Ethics of Killing POWs

[prospero63]

I'd tell the party it's him or me and be prepared to play a new character.

We had a similar situation recently. We captured a guard. My cleric of Pelor was willing to heal him, but the condition was that we don't harm or torture him. After all, the blessings of Pelor aren't there to heal, then torture, then heal, then torture. Those are not good acts, and the fact that we don't do that is what makes us "the good guys".

Anyway, there was a very well developed plan to use our rogue with a hat of disguise to appear as one of this guys buddies. We would then take our plant off and "torture" him, leaving the prisoner to his imagination of what happened. We'd then return with the "beaten" companion, then take the prisoner off and question him without harming him. It was agreed by everyone, no harm to the guy. If he doesn't talk, he doesn't talk. Plan is going *perfectly*. We return to where the prisoner is, and he has managed to move his hands in front of him (they were shackled behind him). Our big, dumb barbarian kicks the guy. The instant that happen my cleric rushed in and called the bluff. Told the guy that wasn't supposed to happen, healed him completely, then told the barbarian that if he tried anything like that again, he was going through me and while he might be a damage machine, there's no way he makes it past 3 will saves (in char it was hold persons) while I'm 100% certain I can take whatever damage he dishes out. In the end we wound up letting the guy go free, and in gratitude and due to a "change of heart" he shared most of the info we were looking for anyway.

What's the point of my story? I dunno, but I've always found that the concept of torturing prisoners for information isn't really a good act. It can be a lawful act (LE or LN), but it's just not good. If the party as a whole is a good party, I would hope that they would all have a problem with it. In my case, most of the party is good and they backed me, in all likelihood for two big reasons. First, I'm the only cleric. Second, while we have killed enemies in battle, etc. we all *agreed* that if healing was used on the guy, he wasn't to be touched. So by virtue of the fact that we had all agreed on what was to transpire, the barbarian in action went back on the agreement.

 

[prospero63]

I'm in this party.

It kind of came off as a loose cannon move. The way dude is playing CN makes my CN character look downright good. It's embarrassing. No in-game reaction from me because I was captured earlier. But as both a player and character, I see that sort of move in really poor ethical taste. I have no idea if eldritch blast makes noise, but if so, poor tactical move as well. :\

In all seriousness, we're a largely good/true neutral-with-fairly-good-intentions party. I think it's something that will need to be addressed once the whole party makes it out of the war zone. Just in a "What are your objectives here again? Because we're kind of trying to save the world," type of way.

Sounds like he's playing chaotic stupid, not chaotic neutral then. Maybe it's just the groups I've played in... but chaotic stupid tends to get taken care of on it's own... if you know what I mean...

 

[krissbeth]

Sounds like he's playing chaotic stupid, not chaotic neutral then. Maybe it's just the groups I've played in... but chaotic stupid tends to get taken care of on it's own... if you know what I mean...

Thank you. I just laughed myself into a coughing fit.

 

[prospero63]

That wasn't an out of place action for the CN warlock. The lizardman chose to alert the guards. The guards are coming. The lizardman may be unconscious, but he could easily wake during the fight with the guards and be an immediate threat to the party. Lizardmen are known to eat other humanoids. I wouldn't even consider the warlock's actions out of place for a LG character.

huh? That statement applies to humans as well. Unlike goblinoids, lizardmen are not inherently evil per the RAW.

I would consider the entire episode to be a generally non-good act. From the irresponsible actions that set it up (ungagging the prisoner - what exactly did folks expect him to do) to the actions the warlock chose to take which resulted in the death of a prisoner. IMO when good characters assume the responsibility for the welfare of a prisoner by making them a prisoner, they have an obligation to do what they can to ensure the welfare of the prisoner. Again, that's what makes good guys the good guys.

 

[prospero63]

excuse me? It seems to me that the entire "problem" for the warlock was that the lizardman refused to be a traitor. What definition of traitor are you working from exactly?

In reading the thread to this point, it seems to be the one that justifies an evil act by a good party under the "you gotta do what you gotta do" mantra. If that's good at all, and I think I've made it clear that IMO it's not a good act, it's a chaotic good act at *best*. Someone LG should, rightly, take issue with everything that transpired. Further, I'd expect them to make sure that the situation can't repeat itself - no more agreeing to take prisoners, etc.

 

[prospero63]

My advice, which you won't like because you're probably heavily invested in the character, is to retire your guy and roll up a neutral character.

QFT

One of the difficulties in playing LG is if you don't have players that are willing to abide by the fact that you are playing a LG character. Now, that doesn't mean (and shouldn't be read) that everyone else is straddled with your alignment, etc. As I have put it to players, it means if you know a character is LG, and you are part of the same party, the same group who in theory is invested in each others beliefs, opinions, etc. you don't place the LG guy in a circumstance where he must choose between his morality and his companions. It's a simple matter of respecting ones companions.

 

[prospero63]

How much does my character's perception of intent matter? If he viewed the warlock's act of killing the unconscious creature as being one of calculation, indifference, or pleasure, does that change your view?

Yes. Intent always should factor in IMO. However, based on your description, it's clear to me that he intentionally and deliberately killed a prisoner when it wasn't necessary. The problem exists, largely, because the lizardman was captured and healed. Those two acts (in particular the last act) placed a burden on the LG characters to ensure the prisoners welfare. While they aren't necessarily responsible for what the warlock did, they are responsible for how they react to what was done.

 

[prospero63]

Willfully executing an unarmed, unconscious person is what the evil guys do.

QFT. Heck, from a pure metagaming perspective... a point a level per hour... that's an awful lot of time for someone to "wake up"...

 

[prospero63]

Yes, commandos don't take prisoners. This party did though.

I really think this is the point folks are overlooking in their "wouldn't take prisoners" argument. Right or wrong, these guys did take a prisoner. At that point, those LG characters had a moral obligation to the welfare of the prisoner. If they weren't willing to do that, or didn't want to do that, they shouldn't have taken a prisoner.

 

[prospero63]

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.

Another QFT. As I have stated, in my group we tend to have a couple of terms:

Lawful Stupid - This is the LG guy that plays LG to the extreme. They are such a moral holy roller that they pretty much prevent anyone else from ever having any success (or fun).

Chaotic Stupid - This is the character you describe above.

Slight tangent, but one of the things one of the groups I am in has strongly considered doing is playing an evil group. The biggest reason is that the players we currently have may be the most able I have ever played with who could handle an "evil" group without self-destructing, etc.