All the enemies are dead except the boss who says he surrenders, what do you do? [Archive]

mehs

2020-10-21, 08:20 AM

If an exalted level paladin: accept any and all attempts to surrender. You can be smart about it and not give them an opening to backstab, but have to accept.

If normal level paladin: if you are reasonably confident it isn't a trick, or at least there is reasonable chance of the surrender being genuine, you have to accept the surrender. If the guy is obviously about to backstab you as soon as your spells wear off, then you can refuse the surrender, but preferably just reduce his capacity to backstab (chains, removing spell components and other such accessories) and in extreme cases de-limbing them (though you would need to regenerate them after they are in proper custody).

If good aligned: Should accept the surrender if it is reasonably possible. Failure to accept the surrender might result in alignment penalties depending on exact circumstances.

If neutral or evil: go nuts.

It always struck me as incredibly two-faced and a bad case of protagonist-centered morality for just the boss to live because they're 'important' in some way. They get the same moral consideration their minions got. So if everyone else lays dead, they can join their men shortly. The paladin should have no problem with this, given how he didn't have an issue with the rest of the killings.

That would be relevant if the villain was trying to argue that the paladin shouldn't kill him because "Killing people is wrong uwu". In this case, the villain is surrendering. ANYONE who surrenders should preferably be taken prisoner if at all possible. If the mooks are so void of personality that none of them try surrendering when they are about to die, with the main villain seemingly being the only one capable of surrendering, then that is just bad GM'ing.

eyebreaker7

2020-10-21, 09:14 AM

Okay, so we're not talking "Sauron in Numenor" here.

Nope just a bandit hideout like they have in NwN2.

Saintheart

2020-10-21, 09:25 AM

Assess current WBL, cast Detect Magic, judge the strength of the auras, and decide whether he lives or dies accordingly.

Eldonauran

2020-10-21, 10:04 AM

Unless there is an expedient way to safely and securely return the BBEG to authorities that are capable of holding them, my blade is justice and my sentence is death. "Surrendering" is not going to spare your life. It is merely going to give me the choice to spare your life or not. And that depends entirely on the circumstances.

Venger

2020-10-21, 10:33 AM

Kill him. ten characters

MaxiDuRaritry

2020-10-21, 11:02 AM

As others have said, it depends entirely on the character I'm playing, the situation at hand, whether or not the antagonist can be trusted (even a little bit) to keep his/her/its word (fiends and illithids are right out, for instance), whether I'm there to kill or capture, whether there's any way to enforce the surrender, my character's relationship to the antagonist (family murderers get what's coming to them), whether there's a chance that the villain MAY be innocent of things actually worth killing him/her/it for, whether or not there's some seriously time-sensitive problems that could end with mass destruction (or worse), if there's actually a legal entity that actually has authority over the situation, whether someone in the party actually has the authority to hold a trial or pronounce sentence, if the antagonist has already been tried/escaped/has a kill order by a legal authority, etc.

Note that killing said boss doesn't necessarily mean you don't accept the surrender; at mid to high levels, it could simply be a way to ensure the antagonist is neutralized prior to being turned over. Resurrection is a possibility, and it can even be quite cheap (read: nearly free) if you know how.

noob

2020-10-21, 11:15 AM

Deal 9999999 non lethal damage then bring them in a redeemery?

denthor

2020-10-21, 11:32 AM

I will not be the paladin.

But since most of my characters have a chaotic good or neutral good bent. The last 3 rode the line to CN/N very closely.

I cease my attack then look at the paladin.
Surrender to me specifically as
Valmont Ng cleric/thief. I will not attack or defend you. Until after you disarm.

Holly Cg/n 6 fighter/ 4 thief/3 mage. Provide beer to prove your word.

Nightshade 11th wizard 1/2 blue orc. Cg/n. Surrender is not smart with this group. Your better off accepting my spells with out knowing what they are. fighter/villain/ one other. 5 teleports later we turn over to city gaurd.

NE Hobgoblin cleric. You may surrender it does not mean you live. Are you a worshiper of St. Cuthburt?

Jay R

2020-10-21, 03:55 PM

Somebody who has surrendered is a prisoner. I will never play a character evil enough to kill a prisoner. That's simple murder.

There are some characters who might have the authority to hold a trial. If the party has one, and an immediate, fair, and just trial is held, and if the prisoner is found legitimately guilty, then I have no inherent problem with executing a condemned prisoner.

[Note that "being on the other side in a war" is not a capital offence, and neither is "trying to take over the world". But if he has committed horrible and specific war crimes, like for instance killing prisoners indiscriminately, then execution might be in order.]

GrayDeath

2020-10-21, 04:29 PM

Lets jsut answer with my 3 recentmost characters.

From oldest to yongest:

Elven Wizard/Sage, very nonviolent and if he was D&D probably true neutral with a good bend.
Arrest him, quickly get rid of him by delivering him to proper authorities. But before that investigate if he has interesting magical stuff when we bind him.

Lawful Evil Warforged Warblade/Rogue on the path to conquering a World:
Get the Thrallherd to make him a Thrall, get him to show us where all his Groups stuff is, maybe keep him if useful, otherwise deliver to authorities after a memory wipe (after all, officially we are very much the Law/Enforcers of it here^^).

Rather pragmatic if rage-tropubled Warlock (CN tending N): Depends. Did his guys kill one of us, hurt me personally, or deplete truly important ressources? Then I kill and loot him.
Otherwise I jsut loot him, then let him go.

Thunder999

2020-10-21, 04:30 PM

Probably execute him, even if it's not just a ploy of some sort then not only is safely transporting him away difficult but in your average medieval fantasy setting he'd just get sentenced to death anyway.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2020-10-21, 04:46 PM

Deal 9999999 non lethal damage then bring them in a redeemery?Exactly. Just KO him, especially if he's just a bandit lord. The rules for nonlethal damage are there for exactly this reason.

If this were a higher level scenario with a more dangerous BBEG, I'd have him agree not to resist the party wizard's (scroll of) Glass Strike or the like. That way he's safely in stasis while being transported to the appropriate authorities.

aglondier

2020-10-21, 05:38 PM

My dwarf fighter is Lawful Good, which does not mean nice. As a lawful character I would have, or be, the legal authority to deal with bbeg and his minions. If his crimes warrant the death penalty, or his personal power makes it impossible for the locals to contain him, then he would be executed...even if he surrenders. Becoming my prisoner in no way mitigates his criminal history.

My wizard, Stenn, was Lawful Good and the Court Wizard for his father, the Baron. As necessary, he could act in his father's name. Though, since another player was the heir, it was rare that Stenn would need to flex his authority. Stenn would most likely want to capture since his magic made that easier, but would bow to his brother's decision...which would usually be death...player was a lazy bugger...

Moeran Tam, 'renegade' Red Wizard and defacto ruler of Scardale, was Lawful Neutral and very pragmatic. He also followed the Evil Overlord's handbook. Unless he had something to gain from a captive, he just killed his enemies. A bbeg who surrendered would have to be offering some major incentive to stay alive...

Conradine

2020-10-21, 05:43 PM

Well...

what if the enemy boss is a young, beautiful, curvaceous half-elf girl with tanned caramel skin...
soft, flawfless skin like precious silk...
with a tonic yet feminine body, long and muscular legs and a perky, full yet soft bosom and healty yet pleasantly curvy buttlocks...
honey hairs just slightly curly framing a cute, innocent yet surtly face who manage to elicit desire to protect and possess at the same time...
big, deep, slightly almond green eyes who's long eyelashes just happen to be fluttering gracefully....
full, pretty red lips slightly parted in a sweet yet fearful expression of supplication...

impercetibly snuggling up near the strong, handsome paladin's boots the surrendered boss begs for her life with songbird's-like voice, her big, big eyes just moistening with tears as she offers her plea.

" Oh, my Lord, please, be merciful with this poor, defenseless maiden! I fully recognize your might, your strenght, your superiority! Look, I hide no weapons on my self" - she proceed to remove her leather armor to prove she's truly weaponless - " I just want another chance at life... please, I would do anything to earn your forgiveness, anything..."

GrayDeath

2020-10-21, 05:49 PM

Doesnt change any of my 3 Characters actions.

The first 2 dont care (Elf because he ahs a life Mate, Warforged because ....well Warforged) and the third would never trust someone he met like this, as he is highly paranoid.
Though he`d be tempted. ^^

MaxiDuRaritry

2020-10-21, 06:03 PM

Eldonauran

2020-10-21, 06:09 PM

" Oh, my Lord, please, be merciful with this poor, defenseless maiden! I fully recognize your might, your strenght, your superiority! Look, I hide no weapons on my self" - she proceed to remove her leather armor to prove she's truly weaponless - " I just want another chance at life... please, I would do anything to earn your forgiveness, anything..."
"I'll give you the same opportunity that you gave each one of your victims... Their lives were worth just as much as your own."
*insert kill cam decapitation*
"No mercy. I forgive you but you have not wronged me. Justice demands payment. Plead to the gods."

aglondier

2020-10-21, 06:11 PM

About the same. Duri the dwarf is in love, and doesn't date outside his species. Moeran was more the manipulative evil mastermind type, and wouldn't be moved by such an appeal, though it might have worked on his party. And Stenn would have just rolled his eyes at the girl who is likely one of his many, many, many bastard siblings...seriously, the Baron was worse than the Bard (http://www.naorhy.com/art/freddy/elfwood/cross_couples/rock_bard_axe.jpg)...

rel

2020-10-21, 07:04 PM

I generally think getting the PC's to accept surrender is on the GM.

If NPC's generally try to run off and or surrender long before they are actually beaten and generally don't cause too much trouble after they have been captured and take note of the PC's policy on prisoners and reciprocate by offering quarter to those with a reputation for doing the same then surrender is if anything the expected outcome.
Even an evil PC will accept surrender under those circumstances. It's simply the best option.

If every NPC for the last 10 sessions has grimly fought to the death and met any PC attempt at surrender with laughter except this one random then don't expect mercy.
Any good character I play in that circumstance will have already headed off any possible moral quandary by establishing a rule of one chance only; They start each combat by demanding surrender and making it clear that if the enemy refuse they will get no mercy later on.

KillianHawkeye

2020-10-21, 07:58 PM

Without reading the whole thread, my take on the situation is:

If a good Paladin has the ability and authority to arrest the bandits, he does that first thing. Like a cop, you yell "Drop your weapons and surrender!", and if they don't you beat them to a pulp. And if your plan was to take the enemies alive, you do that from the start, too. Don't kill all the minions and only consider taking someone alive if they surrender.

You're under no obligation to even accept a surrender mid-combat. If the bandits choose to fight, then they must accept the consequences no matter which way it goes, just like the party does every time they get into a fight.

