The prisoner dilemma

[Edhelras]

A party consisting mostly of goodie-goodie elves, half-elves and a benevolent human, with alignments of CG and NG, was almost cleaved in half by a vicious orc barbarian. However, the Orcish-speaking party bard managed to Charm him into temporary friendship - revealing the location of the orc camp and leading the party there. It was raining heavily, and she convinced him it was a good idea to return to camp for shelter and food.

As they approached the camp - preparing for a major combat vs. the orcs encamped there, The prisoner dilemma (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html) arose. What to do with the charmed orc? The Charm spell would expire in an hour or so. After that, the orc would return to hacking at them with his greataxe, or any other means available. Binding him and leaving him would be just as cruel as killing him outright. Letting him go would anyway mean alerting the Orc castle that's the goal of the adventure.

But can this team of goodly PCs really kill a charmed NPC, in good faith?

The situation was solved by the party rogue, a True Neutral gnome with less scruples, who slit the orc's throat in an unguarded moment. However, were the CG and NG party members "morally justified" in accepting this act, or did it kind of smear them as well?

I like to use the alignment system as much as possible, however, the killing of defenseless and magically helpless prisoners just because it's the only "practical" solution seems more Neutral than Good to me (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html). Using Evil means to a Good end?

[Doctor Despair]

A party consisting mostly of goodie-goodie elves, half-elves and a benevolent human, with alignments of CG and NG, was almost cleaved in half by a vicious orc barbarian. However, the Orcish-speaking party bard managed to Charm him into temporary friendship - revealing the location of the orc camp and leading the party there. It was raining heavily, and she convinced him it was a good idea to return to camp for shelter and food.

As they approached the camp - preparing for a major combat vs. the orcs encamped there, The prisoner dilemma (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html) arose. What to do with the charmed orc? The Charm spell would expire in an hour or so. After that, the orc would return to hacking at them with his greataxe, or any other means available. Binding him and leaving him would be just as cruel as killing him outright. Letting him go would anyway mean alerting the Orc castle that's the goal of the adventure.

But can this team of goodly PCs really kill a charmed NPC, in good faith?

The situation was solved by the party rogue, a True Neutral gnome with less scruples, who slit the orc's throat in an unguarded moment. However, were the CG and NG party members "morally justified" in accepting this act, or did it kind of smear them as well?

I like to use the alignment system as much as possible, however, the killing of defenseless and magically helpless prisoners just because it's the only "practical" solution seems more Neutral than Good to me (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html). Using Evil means to a Good end?

Why would binding him and leaving him be just as cruel? I'm confused on that part. Regardless, if the PCs only ever kill in self-defense, then allowing the charm to run out while the orc is in their presence is tantamount to killing him anyway -- assuming they know they will win. If they do not know they will win, then it may even be considered a suicidal act, which may not be lawful depending on what the laws are in their country. Killing the NPC or allowing him to become un-charmed in their presence without some restraint equate to the same thing, unless there is some sort of honor in allowing him a fighting chance, but then again they had already bested him so, by that logic, they "earned" the right to kill him in their trial-by-combat.

Personally, if I was dealing with a group of good PCs like this, I might have suggested keeping him charmed (or restrained when not charmed) until the campaign was over and earned a new companion for the quest. If this seems unethical, then charming the NPC in the first place was unethical, which neither you as the DM or the PCs seemed to have issue with.

As for slitting the creature's throat... It was not necessarily an evil act, as I said. Good creatures may either be inclined towards mercy or towards stomping out the evil. They are chaotic good, so it isn't as though they are strictly bound to the laws in how they do good. They can bend the rules to do good. This was a situation where potentially a alignment-ambiguous act could potentially do more good (with their quest), and doing things for "the greater good" is a very Chaotic Good thing to do.

[OldTrees1]

Expect to get responses about The Prisoner's dilemma(Game Theory term).


There are 3 response breakpoints (in order):
The barely morally permissible
The self afflicted moral duty (A PC that did something that now makes them held to a higher standard)
The morally superogatory (The best choice)

In my opinion as ascribed to my D&D games (warning: my games tend to hold a higher moral standard than the default game):
Slaying the orc in combat is morally permissible.
Leaving the orc bound to escape on their own much later would be morally superogatory.
Slaying the defenseless orc was unnecessary killing and thus would be a stain on the killer.
Not prosecuting the murderer of the defenseless prisoner of war is morally permissible.

But this is merely one event. A rag needs many stains before it needs to be thrown away.

[Edhelras]

Why would binding him and leaving him be just as cruel? I'm confused on that part. Regardless, if the PCs only ever kill in self-defense, then allowing the charm to run out while the orc is in their presence is tantamount to killing him anyway -- assuming they know they will win.

Good points, here! This was in the wilderness - binding him and leaving him would mean he would starve to death, so crueller than just killing him there and then, I think.
He was really ferocious with his greataxe, the reason the party conquered him was thanks to that bardess and her smooth orcish-speaking tongue.

I enjoy the discussion whether charming someone is actually a "good" act: In real-life, it could easily be seen as one of the most Evil things to do: To bereave (although temporarily) someone of the control over one's own mind. Had it been done by the authorities vs. the population, there would've been an outrage.

