anyone ever campaign a truly GOOD party?

[Tvtyrant]

No two people will ever fully agree on what "truly good" looks like, so no.

[MaxWilson]

No two people will ever fully agree on what "truly good" looks like, so no.

What about solo campaigns?

[SpanielBear]

Although the paladin's default response code goes like

if (target is beast or target.hasAttribute(cute)) { tryTame(target) } 
elif (target.hasAttribute(kneecaps)) { tryBashKneecaps(target)}
else  { trySmite(target) }

so he definitely tried to tame that shark.

I am reminded that whilst good is very firm on the subject of killing, it is more fuzzy on the subject of kneecaps.

[Tvtyrant]

What about solo campaigns?

Those are the most incompatible as no one can know themselves.

[Zevox]

For those that answer that they do play GOOD PCs as part of a GOOD party - do you capture your adversaries and turn them over to the authorities for a fair trail and possible incarceration/rehabilitation,

Wherever possible, yes. Our first major subplot of our current campaign was resolved with a minimum of bloodshed by tricking a group of... let's call them bandits for simplicity's sake, into an ambush by the local authorities, thoroughly sabotaging their ability to fight back before that ambush occurred, and then convincing the survivors to surrender once their leader had been knocked out (alive) and it became clear they couldn't win. Hell, my current character has tried to let adversaries walk away alive at times when it's not smart to do so, and even our party's chaotic neutral crazy member prefers tricking enemies into doing something silly to needless killing.

Do your campaigns involve defending your home or are they like every campaign I've ever encountered where your party goes out of their way to seek out conflict, combat, and treasure?

Aside from one adventure that we ran with an all-evil party, I cannot think of any that we've done where the party was going out of their way to seek out conflict, combat, or especially treasure. The basic situation is always that the group hears about someplace/someone in trouble, and goes to help. It's not often the party members' home specifically, but it's a person, town, or nation. Our current campaign has us attempting to aid a country that's been plagued by civil strife with a powerful devil cult that's been trying to conquer it from within, and had many other smaller threats take advantage of the chaos that's left the nation in to benefit themselves, for instance.

[Bilbron]

In reading this thread, one thing that I'm reminded of, as a comics nerd, is that comics have this weird morality trope where "heroes don't kill". So Batman will never kill the Joker even though he's a mass murderer who has often escaped to do more mass murder, so would have been executed in most legal systems a long time ago. But I think a deeper analysis shows such comic book morality to be very unjust, as per my example.

There was a very interesting series where Wonder Woman executed Max Lord (right after showing Superman who the greatest warrior in all of human literature is, since Max was mind-controlling him). It caused a major falling out between her and Superman/Batman precisely because of that trope, but I was pretty proud of her for doing what needed to be done after considering the situation for only 1 second.

So basically what you are saying is that if people (both PCs and players) don't do what you want you'll not only consider them "immature", you will also threaten to leave the group?

Yep. I'm not afraid to judge people and act accordingly.

Nietzche's palpable frustration with women as a lifelong bachelor makes me laugh. My favorite Nietzsche quote:

"Ah, women! They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent."

LOL, good one. He's good for those, and fortunately for him! History is SO KIND to the man who creates the pithy line. In my original field of economics, I'm convinced that's why Keynes was so popular despite the incoherence of his actual work (that and the natural attraction to his views by governments).

Those are the most incompatible as no one can know themselves.

OMFG you're killing me LOL!!!!!!

[kingcheesepants]

Heroic campaigns are pretty infamous for their mindless violence. Kill these bad guys! Destroy those bad guys! All bad guys, all da time! I mean, if you grew up on Star Trek in the 70s or A-team in the 80s, you might be excused for thinking knocking out the bad guys is what "good" guys do.

Also, refusing to help with a bandit problem isn't heroic.

You are correct in saying that lots of heroic campaigns utilize mindless violence and are just set pieces for killing various bad guys. However I was thinking of adventures and campaigns where the heroes are more focused on helping people and stopping the violence. Finding out why the goblins or orcs or whatever are attacking and helping them to achieve their goals of prosperity without violence. Less Lord of the Rings and more Discworld. I definitely didn't make that clear though so that's my bad.

