Excessive force is a myth. It's like asking someone to fire a gun and aim for the legs, something you hear people talk about, but it's not part of police training. If you have the right to fire a weapon, you have the right to kill, period. It's not called deadly force for nothing. Only on television shows do people shoot to maim.
He shouldn't have "shot" someone who was unarmed and had their hands raised.
PSchirf wrote:
But again, we're not talking about modern morality. If the pcs are away from civilization then they ARE the law, the judge, the jury.
I've already clarified that they weren't that far from the city (a day of tracking, not several) and had someone of passing authority traveling with them.
PSchirf wrote:
Killing an evil creature, especially one you know to have done an evil act, isn't wrong, it's right. Letting it go is wrong.
The character itself performed an evil act, should the paladin kill him? I never said they had to let it go, there were plenty of other options.
But that doesn't matter. Break away from the modern era's moral concepts and embrace the genre. D&D priesthoods walk the streets armed and their gods give them the power to smite.
This is a matter of a civilization more than morality. Killing a surrendering opponent is always wrong (in civilized culture).
I was in the military. If an enemy fires at you from cover, perhaps hitting your buddy, then throws down his weapon (before you can kill him) and surrenders, pulling up in your truck and putting a couple of rounds from the .50 cal in his chest, is wrong.
I understand that not everyone plays with moral ambiguity in their games. I do, and thus far my players have thoroughly enjoyed it. I was asking for insight into the one particular instance, and while I appreciate the discussion of morality in D&D, I won't be changing that aspect of my game.
He shouldn't have "shot" someone who was unarmed and had their hands raised.
Spellcasters raise their hands all the time. This is D&D. Hands raised doesn't make one safe.
PerennialRook wrote:
I've already clarified that they weren't that far from the city (a day of tracking, not several) and had someone of passing authority traveling with them.
They also witnessed the "crime". "You were the one who did this..." is a perfectly valid trial, and Justice is swift.
PerennialRook wrote:
The character itself performed an evil act, should the paladin kill him? I never said they had to let it go, there were plenty of other options.
The characters performed an evil act? What evil act? Killing evil isn't an evil act.
PerennialRook wrote:
This is a matter of a civilization more than morality. Killing a surrendering opponent is always wrong (in civilized culture).
Civilized culture burns spell-casters and demon worshipers at the stake. And no surrender was granted, nor did the party "put him in their truck". The rules of modern surrender are very different from those of history, and of those used in most D&D games. Killing a surrendered opponent is always wrong after terms are excepted (in civilized culture). Not accepting the surrender is valid. This isn't modern warfare.
Civilized culture burns spell-casters and demon worshipers at the stake. And no surrender was granted, nor did the party "put him in their truck". The rules of modern surrender are very different from those of history, and of those used in most D&D games. Killing a surrendered opponent is always wrong after terms are excepted (in civilized culture). Not accepting the surrender is valid. This isn't modern warfare.
Especially when the terms of surrender was essentially, "I get to kill these two innocent children".
The players are tracking a small pack of gnolls (one of each in the MM plus two hyena and a cacklefiend) that have left a long trail of bloodshed, and may have captured one of the players. This is lead by the elven ranger (whose passive perception is ungodly high), who finds each kill zone to be a bit fresher. After a full day of tracking, the elf hears the sounds of combat over the next hill.
When they crest the hill, they find the gnolls and hyenas decimating a small band of helpless travelers. Off to one side of the battle, two children are hiding in the tall grass, and on the near side, the limp body of the party's compatriot has been discarded for the duration of the battle. These two pieces of information are quickly passed on by the elf to the rest of the party.
The group charges into battle, the elf staying at the crest of the hill with his bow, the paladin rushes to the unconscious PC, and the rest of the party rushes into combat (just as the gnolls finish off their prey).
The battle rages, blood flies, tempers flare. And, in the midst of it, the player who had been captured heals the first fallen gnoll and agrees to follow him, if he will spare the party (as she has seen before that the huntmaster controls the flow of battle).
He whistles to break contact as he and the bargaining player escape. Before the rest of the gnolls can react, one of them is dropped (the marauder). On their initiative, the claw fighter manages to flee at full speed (faster than even the elven ranger), leaving only the scourge, a hyena, and the cacklefiend.
The scourge shifts away and begins to walk away from combat, the two hyenas on his heels. They are well withing closing distance of the party, so the clever scourge decides to play on the "good" nature of the party (including a paladin of Pelor and a dwarven cleric of Thane [read: Moradin]).
As the first player advances to attack, he turns and delivers a quick ultimatum. Should they even touch him, he swears that the children will be slain before he dies.
The children have been ignored up to this point, though clearly marked on the battlefield.
The player, an unaligned dragonborn warlord, attacks one of the (very) bloodied hyenas, and drops it with the swing. The paladin rushes to the children, barely making it with a run, though has already blown his interposing daily ability, so is less of an obstacle than he would like to be.
