GenCon (= Geneva Convention....)

[Edhelras]

I was wondering how you treat fallen enemies that are dying on the battlefield, after the battle is over. Do you stabilize them, or heal them, or just let them die?

Our party has just beaten an Evil priest for the second time. The first time, they stabilized him, imprisoned him and wanted to interrogate (but he saved against both Zone of truth and Detect thoughts, so they got nothing out him him - he's crucial to the enemy plans). He escaped his imprisonment, and almost slew his captors in a climactic battle. Now he's stabilized on his own, and again locked up in a cell. However, his Evil meatshield is bleeding to death.

Our party has a Paladin and a NG cleric with Healing domain. Both of them, I think, would feel bad about seeing a fellow human being bleeding to death. Should they stabilize the poor fellow (he's CR6 and the party is lvl 4, so he's a real menace to them)? They would really be inclined to do so, but their experiences from keeping prisoners the first time were quite frustrating.

I'm also thinking about this from an alignment perspective. I belong to the faction who believes that alignment should be a restraining jacket is some senses: in the way that you pick an alignment and should either try to live up to that, or plan making an alignment shift.
Would it be Ok for a LG Paladin and/or a NG priest to allow a dying, sentient creature to die, even if it's your enemy, if you're otherwise unthreatened and you don't have to expend potions or healing kits to help them?

This is, I think, a bit of a problematic aspect of the "dying -1 to -9 HP" rule, because it forces the Red Cross and taking prisoners dilemma on the party. But it also creates interesting situations, obviously.

[FelixG]

I would say it is dependent, is the guy suffering?

If he is suffering as he dies the paladin would at least be compelled to help instead of say sneer in the evil guys direction as he groans and dies a slow painful death.

the NG priest may not feel the compulsion to heal him but if he is in pain he MAY do a mercy killing so the man no longer suffers and can pass on peacefully.

Personally i just kill them as i find em if they are wounded on the field, unless they look important of course...or can be sold for a few GP 0.o -cant count the number of drow that have been sold by his RL group-

[Aotrs Commander]

I was wondering how you treat fallen enemies that are dying on the battlefield, after the battle is over. Do you stabilize them, or heal them, or just let them die?

Generally, our groups don't have the problem, since we tend to assume any of the enemy reduced to negative hit points is dead or is going to be by the time the combat ends. (Except on the rare occasion the enemy has Heal or something to hand).

[Emperor Tippy]

Generally I just kill them and turn the body to dust.

In high level play I whack them with a Temporal Stasis spell and throw them in a portable hole that has had Mage's Private Sanctum made permanent inside of it. That pretty much limits their allies to using Wish to get the body back before working on healing them. If I really don't like them then they get Mind Raped first and have everything wiped away/them thinking that their allies are their enemies.

---
Leaving enemies alive is just asking for them to escape and come after you with allies.

[FelixG]

Generally I just kill them and turn the body to dust.

In high level play I whack them with a Temporal Stasis spell and throw them in a portable hole that has had Mage's Private Sanctum made permanent inside of it. That pretty much limits their allies to using Wish to get the body back before working on healing them. If I really don't like them then they get Mind Raped first and have everything wiped away/them thinking that their allies are their enemies.

---
Leaving enemies alive is just asking for them to escape and come after you with allies.

Make them into undead, slap temporal stasis on them then toss them into the mages private portable hole :P

I think true resurrection would still work on the previous example!

[Emperor Tippy]

Nope, Temporal Stasis them when they are negative hit points, not when they are already dead. Thus Res/True Res does nothing. Although someone can still wish for them to appear in front of them and their is nothing you can really do to prevent that.

If you really, really don't like a guy that you killed them you go and use Raise Dead on them and kill them again. Repeat until they are out of levels/HD and potentially until they are out of Con as well.

Now it requires a god to bring them back and even then they still have to redo all their leveling work. Odd's are that they never become a threat again.

----
I actually used that on a BBEG. Killed him, used Raise Dead to bring him down to level 1, and then Mind Raped him into believing that he was a commoner who had always lived in the capital.

