Ethics of Killing POWs

[Felon]

OK, so killing unconscious attackers is considered murder in this setting? Even the Geneva Convention isn't that strict (per Geneva, once you accept the surrender of prisoners you must treat them well, but you're not obliged to accept a proferred surrender. Also AIR it only applies to State armies and guerilla forces wearing recognisable insignia). This is a long way from the typical D&D morality I'm familiar with, where killing the Sleeped attacker before he wakes up is standard practice. It's also a long way from what I remember of my army basic training - "Always shoot/bayonet the bodies, they may still be dangerous".

As a matter of fact, the question of whether or not it's evil to slit the throats of sleeping enemies has been posed in an official capacity to D&D devs many, many times. It was a perennial question in Dragon magazine. And in general, the response is that it's not evil to dispatch an enemy who would otherwise go on to hurt others.

I never agreed with this logic, and always thought they should just come out and say what they're really thinking: the law of the dungeon is the same as the law of the jungle. It is a lethal world full of things trying their damnedest to end you, and civilized behavior is a luxurious indulgence.

 

[mmadsen]

It is a lethal world full of things trying their damnedest to end you, and civilized behavior is a luxurious indulgence.

Civilized behavior is not good outside of civilization.

 

[roguerouge]

Maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread, but what is the hook tying this party together? Fortune-seeking? Altruism? Soldiers serving some authority? A bunch of guys who met in a tavern and decided to go bash some lizards?

You need to establish what your party is doing together in the first place.

SNIP

My impression is that you have one of those groups where everyone makes up whatever character they feel like playing without regards to what anyone else is playing. You're in the same party simply because you're the player characters.

Why we're together... well, first, cultists were out to get us, although the party didn't believe me on that point for a long, long time.

CN h/elf rogue: cultist attack to seize dead father's possessions indicated that his death may be connected to their plot. Had a prophetic dream, not that she believed me on that point. Her character's in a new relationship with mine, the LG cop. (Hey, opposites attract.) Buddies with the party warmage.

N human warmage: adventuring to prove to self that he didn't throw his life away by dropping out of wizard school; redeeming self to working class family; buddies with CN rogue; we tend to get along, except for that one time that I punched him in the nose for playing keep-away with a magic item; a couple of beers later and a few apologies, everything was cool.

N h/elf scout: position in the town's garrison sometimes motivates actions; not really buddies with anyone; party's designated combat leader, so has a certain sense of responsibility, but also a sense of fatalism.

NG human cleric: she worships the knowledge/secrets god, so she's an academic getting FASCINATING experience in the field; her mentor adventured with our mentor so she got recruited; "Things man was not meant to know? Keen!" would be another rationale from the secrets side of her worship; starting to team up well with my LG cop.

"LG" human (?) paladin/binder: Righting wrongs at first, now, "She hasn't done anything wrong yet!"; spreading ideology of new "saint"; was buds with CN rogue, who evidently has us LGs wrapped around her pixie-esque finger; might have believed she could reform the rogue.

CN h-orc warlock: lost war god religion after bad afterlife experience; drinking buds with the warmage; actively disliked by the rogue and the paladin/binder; uh... doesn't have anywhere else to go?

LG human urban ranger: has taken party out orc clogging twice, even getting the warlock to hit the dance floor once; redeeming self for corrupt teen years after seeking sanctuary when it all went wrong; was on a case investigating the cultists for the cops and the religious authorities; in a relationship with his very own femme fatale, the CN rogue; looks at warmage as idiot likable younger brother; has a healthy respect for the NG cleric's insights and has been mentoring her in her field work; bitterly disappointed to lose an ally in the paladin/binder; generally tries to thwart scout's fatalism, but likes his sense of responsibility; believes that this is the only group that recognizes the danger posed by the cultists.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

So. Any suggestions for what a LG character should do in response to killing the prisoner who gave us away?

Short version - since your character did not have any agreement in place with his fellow adventurers regarding treatment of prisoners and other moral and ethical situations he has largely sabotaged his chances of successfully imposing his own moral code upon them after the fact without being a jerk. If he's going to insist from this point on that OTHERS adhere to his moral code he should probably start by TELLING them what he's going to expect from them.

Meanwhile - it wasn't YOUR character who killed the prisoner so he has nothing to atone for. It wasn't a crime to kill the prisoner unless the party was somehow acting in an official capacity with other regulations or expectations for treatment of prisoners. It wasn't a crime for your character to have "allowed" the execution either unless there was ample warning or reason to expect it. However there is nothing preventing him from being vocal in expressing how he feels about what was done.

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

How does the rest of the group view the Warlocks actions? They may not see them as immoral, but outright killing a potential further source of information or guidance, without consulting the party, may be an issue.

 

[prosfilaes]

outright killing a potential further source of information or guidance, without consulting the party, may be an issue.

Don't PCs do that all the time? Any time you use a hold or sleep spell, you have a potential source of information, but PCs kill the held or slept NPCs anyway. And frankly, this NPC had proven himself an unreliable source of information or guidance.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Civilized behavior is not good outside of civilization.

Basic ethics are not civilized. Nor does civilized behavior always include basic ethics. But making excuses of ethics being "luxuries" or "not good outside of civilization" is fairly normal neutral behavior.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Doing the right thing up until it becomes difficult or dangerous is pretty much the definition of neutrality. And it's ok to be neutral. The vast majority of people are. But being Good is harder. You can't just do it until it becomes a luxury, you have to be prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of doing the right thing.

 

[S'mon]

Doing the right thing up until it becomes difficult or dangerous is pretty much the definition of neutrality.

How about if the difficulty/danger is of greater future evil, such as here failure to complete the mission (and rescue the prisoners)? Is seeking the greatest good of the greatest number not good? This is Benthamite Utilitarianism - Gygax defined Lawful Good as exactly this, though I see it more as NG. To me, LG is closer to your view - "It would be wrong to break the law against killing prisoners, despite likely greater evil resulting". But defining seeking the greater good as Neutral behaviour? That ain't right.

 

[mmadsen]

Basic ethics are not civilized. Nor does civilized behavior always include basic ethics. But making excuses of ethics being "luxuries" or "not good outside of civilization" is fairly normal neutral behavior.

When I said, "Civilized behavior is not good outside of civilization," my point was that kind and gentle behavior is only good when one is dealing with other kind and gentle individuals. Treating violent and destructive individuals kindly and gently is not good but evil; it's aiding and abetting.

 

[S'mon]

Treating violent and destructive individuals kindly and gently is not good but evil; it's aiding and abetting.

You've heard of 'turning the other cheek', right?