The scourge then drops his weapon, gestures to the cacklefiend to fulfill te ultimatum, and raises his hands in surrender, readying an action to shift away, should anyone make an attack. The scourge, with its prolific speed, is able to bound around the paladin and charge in for the kill (the children were a low level "minion swarm"), slaughtering the both of them.
Now, with the scourge presenting no threat, the cleric (of a lawful good deity) charges in to kill the surrendered gnoll, when the gnoll shifts away the dwarf even spends an action point to press the attack, and is able to kill the gnoll (who's hp were in the single digits at this point).
I contest that the act, while perhaps justified, flies in the face of Thane, and as a consequence the cleric will not have his prayers answered for a short time (temporary losing his powers).
I made sure to stop the player, clarify the point that the gnoll had surrendered, asking the basic "are you sure?" question, so he performed the act knowingly.
This was the end of the session for the night, and has sparked some controversy in the group. So I am here to seek some opinions on the matter.
I specifically do not want to hear about whether it is legal to strip a divine character of powers if he violates the tenants of his religion.
In general D&D is supposed to be fantasy adventure, not dark drama. If you and your players are fine with this (very dramatic) tone for the game then it's all good, but then if your players were fine with it you wouldn't be having such controversy.
This sounds like a situation where the players did there best to deal with what was a very traumatic real life esque situation posed by gnolls, creatures not generally thought of as sophisticated enough for such tactics. One must ask in such a game world why would even heroes fight monsters, knowing that they could just hide behind human shields and kill off innocents all the time to get at them.
Also note, in D&D characters are supposed to kill monsters. It's both encouraged and half the point of the game.
First, I want to say that IMO, the gnoll wasn't surrendering; he was issuing an ultimatum that included a possible surrender (also possibly a stalemate option, he didn't specify) as a consequence. He never stated that he surrendered, and he was poised to move away if approached. He also loosed a creature under his control to kill helpless innocents while his hands were raised in supposed 'surrender'. Surrender is complete and total. It is not a surrender if you are still directing others to do your dirty work.
I agree that the players were acting within the right by killing him, but not protecting the children at the same time made them wrong.
We can argue the moral relativism all we want, but you, the GM, made the call. It's already been done. What needs to be done now is to determine how to move past that.
I'd start by making it clear to the Pally/Cleric what exactly their deity is unhappy about - don't use analogies, just state how the god sees it and what he doesn't like about it - that's what the consequence is about, having a better understanding of his tenements:
Is he unhappy about losing the kids? About killing the allegedly surrendering gnoll (a creature which the PC's know is evil by the acts of atrocity he's been committing over the previous days, and also gave his life to commit)? How does the deity view the surrender - was it legitimate, and why? (as a player, I'd argue that it wasn't and at the very least it wasn't clearly so at the time)
Once those questions are clear to the players, make it a succession of religion checks (consider them time spent in daily prayer and meditation on their deeds) like a normal challenge that requires multiple checks. Maybe 5 checks at DC15 (maybe 20 for Paragon - I didn't catch the level of the game) each requiring an hour of contemplation or prayer, made all in the same day, and 2 fails means they have to try again on the next day. Then they start getting their prayers answered again because they have begun to understand the nuance of the issue as it pertains to their religion.
If you want to make it harder for them, raise the DC by 5 and tell them that by spending the day in conference with other clergy of their faith (like a church in the nearby city) you'll reduce the DC by 1 for every hour they spend conferring on it, up to a max of 6 hours (plus the time per check spent in prayer and meditation).
You made the call, the best route now is to figure out how to move forward from here. Don't argue the morality of their decision, let them know how Thane views the morality of their decision. You are Thane and you determine his stance on the issue, but that stance needs to be made perfectly clear to the players because the situation presented is, without a doubt, morally ambiguous at best.
One last point, since you noted that this was the end of the last session, did the damage done to the gnoll equal his negative bloodied value? If not, he still lives but is only unconscious. They can bandage him and bind him and still take him to the proper authorities. It seems the issue you are having with the players isn't one about the kids getting killed, but rather one of slaying an allegedly, and easily arguably, surrendering opponent. If his hp didn't hit negative bloodied value, then technically they didn't. 4e simply assumes that after you win a battle, the PC's go around and make sure that all the bad guys are completely dead. AGain, since it was the end of the last session, there's no revisionism in saying that they didn't ensure the gnoll's death, and he was bleeding but not dead, so they bandage and bind him. An easy fix if you're having too many problems here.
You came here with a situation that you thought was morally clear (to you), hoping that others would back you up. However, many of us disagree with you, and your players obviously disagree with you. It's still your game, and you can always claim that as the DM your view is "right", but if you really believe that D&D "is about having fun and (cooperatively) telling a story", then you'll want to reexamine your own position, and perhaps admit to your players that you were wrong in this instance.
PerennialRook, you, as DM, created this situation. If I were a player, I'd exit the game immediately. Why? Because I don't play this game to get into moral relativism.
That's all fine and dandy but it doesn't sound like the discussion in question is about players wanting to leave. Its a discussion, not an issue of ****** off players. And thats great that you play D&D for moral straight forwardness but some of us like a little moral ambiguity in our story.