[Edhelras]

Generally, our groups don't have the problem, since we tend to assume any of the enemy reduced to negative hit points is dead or is going to be by the time the combat ends. (Except on the rare occasion the enemy has Heal or something to hand).

I guess this is the most efficient way to deal with the problem. Let each heal his own. But as noted above, it seems a bit strange for the pally and the healing-focused cleric, to just let them die like that.

We ended up giving first aid with makeshift bandages, but not tending them overmuch, so they're on their own thereafter.

Killing them to put them out of their misery seems a bit harsh to me, though. Something a grizzled fighter might do, if he could not heal. But a pally, or a healer, shouls have more efficient ways of giving comfort.

[The Glyphstone]

Nope, Temporal Stasis them when they are negative hit points, not when they are already dead. Thus Res/True Res does nothing. Although someone can still wish for them to appear in front of them and their is nothing you can really do to prevent that.

If you really, really don't like a guy that you killed them you go and use Raise Dead on them and kill them again. Repeat until they are out of levels/HD and potentially until they are out of Con as well.

Now it requires a god to bring them back and even then they still have to redo all their leveling work. Odd's are that they never become a threat again.

----
I actually used that on a BBEG. Killed him, used Raise Dead to bring him down to level 1, and then Mind Raped him into believing that he was a commoner who had always lived in the capital.

Um...how'd you get around the flaw that they have to be willing to return? Except for those who have been dead long enough to become petitioners, they do remember what happens while they're alive, and even a victim you Mindraped into thinking the two of you were bestest buddies would stop accepting your rezzes after the first couple raise-and-arbitrarily-murder combos (maybe he'd decide someone Mindraped you into hating him).

[Heliomance]

Mindrape him again every couple of deaths

[The Glyphstone]

I suppose - though to be perfectly safe, you'd have to Mindrape him after every single death, and even that might not work.

[Emperor Tippy]

Um...how'd you get around the flaw that they have to be willing to return? Except for those who have been dead long enough to become petitioners, they do remember what happens while they're alive, and even a victim you Mindraped into thinking the two of you were bestest buddies would stop accepting your rezzes after the first couple raise-and-arbitrarily-murder combos (maybe he'd decide someone Mindraped you into hating him).

DM ruled that they have to make the decision whether or not they can be ressed on death, they can't make it for each res attempt individually.

Basically, the dead person only knows that they are being ressed; do they want to go or not? If they choose not then they never get to try again (even if future res attempts are made).

So if they choose not to come back, well you are safe from them until/unless a god decides to bring them back into play.

[Aotrs Commander]

I guess this is the most efficient way to deal with the problem. Let each heal his own. But as noted above, it seems a bit strange for the pally and the healing-focused cleric, to just let them die like that.

We ended up giving first aid with makeshift bandages, but not tending them overmuch, so they're on their own thereafter.

Killing them to put them out of their misery seems a bit harsh to me, though. Something a grizzled fighter might do, if he could not heal. But a pally, or a healer, shouls have more efficient ways of giving comfort.

What I mean is that we assume anything reduced to 0 hits points is either dead, or has already bled to death by the time the combat finishes. (As it would be daft to expect people, even Paladins and clerics to start treating people - save maybe their party - while fighting is actually going on.) This obviously negates the nedd for any triaging or mercy-killing, since the dudes are already dead.

Mostly, though, it's an issue that we don't even think about unless there is a specific reason for it to matter; like the aforementioned bad guys using Heal or each other or something, or somebdoy hits someone they need alive and I actually have to check if there are really dead or not. That said, using the default death at -10, it tends to not matter much in highish level power levels (and character levels) anyway, since things tend to get whacked well below that with a single hit. (I personally now use death at minus half-hit points nowadays when it matters, since as we've played to higher levels, -10 is basically nothing.)

[Nero24200]

Good =/= Stupid

The evil character has already shown that he is still a threat as a prisoner. The fact that the party can take him shouldn't matter - He will still be a threat to others that can't defend themselves as well.

Unless the party have a sure fire way to make sure he cannot harm others they should kill him, otherwise the blood of any other potential victims should be on the hands of the party.