I wouldn't, with any character, accept a mid-combat surrender unless there was some mitigating circumstance (like the spirit possessing them was suddenly expelled, or he reveals he has a plausible dead man's switch or something), or if there was a compelling reason why I needed them alive. Otherwise, you have to assume they're being insincere. Maybe it's just cowardice, but you can't risk it.

Somebody who has surrendered is a prisoner. I will never play a character evil enough to kill a prisoner. That's simple murder.

No, a prisoner is someone who you've secured and taken into custody. That doesn't immediately happen when he throws his weapon down. He can't Michael Scott "I DECLARE IMPRISONMENT" and become safe from all attacks. At the very least, keep attacking and knock them unconscious so you can properly secure them. Never just stop when the bad guy asks you to stop.

icefractal

2020-10-21, 09:25 PM

It always struck me as incredibly two-faced and a bad case of protagonist-centered morality for just the boss to live because they're 'important' in some way. They get the same moral consideration their minions got. So if everyone else lays dead, they can join their men shortly. The paladin should have no problem with this, given how he didn't have an issue with the rest of the killings.This. I mean, "a gang of bandits" doesn't sound so irredeemably bad to begin with, so as a good-aligned character I'd be trying to subdue them non-lethally anyway. But if I was ok with killing all the minions, I'd be ok with killing the boss too.

Which is not to say I wouldn't consider accepting surrender if, for example, the minions are dead because the rest of the party is less merciful, and it's just luck the boss is still up. But I wouldn't say it's a mandatory required action if sparing the minions wasn't.

But at least this isn't the "after the hero killing their way through several dozen/hundred minions, the BBEG starts falling down a pit and the hero has to save him because 'otherwise I'd be as bad as he is'" scenario. Now that makes me want to push them both down the pit.

Elkad

2020-10-21, 09:33 PM

Paladin accepts his surrender, and under authority granted directly to him as an agent of his god, acts as judge and (likely) executioner.

Done.

Quertus

2020-10-21, 10:17 PM

Depends on the character, but…

Deal 9999999 non lethal damage then bring them in a redeemery?

Sounds like general best practices…

Well...

what if the enemy boss is a young, beautiful, curvaceous half-elf girl with tanned caramel skin...
soft, flawfless skin like precious silk...
with a tonic yet feminine body, long and muscular legs and a perky, full yet soft bosom and healty yet pleasantly curvy buttlocks...
honey hairs just slightly curly framing a cute, innocent yet surtly face who manage to elicit desire to protect and possess at the same time...
big, deep, slightly almond green eyes who's long eyelashes just happen to be fluttering gracefully....
full, pretty red lips slightly parted in a sweet yet fearful expression of supplication...

impercetibly snuggling up near the strong, handsome paladin's boots the surrendered boss begs for her life with songbird's-like voice, her big, big eyes just moistening with tears as she offers her plea.

" Oh, my Lord, please, be merciful with this poor, defenseless maiden! I fully recognize your might, your strenght, your superiority! Look, I hide no weapons on my self" - she proceed to remove her leather armor to prove she's truly weaponless - " I just want another chance at life... please, I would do anything to earn your forgiveness, anything..."

… might affect *where* I deal that 9999999 non lethal damage…

This. I mean, "a gang of bandits" doesn't sound so irredeemably bad to begin with, so as a good-aligned character I'd be trying to subdue them non-lethally anyway. But if I was ok with killing all the minions, I'd be ok with killing the boss too.

… and this brings up an interesting point. If we've been *killing* them up to this point, it says something about our relationship. I would be fine with the Paladin killing them, with the Paladin accepting their surrender and then lawfully executing them, or the Paladin looking the other way while I poison them. I would be dubious that they could have, as a group, done anything to deserve mass murder… whereby their leader deserves any less, so… even simply subduing the leader had best have some obvious point, like "big political trial" or something.

Now, I *did* have a character who similarly subdued a high-level prisoner, for the purpose of obtaining information about our mysterious foes, leading to this exchange when we got back to town:

Me: "can you cast Heal?"
Town Cleric: "no."
Me: (slits prisoner's throat) "how about Speak with Dead?"

Character didn't bother taking prisoners (or relying overmuch on the townsfolk) after that.

mehs

2020-10-22, 10:24 AM

Efrate

2020-10-22, 10:55 AM

Honestly depends on many things. Race of the bandit? If I am a paladin depends. Killing always evil race bandits is pretty much always a good act. Off with their head. Human/elf/etc. bandit who hasn't done anything crazy awful like slaughtering a nearby village. Take them to the authority. I will be the authority if none exist. Strip his ill-gotten gains and let him loose. If I'm in the party and I have better initiative than the paladin (I do). He dies. If paladin does not like it he no longer has to adventure with us.

Current characters (all pf1e):

NG Gnome bard 4 sherriff of a small town: I have the authority, I hear his case, pass judgement and that's that.

LG Human Paladin 5, currently a prisoner in a gladiatorial arena who experiences regular mind wipes. Likely stop. Stop, accept, take him to the same prison I am living in and warn him if he tries to escape he will be cut down or maimed like every other prisoner.

Lvl 19 N(E) Elvan wizard, leader of Racism and Reptiles adventuring party, problem solvers for the crown. If he is an elf, and elf enough as I judge it, he probably lives. He might even be offered a position in the personal demiplane interplanar brothel retirement plan he has. An attractive female of any race would be offered as well. Anyone else, dead or mind controlled into a use. People sweetening some planar bindings is always an option, have to pay the various flavors of outsiders...sometimes, unless I just straight enslave them via truename binding. They get the honor of servitude and the possibility to convert or corrupt as long as it makes me money. I let them go after a while. I am fair.

Lvl 4 N Vizier: Take his gear let him go. He is not advancing my studies at all.

Venger

2020-10-22, 11:04 AM

Eldonauran

2020-10-22, 12:02 PM

What im getting from this is that all of my good character's are exalted level compared to your guys' 'good' characters.

It is a surrender, the morality of killing someone who has surrendered is vastly different from killing someone currently trying to kill you. It is the difference between self defense and murder.
Sounds more like we have a difference in perspective of what a good/exalted character would do in a given situation, rather than a misunderstanding of what it means to be Good. Good does not mean nice. It tends to imply it but that doesn't always mean it extends to every single circumstance. Evil hides behind whatever shield it can to preserve its own life, while Good will lay down its life in order to protect others. If an Evil being surrenders, it should expect nothing more than death because that is what it would deal out to someone else (or worse). It seeks to prey on a perceived weakness of a 'good' character in doing so. Justice is not the same thing as mercy. It is blind and it is insistent, and it doesn't care about getting messy. The misuse and abuse of others demands restitution and the Evil BBEG is no more entitled to more mercy than any of their victims.

icefractal

2020-10-22, 12:53 PM

It is a surrender, the morality of killing someone who has surrendered is vastly different from killing someone currently trying to kill you. It is the difference between self defense and murder.
IRL maybe, but in D&D I don't think the reasons hold up so well:
* You can fairly easily do nonlethal damage, and unlike RL it is reliably nonlethal.
* Depending on your relative power, some foes aren't really a serious threat to you even when armed and swinging.
* Conversely, some foes can be 90% as dangerous even when fully disarmed and tied up.

So I'd say that in D&D, it's both less justified to kill people in the heat of battle and more justified to kill them afterwards than IRL, with the result that there's less of a moral line between the two acts.

Also, is it really self defense if you kicked down their door and told them to halt their evildoing or face your blade? PCs are often the aggressors, on an immediate scale anyway. It's not like you were fighting those bandits just to survive, you probably sought them out and started the fight for (hopefully) good reasons.

KillianHawkeye

2020-10-22, 01:13 PM

There are also more situations in D&D where taking an enemy alive doesn't lead anywhere. A lot of adventures take place in the wilderness or in distant ruins where there is nobody around to turn a prisoner over to. Not every dungeon is in the sewers of a populated area. Or if it is, there's the chance that the local government is evil.

But I think the biggest issue is that unarmed people are often the most dangerous threats in D&D. How do you know the bandit leader isn't a sorcerer or a vampire or a succubus in disguise? He could wild shape into a dire tiger or revert back to his natural draconic form at any moment! It could just be an illusion or a dominated minion being controlled by an invisible mind flayer.

The point is that you can't just treat a surrendering foe like he's an equal. You have to end the fight first, one way or another, and confirm that the situation has been secured, before accepting a surrender.

Dr_Dinosaur

2020-10-22, 02:23 PM

Kill him anyway to spite all the idiotic media that says slaughtering underlings en masse is fine but "if you kill the villain you'll be evil just like him!"

Batcathat

2020-10-22, 02:47 PM

Kill him anyway to spite all the idiotic media that says slaughtering underlings en masse is fine but "if you kill the villain you'll be evil just like him!"

Heh. That's certainly as good a reason as any, I do hate that cliche.

mehs

2020-10-22, 03:20 PM

Sounds more like we have a difference in perspective of what a good/exalted character would do in a given situation, rather than a misunderstanding of what it means to be Good. Good does not mean nice. It tends to imply it but that doesn't always mean it extends to every single circumstance. Evil hides behind whatever shield it can to preserve its own life, while Good will lay down its life in order to protect others. If an Evil being surrenders, it should expect nothing more than death because that is what it would deal out to someone else (or worse). It seeks to prey on a perceived weakness of a 'good' character in doing so. Justice is not the same thing as mercy. It is blind and it is insistent, and it doesn't care about getting messy. The misuse and abuse of others demands restitution and the Evil BBEG is no more entitled to more mercy than any of their victims.

You seem to be trying to go somewhere with this, but fall rather flat. For one, random innocent victims are entitled to being shown mercy. Secondly, there is a wide range of evil beings. From random thieves to full on murderers to technically evil but redeemed fiends.

Killing random thieves because they tried to con you out of a dozen gold pieces is a wild overreaction. Even if you try to contend that they've stolen from countless others, it is still overkill.

Killing people when you don't need to is pretty damn evil.

In contrast, getting the evil being to be redeemed through one method or another is a Much more good aligned action than killing them during a fight, much less after they've surrendered.

For comparison, one time my character, a LG artificer, and company got attacked by some random bandits. I got them to surrender as quickly as possibly. One of their leg's was almost torn off, so I paid to create a scroll to heal it. We found out that they were bandits because they were poor as ****, so I gave them jobs in the party's silver mine.

That wasn't a paladin or an exalted character, but it sure seems like he was compared to the majority of other people's responses.

That is what I would hope a good aligned character would try to do, instead of all of this "execute them immediately" nonsense. Yeah, you don't have to be gullible about it, you can knock them unconscious, disarm them, take precautions, but if at all possible, don't kill prisoners. Killing prisoners or people that have surrendered is pretty much always going to be an evil aligned action in my book.

