Reasons a Hostage Stays Alive?

I wanted to know a reason why an antagonist would leave a hostage alive after they've succeeded in collecting ransom for them. I wanted to avoid the dreaded You Have Outlived Your Usefulness trope, and at the same time, since the hostage is someone I like, I really wouldn't want to kill him. D:

Would there even be a logical reason why they keep him alive though? I can't even think of one and I'm supposed to be the writer, the mastermind here!

Maybe this hostage contains information or intelligence that their captor wants.

I guess I could work that in, but so far, I have that the only reason he gets captured is because he's the ruler of a very rich country, so the ransom money would be a large amount for the antagonists to carry out their even darker purposes.

Keeping the hostage alive prevents the captor from being demonized in the event that they are scrutinized. As far as captors are concerned, the ransom is a business transaction and not a personal vendetta. Killing the hostage could create a sort of Moral Event Horizon in which the proper business ethic is violated among all parties involved. You go from being some unknown person who is trying to make a living to being a public enemy.

Another advantage to keeping the hostage alive is that you leave the paying party at the mercy of their own speculation, and you can make further demands if you really want to do so. This is common is parts of South America, particularly Brazil where there is an entire underground industry built around ransoms. The captor can occasionally provide proof of life, but that proof has to be subtle enough to not give details about the person's (or captor's) location. Say you send a T-shirt or shoe to the family's house to show that you have them. Remove traces of grass, dust or any synthetic foreign substances that could indicate your location. For example, a shirt that has industrial chemicals on it could indicate that the captors are located in an industrial environment such as a warehouse or factory, or if there are traces of a plant that only grows in a certain country, that could provide clues as well.

Also, what authority or power does the victim have? You said he was the ruler of a country. Is his power dependent upon some rare skill that only he possesses, or is he more of a representative who executes decisions? In other words, how easy would it be to replace this person if they were captured? That will say a lot about the long-term usefulness of the victim and his value to the captor. Holding him for too long could make him a liability if his lordship is simply replaced by an emergency second-in-command.

edited 3rd May '11 10:37:48 AM by Aprilla

Now that I think of it, yeah, this group would have the advantage if this were seen as strictly business, because they do have more plans in mind after they get the money. Their hostage's country isn't even their true "enemy" by their concern, but just happened to have something valuable, in their eyes.

The one who was taken was a King, and although his Chancellor is the good kind who helps out as sort of a right-hand man, there is no way he could replace his liege. Public opinion (and his own honor) wouldn't let him step permanently on the throne, and he feels a lot of guilt and responsibility for what's happened. So yeah, this King's country (especially his Adviser) definitely want him back in one piece, and they're all spooked by his disappearance.

I just hope that it doesn't make my antagonists not seem very... well, evil because they're actually keeping their word in leaving him alive. When they collect the funds (because the Chancellor eventually cracks under pressure and pays them), I planned on having them just up and leave, and then the King's rescue/search party arrives, completely baffled that their enemy fled and literally didn't leave a scratch on him.

Is that making them too honorable, in a sense, though? Maybe I'm just too reluctant to write a Complete Monster and it's making itself very obvious.

edited 3rd May '11 9:11:44 PM by Misuki

Maybe have the antagonist pressure the ruler into executing a desision once he gets back, on the thread of death. That desision could help advance the antagonist's plan.

If the antagonist is a group rather than an individual, you could add some tension by giving its members a difference of opinion - let him go as promised, or kill him? There are pragmatic arguments for both (on the one hand, breaking their word would destroy their ability to manipulate the protagonists further; on the other, any information he might have obtained while captured could prove catastrophic in the protagonists' hands). Have the command structure decide one way, while their most sympathetic member decides the other, disobeys orders and justifies his actions as described above.

I don't necessarily see why this would be "too honorable", particularly if you made sure to emphasize that their motive is Pragmatic Villainy. Besides, as outlined, killing the king would be an act of pointless malice with no purpose besides "being evil", and I would take overly sympathetic villains over Stupid Evil villains any day - for one thing, it's more true to life.

I like the idea the capture is wearing a disguise. Preferably the guise of someone he doesn't like.

hence leaving the hostage alive sets someone else up for the crime or at least throws them off his trail.

I wouldn't make it obvious though. Have him act like he's trying to hide who he is and he makes a really convincing "mistake" where his mask comes off and the captive gets a glimpse of his face. But the capture has no reason to think he saw anything.

Personally, I preffer to put the emphasis on the life rather than the death so I'd change the question to "why would the hostage have to die?" and work from there.

Perhaps the hostage is part of a distraction? Release him out the front, set off a bunch of bombs, the bad guys escape in the chaos.

Information, if the hostage is important.

To clarify: This is a group committing the crime. The three main ones are the leaders of a large group of thieves in a city known for its crime and darkness.

Their leader definitely would fit the bill for Pragmatic Villainy. That trope describes that there is a motive to his madness (and it's subjective as to how mad he is, because his two most trusted think he's brilliant).

I do like the idea of a trap for the heroes though. 8D That could make it so he and his group could move forward without hindrance. And it would be a cool battle scene for the heroes to escape too.

Stockholm Syndrome

You can have the king behaving sympathetic to them, so they develop some mutual respect. They probably wouldn't kill him if they like him. It would also be a nice Pet The Dog moment for them.

Although that isn't exactly Pragmatic Villainy though.

edited 11th May '11 3:38:11 AM by honorius

Actually the chance of a hostage dying after paying a ransom isn't really high at all. In fact, it's the utter opposite. They usually always live if you pay the ransom. The point of not paying a ransom is because you're trying to discourage the behaviour of kidnappings under the presumption that paying out ransom encourages it. In most cases, even with militant groups in Afghanistan or Iraq, paying out ransom has saved lives basically every time it was done. Making special forces ops go in results in a far higher chance of hostage death than paying up. But you know "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

The only justification needed? They want the money, they don't want the blood. These people are human beings not cold machines.

edited 12th May '11 12:22:40 PM by breadloaf

Plus people wouldn't even consider paying ransom if the victim was going to be killed anyway.