Defeated Enemies (Part II)

[malkav565]

As soon as Adam gets a chance, he will address the group.

"Friends, I would ask that we make a pact to each other. We frequently discuss the treatment of defeated enemies. I would like to propose a standard - a 'protocol' if you will."

"Firstly, I think that we should agree not harm or maim anyone who has surrendered to or been captured by us. We are very persuasive and have no need of foul torture or threats to get cooperation."

"Secondly, I think that we should disarm and release any captured prisoners soon after a battle. I don't think we should bind them. I feel we should provide them enough basic gear to survive their next journey - maybe a staff or club. Then let them be on their way."

"We do not have the resources to keep prisoners and causing them harm is dishonorable and makes us no better than our enemies. We should take their possessions to disable their ability to cause mischief. Keeping them with us will slow us and reveal our secrets to them unnecessarily."

"Finally, I think we should stabilize the dying and bind what wounds we can on our fallen foes. They should live to get another chance at redemption."

"If you absolutely must slay our defeated foes, you should do it honorably in a duel. No help from the party. The enemy should be armed and armored as normal. No stabbing in the back. No ganging up and stabbing an unarmed foe. No fatal mercy. This is the work of the enemy."

"If you do not agree to this behavior, I understand. However you must know that I will defend even our helpless foes from dishonorable attacks from our group."

[Andre]

(to clarify a bit further from the DM's viewpoint... Adam is acting perfectly in character as a LG monk with the exalted vows he's taken ... but as far as violations of good alignment and what's not a violation :

- we already talked about not maiming, harming or attacking prisoners or foes who surrender so we're all already agreed that's the protocol Good aligned PC's in this campaign will follow

- Good aligned PC's can get away with tying up a foe and simply leaving them there on the battlefield after you're done with them without violating your Good alignment .. I know I know the logical assumption would be said foe would die from starvation or hunger if nothing else, but sometimes unexpected events occur in this game world ... more than likely you'll end up seeing this foe again but NOT as an enemy , nor will they run off and "tattletale" to the opposition.. like I said earlier it's unfair of me as a DM to punish players for showing mercy towards prisoners... though some might argue travelling with Grusk and Trusk is punishment enough (far as I'm concerned it's just RP'ing, true they pissed Riverwind off when you were questioning him but the diplomacy rolls in this group are so high I figured it was something you could easily overcome .. at this point I tend to play the Usk brothers up as a comedy more than anything else )

- you can get away with not supplying bad guys with basic equipment they'll need to survive and still be Good aligned

- feel free to stabilize fallen prisoners and bind their wounds but you can get away with not using healing magic on them (which I'm guessing players might want to preserve for their PC's) and still be Good aligned

- slaying defeated foes in a fair duel (where they're armed and you're armed) is fine, stabbing 'em in the back or ganging up on a foe (the entire party vs one opponent say) would be considered an alignment violation if you're Good aligned.

Having said that... if a PC is as merciful as Adam is suggesting you be, it makes your foes far more inclined to come over to your side and assist you in the future (Toede for example and Rin offering to hook Toede up with Rin's dwarf buddy in the "interrogation of Toede" thread ...Toede won't soon forget that ) as opposed to the "default" hiding themselves away in some hole from the rest of the world (which makes sure they don't screw up the party in any way but they're not a potential ally later on either) ..

Adam not trying to undermine you here, just setting up Good aligned standards as seperate from exalted standards.. something the rest of the group can live with basically ... you already said "if you do not agree to this behavior I understand" so I'm guessing as a player you understand too .. again from my point of view you're doing a great job RP'ing him as an exalted PC

[Andre]

(and correct me if I'm wrong Adam but I believe Adam is addressing the entire group in the caves of Crystalmir lake just outside Solace , when the hobgoblins aren't listening )

[malkav565]

Yep. Adam isn't speaking as the "spokesman of good". He's speaking to his preferences and trying to get the others to agree.