I do feel I have to fall back towards Miko's position: The orc is Evil, profoundly so and vicious and seeking the death of the PCs - therefore it's a legitimate target, and killing it in whatever fashion it takes is legitimate as well. If only he had been color-coded (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html)....

Yeah, it's one of the things I struggle the most with: What to expect PCs to do with their prisoners. I really think they ought to be bundled up and delivered to the authorities for proper prosecution, but I realize too I may be overthinking...

[Doctor Despair]

Yeah, it's one of the things I struggle the most with: What to expect PCs to do with their prisoners. I really think they ought to be bundled up and delivered to the authorities for proper prosecution, but I realize too I may be overthinking...

That's one of the distinguishing differences between a Lawful Good PC and a Chaotic Good one. The Chaotic Good PC can do whatever they want as long as they truly believe it accomplishes the most good in the end by their standards. A lawfully good PC could not willingly kill their prisoner, even if for the greater good, and would have to find that local lord to put the orc in a dungeon somewhere.

[Edhelras]

Expect to get responses about The Prisoner's dilemma(Game Theory term).


There are 3 response breakpoints (in order):
The barely morally permissible
The self afflicted moral duty (A PC that did something that now makes them held to a higher standard)
The morally superogatory (The best choice)

In my opinion as ascribed to my D&D games (warning: my games tend to hold a higher moral standard than the default game):
Slaying the orc in combat is morally permissible.
Leaving the orc bound to escape on their own much later would be morally superogatory.
Slaying the defenseless orc was unnecessary killing and thus would be a stain on the killer.
Not prosecuting the murderer of the defenseless prisoner of war is morally permissible.

But this is merely one event. A rag needs many stains before it needs to be thrown away.

Thank you! I now learned the word: supererogatory! It's a bit easier in my native language, but it's more stylish in English!

I liked your exploration here very much, in particular point 4 and 5. As the killer was already True Neutral, and thus actually needing some "Evil points" in order to keep the goodliness of his comrades from staining him, that was OK. But the tender point was whether the CG and NG party members should be kind of stained, like Roy might be stained from Belkar's actions - and I'm satisfied now that they shouldn't be.

The did give him a hard time afterwards, though - particularly the high-CHA female who had charmed the orc in the first place, she felt somewhat responsible for it's wellbeing. So, I guess that was a proper "atonement" for them as well...

[Edhelras]

That's one of the distinguishing differences between a Lawful Good PC and a Chaotic Good one. The Chaotic Good PC can do whatever they want as long as they truly believe it accomplishes the most good in the end by their standards. A lawfully good PC could not willingly kill their prisoner, even if for the greater good, and would have to find that local lord to put the orc in a dungeon somewhere.

I get your point, but the issue here wasn't necessarily the Lawful-Chaotic axis (which I think you described well), but the Good-Evil axis. Whether you're Lawful or Chaotic Good - it should still be a problem if you regularly kept killing helpless prisoners outside the heat of battle?

In this case, it put my mind to ease to accept that this was the responsibility of the Neutral rogue, so that the party shouldn't be punished for his Neutral act. However, I'll make sure they don't make a habit of it...

[Segev]

As presented, I think most of my Good PCs would have hoped to engage in Diplomacy to improve his underlying disposition to at least Neutral, but even that probably isn't enough to get him to betray his friends in our favor.

I would recommend to your party that they pick up the spell hypnotism. For one request, the victim(s) of it are treated permanently as two attitude bands better than they were otherwise when you cast the spell. Hypnotize your charmed buddy (who is Friendly due to the charm) into something useful, like (in this case) "Keep our presence and knowledge of the camp's location secret." Two steps better than Friendly is Fanatical, which is ludicrously dedicated. If you aren't using that attitude in your game, it still makes him Friendly+, which is mechanically Friendly and flavorfully should still be pretty DARNED Friendly. He'll take risks to keep your presence secret so you don't get caught.

[OldTrees1]

Thank you! I now learned the word: supererogatory! It's a bit easier in my native language, but it's more stylish in English!

It is a lovely word but I find it unnecessarily long in English. What the word for "beyond/above duty/obligation" in your native language?

I kinda wish I knew more words for various moral gradients. I know so many subcategories of morally permissible but have no terms for subcategory of immoral. I even feel there are terms missing on the moral side:
Morally permissible
Amoral
Moral
Morally obligatory
Morally supererogatory

[Deophaun]

Letting him go would anyway mean alerting the Orc castle that's the goal of the adventure.
This is the fault of your interpretation of charm, which then creates the moral problem.

While charm is in effect, the target will perceive your words and actions in the most favorable way. When the duration ends, it stops perceiving your and actions this way. However, the spell does not say that the target goes back and re-evaluates what you have said and done while charmed. As long as that is not how the spell works, it's perfectly reasonable for the PCs to convince the orc to keep quiet about the whole things and go on his way. Yes, the orc might slip and talk about that swell group of elves and humans he ran into, but it won't be in his mind to alert anyone to anything.

Which makes killing him evil, only marginally different than killing a passer-by because he witnessed you climb over a city wall and he might say something.

[Pluto!]

Expect to get responses about The Prisoner's dilemma(Game Theory term).
100% The reason I clicked on the thread.

