Why don’t players surrender... would we want them too?

[Jd Smith1]

I don't see why I should feel morally obligated to deliver this sort of "realism" to my players. If I wanted them to experience the true horror of war, then I should also probably rule that if they die, the game is over for them. No rolling for another PC, no second chance, never play this game again with us. Because that's what happens IRL if you don't surrender, right?

I wasn't recommending that you GM that way. I was explaining the outlook my players (and I) have. I game with older players, all veterans, all history buffs.

 

[GMMichael]

So my character spend some time naked in chains until he could be rescued.

And here you thought your character would be punished.

Another reason to not surrender: you don't want to deal with the grappling rules inherent in a non-lethal defeat.

 

[Jd Smith1]

So my character spend some time naked in chains until he could be rescued.

Which begs the question: why would the enemy bother keeping you alive? Why not just extract whatever you know by the quickest means available, then kill you? Why bother expending resources in feeding, housing, and guarding your PC?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which begs the question: why would the enemy bother keeping you alive? Why not just extract whatever you know by the quickest means available, then kill you? Why bother expending resources in feeding, housing, and guarding your PC?

They were slavers, and I was a prime physical specimen, worth more alive than dead.

 

[Jd Smith1]

They were slavers, and I was a prime physical specimen, worth more alive than dead.

Why? You're a multi-class ranger, and unwilling. Who would buy you?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And here you thought your character would be punished.

Another reason to not surrender: you don't want to deal with the grappling rules inherent in a non-lethal defeat.

One slaver got choked to death by my PC using his shackles as an improvised garrote during the rescue. There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why? You're a multi-class ranger, and unwilling. Who would buy you?

Really? Really?

No slave is willing, and a LOT of slaves were warriors before being enslaved.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Really? Really?

No slave is willing, and a LOT of slaves were warriors before being enslaved.

In the Roman period, yes, a lot of slaves were ex-warriors, at least until the massive uprising led in part by Spartacus. Thereafter, not so much, and former warriors tended to be crippled at the onset of their service.

But the key to the slave trade, in both the old days and today, is geographic isolation: you transport your 'new stock' to places which make returning home nigh impossible.

Your PC, on the other hand, is a Ranger, which in D&D terms means he could in fact find his way home. Which negates his value.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In the Roman period, yes, a lot of slaves were ex-warriors, at least until the massive uprising led in part by Spartacus. Thereafter, not so much, and former warriors tended to be crippled at the onset of their service.

But the key to the slave trade, in both the old days and today, is geographic isolation: you transport your 'new stock' to places which make returning home nigh impossible.

Your PC, on the other hand, is a Ranger, which in D&D terms means he could in fact find his way home. Which negates his value.

See also the European African Slave trade, Indigenous African slave trade, Mesoamerican slavery, Native American slavery, etc. Warriors were definitely enslaved.

 

[Jd Smith1]

See also the European African Slave trade, Indigenous African slave trade, Mesoamerican slavery, Native American slavery, etc. Warriors were definitely enslaved.

Not in all of your examples.

But you've ignored the core of my point, which is the geographic isolation.