Team Spirit
The people have spoken. Tasked with deciding whose party Gunslinger would attempt to join this month, our Quest Givers on Patreon voted for the bad guys. Better luck next time to Alchemist, Summoner, and Pugilist! I’m sure Handbook-World’s loneliest marksman will get around to you eventually.
Poor Gunslinger though… Dude goes through evil army basic training (not to mention some of those notoriously malodorous goblin hazing rituals), just to find himself on the wrong side of the top brass. If I know anything about BBEG and Ms. Gestalt, it’s that they aren’t exactly easy on fresh goblin recruits. Still, it looks like they’ve earned a little loyalty in this case. I think it’s worth examining why that might be.
When it comes to loyal henchmen, the usual strategy is something I think of as the “Darth Vader approach.” Nothing inspires fear quite like force-choking your most incompetent officers, and offing you own side is villain shorthand for “I’m a ruthless badass.” Those poor peons are going to be more scared of you than any meddling heroes, so it stands to reason that they’ll show undying loyalty to the cause.
Of course, that’s just one option. Patriotism is always a handy motivation for enemy soldiers. If you’ve got a religious organization rather than an evil military, then your can go with the “true believer” shtick. There’s no reasoning with a fanatic after all. Then there’s literal brain washing, magical compulsions, and robotic minions. There are the foes who will follow orders thanks to their programming. Same deal with demons and devils, who tend to fight to the death just for the chance at a little mayhem. And if you’re just looking to run a straight-up brawl, these are all great choices.
If you’re looking to mix a bit more RP with your “fights until death” combat encounters though, more nuanced motivations work a little better. This is the realm of “will run from combat if ____.” And choosing how to fill in the blanks for that “if” can be a lot of fun.
Therefore, for today’s discussion, what do you say we come up with some more morale options? What will cause an otherwise loyal minion to turn on its boss? And if you do like to run with “fights to the death” dudes, what is it that keeps the little buggers in line? Tell us all about your own take on team spirit down in the comments!
GET YOUR SCHWAG ON! Want a piece of Handbook-World to hang on you wall? Then you’ll want to check out the “Hero” reward tier on the The Handbook of Heroes Patreon. Each monthly treasure haul will bring you prints, decals, buttons, bookmarks and more! There’s even talk of a few Handbook-themed mini-dungeons on the horizon. So hit the link, open up that treasure chest, and see what loot awaits!
Our Starfinder AP (that we just concluded last week, successfully) featured a mixture of baddies that ranged from:
Eldritch fanatics, who were plain crazy…
Militaristic fanatics/loyalists, who were ‘death before dishonor’ or ‘terrified of their boss’, sometimes enforced with exploding collars, mixed in with a bit less loyal officers…
Mercs, officers and other ‘less fanatic’ people who were actually reasonable enough to surrender past certain points…
A very zealous police officer who didn’t realize he was fighting for the bad guys.
Of course, since my character was a Sarenrite Mystic healer who didn’t want to kill/harm people as much as most PCs, we found ourselves defaulting to less lethal methods (with stun or merciful guns), so our DM likely made some enemies more likely to surrender outright to accomplish this.
Whenever you’ve got the pacifist PC in the group, you’ve got to make a few changes. Nice to see the group actually following that lead as well.
filling in that „if“ condition is very important and also annoyingly done wrong in many adventure paths: An unimmaginative fixed value, slightly below what a well designed Fighter can dish out in a single full attack.
More sensible would be an instruction like „runs away if HP drop below average damage per round received.“
Personally I‘d leave „fights to death“ for „defends home/nest“ and „religious zealot“.
With the Darth Vader approach…
if BBEG fights alongside minions and said minions ever get the impression that the attacking adventurers have a good chance of winning (one big ass hit), the minions would part before the heroes like the red sea allegedly did for that guy in the bible.
why does Gravatar hate me?
I like the idea of the “if below a certain hp value” in principle, but in practice it always turns into “too bad this guy was at the wrong spot in the initiative order to actually surrender.” In that sense, ‘if it’s clear they’re about to lose’ is a better heuristic.
Dropping your weapon and talking are both free actions, at least.
Sure. But it’s more an issue of, “Creature at 13 hp, surrenders at 12, dead before it can run away on its turn.”
Sure it could be argued that surrendering in between Fighters turn and Wizards turn is possible by taking free actions, but it’s a „dead after Fighters turn“ problem.
as for the comic:
it could be argued that Alchemist, Summoner, and Pugilist are actually the lucky ones, with Gunslingers attention focused on somewhere else.
What? Who wouldn’t want Gunslinger inviting himself to the group? He has so much to offer! Like green body paint for example.
A deadshot who genuinely wants to get along with, and gives his all for, the rest of the team?
