What’s wrong with mercy? or “Why do all my cool bad guys get cacked?”
Almost every single one of us grew up watching episodic TV or reading comic books. Week after week, Month after month we had a lesson drilled into our brains: If you let the bad guys live then they will come back to fight you again and again. In superhero RPGs this is can be the source of a large moral dilemma for the players, but in Fantasy RPGs, (especially with D&D and its alignment system) this is not a problem. The characters are supposed to smite evil and kill off the bad guys. This is great for the action but hinders the development of really good bad guys. As DMs we try to make exciting bad guys but as soon as they show up it is instantly a kill or be killed scenario. If you allow them to have some dramatic escape planned the PCs never shrug and let them go. They try everything in their power to track the bad guys down. Even good parties do this and it is such the norm that you have to explain to characters why they shouldn’t be killing someone instead of trying to convince them that it is necessary. It is almost as if they PCs are in a race so they decide to kill off all the other participants and then coast to victory.
I will admit that this has tempted me to start using more neutrally aligned ‘bad guys’ just because it is harder for the PCs to justify murdering them. Unfortunately this can undermine the action of the climax. An old truth is “The implacable foe is the only one worth having.” The bad guys should be Bad. They heroes can only be as great as their opponents are vile.
That’s not the only problem I’ve come across when encountering this mentality. I like GMing by the Golden Rule, or Karma, or whatever you want to call it. I’ve always believed in treating the player characters like they treat the bad guys. If they let the bad guys run away the bad guys will let them run away. If they hunt every last one down, then their future opponents will be relentless in pursuing them. I’m not saying that they should all be carrying merciful weapons (I tried to arrange that in a previous game where I played a very good elf. I had no intention of ever using a weapon, I was a wizard and a bard, but I took the craft magic weapons and armor feat just to give my fellow party members merciful weapons.) I just think that it would make for a better story if the only solution isn’t to kill the bad guys. Some of this comes from growing up in the 80’s with the Cold War 
with the Soviets. So much of the espionage was the converting of your opponent. Also there was a civility at one level where you could converse with your opposite. They often called it a game after all. This level of communication really opens up the possibility of conversion. However, I think most of my feelings come from SciFi. I was devoted to Star Wars as a child and even watched the old Star Treks. Growing up with Star Wars taught me that we all have a dark side and that even those who have fallen can be redeemed. That’s one reason I really like the system in the Book of Exalted Deeds for converting bad guys. Take them prisoner and teach them the error of their ways. It’s a very Star Trek/Federation solution.
But the question remains: Does Redemption have a place in Fantasy RPGs? I guess that’s what I’m asking. Looking at Tolkien,
it sort of does. Gandalf tries it with Saruman and Frodo does the same with Gollum. Neither of them succeeds. Is Tolkien trying to tell us that evil can’t be redeemed or is he trying to show how Good Gandalf and Frodo 
are. Or is it simply that his story was about corruption and how completely someone can fall. Looking at other fantasy standards I can’t find much. Elric could care less what other people did and Conan could almost be seen as a corrupting force at points. David Eddings had a nice conversion of Zakath in the Mallorean but that was a long way into the series to start changing sides. I seem to vaguely remember some converting going on in Chris Stasheff’s Warlock books but that was long time ago. The only one I can think of is Robert Lynn Asprin’s Myth Adventures where most of the bad guys end up working for the hero.
Not a lot of evidence that it is even a good idea to play around with redemption in fantasy. I do know that in the campaign I currently play in, it felt good to redeem the Lieutenant that turned traitor. She didn’t become a party member or anything, but at least we managed to get her to turn her back on the evil prestige class she was taking.
Also remember that the Golden Rule applies to redemption. If the bad guys can be made good then the heroes can do some pretty bad things (not just be framed for them like they usually are) and be brought back. Just like Luke.
Posted on August 10th, 2007 at 10:28 am. About 'What’s wrong with mercy? or “Why do all my cool bad guys get cacked?”'.
