Why is it evil to kill the prisoners?

[Bob Aberton]

Killing helpless people is Evil.

Evil beings kill helpless creatures. The PCs kill helpless creatures. Thus, they become evil beings (after a slide to Neutral). The thing that separates Good from Evil is not a black hat or a white hat. Thing that separates Good from Evil is that Good shows mercy, compassion, etc.

How hard is that?

Some people inevitably will bring up the old argument of the executioner. He kills helpless people for a living. Thus, in my opinion, he is at least Neutral, if not evil. Killing criminals is really a necessary evil, but it evil all the same.

Thus, you will be hard-pressed to find a Good executioner. Perhaps a Lawful Neutral, or maybe Lawful Evil excutioner, but rarely will an excutioner be Good.

Always being the one who pulls the switch on the chair can't be good for the soul...

And, as for the TTT example, the orc that Legolas and Gimli offered "a quick end" to was ALREADY DYING, as evidenced by the fact that he was COUGHING UP BLOOD. Thus, L & G's offer WAS merciful. It was a case of a quick (relatively) painless death and a slow, tortuous end from blood loss. I personally would take the axe over the abdominal wound, if I were the orc.

I would like to end on this note,

There is no such thing as "Ruthless Good." Ruthless Good (as practiced by occasional bloodthirsty PCs) is just Evil wearing a White Hat(tm).

 

[Sarellion]

Reason you should turn prisoners over to the authorities

I think that turning over prisoners even if the authorities kill them has several good reasons.

1. A party has no right to judge people. Most often they are just passing thru. Nobody likes it if there are groups of people running around killing captives, especially if these ppl are foreigners and keep the loot. Imagine that you are a commoner in a D&D world, how would you feel if a group of well armed strangers are in your bar, paying with the coin of slain foes, boasting of their newest deeds. They have encountered some highwaymen and they killed them after they bound and gagged them. They don't have the bodies or any other proof that they killed raiders and not your neighbour.

2.You are taking away the right to judge people from the authorities. Even if you don't care about it, the lord will care about it. Most often a feudal lord is the judge and you will upset him if you take away his right.

3. What if the prisoner refuses to speak? It could be that there is a mistake and he is convinced that you are evil cultists andyou are convinced that he is an evil cultist. Or perhaps somebody faked a search warranty on your head for heineous crimes. He will not speak to you if he is not sure about you.

 

[Bauglir]

It seems fairly clear to me :-

It is not a good act to cause any harm to a creature. A character that considers himself good will not cause any harm that can reasonably be avoided. Now if an orc is swinging a greataxe at you it's not unreasonable to fight back (although even then I would use subdual damage where possible). When an orc has surrendered and is tied up in front of you, no infliction of harm could be considered reasonable. It depends on HOW good you are (shades of grey and all that) what you consider reasonable. If you are too 'practical' in your decisions then perhaps an alignment shift is in order.. IMO it is an evil character that kills all those that might ever pose a threat to him.

Against creatures that would be considered inherently and unsaveably evil (demons and what not) then, depending on your viewpoint, to kill them may still be considered a good act, depending on your interpretation.. end justifies the means and all that (because to spare them results in the certainty of harm to numerous others - it's all in the numbers)

Well what about the possibility that the orc may go and hurt others if released? Well that possibility exists everywhere. If you find a paladin the orcs have imprisoned, should you kill him to avert the possibility that he may one day fall and become a blackguard?

Orcs and such are generally evil as a product of their society - it's entirely possible that an orc is evil just because he has never conceived that things could be any other way. By showing mercy you could be opening doors for him, etc, etc..

The point is you don't KNOW what will come from letting him live; it may result in some harm to others, it may not.

 

[Kichwas]

An absurd ethical moment from last night's game:


We're moving north and see wome Wargs feasting on an Orc carcass. We take out the Wargs after a failed debate on the idea of just circling around them (failed when the DM got bored and just had them charge us ).

Then members of our group get it into their heads to track the Orcs companions, three by their tracks, and kill them as well.

I briefly argue that there's no point, we have no ill against those Orcs. The argument ends when we realize those tracks are going where we were going anyway.

We come to a ruined Elven city (Elven Port in FR) and have reason to assume it is Orc infested. We begin to scout out a stone fortress on the edges of this city and find Orcs in it. We proceed to take them out.

At the end of the battle we have 4 to 5 of them sleeping thanks to my spells. A debate ensues on how to deal with them.

The very people opposed to killing prisoners want to slit these guys throats. Some of us want to wake them and question them about the area and the strength of it's local communities. But if we wake them, we know the very people who simply want to kill them now will suddenly be advocating for keeping them alive.

