A problem comes up with disturbing regularity in our gaming group, and that is the question of what to do about prisoners. Now, admittedly, this doesn’t come up all that often; our characters are the distressingly bloodthirsty sort who kill everything and everyone in their path. So, the problem of prisoners doesn’t often come up.

Except for when it does. Sometimes, we want information, so we take someone alive. In most game systems there’s a way to pull punches, do subdual damage or otherwise beat somebody until they can’t defend themselves any more. At this point, you try to get information from your subject and when you’ve exhausted what they can tell you, you’ve got a prisoner. 

Other times, foes simply surrender when they realize they’ve been beaten. This doesn’t happen nearly as often as one would expect it to in the real world, but then since most people in role-playing games don’t take prisoners at all, it really doesn’t pay to put down your weapons. (I’ve known players that always have a “They’ll never take me alive!” mentality, and it’s sort of weird when you think about it.)

Anyway, sometimes we take prisoners and then the fireworks start, because the pragmatists among us want to just kill them outright for the sake of expediency, which is something to which the more high-minded understandably object. It’s the purpose of this essay to discuss the in-game implications of taking prisoners, and the various methods of disposing of the burden they represent.

I’m going to state right now that, for the player, it doesn’t make any difference what happens to the imaginary and entirely non-existent prisoners. They could be boiled alive before their weeping families, and it simply does not reflect one way or another on the player. My attitude about this is discussed in Chapter 1.

No, the characters themselves face this particular moral issue, and it is upon the characters alone that any guilt falls or honor accrues. Any decisions made should be made in-character; no other consideration should be considered (such as specious arguments about “how would you like it”, etc.).

When prisoners are taken, either by imaginary parties in a role-playing game, or by actual combatant on a real-world battlefield, there are really only three choices: 1) let them go; 2) guard them; and 3) kill them.

It is my position that there should never be any hard-and-fast rules about handling prisoners, either in real life or in a role-playing game. Each situation, each prisoner, should be evaluated so that the correct, in-character decision can be advocated. Let’s examine each choice, and see if we can get some perspective on this subject.

Let Them Go

Good, softhearted characters often make this choice, and sometimes it is warranted. For example, in Medieval times captured armies would often pledge to absent themselves from the hostilities for a certain period of time – this was part of the Chivalric code. This wasn’t foolproof, since it was the nobles that were making the pledge and he might shift his army to another allied force, at least in principle this provided a simple, moral framework to reduce needless slaughter.

Sometimes the prisoners who are taken turn out to be simple folk, pressed into combat by a stronger force; these types of prisoners want nothing better than to return to their homes and families, and if let go, will hightail it. Since the objective is to reduce trouble for the party taking the prisoners, this works fine.

In most role-playing games there is some method of determining the intentions of your prisoners, either through psychic mind reading, magical aura reading or high-tech lie-detector devices. Bringing these to bear will be very useful in deciding what type of prisoner one has taken. If you can be reasonably certain that the prisoner will in fact remove himself from the conflict, providing neither aid nor information to the enemy, then he can safely be let go. (Providing bus fare or some field rations is a great way to make sure they beat it.)

However, there are prisoners of another sort which given their liberty will do everything in their power to thwart the party’s objectives and further their own evil plans. These prisoners are usually taken against their will, and rarely provide meaningful information.   Releasing this type of prisoner would be unjust and wrong; it’s not a good thing set an evil man free to do more evil. Clearly some other way of dealing with this type of prisoner is required.

There are those characters that, regardless of circumstances, will never willingly set a prisoner free; if a prisoner is set free against their counsel, they will seek to hunt him down and kill him. Given a choice to be merciful, this character chooses instead to be cruel.  It is my opinion that this type of character is evil, and this behavior should be a big red flag to good characters that may be in doubt as to their companion’s personality.

Guard Them

All modern civilized nations have frameworks in place to handle prisoners-of-war. Places far from the battlefield are set aside, and manned by personnel specially trained in the guarding of prisoners. These prisoners are forcibly removed from the conflict, though it is understood that the prisoners involved will do everything in their power to escape and return to the battlefield.

Similarly, criminals are held in prisons by civil authorities in all times and places. Depending upon the strength of the rule of law, prisoners can be indefinitely held on the flimsiest of excuses and in the absence of accusers. While this is hardly just, it does provide a method for characters to deal with prisoners they take when in or near civilized lands, as they can be turned over to the proper authorities with little trouble.

Of course, the fact that in most times and places prisoners are treated with abominable cruelty by the authorities, or alternatively can buy their freedom cheaply from corrupt institutions, should be taken into account. If such an eventuality can be reasonably foreseen, it is unjust to turn the prisoners in to such authorities.

Unless they happen to be near a city, most adventuring parties simply do not have the resources or manpower to guard prisoners. In this way, they are similar to combat platoons deep behind enemy lines. If there is simply no method to safeguard prisoners in a way that keeps them from causing trouble, this option does not exist.

Alternatives to guarding are often suggested, such as tying prisoners up and leaving them stashed in a cave. This, however, devolves to one of the other choices, as prisoners will either free themselves, or be freed or killed by some other person or creature. It is certainly unjust to play games of chance with the lives of your prisoners; when you take a prisoner, their fate is your responsibility. In any case this is an example of avoiding making a decision in order to distance oneself from the consequences of the decision.

If there is some way to guard the prisoners until the fighting is over, then by all means do so. Ideally, a prisoner can be neutralized until they can be turned over to the proper authorities. Detail NPCs or absent characters to watch over the prisoners; but don’t be surprised if in your absence they overpower their guards and return to join the fight.

Kill Them

This is, unfortunately, the first choice for too many characters, regardless of the nature of the prisoners involved. A character that advocates death for a prisoner without any consideration of the possibility that the prisoner might be safely released is a character with a dangerous disregard for life. In my opinion such a character shows evil tendencies.

This is by far the hardest choice to make for principled characters, but sometimes is a simple necessity. If a prisoner is the malevolent sort who cannot be safely released, and there is no feasible way to guard him, than he must be killed. This is not a decision that should be taken lightly; but it is a consequence not only of the taking of prisoners, but of the belligerent actions and attitudes of the prisoners themselves.

All that remains is to decide how to kill the prisoners. It is best to be merciful and quick, so depending upon the technology level of the game, various methods suggest themselves. While it would certainly be amusing to force the prisoners to fight each other to the death for the entertainment of their captors, it hardly needs to be said that such a suggestion would again be an indication that one of the party members is evil.

There are some characters who consider themselves so pure that they absolutely will not kill prisoners under any circumstances. I can’t help but wonder how such a character got himself in the position to take prisoners in the first place. It seems to me that if the character is bellicose and violent enough to be an adventurer, it seems unlikely that they would scruple at a necessary evil like executing a prisoner. I would suggest that characters who cannot face up to the hard choices resulting from taking prisoners refrain from leaving any of their foes alive.

Conclusion

I hope that it is clear that I do not advocate any single method for disposing of prisoners. I believe that each situation has to be evaluated individually. It is as equally unjust to release all prisoners, as it is to execute all prisoners indiscriminately. The ideal solution is to guard prisoners until they can be turned over to authorities, but circumstances rarely allow characters to take this option.

It should be noted that I believe that principled, good characters can be involved in the execution of prisoners. More than that, it is their duty to ensure that such executions are done swiftly and without undue cruelty. To absent themselves out of a false sense of outrage is to turn their prisoners over to those who are least likely to show them any mercy.