Welcome aboard, Gunslinger!
in theory, yes
but the running gag is that nobody wants him in the team.
OSP has a fantastic video on evil minions, and how their relationship with the villain adds characterization to both.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN8MXoe7bCc
It does indeed. But I think that TRPGs add an interesting “next step” to the conversation. It’s not just that minions’ motivation reveals character, but that motivation becomes a tool that can be leveraged mechanically. Figuring out how to turn those story beats into legible game mechanics that players can spot and then utilize is its own weird trick, and it’s a hard one to pull off consistently.
In my games I tend to have my villains keep their minions around via honour-based societies or as a simple job. One of the more sympathetic groups considered themselves an extended family, and stuck together out of love. In less-fantastic settings I’ll typically use a greedy hope for a prosperous future to keep the antagonists together, whether they’re conquering nations, running heists or just trying to blow up the world. Once in a while, especially for oneshots, I’ll just make my villains comically evil puppy-kickers with no redeeming qualities since on occasion players just want something to reduce to gore sprays without feeling guilty.
As for what players can do to turn them, bribery is one that tends to work well. 5e doesn’t have many sinks for GP so I let my players burn it on a wallet check every now and then. Threats of death, humiliation, undeath, or super-death are effective against captured jobbers but not usually elites or fanatics- though I tend to make my NPCs care about their own lives. Otherwise, the players are down to sensible arguments and good Charisma rolls if they want to talk their way into a hostile character’s good graces.
Almost makes you wonder if “bribe cost” could be a monster stat.
I think you might have meant to write “CultivATe a strong esprit de corps”.
BBEG and Gestalt could do worse than to keep Gunslinger. I imagine he’d be ferociously loyal to any group that lets him join and stay. He probably wouldn’t even join the Goblin Union, and he has potential for becoming a deadly enforcer.
How the f did we both miss that!?
You’re only human.
We make mistakes.
When working for someone who likely specializes in necromancy, just remember:
Death is temporary.
Deafeat and punishment are forever.
Or at least until the heroes find the phylactery.
I do not know exactly what causes the fanatics to decide to give up, but maybe it is the barbarian and ranger/rogue that between the two of them can push over 150 damage in a single round of combat (without crits!) and do so against the leadership of the encounter and/or EVERYone else around that last guy that decided surrender was the best option…
too bad our barbarian doesn’t accept surrender >.>
“We will fight to (some) deaths!”
I’d say minions will definitely turn and run if the usual bad boss takes a nosedive.
However, if the boss has been feeding them good food, giving them quality gear and training, and most importantly has given them a location on-site to raise their families – all while maintaining strict but fair discipline – well… Then they might consider how no one else is offering such a great job, and their mates and children might be in danger if they yield.
That’s how you get minions to fight to the death: be the boss they want and put them in a position where surrender is unthinkable.
The tough thing at that point is the characterization problem. If the bad guy is actually a great guy, why are our protagonists fighting ’em in the first place?
Ah, but just because he runs a good workplace doesn’t make him a great guy to the rest of the world.
Also, telling your minions they can raise their families in your base so they’ll fight desperately to thwart invaders is -not- something a nice person does.
Having lived in military town with on-base housing….
Well, I assume the army had a different motivation to a theoretical BBEG who uses his minions’ families as an incentive. ^^;
That’s the trouble. I’m not sure how “earn a living to provide for your family” is all that different.
I don’t have a problem with the bad guys actually being quite pleasant. It all comes down to their goals: it doesn’t matter how nice someone is if pursuing their objectives will cause them to ride roughshod over the heroes’ place and way of life.
Of course, it does open ways to defeat them that don’t involve killing them, and destroying their way of life in turn. That won’t necessarily succeed, but it’s nice to have the option of trying.
Oh sure. Complex characters etc. etc.
But there is such a thing as narrative economy. You only have so much time to devote to characterizing your bad guys. If you’re going to put in the effort to make your antagonist a mixed bag of sympathy and villainy, it takes a bit of planning and setup. Players only have so much time to decide “do I punch the bad guys or not?”
Because he’s been slaughtering farmers and looting the countryside to get the supplies to feed and equip his troops?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9QEsjd1WZuY
My BBEG’s inner-circle were his best friend and bodyguard, his close personal friend who he would help the advance the agenda of, and said close personal friend’s lieutenant/top Assassin, a mercenary who he had a good working relationship with, and a Paladin who thought he was in charge who then became a Death Knight who only cared aboot revenge.
For low-end minions he mostly employed undead who wouldn’t object, mercenaries who just wanted to get paid, monstrosities he made/summoned and a group of anarchist Druids who wanted to tear down all of civilization who were run by said close personal friend. (Said friend took full control when the party killed their official leader: An awakened T-Rex with Druid levels named “King Theodore”. And yes; he wore a tiny crown.) He made a deliberate point of not employing anyone who would be a morale problem.