Vizzerdrix

2020-10-22, 03:27 PM

If the pally wants to play warden, then that is on them and not the party. Do make sure to remind your pally that everything the bbeg does after his escape falls squarely on their shoulders.

Eldonauran

2020-10-22, 03:28 PM

You seem to be trying to go somewhere with this, but fall rather flat.
There is a reason why my explanation seems to fall flat to you. You are taking a specific statement and artificially inflating it to become a general (or universal statement) about all kinds of evil. Try to keep things in context on within the same scope of the original discussion, and you miight find less confusion in the future.

Context: Evil leader seeks to surrender to you.
Specific: Do you accept his surrender?
My Response: No. Justice demands satisfaction.

Zanos

2020-10-22, 03:38 PM

This. I mean, "a gang of bandits" doesn't sound so irredeemably bad to begin with, so as a good-aligned character I'd be trying to subdue them non-lethally anyway. But if I was ok with killing all the minions, I'd be ok with killing the boss too.
Depends on the banditry. Most bandits I've met in D&D are murderers.

In those circumstances, I see no particular reason to spare a murderer. Even a Paladin is under no obligation to do so.

mehs

2020-10-22, 03:44 PM

If the pally wants to play warden, then that is on them and not the party. Do make sure to remind your pally that everything the bbeg does after his escape falls squarely on their shoulders.

That isn't how criminal guilt works. If the bbeg surrenders, is captured, and then escapes, the guilt for any crimes the bbeg commits is still their own, not anyone elses.

mehs

2020-10-22, 03:47 PM

There is a reason why my explanation seems to fall flat to you. You are taking a specific statement and artificially inflating it to become a general (or universal statement) about all kinds of evil. Try to keep things in context on within the same scope of the original discussion, and you miight find less confusion in the future.

Context: Evil leader seeks to surrender to you.
Specific: Do you accept his surrender?
My Response: No. Justice demands satisfaction.

Again, my point is that you are reducing good and law down to executing people you think are evil. Honestly question, is that justice or is that self righteous vengeance? There is a difference.

Necroticplague

2020-10-22, 04:24 PM

That isn't how criminal guilt works. If the bbeg surrenders, is captured, and then escapes, the guilt for any crimes the bbeg commits is still their own, not anyone elses.

And? The post your responding to didn't say anything about criminal charges.Morally, it is entirely acceptable to acknowledge good-intentioned actions as having bad consequences.

Eldonauran

2020-10-22, 04:44 PM

Again, my point is that you are reducing good and law down to executing people you think are evil. Honestly question, is that justice or is that self righteous vengeance? There is a difference.
Oh, I'm sorry. Is the evilness of the boss leader in question? Are his/her crimes in question? Perhaps you are operating under the assumption that these things are in question. Let me clarify: I am not operating under that assumption. There is a Paladin present. I may be the Paladin. Does the Paladin have a habit of lying? Does the Paladin confirm the presence of evil?

There is a difference between self-righteous vengeance and justice, I agree. I do not argue that. However, I never brought up anything about vengeance. I spoke of justice. If you want to project the self-righteous vengeance on the actions of my character, that is something you have to wrestle with. I don't need to go into the motivations of the character I've described in much detail, but I will say that he has no interest in exacting payment from the evil bandit leader or BBEG. He is there to end the threat to innocent life. He does not kill on a whim or without purpose.

icefractal

2020-10-22, 04:47 PM

If the pally wants to play warden, then that is on them and not the party. Do make sure to remind your pally that everything the bbeg does after his escape falls squarely on their shoulders.Or - just hear me out - don't have the BBEG escape and do bad things. If anyone's wondering where murder-hobo attitudes in characters come from, it's from things like this. You want people showing mercy and taking prisoners? Then don't make that a sucker's game.

Eldonauran

2020-10-22, 04:56 PM

Or - just hear me out - don't have the BBEG escape and do bad things. If anyone's wondering where murder-hobo attitudes in characters come from, it's from things like this. You want people showing mercy and taking prisoners? Then don't make that a sucker's game.
You are missing out on a very distinct and dangerous aspect of Evil if you completely forgo this kind of behavior from the enemies. Good heroes becoming 'murder-hobos' is a very real possibility when they are exposed repeatedly to things like this. Evil uses every tool it has available in order to preserve its own existence, and taking advantage of the merciful nature of 'good' characters is high up on that list. It is one way that Evil slowly drains the concepts of mercy and sacrifice from Good and converts them to a mockery of what they once were. It is supposed to be a scary concept, and a very real danger.

noob

2020-10-22, 04:58 PM

You are missing out on a very distinct and dangerous aspect of Evil if you completely forgo this kind of behavior from the enemies. Good heroes becoming 'murder-hobos' is a very real possibility when they are exposed repeatedly to things like this. Evil uses every tool it has available in order to preserve its own existence, and taking advantage of the merciful nature of 'good' characters is high up on that list. It is one way that Evil slowly drains the concepts of mercy and sacrifice from Good and converts them to a mockery of what they once were.

Just cram the evil guys in a redeemery and then you get good guys from them.
They can not resist if you have the right setup.
So yes you can spare opponents by just stunning them and sending them to the redeemery.

Eldonauran

2020-10-22, 05:03 PM

Just cram the evil guys in a redeemery and then you get good guys from them.
They can not resist if you have the right setup.
So yes you can spare opponents by just stunning them and sending them to the redeemery.
If you have that option available, then take it. Life is too valuable not to make the attempt if success is guaranteed like that. Though, you start to get into the problem of free will and autonomy. That is a much more murkier issue than I care to argue about.

Efrate

2020-10-22, 06:55 PM

Sanctify the wicked is an exalted good spell. Completely rewrite someone's will into the goodest of good. They get no choice and can be forced into it pretty easily. That is dnd morality for you.

You could conceivably be exalted good paladin and rewrite the world to that. Probably get a promotion to solar on dying for saving an entire world.

Or just kill them. If this person has been leading a group of bandits who have been terrorizing folk he is guilty as his underlings which you had no issues slaughtering. He earned his sentence.

Jay R

2020-10-22, 07:48 PM

No, a prisoner is someone who you've secured and taken into custody. That doesn't immediately happen when he throws his weapon down. He can't Michael Scott "I DECLARE IMPRISONMENT" and become safe from all attacks. At the very least, keep attacking and knock them unconscious so you can properly secure them. Never just stop when the bad guy asks you to stop.

Red herring duly noted. Yes, I would take steps to disarm and bind my prisoner. That has nothing to do with the question, which is about whether or not to murder a prisoner.

Kill him anyway to spite all the idiotic media that says slaughtering underlings en masse is fine but "if you kill the villain you'll be evil just like him!"

Nobody has said anything that can be honestly or fairly interpreted as "slaughtering underlings en masse is fine but 'if you kill the villain you'll be evil just like him!'"

Killing somebody who is trying to kill you is fine, and killing a prisoner who is not trying to kill you is murder, regardless of which one is the underling and which one is the leader.

Zanos

2020-10-22, 08:08 PM

Killing bad people is fine. It's D&D time, not modern 2020 sensibilities of capital punishment. Both the alignment books even explicitly point this out.

Necroticplague

2020-10-22, 08:22 PM

Red herring duly noted. Yes, I would take steps to disarm and bind my prisoner. That has nothing to do with the question, which is about whether or not to murder a prisoner.
No, it's not. It's about whether to take him prisoner in the first place. He's not a prisoner until we decide to make him one. Referring to the discussed act as murdering a prisoner is just begging the question.

Killing somebody who is trying to kill you is fine, and killing a prisoner who is not trying to kill you is murder, regardless of which one is the underling and which one is the leader.
And if you had some perfect ability to identify which was which, that would be very useful information. Sadly, a hypermajority of people lack this. Anybody appearing to surrender may have any of a thousand perfidious tricks at their disposal of which you are unaware, waiting for you to drop your gaurd. Continuing to treat them as a threat until corpse or unconcious is simply prudent.

mehs

2020-10-22, 10:12 PM

No, it's not. It's about whether to take him prisoner in the first place. He's not a prisoner until we decide to make him one. Referring to the discussed act as murdering a prisoner is just begging the question.

And if you had some perfect ability to identify which was which, that would be very useful information. Sadly, a hypermajority of people lack this. Anybody appearing to surrender may have any of a thousand perfidious tricks at their disposal of which you are unaware, waiting for you to drop your guard. Continuing to treat them as a threat until corpse or unconscious is simply prudent.

The difference in morality between treating someone who has surrendered and someone who is your prisoner is so slight as to be meaningless. In either case, good people don't kill them if at all possible.

Secondly, equating there being a chance that the person might be doing a trick to being reasonably certain that the person is just trying to trick you and stab you in the back is unreasonable. You could, with equal strength of logic, try to justify that ANYONE might be secretly attempting to kill you which makes it perfectly okay to kill them first.

You can be reasonably certain of something not being a trick just the same as you can be reasonably certain that a random store clerk isn't trying to cheat you. Sure, they might be, but taking the nuclear option on every store clerk would make business impossible. At the end of the day, taking a minimized (by reason of chains, disarmament, etc) risk is the cost of doing business.

KillianHawkeye

2020-10-22, 10:35 PM

Killing bad people is fine. It's D&D time, not modern 2020 sensibilities of capital punishment. Both the alignment books even explicitly point this out.

It seems like a lot of people in 2020 are even okay with it.... :smallfrown:

Necroticplague

2020-10-22, 10:36 PM

The difference in morality between treating someone who has surrendered and someone who is your prisoner is so slight as to be meaningless. In either case, good people don't kill them if at all possible.
I disagree. A prisoner is somebody you have made a promise to attempt to keep alive to some extent. A surrendering person is somebody claiming to be making an offering to become a prisoner. Saying they're basically the same is like saying an interviewee and an employee are functionally identical. A prisoner is already under your control, a surrendering person is not yet.

Secondly, equating there being a chance that the person might be doing a trick to being reasonably certain that the person is just trying to trick you and stab you in the back is unreasonable. You could, with equal strength of logic, try to justify that ANYONE might be secretly attempting to kill you which makes it perfectly okay to kill them first. Except 'likely to try and kill me' is not a binary measurement. There's a sliding scale of 'is currently trying to kill me' to 'couldn't even if they wanted to'. I have no particular reason to believe any random person on the street ever means me any harm above a threshold justifying violence. A person who appears to surrender because they're losing, however, I have considerable more reason to believe they'll try something. They're rating at 'just tried to kill me', which I believe is above the reasonable threshold. Somebody who just tried to kill me is inherently significantly less trustworthy than almost everyone else in existence on this scale, besides currently active combatants against me.