This is one of those moments when D&D ethics -or rather the ethics I witness from D&D players- confuses me.

To me, it's a natural assumption that I will wake an Orc, question it under duress, and then kill it unless I see it as a means to making peace with the larger community and getting what I desire out of Elven Port without needing hostilities.

I'm operating largely under that 'semi-special forces' mode of thought for my PC. I have some people who see this line of thinking, and others who see the other angle.

This sort of situation is what led me to start this thread, and I am still confused by the ethics of the other side. Ethics which I see as not being consistant or based in logic. But I assume they have the same problem when trying to see my ethics. At least, those of them who even bother analyzing ethics do. I find most people never bother to do that, and thus have extreme reactions when they face off against ethical systems other than their own. As they don't even understand their own ethics, they are fully incapable of even grasping or validating some other ethical system.

That doesn't specifically apply to the group I game with, it's more a general statement.

 

[Redleg06]

So you have a Lawful Evil assassin in your custody. You are lawful Good. You don't execute him. You let him go. He escapes and continues to kill. Is the blood of his next victims on your hands? If you say "no" you are NOT Lawful Good. You are Lawful Neutral.

 

[The Firstborn]

Quote:
To me, it's a natural assumption that I will wake an Orc, question it under duress, and then kill it unless I see it as a means to making peace with the larger community and getting what I desire out of Elven Port without needing hostilities.

I'm operating largely under that 'semi-special forces' mode of thought for my PC.


Why are you operating in this mode? Is your character someone who was trained to operate this way? Was/Is your character affiliated with a special ops unit of some nation? I don't understand why you would want to have a character function in this way in a fantasy setting.

I also don't get power gamers and I am not saying you are one I am merely making a D&D observation. Everyone seems to be focused on being the toughest, baddest, munchkin around and it mostly makes for a boring game.

I wish D&D players who read the LOTR Trilogy and have seen the movies would take more away from the books and movies than just 'Wow that was cool, did you see how they killed all those orcs real fast. I want a PC like that.' I read Robin Hood stories, Morte de Artur, LOTR, and a lot more fantasy books before I was 14 (1981) and then discovered D&D and have always aspired to make my characters Heroic not just in action but in thier beliefs. I am now 36 and have seen all manner of gamers. I have had to place my character in harms way in order to gain humane treatment for prisoners. Now when we play in group with other people the party looks to me to stop any atrocities the party might want to engage in. Why do I have to be the moral compass for other players?

My older brother, who is a power gamer / internet fantasy world gamer, once had a character kill a dungeon guard, then had him amputate the dead guards leg at the hip, and de-fleshed the guards thigh bone so that he could use it as a club in order to escape. Did I mention his character was a Ranger back in 1st edition days.

Another thing that I think is missing is truly Heroic action. What ever happened to playing a truly heroic character for the simple reward the peasant communities can afford to give. Gratitude.

Question’s to ask about the party before deciding how killing prisoners really affects them.

Are they really Heroes in the true sense of what a Hero is or are they really just paid Mercenaries claiming that they are Heroes?

Example:

The PC’s come into town. While they are there the town is attacked by Orcs, Hobgoblins, or some other force.

Heroic action taken by PC’s:
Jump into the fracas and drive the attacking force off or kill them all.

Townsfolk reaction:
Hail the PC’s as Heroes and insist on paying for room and board, plus armor and equipment repair.

PC observation:
Town is in need of a protection and/or need someone to locate marauders hideout and remove the threat.

Heroic response by PC’s:
Hey we’ll help you poor folks out for free because we believe that you deserve justice and freedom.

Or

Mercenary response by the PC’s:
Hey we’ll help you poor folks out for the right price, and some free horses (not cheap) because Heroes (yeah right!) like us don't come cheap.

So are the PC’s really Heroes or just a bunch of Opportunist?.

What ever happened to:

With great power comes great responsibility.

 

[Kichwas]

Quote:
To me, it's a natural assumption that I will wake an Orc, question it under duress, and then kill it unless I see it as a means to making peace with the larger community and getting what I desire out of Elven Port without needing hostilities.

I'm operating largely under that 'semi-special forces' mode of thought for my PC.


Why are you operating in this mode? Is your character someone who was trained to operate this way? Was/Is your character affiliated with a special ops unit of some nation? I don't understand why you would want to have a character function in this way in a fantasy setting.

Because it -IS- the logical mode of thinking for people who have been engaged in lifelong conflict.

Such as people from the inner city like myself, as well as people from small tribal units that engage in warfare over resources such as my character (a Wild Elf) and my own Amazonian ancestors, and people who make a living off of independantly sought out conflict.