Aug 12, 2010 8:41:09 GMT -5 Andre said:

(and correct me if I'm wrong Adam but I believe Adam is addressing the entire group in the caves of Crystalmir lake just outside Solace , when the hobgoblins aren't listening )

[darkalloy]

Rin smiles adn leans back on to the cave wall. " I may not be able to do that all the time adam. I can try but in no why can I guaruntee that I won't act in a way you find wrong."

[malkav565]

"It's not about wrong or right. I'm really not trying to judge you. I'm just asking for some help, Rin. It's not easy trying to be nice to people who don't deserve second chances. It's just a good thing to do." Adam smiles.

Aug 12, 2010 9:24:30 GMT -5 @darkalloy said:

Rin smiles adn leans back on to the cave wall. " I may not be able to do that all the time adam. I can try but in no why can I guaruntee that I won't act in a way you find wrong."

[nydhog]

"Adam, my friend, some of what you say I can agree to. But I will tell you right here and now before the gods and you that I will NOT arm a foe and send him on his way. I will agree to the duels. I will help to mend the dying's wounds, if even so I may interrogate them. What you speak of is all of preference to the rules of combat. The way I was raised is vastly different then you. I agree to adapt and learn as I spend more time amongst the more civilized but I will stand firm in my belief that an armed foe is a danger, even if we spared him. Flint and tender perhaps, but even a club can be a weapon of great force."

(I understand what your saying and Andre I believe you about not coming back to haunt us BUT: from a character RP standpoint, especially one so messed-up as Eolaer, I cannot arm a surrendered opponent. It would be vastly out of character for him. Sparing them I agree to and will hold up that agreement UNLESS in a 1on1 duel as mentioned. I said from the get go I enjoy heavy RP so I won't bend on this belief of how Eolaer would take such a protocol, at least not so soon in the run.)

[rogueserpent]

OOC - lmao at Ealoer... arming an opponent is ridiculous, no offense to anyone but it seems hilarious.

[nydhog]

((lol he said give em clubs or something. This was my in character response lol))

[Andre]

(ok duly noted everyone and I'm glad we're all keeping this discussion civil ... yep I think malkav understands that while his PC may try to sway you over to his way of thinking malkav as a player won't be too bent out of shape if no one goes along with it ... and I've already mentioned what is and isn't considered a good alignment violation from my previous post so we're all set )

[rogueserpent]

( Yeah, I realize Adam is his own entity and must be played quite tight, considering he is LG. I've never been an evil player but I think some of us have different views on how evil people should be treated. Neutral people that make a mistake, whatever, I can show compassion but evil creatures or pure evil humans etc really shouldn't be alive. They wont change and your allowing other people to be hurt by allowing them to be alive. Not to get in a ridiculous out of place political/moral discussion but Im comfortable with Charles Manson ( or any pedophile for example ) going to the electric chair.... and I wouldn't give him a club and send him on his way, ever. Ill also be at Church Sunday :-) lol )

[Andre]

Aug 13, 2010 12:42:09 GMT -5 @rogueserpent said:

( Yeah, I realize Adam is his own entity and must be played quite tight, considering he is LG. I've never been an evil player but I think some of us have different views on how evil people should be treated. Neutral people that make a mistake, whatever, I can show compassion but evil creatures or pure evil humans etc really shouldn't be alive. They wont change and your allowing other people to be hurt by allowing them to be alive. Not to get in a ridiculous out of place political/moral discussion but Im comfortable with Charles Manson ( or any pedophile for example ) going to the electric chair.... and I wouldn't give him a club and send him on hi
s way, ever. Ill also be at Church Sunday :-) lol )

Yep that's fine you're entitled to your opinion .. but in-game one of the requirements I've established for good aligned PC's (and I'd prefer all PC's be good aligned at this point) is no killing opponents or prisoners, even if they're evil scum of the earth, once they are no longer a threat in combat (basically if they're helpless and/or not fighting back ) ... one theme my campaign is redemption or to put it another way, even evil people can change... anyways as rogueserpent says no need to get into a ridiculous prolonged discussion about it, and we've already been down this path before with mikker0 and nydhog,both of whom are comfortable playing with the current good alignment restrictions so we'll leave it at that (in my campaign anyways, needless to say in nydhog's campaign he'll be calling the shots and you can feel free to send those evil SOB's to the electric chair.. or the electric +5 sword of shocking or whatever in this case ) ..