[TheYell]

Lt. Col. David Grossman, On Killing



At Fort Benning I too had heard the "Geneva convention and
white phosphorous on equipment" line during the artillery pitch
in Officer Candidate School, the Infantry Officer Basic Course,
Ranger school, and the Infantry Mortar Platoon Officers Course.
The treatment of POWs had been addressed by an instructor at
Ranger school, and he clearly communicated his personal belief
that in a raid or an ambush, a patrol could not be expected to
take POWs. I had noted that most of the outstanding young soldiers
coming to us from the Ranger Battalion shared this Ranger-school
belief.

To confront this belief I said basically, "If the enemy finds just
one massacre, like our soldiers did at Malmedy in the Battle of
the Bulge, then thousands of enemy soldiers will swear never to
surrender, and they'll be very tough to fight. Just like our troops
were in the Battle of the Bulge when word got around that the
Germans were shooting POWs. In addition, that's all the excuse
the enemy needs to kill our captured soldiers. So by murdering a
few prisoners, who were just poor, tired soldiers like you, you'll
make the enemy force a damn-sight tougher, and cause the deaths —
murders — of a whole bunch of our boys.

"On the other hand, if you disarm, tie up, and leave a POW
out in a clearing somewhere because you can't take him with you,
then the word will spread that Americans treat POWs honorably,
even when the chips are down, and a whole bunch of scared, tired
soldiers will surrender rather than die. In World War II an entire
Soviet army corps defected to the Germans. The Germans were
treating Soviet POWs like dogs, and yet a whole corps came over
to their side. How would they behave if they faced a humane
enemy?

"The last thing you ought to know is that if I ever catch any
of you heroes killing a POW, I'll shoot you right on the spot.
Because it's illegal, because it's wrong, because it's dumb, and it's
one of the worst things you could do to help us win a war."

https://archive.org/stream/On_Killing/On_Killing_djvu.txt

So I think there are two issues here. One, what to do with the prisoner, and second, what to do with a rogue who feels free to kill somebody you think it is at least arguable should be spared. The Romans were not "kind" but they had too much discipline to permit one loose cannon to do what he liked, and their usual punishment was to make the unit execute its own.

[Darrin]

This is why one of the first magic items I buy for any character is usually Troll Gut Rope (500 GP, MIC). Tie up the prisoners in a spot where they are unlikely to die, and in 12 hours they can wander off on their own. Besides, after 12 hours game time the standard murderhobo party will probably be on an entirely different continent, and the DM has probably forgotten entirely about the prisoners.

[Necroticplague]

Cutting him down, or leaving him to die. Whichever you do, it's a neutral act, not an evil one, because him living could put the parties life at risk, this is a rather extended form of self-defence. Regrettable, but not evil.

[Fizban]

Lt. Col. David Grossman, On Killing
This is an excellent point, but DnD muddies the waters quite a bit. Forcefully charming a foe isn't the same as taking a POW: the charm allows you to turn a foe at least partially onto your side, but keeps them on a thin leash at best. Until the are actually bound and captured they are still effectively an enemy combatant, and demanding someone to let you tie them up could well be considered a threatening act, especially when the charm only affects their attitude towards the caster and not the caster's allies.

Furthermore, DnD combats are rarely a proper war zone. There are in fact creatures of absolute good and evil, and most fights take place under circumstances where neither side can expect any rules of engagement. The cleric of an evil deity captured by force cannot be expected to change their ways, nor can a prisoner taken by such a foe expect to live when their captors can gain quantifiable power by killing them. While a given foe may play by some rules, without knowing in advance it is up to the individual to choose how to proceed.

So to the example of the charmed orc above: I'd say trying to tie the orc up would automatically break the charm and resume the battle, since while it may consider the sorceress a friend it still knows her allies were ready to kill it moments ago. While there is no clause under charm effects that allows actions the caster or their allies take regarding other creatures to end the spell, I would also rule that an act such as the wholesale slaughter of the rest of his tribe or the killing of his loved ones would break the charm (while the orc might not be considered to value the lives of it's raiding party as worth more than that of a close friend, any person or group valuing higher than that and put under threat will break it).

As for the rogue, they acted within reason. With the party's goal being the death of the entire orc tribe*, they have no reason to expect mercy from their foes nor a reason to attempt fostering the idea since the next foes they face will have no relation to them**. The charmed orc is equivalent to someone momentarily confused, pointing their gun the wrong way after being flashbang'd, but still incredibly dangerous and by no means securely captured. Selectively sparing him would mean leaving a powerful foe with all the reason for revenge on the loose for no obvious gain, making it an exercise in stoking their own egos. The rest of the party should feel bad about it but that's all.

*I'm not so sure about this, but you seem to have implied they fought the whole camp the charmed orc led them to. Actually the phrase "orc castle" and worry about alerting them implies a final goal that is not killing everyone (otherwise alerting them wouldn't matter as much since it's gonna be a massive fight anyway), which brings into question why they had to fight the orcs at the camp at all, and how much of a threat to their lives and mission the charmed orc would have been if released. Depending on the duration, a charm spell could possibly send someone a day or more away, giving the party plenty of time to reach their objective while sparing one more life. But that doesn't make sense if they're killing everyone. Can't make a moral or ethical decision without knowing the full goals and resources.

