What would you have done?

[Viktyr Gehrig]

The point is that not everyone can agree that those acts were evil, because they apparently involved killing evil people. <<SNIP>> If the DM had given a clear warning such as "You don't detect any evil on these soldiers," then it would be an easier call to make. Of course, the mage, at least, was evil, and dangerous to boot.

I don't think it matters if the soldiers were Neutral, or even Good. The PCs were acting in the defense of a village of innocent people, and they conducted their interrogation and executions in a sensible fashion.

Good people go to war all the time; they don't pull their punches.

 

[Pielorinho]

6) The PC's Lord is the ruler of Shadowdale, Lord Morngrym Amcathra. He is a Paladin of Lathander (which isn't cannon by the way, thats my game's house rules). I think you can do the math on that one.

Okay, cool! So one more question:

7) Had this paladin for whom they worked ever made clear what rules he expected the PCs to follow when they captured prisoners?

If so (and assuming they violated these rules), then it seems to me you've got a great in-character means to resolve the situation: the released prisoner gets free and spreads word of what the PCs did, and that word makes it back to their ruler, who is Very Unhappy.

If not, then their lawful-good liege can hardly object to the PCs' actions: the whole point of a legal system is that people need to have a reasonable ability to know what the law is, and it was the liege's failure to give orders to his minions that's at the root of the matter.

As a player, I would think it very cool if I was told ahead of time what my superiors expected me to do with prisoners. I would be pretty upset if I wasn't told ahead of time and then I faced a severe punishment (in- or out-of-game) for making a defensible choice.

Daniel

 

[kigmatzomat]

That was rather unnecessarily insulting.

I didn't mean it to be insulting. You were deeply and personally bothered, evidenced by the apparent vehemence of your email days later. Your players performed no gratuitious violence, molestation, rape, or other gross perversions that would justify such a deep seated visceral reaction. Were I a player in your game I would suggest you figure out why this is a hot button item for you far because your emotional reaction was completely out of proportion with the actions. You really shouldn't have been more than disappointed or irritated.

 

[brehobit]

I didn't mean it to be insulting. You were deeply and personally bothered, evidenced by the apparent vehemence of your email days later. Your players performed no gratuitious violence, molestation, rape, or other gross perversions that would justify such a deep seated visceral reaction. Were I a player in your game I would suggest you figure out why this is a hot button item for you far because your emotional reaction was completely out of proportion with the actions. You really shouldn't have been more than disappointed or irritated.

I'd disagree with this. I'll go from a personal gaming story:

Playing a Rolemaster game we had slowly been building up a group of enemies. Or more accurately, there were a group of evil clerics and minions planning on doing something really really bad to the world. In a previous game our leader, a paladin, had been killed by the baddies. In a later game the player of that PC (who is an outstanding roleplayer) played an evil cleric from the baddies. He claimed that we couldn't be successful in our current (side) quest without his help. Two of us (druid and illusionist) prefered to kill him out-right. The rogue (more of a fighter type really) and the mage felt our current task was too important. As the rogue was, in effect, the party leader we elected to work with the clearic. The Druid and I continued to object.

We fought the baddy (a lich like thingy) and killed it with no apparent significant help from the evil cleric. The mage and the rogue then went exploring (just down the hall) with the evil cleric. The players went into a different room. We could hear that the cleric was coming first. We waited and took our best shot at him (which is hugely deadly in rolemaster). He survived, if just barely. The rogue was pissed (as was the player I think). The three players were all greatly surprised, as was the GM.

Of course the rogue tied the gravely wounded cleric to a horse to take back. He died during the trip.

I can safely say that the players were all greatly upset (well the druid and I were good with it). The group is very honest (never play Junta with them. Boring city). The player of the druid and I are fairly religous people as is her husband (the rogue). What was interesting is that I think we were all roleplaying our characters, but also we were making our own moral decisions. Each PC did what they thought was morally right. And each player did too.

 

[twofalls]

I didn't mean it to be insulting. You were deeply and personally bothered, evidenced by the apparent vehemence of your email days later. Your players performed no gratuitious violence, molestation, rape, or other gross perversions that would justify such a deep seated visceral reaction. Were I a player in your game I would suggest you figure out why this is a hot button item for you far because your emotional reaction was completely out of proportion with the actions. You really shouldn't have been more than disappointed or irritated.

You suggested that I needed to seek psychiatric help. If you weren't intending on being insulting, you vernacular certainly was. Be that as it may, I'll sweep it under the carpet as it doen't do anyone any good anywhere else.