[Knaight]

It depends on the character. That said, I don't play D&D, and with very few exceptions there is no resurrection in the games and settings I play. Some characters have been reasonably nice and forgiving people that aren't going to try to kill you in many cases, leaving the standard issue guard and what not alive. Dangerous leaders on the other hand, are put down. Some are cold blooded killers, who's reaction to knowing they are being chases is probably going to be closer to tripwire around a bend so as to take the pursuers horses out than run, hide, and don't ever get in fights with the people that are chasing you if they are under orders.

[Telonius]

Um...how'd you get around the flaw that they have to be willing to return? Except for those who have been dead long enough to become petitioners, they do remember what happens while they're alive, and even a victim you Mindraped into thinking the two of you were bestest buddies would stop accepting your rezzes after the first couple raise-and-arbitrarily-murder combos (maybe he'd decide someone Mindraped you into hating him).

He's a BBEG. The afterlife is probably going to be rather unpleasant to him.

[Lhurgyof]

Generally I just kill them and turn the body to dust.

In high level play I whack them with a Temporal Stasis spell and throw them in a portable hole that has had Mage's Private Sanctum made permanent inside of it. That pretty much limits their allies to using Wish to get the body back before working on healing them. If I really don't like them then they get Mind Raped first and have everything wiped away/them thinking that their allies are their enemies.

---
Leaving enemies alive is just asking for them to escape and come after you with allies.

Yes, but we're talking about a Lawful Good Paladin and a Neutral Good Cleric, not an evil mind-raping wizard.. O.o

[Edhelras]

Good =/= Stupid

The evil character has already shown that he is still a threat as a prisoner. The fact that the party can take him shouldn't matter - He will still be a threat to others that can't defend themselves as well.

Unless the party have a sure fire way to make sure he cannot harm others they should kill him, otherwise the blood of any other potential victims should be on the hands of the party.

Can't really say I agree on this one. A LG person, IMO, should not kill enemies if they can be subdued and brought to justice - within reasonable limits, and with acceptable security that they won't harm anyone else in the foreseeable future.
I think it's especially so for sentient beings (humans, in this case), that a good aligned person would hesitate to kill it just for sake of convenience, and a lawful aligned person would hesitate to exact justice by himself, if a credible justice system existed that could take care of the prisoners (this, in fact, was happening in the vicinity of a city).

[Telonius]

I would think that a typical Paladin's code would allow him to reluctantly serve as judge, jury, and executioner if (and only if) no other competent legal and punitive authority is available. If I'm reading the OP right, it sounds like the guards and the prison weren't capable of containing the BBEG on their own, and it's only with the help of the PCs that they were able to subdue him again. To me that ratchets down the credibility of the legal system quite a bit. Are the PCs prepared to stay on as his jailers? Otherwise, you have the Arkham problem: put him away, and he'll just be out again next Tuesday. Taking that comparison a little further, Batman still never kills. But I'd say that Batman's code is a step beyond "normal" Paladinhood - more like an Exalted Vow of Nonviolence. For a BBEG in this situation, "Kill on sight" is an entirely appropriate response for an ordinary NG cleric, and possibly for a Paladin as well.

Now for the Meatshield... it would really depend on the level of threat he presented. Is the jail capable of holding him, if the BBEG is taken out of the picture? If so, then they should heal him.

[Uncertainty]

Can't really say I agree on this one. A LG person, IMO, should not kill enemies if they can be subdued and brought to justice - within reasonable limits, and with acceptable security that they won't harm anyone else in the foreseeable future.
I think it's especially so for sentient beings (humans, in this case), that a good aligned person would hesitate to kill it just for sake of convenience, and a lawful aligned person would hesitate to exact justice by himself, if a credible justice system existed that could take care of the prisoners (this, in fact, was happening in the vicinity of a city).

It depends on the character, I think. "Good" can mean a great many different things, and I do think that it is pretty reasonable to expect the NG healer-cleric to be the type that shows compassion to his enemies and is willing to give second chances.