**Of course you could decide that there are some assumed rules of engagement. If the "uncivilized" races of the world know that they can still parley with adventurers, that taking captives has value and their own people can surrender and survive, then a group who regularly executes charmed/captured/surrendered foes will damage that reputation overall (angering other adventurers and the employers who value the option) and possibly spread a bad reputation of themselves in specific. As long as you're clear before the game starts on what the assumptions are and how the players will be following them it's plenty fine.

And as for myself, after some rather disastrous arguments in my last games over prisoners (I advocated execution in many cases because evil+magic=threat to society but the others couldn't seem to consider the implications of capturing people before doing it), well I'm inclined to simply disallow it in future games. By DM order and fiat: no prisoners will be taken unless required by the mission as intended by the DM, unexpected situations will be handled as directed by the DM. The default is that if you're near a town they go to prison, and if you're not they die. Any magic weaker than Dominate is a thin enough thread to get the guy back in combat where they can die properly, and Dominate's massive duration (if even allowed) is long enough that all Dominated creatures can easily be shipped back to prison. If the party wishes to institute a mission objective that includes a capture, they will agree on the plan as a group beforehand and the DM will okay/deny it before it so much as starts.

Capturing prisoners is certainly interesting, but unless the whole party's operating on the same wavelength (and when do they ever?), it's just gonna cause problems and I'm sick of in-person arguing (forums are fine).

[TheYell]

You bring sound arguments for killing the prisoners but I think DM fiat is a bit harsh. You might as well order the paladin not to have alignment conflicts. The furthest I could see you taking it as a DM would be asking the party what ORDERS it had regarding prisoners and then ruling that behaving off the cuff is behaving chaotically. If the party decides on catch and release as a rule and you hate their decision there are plenty of ways to make them regret it. Nothing like drums audible for five miles with a fireball thrown straight up warning everything orcy to be extra alert. We all know what circular argument is but its the price of allowing disparate alignments at the table.

[FatR]

If employing any sort of advantage over your enemy that ensures victory, including surprise, distance, disabling spells and tricks, or better equipment is morally permissible, then slaying a charmed enemy logically should be morally permissible. He's still your enemy. Being charmed conceals the fact, but does not change his fundamental disposition.

The main moral problem of charm magic comes from the fact that being charmed also conceals the enemy's vulnerable situation from the enemy himself, so he won't be able to contemplate surrender when he would have otherwise. Therefore in situations where taking prisoners is normally on the table, sneak killing a charmed opponent instead of tying him up would be unethical.

[Segev]

If employing any sort of advantage over your enemy that ensures victory, including surprise, distance, disabling spells and tricks, or better equipment is morally permissible, then slaying a charmed enemy logically should be morally permissible. He's still your enemy. Being charmed conceals the fact, but does not change his fundamental disposition.

The main moral problem of charm magic comes from the fact that being charmed also conceals the enemy's vulnerable situation from the enemy himself, so he won't be able to contemplate surrender when he would have otherwise. Therefore in situations where taking prisoners is normally on the table, sneak killing a charmed opponent instead of tying him up would be unethical.

You could frame an offer to accept surrender while they're charmed such that they interpret the offer in the best possible light. As noted, they potentially know that they're on opposite sides of a violent conflict, and they know that they were just fighting with you. Offer them a chance to surrender while charmed and they might accept it, including terms such as giving up their weapons and letting you bind them.

[BoutsofInsanity]

It's the question of Justice Versus Mercy.

Ill use the Paladin I play as my "Policy" when it comes to confronting evil. The Paladin I play is a Paladin of Mercy. He gives every chance he can to the enemy to Surrender before combat starts. Using diplomacy, bluff, insight, anything he can to convince them that fighting isn't the approved option. Once combat starts, if he can end the fight without killing anyone, he will. Then he gives the "battle therapy" speech about being better then one's self, blah blah blah.

Then, he lets them go. Once. You get one shot at redemption, the next time, there is no mercy to be had. He will come at you like a whirlwind of fire and lightning. No warning, no speeches, just swift and violent justice.

Sometimes, circumstances means he can't give out mercy when he would like to. Sometimes, an Orc just sets up an ambush, resonates as evil, and attacks to kill. No polite warning shot followed by demands or threats. Just a straight up assassination ambush ready for war. At that point, Justice must be dealt out. A threat to the free peoples of the world must be extinguished.

So, we charm an Orc, who attempted to moments ago take my head. We pump him for information, and then let him go? No. Not in a world where too many people depend on heroes to keep them safe.

If you want to, you can, make your speech, but he did just try to kill you. Challenge him to single combat, give him an opportunity to live. But, you are totally justified in killing that murdering savage. It would have been different maybe, had he stood initially in your path, and challenged one of you to single combat, but an ambush with no warning shot? The gloves are off, there are people who travel this road, who depend on goods to survive, and they don't kill people.

Hold a trial, read him his rights, then execute him for crimes against others.

The only time you are obligated to not kill him, is if you have the power and strength, to deal with any circumstance of him living coming back to haunt you. If you can handle, and are willing to gamble on him changing his ways, on him warning the camp you are coming, are willing to let the possibility of the orc killing a child, raping a mother, then let him go. If you have the strength. This isn't a war, with POW's. This is an ambush attack attempting to kill you for stuff.