I guess it all boils down to how many agendas the players subscribe to and what they get out of the game. Many people who play D&D today have the point-click-kill mentality of Diablo II. Video games in general have a linear, kill-or-be-killed mentality that has corrupted the pen-and-paper players of such games. I have DMed merciful heroes and bloodthirsty paladins played in the same group. No one wants to put much effort into redeeming a villain who may double-cross them in the future (unless there is a sure-fire method of permanent alignment change). As a player I once cried out for mercy for a villain, and was voted down by the others who mercilessly destroyed the villain’s soul. As an elf who believed in individuality and redemption through reincarnation of the spirit, this angered my character. It didn’t stop what happened though. Sometimes, you just have to accept that people don’t want to put too much “gray” in their black-and-white” fantasy, since they don’t want the hassle of dealing with the consequences or applying too much thought. Most of us have to deal with the pressure of difficult decisions on a daily basis and play these games because they are relaxing or enjoyable. Although I understand this particular mindset, I don’t necessarily agree with it, and I believe that character interaction is the essence of role-play. If all you want to do is roll dice and win, play Yahtzee!
Posted on August 10th, 2007 at 11:39 am. About 'What’s wrong with mercy? or “Why do all my cool bad guys get cacked?”'.
Well, I truly enjoy the idea of redemption when playing D&D. One of my characters, an elf, once tried to redem an evil human fighter/mage. Most of my companions at the time thought I was insane for doing so but they allowed it to continue. Eventually, this person did convert! I won’t say he became good but he at least turned his back on the culture and tyrants he supported. My character still always looks for the redeming qualities in many of his enemies, which actually hurts him many times. Instead of going for the killing strike he sometimes tries to be merciful and it ends up biting him back. But that is the fun of it for me.
I do believe that all to often my really cool bad guys never are given a chance to shine since they are beaten to death so quickly. In the current game that I am DMing I have two such bad guys. One is a female wizard who geased one of the PCs into working for her while he is traveling with the group. Another character is a nemesis for a character who comes back again and again. Eventually there will be a time when they meet for last time but is fun for them to meet and fight at various times or even just talk to him. Luckily my group hasn’t decided to just hunt him down and end this threat. It adds to the story and drama of the game to have these villians around. They are vital to the game as far as I am concerned.
Posted on August 10th, 2007 at 11:55 am. About 'What’s wrong with mercy? or “Why do all my cool bad guys get cacked?”'.
I think a lot of it rests on the Alignment system in D&D. It has deep, deep, roots - pulling it out is akin to making a new version of the game. Alignment works in comic/TV/movie land where differences between Nice and Not-So-Nice need to be prominent, dare I say this is the standard way we dish out moral perspective to an adolescent audience? The problem is that D&D as a platform is loved and used by a more mature audience who might prefer a more nuanced approach to such things, perhaps inspired more by literature than mass media. In such a setting the Alignment system acts as the Black Sludge that corrupts a gaming group… what do expect when you play in a world were Evil is Forever? (Spare me the redemption stuff, it’s the exception that’s so extraneously grafted on that it proves the rule.)
Posted on August 11th, 2007 at 10:25 pm. About 'What’s wrong with mercy? or “Why do all my cool bad guys get cacked?”'.
One reason I love Dm’ing is so I can play with that very aspect.
Alignment is such a bag of holding that it is more of a rrquired field, than it is used. I try to change that, usually to the players chagrin.
If someone is Lawful Good, I don’t force them to play any particular way, but I do point out the basic tenants of what that *should* mean. I love Exalted deeds, it finally outlined the alignment of good nicely. If players go against it, I send them bad dreams from their gods, have befuddled lower members of other good aligned churches come hunting for them, and so on. If they don’t get the hint, which is sadly rather frequent, but I suspect most of the players are wanting to head toward a neutral or evil alignment anyway, then they start casting cause wounds instead of cure, good aligned spells get twisted, etc.
It has been quite fun, and very well recieved by the players. They see it as the gods paying attention, not just spell batteries. Also, the actions give the reputations of the characters some weight. If they never leave a foe alive, and don’t care if innocents get hurt, then cities and towns that would have heard of them, or come to know them through the characters, bar their doors and run them out of town. Then they get invitations from evil people to come join. Sometimes they do so thinking to redeem themselves, but I have yet to have a party resist the temptation of power, money, and magic; they all kill the bad guy and then take over operations, cementing themselves as not good.
Play to your strengths, and to the players weaknesses. Find what makes them tick, and then use that to create drama.