Yeah refusing to help with the bandits (as I presented it) isn't heroic and I was intending to use that as an example of a party that was going out of the way not to use violence. The whole thing is a bit of a long story and this isn't really the place to expound on it. But basically the party was split between leaving because the whole thing was fishy and we had a world to save (the main quest), help the guards out cause they asked and deal with complications if and when they arise, and investigate it on our own without the guards (cause of the aforementioned fishiness). The DM however was mostly just throwing us a simple quest to fill some time and we were overcomplicating things so he cut it short and gave us an even simpler quest that wouldn't have us sticking around town and investigating the guards and figuring out why these bandits all turned to lives of crime etc. All the members of the party were trying to do the right thing and act according to a good alignment and avoid unnecessary violence so it serves as a halfway decent example of a party that is good.

For those that answer that they do play GOOD PCs as part of a GOOD party - do you capture your adversaries and turn them over to the authorities for a fair trail and possible incarceration/rehabilitation, or do you act as judge/jury/executioner and default to just KILLING things because it's simpler?

Do your campaigns involve defending your home or are they like every campaign I've ever encountered where your party goes out of their way to seek out conflict, combat, and treasure?




BTW - this was not intended as any sort of 'X species are all bad guys' focused discussion, but much more a 'you claim you are the good guys, but your solution to most problems is "we kill it" - you do realize how hypocritical that is, right?'


I especially find the posts/responses from our more rigid posters interesting ...

I guess most of my games involve defending people in one way or the other. Not necessarily our own homes but going out and helping people who are being assaulted by forces that they can't withstand. When there are authorities capable of imprisoning or punishing our adversaries we make a point to bring them in alive. When the adversaries appear to be persuadable or can be rehabilitated than we try to persuade or rehabilitate them. Violence is always the last resort and I would consider it pretty boring if every encounter was just a fight to the death. I like having bad guys with reasonable goals and being able to engage with them outside of combat. When you say that your games of D&D involve either looking for trouble or treasure what exactly do you mean? If for example you were saving a princess that was kidnapped by an evil necromancer and is going to be sacrificed on the next new moon for a ritual that will let him create an undead army and take over the world. Would accepting such a quest be considered as looking for conflict by you? Would fighting the necromancers zombie hordes and demonic allies while attempting to scale his tower in search of the princess be something that you would say is morally gray? How about a campaign where you have to find a Macguffin that's needed to keep the fabric of the material plane in check and stop the world from booping out of existence? Would you consider that a find the treasure type quest? Would the far realm aberrations that you might have to overcome in order to find the Macguffin be unacceptable targets for a good party?
If I'm fighting bad guys that can be reasoned with than sure I will absolutely reason with them and hopefully come to a non violent solution. Orcs or goblins or animals or what have you want things that can be acquired through non violent means. Help the goblins set up a shop, help the orcs become guards and smiths for the town help the beasts relocate to a place that they won't be a problem. But when the bad guy is a group of Mind Flayers that want to enthral and/or kill the whole town or a demon that just wants to create as much havoc as possible. Well in those cases we can't really have a meaningful dialogue and yes we'll use force up to and including lethal force to make sure that those types of folks aren't going to hurt anyone again. But violence is the last resort and if that isn't enough to make you think that the group is good I'm not really sure what you would accept as an answer.

[Droppeddead]

Unless you are lucky and provided with powerful non lethal tools.
Maybe if the gm gives the fighter a merciful sword that on dealing the finishing blow instead of killing stuns for an hour or some other homebrew like that.

Well, you always have the option of dealing non-lethal damage with melee attacks. Page 198 of the PLayer's handbook.

[Droppeddead]

Yep. I'm not afraid to judge people and act accordingly.

Lol. I'm sure the people you play with feel the same way about you.

[Bilbron]

Lol. I'm sure the people you play with feel the same way about you.

I absolutely hope so!

[Droppeddead]

I absolutely hope so!

Then why do you consider them immature just because they don't agree with you?

[KorvinStarmast]

Then why do you consider them immature just because they don't agree with you?

That is a mischaracterization of what was presented.

Suggest you revisit small (1) group dynamics and (2) small group leadership, and peer leadership fundamentals.

[Azuresun]

you also need to think how to fit 8+ encounters to not handicap short rest classes,

Obligatory reminder that the DMG does not (and says very clearly that it does not) mandate 6-8 encounters.

In reading this thread, one thing that I'm reminded of, as a comics nerd, is that comics have this weird morality trope where "heroes don't kill". So Batman will never kill the Joker even though he's a mass murderer who has often escaped to do more mass murder, so would have been executed in most legal systems a long time ago. But I think a deeper analysis shows such comic book morality to be very unjust, as per my example.