PSchirf wrote:
D&D has always been designed to be black and white, good vs evil as absolutes. Remember, if the gods say a tiger is evil, it's evil... it's not based on a moral code at all. Plato's Euthyphro is a good place to start. The point of what is and isn't good isn't in question, it's why. It's assumed that, if the gods agree that something is evil or good then it is. It's only the godless society that has to ask the broader question. If you have gods giving dogma then the players know their faiths laws.
Always designed??? Have you played Eberron at all? It doesn't sound like it but no one is black and white in that particular setting. Its up to the DM dude. If the players don't want that, then they don't have to play (so it is wise to appeal to their wants and needs) but ultimately it is up to the DM like it always is. And likewise the opinions and the activity of the gods.
On a side note...it really depends on the gods point of view I guess. If the Cleric killed the Gnoll out of revenge for his slaughter of the children...then yeah, not honorable. If he did it to punish the Gnoll for an evil act, then sure. It's all in the spirit of the player in my opinion. Wrathful justice or bloodthirsty vengeance?
D1Tremere wrote:
gnolls, creatures not generally thought of as sophisticated enough for such tactics.
If the Gnoll observed good natured honorable treatment previously from these PC's, he might try to take advantage of it. Gnolls aren't bright nor tacticians but they ARE evil and aren't devoid of intelligence.
First, I want to say that IMO, the gnoll wasn't surrendering; he was issuing an ultimatum that included a possible surrender (also possibly a stalemate option, he didn't specify) as a consequence. He never stated that he surrendered, and he was poised to move away if approached. He also loosed a creature under his control to kill helpless innocents while his hands were raised in supposed 'surrender'. Surrender is complete and total. It is not a surrender if you are still directing others to do your dirty work.
To clarify:
The gnoll made the threat when characters moved in to kill his hyena as he was walking away.
The warlord then attacked, killing the hyena.
True to his threat, the gnoll dispatched his cacklefiend.
Then, seeing no other option, the gnoll surrendered (as described my me, and subsequently clarified), readying an action to shift away in case of an attack. There were already characters adjacent to the gnoll when he surrendered (in fact, they knocked the cacklefiend around a bit when it dashed off).
When he was unarmed, with his hands raised in surrender, surrounded by the allies of the cleric, the cleric rushed in to kill him, and when the gnoll stepped back from the attack (not in retreat, but in self defense), the cleric used his action point to finish the job.
The gnoll did not state that he was surrendering unless the attacked, he threatened them, then surrendered as a last resort (though true to his nature, killed the kids).
Rowl wrote:
I'd start by making it clear to the Pally/Cleric what exactly their deity is unhappy about - don't use analogies, just state how the god sees it and what he doesn't like about it - that's what the consequence is about, having a better understanding of his tenements:
Good advise, and done. The surrender analogy was for further clarification.
Rowl wrote:
Is he unhappy about losing the kids? About killing the allegedly surrendering gnoll (a creature which the PC's know is evil by the acts of atrocity he's been committing over the previous days, and also gave his life to commit)? How does the deity view the surrender - was it legitimate, and why? (as a player, I'd argue that it wasn't and at the very least it wasn't clearly so at the time)
I made sure to clarify that the surrender was sincere/legitimate, and yes, this is the problem that the deity in question has a problem with. Surrender warrants appeal to a higher authority or (lacking the former) informed judgement on the part of the "judge."
Rowl wrote:
Once those questions are clear to the players, make it a succession of religion checks (consider them time spent in daily prayer and meditation on their deeds) like a normal challenge that requires multiple checks. Maybe 5 checks at DC15 (maybe 20 for Paragon - I didn't catch the level of the game) each requiring an hour of contemplation or prayer, made all in the same day, and 2 fails means they have to try again on the next day. Then they start getting their prayers answered again because they have begun to understand the nuance of the issue as it pertains to their religion.
If you want to make it harder for them, raise the DC by 5 and tell them that by spending the day in conference with other clergy of their faith (like a church in the nearby city) you'll reduce the DC by 1 for every hour they spend conferring on it, up to a max of 6 hours (plus the time per check spent in prayer and meditation).
You made the call, the best route now is to figure out how to move forward from here. Don't argue the morality of their decision, let them know how Thane views the morality of their decision. You are Thane and you determine his stance on the issue, but that stance needs to be made perfectly clear to the players because it is, without a doubt, morally ambiguous at best.
The loss of prayers is temporary, and getting them back is about roleplay, so I don't think that religion checks are necessary, but I like the mechanic in general.
You came here with a situation that you thought was morally clear (to you), hoping that others would back you up. However, many of us disagree with you, and your players obviously disagree with you. It's still your game, and you can always claim that as the DM your view is "right", but if you really believe that D&D "is about having fun and (cooperatively) telling a story", then you'll want to reexamine your own position, and perhaps admit to your players that you were wrong in this instance.
Thank you for clarifying my motive. I obviously didn't come here to get further perspective from other DMs. I wasn't looking for constructive debate. I just wanted to show everyone else how a real DM runs the show.
