Appropriate behavior in warfare (warning: Alignment)

[CCamfield]

I'm running a campaign in which the characters are members of a mercenary company. Granted, I didn't want goody-two-shoes characters, and I ended up with about an equal split between LN, N, and CN.

It was somewhat to my surprise, then, that at one point in the past adventure one of the characters killed a prisoner after questioning him, having promised to not do so. And another character was advocating torture for another prisoner who refused to talk.

Do you think those are appropriate choices to make? Even if a N character (on the good to evil axis) isn't good, torturing someone strikes me as evil. Trying to beat the information out of a prisoner, maybe would be appropriate.

Of course realistically in medieval warfare, I think they killed any prisoners who couldn't be ransomed. But I'd like that not to be the general practice, because it would mean the players probably wouldn't have a chance of surviving capture. (And that leaves out fun escape-from-imprisonment situations.)

 

[alsih2o]

torturing someone strikes me as evil. Trying to beat the information out of a prisoner, maybe would be appropriate.

isn't beating a prisoner torture? can you define what you mean by torture?

 

[Utrecht]

Your warning alignment is appropriate

One of the tricky things here is that behavior is socialy and coulturally dependend. For example what we find reprehensible in Western Europe would be quite expected in say Asia - and vice-versa.

So, for example if the character came from a society where a prisoner has no rights and honor, then beating/toturing them could be accpeptable.

Further, I would hope that the character that killed the prisoner after promising not to was not LN - that could be a problem, but if they were N or CN and the above social "contract" exists then sure it would be acceptable.

IMO, What begins to make it evil is if they start doing this for personal gain or for personal pleasure.

 

[Apok]

The killing of a prisoner after you promised to let him go after he gave you answers is defnitely an evil act. True, mercs are not known for their genteel behavior but most still had some form of honor. Which character in particular did this, or was it a mutual decision? If the former, mark his name down on a piece of paper with a tick mark next to it. Keep track of all the evil acts he has commited, some warranting more ticks than others. Set some level in your mind where he will cross the border from Neutral to Evil. If the latter, you need to have a talk with your group about setting up some kind of behavior code. Hell, even the Black Company had an informal code of ethics.

As far as torture is concerned, it's not necessarily evil (unless you are using the by-the-book D&D alignment system which I don't recommend for such a campaign) but it should probably be considered a last resort. Also, most people should know that if you torture someone long enough he will tell you anything you want to hear, which pretty much negates the purpouse of an interrogation. However, you as the DM should make it realistic; don't just assume that all NPC's are going to keep their mouths shut no matter what the PC's do to them. Really try to play out the fear and intimidation factor that being held captive is so good at providing. Oftentimes, the mere threat of torture would get someone to spill his guts.

Regarding the killing of prisoners, I think the key operating word here is "pragmatism." Is it worth the mercs time to keep prisoners? Realistically, probably not. Killing a prisoner that can't be ransomed is a matter of conveniecne; it's not convenient to be a roving band of mercs with a train of prisoners that you have to feed, watch over, etc. Another option would be to just let them go if they had no useful information or were valueless as a hostage. If you want to encourage this behavior, however, you can't have every NPC the players show mercy to immediately run to the enemy and tell them everything. Otherwise, your players will quickly become paranoid and adopt a "take no prisoners" attitude, which isn't good.

 

[CCamfield]

Re: Re: Appropriate behavior in warfare (warning: Alignment)

isn't beating a prisoner torture? can you define what you mean by torture?

Actually, I think the exact suggestion was chopping off a finger.

 

[alsih2o]

Re: Re: Re: Appropriate behavior in warfare (warning: Alignment)

Actually, I think the exact suggestion was chopping off a finger.

i would think beating someone or cutting off an appendage are both torture

 

[Apok]

Well, dictionary.com lists torture as the "Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion."

Cutting off fingers and severly beating people would fall under that definition, I think.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Have you defined evil in your game? Did you share it with your players?

Being at war does not change the list, evil is evil, good is good. There should be some form of reaction from either the Commanding officer or the government if they hear of it. If the government/officer is evil no problem.

If you did not let the players know what evil is then they have a little room to play.

 

[Utrecht]

I still think that the "rules" can change in war - especially given societal beliefs.

Admitedly stepping onto thin ice here. Look at the East Front in WW2. Do the actions of the various soldiers make them evil? In some cases abosolutely, but to put a blanket statement that killing prisoners is evil is not necessarily true - especially from the executioners philisophical standpoint.

Additionally, I think that we as a "modern" society have turned a blind eye to some of the common place activities common before 1800 (and potentially beyond that). Again, things that we would view as vile (such as drawing a 1/4ing someone) are accepted and even enjoyed then.

So again, saying that torturing a prisoner or executing a prisoner is an evil act is a difficult question to answer. Using today's measuring stick - absolutely. Apply this stick anacronistically to the age where your campaign, again it is evil. However, if you are running a more historically "accurate" campaign, then no it is not.......

 

[Hand of Evil]

I still think that the "rules" can change in war - especially given societal beliefs.

Admitedly stepping onto thin ice here. Look at the East Front in WW2. Do the actions of the various soldiers make them evil? In some cases abosolutely, but to put a blanket statement that killing prisoners is evil is not necessarily true - especially from the executioners philisophical standpoint.

Additionally, I think that we as a "modern" society have turned a blind eye to some of the common place activities common before 1800 (and potentially beyond that). Again, things that we would view as vile (such as drawing a 1/4ing someone) are accepted and even enjoyed then.

So again, saying that torturing a prisoner or executing a prisoner is an evil act is a difficult question to answer. Using today's measuring stick - absolutely. Apply this stick anacronistically to the age where your campaign, again it is evil. However, if you are running a more historically "accurate" campaign, then no it is not.......

The only answer I can say here is that "war is madness". When people are in it they do things that are not in their nature and the results would be the same. If you are going to allow the players to go things, see if they form drinking problems or have nightmares because of it.

As for modern societies? that is why it is important for a DM to define what is good and evil in his game.