PDA

View Full Version : Why the villain doesn't kill the PC ?



BlacKnight
2016-11-14, 12:39 PM
It's a trope in fiction. But usually doesn't make any sense.
It's still something that is very useful for GMs that have players who don't know what caution is.

My problem in short: PCs were going to capture a war lord, but at the end of the session they are fighting all his men. They are going to lose and I can't change this without making everything ridicolous. Chances to escape are very low and there aren't reinforcements near.
So their only chance is to be captured alive, then escape. But I can't think of a reason for the villain to not kill them immediately.

So what could I do ?
Can anyone think of some generic reason for which the bad guy would save PCs' lives ? Without making him look like a moron.

dps
2016-11-14, 12:45 PM
Slave labor.

lytokk
2016-11-14, 12:49 PM
Well, for starters, the PCs may have information that the BBEG may want. Also, the PCs could always be used as bargaining chips in some sort of way. There's also the possibility that the PCs end up just getting knocked out and left for dead, but that ones a little too much plot armor for my taste.

Depending on the relationship the BBEG has with the pcs, its always possible that one of them is a distant relative, and that is the only PC left alive, who then has to find a way to either raise his comrades or something.

Its also always probable that there's someone Bigger than the BBEG who wants the PCs left alive so they can be tricked into doing something for him that only the PCs could do. Think of the fist OoTS adventure when Nale needs the party to touch those sigils.

jindra34
2016-11-14, 01:01 PM
Conscription. Probably supernaturally enforced but hey, it keeps them alive.

RagingBluMunky
2016-11-14, 01:19 PM
If the villian is evil enough, torture. They humiliated him so he wants revenge.

"A quick death is too good for the likes of you."

Or something along those lines at least.

TheFamilarRaven
2016-11-14, 01:46 PM
Well, we don't know your villains motivations for villainy are, so it's hard to give you advice on what he/she would reasonably think is a good reason to keep the PC's alive. However:

1) Did the PC's bring this on themselves thru poor planning? If so, then this fiasco is on them and not you. You don't need to bail them out.

2) Suppose you like the game and the characters and don't want the party to wipe. Totally fine. The BBEG may not be part of this fight. Maybe have whoever is leading the battalion or so attacking the PC think that keeping them alive is worthwhile for his master, (who he they think might give them a promotion). This removes the BBEG from the decision making.

Inevitability
2016-11-14, 02:00 PM
Death is, at least in fantasy, easy to reverse. If you slit the hero's throat and burn his body, all it takes to bring him back is a friendly high-level cleric: if you throw him in a magic-less torture demiplane and ward the only entrances, keeping him there should be trivial.

Mastikator
2016-11-14, 02:17 PM
Why should the villain know about or care about the PCs?

Once the PCs make serious trouble for the villain maybe the PCs will have to go into hiding. That would be an interesting plot development.

FreddyNoNose
2016-11-14, 03:06 PM
There comes a point where this becomes a game killer for me. When DMs have the rules minimizing character deaths.

Joe the Rat
2016-11-14, 03:17 PM
Well, for starters, the PCs may have information that the BBEG may want.
Interrogation. Intelligence (as in information, not the attribute) is vital. Even if it's little more than "Who sent you?" or "What are the defenses of X location?", or finding out what is already known of his plans by those he intends to conquer, it's justification to keep them alive for now.

This is assuming this was an early encounter with said warlord. If the party has been a thorn in his side, then they're going to have a very prominent execution as a rally point, or as PsyWar ("There are your heroes!").

Then you get into petty reasons like letting you live long enough to see your beloved (people or location) burned.

...and then you get into death traps, but at this point mustache twirling or fluffy lap cats are in order.

veti
2016-11-14, 03:33 PM
Maybe the villain is just a nice guy. Doesn't believe in unnecessary deaths. A captured enemy is no threat, therefore no need to kill them - pack 'em off to a POW camp and they can be re-enlisted as useful members of society once the war is over.

Flickerdart
2016-11-14, 03:40 PM
So their only chance is to be captured alive, then escape. But I can't think of a reason for the villain to not kill them immediately.

The warlord believes he can ransom the PCs back to their families for lots of gold.
The warlord wishes to torture the PCs or kill them personally, but some event prevents him from doing so immediately.
The warlord is simply not present; the PCs are kept alive by lieutenants who do not wish to demonstrate too much independent initiative.
The warlord is impressed with the fighting prowess of the PCs, and wants them for his gladiator pits.
The warlord follows a religion that forbids him from killing prisoners (at least without a trial).
The warlord wants to interrogate them to find out who they are, who they work for, and why they were trying to assassinate him.

Red Fel
2016-11-14, 03:50 PM
Boredom. Depending on the magnitude (and possibly arrogance) of the villain, the PC may have given him the most entertainment he's had in years/centuries/millennia. That gets rewarded with a pass. Of course, if the PCs continue to prove themselves a nuisance, that entertainment gives way to annoyance, and that mercy goes south for the winter.

Suicide. For whatever reason, the villain wants to die. Maybe he is riddled with guilt for his actions. Maybe he is convinced that his utility is expired, his mission accomplished. Maybe he's just bored. He sees the PCs as the ones to do the deed, the ones worthy to end him and his malaise. But he won't go easy on them. Oh, he'll let them live, if they aren't yet ready to stop him. He'll hurt them, though. Make them need to beat him. Through repeatedly crushing them, he will train them to be the warriors worthy of ending his pain.

Both notions are incredibly perverse, but effective. The former makes for a very satisfying victory, while the latter makes for a more tragic figure.

LibraryOgre
2016-11-14, 04:08 PM
Display. In the Roman Republic, captured Kings would be paraded through Rome in the Triumph of the victorious generals, before being executed.

Telonius
2016-11-14, 04:15 PM
- Sow dissension among his enemies. He knows someone is helping the PCs. He captures them, then releases them without much of an explanation. Whatever underground rebellion that the players have been part of, will immediately suspect them. So instead of being a bright shining symbol of resistance, they come under immediate scrutiny, maybe ruining their reputation.