Dr_Dinosaur

2020-10-22, 11:21 PM

Nobody has said anything that can be honestly or fairly interpreted as "slaughtering underlings en masse is fine but 'if you kill the villain you'll be evil just like him!'"

Killing somebody who is trying to kill you is fine, and killing a prisoner who is not trying to kill you is murder, regardless of which one is the underling and which one is the leader.

You'll note that I specified "media" as the target of my spite, because this is a common writing trick to add "ethical conflict" to a pretty black-and-white situation. I would simply refuse to take the big bad prisoner, because I'm sick of these lazy fictional quandaries.

What do you suggest as a Good alternative to killing The Dark Lord anyway? Brainwashing them to match your sense of morality isn't a thing good people would do and even if prisons weren't inhumane no D&D bbeg is going to be held in one

Arkhios

2020-10-22, 11:38 PM

I abhor the idea of purposefully mocking the group's paladin just because the rules say paladins must act in a certain way. It's that player's choice to play a paladin, just as much it's other players' choice to play some other class. Individual choices do not justify being an ass towards the paladin or their player, nor vice versa. Learn to adapt to your circumstances.

That said, what to do to a surrendering BBEG would largely depend on their nature. Even if you are the paladin. And even then, killing is not the only solution to achieve your goals and meet your Code.

Doctor Despair

2020-10-22, 11:41 PM

What do you suggest as a Good alternative to killing The Dark Lord anyway? Brainwashing them to match your sense of morality isn't a thing good people would do and even if prisons weren't inhumane no D&D bbeg is going to be held in one

Trial by combat! Create the conditions for your battle and ensure the rules are followed strictly; keep your conscience clear and your prisons empty. ;) After all, if they were truly innocent in their intentions and intended to keep their word, surely some deity or another would interfere in their favor.

Kelb_Panthera

2020-10-22, 11:47 PM

Here's for my last couple characters:

Milo, follower of the sublime way and aspiring master of Nine;

Depends on how much of a PITA he and his minions have been and how convenient it would be to cart the bandit leader back to civilization. He is LG but he's an itinerant fighter first and foremost. He's willing to entertain a surrender but there's no guarantee. Might even go so far as to give the bandit leader a last stand "Pick up your arms. If you can best me, my friends will let you go*. If not, you've earned your fate." If I'm honest, that * is probably not true. The other PCs are even more murder-hoboey than Milo is.

Geoff the Blue, warlock and meldshaper extraordinare;

Not likely to accept a surrender. If he's feeling generous or the enemy is particularly pathetic, he might just strip him to the skin and send him on his way. As a CN incarnate, he doesn't believe in the concept of the rule of law or that there's such a thing as legitimate civil authority.

Luther Askarda, Exalted Paladin of the Silver Flame and Argent Knight Vindicator;

Might swear under his breath if the enemy has been a particularly troublesome but almost certain to accept the surrender or even demand one when the tide of battle looks certain. Mercy should be granted whenever possible and brigands handed over to legitimate authority if there is one over the region. Sometimes evil can be redeemed and it should be if it can. If it can't or won't be then it faces the full, unbridled wrath of the Silver Flame.

All three were pretty different personality-wise, even though two are the same alignment. "It's what my character would do" is a terrible justification for problematic behavior but it's something to cleave to most of the time.

If there's a paladin in the party (or another in Luther's case) I'd expect them to agree with Luther for the most part. Geoff would just shrug and tell the paladin "do what you want but if he threatens me again he's dead." Milo might challenge the Paladin to a non-lethal brawl over it if the bandit has particularly offended him but is more likely to just shrug and go along with taking him prisoner.

Conradine

2020-10-23, 02:36 AM

There are non lethal solutions.
Blind him, cut his tendons and tongue, and he'll never hurt anyone anymore.

Arkhios

2020-10-23, 02:51 AM

There are non lethal solutions.
Blind him, cut his tendons and tongue, and he'll never hurt anyone anymore.

Mutilation of an opponent who has surrendered is still rather vile thing to do, and something a paladin might not approve.

Vizzerdrix

2020-10-23, 11:11 AM

If you have that option available, then take it. Life is too valuable not to make the attempt if success is guaranteed like that. Though, you start to get into the problem of free will and autonomy. That is a much more murkier issue than I care to argue about.

I propose unlife is equally valuable, or even more valuable. The undead make better laborers, and have more time to see, understand, and learn from the error of their ways. They are also cheaper to feed and house. For the most part.

Eldonauran

2020-10-23, 12:28 PM

I propose unlife is equally valuable, or even more valuable. The undead make better laborers, and have more time to see, understand, and learn from the error of their ways. They are also cheaper to feed and house. For the most part.
I reject the proposition that unlife is equally valuable or more valuable because I take a much broader look at the situation than you seem to. As a cheap source of labor, mindless undead may be more efficient or profitable, but the only real thing of value an undead can possess is intelligence and sentience. Otherwise they are no more valuable than draft animals, and cheaper to upkeep.

Undeath has always been frowned upon in the D&D universe and there is a lot of disagreement from all sorts of different people about why, but it all boils down to the conflict between positive and negative energy, and the effects of undeath on the soul of a mortal creature. If all you focus on is the side of life that takes place on the Material realm, undeath seems a win-win situation, especially if you get to escape the consequences of what the afterlife brings. And this escape is usually a big driving force for why Evil beings tend to surrender or go out of their way to avoid their own death. They have a reason to be frightened of what awaits them.

noob

2020-10-23, 12:46 PM

I reject the proposition that unlife is equally valuable or more valuable because I take a much broader look at the situation than you seem to. As a cheap source of labor, mindless undead may be more efficient or profitable, but the only real thing of value an undead can possess is intelligence and sentience. Otherwise they are no more valuable than draft animals, and cheaper to upkeep.

Undeath has always been frowned upon in the D&D universe and there is a lot of disagreement from all sorts of different people about why, but it all boils down to the conflict between positive and negative energy, and the effects of undeath on the soul of a mortal creature. If all you focus on is the side of life that takes place on the Material realm, undeath seems a win-win situation, especially if you get to escape the consequences of what the afterlife brings. And this escape is usually a big driving force for why Evil beings tend to surrender or go out of their way to avoid their own death. They have a reason to be frightened of what awaits them.

There is a good reason to not turn people into undead: you could be turning them into undying instead and undyings are usually smarter and kinder and also does not makes the world a place more full of negative energy.

Venger

2020-10-23, 12:54 PM

What are undying? Are they different from deathless?

Zanos

2020-10-23, 01:07 PM

What are undying? Are they different from deathless?
The deathless in Eberron are (typically) members of the Undying Court.

The spells to create them though are locked behind a setting specific domain, so they might be uncastable in many settings since no deities will have that domain.

Also, deathless are probably one of the worst ideas in Eberron, especially since the setting already supports a grey morality that Undeath not being Evil fits into perfectly fine. But on the topic of draft labor, all deathless are sentient, so that's basically slave labor.

Quertus

2020-10-23, 01:24 PM

Reading this, I am reminded of this thread (forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?618515-In-party-conflict-how-do-we-tell-which-player-s-in-the-right-and-which-in-the-wrong&highlight=Paladin+dwarf+prisoner+horse), where we could count on the Paladin to murder the prisoner once we've gotten any useful information out of them. If I run a Paladin, I'm running someone like *that*. No issues with *that* paladin being a wet blanket on murder. :smallamused:

What im getting from this is that all of my good character's are exalted level compared to your guys' 'good' characters.

It is a surrender, the morality of killing someone who has surrendered is vastly different from killing someone currently trying to kill you. It is the difference between self defense and murder.

Who said we're all playing Good characters when answering the question?

Yeah, I'm kinda batting for team Lawful Evil most of the time. Any GM who "cares" about alignment, I'm *almost certainly* playing Evil.

IRL maybe, but in D&D I don't think the reasons hold up so well:
* You can fairly easily do nonlethal damage, and unlike RL it is reliably nonlethal.
* Depending on your relative power, some foes aren't really a serious threat to you even when armed and swinging.
* Conversely, some foes can be 90% as dangerous even when fully disarmed and tied up.

So I'd say that in D&D, it's both less justified to kill people in the heat of battle and more justified to kill them afterwards than IRL, with the result that there's less of a moral line between the two acts.

It's not like you were fighting those bandits just to survive, you probably sought them out and started the fight for (hopefully) good reasons.

there is a wide range of evil beings. From random thieves to full on murderers to technically evil but redeemed fiends.

Killing random thieves because they tried to con you out of a dozen gold pieces is a wild overreaction. Even if you try to contend that they've stolen from countless others, it is still overkill.

Killing people when you don't need to is pretty damn evil.

In contrast, getting the evil being to be redeemed through one method or another is a Much more good aligned action than killing them during a fight, much less after they've surrendered.

It's certainly rather evil Chaotic to accept their surrender, then kill them.

The question is, do we *accept* their surrender?

Historically, surrender is accepted, not for humanitarian reasons, but for advantage: taking the former enemies as slaves, ransoming nobles, etc. D&D "Good" doesn't believe in slavery, leading to some questionable World-building for them to believe in surrender.

That aside, as I tried to say earlier, in D&D, it's really easy to take people alive. From the premise of the question, that we have *killed* all the (likely less-culpable) minions, it is clear that we have considered their deeds beyond redemption / have no intention to redeem them, so it makes no sense to consider accepting the leader's surrender unless there is some additional outside impetus to do so.

So, from the question, if we've already *killed* the minions, we're going to *kill* the leader, too.

For comparison, one time my character, a LG artificer, and company got attacked by some random bandits. I got them to surrender as quickly as possibly. One of their leg's was almost torn off, so I paid to create a scroll to heal it. We found out that they were bandits because they were poor as ****, so I gave them jobs in the party's silver mine.

That wasn't a paladin or an exalted character, but it sure seems like he was compared to the majority of other people's responses.

That is what I would hope a good aligned character would try to do, instead of all of this "execute them immediately" nonsense. Yeah, you don't have to be gullible about it, you can knock them unconscious, disarm them, take precautions, but if at all possible, don't kill prisoners. Killing prisoners or people that have surrendered is pretty much always going to be an evil aligned action in my book.

You *judged* them. In this case, you *judged* them redeemable. You deemed the root cause of their disruptive behavior to be "poverty", and you addressed this root cause. Good for you.

We have been killing all the minions. We've already killed them all to death. We have clearly judged them beyond redemption. We will kill their boss to death, too (unless we have reserved an even worse punishment for him).

