Ethics of Killing POWs

[evilbob]

To the OP: It sounds like this issue sorted itself out in a really sad way - your character's death. While that always sucks, at least now maybe you can reinvent your character (or bring in someone new) who fits a bit better with the overall theme of your seriously changed party. In fact, maybe your GM could even make this part of the theme of the campaign: the corrupting influence of the world is being seen even in the people who are attempting to save it.

All that said, I agree with Lord Zardoz's assessment (post 21): as it stood, there was a train wreck waiting to happen.

 

[haakon1]

In Lawful terms, if a combatant makes a specific deal to surrender, that can be considered their obligation, but the idea that every captive is obligated to active cooperation in information and stealth? I'm not getting where this comes from.

Nod. It's the duty of an officer to try to escape, and to tie up as much of the enemy's resources as possible holding him captive. Doesn't anybody watch "The Great Escape" anymore?

Still, just because you respect a lizardman for doing his duty, doesn't mean you can't kill him while trying to escape, or something of that nature. I don't even remember what the OP situation was at this point . . .

 

[roguerouge]

To the OP: It sounds like this issue sorted itself out in a really sad way - your character's death. While that always sucks, at least now maybe you can reinvent your character (or bring in someone new) who fits a bit better with the overall theme of your seriously changed party. In fact, maybe your GM could even make this part of the theme of the campaign: the corrupting influence of the world is being seen even in the people who are attempting to save it.

All that said, I agree with Lord Zardoz's assessment (post 21): as it stood, there was a train wreck waiting to happen.

Yep. It was ironic, what with both characters down during that combat. The warlock stabilized. My guy never got the chance to.

Also, the GM's said he wants the character back. So back he comes. How the angels look at this sort of thing will be very interesting...

 

[roguerouge]

Nod. It's the duty of an officer to try to escape, and to tie up as much of the enemy's resources as possible holding him captive. Doesn't anybody watch "The Great Escape" anymore?

Still, just because you respect a lizardman for doing his duty, doesn't mean you can't kill him while trying to escape, or something of that nature. I don't even remember what the OP situation was at this point . . .

True, but I'd rather my guy not play the Nazis in this "Great Escape" scenario. I think Renoir's The Grand Illusion fits here too.

 

[mmadsen]

No, he didn't. He's not bound to a LG alignment. I think that is another of the major points that's being overlooked. When a non-LG creature does non-LG things, that doesn't allow the LG characters to decide to follow suit.

Who said anything about being bound to a lawful good alignment? The point is that the prisoner is a prisoner -- and not a corpse -- only because he agreed to cease hostilities. If he tries to get his captors killed, they are no longer beholden to their earlier agreement to keep him alive. As I said earlier:

The prisoner also has an obligation to his captors. That's the only reason he's allowed to live. Once he breaks his word...​

These aren't decisions made in a vacuum. There is a clear quid pro quo.

 

[Elf Witch]

Who said anything about being bound to a lawful good alignment? The point is that the prisoner is a prisoner -- and not a corpse -- only because he agreed to cease hostilities. If he tries to get his captors killed, they are no longer beholden to their earlier agreement to keep him alive. As I said earlier:

The prisoner also has an obligation to his captors. That's the only reason he's allowed to live. Once he breaks his word...​

These aren't decisions made in a vacuum. There is a clear quid pro quo.

I have a question would you feel the same way if your PC was captured and agreed to cooperate then tries to derail his captors plans and in the process his captors killed him? Would you expect the DM to treat you differently? Would you be upset if you were knocked out trying to escape and the NPC warlock used an eldritch blast to tkae you out?

I am not saying that the PCs sbould not kill a prisoner who is putting them in danger but a prisoner is going to try and either get away or alert his friends. It would be unrealistic if they didn't unless they were some kind of character that lived by honor and had given his word.

But the fact that most prisoners are going to try something and that needs to be taken into consideration by the party when they take a prisoner.

