From: steph@perseus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Ethical Dilemna (GURPS Fantasy - LONG)
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:59:04 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

In <C1Fn90.G68@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga) writes:

>CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L) writes:

>>     In conclusion, while by *our* standards, the PCs acted in a
>>horribly ugly and despicable manner, they were acting in a way
>>which would be acceptable in their society, and it would have been
>>poor roleplaying on the part of the players to have done otherwise.
>>They do not deserve penalties. If the GM feels that he cannot take
>>this level of realism in roleplaying, then he should not run games
>>where it is bound to come up.

>I concur. This sort of thing happens all the time though. GM's 
>scream and whine about a lack of roleplaying, but act like a knight
>would really act and they run for the hills and hurl XP penalties.

As always, it depends on the campaign.  If the DM is trying to run a 
true-to-life Middle Ages-like campaign, then killing satanic peasants
isn't likely to get them in trouble -- unless their lord is also of
that persuasian, and wants to cover it up.  In a true-to-life campaign,
though, the Jesuit should really give some thought to manufacturing
a story of the incident that will make the Templars look really, really
bad -- thus weakening their influence.  If that requires his Templar
friend to get transferred to Turkey, that's the breaks.

If the campaign is supposed to be heroic fantasy, then the characters
were *WAY* out of line.  Mowing down unarmed peasants is *not* the
sort of thing heroic fantasy is built on.  And, to paraphrase Tracy
Hickman, "If your characters are literally getting away with murder, there
is something very wrong with your campaign...  There should be a moral
structure."

In my world, the religious situation is a little different, but the
characters would be in deep serious trouble.  Not that peasants are
especially valuable, but destroying property is a capital offense, as
is murder.

The Templar in my world would probably be a paladin -- closest thing I have
to an established religious fighting order.  (Note -- it's not a D&D world,
paladins are an order, not a character class).  A paladin doing the deed
would be in deep, serious trouble.  Unequal combat is strictly forbidden
by Hidalgo's code, and should violence be necessary against inferiors
(peasants *would* be inferiors, and if demon-summoning was expected, *some*
action would be necessary -- although a truly noble, brave, and stupid 
paladin would have waited for the demon to be summoned, so he could fight
evil personally...) a paladin shouldn't *kill* them.  Any paladin worth
his salt should be able to knock out some peasants with a few well-aimed
head blows using the flat of his sword.  (Accidents *do* happen, but too
many can get a paladin a bad reputation).

The fate would differ depending on the status of Paladins in the country.
If the country doesn't like Paladins, he's in deep trouble regardless of
what he did, or how he did it.  Death is probable, slavery the likely
alternative, and an outside chance at exile from a particularly merciful
lord, or a lord living close to Corralea, the large and powerful paladin
supporter.

In other nations, the offender would be turned over to his local paladinic
order.  Unless they've gone *really* corrupt, he will be found guilty of
cowardice (attacking peasants before a life-threatening move against him)
and bloodlust (killing them, in an unequal contest).  Cowardice is a
expulsionary offense, bloodlust is a capital one.  As soon as a quorum of
paladins can be gathered, his head will be struck off.  Of course, paladins
don't keep jails, so he could probably flee before the execution.  But
ex-paladins tend to have a short lifespan.  Any paladin who recognizes him
will call him out, any lowlife who finds out he's an ex-paladin will 
consider him fair game, and the Black Paladins won't even take someone
with a cowardice rap against him.

The jesuit (closest equivalent would be a Sorcerer's Guild functionary)
may run victim to some of the same political problems as the paladin
did.  If not, he'd probably get off the hook in a country with a well
developed common law (Corralea), and share the same fate as the others
in more arbitrary lands.

Of the other party members, judgement would be passed by the offending lord.
In Corralea, they would probably be turned over to the King's Justice, and
end up hung (except for the sherrif, who would merit a beheading).  Otherwise,
it depends on the lord.  Probably, they would be set down as troublemakers
and hung (tortured beforehand if the Lord's in a bad mood.)  The Lord may
try to recoup his losses by selling them into slavery -- he wouldn't
be likely to keep fighting men among his own serfs.  A pious lord would
probably just escort the band of his property, and warn them not to come
back.  In some places, the Lizard man would end up as armor, regardless
of the other's fate.

In any case, if your players don't even feel guilty they've probably got
a bad case of hash-and-slack.  These peasants were mowed down?  In GURPS
it's quite easy to put an inferior opponent out of the fight without killing
them -- were your players swinging at the head, or thrusting in the vitals?
Why?  Devil-worshippers or no, their dying probably inconvenienced a lot
of people -- some of them should hate the perpetrators.  There is no world
where life is so cheap that going around killing people isn't going to
bring negative reprecussions.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic

  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball