The wording was "keeping an eye on", not "looking after" (I checked my original message). This might be the root cause of this exchage.
I didn't advocate CdG for everyone in every situation, and I think you've blown that aspect of what I said 'way out of proportion. I wrote: "Basically, to keep people from using a Final Action, you need to spend an action "keeping an eye on him". I might allow a single person to "keep an eye on" two or three defeated foes, assuming they were together in a group, not spread out where he'd have to keep moving his eyes/head to "cover" them"
"Keeping an eye on" doesn't mean "slip a knife in his throat", it means "watch him to make sure he doesn't try anything".
Now, if you don't want to take up your hero's precious time covering the
downed enemy, you can:
Ignore him and hope the narrator doesn't have him try an FA
Ignore him and hope he fails his FA
Detail a follower to watch him
*in extremis, or for bloodthirsy Char-un types*, CdG him.
Killing prisoners is not a normal part of what we like to *think* of as battle (it happened all the time in ancient warfare, though). We (Nick, I , all the other HW players in real life) aren't Assyrians, or Mongols, or Waffen SS, and our social codes don't extend to slaughtering helpless people (at least I hope yours don't!). We like to think that our alter-egos also would not do such a thing (I'll forebear from discussing the habits of many roleplayers I've known, and I'm sure you know of others who *do* look at slaughtering prisoners as "just good business").
> > both views are equally valid, both are supported by genre
> > conventions (wherever you get those conventions - movies,
> > novels, epic poetry, whatever).
>
> What I don't see is the genre convention whereby heroes routinely
> slaughter everybody, "looking after" their downed foes so as to avoid
> their "unexpected reappearances" later.
I never said there was (though there are - check out "Breaker Morant" for an example of a war movie about killing prisoners, and I remember seeing at least a couple "Roman" movies with casual slaughter of enemy wounded/prisoners in the aftermath of some battle or other; and the groups mentioned above are only the tip of a rather nasty iceberg). Such people are normally portrayed as depraved or psychotic or otherwise Capital-B Bad. I don't advocate it as a way of life for "normal" Heroes.
> > If you don't like NPCs to use FA (which is what this message
> > indicates to me),
>
> Not at all. My point is that you appear to be suggesting (via your war
> movie trope) that players should have their heroes routinely administer
> coups de grace to downed foes, so as to prevent those foes from using
> final actions against them. For my part, I would prefer downed foes to
> be treated as "downed" by all and sundry, and then reserve my right as
> Narrator to have them use final actions whenever it seems dramatically
> appropriate.
No, I mentioned the war movie as a type of thing that happens *when* you get lax, and it happens in quite a lot of war movies. The "enemy grenading/gunning down the good guys" is a standard part of a lot of movies. If it comes in the Beginning/middle of the movie, then it is the prelude to a horrific scene, whereby the next set of surrendering soldiers are shot or "dead" enemies are shot/bayonetted/clubbed "to make sure". At the end of the movie it is the poignent sendoff/sacrifice, whereby the well-loved and victorious commander is shot by the "sneaky" enemy. It usually happens only once per movie - because after that the heroes are more careful. It is an object lesson in "never lowering your guard, even when you think it's safe", and the atrocities performed after it are usually depicted as one-off events, scarring the soldiers who did it/commanded it/saw it.
> > Your personal idea of game fun doesn't seem to include "defeated"
> > enemies coming "back to life" on you. Fine, that's a valid point
> > of view.
>
> Not at all. My personal idea of game fun doesn't require routine carnage
> to *prevent* "defeated" enemies "coming back to life". I read your war
> movie example as "what not to do" -- make sure you always finish off the
> wounded and take finicky security precautions, as otherwise the Narrator
> can spring surprises on you.
And I don't think that I advocated carnage - "keeping an eye on defeated enemies" (ie, "have someone guard them") is the standard thing to do, not slaughter them.
> My take would be: *never* finish off the wounded or waste time taking
> security precautions, as that way the Narrator can spring surprises on
> you (and you'll have more fun playing).
Some people like surprises, some don't. Guarding Prisoners can be just as nervewracking as letting them pile up unobserved. It takes resources that you might need (whether the AP from a follower; time and rope to tie them up; or the attention of a hero himself), and the more enemies being watched, the more chance of one getting away/jumping the guard. Taking basic precautions is something that a group will figure out early on in their careers. After the first "down" enemy successfully FA's, the players will crack down on later defeated foes - it's a self-regulating kind of thing. Now, some players might decide that killing foes is the way to deal with them, but *I DO NOT ADVOCATE THIS FOR NORMAL HEROES*. A Heortling warrior or typical Lunar soldier won't think of killing his prisoners/wounded as the first thing to do.
> > Yet lax security precautions appear as a genre convention.
>
> Zigackerly.
They appear *once* per movie/book/whatever, then are replaced by more stringent security, *not mass killings*. The guard gets jumped *once*. The dead/wounded aren't policed up *once*. The cop doesn't kick the gun away *once*. After that, "standard security" gets tightened up. Weapons are policed up and put far away from the enemy, the dead are carried to the side, the not-dead are tied up/left under guard.
The guy that goes around shooting the wounded or prisoners is normally portrayed as a BAD GUY, not someone for the hero to emulate. I follow this genre convention - CdG is an *extreme* action, and shouldn't be done lightly. Henry V gets bad press for ordering the slaughter of knightly prisoners at Agincourt, Lt. Calley gets court-martialed for the massacre at My Lai. Modern Society doesn't like indicriminate killing, even in wartime.
> > I see nothing wrong in setting up a "standard combat policy"
>
> OK, I'll grant you this. Have the "finishing off" take place off-camera.
> Then Rollo can always slip up (by Narrator fiat) and allow a Narrator
> Surprise to slip through.
Sheesh, I *never advocated* that Rollo kill the prisoners! You are reading way too much into this Nick. Once again, "keep an eye on defeated enemies so they can't FA" is *NOT* the same as killing them. Unless "finishing off" doesn't mean "killing" to you - on this side of the water, to "finish off" a prisoner is to kill him.
A "normal" follower *should* balk at this order (Char-un, Uroxi and the like *aren't* "normal"!). If the Hero ain't man enough to kill his own prisoners (and thereby probably disgust his followers), then I wouldn't have the follower do it for him except in extreme circumstances (possibly disgusting the *hero*; good for a nice moral dilema!).
RR
Powered by hypermail