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

[Quertus]

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…

[Gnaeus]

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]

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]

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

[Kelb_Panthera]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Quertus]

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

[The Insanity]

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]

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]

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]

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"

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[vasilidor]

I had a soulknife that would have accepted the surrender. and a wizard that would have too. the difference between the two is the wizard would have proceeded to perform horrible experiments on the live subject and the soulknife would have arrested the villain and thrown him into jail until trial. a paladin I played would have just proceeded to chop his head off as the punishment for banditry where he lived was death.