking prisoners. They knew this issue would raise its ugly head again soon - and it did.
This time the hobgoblin was interrogated behind enemy lines - tortured in effect. After berating and “discomforting” the hobgoblin, he was released from his bonds and the half-elven ranger tossed a weapon on the ground for the hobgoblin to pick up. A quick fight to the death followed and the hobgoblin dropped at the rangers’ feet in a pool of blood.
As if one –on-one trial by combat against an obviously overpowered foe was somehow a true test of justice.
How I handled it – the Second Time
I award all experience in my campaign log – never face to face. For the first time ever in the campaign, I imposed a penalty (I often give bonuses for roleplaying or special acts too – but this time was the first for a penalty)
It read as follows:
It was not an alignment based penalty. The lawful good White Robed Wizard did not receive the penalty. But the two wannabe Solanmnics did, as did the kender who had gone a little over the top in his questioning methods (distinctly un-kenderlike torturing the enemy with a dagger of venom)
Initially, I thought the players accepted the remonstration without qualm. One complained briefly that the Wizard did not get the penalty and I explained it was not an alignment based one, but a penalty which was involved with their Honour Bound feat and Solamnics or roleplaying in the case of the kender. An arguable point, he let it drop.
I have no doubt that this issue will arise again – as I am not through with the half-elven ranger. He wants to be a cleric of good at some point – and that will happen only after the god explains the errors of his ways and he repents. That will provoke glares and possibly his refusal to become a cleric. “We’ll see.”
The Continuing Fallout
At the time - which was just around Christmas or so, there appeared to be no problem. The players took it well and the game moved on.
However, it wasn’t meant to be that easy. The kender player never said a thing to me, but he begged off attending the next session for some reason. And the next. And then the next. And then – the next and I knew something was wrong.
In retrospect, I believe the player was quite ticked at the 50 XP point penalty and felt that it was inappropriate. There are other issues with the player (he’s a power gamer and I run a low level grim and gritty campaign) but after last session when he failed to appear and wrote me that the character was too hard to play - yadda yadda – I put 2 and 2 together and figured out that he was still upset with me over the –50 XP..
So – did it work out any differently for me than you? Not really. Would I have done it differently than I did? No. I think it handled it properly.
Sometimes the player is just not going to agree with your judgment. In your case, you challenged the players moral judgment of their own deeds and choices and they felt personally attacked for it. Those are the cases that get the feathers ruffled. The more grim and gritty and shades of grey you make it – the more room a player in extremis has to take the view that his/her actions were justifiable. Differing viewpoints will come into play. (It’s a bit like life. Funny about that.)
But don’t shirk from it or fail to challenge your players. If their stated character concept has the character acting in a certain way over the course of time (and 2 years of the same campaign certainly gives you that) – make them play it. It is most important to especially make a point of doing so when the moral dilemma creates an inconvenience. If you are going to run a game like the one you are running, do not reward expediency or look away from the unacceptable. It’s just as wrong for you as the DM to be willfully blind if that's the game you are running.
But if I were you, I would try not to pontificate on it. Assess a penalty briefly if it’s really necessary - do so clearly and to the point without being confrontational and move on. Try to keep it in a meta gaming context - and move away from the judging of another’s personal values. It’s not that you are wrong necessarily in your conclusions – but that it is simply bringing the game into a dimension where it is not likely to be conducive to friendship and a long and continuing gaming group.
So sayeth the DM who appears to have just lost a player over a 50 XP penalty – and does not regret assessing that penalty even still.
I would ignore those opinions on this thread who seem opposed to presenting these role playing and value laden challenges to players. Just because that isn’t the game they want to run – does not mean it’s a game YOU shouldn’t run.
Secondly, you did not do anything wrong by having prisoners defy the party. The prisoners acted appropriately; it was the players who acted inappropriately.
Thirdly, on the matter of how you handled it…
Yeah, that could have been better, but I understand your issue, I really, really do.