Zanos

2020-10-23, 01:38 PM

On the topic of how easy it is to capture foes alive, I do wonder, how Evil is it to not take Subduing Strike and/or Nonlethal Substitution? It really is not much effort at all to always deal nonlethal damage with no penalty. Archers don't even need to spend a feat and can just buy arrows that deal nonlethal damage. You're pretty much intentionally choosing to use lethal force with little to no advantage at that point. Hell, I think coup de gracing a foe the wizard put to sleep is the same action as manacling him.

mehs

2020-10-23, 01:41 PM

That aside, as I tried to say earlier, in D&D, it's really easy to take people alive. From the premise of the question, that we have *killed* all the (likely less-culpable) minions, it is clear that we have considered their deeds beyond redemption / have no intention to redeem them, so it makes no sense to consider accepting the leader's surrender unless there is some additional outside impetus to do so.

So, from the question, if we've already *killed* the minions, we're going to *kill* the leader, too.

You *judged* them. In this case, you *judged* them redeemable. You deemed the root cause of their disruptive behavior to be "poverty", and you addressed this root cause. Good for you.

We have been killing all the minions. We've already killed them all to death. We have clearly judged them beyond redemption. We will kill their boss to death, too (unless we have reserved an even worse punishment for him).

My point was that even before I knew anything about the bandits, as soon as they surrendered, I had bandaged their wounds. As soon as we got to a place to camp, I was making the scroll to heal their leg.

If you are trying to make a case that good aligned creatures will never accept surrender or take prisoners when possible, you have a very warped idea of good.

Quertus

2020-10-23, 09:50 PM

If you are trying to make a case that good aligned creatures will never accept surrender or take prisoners when possible, you have a very warped idea of good.

I am pointing out that the underlying system does not provide one of the prime incentives present in historical societies for good characters to accept surrenders (namely, taking the defeated soldiers back as slaves).

Without this underlying motivation, it would require some careful world-building for the very *concept* of surrender to be present, at least between good-aligned nations.

Without that world-building, then "good" should, by definition and human psychology, be a very warped stance compared to most modern morality (like it already is in several other places).

It's just another dysfunction you notice when you stop mistaking D&D alignments for anything more than team jerseys with legalistic entry requirements.

But that is just a world-building aside to the main point, which is that the choice to have already killed all the (likely less culpable) minions says something important about our mindset in this mission - namely, that we have *already* judged them irredeemable.

To act otherwise - to kill the redeemable as unnecessarily as it would generally be in 3e - is a rather warped take on good.

noob

2020-10-24, 05:07 AM

The deathless in Eberron are (typically) members of the Undying Court.

The spells to create them though are locked behind a setting specific domain, so they might be uncastable in many settings since no deities will have that domain.

Also, deathless are probably one of the worst ideas in Eberron, especially since the setting already supports a grey morality that Undeath not being Evil fits into perfectly fine. But on the topic of draft labor, all deathless are sentient, so that's basically slave labor.

I was not planning on making them work.
They will decide on their own to work(and probably not for me) because doing nothing is boring.
Ex: you animate 50 deathless wizards and they will probably start doing things on their own like a charity business or selling the service of casting spells and so on.

Gnaeus

2020-10-24, 08:06 AM

We had an ultimately fatal to the game party fight over how to deal with a gang of bandits. The bandits were preying on groups of merchants on the road. The cleric (CG) cast a spell to make the Paladin more intimidating. The Paladin then spent several actions breaking the morale of the bandits and making them run away. My witch (LN) was horrified that they would let the predators run, without taking AOOs on the fleeing bandits, to allow them to to return to stealing from terrified caravans (but as a buffer/debuffer I couldn’t stop them myself). Unfortunately this immediately followed a moral debate about killing wolves and immediately preceded a moral debate on the feudal society and then we were done. 😢

mehs

2020-10-24, 10:10 PM

I am pointing out that the underlying system does not provide one of the prime incentives present in historical societies for good characters to accept surrenders (namely, taking the defeated soldiers back as slaves).

Without this underlying motivation, it would require some careful world-building for the very *concept* of surrender to be present, at least between good-aligned nations.

Without that world-building, then "good" should, by definition and human psychology, be a very warped stance compared to most modern morality (like it already is in several other places).

It's just another dysfunction you notice when you stop mistaking D&D alignments for anything more than team jerseys with legalistic entry requirements.

But that is just a world-building aside to the main point, which is that the choice to have already killed all the (likely less culpable) minions says something important about our mindset in this mission - namely, that we have *already* judged them irredeemable.

To act otherwise - to kill the redeemable as unnecessarily as it would generally be in 3e - is a rather warped take on good.

In feudal Europe, taking prisoners was pretty common as knights and other high ranking military officers represented a vast investment of resources. Taking prisoners allowed you to ransom them back, allowing you to gain a profit as well as bleeding the enemy of resources.

In other societies, the defeated asking to reclaim the bodies of the dead or the prisoners was an admittance that the winner's owned the battlefield and have of course won.

In societies where the rank and file are not particularly ideologized, it is pretty simple to recruit captured soldiers into your own ranks.

Then there is the possibility of interrogating/truth magic'ing military and political intelligence.

There is the more cynical reason that enemy soldiers that know they will just be slaughtered will fight longer than if in the case where they can surrender or be allowed to retreat..

I mean, god man, there is so many reasons to accept surrender other than "enslave everyone". Not to mention that unless all wars between good aligned nations end with one side totally genocided, the idea of surrender has to exist. I would argue that you are being purposefully close minded to maintain such a position as that good people dont accept surrender.

This is all aside that you are trying to force the necessity for good aligned people to need to a reason to not kill people, when it should be the other way around, that good people should need a reason to kill people. In the outlined scenario, the reason to kill the minions is that they are actively trying to kill you and that you can't safely subdue them. The reasoning for not killing the surrendering leader is then a rather obvious: He is not trying to actively kill you.

Quertus

2020-10-25, 08:52 AM

This is all aside that you are trying to force the necessity for good aligned people to need to a reason to not kill people, when it should be the other way around, that good people should need a reason to kill people. In the outlined scenario, the reason to kill the minions is that they are actively trying to kill you and that you can't safely subdue them. The reasoning for not killing the surrendering leader is then a rather obvious: He is not trying to actively kill you.

That's exactly the warped version of "good" I was talking about: the minions trying to kill you is reason to make them killing you not happen; however, "killing them" is not a prerequisite for them to not kill you, particularly when knocking them out instead is, as others have explained, quite non-lethal in 3e. So "they're trying to kill you" is a reasonable Neutral reason to kill someone; Good should look at more details than that. Otherwise, we're just in "team jerseys" territory, where everyone is trying to kill everyone else with a different jersey color, simply because those with a different jersey color are trying to kill them.

This ability to incapacitate the minions does, of course, open up the option for an as-yet unexplored path: not killing all the minions, then killing the surrendering leader (rejecting their surrender, or accepting their surrender and then executing them for their crimes). Although this is perhaps the most likely path that one of my Good characters would default to in a "bandits" scenario, it is not an option in your more specific "bandits where you've already killed all the minions" scenario.

But I don't play Good characters very often anymore. Most of my Good characters are dead. I'm batting for team Lawful Evil these days.

-----

What would my characters do in this scenario?

Quertus: Well, the Bandit Leader attempting to surrender is kinda... odd. Because Quertus probably nuked the site from orbit. (perhaps the bandits stole something he had shipped in; annoyed, Quertus (performed divinations, scryed through time, then) teleported through space and time, and replaced the shipment with, well, something that went "boom" (for example, a few hundred metamagic'd Delayed Blast Fireball gems stored in Quintessence, plus a few diminutive Simulacra to extract the gems at the appropriate time)). Or he sent an army of Golems to deal with the problem. In any event, in the strange scenario where my epic wizard was dealing with bandits, their calls for surrender should go unheard. On the off chance he was somehow "on the ground" dealing with bandits (they happened to be camped at the site of a rare convergence of magical energies or something, and they mistook Quertus for an adventurer come to wipe them out, and attacked), calls of "I surrender" would, perhaps, be met with a response of, "don't resist", followed by Quertus casting a spell (most likely Polymorph Any Object, to turn the surrendered leader into a shovel, or whatever other tool Quertus thought he needed at the moment).

Armus: Armus most likely hired the bandit leader (likely through an alias), to manipulate the political landscape (and/or, in the case where we've killed all the bandits, to collect irredeemable ne'er-do-wells in one place for the party Paladin to slaughter), so of course Armus would (say what was necessary to get the party to) accept his pawn's surrender (unless getting the pawn killed was somehow part of the plan).

Illirian: The only reasons Illirian wouldn't pull a Stark and execute the surrendered bandit leader would be if someone else had greater claim to swing the blade, or if the party didn't accept the surrender and killed the bandit leader outright.

Briq: Yeah, um, Briq would beat the bandit leader unconscious, just as he did to all of the minions that he came across. Apparently, someone else in the party has been going along slitting all their throats after the fact (probably the paladin (forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?618515-In-party-conflict-how-do-we-tell-which-player-s-in-the-right-and-which-in-the-wrong&highlight=Paladin+dwarf+prisoner+horse)), and I expect that they'll do the same to the bandit leader.

Eladove: Nah, she doesn't need a bandit leader (A'Jin: especially an unnamed NPC) as a Synthesis - they need to at least measure up to Hessalo Synthesis One, Irmutar Synthesis Two, and Rathkuul Synthesis Three.

Pidge: Pidge would disarm the bandit leader - literally, as in remove his arms. And his tongue. And eyes. And all his hair (including eye lashes, eye brows, etc) and teeth. And wonder if he missed anything. Which leads us to...

Delock: Much more efficiently, Delock would simply turn the bandit leader into a brain in a jar. We can always give him a body back later if he is absolved of his crimes.

Anna: <Bang!> <Headshot!> "Sorry, what was that?" Much like Quertus, Anna would not be in range to hear the surrender; unlike Quertus, she isn't terribly perceptive in the first place.

Rita: :smallfurious: (looks for a Staff of the Magi to break across the bandit leader's face)

Datch: "Finally, someone who surrenders! ... Don't resist" <Arcane energies>

Korin: "Sorry, I've ordered too many undead to kill you - I can't order them all to stop in time. So make peace with whatever gods you follow - quickly." (turns to party) "Can you believe I used to be good, and that this used to be something of a moral dilemma for me?"

K'Tamair: K'Tamair am be taking bandit leader's belt, am be tying their shoe laces together.

Raymond: (Quirks an eyebrow, turns to party/Tivek) "Is he worth keeping?"

Tivek: (looks bandit leader over) "...Yes. Let's invite him to dinner."

mehs

2020-10-25, 11:12 AM

Quertus

2020-10-25, 05:31 PM

You are ignoring that unless you are specifically statted into it, taking people alive is much harder than subduing them with lethal force.

The core disconnect seems to be a difference, intentional or not, in the interpretations of how the scenario arose. In my interpretation, the reasonable assumption for how it happened is if taking the minions alive were unreasonably difficult and presented undue risk. In your interpretation, the paladin and party slaughtered the minions just 'cuz. While the latter is more common from the perspective from players not caring about morality, the former is much more likely from an in game perspective.

