Ethics of Killing POWs

[Dave G]

For the sake of the game, I highly recommend putting away the alignment of your characters. In the name of a group of people getting together and having a good time, let the stupid stuff go. Are people going to do things that in your opinion your character would not agree with? Yes. Do you have to take action or comment upon every single possible slight to your character's sensibilities? No.

Fantasy gaming, in fact gaming in general. breaks down when too much realism comes into play. this is about a collective suspension of disbelief. I think one of the big problems in D&D is the morality questions. One of my past DMs in order to quell this discussion simply stated that the evil races have the evil gene. That is to say, the women and children are evil too. All of them will do what they can to hurt civilized folks, if not today, then tomorrow or next year.

Did we use that as an excuse to slaughter defenseless opponents who proved no threat to us? No. But it meant that in the heat of battle, we weren't going to bog down into an argument between characters.

In my experience, more often than not, arguments between characters end up being arguments between players. Nothing ruins a good time at the game table faster than someone who simply refuses to let something go!

We're dealing with a game that creates all kinds of conflicts with traditional morality. If we try to use our own moral senses in a fantasy world, we only end up doing serious harm to the integrity of the game. We're here to have fun. If you like arguing with friends (and some people do!) please for the love of dog, just do it some other time than when you're at the table.

Some people like games with a lot of character conflict. I loathe them. Realism is not the issue. Having fun is.

 

[moritheil]

bit of projection there.

No, not really, but the distinction was important enough for me to reply.

Maybe you didn't catch it, so here's an example: the views of the Flat Earth Society don't bother me, but neither do I consider them to be particularly valid. There's a difference in the degree of respect and validity implied.

As I said, neither I nor any other poster can demand that someone believe something; arguing for it to be held as conceptually valid is the best one can ask for.

Hope that clarifies things.

 

[moritheil]

Note: I haven't read through this thread so I apologize if this has already been mentioned.

The Book of Exalted Deeds deals with this exact subject (Mercy, Prisoners, and Redemption on page 28).

Heh. The last time I mentioned BoED on the rules forum it unleashed a storm of controversy over what is or is not appropriate. In particular, many posters decried the standards there as unrealistic or as only applicable to exalted characters.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

In particular, many posters decried the standards there as unrealistic or as only applicable to exalted characters.

Of course they did. Because they didn't want to be constrained by what it says.

 

[moritheil]

Of course they did. Because they didn't want to be constrained by what it says.

That is, sadly, the reason behind a lot of arguments at the game table that some restrictions "don't make sense" to a player. Somehow those restrictions that don't make sense are all right when the party is using them to stay alive!

 

[roguerouge]

Note: I haven't read through this thread so I apologize if this has already been mentioned.

The Book of Exalted Deeds deals with this exact subject (Mercy, Prisoners, and Redemption on page 28).

That's a really good idea. I'll take a look there. I don't own that book, but my DM does. Thanks!

 

[haakon1]

The Book of Exalted Deeds deals with this exact subject (Mercy, Prisoners, and Redemption on page 28).

I don't have it. Does it say anything notable? I've noticed often times WOTC's books will "address" complicated subjects with a paragraph or two of nothing . . . not even good fluff. Is it something like "Some characters like to treat prisoners as they would themselves like to be treated. Other characters view prisoners as having lost their honor and therefore having no rights. Some characters view all sentient creatures as having the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Others prefer to call it liberte, egalite, fraternite. Still others really don't care because they are busy thinking about the most efficient "build". Which leads use to the Prestige Class: Revolutionary of the Barricades!"

Or is it something actually interesting?

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I don't have it. Does it say anything notable? Or is it something actually interesting?

Oh it's interesting, clear and non-equivocal in its treatment. You'd probably like it's treatment of the subject.

 

[Fenes]

I think "Good" and "Evil" is always specific to a campaign. That may mean that it's defined by the GM's real life views, but it does not have to.

So, in one campaign one might have modern views defining good/evil actions, in the next one might have the moral of the 11th century christianism define what was evil and what was good, and in the campaign following that one, good and evil were defined according to Roman custom in the fist century B.C.

I do think that taking a definition of good/evil different from personal opinions may help solve some issues, and cut down on time spent in debates, and defuse some of the potential disputes. It is easier to look up a text, and then say "enslaving beaten enemies is not evil in roman opinion" than try to argue whether or not it would be evil today.

Personally, I do think that the mere notion that there's a real life standard of good or evil behaviour clearly wrong. I'd rather not have to argue whether or not killing a murderer is a good or evil action, or if it depends whether or not he had due process. I much prefer to simply be able to say "Killing a murderer is not evil in this campaign", and leave real life politics and moral outside the game.

 

[haakon1]

I much prefer to simply be able to say "Killing a murderer is not evil in this campaign", and leave real life politics and moral outside the game.

I think a lot of the board discussions these days are bored discussions, because there's not much new coming out for 3.5, and 4.0 discussions are kinda played (at least for me) until we see what 4.0 actually is.

I view us like bored taxi drivers standing next to a taxi queue with insufficient customers, chatting and arguing about nothing in particular while we're wait. Boredom seems to led people to be cantankerous, just to have something to talk about.

Kinda like what they say about academia: "Academic politics are so vicious, because the stakes are so small."