Do you have the time to teach a creature who attacks others what "good" is? To attempt to change an ideological world view diametrically opposed to yours? If you do, let him go. Geas him if you have the magic. Otherwise, execute the murdering scum bag, and move on. Sometimes hard choices have to be made, but dont' forget the bigger picture. If someone breaks into your house with no provocation and attempts to kill you, you don't typically have the strength to capture him, and then by yourself take him to the constable. Who doesn't have the resources to keep the Orc in the first place. Don't think this is the 21st century. Put yourself in the time of medieval ages, without the current luxuries we have as a society. This is a world with dragons, sorcery and undead.

Is it nice, no. Is it the "good thing to do?" Prolly not, but it is the practical and justified response to someone who tried to kill you and take your stuff. You just tried to kill me, you have no right to complain.

I am not suggesting mass executions, torture, hell if you can, let him go and show mercy. Just be ready for the consequences of your actions.

[Gabrosin]

It seems like there were lots of options that could be explored here before murder was contemplated (and make no mistake, cutting his throat while defenseless was an evil act, and people who allowed it to happen without consequence are being morally compromised as well).

I'm not convinced that "tying him up and leaving him" is a problem. If you can find a safe space where he's not going to become a predator's meal, and you can tie him up securely, you can come back for him after the battle to release him. You can always charm him again if you feel like you need a head start to get away from him, should he come after you.

Speaking of charming him, if you've got him charmed you could convince him to head off at top speed in a different direction before you start the fight. Unless you expect it to take hours, you'll have more than enough time to fight your way through the orc castle.

Finally, you always have the option of dealing nonlethal damage until he falls unconscious. At level HP/hour healing rates, you can buy yourself at least a few hours. Beating a prisoner into helplessness probably isn't morally correct either but it's almost certainly better than outright murdering him.

[OldTrees1]

It seems like there were lots of options that could be explored here before murder was contemplated (and make no mistake, cutting his throat while defenseless was an evil act, and people who allowed it to happen without consequence are being morally compromised as well).

I'm not convinced that "tying him up and leaving him" is a problem. If you can find a safe space where he's not going to become a predator's meal, and you can tie him up securely, you can come back for him after the battle to release him. You can always charm him again if you feel like you need a head start to get away from him, should he come after you.

Speaking of charming him, if you've got him charmed you could convince him to head off at top speed in a different direction before you start the fight. Unless you expect it to take hours, you'll have more than enough time to fight your way through the orc castle.

Finally, you always have the option of dealing nonlethal damage until he falls unconscious. At level HP/hour healing rates, you can buy yourself at least a few hours. Beating a prisoner into helplessness probably isn't morally correct either but it's almost certainly better than outright murdering him.

Amendment: Don't tie him securely enough that he dies if you can't come back. Give him a 2 day knot. Long enough to stay until you return but if you die then they might not.

[TheYell]

Can we break it down by alignment?

Lawful Good Don't enchant combatants. They hung it on Breaker Morant because he took prisoners and then killed them instead of just not taking prisoners. Don't offer a case fire if you're not going to honor it in the end.

Neutral Good Tie him up and leave him off to the side somewhere.

Chaotic Good Let him go if he runs the way you came.

Lawful Neutral ?

True Neutral ?

Chaotic Neutral Beat him unconscious and leave him unarmed maybe with a broken leg

Lawful Evil Pump him then give him a field court martial and execute him for being taken in arms in an illegal fight. Sorry but that's where I put that.

Neutral Evil Take a foot off (after he's helpless) and leave him unarmed and maimed.

Chaotic Evil Promise to let him go and kill him.

[Segev]

"Don't enchant combatants" is a bit hypocritical of the LG types, seeing as they're perfectly fine with killing combatants.

[TheYell]

"Don't enchant combatants" is a bit hypocritical of the LG types, seeing as they're perfectly fine with killing combatants.

Seems to me it opened this can of worms. The orc stopped fighting them, for a bit, but can be expected to resume trying to kill them. That wouldn't happen with a straight surrender. Likewise they have a self-defense right, but not when they're safe from a dopey or enchanted orc.

[Segev]

Seems to me it opened this can of worms. The orc stopped fighting them, for a bit, but can be expected to resume trying to kill them. That wouldn't happen with a straight surrender. Likewise they have a self-defense right, but not when they're safe from a dopey or enchanted orc.

That doesn't make it less morally acceptable to enchant the orc. You just need to be responsible and intelligent with how you handle it when you do. Several good suggestions have been given in this thread.

[TheYell]

That doesn't make it less morally acceptable to enchant the orc. You just need to be responsible and intelligent with how you handle it when you do. Several good suggestions have been given in this thread.

I agree it is "morally acceptable" or Good to use some of those alternatives. I just don't see it as the most restrictive, self-abnegating option. Choosing to limit your own responses and narrow your options is part of what Lawful Good is all about. Paladins don't do Good things that a Chaotic Good person would entertain.

