Ethics of Killing POWs

[Bardsandsages]

The issue is that too often in gaming we think of non "core" races as less than human, and therefore it's OK to kill them regardless of the circumstances. In all of my games, the rule of "reasonable force" applies. Prisoner is struggling and trying to escape, a little violence may be in order. Prisoner screams for his companions to attack, knock him senseless. Prisoner is UNCONSCIOUS during the combat and a non-threat? It's murder. Pure and simple.

Your actions, of course, depend a lot on the legal/social dynamic of the setting. Are the lizardfolk at war with your people? Or are you just a group of adventurers hunting down loot without legal standing? The issue with the D&D mentality is that the players have the right to kill anything between them and their treasure/XP. But when you go into a swamp, that is no longer "your" territory, but the territory of other sentient beings. You don't neccessarily have a right to kill everything just because you want to go loot something. Of course, when the resident sentient beings have that EVIL designator next to their description in the MM, I guess it makes it easy to do.

 

[Elf Witch]

Conversely it reminds me why I abolished Good & Evil alignments in my game and just use L-N-C. Real world Western concepts of Good have changed a lot since 1974*, yet D&D posits Good and Evil as unchanging absolutes. So we end up with unchanging absolutes that vary according to current real-world conceptions of them. This creates a horrible mess, IMO.

*eg I think in 1974 Kahunaburger's concept of Good would have been considered a lot more outre than it is now.

If that works for your gaming group that's great. I like the whole idea of good VS evil. I have considered getting rid of the whole law VS chaos I find that to cause more issues than good vs evil. I found players who think that chaos means rebelling against authority just for the sake of rebelling. They remind of little kids who are tired and really want to go to bed until an authority figured tells them to and then they of course fight it.

I don't run alignment as a straight jacket . I don't believe in unchanging absolutes. I look at the situation and the motivation. For example in this situation with the prisoner. If my players were in this situation behind enemy lines on a mission to stop evil cultist then I would not judge them killing a prisoner who could give them away as evil. Now if the prisoner did everything he said he would do and then the PCs killed him then that would be evil and there would be major repercussions.

It is the same with the use of poison. I do not see it as an evil act to coat your weapon with a strength sabbing poison when going up against a stronger foe in battle. But sneaking in and posioning a botle of wine that is evil. I know the RAW says poison is evil but not in my game poison is a tool like a sword or a spell it is how you use it that makes the act evil.

I think it is important when you plan your campaign to figure out how things work and let your players know it. For example I had a country that was ruled by the churches and paladins were judge, jury and the deliverer of punishment. Under the law they could take a person who registered evil in for questioning and place them under truth spells and then decidce if they warranted some kind of punishment. And you did not have to breaking the law to be arrested just ping as evil on a paladin's detect evil radar. Now I know a lot of people here will say that is an evil act they should lose their paladin powers and they will base this on modern 21 thinking about legal rights.

I think the issue comes in because people either try and bring in modern ethics in a campaign that is based more on historical ethics or vice versa. The players and DM just need to be on the same page.

As I said I like exploring what makes heroes tick and how far is someone willing to go to stop the spread of evil.

If I want a game without this then I usually play Shadowrun. Though even in Shadowrun most of the characters I play have some kind of code a line that they will not cross.

 

[S'mon]

If that works for your gaming group that's great. I like the whole idea of good VS evil.

Well I use the Michael Moorcock 'Elric' (etc)/Moldvay Basic-Expert D&D approach to Law and Chaos, so Law is close to a traditional concept of Good, Chaos to traditional Evil. Although you can be Lawful and 'destroy the village in order to save it', or Chaotic and wish for universal peace & love. And these are more allegiances - Chaotics are pledged to Chaos, Lawfuls to Law, which leaves most people Neutral.

 

[moritheil]

Ethics, imo derive from applying logic to empathy. Since empathy and logic are inherent to the human species (and any other intelligent races with infancy) I see no reason to bring the degree of civilization into the matter.

It is quite possible that the kind of abstract academic theories of ethics that we study in philosophy 101 does require a certain amount of free time that comes with civilization, but those theories, imo, attempt to describe ethics, they don't form the basis of it, anymore than we need the theory of gravity in order for things to fall down. [loonytoons]"I haven't studied gravity in school yet...[/loonytoons]

For those who believe that the base behavior of humanity is "red in tooth and claw" or "nasty brutish and short" and that we act against our base nature only by virtue of the ethics imposed on us by our upbringing, this view will seem odd, I'll admit, but I've never held that belief.

It is interesting that you are certain that logic is not the result of schooling or culture, or some other product of civilization (say, language.)

 

[Nifft]

It is interesting that you are certain that logic is not the result of schooling or culture, or some other product of civilization (say, language.)

I've heard it argued that the opposite is true: that language is the basis for logic*, and that language is the pre-condition for civilization.

Cheers, -- N

*) If true, this would explain why all humans have the same batch of "logical fallacies" built-in.

 

[prosfilaes]

You see, madsen, it's not that KB is being evasive about addressing any logical shortcomings in his position. It's that you failed to inspire a response. He can hardly be held to task for that.

Except that's absurd; the only people who post in response to something that failed to inspire a response are people who have to have to the last word. Since that doesn't seem to be KB's MO, he must have had a response that motivated him to reply.

 

[Elf Witch]

Well I use the Michael Moorcock 'Elric' (etc)/Moldvay Basic-Expert D&D approach to Law and Chaos, so Law is close to a traditional concept of Good, Chaos to traditional Evil. Although you can be Lawful and 'destroy the village in order to save it', or Chaotic and wish for universal peace & love. And these are more allegiances - Chaotics are pledged to Chaos, Lawfuls to Law, which leaves most people Neutral.

That is interesting. I have never read Michael Moorcock. I will have to fix that in the near future and see how it works,

 

[Felon]

Except that's absurd; the only people who post in response to something that failed to inspire a response are people who have to have to the last word. Since that doesn't seem to be KB's MO, he must have had a response that motivated him to reply.

Well, he said that he was not inspired to respond. Sure, some may believe it absurd, but I believe in taking a man at his word.

 

[Jhulae]

I never allow CN in my game they are more disruptive than any evil character.

Because most people don't know how to play CN as anything other than "Chaotic Disruptive" or "I can be a total jerk to everyone because I wrote CN on my character sheet".

The problem isn't with the alignment, it's with most of the players who choose it.

 

[Elf Witch]

Because most people don't know how to play CN as anything other than "Chaotic Disruptive" or "I can be a total jerk to everyone because I wrote CN on my character sheet".

The problem isn't with the alignment, it's with most of the players who choose it.

That's true. I know a couple of players who do play CN and do a good job of it without being jerks and being disruptive. But since most don't seem to be able to pull it off I just find easier to ban it from the game.