Prisoners

[Jd Smith1]

Whether or not the Rebels were good does nothing to detract from the fact that mass murder is Evil, even if it is in a good cause.

Mass murder and collateral damage are two different things.

Your opinion isn't going to sway me in any particular, so we might as well go back to the thread topic.

 

[Khelon Testudo]

Using mass murder as an interrogation threat, then going through with it despite the interrogatee talking, strikes me as terrorist tactics, not 'collateral damage'. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm making the case for others who may read this thread.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Using mass murder as an interrogation threat, then going through with it despite the interrogatee talking, strikes me as terrorist tactics, not 'collateral damage'. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm making the case for others who may read this thread.

Again: that's not mass murder, nor is it terrorist tactics. Words have meaning; you can't just throw them into a sentence willy-nilly.

I doubt anyone is seeking validation of Lucas' 1970s vision, but hey, please yourself. I'm heading elsewhere; this thread has been beaten to death.

 

[pemerton]

There is no standard account of military ethics in which deliberately targetting a non-military target for the purposes of inflicting terror is "collateral damage". Collateral damage is used to describe innocent victims of attacks that are aimed at a military target for a legitimate military purpose.

 

[Catulle]

Dragoner called it in another thread. Well, that or someone's LARPing a not-especially-original caricature.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that this will vary by game and by group.

Interestingly enough, my players are far more likely to simply kill prisoners in D&D where they play heroes than they are to kill prisoners in our Blades in the Dark game where they’re actively playing a group of criminals.

I noticed this trend and there are a few reasons for it I think. The big one is alignment. Alignment seems to me mostly to serve the purpose of making murder acceptable. I don’t think most Good creatures would slay prisoners as readily as most Good D&D characters appear to. But if hose creatures are Evil, then for some reason it’s fine and takes no psychological toll.

The second is the othering of most enemies. Orcs and gnolls and ogres are all sufficiently removed from humanity that it’s easy to view them solely as monsters. Which is absolutely fine if you want to play that way, but I think it bleeds through even if you wanted a more nuanced approach.

In Blades, all the enemies the PCs face are humans, and none have an alignment. There’s no label that makes it okay to simply slaughter them without concern. The PCs don’t have an alignment, either, so I think the players actually give more thought to what individual actions may mean.

The game also makes killing have potential repercussions. It can reault in the Crew taking more Heat from the fallout of a Score. It can result in the creation of Ghosts, which is dangerous for everyone living in the city. Also, the Spirit Wardens are like special ghost cops that are summoned whenever someone dies in the city so that they can prevent the creation of ghosts. All of this serves to make killing a significant decision for PCs to make.

Again, I’m sure many folks simply like to play to have fun and not worry about the moral implications or psychological impact of murder on a person, and that’s fine.

But I think that’s a rather different thing from trying to apply this simplified view to the real world, or to cite true events in history as support of it.

 

[Catulle]

There is no standard account of military ethics in which deliberately targetting a non-military target for the purposes of inflicting terror is "collateral damage". Collateral damage is used to describe innocent victims of attacks that are aimed at a military target for a legitimate military purpose.

"It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire. "

"Fear will keep the local systems in line."

smoldering remains of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru

on-screen act of genocide

...it's so unclear... I don't know what to believe!

 

[Wasteland Knight]

I think that this will vary by game and by group.

Interestingly enough, my players are far more likely to simply kill prisoners in D&D where they play heroes than they are to kill prisoners in our Blades in the Dark game where they’re actively playing a group of criminals.

I noticed this trend and there are a few reasons for it I think. The big one is alignment. Alignment seems to me mostly to serve the purpose of making murder acceptable. I don’t think most Good creatures would slay prisoners as readily as most Good D&D characters appear to. But if hose creatures are Evil, then for some reason it’s fine and takes no psychological toll.

The second is the othering of most enemies. Orcs and gnolls and ogres are all sufficiently removed from humanity that it’s easy to view them solely as monsters. Which is absolutely fine if you want to play that way, but I think it bleeds through even if you wanted a more nuanced approach.

In Blades, all the enemies the PCs face are humans, and none have an alignment. There’s no label that makes it okay to simply slaughter them without concern. The PCs don’t have an alignment, either, so I think the players actually give more thought to what individual actions may mean.

The game also makes killing have potential repercussions. It can reault in the Crew taking more Heat from the fallout of a Score. It can result in the creation of Ghosts, which is dangerous for everyone living in the city. Also, the Spirit Wardens are like special ghost cops that are summoned whenever someone dies in the city so that they can prevent the creation of ghosts. All of this serves to make killing a significant decision for PCs to make.

Again, I’m sure many folks simply like to play to have fun and not worry about the moral implications or psychological impact of murder on a person, and that’s fine.

But I think that’s a rather different thing from trying to apply this simplified view to the real world, or to cite true events in history as support of it.

Interesting points. I agree a big part of why PC's are so quick to kill enemies in D&D is there's generally no upside to keeping prisoners and all sorts of potential downside. Now, if either the system or the campaign itself provide reasons to let prisoners live, then it would happen more often.

It doesn't take too many instances of "You know that evil Cultist/Necromancer/Whatever you let go last month with a promise he'd quit his evil ways? Well, he didn't and he's BACK!" before prisoners simply get the sword.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Interesting points. I agree a big part of why PC's are so quick to kill enemies in D&D is there's generally no upside to keeping prisoners and all sorts of potential downside. Now, if either the system or the campaign itself provide reasons to let prisoners live, then it would happen more often.

It doesn't take too many instances of "You know that evil Cultist/Necromancer/Whatever you let go last month with a promise he'd quit his evil ways? Well, he didn't and he's BACK!" before prisoners simply get the sword.

Yeah, this is largely true. The incentive not to do so seems as ephemeral in the game as it is in real life.

If the desire is to move away from this, then some kind of in game consequence....either mechanical or narrative...goes a long way.

Also, how the GM chooses to “reward” this decision also goes a long way. As mentioned earlier in the thread, if every prisoner released comes back to cause trouble for the PCs, they’re going to learn a specific lesson. So the GM needs to decide what he’s looking for in the game, and then make sure to proceed accordingly.

 

[Catulle]

I'm glad you used Star Wars, because upon seeing the first movie when it came out, I came away unconvinced that the Empire was bad.

Found the fash.