- Kind of a cop-out, but some prophecy requires them to be alive for him to achieve greater power.

- Recruitment. Evil is always hiring, and he wants to see if they're corruptible.

- It's not about the PCs. The BBEG is testing the loyalty of a subordinate in some way. By releasing the PCs (against that subordinate's advice) he hopes to see if said subordinate will follow orders or not.

Aquillion
2016-11-14, 04:27 PM
Remember, it doesn't have to be realistic, it has to have verisimilitude - it just has to feel real and engaging for the players when they're playing. If you do it well enough (and draw on pop-culture), a lot of things can feel very real and satisfying even if they wouldn't actually make sense if you deconstructed them.

So something as simple as having the villain boom "STOP! Take them alive. Mere death is too good for them." or the like does work.

However... there's a bigger problem here that you need to think about. Why are your players doing this? Do they expect to win? Why do they think it's possible for them to win, when you don't? Have you described things accurately? Would their characters realize they're walking to certain defeat?

In general, in a situation like this, you might be better off trying to assess your players' expectations from the game and trying to meet them rather than saying "oh, you'll obviously die here, because the villain's forces are too overwhelming." The villain's forces are whatever you say they are; if you haven't established them as overwhelming previously (and I'd assume you haven't, if the players think they can win) then nothing stops you from adjusting them on the fly into whatever you feel would make a better story.

If the players are insisting on doing something that seems absolutely stupid to you, it might be good to take a break and (perhaps a bit subtly) try and determine why.

(Some people will say "no, no, never adjust things for your players, that's ruining the game!" But the thing is, often, in a case like this... the players will legitimately be able to say "no, wait, wait, stop, my character would have known about this." The game world is built out of unspoken assumptions between the players and the DM - you can't describe absolutely everything - so when the players act with a certain expectation of how their characters see things, it's sometimes best to just roll with it and adjust the world to their assumptions rather than saying "eg. oh, wait, you're stepping there? There's no floor there, just a bottomless pit I forgot to mention. You fall and die.")

Fatty Tosscoble
2016-11-14, 06:27 PM
Villains don't often get anyone that is a match (physically or mentally) to them, and I guess when they get the heroes dead to rights, the villain gets the opportunity to drill home how much more powerful or wise he is.

If I was an evil character and I got to dispatch the king of a vast amount of land, it would feel empty if I just did him in right there. I would first like to explain the various steps and missteps the king had made, and then go over how my plans and power completely nullified any resistance against my various attacks. Then I might feel ready to make his head roll.

I guess villains just want their plans appreciated for a quick moment.

Slipperychicken
2016-11-14, 08:04 PM
There comes a point where this becomes a game killer for me. When DMs have the rules minimizing character deaths.

Yeah, this. I just feel like the GM should just let me lose at some point instead continuing to bend over backwards forever.

Though I feel the issue goes deeper than that. GMs get a lot of pressure to have PCs survive no matter what. Part of that is that players have been encouraged to place huge emotional investments and extremely detailed backstory into each character they make, meaning that whole gaming groups are quite demoralized by any PC death at all.

That, along with campaigns that are tightly tailored to individual PCs, makes it emotionally very difficult to keep playing despite that, which is one reason why we see GMs throwing out whole campaigns after a single party wipe.

MrStabby
2016-11-14, 08:49 PM
Keep them to plant slaad tadpoles in.

Rodimal
2016-11-14, 09:11 PM
The first thing I thought was "They're married"

FocusWolf413
2016-11-14, 10:50 PM
He has a job offer. Why should they fight one another when they would be more powerful together?

Dragonexx
2016-11-14, 11:05 PM
Sacrifice in a dark ritual. (There are rules in the BoVD.)

SirBellias
2016-11-14, 11:50 PM
I have to admit, my first thought was "kill them anyways, casting their souls into Hell, then see if they escape in time to accidently save the day."

But if I truly had to keep them alive, then I'd go either interrogation/bargaining chip/stronger together. Probably not in that order.

Bohandas
2016-11-15, 03:14 AM
A sudden major emergency (such as news of an attack by a rival warlord's army or an actually competent party of adventurers elsewhere in his holdings) necessitates immediate the departure of both the warlord and most of his fighting men. He will return to "deal with this later", leaving the party eitherin the captivity of his remaining men if they've already been subdued, or possibly even leaving entirely otherwise.

Herobizkit
2016-11-15, 06:41 AM
Keep them to plant slaad tadpoles in.You win the thread. GG. ^_^

DigoDragon
2016-11-15, 08:10 AM
The first thing I thought was "They're married"

I want this to be a thing in my next campaign. :smalltongue:


One BBEG I had didn't kill the party because he was the brother to one of the PCs. However, that courtesy only worked as long as the PC was with the party. If anyone confronted the BBEG without the brother then all bets were off.

BlacKnight
2016-11-15, 09:22 AM
Thank you everybody !
The torture option seems like the best option. "How do you dare to challenge me ?!" Classic, but effective.
But then I read this:


The first thing I thought was "They're married"

I haven't said it before, but the warlord is a woman (that makes her a "warlady" ???), so the option of having her being an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend or whatever sounds like a lot of fun.
Well maybe not for the ex-husband :smallbiggrin:
I would talk about this with the players, if nobody takes the privilege (and the burden) of the role I will switch to the good, old torture...

Stealth Marmot
2016-11-15, 09:30 AM
Keep them to plant slaad tadpoles in.

Slaadpoles?

The ex-wife/girlfriend idea is hilarious though. It always is useful for, at the very least, that moment when the rest of the party tun and stare at the party member who was formerly involved with them.

And of course the obligatory "What were you thinking?" "Well it seemed like a good idea at the time."

Cernor
2016-11-15, 10:00 AM
Humiliation and/or intimidation. The warlord wants them alive so she can cripple the party (remove hands/feet/eyes/tongues) and return them to whoever sent them: "These were your supposed 'heroes'. Save yourselves from a similar fate and surrender."

Alright, players generally consider that worse than death. But on the bright side, it might teach them not to pick fights with vastly superior forces in the future!

theMycon
2016-11-15, 10:04 AM
Display. In the Roman Republic, captured Kings would be paraded through Rome in the Triumph of the victorious generals, before being executed.