Let me explain by way of analogy a VERY similar situation which arose in my own campaign recently.
The Scenario
In a DragonLance 3.5 game set just before the outbreak of the War of the Lance, the Party was behind enemy lines in Lemish. They had assaulted a stronghold of the Chosen of Chemosh, occupied by both human soldiers and hobgoblins soldiers. The guys in charge were members of the Cult of Chemosh, the god of the undead.
At the conclusion of the big fight at the end of the scenario, the bad priest is slain along with the higher ups. What’s left? 2 human soldier types and seven hobgoblins surrender. 1 more imperial soldier is captured later.
The crimes:
The bad guys were clearly slavers -. Human slaves were freed by the party.
The bad guys had also fed slaves to ghouls – human bones were found in the ghoul pit
and testimony from other slaves confirming sacrifice was heard by the heroes.
There are two wannabe Knights of Solamnia in the party. There are three others who profess to be good. And there is one Lawful Neutral dwarf (who, in fact, is played by the player as if the dwarf is Lawful Good).
One of the players is a half-elven chaotic good ranger whose chosen enemy is goblinoids. He hates them. He considers them to be irredeemable monsters who are incapable of free will or redemption. And therein lay the problem.
There is a dispute over what will be done with the prisoners. In the end, the party goes RACIST. They choose to treat the humans differently than the hobgoblins. They will bring back 2 common human soliders and one human imperial soldier (Name rank serial number types) for trial in Solamnia. This is from DEEP behind enemy lines but they choose to do it.
The hobgoblins they dither and hmmed and hahhed over, but in the end, they left them locked in a cage with some cold chisels to bust out later.
That’s the official story.
Except the half-elven ranger who despises goblinoids and considers them irredeemable monsters who will escape to kill and slave again, sneaks away from the party as they are leaving with the intent of letting out the hobgoblins to fight each one, one-on one to the death. The kender player has foreseen this and has foiled this plan by jamming the lock with some wire ahead of time . The half-elven ranger can’t get in to get at them and can’t let them out. So the ranger goes cold and heartless: he get out a cross bow and kills them all – one by-one, with a crossbow through the bars.
How I handled it – the First Time
My problem was a little different. My players know I will not run an evil game and if they stray too far in to the dark side, I’m simply going to pack up my books and the campaign will end (DM Quit – *no save*)
In my case, there was some willful blindness combined with a racial attitude which extended rights to one species and denied them to another.
The ranger was noted in the campaign log “as having strayed from the path of light”. In game terms this means that he committed an evil deed, but atypically so and one which was nevertheless within the boundaries he set for his character. He will have to atone for this at some point: we aren’t done with the one yet.
I did not punish the player with an XP point penalty as the player was consistent in his approach to treating hobgoblins differently and argued powerfully before the act was done as to why it was wrong to let them live. Seeing as goblinoids were his favored enemy and he had treated them that way consistently in the campaign, I did not see the act as departing from his character concept. I let him do it without an XP penalty.
The Next Scenario
The problem of captured hobgoblins surfaced again and the party had become very wary over taking prisoners. They knew this issue would raise its ugly head again soon - and it did.
This time the hobgoblin was interrogated behind enemy lines - tortured in effect. After berating and “discomforting” the hobgoblin, he was released from his bonds and the half-elven ranger tossed a weapon on the ground for the hobgoblin to pick up. A quick fight to the death followed and the hobgoblin dropped at the rangers’ feet in a pool of blood.
As if one –on-one trial by combat against an obviously overpowered foe was somehow a true test of justice.
How I handled it – the Second Time
I award all experience in my campaign log – never face to face. For the first time ever in the campaign, I imposed a penalty (I often give bonuses for roleplaying or special acts too – but this time was the first for a penalty)
It read as follows:
It was not an alignment based penalty. The lawful good White Robed Wizard did not receive the penalty. But the two wannabe Solanmnics did, as did the kender who had gone a little over the top in his questioning methods (distinctly un-kenderlike torturing the enemy with a dagger of venom)
Initially, I thought the players accepted the remonstration without qualm. One complained briefly that the Wizard did not get the penalty and I explained it was not an alignment based one, but a penalty which was involved with their Honour Bound feat and Solamnics or roleplaying in the case of the kender. An arguable point, he let it drop.