What baffles me is why people bring in the ethics of modern day suburbanites mixed in with a glamorization of medieval knights and apply that to characters who exist in small scale usually independant -freebooting- skirmish units.

As someone else said, even Conquistadors opperated under a stronger discipline and structure than the typical adventuring party.

Most PCs are nothing short of Brigands who pretend to do good. Perhaps they actually do, but they are essentially operating under the same lines of authority: none but their own.

This still has no relevancy to the topic, other than to point out that the wrong ethical compass is often being placed on PCs.

My current PC sees the group as a tribal unit, or a gang. Those are the best analogies to her viewpoint. A previous PC saw her band as 'land-privateers' because they were operating under official sanction of Cormyr to raid and clear out the Dwarven Ruins they'd found.

In forming the characters, I looked to ethical compasses that fit those modes of thought.

I also don't get power gamers and I am not saying you are one I am merely making a D&D observation. Everyone seems to be focused on being the toughest, baddest, munchkin around and it mostly makes for a boring game.

Such people bother me as well, but why are you mentioning them in this thread? They have zero relevancy to this issue.

Why do I have to be the moral compass for other players?

I feel the same way. I find their ethical compass illogical to the types of situations and to the types of characters I see in fantasy roleplay.

The PC’s come into town. While they are there the town is attacked by Orcs, Hobgoblins, or some other force.

Heroic action taken by PC’s:
Jump into the fracas and drive the attacking force off or kill them all.

Most PCs I've played would do likewise, for an assortment of reasons.

Even a non ethical character would find it wise to assist when in the middle of an invasion and they are essentially lined up to be a potential target.

This again however, has zero relevancy on the topic at hand.

 

[hong]

So you have a Lawful Evil assassin in your custody. You are lawful Good. You don't execute him. You let him go. He escapes and continues to kill. Is the blood of his next victims on your hands? If you say "no" you are NOT Lawful Good. You are Lawful Neutral.

Yes, but d00d, that's because you're lawful neutral.


Hong "not that there's anything wrong with that" Ooi

 

[hong]

Because it -IS- the logical mode of thinking for people who have been engaged in lifelong conflict.

Screw logic.

Such as people from the inner city like myself,

Like when taking part in those EVIL conflicts on messageboards. Die, evil alignment thread! DIE! DIE! DIE!

What baffles me is why people bring in the ethics of modern day suburbanites mixed in with a glamorization of medieval knights

Because the game is typically played by modern-day suburbanites and inner city cafe tragics, and the situations and attitudes in the game have to be relevant and meaningful to those who play it. Otherwise we might as well all go back to playing chess.

As someone else said, even Conquistadors opperated under a stronger discipline and structure than the typical adventuring party.

So did SS troops and Japanese POW guards. This just shows that discipline and structure are not the be-all and end-all when it comes to ethics and morals.

Most PCs are nothing short of Brigands who pretend to do good.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

Perhaps they actually do, but they are essentially operating under the same lines of authority: none but their own.

So modify your ethical framework to take into account the lack of temporal authority over such characters. Go on, you can do it.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

A)Execute them.
B)Release them.
C)Turn them over to the authorities.

Option C isn't evil because any republic is empowered by its constituant citizens to be able to legally kill people. In essence, the authority figures declare it to be okay, so it is. Thats why legal executions are not murder. Hence, not evil. Doesn't seem odd at all.

I find this moral logic puzzling. How can an act be Good, or Neutral, for a group to perform, if it is Evil for an individual?

If anything, this is a discussion of Lawful versus non-Lawful behavior, and even within that context, the Lawful character might be within his rights (and his alignment) to kill the prisoners. Lawful alignment relates both to a personal code of honor and an interest of preserving the group over the individual-- related concepts. However, not every code of honor will forbid killing someone who is helpless-- particularly if they became helpless as a result of dishonorable or unlawful actions.

As for group/society cohesion, the scale is roughly balanced between preserving the rule of law and maintaining the safety of its weaker citizens. Bandits are a threat to civil society, and not every traveler is as powerful as the adventuring party. By killing the bandits, they are preventing other innocent travelers from being accosted. This can be arguably considered a Lawful act-- local laws determine whether or not it is legal, but unless the bandits are secretly members of the nobility or are working for the local ruler, chances are the local authorities (especially of the time) would applaud the heroes' actions.

The biggest issue at stake is whether or not the character in question gave his word to the prisoners that they would not be slain without trial. While this would normally be part of agreeing to surrender, it is not always the case-- many field surrenders consist of nothing more than throwing your weapon down and screaming "MOMMY!" until the combat is over. Even then, a loose moral guideline like an alignment should allow for the occasional lie-- only a Paladin or other knightly, code-bound character should suffer for one breach.