This is my favorite. I came in here to say "the villain doesn't think of herself as a bad person. Sure, her plans might involve killing millions, but that's abstract. These are face-to-face with people she knows."

But knowing they're gonna be paraded to the chopping block and publicly executed unless they can find some way to escape, that's the kind of thing I'd love as a roleplayer.

Âmesang
2016-11-15, 10:24 AM
Release them with falsified evidence that they're the ones committing the villainous acts?

Joe the Rat
2016-11-15, 12:43 PM
I haven't said it before, but the warlord is a woman (that makes her a "warlady" ???), so the option of having her being an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend or whatever sounds like a lot of fun.
Well maybe not for the ex-husband :smallbiggrin:
I would talk about this with the players, if nobody takes the privilege (and the burden) of the role I will switch to the good, old torture...
Is there anyone in the party that's known for his or her "Downtime Activities?" Do you have a Bard? Start with one of them, and keep it quiet. We don't want to spoil the surprise for everyone else.

Of course, you can always combine this one with the Slaadpoles one.

Sneak Dog
2016-11-15, 12:45 PM
“Something Vimes had learned as a young guard drifted up from memory. If you have to look along the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end, if a man has you entirely at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man. Because the evil like power, power over people, and they want to see you in fear. They want you to know you're going to die. So they'll talk. They'll gloat.

They'll watch you squirm. They'll put off the moment of murder like another man will put off a good cigar.

So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you with hardly a word.”

Other options:
He will try to convince the PC's he's not evil and they should join them. ("I'm raising an army to stop impending doom! There is no time to be nice about it.")
He'll shove them in the direction of a different evil threat. ("You like destroying evil, right? Hmm... I've a rival, really evil too, right up your alley!")
He'll use them in a ritual. (Like one that staves off an impending horde of destruction. All kinds of unpredictable fun.)

Some (often mentioned) motivations:

Honour
Blood bond
Love
Gloating
Show
Negotiation (ransom, trade for other valuable prisoners)
To keep the rivalry going

Stealth Marmot
2016-11-15, 12:57 PM
Of course, you can always combine this one with the Slaadpoles one.

http://i.imgur.com/wOeAV2C.gif

The Fury
2016-11-15, 01:17 PM
Maybe the villain thinks PCs might know something useful? If that were the case a pragmatic villain might keep them around long enough to question them.

Jay R
2016-11-15, 03:27 PM
He has a quest for them, too dangerous to risk any of his minions on.

Or he has a set of items, all cursed, that need to be used to open a great treasure.

Cozzer
2016-11-16, 04:46 AM
Hmm... honestly, the torture option doesn't sound very interesting, since the players can't do anything until something comes up to save them. I mean, if they can escape on their own from the main villain's super fortress, it's not much less ridiculous than them winning agains all the villain's soldier. So it would be, "well, your characters spend X time being tortured until thing Y happens and they have a chance to escape". Meh.

(Unless you intend to spend a significant amount of real-life time to describe the characters being tortured, asking "what do you do" while the players are powerless to change things and everything they try fails, which in my opinion is the worst thing a GM can do ever)

I think sending the PCs on a dangerous mission or to deal with another threat(after using some magic/blackmail to ensure they can't betray the warlady) would be the best option, but it depends on what the villain's situation is. What's the warlady's goal? What are the things she must overcome? Are the PCs strong enough that it would be valuable for her to use them rather than just dispose of them? Adjust the villain's circumstances so that her decision makes sense in-universe, and anything can be ok.

This way, the characters have a mission AND they must find a way to double-cross the villain before the mission is over, or she will dispose of them for reals.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-11-16, 05:40 AM
Disposable minions. The warlord has something he needs (relatively) high-level minions to do but can't spare any of her own men, so she holds two of the party hostage, and demands the other two get it done and get it done quick if they want their friends to be -mostly- in one piece when they get back. (You can decide if she's as good as her word or if she's just going to murder them all once they've outlived their usefulness should they comply and fail to escape in the interim).

Cozzer
2016-11-16, 06:15 AM
I advise against the "taking two of the party hostage" part, since it means telling to two players "hey guys, you don't need to show up for the next X sessions, also your characters might die depending on the actions of the other players and you don't get a say in this". The villain could force the characters at swordpoint to accept a magical contract (or something like that) that gives her the power to kill them by snapping her fingers. Now the characters have to do missions and find a way to break the contract without dying, all without giving the villain any reason to just snap her fingers and kill them.

Flickerdart
2016-11-16, 01:32 PM
Hmm... honestly, the torture option doesn't sound very interesting, since the players can't do anything until something comes up to save them. I mean, if they can escape on their own from the main villain's super fortress, it's not much less ridiculous than them winning agains all the villain's soldier. So it would be, "well, your characters spend X time being tortured until thing Y happens and they have a chance to escape". Meh.
Why are they in the superfortress? A warlord can be in lots of places. On the campaign trail, it might be that a wooden picket is all you've got.

And sneaking through a fortress is a lot easier than fighting lots and lots of people. Supermax prisons have been escaped by guys who wouldn't last a second in a fight with a single guard, never mind the whole place.

BlacKnight
2016-11-16, 02:46 PM
Using the PCs as minions is indeed the most interesting option, but I don't know how to put it in the game in a not ridicolous way.
The problem is that the PCs are the perfect definition of murderhobos, so controlling them is basically impossible.
A magical contract could solve this issue, but it would open a can of worms: why isn't every evil lord using such contracts on his minions ? In this particular case the party has already captured and interrogated multiple minions and some of them had betrayed their boss for the PCs ! They even knew that some of the warlady liutenants could have betrayed her (but they didn't try to contact them because... I don't know)
The contract has to be something that is not suitable for long hires.
Maybe if it operates like a time bomb it could works. A long delay poison could serve the purpose.

Although it's not really necessary, given that a series of natural disasters is going to hit the area and the warlady doesn't know it, so the escape option is not far fetched (the reason they not waited for such disasters before attacking is beyond me).