I have no doubt that this issue will arise again – as I am not through with the half-elven ranger. He wants to be a cleric of good at some point – and that will happen only after the god explains the errors of his ways and he repents. That will provoke glares and possibly his refusal to become a cleric. “We’ll see.”
The Continuing Fallout
At the time - which was just around Christmas or so, there appeared to be no problem. The players took it well and the game moved on.
However, it wasn’t meant to be that easy. The kender player never said a thing to me, but he begged off attending the next session for some reason. And the next. And then the next. And then – the next and I knew something was wrong.
In retrospect, I believe the player was quite ticked at the 50 XP point penalty and felt that it was inappropriate. There are other issues with the player (he’s a power gamer and I run a low level grim and gritty campaign) but after last session when he failed to appear and wrote me that the character was too hard to play - yadda yadda – I put 2 and 2 together and figured out that he was still upset with me over the –50 XP..
So – did it work out any differently for me than you? Not really. Would I have done it differently than I did? No. I think it handled it properly.
Sometimes the player is just not going to agree with your judgment. In your case, you challenged the players moral judgment of their own deeds and choices and they felt personally attacked for it. Those are the cases that get the feathers ruffled. The more grim and gritty and shades of grey you make it – the more room a player in extremis has to take the view that his/her actions were justifiable. Differing viewpoints will come into play. (It’s a bit like life. Funny about that.)
But don’t shirk from it or fail to challenge your players. If their stated character concept has the character acting in a certain way over the course of time (and 2 years of the same campaign certainly gives you that) – make them play it. It is most important to especially make a point of doing so when the moral dilemma creates an inconvenience. If you are going to run a game like the one you are running, do not reward expediency or look away from the unacceptable. It’s just as wrong for you as the DM to be willfully blind if that's the game you are running.
But if I were you, I would try not to pontificate on it. Assess a penalty briefly if it’s really necessary - do so clearly and to the point without being confrontational and move on. Try to keep it in a meta gaming context - and move away from the judging of another’s personal values. It’s not that you are wrong necessarily in your conclusions – but that it is simply bringing the game into a dimension where it is not likely to be conducive to friendship and a long and continuing gaming group.
So sayeth the DM who appears to have just lost a player over a 50 XP penalty – and does not regret assessing that penalty even still.
Kid Charlemagne
I am the Very Model of a Modern Moderator
I find the best way to cajole players into having their PC's act as teh heroes they proclaim to be is to have the worst of villains complement them on their tactics.
"Ah, you are the warrior Saduj? I heard of your talents at questioning the soldiers besieging your city. Especially the bit with the bathtub and the wet badger. Very inventive. I took special note of it."
"Ah, you are the warrior Saduj? I heard of your talents at questioning the soldiers besieging your city. Especially the bit with the bathtub and the wet badger. Very inventive. I took special note of it."
I promised myself I wouldn't get dragged into a long discussion on alignment again, but this one's been fairly civil and most of the posts are pretty thought-provoking. It's interesting to read different people's reactions.
I agree with that, and thought I had indicated that in my posts.
I'm not sure expediency is an excuse for killing and maintaining a non-evil alignment.
No, not according to the rules, but within the context of my campaign the players knew that they were going to be playing heroes. I don't "limit" my definitions of good and evil, right and wrong, to what's written in the SRD and neither do my players. There's a certain amount of judgment, common sense, and life experiences that shapes our views on stuff like this which is why I talked about it with my players before the campaign started.
All good questions and in some campaigns the answers would be different.