[Fizban]

You bring sound arguments for killing the prisoners but I think DM fiat is a bit harsh. You might as well order the paladin not to have alignment conflicts. The furthest I could see you taking it as a DM would be asking the party what ORDERS it had regarding prisoners and then ruling that behaving off the cuff is behaving chaotically. If the party decides on catch and release as a rule and you hate their decision there are plenty of ways to make them regret it. Nothing like drums audible for five miles with a fireball thrown straight up warning everything orcy to be extra alert. We all know what circular argument is but its the price of allowing disparate alignments at the table.
Harsh of course, but since my group of otherwise good friends couldn't handle it I'm sure not taking the risk if/when I get a new group together (that's an implied exaggeration but the prisoner problems sure didn't help things). Indeed, I would be ordering the paladin not to have alignment conflicts, or rather not allowing disparate alignments during party creation. I like roleplaying but I'm a rules guy at heart. I'm here to play the game, and rather than fiat in something to make them regret taking prisoners and complicate things further, I'd rather just fiat the prisoners away in the first place so one bad idea doesn't throw off the whole session. I'd point out again that I don't have a problem with taking prisoners with an endgame already agreed upon, it's when people start doing it on their own without any plans or agreements that they start arguing and causing problems, and that basically includes any mind-mage.

It's really just an extension of the general rule, "make sure the group can handle the party they're building," with a conservative estimate on how much the group can handle.

[Segev]

I agree it is "morally acceptable" or Good to use some of those alternatives. I just don't see it as the most restrictive, self-abnegating option. Choosing to limit your own responses and narrow your options is part of what Lawful Good is all about. Paladins don't do Good things that a Chaotic Good person would entertain.

Again falls flat in the face of the fact that killing the orc is totally fine in the LG worldview. Law tends, if anything, to be about strictures to prevent death.


An interesting point that hasn't been brought up yet, I think, is a question of what happens if you tell somebody you charmed them? They're going to interpret it in the most favorable way possible, while under the effects. Can you frame it in a way that makes them want to cooperate with you while they're charmed, even knowing they'll probably feel less cooperative later?

"We had to charm you to avoid killing you, because you wouldn't surrender. Since it'll wear off in a few minutes, and we'd rather not have to hurt you, would you mind surrendering your weapons and letting us tie you up?"

[OldTrees1]

Can we break it down by alignment?

Nope!
"Breaking it down by alignment" is usually a misnomer for only listing 9 answers. I say usually because people tend to forget that a single alignment rarely reaches an internal consensus on how to handle a particular circumstance. Rather than listing relevant differences (LG Paladins of Justice and Mercy might "violently disagree" over this issue).

An exercise for the reader: List 9 different responses by CG characters to the situation.

[Nibbens]

But this is merely one event. A rag needs many stains before it needs to be thrown away.

This. Remember, unless you're dealing with pallys, one act does not change an alignment. Heck, 10 acts over a period of time does not change an alignment. Only when a player consistently acts one way over a period of time does that mean he is starting to become one alignment or another.

A LG character may break the law, or do some evil act once in a while because he's human (or any other race, as all races have flaws...) - but that does not instantly turn him to any other alignment.

This is the sole reason why we can have moments of charming and killing while charmed as opposed to killing while not charmed, and not having to worry about alignment debates... lol.

Consistency is key with all alignment debates (except pallys)... at least, that's my 2 copper.

[TheYell]

Again falls flat in the face of the fact that killing the orc is totally fine in the LG worldview. Law tends, if anything, to be about strictures to prevent death.

I don't agree with that. They have the concept of the chivalrous and upright warrior who kills in a fair fight. Self-defense is one thing, and preferable, to self-corruption. It would not kill the orc to put both his eyes out and let him wander. Would be totally incompatible with the paladin code.

Lawful Good tries to have all the answers, and sometimes that means dodging the wrong questions. Like "How do I manage a love triangle that inadvertently erupts through no fault of my own?" is probably something a chaotic bard could spend a lot of time on, but a paladin would just walk away.

Perhaps the charm can be managed so that the caster party is not confronted by danger when it elapses; I think it more straightforward, selfrighteous, and prudy to skip the mess created by temporarily impairing the will of a combatant.


Breaking it down by alignment" is usually a misnomer for only listing 9 answers. I say usually because people tend to forget that a single alignment rarely reaches an internal consensus on how to handle a particular circumstance. Rather than listing relevant differences (LG Paladins of Justice and Mercy might "violently disagree" over this issue).

But there must always be at least 9 different answers, broken down by alignment.

[Segev]

I just think that LG would be all for a solution that could get an enemy to surrender rather than be destroyed. And, if you were going to kill them no matter what (e.g. because they're unforgivably evil), then what does it matter whether you use charm person, hold person, web, or holy word to paralyze/incapacitate/disable them before you execute them?

[TheYell]

I just think that LG would be all for a solution that could get an enemy to surrender rather than be destroyed. And, if you were going to kill them no matter what (e.g. because they're unforgivably evil), then what does it matter whether you use charm person, hold person, web, or holy word to paralyze/incapacitate/disable them before you execute them?

Well I agree with you that executing them whether they surrender or not is a lawful evil act.

I didn't consider Charm in the same category as web or holy word. And I hadn't considered that others in the party would use Charm even if the paladin won't.

[Segev]

Well I agree with you that executing them whether they surrender or not is a lawful evil act.Not necessarily. LG will execute people for certain crimes (generally heinous ones). If you capture a rapist murderer who enjoys force-feeding children to their puppies, then those puppies to the children's younger siblings, all in front of their parents who are slowly being stretched out by drying raw-hide bonds... even if they surrender, the LG type is probably going to execute them.


I didn't consider Charm in the same category as web or holy word. And I hadn't considered that others in the party would use Charm even if the paladin won't.Its net result is that it hinders a foe's ability to defend himself.