Garimeth
2016-11-16, 02:54 PM
Using the PCs as minions is indeed the most interesting option, but I don't know how to put it in the game in a not ridicolous way.
The problem is that the PCs are the perfect definition of murderhobos, so controlling them is basically impossible.
A magical contract could solve this issue, but it would open a can of worms: why isn't every evil lord using such contracts on his minions ? In this particular case the party has already captured and interrogated multiple minions and some of them had betrayed their boss for the PCs ! They even knew that some of the warlady liutenants could have betrayed her (but they didn't try to contact them because... I don't know)
The contract has to be something that is not suitable for long hires.
Maybe if it operates like a time bomb it could works. A long delay poison could serve the purpose.

Although it's not really necessary, given that a series of natural disasters is going to hit the area and the warlady doesn't know it, so the escape option is not far fetched (the reason they not waited for such disasters before attacking is beyond me).

So serious question: why not just kill them?

I assumed it was because a party wipe could kill the campaign, but that's rarely the case with murderhobo groups, so why not just kill them? They made a bad decision, so let them suffer the consequences.

Flickerdart
2016-11-16, 04:40 PM
A magical contract could solve this issue, but it would open a can of worms: why isn't every evil lord using such contracts on his minions ? In this particular case the party has already captured and interrogated multiple minions and some of them had betrayed their boss for the PCs ! They even knew that some of the warlady liutenants could have betrayed her (but they didn't try to contact them because... I don't know)
How about this - the magical contract must be specific and binds both parties.

Specific: "Serve me" is too vague to be enforceable, and also sucks for your story, since the PCs now become pawns of the bad guy. Stacking legalese just gives you a "partial fulfillment" result. This contract can only do specific things, and the vaguer the instructions, the less binding. This is useless for minions, because you want minions serving you in many different ways. Alternatively, the minions are under the contract, but because of its vagueness, they can betray the warlord in some ways.

Bilateral: Any evil lord worth their salt promises much and delivers little. That's just good economic sense! While the PCs may be willing to sign under duress (your reward - your pathetic lives!) that doesn't really work when recruiting the general population. The villain must promise his minions something, be it wealth, power, or revenge, and failing to deliver could lead to magically enforced suffering.

Nero24200
2016-11-16, 05:13 PM
Weird idea - kill them anyway.

The villain wants to enact some dark ritual which involves several sacrifices. The details for this ritual are taken from an old tomb and condemn the sacrificed souls to a demi-plan similar to hell, but more suited to the villain's desires. Maybe the souls grant him power while present there.

A miss-translation of the older texts causes a strange side-effect in that the PC's retain their levels, skills and any equipment they had when killed whilst in this plane, allowing them a chance to escape.

Maybe for added effect have them find their old, murdered corpses when they return the material plane.

Edit: Cleared some spelling mistakes.

Flickerdart
2016-11-16, 05:20 PM
Weird idea - kill them anyway.

The villain wants to enact some dark ritual which involves several sacrifices. The details for this ritual are taken from an old tomb and condemn the sacrificed souls to a demi-plan similar to hell, but more suited to the villain's desires. Maybe the souls grant him power while present there.

A miss-translation of the older texts causes a strange side-effect in that the PC's retain their levels, skills and any equipment they had when killed whilst in this plane, allowing them a chance to escape.

Maybe for added effect have them find their old, murdered corpses when they return the material plane.

Edit: Cleared some spelling mistakes.

Or the mistranslation are that the PCs are not killed - instead of their souls being sent to the Hells, their bodies are too! Something like the backlash on the Fires of Dis (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm#firesofDis) incantation.

Now they have to break out of Cania or whatever.

Efrate
2016-11-17, 12:40 AM
You described them as murderhobos, with murderhobo behavior, and you want to save them? I'd say nope. Kill them. If they are your normal generic murderhobos they have little value to anyone but themselves, barring maybe someone who wants murderhobos to murderhobo something away from them. And your warlord doesn't seem to have this issue if he beat them in the first place. They die. They chose their path, these are the consequences.

As a DM I am a big fan of consequence of actions. I give leeway to new players, early levels, etc., but if they have been doing nothing to minimize their risk, then wake up call. They do not exist in a vacuum if you want any verisimilitude in your setting. Let the dice fall as they will. They die. Roll up something new, either continuing the campaign or starting something different. You can't hand hold players forever.

BlacKnight
2016-11-17, 09:05 AM
In defense of the PCs I have to say that it was a fluid situation: they were making a mess in the area, freeing and arming slaves, killing guards and sabotaging stuff. I'm not sure if they noticed the moment they went to further. What is really strange is that in their previous confrontation with the villain they escaped almost immediately. But this reminds me that they have an item that the warlady would like to have.

So my plan could be something like this:
1) They are defeated. Maybe some of them die. It happens often, what I want to avoid is a TPK.
2) When they are conducted in the presence of the warlady I use the "do you know her ?" line from Dungeon World. I always wanted to use it, but I never had the opportunity.
3) The McGuffin is cited and they agree to deliver it for their lives.
4) If points 2 and 3 both take place a cooperation is not to be excluded. Otherwise they should at least gain time for a chance to escape.
5) If points 2 and 3 fail both they are tortured. They take some penalties, but they still have a chance to escape.
6) If they fail to escape, or make a mess when they have to deliver the McGuffin or whatever they are sacrified in a dark ritual. Escaping from hell seems interesting.

Jay R
2016-11-17, 10:59 AM
In defense of the PCs I have to say that it was a fluid situation: they were making a mess in the area, freeing and arming slaves, ...

Oh. In that case, they should be saved by an army of freed slaves.

Action have consequences. Even good actions.

Garimeth
2016-11-17, 11:34 AM
Oh. In that case, they should be saved by an army of freed slaves.

Action have consequences. Even good actions.

I agree. If I were DMing I would either have the freed slaves show up mid fight (when the first PC drops) to cover their escape and give them a chance to retrieve their wounded if they are quick/clever

OR

I would have the slaves freed them after they get captured. Maybe the warlord wants to question them later in case they know anything useful or thinks they might be working for a rival. Let's you give some plot exposition if that's needed. Alternatively you could have the slaves give some plot points they learned while in captivity.