Yep, I was upset. I understand pieces of why I was so mad, but probably not the whole thing as it was a complex issue and was hotly debated at the end of the game session and beyond. Glad to say that we are over it, and the game has gone on. As it stands, I agree to disagree with you that they didn't perform gratuitous violence, the killed the Vet because he refused to give intelligence on his fellows. That was unnecessary, and morally reprehensible.

7) Had this paladin for whom they worked ever made clear what rules he expected the PCs to follow when they captured prisoners?

Not at all, nor did he learn of their actions as the lone Zhent soldier had I figured about a 15% chance to survive his trip through this deadly forest without the magical tracking and support of the Mages/Priests in his troop (who all died in battle). I rolled the dice, he died quite soon after release.

Besides, considering the schism this caused in the group, I had no desire to pursue it any further.

Edit: Deleted repeated line.

 

[Pielorinho]

Not at all, nor did he learn of their actions as the lone Zhent soldier had I figured about a 15% chance to survive his trip through this deadly forest without the magical tracking and support of the Mages/Priests in his troop (who all died in battle). I rolled the dice, he died quite soon after release.

Fair enough! I definitely think that a leader who expects specific behavior from his followers needs to make the expected behavior crystal-clear--especially when you're dealing with fantasy settings, where the players don't have real-world guidelines to help them out. (For example, if I'm running a game of US Special Forces investigating paranormal activity, I may not need to be as explicit with my players about the rules surrounding prisoners, as I can assume they've all got at least an inkling of the Geneva Convention and the fact that it'd cover their actions). That, I think, would be the main lesson to learn from the whole shebang: give clear in-game guidance to PCs of expected behavior.

Daniel

 

[Mallus]

Besides, considering the schism this caused in the group, I had no desire to pursue it any further.

It's great that this incident is all water under the bridge for your group, and you're back to gaming happliy, but I have to ask...

...if you don't want to pursue issues like this in-game, then why do pose morally/ethically challenging problems to your players? It sounds like your more comfortable operating in the "high heroic" vein.

 

[Voadam]

So in the games I run, Good folks can go after Evil with a vengeance. Evil deserves whatever it gets. And I'm perfectly fine if your Paladin wants to say:

"You, my friend, are Evil. And unfortunately for you, my job is to find Evil and destroy it. You made my job easy and came after me. Thanks.

In case you were wondering, I'm not here to redeem you. I'm not here to show you the error of your ways. You could have seen the error of your ways yesterday. That was the day you should have repented and vowed to turn your back on evil. But this morning you got up and decided to do wrong until you met me.

The guy with the sword.

I've been endowed by my god and my church to dispense justice and you're about to get yours. Ready yourself..."


But hey, that's just me. If your interpretation of the alignments works for you then go for it.

"Evil deserves whatever it gets"?

So good guys can do whatever they want to evil foes and remain good? How about not just kill or execute but torture?

Evil deserves whatever it gets my foot. Evil should be stopped. What anybody deserves is a separate question.

Saying executing evil is still on the good side of a moral line is different from saying anything goes against evil.

 

[Voadam]

Threatening to use torture is an acceptable Intimidation tactic. No one does it anymore, because modern interrogators know it doesn't work

LOL "no one does it any more"

 

[twofalls]

It's great that this incident is all water under the bridge for your group, and you're back to gaming happliy, but I have to ask...

...if you don't want to pursue issues like this in-game, then why do pose morally/ethically challenging problems to your players? It sounds like your more comfortable operating in the "high heroic" vein.

That's a very valid question. I think it's because I love telling story's, and when it comes right down to it my players and I have very similar values. They play different characters than I ever would were I on that side of the sheild, but that just makes it more interesting. This was an isolated incident, and there hasn't been before or since that level of tension in this or any other game I've run. I've been GMing games for a very long time and as I get older the simple stories are less and less satisfying.

This was a save the village scenario, but behind the scenes it was much more complex. The PC's "Truenames" were part of this village's myth and lore, and they were to be not only it's saviors, but its new leaders. Human leaders for an insular and untrusting Gnomish clan. The PC's have had to not only save this village, but lead them out of the Spiderhaunt and mix them into the community of followers they had created called NewHome. There have been dangerous racial tensions, economic problems, cultural clashes, and all types of non-standard "save the damsel" scenarios. They had to negotiate a peace with a local Forest Giant who resented the continued intrusions of the human vermin into his lands... they saved a litter of Direwolf pups and trained them as village protectors... they have negotiated a charter with their local lord, setup trade with other communities... I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

So that was the long answer. The short answer is that moral delimma's are just more interesting than hack and slash backed by high handed morality. However as self proclaimed hero's I do expect them to play the part... and the rewards for it have been rich.