That's more for out-of-universe reasons that come about when you're dealing with a 90-year-old franchise--people want to read about Batman fighting the Joker, so the Joker needs to escape Arkham, needs to be irredeemably evil, and can't be killed, redeemed, kill Batman or locked away for good at the end, or anything else that would irreversibly finish the story. So the writers and characters just have to pretend that this isn't the 300'th time the Joker has done this.

[Keravath]

For those that answer that they do play GOOD PCs as part of a GOOD party - do you capture your adversaries and turn them over to the authorities for a fair trail and possible incarceration/rehabilitation, or do you act as judge/jury/executioner and default to just KILLING things because it's simpler?

Do your campaigns involve defending your home or are they like every campaign I've ever encountered where your party goes out of their way to seek out conflict, combat, and treasure?

BTW - this was not intended as any sort of 'X species are all bad guys' focused discussion, but much more a 'you claim you are the good guys, but your solution to most problems is "we kill it" - you do realize how hypocritical that is, right?'


I especially find the posts/responses from our more rigid posters interesting ...

I'd second the comment that you are bringing your own personal definition of good and evil into the way you are asking this question. The underlying assumption appears to be "You kill things, that is evil, you must be evil, how can you justify being considered good?"

This seems to assume that killing creatures is always evil.

If you are fighting in an army for your country are you evil if you kill people from another country? Does this change depending on whether other people in the world consider you the aggressor or the defender?

In the case of a party that is trying to deal with bandits that are looting and burning villages, does it make any difference if the characters have been deputized by the local authorities? Does it make any difference if the local authorities want the bandits "dead or alive"? Historically, this wasn't uncommon. Did this make all these people and those who worked for them evil?

"or are they like every campaign I've ever encountered where your party goes out of their way to seek out conflict, combat, and treasure?"

In most of the campaigns I play, most of the characters have role play motivations and actual character traits that guide their decisions. I'm sorry that you seem to have never played in such a campaign and seem to be surrounded by "murder hobos".

For example, if a party is in a darkened tomb filled with undead because there is some issue related to the tomb and the depredations of these creatures - then they will likely kill the undead (unless there is some indication or knowledge that they could be saved somehow) and then may generally take what they find if the property isn't owned by someone else. There may be consequences to their actions. Is it evil to "cleanse" the tomb of "evil"? Both the players I have played with and myself would say no.

On the other hand, if the party decided to find a rich person's house in a town, went inside, killed the inhabitants and took the stuff they find without any greater reason or justification than "Hey it was there and I could do it" then those are evil actions. In either case, cleansing a tomb or looting a town house could have additional consequences as part of the story since the story evolves in response to player actions.

Finally, if the only justification for killing opponents is self defense or you believe that killing is intrinsically evil then you have already answered the good party question for yourself. Other people will have other moral viewpoints and a different take on the answer to your question.

Personally, I consider a gang of "murder hobo" characters to be evil. However, I don't consider it evil to kill creatures in D&D that are a threat to others or yourself. Whether a group brings prisoners back for a trial or administers capital punishment in the field has more to do with the legal structure of the local society than it does with the question of good vs evil. If a country doesn't have courts, judges, lawyers, a written code of laws that are applied equally ... then the society is not equipped for a modern response to criminality.

All you can really do, if you want to model the D&D society is fall back on historical examples - things like court systems, available to all, and innocent until proven guilty are modern concepts that rarely if ever were applied before the modern era (and in many cases, even today, are not applied uniformly which is a failure of our society). There are a lot of historical examples but it is probably against the rules of the forum to bring them up. Do these situations make the past historically "evil" - that would depend on the perspective of the person making the judgement. In some cases, yes, others probably not.

[Droppeddead]

That is a mischaracterization of what was presented.

Suggest you revisit small (1) group dynamics and (2) small group leadership, and peer leadership fundamentals.

Not really, it was what he said. If he doesn't get it his way and can't bully the other players into doing what he want, he'll threaten to leave because according to him, those players are immature.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Not really, it was what he said. If he doesn't get it his way and can't bully the other players into doing what he want, he'll threaten to leave because according to him, those players are immature.