FreddyNoNose
2016-11-17, 07:41 PM
Yeah, this. I just feel like the GM should just let me lose at some point instead continuing to bend over backwards forever.

Though I feel the issue goes deeper than that. GMs get a lot of pressure to have PCs survive no matter what. Part of that is that players have been encouraged to place huge emotional investments and extremely detailed backstory into each character they make, meaning that whole gaming groups are quite demoralized by any PC death at all.

That, along with campaigns that are tightly tailored to individual PCs, makes it emotionally very difficult to keep playing despite that, which is one reason why we see GMs throwing out whole campaigns after a single party wipe.
I tell people to not make background as it will be explored. Too many people try to pull BS with their background that I just won't approve of. Plus, if you die in the first game you will have wasted your time. Plus they don't know my world so they will have problems matching it.

It depends on how you define a campaign. I think of it as my multiverse. One group is dead another one appears and it may have nothing to do with the first one. It is like when you run multiple groups in the game, it is a campaign but it is also the world. They are not on the same page. It isn't like a military campaign to take out the enemy.

If the PCs all die in the hill giant steading and roll new characters, they are not forced by me to continue that. Suppose they go off to a place far from it, it is still the same campaign.

Herobizkit
2016-11-17, 08:38 PM
The PC's are used as guinea pigs to test the villain's new Portal ritual. Gotta make sure it works. Also, make sure you come back... hate to crush your village/parents/whatever while you're gone.

MadBear
2016-11-17, 11:00 PM
Are any of the previous PC any more to blame for what happened then any other? If so, maybe pull a Negan from walking dead and just kill a few of the PC's in front of their friends. Then humiliate the others by taking all their gear, breaking the stuff that the big bad won't use right in front of them (throwing rations down the drain, breaking their trinkets, and then send them on their way penniless to tell the world of the big bad's "Mercy".

Have the rest roll new characters, and now you have a villain that the entire group will really really hate. (bonus, have the new PC's be one of the former slaves who are finally freed by the PC's earlier actions)

Hawkstar
2016-11-18, 01:20 AM
My favorite option in this sort of situation is always "Kill them, then forget to double-tap." They wake up a few hours or days later in a half-assed mass grave, and can get back on with the adventure. Meanwhile - the warlord's managed to succeed in several plans along the way.

Kane0
2016-11-18, 02:19 AM
Oh she does kill them. But thats not all.

As soon as theyre dead she brings them over to her/her priest's/her necromancer's altar/workbench and brings them back.
Congratulations, PCs! You are now powerful undead minions in the service of the warlordess/her best caster henchman, and your first task is to reveal all you know/remember about her enemies. Then after that your next job is to replace those you killed, fighting against your previous allies or being deployed as a special squad if elites to foil your old allies' plans.
The only way out if this is if the one that controls you dies, leaving you a free willed undead...

Edit: If you're feeling particularly... merciful... You can leave them on the brink of death and geas them instead of bringing them back as undead for the same effect. Remember to allow the occasional save or some other way out to keep things interesting.

Bohandas
2016-11-18, 02:44 AM
*he needs someone to test a new spell or magic item on.

*He is going to force the wizard to build something for him

*slaves for the cinnabar mines

*out of spells

*easier to make them walk to where he plans to dispose of their corpses

*public torture to make an example of them

*the warlord wants to kill the cleric near the temple of the warlord's deity so that he might be shielded from the prying eyes of the cleric's deity

*the warlord follows the same deity as the party's cleric

Segev
2016-11-18, 02:12 PM
Thank you everybody !
The torture option seems like the best option. "How do you dare to challenge me ?!" Classic, but effective.
But then I read this:



I haven't said it before, but the warlord is a woman (that makes her a "warlady" ???), so the option of having her being an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend or whatever sounds like a lot of fun.
Well maybe not for the ex-husband :smallbiggrin:
I would talk about this with the players, if nobody takes the privilege (and the burden) of the role I will switch to the good, old torture...

Even if she's not the ex-girlfriend of one of the PCs, you could always go for "bathe him and send him to my chambers." She keeps the others - the ones she's NOT interested in as conquests of a less martial nature - as hostages to the compliance of her new toys.

Flickerdart
2016-11-18, 03:06 PM
Even if she's not the ex-girlfriend of one of the PCs, you could always go for "bathe him and send him to my chambers." She keeps the others - the ones she's NOT interested in as conquests of a less martial nature - as hostages to the compliance of her new toys.

You could also make it a not-sex thing - there are plenty of examples of conquerors keeping learned or skilled people captive to enjoy their knowledge/performances/fruits of their labour. If one of the PCs can crack a joke, the warlord may keep 'em around for the entertainment value.

Inevitability
2016-11-18, 03:37 PM
You could also make it a not-sex thing - there are plenty of examples of conquerors keeping learned or skilled people captive to enjoy their knowledge/performances/fruits of their labour. If one of the PCs can crack a joke, the warlord may keep 'em around for the entertainment value.

Now I'm imagining a caster somehow kept from casting high-level spells whose only purpose is providing Prestidigitation-fueled entertainment.

Of course, any self-respecting PC would be able to escape with a few Prestidigitations.

RazorChain
2016-11-18, 10:20 PM
Simple, she wins.

The characters that survive get enslaved like the other slaves she has. The characters get sent to the mines, chained up and 1 year later when they finally get a chance to escape the warlady has achieved her evil plans.

Lemmy
2016-11-20, 12:34 PM
She could intend to use them in some sort of experiment... Resident Evil style!

The PCs therefore have a few days in prison to plan an enact their escape while the last batch of test subjects is being processed. This gives the villain a good excuse to keep them around and the players a chance to act... They might lose some or all of their gear, though...

Honest Tiefling
2016-11-24, 02:00 PM
Take the lazy third option!

The BBEG -wants- to kill these murder hobos getting in her way. However, she has a traitorous general who smuggles the PCs out. He or she is hellbent on revenge on the BBEG, so they replaced the party with some rando prisoners. Yes, the prisoners did die, but you're free, aren't you grateful? Now, help me with my plan if you want to get out of this mess.