[Jay R]

"Hey, orc buddy, we need you to take this message to a wizard three hours downhill from here. Run as fast as you can, and he'll heal you and feed you and send you back here. Leave your axe here so you can run faster."

When the spell wears off, he will tired, unarmed, and far enough away that it took an hour running downhill to get there. It will take him far longer than an hour to get back. Attack the orc camp knowing he won't be there for at least two hours.

He will probably open the message at that point. It says, "Hey, orc buddy. We just saved your life. Go back home to your village and have a good life, because if you attack us again, we aren't going to save your life again."

[Edhelras]

Thanks a lot for many interesting responses to this dilemma! I so love alignment discussions... :smallbiggrin:

Actually, all of this probably stems from my wanting too much to follow the inspiration of Mr. Burlew, who taught us that a listing as "usually Evil" in the Monster Manual shouldn't necessarily mean that the Good Guys are entitled to slaughter on sight or without due reason. And that truly Good people show some measure of mercy, even towards bad people, at least if they can afford it under the circumstances. And that interesting things may happen if one tries to talk with one's opponents, rather than automatically killing them.

So, I try to encourage a more nuanced approach, and reward PCs who seek out alternatives to direct combat. The quick thinking of the party bardess pacified a very dangerous enemy with a greataxe, and gained the party important information. They're only lvl 4, so their capabilities are rather limited.

I do think one fundamental problem in this is whether Good characters are actually allowed to kill at all - except maybe in direct and immediate self-defence. Of course - in DnD they do all the time, and so the players expect it to be.
However, an alternative view on this is presented by Celia (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0537.html). And I think it's interesting to contemplate that while "Good PCs" are allowed to kill rather liberally - "Good ordinary NPCs" seems to be more bound by moral laws resembling those in our own world.

What I'm getting at is: OK, let's say that Mr. Burlew is right: It wasn't, not really, a Good act on part of the Azurite paladins, slaughtering entire villages with defenseless goblins, even children and old ones (why, BTW, why then did the Southern Gods accept these massacres performed by their own paladins???).

I interpret this that - while a Paladin is a holy warrior with Detect Evil ability, able to single out truly Evil persons, and on a mission from his God to root out Evil - but even so, there is something wrong about a Paladin using his Detect Evil as a means to automatic death sentence on whichever Evil character he/she encounters.
Even if you're a Paladin, Mr. Burlew says (by way of Miko's story), you have to come up with some additional evidence (like catching the Evil character doing an Evil act), in order to be justified in meeting out that death sentence.

But requirements like these would make the PCs into ducks waiting to be shot at, handing initiative over to the bad guys, and undermining the entire game. So, in order to function as a combat based game, the PCs are actually required to act just like Miko: Just check if the NPC they encounter is "red" and attack-able, and then have at it.

Obviously, I try to create some middle ground. But I still wrestle with whether the PCs should be "penalized" just for playing the game: Killing monsters that the rules of the game identify as "Evil" and there to be killed.

[tomandtish]

Harsh of course, but since my group of otherwise good friends couldn't handle it I'm sure not taking the risk if/when I get a new group together (that's an implied exaggeration but the prisoner problems sure didn't help things). Indeed, I would be ordering the paladin not to have alignment conflicts, or rather not allowing disparate alignments during party creation. I like roleplaying but I'm a rules guy at heart. I'm here to play the game, and rather than fiat in something to make them regret taking prisoners and complicate things further, I'd rather just fiat the prisoners away in the first place so one bad idea doesn't throw off the whole session. I'd point out again that I don't have a problem with taking prisoners with an endgame already agreed upon, it's when people start doing it on their own without any plans or agreements that they start arguing and causing problems, and that basically includes any mind-mage.

It's really just an extension of the general rule, "make sure the group can handle the party they're building," with a conservative estimate on how much the group can handle.

Fizban hit on the key point here, which I'll take a step further...

Most alignment problems come up because the GM and the players haven't hammered out at least a general idea of what they mean for that game before the game started. The captive dilemma is one we like to discuss with three variations:

1) You've captured an unconscious free-willed subject.

2) You captured a conscious free-willed subject.

3) You've captured a conscious charmed or otherwise magically compelled subject.

We then discuss how proposed good characters might act to these scenarios. It may be that someone makes a character tweak. I may make a deity tweak. We go over other scenarios (theft, arson, chaotic alignments, etc.). When all is said and done everyone has a pretty good general idea of what good/evil and law/chaos mean for that game.

Then we see where their actions take them.

[Ikitavi]

I have to say that worrying about the moral issues of a prisoner are pretty MINOR compared to taking part in stated war of extermination. If the alignment isn't threatened by genocide, you really do NOT need to worry too much about rationalizing on the retail level.

In the history of warfare, the development of slavery was a moral leap from the previous condition of killing all the menfolk and seizing all the cattle, and cattle included breedable females by that definition. If you are conducting warfare at the genocidal tribe v tribe level, then slavery is an improvement.

Basically, if you are worried about it as a GM, then you have to provide a humane and reliable alternative.