1) Were the bad guys evil? Irrelevant. The group did not have the magical means available to determine this, but it's irrelevant. The alignment of the victim is not the driving factor here. The actions of the characters are what determines how I, as the DM, view them on the good-evil axis and the law-chaos axis. At least, that's how it is in my campaign.
2) What does it mean if they were evil? See above.
3) Were they innocent? They were guards. Had they hurt people? Yes. Were they "just doing their job"? Yes. Is that an excuse for them to not be punished? No. Is that justification for slitting their throats while they are incapacitated? That's up to the individual character in question to decide, but I think there comes a point where, outside of the "self-defense" aspect of normal D&D combat, the systematic execution of helpless (remember, they are all magically asleep and unable to defend themselves or plead or beg for mercy or whatever) a person crosses the line toward what is "necessary" (defending one's self, one's property, or one's family/friends) and what is "expedient" or just easier to deal with (e.g., "It's too much hassle to spend the time to tie these guys up. I'm just going to slit their throats and leave the bodies here").
Based on past interactions with the authorities and various hints I had dropped ("The mayor happens to mention that there's been a rash of murders in the streets lately. Apparently someone's taking vigilante justice and we need to put a stop to it!"), they would know. Also, they were told to "peace-bond" their weapons upon entering town, so they knew that, legally, they shouldn't be using them. Yeah, yeah, I know. "But, you said the character was CN! He doesn't have to obey the laws!"
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. They were trying to infiltrate someone's palace to find a clue to a murder mystery they were trying to solve. That was the objective. To get into the palace, the sorcerer character used his sleep spell on the guards. They all failed their Will saves and fell asleep. The characters started to go into the palace to search for clues when the CN Rogue character stops and starts slitting the guards' throats.
I would accept an explanation of why this character thought it was necessary. I would accept, "These guards work for the lord who raped and murdered my kid sister!" I would accept, "I have a personal vendetta against these guys because of...[whatever]". Some kind of in-character reason to kill these guys. I could try to work with that. What I wasn't willing to accept was, "I'm chaotic neutral. I can do whatever I want." That's a cop-out. The character is using the description of the alignment to define his actions, and that's not what it was intended for.
He was starting to until the other party members intervened. I'm not sure how this is relevant, though.
Was he cruel? I guess it depends on whether you think slitting someone's throat with a knife while they are asleep is cruel. It's quick, and therefore less painful than, say, burning him to death. Are there relative levels of cruelty? Can a person be "kind of" cruel?
He got nothing out of killing them. Neither pleasure nor remorse. Just the emotionless slitting of their throats.
Did he go out of his way to kill them? Given that the guards were asleep and likely to remain so while the characters infiltrated the palace, got the info they needed, and make a quick escape, I would judge that he went out of his way.
I did that.
We talked about it as a group, and then I talked to the individual player directly (as mentioned in my first post).
We covered that one above.
We did that as well. We talked about morally gray and ambiguous issues. There are situations that are created to "test" a character just because we all think it's interesting to see how the characters would react. This was not one of those times.
The "parameters" of alignments are relatively easy to explain in my game. We are playing a heroic fantasy game where actions dictate alignment. Do not use alignment as an excuse for your actions. Rather, we will judge by your actions what your character's moral and ethical alignment is. Certain characters (paladins, and to a lesser extent druids and monks) will have consequences if they fail to act according to their moral or ethical restrictions.
I can't answer that because some of them read the boards and that's kind of a campaign secret.
"Organized" warfare is different from a group of "adventurers" taking assignments in town for money or on behalf of a patron.
John Morrow said:
I agree with that, and thought I had indicated that in my posts.
I'm not sure expediency is an excuse for killing and maintaining a non-evil alignment.
No, not according to the rules, but within the context of my campaign the players knew that they were going to be playing heroes. I don't "limit" my definitions of good and evil, right and wrong, to what's written in the SRD and neither do my players. There's a certain amount of judgment, common sense, and life experiences that shapes our views on stuff like this which is why I talked about it with my players before the campaign started.