Of course, they'll want to kill their new ally, which is fine, they could be presented as just as villainous as the Warlady herself, and could be a potential motivation (such as black magic or the worship of an evil deity) that might cause some concerns. But hey, they're alive!

FabulousFizban
2016-11-24, 04:00 PM
Killing them would be a waste of assets. They clearly have grit, perhaps they can be useful in furthering the warlords plans, even if unwittingly MWAHAHAHAHA!

Segev
2016-11-24, 05:30 PM
She did have them killed. Somebody else had them resurrected. What is their expected recompense for this generous gift, and how will they make sure they get it?

Efrate
2016-11-24, 07:22 PM
The someone else coukd be a minion of the warlords for double bluff stuff. Hunting sedition in the ranks unknowingly is a good use if you insist on handholding the pcs.

Kane0
2016-11-24, 08:43 PM
Take the lazy third option!

The BBEG -wants- to kill these murder hobos getting in her way. However, she has a traitorous general who smuggles the PCs out. He or she is hellbent on revenge on the BBEG, so they replaced the party with some rando prisoners. Yes, the prisoners did die, but you're free, aren't you grateful? Now, help me with my plan if you want to get out of this mess.

Of course, they'll want to kill their new ally, which is fine, they could be presented as just as villainous as the Warlady herself, and could be a potential motivation (such as black magic or the worship of an evil deity) that might cause some concerns. But hey, they're alive!

Lesser of two evils, I like it.

Flickerdart
2016-11-24, 09:57 PM
Lesser of two evils, I like it.

Why does it have to be the lesser of two evils? The traitorous general can be a whole lot worse.

Kane0
2016-11-24, 11:22 PM
I never said which one was the lesser.:smallamused:

propheticsteel
2016-11-28, 12:36 AM
BBEG secretly in love with party leader!

Joe the Rat
2016-11-28, 11:20 AM
A slight twist on the "Bathe Him" option, but an interesting one.

This does require the party to have a bit of a reputation, or a hereto unknown bit of overlapping backstory. She's fallen for some aspect of the character from afar (deeds, reputation, description/images of his dashing handsome symmetrical specific looks, and taken the opportunity to get access to her Elsinore. With a little conversation, and explaining the great works of her campaign, she will try to show him the error of his ways, and bring him to the right side of the conflict. The rest of the party is kept alive as collateral/a show of good faith.

But Og help me, I can't keep the shojou-esque "I hope senpai will like me" away from this in my head.

Flickerdart
2016-11-28, 12:59 PM
But Og help me, I can't keep the shojou-esque "I hope senpai will like me" away from this in my head.

I hope senpai will like me, or I will have to start breaking bones, perhaps?

Segev
2016-11-28, 02:35 PM
An my favorite game rears its head again. I find it interesting that the villain trying to talk the heroine into joining his side comes off as the one with the power over her, despite obviously wanting her approval and good opinion, with the potential implication that he might stop caring about her willingness if she doesn't cooperate. But "I hope sempai will notice/like me" has more of a sense that the hero has the power over the villainess; he can refuse, and his refusal somehow carries more weight, unless she's yandere about it.

For those not aware from prior postings on this topic, what I term "my favorite game" in these contexts is gender-flipping entire stories/scenes, making only the bare minimum replacements required to avoid things that turn it into "ludicrous comedy" - guys in dresses/pregnant guys, bald women or women with beards, etc. - but leaving everything else the same. Then watch to see how the cultural expectations shift. How things you didn't even bat an eye at suddenly strike you as odd, or disturbing, or unacceptable.

Love Hina was the first real example I played this out in my mind with, and holy cow does the "comedic" violence of Naru on Keitaro take on a much more horrifying tone when male Naru is rocket-punching female Keitaro for walking in on him while he's in the hot tub. Especially given how Keitaro begs for forgiveness while Naru glares death and winds up the punch.

Joe the Rat
2016-11-28, 02:35 PM
That's fine. It's the ridiculous shyness and blushing that seems ridiculous here. And tea cakes.

@Segev You make a good point. I need to have more ridiculous shy crushing warlords.

Segev
2016-11-28, 02:40 PM
That's fine. It's the ridiculous shyness and blushing that seems ridiculous here. And tea cakes.

@Segev You make a good point. I need to have more ridiculous shy crushing warlords.

Given that a brainy nerd bent on world domination who can put on a Lord Dark Helmet costume to feign confidence would be a believable Evil Overlord type... that could be done rather believably. Poindexter Osuvillain could be the tongue-tied crushing nerd around Hera Lynn Athletica the athletic heroine...but gain confidence when focused on his nerdgasming goal of world conquest (and the finer points of political machination/military strategy/doomsday device development).

Flickerdart
2016-11-28, 03:17 PM
@Segev You make a good point. I need to have more ridiculous shy crushing warlords.

That's basically Kylo Ren's entire character, isn't it? Terrifying Sith Lord in the streets, barely able to hold himself together when talking to a girl/his dad/his leader/anybody at all, really.

Segev
2016-11-28, 03:19 PM
That's basically Kylo Ren's entire character, isn't it? Terrifying Sith Lord in the streets, barely able to hold himself together when talking to a girl/his dad/his leader/anybody at all, really.

He's more Shinji where Gendo was a distant figure he idolized and was convinced WANTED him to live up to being Gendo.

LibraryOgre
2016-11-29, 11:58 AM
An my favorite game rears its head again. I find it interesting that the villain trying to talk the heroine into joining his side comes off as the one with the power over her, despite obviously wanting her approval and good opinion, with the potential implication that he might stop caring about her willingness if she doesn't cooperate. But "I hope sempai will notice/like me" has more of a sense that the hero has the power over the villainess; he can refuse, and his refusal somehow carries more weight, unless she's yandere about it.


Welcome to my secret lair on Skullcrusher Mountain... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_ryNJVreiY)

Braininthejar2
2016-11-29, 01:28 PM
I like the experiments idea. Surely the player characters are much more durable than the normally available slaves. - The warlord's mad scientist tends to cause a couple D6 accidental damage when he tries new grafts, and commoners just can't take it...