That sounds very much like a CaS vs CaW issue: CaS assumes a sporting challenge, while CaW says "what's there is there" & it could be anywhere from a cakewalk to impossible. As a CaW corollary, "bandits" are usually at the *low* end of threats that adventurers face, making them rather easy ("wade through them like they were humans" easy) for most adventurers (let alone average "past" characters, who have presumably "completed the campaign").

So, yeah, outside of CaS contrivance, *most* characters / parties should find *most* bandits somewhere between "easy" and "trivial", and should have no excuse for their wanton murder.

Most of *my* characters would murder them unapologetically nonetheless, because I don't play many good characters any more. (Not because I dislike questions of morality, but because I'm enjoying looking at them from perspectives that are very different from my own.)

EDIT: and several of my good characters not only would but *have* taken the hard road, and subdued highly threatening bandits, at the risk of their own personal safety or even at the risk of a TPK. Nobody said that good was easy.

Zanos

2020-10-25, 08:38 PM

I was not planning on making them work.
They will decide on their own to work(and probably not for me) because doing nothing is boring.
Ex: you animate 50 deathless wizards and they will probably start doing things on their own like a charity business or selling the service of casting spells and so on.
That is not what the Deathless actually decided to do in the one canon setting where they exist, so I'm not sure where you're pulling this from. As far as I know you can't create a deathless wizard either, since both spells only allow you to create specific creatures, not add templates.

You are ignoring that unless you are specifically statted into it, taking people alive is much harder than subduing them with lethal force.
Stating into knocking people out instead of killing them is trivial. At most it's a feat, and in some cases it's as little as a piece of equipment that's cheaper than any printed magic item. If you don't want to spend a feat you can also buy a relatively cheap magic item property that allows you to do so at no penalty. So much for being Good. Apparently taking your enemies nonlethally isn't even worth a feat or a +1 bonus on a weapon(the deals extra damage anyway).

noob

2020-10-26, 01:26 AM

That is not what the Deathless actually decided to do in the one canon setting where they exist, so I'm not sure where you're pulling this from. As far as I know you can't create a deathless wizard either, since both spells only allow you to create specific creatures, not add templates.

Stating into knocking people out instead of killing them is trivial. At most it's a feat, and in some cases it's as little as a piece of equipment that's cheaper than any printed magic item. If you don't want to spend a feat you can also buy a relatively cheap magic item property that allows you to do so at no penalty. So much for being Good. Apparently taking your enemies nonlethally isn't even worth a feat or a +1 bonus on a weapon(the deals extra damage anyway).
Deathless wizard is a specific kind of creature (with a caster level of 3 and a statblock representing multiple creatures sharing it) not a template.
And participating to the undying court is a job.
As is sitting on a spot awaiting for people to get advice from you.

Lord Vukodlak

2020-10-26, 01:50 AM

In one campaign I was in our group of adventures rarely fought people during our quests.(by people we any humans or Demi-humans) it was almost always monsters. When we did face people not only did we accept surrender we made every effort to bring them in alive.

This included a serial killer who made a suit from the skin of his victims. The murderer was tried and executed. The only time lethal force was used against people were against those of which there was a defacto state of war with. And if someone surrendered we either took them as POWs or let them go so long as they left their weapons behind.

But even as a general rule, do you execute a surrendering big bad? Well usually those types of people have done stuff that will earn them and execution anyway if you did bring them back for trial.
So why are they even surrendering?
In 3rd edition paladins are lawful good divinely empowered instruments of justice. If they can not be brought back for trial and their sentience carried out safely. Then it may be the paladins duty to carry out that sentience on the spot.

Â“Lord Darkhold, you murdered scores of innocent men, women and children without care or remorse. Turned them into your armies of the dead and unleashed them upon your enemies. Any prisoners you took were worked to death in your iron mines. For your crimes against sapience the sentience is death!Â”

And if the big bad didnÂ’t do something worthy of a death sentience. You might have to question why you slaughtered all his men.

rel

2020-10-26, 01:50 AM

Remember, if you don't want prisoners but the paladin is insisting, you can always pretend to go along then convince the paladin to go elsewhere while the resident sneaky type shanks them and makes it look like an accident.

hamishspence

2020-10-26, 01:51 AM

As far as I know you can't create a deathless wizard either, since both spells only allow you to create specific creatures, not add templates.

Create Greater Deathless allows you to create a Sacred Watcher from BOED. That's a template.

Gnaeus

2020-10-26, 06:16 AM

But even as a general rule, do you execute a surrendering big bad? Well usually those types of people have done stuff that will earn them and execution anyway if you did bring them back for trial.
So why are they even surrendering?
In 3rd edition paladins are lawful good divinely empowered instruments of justice. If they can not be brought back for trial and their sentience carried out safely. Then it may be the paladins duty to carry out that sentience on the spot.

Â“Lord Darkhold, you murdered scores of innocent men, women and children without care or remorse. Turned them into your armies of the dead and unleashed them upon your enemies. Any prisoners you took were worked to death in your iron mines. For your crimes against sapience the sentience is death!Â”

And if the big bad didnÂ’t do something worthy of a death sentience. You might have to question why you slaughtered all his men.

For real. You aren’t going to have Trial by Combat/Ordeal in D&D. That depends on the idea that god protects the innocent and just, which isn’t likely if Malar or Bane is as likely to be watching the fight as Selune or Mystra. Other than that, most medieval trials weren’t trials as we would think of them. I can’t see most groups going out of their way to deliver someone to the local magistrate for summary execution when there is a perfectly good knight or priest right there in the party to pass judgment.

Jack_Simth

2020-10-26, 07:21 AM

Reputations are a thing. In general, accepting surrender when you don't have specific reason not to is good policy (and usually is even when you do have specific reason not to). Same for treating prisoners well. A couple of reasons:

1) If it's known that you accept surrender and let folks live, folks are a lot more likely to try surrendering when the odds are no longer in their favor. This means they're not fighting as long, so you and yours take fewer hits. On the other end, if you're known for NOT taking prisoners (or for executing prisoners arbitrarily), then your opponents will always fight to the death, as once they've engaged it's victory or death - you've eliminated all other options.
2) People in general are more likely to accept surrender from folks who are known for accepting surrender. Unless you're so full of yourself that you think you'll always win (to be fair, in some games, that's a reasonably justified stance for PC's), it's better to have the option than not. If you never give quarter to those who ask, you can reasonably expect to never be given quarter yourself.
3) You're not the only person out there doing this sort of thing. Your actions will affect how folks see those who seem to be like you (even if it's just superficial appearances). This is part of why US soldiers are under standing orders to accept surrender and treat prisoners well, even when it's a significant hardship to do so: It's a practical matter. It's known US troops accept surrender and treat prisoners well, so a lot more opposing soldiers are likely to surrender, which means less fighting - and in turn, fewer US soldiers die as a result. Likewise, it's known that US troops accept surrender, so when US troops are sufficiently outgunned that they surrender, it's a lot more likely that their surrender will be accepted. Your convenience is not worth their lives.

For obvious reasons, this doesn't apply with Demons and the like, but for simple bandits? Absolutely. Surrender and live, all the way.

Asmotherion

2020-10-26, 07:35 AM

I don't care about the Paladin. It won't affect my RP in any way, as I don't tailor my RP to what class is in the group. If me and the Paladin have established a mutual Respect for each other through RP, I'd probably try to find a compremise solution that satisfies both of us; Otherwise, what the Paladin wants will be irrelevant to what I do.

That said, depends on what character I'm playing, his alignment, if he has a personal history with the Villain and what the villain has done to merit my wrath.

For my current, Neutral character: If the villain has engaged in inocent kills or other forms of despicable acts, torture followed up by enslavement followed up by death would be the default chain of actions. This character's whole personality revolves around Machiavelism, and has a simple rule: "You deserve to be treated exactly as you treat people, and that's how I will treat you". He's a vindictive b@stard, but if you're a kind soul, he'll make extra effort to treat you kindly.

That said, it depends on my character's personality as well. Sometimes I may play a Lawful Good grandson of a Metalic Dragon, and be more willing to hand the villain to the authorities, and let them deal with the punishment. Other times I may play a Neutral Evil Dexter-type Serial Killer Lich/Necropolitan who takes pleasure with torturing and killing other murderers. Or a Cleric of the 9 Hells whose purpose is to deliver Evil guys to the 9 hells. And sometimes, my chaotic neutral character will be too interested in looting the headquorters to actually care what the party does with the captive, and probably turn a blind eye if something scetchy was to happen, provided he gets an extra cut from the loot.

So, yeah, in a game were you can be a series of different people, there is not one answear to this question.

Efrate

2020-10-26, 07:57 AM

I assume this is a low level thing, since death ceases to be an issue at higher levels, at least for PCs, and healing magic as it is make it significantly less threatening for pcs with resources. So that angle or saving more lives IRL is meaningless when a spell or some GP can more or less totally invalidate that concern. Combat is sport for PCs, it is war for npcs generally

And no one will know about your surrender acceptance policy and such if all your foes die. Also the murderhobo adventure style where you are travelling from point a to b do not have to worry about reputation. Word cannot travel if there is no one to spread it.

If all your quests come from a patron, your instructions will be alive, alive if possible, or end threat by any means necessary so you know going in what you should do.

If you adventure from a central base but not at the behest of anyone, again your reputation does not matter.

Also unless in a very odd setting, at mid levels you have outstripped the ability of most normal humanoids to reliably be a threat. The foes you do face are much more likely to be either non-humanoid and/or have different societies and morals and goals than you and not respect whatever you and yours do.

Quertus

2020-10-26, 10:12 AM

Reputations are a thing.

And no one will know about your surrender acceptance policy and such if all your foes die.

Pretty much this. Part of the premise of the question was that the bandits were all dead - there is no-one left to spread the tale that you did not accept surrender. (Outside omniscient bardic knowledge or the like)

Now, granted, you aren't building a *positive* surrender-friendly image unless you take him prisoner - but, given the way damage and bleeding out work in 3e, if *all* of the bandits are *dead*, either a) they were no threat, and you *chose* to kill them all, or b) they were a threat, and you chose to slit their throats after they were down. Because, statistically, *some* should still be alive at this point vs any party not actively trying to murder them all.

If all your quests come from a patron, your instructions will be alive, alive if possible, or end threat by any means necessary so you know going in what you should do.

Good catch, I forgot about this possibility. The patron's intent could certainly influence some parties when making this decision. Actually, your patron could have explicitly specified "dead", too.