[nydhog]

(aye. Like I said: Your alignment can and WILL shift based on your actions)

[malkav565]

Yeah, this is totally in character.

Out of character, even an unarmed released opponent is a danger.

In campaigns I GM, I give people with this feat hell, to a certain extent. It's the price for the feat. But every once in a while, it'll be a bright spot on an evil heart.

In character, Adam is concerned about sending a beaten foe into the wilderness without any means of getting food. It's basically a survival thing. I'm not sure how much that idea came out in character. It's just the way he thinks.

Aug 13, 2010 12:42:09 GMT -5 @rogueserpent said:

( Yeah, I realize Adam is his own entity and must be played quite tight, considering he is LG. I've never been an evil player but I think some of us have different views on how evil people should be treated. Neutral people that make a mistake, whatever, I can show compassion but evil creatures or pure evil humans etc really shouldn't be alive. They wont change and your allowing other people to be hurt by allowing them to be alive. Not to get in a ridiculous out of place political/moral discussion but Im comfortable with Charles Manson ( or any pedophile for example ) going to the electric chair.... and I wouldn't give him a club and send him on his way, ever. Ill also be at Church Sunday :-) lol )

[malkav565]

Well, like i've said before - there are two LGs.

One is "normal medieval" lawful good. A thief gets hung. A liar must prove himself with an ordeal (like grabbing a stone out of boiling water). Never suffer a witch to live. Etc. Kill all orcs (they are chaotic evil).

Adam is "cheesy/superhero" good. He has a modern morality that would put a present-day, bleeding-heart liberal to shame. Justice for all. Crime equals the punishment. No cruelty to foes, etc.

If you don't have exalted feats or answer to a "bleeding-heart" liberal god, you might not need to be "cheesy" good. But Adam's friendship (not alliance) sort-of requires some sacrifices. He's the typical annoying paladin type.

there's often one in every group, and this time it's Adam. But it will soon pay off, I promise.

Aug 13, 2010 17:23:48 GMT -5 Andre said:

Aug 13, 2010 12:42:09 GMT -5 @rogueserpent said:

( Yeah, I realize Adam is his own entity and must be played quite tight, considering he is LG. I've never been an evil player but I think some of us have different views on how evil people should be treated. Neutral people that make a mistake, whatever, I can show compassion but evil creatures or pure evil humans etc really shouldn't be alive. They wont change and your allowing other people to be hurt by allowing them to be alive. Not to get in a ridiculous out of place political/moral discussion but Im comfortable with Charles Manson ( or any pedophile for example ) going to the electric chair.... and I wouldn't give him a club and send him on hi
s way, ever. Ill also be at Church Sunday :-) lol )

Yep that's fine you're entitled to your opinion .. but in-game one of the requirements I've established for good aligned PC's (and I'd prefer all PC's be good aligned at this point) is no killing opponents or prisoners, even if they're evil scum of the earth, once they are no longer a threat in combat (basically if they're helpless and/or not fighting back ) ... one theme my campaign is redemption or to put it another way, even evil people can change... anyways as rogueserpent says no need to get into a ridiculous prolonged discussion about it, and we've already been down this path before with mikker0 and nydhog,both of whom are comfortable playing with the current good alignment restrictions so we'll leave it at that (in my campaign anyways, needless to say in nydhog's campaign he'll be calling the shots and you can feel free to send those evil SOB's to the electric chair.. or the electric +5 sword of shocking or whatever in this case ) ..