The party will have to figure out how to escape, before they end up with a template they didn't consider for their build...

bulbaquil
2016-11-29, 08:19 PM
Several people have mentioned rituals, but I would add:

The villain does intend to kill them, but wants to do so as a ritual sacrifice that, for various arcane reasons, must be done at a certain time (e.g. the full moon) and it isn't that time yet.

Green Elf
2016-11-29, 08:43 PM
Punish them do much they would rather be dead.

Cernor
2016-11-30, 12:06 PM
“Something Vimes had learned as a young guard drifted up from memory. If you have to look along the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end, if a man has you entirely at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man. Because the evil like power, power over people, and they want to see you in fear. They want you to know you're going to die. So they'll talk. They'll gloat.

They'll watch you squirm. They'll put off the moment of murder like another man will put off a good cigar.

So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you with hardly a word.”

I was thinking about this quotation and had an interesting, if not unique, revelation. What if the villain is ruthlessly pragmatic, or simply doesn't have the stomach for torture? Screams of pain are so irritating, after all. So their enemies are taken alive, manacled to the walls of a circular chamberh, and the interrogation goes something like this:

BBEG: "I know you have information about Thing X. Tell me what you know and I can guarantee you will be treated fairly. Perhaps even released unharmed."

If they say "I'll never tell you anything!" (and stick to that after being asked "are you sure?"), their throat is cut and the villain moves on to the next person. The key part is, people who give enough relevant information get their own cell, bucket and all! If they're helpful enough, they might even get given non-gruel food!

This sets up an interesting situation where they meet a well-fed and fit prisoner, who gave up information to help the BBEG's plot: do they give in and are treated similarly well (until their hometown is conquered and they are released), or do they defend their loved ones at the cost of their own lives?

LibraryOgre
2016-11-30, 12:09 PM
Alternative solution: Complete Deus ex Machina change.

"You're fighting when the floor begins to creak. Everyone make a reflex save.... Bill, you can substitute Acrobatics, since you're trained."

They fall through the floor into an unexplored tomb or temple complex beneath the palace. There's still a few living guards, but people are wounded and they have a bit of respite from being followed. But they also don't have most of their gear (maybe), and are in the middle of an unmapped complex, with the only way out being 200 feet above them and in the middle of the enemy.

"It is very dark. You may be eaten by a grue."

Stealth Marmot
2016-11-30, 12:50 PM
"It is very dark. You may be eaten by a grue."

Ways out are North, South, East, and Dennis.

Flickerdart
2016-11-30, 02:00 PM
If they say "I'll never tell you anything!" (and stick to that after being asked "are you sure?"), their throat is cut and the villain moves on to the next person. The key part is, people who give enough relevant information get their own cell, bucket and all! If they're helpful enough, they might even get given non-gruel food!
That's a stupid idea. The whole point of torture is that you are convincing stubborn people to give up info only they know, with the threat of not only death, but prolonged agony. The only thing you are getting from this exercise are the drawbacks of torture - people who are afraid will tell you what they think you want to hear, and even people who do know something will quickly start making things up if they think that they haven't told you enough.

Consider these two scenarios:

Bad dude: Give me the password to the vault!
Captain of the guard: No.
Captain of the guard dies. Nobody else knew the password. The bad dude can't get in.

Bad dude: You bring food down to the dungeons. Who is guarding the cave?
Cook: I don't know! I only know that it's something big and meat-eating!
Bad dude: Are you sure? I'll kill you if you don't tell me.
Cook: Okay okay! It's an ogre!
The cook didn't actually know, and made something up on the fly. The soldiers sent down expected an ogre, but met a troll and were eaten.

If proper torture is used, the bad dude may have been able to obtain the password eventually, but this crappy method lost the chance forever. If no threat of violence at all was used, the soldiers would have approached more carefully, and survived. This method messed up on both accounts.

Cernor
2016-11-30, 03:18 PM
That's a stupid idea. The whole point of torture is that you are convincing stubborn people to give up info only they know, with the threat of not only death, but prolonged agony. The only thing you are getting from this exercise are the drawbacks of torture - people who are afraid will tell you what they think you want to hear, and even people who do know something will quickly start making things up if they think that they haven't told you enough.

Consider these two scenarios:

Bad dude: Give me the password to the vault!
Captain of the guard: No.
Captain of the guard dies. Nobody else knew the password. The bad dude can't get in.

However, it's been proven that torture, no matter how painful, has the exact same problem. If they'll say anything to make the pain stop, that's what they'll do, regardless of whether or not what they say is true. I don't have a link on me, but while reading the US army guide to interrogations, it makes it clear that carrots work better than sticks, which is why skilled interrogators start a dialogue (and offer rewards) instead of just asking questions (and/or torturing people).

In the example of the captain of the guard, a vault which only one person knows the combination to is a bad idea anyway. He gets cholera and dies? Oops. Falls down the stairs and breaks his neck? Oops. Gets killed in battle? Oops. The better interrogation method would be:
"I respect your devotion to your country, but I must get into the vault under the castle. Yes, I know about the vault. I know about the traps and alarms leading to it, and I know how to disable them. You have a reputation for caring about your men: if I get the combination, I can open the vault and be gone before your men arrive. I take what I need, nobody dies, and you can safely return to your men once this all blows over. So will you give me the combination and save your men?" Even if his response is "No, and if you kill me you'll never get inside, because only I know the combination", then the BBEG now knows that if he kills the captain of the guard, his enemies can't get in the vault either. Which could be a win/win, depending on what else is in the vault.

As far as the cook is concerned... Why bother asking what's guarding the dungeons when it would be easier to ask how the cook doesn't get eaten alive every time he goes to feed the prisoners? It doesn't matter if it's an ogre, troll, hydra, or Tarrasque guarding the prison if it can be bypassed by tossing it a suitably large chunk of meat.