Although… if your patron wants the bandits *dead*, but their leader *alive*, the Paladin has probably already fallen… :smallamused:

Gnaeus

2020-10-26, 10:13 AM

I agree with Efrate, with the following addition/rephrasing.

In a typical game, you aren’t spending most of your time fighting enemy soldiers. No orc will care what you did to those bandits. In the unlikely event that you are fighting humanoids who might know, assuming your party is goodish, the enemy is probably evil. The evil overlord will carry out his evil plan for you whether you imprisoned his minions or killed them. The cultists or assassins just don’t care.

And fear is as practical an advantage as mutual respect for a code. If you have a rep as a scary guy who takes no prisoners, people may not surrender, but they may be more likely to run before fighting. The mongols did quite well by establishing a reputation that if you fought with them they would kill you, so you should surrender before the fight or not at all.

Psyren

2020-10-26, 10:30 AM

It's just a bunch of bandits terrorizing the area and charging tolls along "their" road. Nothing big. Sorry :)

My friend Rope-kun should be enough to restrain this guy until he can be brought to a local authority. (Or mob justice if I'm playing a spicier alignment.)

noob

2020-10-26, 01:47 PM

If all the enemies are dead because the boss killed them personally would any of the posters above change their responses?

Kelb_Panthera

2020-10-26, 02:04 PM

If all the enemies are dead because the boss killed them personally would any of the posters above change their responses?

My character Luther would probably not accept surrender in that case. Betrayer and murderer lands you in capital E evil. No just society wouldn't see him executed anyway so there's no need to go to excess lengths and waste the court's or the headsman's time.

"Your life is already forfeit. The only mercy I have left to offer you is a quick death."

Milo and Geoff wouldn't even bother exchanging words at that point. Dealing with the other PCs might complicate things but I doubt it.

mehs

2020-10-26, 04:52 PM

If all the enemies are dead because the boss killed them personally would any of the posters above change their responses?

Would be more likely to think that the surrender was a trick, but would still be likely to take prisoner if at all possible, if only to figure out why the hell the guy would do that.

Quertus

2020-10-26, 05:20 PM

If all the enemies are dead because the boss killed them personally would any of the posters above change their responses?

Well, yeah! Most of my characters would consider him useful (and wise!) at that point, and engage in dialog. Quertus would be very confused. and probably not turn him into a shovel - or, in the "orbital bombardment" scenario, commend his belated Divinations, accept his apology, and offer him a job as a clerk at a spell components shop. Raymond would be furious at the leader's lack of loyalty to his men, and would likely "Improved Mindrape" the leader into two beings: one with all the Wisdom that (my other characters would see that) the leader showed, but with a "loyalty graft"; the other a disembodied, imprisoned mind being tortured for all eternity for their lack of loyalty. Armus would be baffled that he so miscalculated - such a drastic turn of events is completely unprecedented. Eladove would likely be moved to grant him Synthesis status. Briq would still subdue him. Illyrian would probably still execute him.

Firechanter

2020-10-27, 05:46 AM

When my Paladin encounters baddies who he considers just "kinda bad" (like bandits) and not "Capital E Evil", he usually even offers them to submit before or during combat (and no I don't spoil ambushes), sometimes even twice. If they refuse to surrender then, they brought everything that follows upon themselves.

Jack_Simth

2020-10-27, 06:06 AM

And no one will know about your surrender acceptance policy and such if all your foes die. Also the murderhobo adventure style where you are travelling from point a to b do not have to worry about reputation. Word cannot travel if there is no one to spread it.
Pretty much this. Part of the premise of the question was that the bandits were all dead - there is no-one left to spread the tale that you did not accept surrender. (Outside omniscient bardic knowledge or the like)
No witnesses is not stated in the scenario - merely that all the bandits were dead. Have a few possibilities (this is not exhaustive):
1) People don't exist in a vacuum, not even bandits. Are you going to consider that little 7 year old orphan some of the bandits took in, who's done nothing more than cook and clean for the only folks who ever cared for her, a "bandit" and kill her?
2) The bandits may have had some number of prisoners of their own; perhaps a noble they were planning on ransoming off. Are you going to silence him with the sword?
3) Folks engage in trade, even bandits. It's entirely possible there's a merchant in earshot of the fight who hears the declaration of surrender, followed by a gurgle, but is far enough away that you can't see or hear him in the din of combat.

Even without a non-stated witness, though, such things spread. Have a few possibilities (also not exhaustive):
1) It's stated that there's a paladin in the party. Even if he doesn't specifically act against the action, how certain are you that he's not going to mention events that don't necessarily sit well with him to others?
2) You loot the bodies and sell the gear, right? For anyone who knows the bandit boss well enough to know he'd surrender in a losing fight, it's not hard to piece together what happened on seeing anything recognizably his in a shop. A few subtle questions to the shopkeeper on where the gear came from, and you're fingered.
3) Patterns of behavior still tell. If you never have prisoners, people will figure out you don't take them soon enough.

As bandits are usually a low-level adventure, none of the above examples require magic. With magic involved, have some more (again, not exhaustive):
1) You could also have a necromancer that decides to raise them as a templated undead, and finds out that way.
2) There could be a druid who owes the bandit boss a favor, and reincarnates him.
3) The bandit boss might rise as a restless spirit because he wasn't given a chance to reform after he'd seen the light and come to the realization that good does triumph over evil.

Also unless in a very odd setting, at mid levels you have outstripped the ability of most normal humanoids to reliably be a threat. The foes you do face are much more likely to be either non-humanoid and/or have different societies and morals and goals than you and not respect whatever you and yours do.
At least in my experience, it's pretty common at mid and even high levels to have big bads be humanoids with class levels, and have many of their minions also be humanoids with class levels. Sure, you'll absolutely meet folks who don't know/care how your party deals with folks who surrender. But there's also nothing stopping you from meeting folks who will.

Lvl 2 Expert

2020-10-27, 06:12 AM

I hate this general situation. It just super annoys me if a movie protagonist kills a hundred regular hired mooks but goes out of his way to not kill the actual bad guy because he's better than him. So then the villain has to try and kill the hero anyway by some badly thought out last minute back stab in order to stop getting me annoyed, which is annoying in its own right.

If I have a good way to capture the villain and maybe some potential use for them I might feel like it's the moral thing to grant them their surrender, but honestly I would prefer if the GM does not even put us in the situation. If you've been sending underlings to their deaths, not to mention whatever evil stuff you did to even start the whole plot in the first place, you should just stand up and fight when the time comes.

Of course, there's no villain like a hate-able villain. One that surrendered, then escaped and then killed my puppy just to rub it in is super hate-able. But I'll never admit I actually enjoy that story. So my official stance is that the DM should not make the big bad surrender.

Firechanter

2020-10-27, 06:17 AM

"They say mercy is the virtue of a great man."
*poke*
"Guess I'm just a good man."
*jab*
"Well, I'm alright."

Quertus

2020-10-27, 09:58 AM

No witnesses is not stated in the scenario - merely that all the bandits were dead. Have a few possibilities (this is not exhaustive):
1) People don't exist in a vacuum, not even bandits. Are you going to consider that little 7 year old orphan some of the bandits took in, who's done nothing more than cook and clean for the only folks who ever cared for her, a "bandit" and kill her?
2) The bandits may have had some number of prisoners of their own; perhaps a noble they were planning on ransoming off. Are you going to silence him with the sword?
3) Folks engage in trade, even bandits. It's entirely possible there's a merchant in earshot of the fight who hears the declaration of surrender, followed by a gurgle, but is far enough away that you can't see or hear him in the din of combat.

Even without a non-stated witness, though, such things spread. Have a few possibilities (also not exhaustive):
1) It's stated that there's a paladin in the party. Even if he doesn't specifically act against the action, how certain are you that he's not going to mention events that don't necessarily sit well with him to others?
2) You loot the bodies and sell the gear, right? For anyone who knows the bandit boss well enough to know he'd surrender in a losing fight, it's not hard to piece together what happened on seeing anything recognizably his in a shop. A few subtle questions to the shopkeeper on where the gear came from, and you're fingered.
3) Patterns of behavior still tell. If you never have prisoners, people will figure out you don't take them soon enough.

As bandits are usually a low-level adventure, none of the above examples require magic. With magic involved, have some more (again, not exhaustive):
1) You could also have a necromancer that decides to raise them as a templated undead, and finds out that way.
2) There could be a druid who owes the bandit boss a favor, and reincarnates him.
3) The bandit boss might rise as a restless spirit because he wasn't given a chance to reform after he'd seen the light and come to the realization that good does triumph over evil.

Well played. "No bandits" is not an equivalent statement to "no witnesses".

Mindrape handles many of these (especially the annoying Paladin), as could Diplomacy or Murder. And selling the spoils does not equate to his death, or, if he is dead, that he got an opportunity to surrender.

Quertus wouldn't care who saw him use a shovel. Armus *wants* witnesses that it was the Paladin's idea to take him prisoner. Briq, Datch, and Raymond/Tivek *totally* took him prisoner (what happened to him (a few minutes) after that is not their concern). Illyrian wants witnesses to the execution, just as Pidge wants witnesses to "and this is why you don't mess with Pidge". Witnesses just prove that Anna was out of earshot when the leader's head exploded. Witnesses just increase Eladove's reputation of Mercy to those who deserve it, and terrible vengeance to those who do not. Not that Delock cares, but his reputation is pretty solid, too. Rita would only be concerned if the witnesses were in the AoE.

Various forms of Resurrection (or even Speak with Dead) would be troublesome to the reputation of… Raymond. I don't think anyone else would care (beyond killing him again, this time with balefire).

"They say mercy is the virtue of a great man."
*poke*
"Guess I'm just a good man."
*jab*
"Well, I'm alright."

Nice QUOTE :smallbiggrin:

The Insanity

2020-10-27, 03:19 PM

Most of my characters only take prisoners when they're good looking ladies. But in some cases that means a fate worse than death for the captive.

Jack_Simth

2020-10-28, 06:35 AM

Well played. "No bandits" is not an equivalent statement to "no witnesses".

Mindrape handles many of these (especially the annoying Paladin),
Again: Bandits are usually a low-level adventure. Mindrape is a 9th level spell. It also presupposes you have essentially complete control over any witnesses (they don't have a viable means of escape, and are essentially helpless vs. your offenses), and that you know the witness is present. Neither of these last two presuppositions are always going to be true.

as could Diplomacy or Murder.
At least we know what side of the alignment spectrum you tend to play.... and again, presupposes you know about the witness and have essentially complete control of the situation.

Note: If you want the reputation for being merciful, without actually being so, what you really want is a disinformation campaign. If there's a babble of bards wandering around spreading stories of how you defeated, captured, and reformed various different groups, you'll get the rep for some cash rather than honestly.