I really hate how people tend to call such characters 'stupid-good' and somesuch by the way. Mercy, compassion and forgiveness are all traditionally considered to be the hallmarks of a good character - both in literature and in the real world. Of course, not all good characters have to express such benevolence - especially in serious situations like this one - but to outright dismiss it's possibility seems a little unfair. I guess it depends on how dark and/or cynical your game is.

[Edhelras]

I really hate how people tend to call such characters 'stupid-good' and somesuch by the way. Mercy, compassion and forgiveness are all traditionally considered to be the hallmarks of a good character - both in literature and in the real world.

I completely agree on this. Of course you can have some good characters who deviate from this. But frankly, if you want your character to be a cynical badass who don't care about the wellbeing of other people, only cares for himself, don't mind if he causes other people to suffer - then you should pick a non-good alignment. If not, you make a joke out of the alignment system.

(You may do that, of course. But then you should as well refrain from using the benefits that the alignment system offers to you. Just picking the benefits without accepting the restrictions isn't good roleplay or "interesting character", it's just childish "the rules are for everybody except me" thinking.).

[Edhelras]

I would think that a typical Paladin's code would allow him to reluctantly serve as judge, jury, and executioner if (and only if) no other competent legal and punitive authority is available. If I'm reading the OP right, it sounds like the guards and the prison weren't capable of containing the BBEG on their own, and it's only with the help of the PCs that they were able to subdue him again.
....
Now for the Meatshield... it would really depend on the level of threat he presented. Is the jail capable of holding him, if the BBEG is taken out of the picture? If so, then they should heal him.

The BBEG had been guarded by the PCs, that is, he had been locked up and was rescued by a team of assassins that the PCs didn't know were in play. They hadn't had the time to transfer him to the authorities, yet.
However, I'm not sure how much liberty has to judge for himself the legality of the local authorities? If the Paladin belongs to a very strict and orderly Order, of course that code will outshine most local authorities. But generally, I feel that the local authority should be very weak and/or chaotic or Evil for a Paladin to ignore it. If you interpret "Lawful" as just "following my own laws" you're really more a Chaotic person, unless you're being extremely rigid in your behaviour thus proving your point.

As for the meatshield, he is the most dangerous one (the priest is restricted from regaining spells, and the meatshield is a high-lvl fighter). He was our primary concern, really.

[Gavinfoxx]

??? Why is this a problem?

Coup de Grace them, unless you can ransom them back? Do the evil folk have a system of honor where such is possible? Is there anyone to ransom them back TO?

[Telonius]

Second chances are fine, and practically (if not actually) required for people with Good alignment. But third, fourth, fifth chances for a mass murderer? That's what people complaining about "Stupid-Good" are talking about. Yes, a person who puts Baron McEvil in jail for the fourth time after he's broken out of it three times might qualify as Good. But if he's not at least attempting to address the underlying problem of why the Baron keeps escaping, he is being stupid. No in-game vow or code of ethics requires a character to act stupidly. Even a Vow of Peace, which goes far beyond what the Paladin's Code requires, has a provision for people who break their oath of surrender.

[Accersitus]

I would try to reward good characters who show mercy and compassion,
and actually tries to bring the enemy alive to the authorities
so they can be dealt with in a more civilised way (if this is reasonable to
accomplish).
Although the character of the person being shown mercy must be taken in to
account by the PCs.
A CompleteMonster that can't be contained reliably might be too much of a risk,
but good has never been about taking the easy way out.

[Tetrasodium]

They are lawful/neutral good, not lawful/neutral stupid.
- Trap the Soul
- Sequester the gem
- Use Move Earth or similar to dig a huge hole
- go down in the hole and cast Temporal Stasis on the gem
- Cast Gate or similar to call an earth elemental in a way that lets it travel far far away from you, Get it's name then give the gem from Trap The Soul to the earth elemental and have it bring it to the center of the earth
- Take a nap and recover spells or something.
- Sequester the area you cast temporal stasis so people can't scry for it.
- Use Move Earth or similar to fill in the huge hole
- Sequester the filled in hole, just because you can.
- Cast Gate or similar to call the earth elemental from before by name.
- Get a high elemental binder to bind the earth elemental to something so nobody finds what it did with the gem from the earth elemental itself.
- Sequester & temporal stasis the item with the earth elemental, send it somewhere.
oh wait... lawful goood paladin and neutral good cleric...