All good questions and in some campaigns the answers would be different.
1) Were the bad guys evil? Irrelevant. The group did not have the magical means available to determine this, but it's irrelevant. The alignment of the victim is not the driving factor here. The actions of the characters are what determines how I, as the DM, view them on the good-evil axis and the law-chaos axis. At least, that's how it is in my campaign.
2) What does it mean if they were evil? See above.
3) Were they innocent? They were guards. Had they hurt people? Yes. Were they "just doing their job"? Yes. Is that an excuse for them to not be punished? No. Is that justification for slitting their throats while they are incapacitated? That's up to the individual character in question to decide, but I think there comes a point where, outside of the "self-defense" aspect of normal D&D combat, the systematic execution of helpless (remember, they are all magically asleep and unable to defend themselves or plead or beg for mercy or whatever) a person crosses the line toward what is "necessary" (defending one's self, one's property, or one's family/friends) and what is "expedient" or just easier to deal with (e.g., "It's too much hassle to spend the time to tie these guys up. I'm just going to slit their throats and leave the bodies here").
Based on past interactions with the authorities and various hints I had dropped ("The mayor happens to mention that there's been a rash of murders in the streets lately. Apparently someone's taking vigilante justice and we need to put a stop to it!"), they would know. Also, they were told to "peace-bond" their weapons upon entering town, so they knew that, legally, they shouldn't be using them. Yeah, yeah, I know. "But, you said the character was CN! He doesn't have to obey the laws!"
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. They were trying to infiltrate someone's palace to find a clue to a murder mystery they were trying to solve. That was the objective. To get into the palace, the sorcerer character used his sleep spell on the guards. They all failed their Will saves and fell asleep. The characters started to go into the palace to search for clues when the CN Rogue character stops and starts slitting the guards' throats.
I would accept an explanation of why this character thought it was necessary. I would accept, "These guards work for the lord who raped and murdered my kid sister!" I would accept, "I have a personal vendetta against these guys because of...[whatever]". Some kind of in-character reason to kill these guys. I could try to work with that. What I wasn't willing to accept was, "I'm chaotic neutral. I can do whatever I want." That's a cop-out. The character is using the description of the alignment to define his actions, and that's not what it was intended for.
He was starting to until the other party members intervened. I'm not sure how this is relevant, though.
Was he cruel? I guess it depends on whether you think slitting someone's throat with a knife while they are asleep is cruel. It's quick, and therefore less painful than, say, burning him to death. Are there relative levels of cruelty? Can a person be "kind of" cruel?
He got nothing out of killing them. Neither pleasure nor remorse. Just the emotionless slitting of their throats.
Did he go out of his way to kill them? Given that the guards were asleep and likely to remain so while the characters infiltrated the palace, got the info they needed, and make a quick escape, I would judge that he went out of his way.
I did that.
We talked about it as a group, and then I talked to the individual player directly (as mentioned in my first post). We covered that one above.
We did that as well. We talked about morally gray and ambiguous issues. There are situations that are created to "test" a character just because we all think it's interesting to see how the characters would react. This was not one of those times.
The "parameters" of alignments are relatively easy to explain in my game. We are playing a heroic fantasy game where actions dictate alignment. Do not use alignment as an excuse for your actions. Rather, we will judge by your actions what your character's moral and ethical alignment is. Certain characters (paladins, and to a lesser extent druids and monks) will have consequences if they fail to act according to their moral or ethical restrictions.
I can't answer that because some of them read the boards and that's kind of a campaign secret.
"Organized" warfare is different from a group of "adventurers" taking assignments in town for money or on behalf of a patron.
Lhorgrim
Explorer
I was a player in an old (1990) 2E campaign that had a few similar moral question situations. Our party handled it nearly the opposite of the way yours did. We were all good aligned, and we needed information from the two prisoners we had taken. We questioned them in a quid pro quo fashion. You give us the info, and we ensure your safety and fair trial. The DM ruled that the prisoners were not particularly frightened by this line of questioning, and reasoned that if we weren't going to threaten them then we were probably going to take them in alive whether they answered our questions or not.
