Ethics of Killing POWs

[Rykion]

If everybody murdered everybody else who didn't see or do things their way. . . well. . . there wouldn't be an ENWorld. Or for that matter, much of a human race.

What???
I haven't seen anyone talking about killing anyone or anything just for disagreeing.

 

[boolean]

I think the point here, concept of traitor aside, is that the lizardman POW is still a threat to the party and their mission.

How is the lizardfolk still a threat after being knocked unconscious?

 

[DragonLancer]

How is the lizardfolk still a threat after being knocked unconscious?

The lizardfolk attempted to shout out to alert his own forces after being taken prisoner. The party knock him out... then what? You can't leave him because if found by his own people they know what the situation is. The party can't or more likely dosen't want to cary his unconcious form around so the only option left is to kill it.

Welcome to player dynamics in D&D.

 

[Tiberius]

The party can't or more likely dosen't want to cary his unconcious form around so the only option left is to kill it.

Don't forget to take its jaw. That way they can't use speak with the dead on it.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The lizardfolk attempted to shout out to alert his own forces after being taken prisoner. The party knock him out... then what? You can't leave him because if found by his own people they know what the situation is.

The situation of there being invaders in their area which have killed some of them with swords, some with magic and some with arrows?

 

[roguerouge]

How much does my character's perception of intent matter? If he viewed the warlock's act of killing the unconscious creature as being one of calculation, indifference, or pleasure, does that change your view?

 

[darthkilmor]

The lizardfolk attempted to shout out to alert his own forces after being taken prisoner. The party knock him out... then what? You can't leave him because if found by his own people they know what the situation is. The party can't or more likely dosen't want to cary his unconcious form around so the only option left is to kill it.

The only Convenient option is to kill him. If this was the scene in a movie, killing an unconscious enemy is something you expect the evil bad guys to do. The good guys go in, knock people out(and sometimes tie them up), shoot people who are actively shooting at them, rescue the damsel, and escapes with the damsel.

Picture this: Group of heroes is breaking into a drug dealers mansion. They capture a guard and force him to unlock some doors. When some other guards approach he shouts out. Someone knocks the guard out. You know what Doesn't happen next? They don't execute that unconscious guard. They might hit him again to make sure he's still knocked out by the time they leave. Willfully executing an unarmed, unconscious person is what the evil guys do.

 

[balterkn]

Morality of the act likely depends on the nature of the conflict between the PC's state and the lizardfolk. If the lizardfolk consume sentients, then leaving the lizardperson alive would not have been a good act.

Consider the oft-mentioned "Geneva-Conventions" in this thread. Those provisions only really stood up for treatment of soldiers from signatory nations. It was only later that the conventions were incorporated into the "rules of war". By the 3rd convention article 42, provides for the use of weapons against prisoners attempting to escape, provided warnings appropriate to the circumstances are used (when behind enemy lines, no warning may be appropriate). However, the 1st convention does indicate that rendering someone unconscious firmly sets the person as a non-combatant.

Before the conventions, the "rules of war" generally guided the treatment of prisoners. The rules are not formal written documents, but precepts that have grown out of experience, and especially our limited ability to deal with suffering. In the real world, injuries that render someone unconscious could take weeks to heal, an injured person will likely not be a threat for a relatively long time.. In a fantasy world with healing and even death being surmountable with relatively little effort, likely the rules of war would be different.

 

[Jasperak]

The only Convenient option is to kill him. If this was the scene in a movie, killing an unconscious enemy is something you expect the evil bad guys to do. The good guys go in, knock people out(and sometimes tie them up), shoot people who are actively shooting at them, rescue the damsel, and escapes with the damsel.

Picture this: Group of heroes is breaking into a drug dealers mansion. They capture a guard and force him to unlock some doors. When some other guards approach he shouts out. Someone knocks the guard out. You know what Doesn't happen next? They don't execute that unconscious guard. They might hit him again to make sure he's still knocked out by the time they leave. Willfully executing an unarmed, unconscious person is what the evil guys do.

That's right, because the writer makes sure the guard stays knocked out, or the good guys really regret it when the guard wakes up at the most inopportune time. BS hollywood dramatization should have no bearing on PC actions if you are trying for anything more than stereotypical cardboard characters.

Props to the OP for starting this discussion.

BTW I cannot imagine any special forces in any military on this planet taking prisoners with the belief that the prisoners would be protected by the Geneva convention, especially if they were deep inside of enemy territory. Unless they were supposed to as part of the mission. IMHO, not even 20th century morality would have saved the lizard-folk's life.

With the knowledge I have now, after the warlock's action I would have kept on the mission until completion and then confronted him when it was safer to do so, though only because the warlock took it upon himself to execute the lizard-folk without getting approval from the party.

 

[S'mon]

BTW I cannot imagine any special forces in any military on this planet taking prisoners with the belief that the prisoners would be protected by the Geneva convention, especially if they were deep inside of enemy territory.

Yes, commandos don't take prisoners. This party did though.