"Paladin orc prisoners. What to do?" Topic

Another thread got me thinking about a YouTube video I saw a few years ago. The DM clearly did not like paladins in general and the player who was playing one.

Here was the situation, party with the paladin was attacked by a group of orcs and it did not end well for the orcs. Several of their number dropped their weapons and surrendered.

In that case, the paladin proceeded to kill all the unarmed orcs and the DM set about driving from the group

In that situation (orcs surrendered and unarmed) how would you, as the paladin, proceed. For me, I would ask another party member (hopefully a thief) to watch the prisoners while I consulted with the cleric at a nearby location. Knowing some of the party member i've played with, I expect my moral dilemma would have been resolved upon my return. In my case, I prefer my paladins to be good looking, good fighter, and not very smart.

I would have taken them captive and turned them over to the local lord if around or nearby group that has had problems with them. I've played paladins and normally play a cleric, that's how I am. I've had games with the "oh I'll take a super deep sleep and oh my! Someone mysteriously killed the captives but not us, who could have done such a thing?" bit and I usually hit the paladin with a good old "strip your powers" problem and quest to regain. I put a hard line on paladin and LG behavior but they get benefits others won't, mostly role-playing benefits not combat buffs. Players in my games know this and are warned up front that paladins require certain behavior or else play a fighter or fighter/cleric. Yes it causes friction with players who are always doing the opposite but that's usually a player issue not their character, we all know the type. The games I run if the paladin is just a healing fighter then why have them or gods at all? The gods aren't super active in my world but when one of their chosen ones acts a fool they get a bit pissed.

Most of the time I let them go but…

You know they will go on to commit more evil (please nobody chime in with you don't know that and everybody deserves a second chance liberal Hollywood crap…)

You know they will raise the alarm.

You know they will murder you if they get loose.

You know you will fight them later.

Sometimes you just can't haul baggage around the wilderness with you. The logistics is just not possible no matter how well intentioned you are especially if you have a group of prisoners devouring your rations.

On one occasion I had a Lawful Neutral cleric. I cast silence on our evil orc prisoner. Then I cast hold person on him. Then I proceeded to hold his mouth shut and pinch off his nostrils. The party was all busy talking and didn't notice a thing when I slipped a note to the DM. After the orc suffocated, I dispelled my own spells. The players were done talking and the DM informed them the prisoner was dead and there was no apparent cause of death. I was questioned by the paladin and all I could say was, " He must have had an aneurism…"

Sometimes the party needs someone to put down the dog and do the tough things…

@ Parzival I told the Paladin I was lawfulgood :)

First of all, it depends on the setting and how the DM has defined and expressed the various alignments to the players. Because the truth is, what the alignments expect, by the books, isn't clear on these things. Which means that different people define "good" and "evil" and "lawful" and "chaotic" and "neutral" in different ways.

I hold that it's not fair of a DM to rule against a player's actions on alignment questions if the DM hasn't made it clear beforehand what the alignment expects.

Consider this: If, as the game indicates, an orc is always evil, and thus is an inherently evil creature in the same manner as a demon, then how is it evil to slay a captured orc? Is it evil to slay a captured demon? Is it evil to cast cure disease, and thus slay smallpox? What's the difference? That the orc appears to have intelligence? So does the demon. (And so does an AI. Is it therefore wrong to turn off a computer?)
If the orc is essentially programmed to do evil, no matter what, then how is it wrong to end that evil outright?

So, then, the question isn't really about the rightness or wrongness of killing the orc in and of itself, it's about the nature and circumstances of the killing, isn't it? If I can kill an evil orc in a fight and have that be okay, and kill an orc from ambush with a bow and arrow and have that be okay, or slit the throat of a sleeping orc sentry and have that be okay, how is it wrong to do the same to an orc who's kneeling in front of me, given that it is always and irredeemably evil? What has made the difference? Clearly it's not helplessness— the unaware orc in the ambush is effectively helpless against my attack, as is the sleeping sentry. So then the objection must be made in that the orc surrendered and I accepted the surrender.

And that's the key. The PC has accepted the orc surrender; thus, the burden of the situation of the PC is whether or not he will honor his own decision and his own word. That the target is an orc or is evil is now irrelevant. What is relevant is the integrity of the PC. A lawful good PC must uphold his own integrity.

Now, interestingly, surrender, in and of itself, is no guarantee of survival. In fact, surrendering may merely be the delay before an execution. Is that not the case with a murderer surrendering to the town guard? The murderer knows he will be tried, found guilty, and executed under the laws of the town. The lawful good PC who acts as part of the town guard knows this as well. And yet, surrender is called for and surrender is given and accepted. Why?

And then, what happens if, after every surrender, the party simply executes the surrendered foes? Will not word get around that the party takes no prisoners? And thus, will not foes then cease to attempt surrender at all, but rather fight to the death or flee? That, too, is realistic.

My solution for all of this is to make it quite clear to the player of a paladin or similar PC exactly what the Paladinic Code for his character's order is. Thus, the player (and the PC) have guidelines for how to handle such situations. Then the breaking of alignment is never a "gotcha" moment (as too many DMs of poor quality treat it). Instead, it is a deliberate choice by the player, aware of the consequences and ready to bear them.

So now we are back to the surrender situation.

Part of the problem here is that too many DMs treat their monsters as stereotypical "tough guy" villains who all, to a critter, are out for revenge against any PC who defeats them, and thus always come back from a surrender ready to fight.
That's crap DMing.

Instead, the DM should consider that monsters have a sense of self-preservation (else they'd never surrender in the first place), and know when they've been thoroughly beaten— even the fanatical ones. Sure, no one can truly accept an orc's word on anything, and the orc may be evil, but if the orc just saw his buddies put through a Cuisinart of a paladin's whirling blade, flambéed by a wizard's magic, and finely chopped by the dwarf's axe, when he says he'll leave and never come back, he probably intends to do just that. Survival is his instinct, especially if he knows there are no other orc buddies to rally for any purpose. And the DM should allow for that to be what will happen.
The monsters aren't hard case gangsta's from a cliché tv show. They're not stupid.
So not all surrendered monsters are gonna come back, and even lousy rotten liars will keep some sort of promise if they believe it's what will save their own skins.
And let's face it— how often do the orcs ever actually return? How often do the PCs even know that a given orc has returned?

So the whole "moral dilemma" thing is, in the end, just cheap, dumb "gotcha" theatrics from a mediocre DM on a power trip.

Far better to have clear understanding of what alignments and various classes expect, so that instead of "gotcha" we get "story."