We took them back to the nearest friendly town, and turned them over to the authorities. The DM ruled that the authorities got the information we needed from the prisoners ( perhaps using the "comfy pillow"
) He never told us how they got the info, and we were tired enough of the sidetrack that we did not ask.
We then resumed our mission, only three in-game days after taking our prisoners. :\
To this day, I don't know what our DM expected us to do in that situation. But, I do know that our enemies all fought to the death for the rest of the adventure and we were unable to capture any more prisoners.
I think it is important for the campaign, for the players to know what you(the DM) think is the "right" way to handle the prisoner situation. It is easy to send mixed messages if bad things happen no matter what the PCs do. If they kill them they get an XP penalty. If they take them along and you rule that they somehow alert their compatriots and the party gets ambushed, then the players may second guess their decision to bring them along. If they let them go into the wilderness without the appropriate equipment it's the same as slitting their throats.
I understand that moral dilemma situations may have no "good" resolution, but the players need to learn what the "best" resolution is in your world.
That being said, I am very surprised that players that have been in your campaign for such a long time hadn't learned how to handle a situation like this before now.
We took them back to the nearest friendly town, and turned them over to the authorities. The DM ruled that the authorities got the information we needed from the prisoners ( perhaps using the "comfy pillow"
) He never told us how they got the info, and we were tired enough of the sidetrack that we did not ask.We then resumed our mission, only three in-game days after taking our prisoners. :\
To this day, I don't know what our DM expected us to do in that situation. But, I do know that our enemies all fought to the death for the rest of the adventure and we were unable to capture any more prisoners.
I think it is important for the campaign, for the players to know what you(the DM) think is the "right" way to handle the prisoner situation. It is easy to send mixed messages if bad things happen no matter what the PCs do. If they kill them they get an XP penalty. If they take them along and you rule that they somehow alert their compatriots and the party gets ambushed, then the players may second guess their decision to bring them along. If they let them go into the wilderness without the appropriate equipment it's the same as slitting their throats.
I understand that moral dilemma situations may have no "good" resolution, but the players need to learn what the "best" resolution is in your world.
That being said, I am very surprised that players that have been in your campaign for such a long time hadn't learned how to handle a situation like this before now.
I think you handled it fine, overall. It could have been handled better, but it certianly could have been handled worse. Email is a poor medium for these kinds of things, as I have discovered from similar experiences. You reinforced your desire to run a good game for heroes, and that is great. If you don't want to run a game for a bunch who turn evil when the chips are down, then don't do it. Just remember not to reinforce the idea that the defeated foes they loose today will be the same ones they have to fight again tomorrow. These kinds of issues have had much worse effects among my groups. It's no coincidence that not all of us are still gaming together.
Templetroll
Explorer
Steel_Wind said:
I'd like to present the idea that you called him a Nazi in the campaign log. Unless OberFuhrer is something typical amongst Kender that I'm not aware of, you deliberately insulted him in a fashion you did not do to the other two people.
It's not the experience penalty, it's the personal remark that was outside the game in your campaign log. You mention
and that is not quite what you did, in my opinion. I suggest you delete that remark [edit for clarity: the oberfuhrer word] and offer an apology to the player.
Darth K'Trava
First Post
Runesong42 said:
If you have a problem with someone playing a CN character, then disallow that particular alignment from your game. We did. After a guy played a CN rogue that did what he pleased, it disrupted the game for the rest of us who were mostly NG. So it was banned from all our games. And now that we got rid of one DM's girlfriend who was a pain in the butt and demanded attention all the time and liked to be argumentative with her boyfriend. She wasn't invited back after she had to quit when she got a job where she had to work weekends. And we told him that we didn't want her back and didn't want to game with her again.
Similar Threads