You might be finding issue with his candidness here, because I think at this point we've established that he's not actively threatening people and leaving a group that you disagree with is a much better alternative than, say, sticking with it and forcing yourself (and probably them in the long term) to deal with those frustrations. Unless I'm reading into this incorrectly, he also seemed to say that creating a new character with an alignment matching the expected actions of the party is an acceptable alternative to forcing a character he made that wouldn't act in this way to change.

One of the earliest hurdles I had when our group started learning D&D is that I very frequently make characters that are good and lawful leaning and my expectation for running a game is that the players would be heroic (or at least, not actively villainous) and I've had to step away from games because there has been a player that made a character so against the grain of my play preferences that I found no joy in continuing. In those cases, it wasn't always my place to ask them to adjust themselves or they refused when I felt it reasonable to ask.

There's a reason some seasoned DM's adopt the standard "if you don't like it, walk away." for their table and it's not a problem if players adopt the same attitude.

On the side note of maturity, he has made it clear that it's falling under his perception of "mature" which might be more stringent than one you or I would use.

[TyGuy]

However, the problem is more nuanced than that. All too often, the reasons given exist because the enemy in question is part of a race of (evil) hats with a culture designed to make them acceptable targets. Some settings even have this be an inborn quality of the race! Need bloodthirsty savages? Orcs. Need decadent noble slavers? Drow. This particular treatment is far more problematic.

The easiest way to solve this is to abolish races of hats. Have most villains arise out of one of several equally prominent cultures for a given race, or out of multi-racial societies. Stop having entries in the monster manual that describe an entire biologically designated group of sapient beings like this:



This sort of "setting up a racial group to make easy antagonists" is precisely what Order of the Stick is criticizing with the goblin subplot.

It's ok to run intrinsically evil races. If you don't like it that's fine. If people like running old canon orcs that embody the tenants of Gruumsh, pig snouts and all, that's fine too.

[da newt]

Hypothetical:

A sheep farmer has one of his sheep killed and eaten by XXX. So the sheep farmer hunts down XXX and kills them. Then he goes home to celebrate his victory with a lice leg of lamb ...

The Farmer believes he is GOOD and justified in killing XXX who he believes is EVIL, yet he just killed XXX for killing and eating a sheep - which he does over and over again AND he has killed XXX for it as well ...




As to the question 'is killing always EVIL' - I do believe that there are situations where killing someone/thing is justified, but I believe those instances are rare. Most of the written campaigns I have played (mostly AL, and some hardcover) do a piss poor job of providing a justifiable motive for all of the killing they are designed around (in my opinion). When I play GOOD PC's I find myself often having to decide that they would do the thing the adventure wants them to do even though any decent person would not. You have to play as if your PC is the Tick - just stupid and delusionally heroic in order to keep the plot rolling.

I'm just fine with the premise of the game, and the tactical challenge of winning battles with monsters etc, it's the hypocrisy of GOOD PC's solving everything by violence that bugs me. I'm fine with the suspension of disbelief that is fantasy role playing, but the dishonesty of the white hat team grates.

Just my opinion. I was wondering if it was just me.

[Droppeddead]

You might be finding issue with his candidness here, because I think at this point we've established that he's not actively threatening people and leaving a group that you disagree with is a much better alternative than, say, sticking with it and forcing yourself (and probably them in the long term) to deal with those frustrations. Unless I'm reading into this incorrectly, he also seemed to say that creating a new character with an alignment matching the expected actions of the party is an acceptable alternative to forcing a character he made that wouldn't act in this way to change.

Again, going by what he said he threatens and bullies players (at least ingame) into getting what he wants. But yes, I agree with you that him leaving the group is in that group's best interest. Personally, the whole "if things doesn't always go exactly the way I want" sounds rather boring from a RP and fun point of view. If he feels that way, imagine what all of the other players/PCs must feel like when he forces his will upon them.

One of the earliest hurdles I had when our group started learning D&D is that I very frequently make characters that are good and lawful leaning and my expectation for running a game is that the players would be heroic (or at least, not actively villainous) and I've had to step away from games because there has been a player that made a character so against the grain of my play preferences that I found no joy in continuing. In those cases, it wasn't always my place to ask them to adjust themselves or they refused when I felt it reasonable to ask.

Yeah, player and/or PC dynamics is a thing, that's why it's weird to, for example call people immature just because they don't play the game exactly the way you want it to be played.

There's a reason some seasoned DM's adopt the standard "if you don't like it, walk away." for their table and it's not a problem if players adopt the same attitude.

