Really this sums up my thoughts far better than I could:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic
So to try and form some sort of conclusion out of all my rambling, what I am saying is that yes, I like to include moral dilemmas and ethical quandaries for the PCs and I like to let the Players have the agency to make those decisions. However the full weight of consequence hangs over them if they deliberately choose to do a bad/malicious/evil thing. Sometimes circumstances force good people to do things they would rather not do, I don't want to punish Players for that because I as GM put their PCs into that situation in the first place, specifically to cause them that dilemma.
Do you let a traitor live because he was blackmailed into becoming a traitor? What if leaving him alive will cause the injury or death of innocent people?
Do the PCs ignore a job they don't particularly feel comfortable with or do they let some group of lowlifes take the job with the chance that the lowlifes will harm a lot of innocent people?
I tend to think these situations will never have a completely right or completely wrong answer and so they are good tools for the GM to make Players think about the actions of their PCs.
|
Broadly speaking, I prefer to play PC's who have multiple shades of grey rather than a white hat. In a recent game my PC was part of a small force attempting to retake a town from a group of marauders. Following a number of small scale skirmishes which depleted the marauder ranks by five fighters here and five fighters there, a cease fire was arranged during which the marauders were given the chance to surrender. They declined. My character therefore opted to prosecute the final attack with as much force as could be mustered. She manned the fifty cal herself and used it on the oncoming enemy to a point well in excess of what was required to break their attack (I can't remember how many rounds were fired, but it was a lot). As I recall only one (genuinely innocent) bystander was killed, although that may have been on account of the GM’s generosity. In her mind her actions were justified and blame lay on the marauders who had declined the opportunity to surrender. In my mind there’s little doubt that she probably went too far and could have stopped firing earlier but I felt her actions were consistent with how I’d played her throughout the encounter. I’d have welcomed consequences, although the game unfortunately folded soon after that episode.
(Digressing completely, the character was a big Game of Thrones fan (the game was set in a future timeline), her favourite character was Daenerys Targaryen, and all of this was taking place at roughly the same time as Daenerys was letting her dragons loose on King’s Landing, which set up some interesting (for me) internal monologue)
When it comes to executing prisoners, for me, I think a lot depends on context. I’ve played in games where the PC’s have been operating well away from any friendly support against some pretty blood thirsty marauders who have done some pretty unpleasant things (the marauders, not the PC’s). The PC’s were only passing through the area and did not have the resources to take and hold prisoners (nowhere to put them, no manpower to guard them, and would have to feed them from their own limited rations).
I don’t think you can define situations like that in black and white. Do you refuse to accept their surrender in the first place (likely prompting them to put up a stronger resistance as it dawns on them that no quarter will be given)? Do you take their weapons, boots, etc then dump them in the middle of nowhere hoping they won’t trouble anyone again (and knowing that you’ve made an enemy that may come back to haunt you later)? Try and keep them prisoner even although you know you don’t have the resources to do so? And do you treat the ringleaders differently from the rank and file? etc, etc. Sometimes there is no safe path through the moral maze unless the GM chooses to throw the players a rope in the form of a deus ex machina, e.g. the timely arrival of a group of allied NPC’s able and willing to take the prisoners into custody.
So for me shooting prisoners is a grey area but it’s definitely not a red line. It all depends on the context. Sometimes I’ll be OK with it, sometimes I wont. I vaguely recall reading the incident in Rae’s Vistula game where the captured marauder was executed, and yes, that one did cross a line (if it’s the one I remember) but there are situations where I would condone (possibly even recommend) executing prisoners (and, as SSC and Legbreaker both point out) accept the consequences. Some players will take that seriously, use it as part of their character’s development and evolution. Done well, it can become a Mark of Cain that the character carries around with him / her for the remainder of the game. So yeah, definitely, I’m in the consequences not restrictions camp.
I also think that if the PC’s know beforehand they’re going to be engaging an enemy force what to do with prisoners should be discussed in character at that time, so that everyone can be sure they’re on a similar (if not the same) page and so that the ref has forewarning if something potentially controversial may be about to occur. It is a bit of a peeve of mine that some players cop out of the ethical problems by not saying anything (OC or OOC) and leaving it to the minority who do express an opinion to decide.