And selling the spoils does not equate to his death,
Of itself? No, selling his stuff doesn't mean he's dead.

But almost nobody exists in a vacuum. When he doesn't show up on beer night, a friend of his checks in on him by dropping by the bloodstain that used to be a bandit camp (possibly finding the body, or do you routinely cremate humanoid remains at 3rd level or so? Skilled necromancers, of course, have 'better' things to do with the body....), not finding "destroyed bandit encampment" in the local law enforcement journals, and then finding his gear in a pawn shop makes it pretty obvious someone killed the bloke. Not much of a stretch to assume that the guy selling his stuff is closely associated with the one who did the deed.

or, if he is dead, that he got an opportunity to surrender.You can make reasonable assumptions in this regard if the general tactics of the two groups in question are known. This is hardly "bardic omniscience."

Quertus wouldn't care who saw him use a shovel. Armus *wants* witnesses that it was the Paladin's idea to take him prisoner. Briq, Datch, and Raymond/Tivek *totally* took him prisoner (what happened to him (a few minutes) after that is not their concern). Illyrian wants witnesses to the execution, just as Pidge wants witnesses to "and this is why you don't mess with Pidge". Witnesses just prove that Anna was out of earshot when the leader's head exploded. Witnesses just increase Eladove's reputation of Mercy to those who deserve it, and terrible vengeance to those who do not. Not that Delock cares, but his reputation is pretty solid, too. Rita would only be concerned if the witnesses were in the AoE.

Various forms of Resurrection (or even Speak with Dead) would be troublesome to the reputation of… Raymond. I don't think anyone else would care (beyond killing him again, this time with balefire).

That's getting to the core of it. Almost none of your characters expect to ever themselves surrender, and thus, they don't care about it when someone else surrenders. Buried in my original reason two: "Unless you're so full of yourself that you think you'll always win (to be fair, in some games, that's a reasonably justified stance for PC's)" seems to apply to your characters.

Gnaeus

2020-10-28, 07:02 AM

I overwhelmingly think my practical characters are more motivated by the desire to make their lives easier/less dangerous in the common case that they are trying to get enemies to run away, or surrender before fighting (which involves Them knowing that if they fight they will be tortured or killed at the end and also requires that your reputation be more frightening than the BBEG) rather than the so rare I’ve never seen it happen in game instance that they are A captured B by something that knows their reputation and C by something that cares and isn’t just going to kill/enslave/threaten/whatever them anyway regardless. I can actually only think of one time I’ve ever seen PCs captured (35 years of gaming, either side of the table) when it wasn’t a railroaded plot hook of one kind or another (now you are pirates, or break out of the dungeon, or now you must do this job for me).

Quertus

2020-10-28, 09:25 AM

requires that your reputation be more frightening than the BBEG)

"Whatever you threaten me with is ludicrous next to what Gnaeus would do to me" :smallwink:

However, not all enemies work for Keyser Söze.

rather than the so rare I’ve never seen it happen in game instance that they are A captured B by something that knows their reputation and C by something that cares and isn’t just going to kill/enslave/threaten/whatever them anyway regardless. I can actually only think of one time I’ve ever seen PCs captured when it wasn’t a railroaded plot hook of one kind or another (now you are pirates, or break out of the dungeon, or now you must do this job for me).

The PCs getting captured "on screen" rarely happens without either railroading (or a system designed to produce such results), yeah. So, while I view a TPK as a fail state, I view a capture scenario as a much greater fail state, existing in more dimensions of failure.

Again: Bandits are usually a low-level adventure. Mindrape is a 9th level spell.

That's CaS thinking, but yes. More accurately, bandits are usually a low-challenge threat; one who possesses Mindrape generally *can*, as you say, "have complete control of the situation".

It also presupposes you have essentially complete control over any witnesses (they don't have a viable means of escape, and are essentially helpless vs. your offenses),

These witnesses generally fell into the "captured by bandits" category. If bandits are low-pressure threats, and the witnesses were captured by them…

and that you know the witness is present.

Well, that is a potential issue.

Of course, if the bandits took to hiding their prisoners, or the young orphan can hide better than the Mindrape party can find, we may have bigger issues.

Note: If you want the reputation for being merciful, without actually being so, what you really want is a disinformation campaign. If there's a babble of bards wandering around spreading stories of how you defeated, captured, and reformed various different groups, you'll get the rep for some cash rather than honestly.

Also true.

do you routinely cremate humanoid remains at 3rd level or so?

I routinely cremate humanoid remains starting at level 0 or so, like any good elf. Unless the party has other uses for the corpses.

Not much of a stretch to assume that the guy selling his stuff is closely associated with the one who did the deed.

I'll make sure to start having misinformed beings start trying to murder people who let people live, then sold their stuff.

You can make reasonable assumptions in this regard if the general tactics of the two groups in question are known.

"Nuke the sight from orbit", "stealth", "silence", and "alpha strike" all preclude surrender.

Also, if your tactics are generally known, you need to try harder to kill / Mindrape witnesses and/or need to step up that disinformation campaign.

That's getting to the core of it. Almost none of your characters expect to ever themselves surrender, and thus, they don't care about it when someone else surrenders. Buried in my original reason two: "Unless you're so full of yourself that you think you'll always win (to be fair, in some games, that's a reasonably justified stance for PC's)" seems to apply to your characters.

That's quite some logic leaps there. You're wrong, but it's difficult to untangle exactly *how* you're wrong, because the answer varies by character.

Who might be entertaining to describe where that chain of logic falls?

Pidge: Pidge, of course, *did* accept the surrender. He then proceeded to remove the captive's arms, eyes, tongue, teeth, and body hair. His past treatment of prisoners has been similar, and he's recommended them be chained down like a veal calf and fed broth, drizzled directly into their mouth from a height of at least 6" beyond their perceived reach. He views it as the responsibility of the prisoner to seek freedom (and, most likely, vengeance). To quote the Pidge, "if an enemy captured me, and took fewer precautions than this? I would rob reality out from under them, and make them beg to only suffer this much.". Pidge treats his prisoners exactly the way that he expects to need to be treated as a prisoner.

Quertus: Quertus is very much in the "they attacked me" camp of self defense. Quertus, like most of my characters (in D&D or otherwise) usually fights *monsters*. (Quertus' treatment of monsters is quite racist (species-ist?), in that he captures specimens to experiment upon without granting them "human rights".) Quertus has surrendered before, and expects that he may well do so again… granted, realistically, his surrender is more likely to be of the school of "I recognize your authority" than "you pose any threat to me whatsoever" at this point (although, as Quertus greatly underestimates his abilities, the latter *is* a possibility…).

Illyrian: I think *every one* of Illyrian's pupils has been taken prisoner at some point or another, so he's very familiar with the concept. However, he views imprisonment as [evil] torture, and holds a much more Stark stance of dispensing justice.

Armus: Armus has been a prisoner repeatedly throughout his career, and the curtains rose on his gaming debut with him as a Drow prisoner.

Raymond: as a noncom, Raymond is all about options like take cover / hide / run away / surrender.

Rita: oh no, she's been taken prisoner, by bandits - that's *why* she's furiously ripping them to shreds.

Eladove: honestly, she's never really thought about it. Realistically, she'd probably go totally Stockholm over someone powerful enough to defeat her party, and compassionate enough not to send them to their eternal reward.

So, the logic chain was right for… one of the characters I described?

Probably best not to make such sweeping assumptions about the underlying motivations of my characters. I've seen people who could do so reasonably successfully, but you're clearly not on that list.

Gnaeus

2020-10-28, 10:49 AM

"Whatever you threaten me with is ludicrous next to what Gnaeus would do to me" :smallwink:

However, not all enemies work for Keyser Söze..
😁
I’m just saying I can think of lots of times in game that I wish our captured prisoners (Which are more often the result of disabling spells or non lethal damage than surrender) were more scared of our characters and the possibility that the mook in question could be tortured or murdered, compared with the 0 times I’ve seen PCs captured when their reputation mattered. I would call “interrogating the guys we knocked out with threats of violence (real or bluffed))” a routine scene, that happens in many campaigns.

mashlagoo1982

2020-10-30, 10:16 AM

Unless I am missing something, nothing in the OP or the follow up statements clarify the situation. This is the leader of a group of bandits whom charge a "toll" for using the road... that is all. While "toll" could mean many things, I'm going to assume it is money and goods... nothing that cannot be replaced and no serious harm is done to any of their victims.

I generally play some type of Good or Neutral character, swaying away from Evil. They would accept the surrender. The character's location on the Law - Chaotic scale would determine if the leader is delivered to the closest appropriate authority to be judged or if my character conducts their own investigation. Maybe another quest line will appear. I will stipulate this response is also campaign dependent. Maybe the appropriate punishment in the setting for this crime is immediate execution.

This isn't favoritism toward the bandit leader as the surrender of any of the underlings would also have been accepted had they been so incline to throw down their weapons. Many of the people I have gamed with would try to kill the bandit boss or worse.

Jazath

2020-10-30, 10:34 AM

I would interrogate this person for all he knows and make him submit under my enteral rule.
If he does not submit i'll just torture him until he does. And use his resources to improve my own.

Of course i usually play evil characters.

Quertus

2020-11-08, 08:34 PM

Are you going to consider that little 7 year old orphan some of the bandits took in, who's done nothing more than cook and clean for the only folks who ever cared for her, a "bandit" and kill her?

Remember that it's part of the premise of the scenario that, if you considered her a bandit, she is already dead, and therefore not a witness.

Personally, I would lean on the side of her definitionally being one of the bandits, as she is part of their camp. So I would actually contend that it's part of the premise of the question that you've *already* killed her when asking what you'd do about the surrendered bandit leader.

NichG

2020-11-08, 09:22 PM

Generally I tend to play characters who accept or even proactively seek and entreat surrender, but not for moral reasons. Killing removes opportunities from the world, either by taking a piece off the board or by making that piece resent you when it is raised. So surrender is often 'your story will be assimilated, your agency will be added to our own'. A serious attempt at surrender means I'm getting a henchman out of it, or a subsidiary organization, or a distraction to throw at an enemy, or a guide to the underworld.

If someone will persistently make the world a worse place by being allowed to continue to exist, then most of my characters won't be too bothered by refusing their surrender.

But the different characters have different levels of ambition and tolerance when it comes to that judgement - with the most extreme example perhaps being a fallen deity from a destroyed pantheon who collected cosmic horrors and avatars of evil as drinking buddies. Some mindflayer mother brain that consumed half of a planetary population might still be someone he can get along with - you never know (and he's seen worse and has a 'dying is just coming over to my house to visit' mentality). On the other end I've had a spymaster-type who would make a snap judgement of 'asset or liability' - and that judgment would be levelled at (NPC) allies just as readily as enemies.