Sure, that I have no issue with. It's the "my opinion is the only one that matters" and "people who don't play the game the way I like are immature" bits that I react to.

On the side note of maturity, he has made it clear that it's falling under his perception of "mature" which might be more stringent than one you or I would use.

Yeah, that is *very* obvious.

Cheers!

[TyGuy]

A sheep farmer has one of his sheep killed and eaten by XXX. So the sheep farmer hunts down XXX and kills them. Then he goes home to celebrate his victory with a lice leg of lamb ...

The Farmer believes he is GOOD and justified in killing XXX who he believes is EVIL, yet he just killed XXX for killing and eating a sheep - which he does over and over again AND he has killed XXX for it as well ...

The extent that the killing of XXX is justified or an overreaction requires a ton of context. But, the farmer in this hypothetical is not killing XXX for doing that which the farmer does (eating lamb), the farmer presumably kills XXX for the theft/ destruction of the farmer's property.

[Democratus]

Hypothetical:

A sheep farmer has one of his sheep killed and eaten by XXX. So the sheep farmer hunts down XXX and kills them. Then he goes home to celebrate his victory with a lice leg of lamb ...

The Farmer believes he is GOOD and justified in killing XXX who he believes is EVIL, yet he just killed XXX for killing and eating a sheep - which he does over and over again AND he has killed XXX for it as well ...

Sure. XXX was stealing the property of the sheep farmer.

The sheep farmer killed XXX to prevent further theft, both from XXX and from anyone else who would steal from the farmer if they felt there were no consequences.

Taking what belonged to someone else made XXX the bad guy. Defending his property rights makes the farmer the good guy.

[Naanomi]

The extent that the killing of XXX is justified or an overreaction requires a ton of context. But, the farmer in this hypothetical is not killing XXX for doing that which the farmer does (eating lamb), the farmer presumably kills XXX for the theft/ destruction of the farmer's property.

Fantasy subsistence level sheep farmer probably has a child starve to death and the local baron slaying their grandmother if they lose more than a sheep or two unexpectedly. These are not wealthy people turning an sort of profit and getting fat off of lamb that they just love the taste of

[KorvinStarmast]

Not really, it was what he said. If he doesn't get it his way and can't bully the other players into doing what he want, he'll threaten to leave because according to him, those players are immature.

That is your characterization of what was typed, and oddly enough, my take away from his input is not the same as yours. And I'll leave it at that. ETA: the value of a session zero, where all of the players get together and form a team, arrive at "why are the five of us from disparate backgrounds even working together?" and determine 'what's our team going to be like?' is I think underappreciated. YMMV on that.

You might be finding issue with his candidness here,

Might be a lot of things. (PS: for your post one up vote).

[Mellack]

Hypothetical:

A sheep farmer has one of his sheep killed and eaten by XXX. So the sheep farmer hunts down XXX and kills them. Then he goes home to celebrate his victory with a lice leg of lamb ...

The Farmer believes he is GOOD and justified in killing XXX who he believes is EVIL, yet he just killed XXX for killing and eating a sheep - which he does over and over again AND he has killed XXX for it as well ...




As to the question 'is killing always EVIL' - I do believe that there are situations where killing someone/thing is justified, but I believe those instances are rare. Most of the written campaigns I have played (mostly AL, and some hardcover) do a piss poor job of providing a justifiable motive for all of the killing they are designed around (in my opinion). When I play GOOD PC's I find myself often having to decide that they would do the thing the adventure wants them to do even though any decent person would not. You have to play as if your PC is the Tick - just stupid and delusionally heroic in order to keep the plot rolling.

I'm just fine with the premise of the game, and the tactical challenge of winning battles with monsters etc, it's the hypocrisy of GOOD PC's solving everything by violence that bugs me. I'm fine with the suspension of disbelief that is fantasy role playing, but the dishonesty of the white hat team grates.

Just my opinion. I was wondering if it was just me.

In most such situations I doubt the one taking the sheep was evil or that the farmer thought they were good for killing them. The most common example of such an event would be a wolf or lion. They would not be considered evil, they would be thought of as a dangerous pest that needed to be stopped. The farmer would consider it necessary to get rid of them, because the pest is a threat to their own livelihood. Killing the pest is the most efficient and practical method. It is not really a question of good or evil.