In MY campaign, I decided that religion actually has power. If you swear an oath, it matters. Swear an oath to the Goddess of the Hearth, the Goddess of Hospitality, and you are a lifetime risk of food poisoning if you break hospitality. The power of collective belief in a magical universe MATTERS. Swear by your weapon and break your oath, you risk your weapon failing you when you most need it. Swear by your crafting god and go back on it, your work will forever be flawed by nervous fingers.

So if you want a prisoner to give their parole, you can negotiate it, and swear an oath on it. But it would have to be meant sincerely on both sides. If the party's intent is simply to wipe out his tribe, there is no way a parole oath would bite.

Lets face it, Tolkein created a universe of bigots, with a theological justification for six thousand years of permanent interracial warfare. Its bunk. You can choose to have it in your campaign, but if you do, you can't also bitch that people act on the rules you create.

If you are going to allow for the party to be "good aligned" and participate in wars of extermination, at least have the grace to grant the charmed captives saves every time they are asked to do something they are violently opposed to doing. So the orc is violently opposed to betraying his people. He is violently opposed to not killing the genocidal "paladin". See? Charm ceases to be much of a moral problem, compared to the rest.

[Vogie]

We've (edit: Largely) really only been discussing two options - Killing the Orc directly, knife meet throat, or killing them indirectly, via binding or whatnot. There is a dilemma in moral choices there, but not a storytelling one. The best answer, in a storytelling, would be to do neither of those... leave the orc alive, having the party wander off before the charm wears off. Maybe ask him to go collect firewood as you're looting the camp, then be gone when he returns.

As a character, the orc could do any number of different things. The knowledge of his involvement may fill him with rage at the supposedly good murderhobos and make him a killer of vengeance. It may change him sullen and despondant, sending him on a quest for meaning, or maybe even become suicidal. He may view it as world-shattering and the only option he sees is to follow the PC party as a companion because he has nothing else to go back to.

As a DM, having the possibility of this slighted Orc show up at the worst moment is FANTASTIC. You can have him pop up either alone or having joined forces with an already formidable foe. If he's joined the party as a sort of companion, he may betray them. If he's wandered out after the event, maybe his murderous rage has killed someone the PCs either loved or needed in their quest. Maybe he's a Drax-style unrelenting hunter, engaging the PCs over and over as long as he's alive. Maybe he's waiting in the shadows for someone to walk off alone. Maybe his quest for meaning will put him in the league with the Big Bad, growing him in power as a great reveal, Shadows of Mordor Style.

[Jay R]

We've really only been discussing two options - Killing the Orc directly, knife meet throat, or killing them indirectly, via binding or whatnot.

Not all of us. I gave an explicit method for getting rid of him safely. Here it is again:


"Hey, orc buddy, we need you to take this message to a wizard three hours downhill from here. Run as fast as you can, and he'll heal you and feed you and send you back here. Leave your axe here so you can run faster."

When the spell wears off, he will tired, unarmed, and far enough away that it took an hour running downhill to get there. It will take him far longer than an hour to get back. Attack the orc camp knowing he won't be there for at least two hours.

He will probably open the message at that point. It says, "Hey, orc buddy. We just saved your life. Go back home to your village and have a good life, because if you attack us again, we aren't going to save your life again."

[OldTrees1]

We've (edit: Largely) really only been discussing two options - Killing the Orc directly, knife meet throat, or killing them indirectly, via binding or whatnot.

Hey! Some of us suggested bindings that specifically would not be lethal (even if we the PCs died). So it has been about Killing directly or removing them without killing them.

[Pex]

That's one of the distinguishing differences between a Lawful Good PC and a Chaotic Good one. The Chaotic Good PC can do whatever they want as long as they truly believe it accomplishes the most good in the end by their standards. A lawfully good PC could not willingly kill their prisoner, even if for the greater good, and would have to find that local lord to put the orc in a dungeon somewhere.

I disagree. A Lawful Good character is capable of siding on killing the prisoner. He doesn't have to like it, but it's not Evil. His only demand would be that it is done as quickly and painlessly as possible so that there's no suffering. Capable does not mean all the time or must, just is able to.

Certainly if the prisoner can be let go unharmed all the better. As long as the DM doesn't use this as an excuse to screw over the party the option is there. As soon as a released prisoner comes back in a way that makes the party regret letting him go, expect all prisoners to be killed always and the paladin will debate the rogue on whose turn it is to do it. If a released prisoner returns just for flavor text in at least an indifferent manner or even be grateful and become an eventually friendly NPC, then players will be encouraged not to kill prisoners. For the DM's verisimilitude it might not make sense not one released prisoner will ever come back to cause harm to the party. The DM should then use verisimilitude on which released prisoner will backstab, which are never seen again, and which return as friendlies. A goblin is going to backstab. A bandit is never seen again. A BBEG hired mook becomes a friendly. In this case, expect PCs to kill all "monster" prisoners - orcs, goblins, kobolds, etc.

[Jay R]

I disagree. A Lawful Good character is capable of siding on killing the prisoner. He doesn't have to like it, but it's not Evil. His only demand would be that it is done as quickly and painlessly as possible so that there's no suffering. Capable does not mean all the time or must, just is able to.

He might be able to agree to try the prisoner and execute him, or even to kill him outright because he's the enemy in a war or battle, and there's no other way to survive. What a Lawful Good character cannot do is turn his back for plausible deniability as the evil guy simply slits the prisoner's throat for convenience.