[Ethical Dilemma] Indiscriminate Use Of Chemical Weapons

[Anabstercorian]

Last session, as our party (an Aasimar Exalted Rogue (me), a half-elf ranger/mage, a dwarven cleric, a sun elf wizard, and a human beatstick monk) were engaged in combat with a pair of retrievers, the monk and I spotted what looked like a dark elf sticking her head through what must have been an illusionary wall. After leaving combat, our ranger was too badly poisoned to continue to fight, and we were forced to retreat. On our way out, though, the wizard threw a cloud kill through the illusionary wall, not knowing what was on the other side. IC, I'm unaware of this.

I'm of the opinion that this is ethically dubious at best and inexcusably reckless endangerment of life at worst. What do you think?

 

[Umbran]

What do you think?

Dude, the PCs haven't read that adventures of Drizzt. To them (or at least to your standard adventurer), Drow = Evil. The thought that a drow might not need killing is probably pretty darned alien to them.

Plus, if the party is retreating, and there's a strongly suspected enemy still behind them, throwing the spell isn't indiscriminate. It's covering their retreat.

 

[jester47]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If it turns out that they were innocent, then the player has somthing to work with now, and if they were not the Wizard was simply coving thier escape. It is pretty much the same as spraying an area with suppressing gunfire to cover an escape. Sure the marine could shoot an innocent, but if you stop to worry you could die...

Aaron.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I'm of the opinion that this is ethically dubious at best and inexcusably reckless endangerment of life at worst. What do you think?

Ethically dubious? No, I wouldn't say so. The wizard meant to attack the drow, and unless you've made it clear that this is not the case: drow=evil.

Inexcusably reckless? Maybe. It's reckless, that's for sure. There's no telling what might have been behind that illusionary wall, including innocent prisoners. "Inexcusably reckless"...I'm not so sure. After all, they had no reason to even suspect that there'd be anything but drow behind that wall...

 

[Dragonblade]

The wizard committed an evil act! Strip the wizard of his paladin abil...err..Sorry, wrong thread.

 

[Altalazar]

The wizard committed an evil act! Strip the wizard of his paladin abil...err..Sorry, wrong thread.

Yeah! There was a LG Bugbear behind that illusionary wall - one that is now choking up blood, never to see its children again! Its children will now be on bugbear welfare!

But seriously - it was a prudent move. They were wounded and making an escape. There was an enemy spotted - probably there were a limited list of spells available that could have been used for such a ploy, given the limitations of line of sight. Unless there was some special reason to suspect there were innocents there with the drow, it looks rather like a "duck blind" for attacking - much like a magical battlement. Players would not have any reason to think there is a drow-run orphanage for bugbears behind there. And if there were, that would be "slap-the-DM" time.

They were on the battlefield. Collateral damage is always a danger. What the players did here was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.

 

[Jhamin]

Let's reframe this argument.

A group of modern soldiers is retreating from a firefight after taking losses. One of them sees an enemy soldier stick his head up out of a previously unnoticed foxhole. Soldier throws a grenade into that hole.

Has he committed a war crime? No.
Has he acted recklessly? No. Not according to standard rules of engagement.
Has he killed someone who may have meant him no harm and just wanted to
survive the war and go home? Possibly.
Has he prevented someone from mowing down his entire squad with machine fire? Possibly.


When you are in danger of dying, and it is a kill or be killed situation, no modern army asks you to make assesments about who is really trying to kill you and who is along for the ride.

If it turned out that soldier had three nuns, an orphan and a litter of kittens in the foxhole with him, have you now committed a crime? No. You had no reason to think that and ever reson to believe he was armed and dangerous.

When you enter into combat intending to kill an opponent who is intending to kill you if he gets the chance alot of the 20/20 hindsight and "in a perfect world" rules of moral behavior have to go out the door if you intend to survive. Combat is a dangerous thing. It is sometimes the only way but it is always ugly. People who fight and live understand this. This is why ex-soldiers who have seen action often refuse to rule out force but still hesitate to use it.

If we take this back into the Fantasy example you gave. Assuming the situation was as you described it, the PC was well within his rights to use his spell in the way he did. If he was a paladin/wizard he would have kept his status in any game I ran.

 

[Olive]

I was going to argue that it WAS reckless, but Jhamin actually convinced me.

Of course it doesn't quite work, or at elast Jhamin is making a few assumptions. The drow who stuck his head out wasn't the target of the quest, and so you can't cliam that the PCs were 'at war' with the drow. But more or less I think what you guys did was fine. You have no reason to suspect that they had prisoners or slaves or anythig else, so don't worry.

 

[silentspace]

I disagree.

If you were playing any other character, even a 'regular' paladin, I would agree with the other posters here. But you're playing an exalted character.

Your party attacked a non-combatant who didn't attack you. This goes far beyond not granting mercy. Mercy wasn't even an option. It was, as far as an exalted is concerned, an unprovoked attack. Exalteds, as I see them, have to hold themselves to a much higher standard. It's harder, but that's why you get access to all that crunchy stuff.

The only argument you have on your side is that your character doesn't know what happened.

 

[Altalazar]

I disagree.

If you were playing any other character, even a 'regular' paladin, I would agree with the other posters here. But you're playing an exalted character.

Your party attacked a non-combatant who didn't attack you. This goes far beyond not granting mercy. Mercy wasn't even an option. It was, as far as an exalted is concerned, an unprovoked attack. Exalteds, as I see them, have to hold themselves to a much higher standard. It's harder, but that's why you get access to all that crunchy stuff.

The only argument you have on your side is that your character doesn't know what happened.

Drow are evil. This is a known fact. Hiding behing an illusionary wall like that in combat is a threat. If there were LG police there, the drow would be given five seconds to come out unarmed, hands on their head, or they would be shot dead. If it was a situation where the police were already in a firefight, and that happened, odds are the drow would just be shot dead. And that would be LG.

Think of it this way - what if they did nothing, and as a result, the Ranger died when the drow and her drow buddies attacked the retreat. Now by his own actions (or lack thereof) he would have caused the death of a comrade who was depending on him for his life. Not very exalted to let that happen...