Mercenaries would never turn on the boss?
He had several layers of go-between for most and never met them directly. Also he had a loooooot of money.
I once had what I thought was a perfectly balanced one-shot adventure for my players, only the pot luck of which players were available meant that I severely underestimated the current power level of the Druid, and the Archer’s usual player (“I shoot an arrow, I guess.”) was replaced by her min/maxing, inventory scouring master strategist sister. I’d planned for the faceless stormtrooper mercenaries to be a field hazard as the PCs fought the tough leader, the Big-Bad’s right hand man (winter wolf, technically).
When the wolf was steamrolled in the first round of combat, the mercs fell quickly. The last one, I decided, was really only hired muscle, and offered to spill everything he knew in exchange for his life. They could keep his gear, he said, as long as they gave him a sword, the clothes on his back, and enough money for a boat ride to the next continent over so the boss never learned he survived. The Chaotic Neutral PCs didn’t even need to mull it over, they handed him a +1 sword from the treasure, 25 gp, and wished him bon voyage as soon as he finished his written statement.
I like to think that PCs have a natural kinship with mercenaries. They’re just out here trying to quest, you know?
BBEG: There is an imposter among us 😛
As for reasons, God, lust, money. Pick your poison 🙂
Green suss.
We are obviously meant to believe Gunslinger is the hypothetical traitor here…
But given his backstory and motivations, what if he’s the most loyal one of the bunch? He’d shoot anyone just for merely being accepted as a friend…
Seems to me he’s not going to have that chance.
I Like to think that orcs* have been the end of more would be world conquerors then heroes ever will.
Besides the obvious survivorship bias that leads people to believe that they can defeat multiple of the biggest baddest warriors in a martial culture and lay claim to their chiefdoms and the armies that come with them. Of course.
After that you have bureaucracy you have to feed, equip, pay and train your newfound army. Not to mention the scores of noncombatants that are now your responsibility. Any society is three meals away from chaos and yours is already armed.
And any would be evil overlord will also soon find out why these tribes of vicious marauders hadn’t united already. Countless clan rivalries, past grudges, and tribal wars mar your new forces history and if you don’t deal with it carefully and quickly you’ll have mutinies infighting and possibly civil war on your hands.
And of course you have just plain old Ambition. There’s plenty of people who think the only thing standing in the way of them and the eternal glory of warcheif-hood is the neck of the guy in charge right now.
AKA congratulations you have an army of monsters now you just have to run it.
*And other “monstrous” races.
I dunno. It worked out OK for that dude in Shadow of Mordor.
That’s because he’s using mind control with no limits or spell slots and even then in the sequel shadow of war an orc can betray you if pushed enough.
Protip Don’t kill someone’s blood brother unless you want a arrow in the back.
I’m of the opinion that enemies should USE the magic items they have if it’s possible for them. A few enemies might even find their loot precious enough to fight to the death over it. Like dragons, or me with this cool ring I found.
Let’s not be silly. Monsters obviously can’t use magic items.
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/monsters-treasure
My last session really ran the gamut as far as morale goes. The scenario played out like this; a group of gang members and an unstable merrow were putting on a ‘welfare check’ for an elderly, turncoat mage. Up on the boat nearby, they had hired out some local sailors as back-up in case things went south.
Party rolls in. After scoping out the scene and some shenanigans confusing the merrow, they decide the boat is PERFECT for getting some height on the enemy. Best plan. Except that’s where the enemy sailors are. They aren’t a part of the fight yet, so I give them a surprise round on them. Except, they don’t decide to immediately start attacking them.
Smartly, the party rogue chooses to barter and rolls VERY well on a persuasion check. With a well placed bag gems, he convinces the sailors to turn a blind eye on their allies and more or less cuts the enemy force in half.
Heroes attack. I didn’t balance things well, and it’s beginning to become a slaughterfest for the gang. The boss tries to run, gets chunked down to 1 HP. The Merrow is equally looking rough and the session is nearly over. Having grapple hooked up to the rooftop, the gang boss leaps into the ocean to try and save himself. Cue the merrow immediately smelling blood in the water.
Dashing up, I decide to let the merrow give into those sweet, sweet feral instincts and drag the gang boss off to what is presumably a watery, terrible death or the loss of yet another limb (he already had his hand replaced with a crossbow).
The smart mooks who were still alive immediately surrendered because they did NOT stand a chance in hell at surviving otherwise. Elderly wizard saved! So. In one encounter we got…
1). Standard surrender
2). A sudden exploration in mid-battle bribery
3). Cowardice/Attempting to become a recurring E-NPC
4). Seeking out an easy meal.