Generally I just kill them and turn the body to dust.

In high level play I whack them with a Temporal Stasis spell and throw them in a portable hole that has had Mage's Private Sanctum made permanent inside of it. That pretty much limits their allies to using Wish to get the body back before working on healing them. If I really don't like them then they get Mind Raped first and have everything wiped away/them thinking that their allies are their enemies.

---
Leaving enemies alive is just asking for them to escape and come after you with allies.

You should reach into the hole and attach dimensional shackles or something after they are in the bag but before you temporal stasis them . Make them wish the shackles off first :).

[Emperor Tippy]

Wish brings them regardless of local conditions. So long as they don't make the save, they come.

There is no way to block Wish travel.

[Engine]

Would it be Ok for a LG Paladin and/or a NG priest to allow a dying, sentient creature to die, even if it's your enemy, if you're otherwise unthreatened and you don't have to expend potions or healing kits to help them?

It would be OK in my games.

And I played - and still playing - Good characters who rarely attended to fallen enemies. My Good characters thought for the most part that if someone tried to kill them or threatened an innocent bystander (or worse a loved one) and fought to death they had no obligation to save them. Like in Batman Begins, "I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you". Of course they spared them if they surrendered and asked for mercy.

Showing compassion is part of being Good, but I feel that saying that Good characters - or just Paladins - have to attend to fallen enemies is too much to ask to them. I feel that sort of compassion is more a trait of personality, an high-level of empathy that not all Good characters could have. A burden that could be easily exploited. Why someone would surrender to a Good character if he knows all too well that said Good character will save him\her after the fight?

[Edhelras]

... good has never been about taking the easy way out.

Exactly what I feel too.

[Hague]

I'd say stabilize the guy and get him to 0 hp, but do it without the other bad guy knowing you did. Then tell the locked up guy that you'll save his bodyguard if he tells you what you need to know. Since he's unlikely to talk, allow the formerly dying guy to hear his former boss say that he's not worth anything to him. A few diplomacy or bluff checks and you have yourself a converted bad guy.

[Edhelras]

It would be OK in my games.

And I played - and still playing - Good characters who rarely attended to fallen enemies. My Good characters thought for the most part that if someone tried to kill them or threatened an innocent bystander (or worse a loved one) and fought to death they had no obligation to save them. Like in Batman Begins, "I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you". Of course they spared them if they surrendered and asked for mercy.

Showing compassion is part of being Good, but I feel that saying that Good characters - or just Paladins - have to attend to fallen enemies is too much to ask to them. I feel that sort of compassion is more a trait of personality, an high-level of empathy that not all Good characters could have. A burden that could be easily exploited. Why someone would surrender to a Good character if he knows all too well that said Good character will save him\her after the fight?

I too can see that this is too much to ask, really, from just any Good character. Which is why I was especially concerned with this topic now with this LG Paladin (who had, previously in the adventure, been concerned that the party should rather seek out the authorities than handle the issue alone) and a NG cleric with Healing as one of his domain. I feel that if you select Healing domain, you should be pretty focused on healing people, perhaps even enemies.

I think pop culture is filled with such examples, BTW. For instance in Modesty Blaise, there is one of her consorts who is a doctor, and he's always insisting on tending to all injured people, even people who have tried to kill him, and even at personal risk.
BTW I'm a physician myself, and this impartiality of being a doctor is kind of a professional thingy, although few of us get to test it. And it's also the basis of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent society. So I think it would not be unexpected to find such behaviour even in DnD.

My feeling is that this is primarily a problem at lower levels, where the final strike will often put you between -1 and -9, but seldom down to -10 or lower. Also, the issue was raised by noticing the constant failings of fallen NPC in their d% rolls. The problem could of course be solved simply by not allowing fallen hostiles d% rolls to become stable. But that would detract from my personal taste for level of realism.