Ethics of Killing POWs

[Felon]

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.

And speaking of ethical behavior as if it were something absolute, objecitve, and manifestly obvious to all sapient creatures (and regarding assertions to the contrary as "excuses") is fairly typical of the well-intended but woefully naive folk who often wind up as the depiction of good.

There is no such thing as "basic ethics". People are not born with an inherent understanding of right and wrong. It is behavior that must be learned, and not everyone has a good role model to learn from.

Those who were raised in a nurturing environment where concepts like empathy and fair play are the norm often take a lot for granted and make the mistake of speaking of "basic ethics" in a putative sense, as if anyone who doesn't abide by those rules has made a conscious choice not to do so. That's often not the case, particularly in a fantasy world where people are living harsh, often bleak, existences.

 

[TeutonicBerserker]

Hey, TeutonicBerserker, you're invited to not post in this thread any further.

 

[Set]

At a certain point, where the 'good alignment' results in a member of the team doing something counter-productive, like attempting to bargain with someone who has already tried to lead them into a trap and betray their position *after surrendering,* the 'good' person is the one who is endangering the prisoners. And for what? The right to call himself 'good?

The prisoners are gonna be just as dead, and it's gonna be the fault of the dude with the 'G' under alignment, which, to me, seems like selfishness to the point of sacrificing other people just so the character can feel good about himself.

I just don't get alignment. I've seen more Paladin players betray and attack their parties 'roleplaying their alignment' because their party members didn't choose to *also* abide by the Paladins alignment / code. It's the Paladin's code. The Warlock isn't obligated to follow it, and, check it out, he doesn't get a special warhorse, Divine Grace or Lay on Hands, so he'd be pretty rooked if he did choose to follow it, since he got bupkiss from Heironeous! I've played in games with Necromancers, Assassins and Death Masters (as well as evil Clerics, sometimes of different gods, in the same party), and I have *never* had as much problem with inter-party conflict as when someone plays Lawful 'attack / betray / 'arrest' everyone who doesn't do what I say' Good, or, worse yet, a Paladin (or, even worse still, the 2nd edition Paladin - Cavalier!).

I don't see any need for every other character at the table to cater to the alignment of the 'most good,' or follow the class restrictions of another class. Just because Bob is playing a Druid doesn't mean that my Fighter can't wear metal armor, after all! My Fighter sure didn't swear any spiritual oaths to not wear metal armor, the Druid can just deal with my heathen metal-wearing self!

 

[Felon]

At a certain point, where the 'good alignment' results in a member of the team doing something counter-productive, like attempting to bargain with someone who has already tried to lead them into a trap and betray their position *after surrendering,* the 'good' person is the one who is endangering the prisoners. And for what? The right to call himself 'good?

The OP has basically confirmed my guess that the party really has no big hook that keeps them together. They seem to have widely differing motivations, leading into relationships that are lacking credibility altogether. Once you've summoned the local authorities to arrest one of your teammates, at least one of you should be gone from the party for good. You don't keep hanging out together.

Certainly, good-aligned characters can be just as disruptive as evil ones. More than one paladin has been created solely to hassle the rest of the players.

 

[roguerouge]

The OP has basically confirmed my guess that the party really has no big hook that keeps them together. They seem to have widely differing motivations, leading into relationships that are lacking credibility altogether. Once you've summoned the local authorities to arrest one of your teammates, at least one of you should be gone from the party for good. You don't keep hanging out together.

Hey, Felon: "lacking in credibility" is fighting words to some players. I'd like more evidence and argumentation from you before I'm going to consider that point. Because:

First, I have not arrested any PC. I've told the head of two separate PCs' religion that they may want to investigate the two PCs further, but I have not arrested or jailed any PC. I got them OUT of prison once, not in.

Second, To be clear, we're in an adventure path, about which I DO NOT want to hear spoilers. That's why I was a bit vague with the cultists, the saving the world, the secrets man was not meant to know meta plot... I hinted at the notion that we were together in part to save the world because I thought that was obvious from the fact that we were playing DnD. But, those are my blinders and my experience with the game. Clearly, others play more mercenary campaigns.

Finally, I'm not getting your idea that nothing's holding this party together: my character's dating another character, two are street kids from the same town, three characters are drinking buddies, the cleric and my PC are learning from each other, and the scout's shepherding us through it all. Combined with the saving the world metaplot, I see ways they could be closer together, but I don't get the idea that our relationships are "lacking in credibility."

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

So we just disagree in a different way than I thought. No big. Dehumanizing an enemy to make brutality acceptable has a fine historical tradition (as does implying that ethical treatment precludes justice), but that will never make it ethically sound.

 

[Nifft]

My game features two distinct combat types: wars of honor (between morally free mortal races), and wars of extinction (between mortals and "damned" races, or mortals and Outsider races). The rules of engagement are very different -- and demonic forces do try to fool mortals into confusing the two.

(However, no nations of my campaign world are signatories of the Geneva Convention, and thus there's no such thing as a POW in my game...)

Cheers, -- N

 

[roguerouge]

The next session, my character went toe-to-toe with the BBEG. My guy hit him twice with an axe. Then the DM rolled out in the open for him. He hit my character twice with a spear, getting a critical on one of them. My character went from 44 HP to dead.

 

[DwarvenDog]

The sad thing is that I deliberately chose not to give the guy Improved Critical with that spear because I wanted to minimize the chance for an actual crit. Should've used the crit deck tonight, in hindsight.

 

[roguerouge]

I almost added to my prior post a reference to Chinatown for my character:

"Forget, John. It's DnD."