 

[prospero63]

However, the MM points out that Lizardfolk are known for eating intelligent humanoids. That is likely to be the belief of the majority of the people in the adventuring party at the start of the adventure. It didn't take future knowledge.

Actually, what it says is:

"Although they are omnivores, lizardfolk prefer meat; popular lore holds that lizardfolk prrefer humanoid flesh, but this charge is largely unfounded (though some tribes do eat captives or slain foes)".

Here is something I'm finding interesting in this conversation though. Folks are using the above statement to hold lizardmen up as "evil". Yet a party that kills a captive isn't evil? It strikes me as a terribly contradictory position.

The Lizardman being incapcaitated is metagame knowledge. There is no way for the characters to know for sure if he is unconscious, dead, or faking it without taking a good deal of time to check.

Hardly. It's a heal check. The same standard action it takes a warlock to, for example, let loose an eldritch blast...

Also, the OP clearly stated that the LM was knocked out. That was, based on the OP, known knowledge.

Time they woud be better served preparing for the coming attack. The CN warlock decided to kill the lizardman. We really don't know the warlock's motivation. He could just be mad and taking it out on the lizardman. He could fear that the lizardman is going to wake up and join in the fight making it a threat. He might have decided that the lizardman would just betray them again.

I've never questioned the CN warlocks motivation, so I'm not sure how that's a relevant response to me. I have, exclusively, dealt with the question of whether a LG character would should consider such an act as anything other than evil.

A LG paladin could easily have said "die treacherous cur," chopped off its head, and not broke his alignment by the PHB.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Minimal research in the PHB turns up statements and comments such as:

"“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the
dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices
to help others."

and

"“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and
reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closemindedness,
reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness,
and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness
say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people
can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full
confidence that others will act as they should."

Again, the only perspective I have maintained in this discussion is the LG perspective. I don't question the CN warlocks actions. He did, pretty much, exactly what I would have expected. However, the LG player isn't CN. Those same actions aren't expected. An old dragon article, I think that was it anyway, had a saying I have always maintained - "it ain't easy being good".

 

[prospero63]

Just to be clear, my character wouldn't know that, as he lacks most knowledge skills, and I as a player didn't know that. It came as quite a shock, actually.

It should come as a shock. Based on what I read, it's not a factually accurate statement to begin with.

 

[prospero63]

It's also not a done deal that full cooperation is a moral obligation of captives. If the situation was turned around and a PC was the captive, I really doubt anyone would be suggesting that continuing to work against their captures' goals was a non good action.

In Lawful terms, if a combatant makes a specific deal to surrender, that can be considered their obligation, but the idea that every captive is obligated to active cooperation in information and stealth? I'm not getting where this comes from.

And let's not forget that, as I recall from the OP, the reason the lizardman could shout a warning in the first place was due to another rash action by a PC in removing the lizardman's gag...

 

[prospero63]

Who said anything about being bound to a lawful good alignment?

I did. The LG character is LG. It's pretty cut and dry.

The point is that the prisoner is a prisoner -- and not a corpse -- only because he agreed to cease hostilities. If he tries to get his captors killed, they are no longer beholden to their earlier agreement to keep him alive. As I said earlier:

The prisoner also has an obligation to his captors. That's the only reason he's allowed to live. Once he breaks his word...​

These aren't decisions made in a vacuum.

What you have presented is a neutral/chaotic position. Not a lawful good one. Lawful good beings don't take the stance (as you present above) that if one being "breaks the agreement" then all bets are off and I can now do whatever I want. The LG being still adheres to their LG principles. Otherwise, they are LG in paper only and NG/CG or something else in action...

There is a clear quid pro quo.

Not for LG. That's one of the points of being LG in the first place. Doing the right thing, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of whether it's reciprocated. Quid pro quo is pretty solidly neutral to chaotic. LG characters shouldn't need the enticement of reciprocity to adhere to LG standards... LG characters do LG things regardless of whether they get something back.