LibraryOgre
2016-11-30, 03:55 PM
So, on the topic of torture, Hackmaster actually takes this into account. Depending on how well you roll, someone who is being tortured is more likely to provide false information... so that even if you succeed, they're going to be lying to you at least a little bit... and since every torture session causes damage, and too much torture can kill them from stress, torture is a problematic skill to invest in.

Segev
2016-11-30, 04:08 PM
*sigh* Honestly, the idea that torture never works because people just make things up to escape it is a canard. One that is interesting because it works on a half-investigated level. What I mean by that is that if you don't think about it too hard at all, "People will tell you what they know to avoid torture" is the straight-forward assumption and conclusion.

The half-thought-through level is where this belief arises: "But the torturer doesn't know if he's telling the truth or not, and if the torturer isn't going to stop until he gets information he can use, the victim knows he just has to say SOMETHING he HOPES the torturer will believe to make it stop. They'll say what they think the torturer wants to hear."

That's good reasoning, as far as it goes. In fact, it's probably true for a lot of torture situations, because thugs using "tell me or I smash in your face" are not really what one might call "skilled" torturers.

But where this becomes a falsehood is when it is applied to all torture situations. A skilled torturer, one engaged in the fine art of breaking somebody to one degree or another, knows how to work around these weaknesses.

Because that's what torture really is about: breaking somebody until they are too afraid to lie to you. At all. The notion of telling you something false they think you want to hear terrifies them, because they are too afraid you'll know, and they are more afraid of the consequences of having lied than of disappointing the torturer with their lack of knowledge.

Pain is only a part of it; it's deeply psychological. But some of the basic tactics include asking questions wherein you know the answer to most of them already. After running through a whole set, simply inform the victim whether he lied or told the truth. Don't tell him on which subject he lied; he knows at least one of them. (And, if he doesn't, he becomes more afraid of giving a false sense of confidence.)

Another is to ask testable questions, and do offer the promised relief when they talk. But if their intel was wrong, you make sure they know that the resumed torture session is not ending until you decide it is, because they lost their chance to avoid it when they lied.

Mix in the various brainwashing/psychological manipulation techniques used to engender Stockholm Syndrome, and it is quite possible to break enough prisoners to the point where they'll tell you, truthfully (to the best of their knowledge), what you want to know.

In the anime Magi: the Labyrinth of Magic, the character Morgianna is initially a slave. Even when it looks like it's painfully obvious she should have every reason to believe her master dead and beyond ability to punish her, she remains loyal to him. Despite his horrific abuse and her obvious hatred and fear of him.

It's because he gave her many opportunities to "escape." Chances she thought were legitimate. And each time, he had a trap waiting for the moment she thought she was finally free, where he would snap her back up and gloat...and punish her EVEN MORE severely than his normal abuse for her attempt. To the point where she was unable to believe that any possible glimpse of freedom wasn't just another of his tricks.

Numerous times, she betrayed people who promised her help in achieving freedom if she'd help them, went back to her master rather than taking an obvious path to freedom, and even waited around when the audience had every reason to believe she should think he's dead and gone, because she didn't believe she COULD be free. That anything she did to achieve freedom wouldn't result in him closing a trap and punishing her for it.

That's what the "right" kind of torture can achieve.

Torture is not merely practiced because people are cruel. It's a tool that CAN be used very effectively by those willing to engage in it.

It's only the thug version of "talk or I inflict pain," which doesn't go beyond that level of sophistication, which gives any validity to the "torture doesn't work because they just make something up they think you want to hear" notion.

Flickerdart
2016-11-30, 04:12 PM
However, it's been proven that torture, no matter how painful, has the exact same problem.
I address this in my post. Torture has drawbacks and advantages. Your method discards the advantages, and retains only the drawbacks.

You then go on to nitpick my examples rather than address the issue with your proposal that they illustrate, which does not warrant a response.

D+1
2016-11-30, 05:10 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1TmeBd9338

That's why.

Cernor
2016-11-30, 05:52 PM
It's only the thug version of "talk or I inflict pain," which doesn't go beyond that level of sophistication, which gives any validity to the "torture doesn't work because they just make something up they think you want to hear" notion.

This is a fair point, and I'm willing to concede that I wasn't thinking about torture in the same way as you when I made my statement - my train of thought followed the line of this being something happening to PCs, and torture in TTRPGs is generally best not used on the PCs.



I address this in my post. Torture has drawbacks and advantages. Your method discards the advantages, and retains only the drawbacks.

You then go on to nitpick my examples rather than address the issue with your proposal that they illustrate, which does not warrant a response.

I agree that torture has advantages and drawbacks if performed properly: Segev provides a more than adequate example of that. However, I was thinking about a villain who fits the Pratchett definition of "a good man": someone who doesn't enjoy drawing out killing people, so dispatches them once he's sure they can't (or won't) be helpful to their cause. This person might see torture methods as ignoble, or that they take too long and is working on a tight schedule, or is morally opposed to them... Many reasons exist why someone wouldn't torture people, even when said person is supposed to be a heinous villain. And reviewing my post, I realize that I didn't proofread as well as I should have. "Ruthlessly pragmatic, but doesn't have the stomach for torture" is closer to my intention: someone for whom actually bringing out the rack, staging escapes, and so on is not an option and needs to rely on more modern interrogation techniques.

In the event that the PCs are captured and the GM (and/or players) don't want to sit through either a handwave "He tortures you relentlessly until you break" or multiple sessions of actually RPing torture, how would you do it? My intention was to provide a situation in which the PCs could be captured but still have a degree of agency: in your experience, would most players enjoy having this sort of conundrum, or would they not care? Would this be a difficult decision many people you've played with in the past?

EDIT: I suppose one of the issues is that I see this as fundamentally different to the villain saying "tell me what you know or I kill you", but am having problems explaining exactly why. I guess the difference (in my mind) is that it's a more rational approach: instead of deliberately using the threat of death as a scare tactic, it's more to emphasize that the villain simply doesn't care about the prisoners' lives.

Bohandas
2016-12-01, 02:08 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1TmeBd9338

That's why.

Raise you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xAMYHJYesM#t=01m16s (warning: I think scott swears in part of this clip prior to the point I've cued it up to)