Your post seems based on the idea that killing must be evil, or at least against good. I think that concept is incorrect. Are sperm whales evil because they kill thousands of cuttlefish? Is as person evil if they kill a tiger that is killing people?

[Droppeddead]

That is your characterization of what was typed,

No, that was a summation of what he said since I didn't have the time to go back and quote every single one of his posts. That really has nothing to do with sessions zero even though I'm sure that the people he plays with probably wished they had one with him befor ethey even got started. But who knows, maybe he bullied them out of that as well. Not sure what point you are trying to make here, though.

[Vegan Squirrel]

Hypothetical:

A sheep farmer has one of his sheep killed and eaten by XXX. So the sheep farmer hunts down XXX and kills them. Then he goes home to celebrate his victory with a lice leg of lamb ...

The Farmer believes he is GOOD and justified in killing XXX who he believes is EVIL, yet he just killed XXX for killing and eating a sheep - which he does over and over again AND he has killed XXX for it as well ...




As to the question 'is killing always EVIL' - I do believe that there are situations where killing someone/thing is justified, but I believe those instances are rare. Most of the written campaigns I have played (mostly AL, and some hardcover) do a piss poor job of providing a justifiable motive for all of the killing they are designed around (in my opinion). When I play GOOD PC's I find myself often having to decide that they would do the thing the adventure wants them to do even though any decent person would not. You have to play as if your PC is the Tick - just stupid and delusionally heroic in order to keep the plot rolling.

I'm just fine with the premise of the game, and the tactical challenge of winning battles with monsters etc, it's the hypocrisy of GOOD PC's solving everything by violence that bugs me. I'm fine with the suspension of disbelief that is fantasy role playing, but the dishonesty of the white hat team grates.

Just my opinion. I was wondering if it was just me.

Ah, well I don't typically play published adventures, so that could be the crux of it right there. But an adventure really shouldn't be written so that poorly justified killing is the only path forward. Surely neutral or evil PCs can take that path, but there should be a way for good PCs to exist unless they were explicitly ruled out at character creation. I think you'll find such flaws don't tend to exist in custom content created for good parties. Difficult choices exist, where it may seem easier to cut moral corners; that makes for meaningful choices, character decisions, and consequences. But "the thing the adventure wants them to do" doesn't matter. It's important to nail down what will motivate your characters at the start of a campaign, so that the DM can provide meaningful hooks and avoid such situations, or else blame themselves when the party doesn't take the poorly designed bait.

[Naanomi]

So... you suggest that truly Good PCs, storming the flying castle filled with fanatical dragon cultists and a cruel white dragon leading them... with the goal of stopping their ritual to summon a world ending dark draconic God that finishes at Midnight... should subdue and capture the hundred or so of them (and the adult dragon) and... turn them over to the proper authorities or convince them to abandon their faith?

((Seems like the kind of thing a traditional 'Good Party' may be tasked with doing))

[noob]

So... you suggest that truly Good PCs, storming the flying castle filled with fanatical dragon cultists and a cruel white dragon leading them... with the goal of stopping their ritual to summon a world ending dark draconic God that finishes at Midnight... should subdue and capture the hundred or so of them (and the adult dragon) and... turn them over to the proper authorities or convince them to abandon their faith?

((Seems like the kind of thing a traditional 'Good Party' may be tasked with doing))

It is the kind of thing a 3.5 or 4e (thanks you for the concept of minion 4e) party can do.
5e is just not meant to allow fights with hundreds of people and a dragon at once and it is what happens if the opponents are not magically dumbed down to an extreme point.

[Naanomi]

It is the kind of thing a 3.5 or 4e (thanks you for the concept of minion 4e) party can do.
5e is just not meant to allow fights with hundreds of people and a dragon at once and it is what happens if the opponents are not magically dumbed down to an extreme point.

It is a huge flying castle, I assume most PCs would use stealth and the like to bypass most of the fight... but ending the ritual will crash the castle, so *truly* good PCs will have to find a way to rescue them all first

[noob]

It is a huge flying castle, I assume most PCs would use stealth and the like to bypass most of the fight... but ending the ritual will crash the castle, so *truly* good PCs will have to find a way to rescue them all first

Doing everything in less than 10 minutes and shoving all the unconscious opponents in bag of holdings is a solution I think.
That or abuse teleportation circle if you are in an older edition(I am not sure teleportation circles are as good at mass transit in 5e)