…Which I think is cool!
When all of your dudes display unique and legible psychology, it goes a long well to selling the world. Well done!
In KAP (King Arthur Pendragon) the moral option is more or less part of the game. You play a knight, who is both supposed to be the protector of innocents, and defenseless people, but you are also the might that smites down on other innocents and defenseless people when you go out and raid, or conquer, with Arthur. And, as you eventually might end up with different manors from different lords, whom you swore to obey, and those lords get into a fight\war against each other, who do you follow, and why, without being called a traitor, or forsworn, by the other side? And you are supposed to behave honourably all the time, but to do that you whack around with a sword, or use a lance, to kill people to make this happen. Who do you kill, why do you kill, and what happens (to you, your family, your lord, your “name”) if you do , or don’t kill?
Some players are of the Might makes Right school (and in the early years of Arthur that is a viable option) and others are more of the Knight in Shining Armour type, which is more appropriate for the later years, so what you want to do, and when, in KAP has an impact on when you want to play, or when would be a good time to play in the timeline.
I feel like this is from a PC’s perspective. I was more imagining the morale question from the NPC side. As an GM, what’s a reasonable heuristic for deciding when an NPC knight yields?
Well, there is some mechanic in KAP that takes care of part of that. If you are below a certain threshold in HP (1/4th of your HP) you become unconscious, so fighting to the death is not always possible. Also, there are the rules of the fight. If it’s a one-on-one, you sometimes do agree on the severity of the damage before yielding. A fight For Love (of combat) should end after First Blood, depending on the honour of the enemy of course. And that’s also a measure of how hard, or how long, the enemy will fight. If he (or she) is honourable, the chances of having a “fair” fight are higher. Sneaky Cornish knights (with a dishonest and dishonourable king (Mark)) as example, are less likely to abide by the rules. Any Welsh, Irish, Scottish or Pictish tribesman is going to grab any advantage that he can (and needing it too), no matter how dishonest. Saxon have their own honour system, but it’s more brutal than the Cymric (Arthurian) one, so depending on what happens to whom during the fight, they might yield, or they might want to go on and visit Wotan. Everybody knows that Romans (Arthur, early in his career, goes and conquers Rome) are sneaky, dishonest and lying, so be wary of what they offer you, and look out for tricks.
However, if any of the above do yield to you, and you do not accept, your honour will surely suffer, even if the yielding turns out to be a ruse or somesuch.
Also, in fights within Logres, the NPCs will be aware of their own oaths. Every PC generates a passion of “Love Lord”. For every manor that you have, from a different Liege, you have to generate such a passion. And the lords have a corresponding passion called “Love Liegemen”. IF you have a high score in the Love Liege passion for this one lord, and not for the other, and if one Lord has held up his part of the oath, just as you have yours, and the other hasn’t (and is known for this) there is some ground for breaking your oath to him. But you better be very certain about it, and have proof, or witnesses, because nobody, not even the lord that you did choose, likes oath breakers, as those oaths are the mortar that keeps the feudal building upright.
Or that NPC is just delusional enough to think he might get away with it. Might does make right after all.
What I mean to say is that within a framework of rules of honour and knightly behaviour, there are, like in any rules system, grey areas. And thus ways and means to do things, either honourable, or not, that you can get away with without breaking those rules. People may think that you did not live up to the spirit of the rules, and only to the letter, but they can’t blame you for doing so, if you have the right excuse within those same rules. Depending on the motivation that I (as GM) gave that NPC, and the way that my players either acknowledged that, ignored it, or mocked it, will give me, the GM, a way to show that moral dilemma, and the way it plays out, based on the actions of the players. I do realize now that this is not really an answer, but then, I’m not sure if I have a clearcut one. In my mind it hinges on the ability of the players to fathom the moral quandary that the NPC might be in, and their reaction to it. I have had NPCs that were supposed to be deadly enemies of the PCs go to best friends of the same, just because one, or more PCs said the correct words in a tense situation, and friendly NPCs become mortal enemies of the PCs just because of the wrong words, or deeds, at the wrong time. One of the best examples of the first situation was when some knights stumbled upon some Saxon Axemaidens (basically Valkyries), and this one knight manages to lose his sword during the fight, “attacks” with his “flirting” skill in the next round, which he criticals, and then the Axemaiden fumbles her “Chaste” trait roll, her “Pouis\Spritual”trait, and then criticals her “Lustfull” trait roll, so falls head over heels in love with this guy (his Appearance wasn’t anything to sneer at either), and goes on to help him, and his friends, win the fight with the other Axemaiden, weds him, and bear him three sons, and a daughter.