Ethics of Killing POWs

[mmadsen]

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?

I would expect that.

 

[Elf Witch]

I would expect that.

Okay because sometimes I get the feeling that players feel that there should be two sets of rules on how things work one for the NPC and one for the PCs.

I still think that the party needs to discuss how to handle prisoners. The warlock was in the wrong to take matters into his own hands. That is lone wolf behavior and can cause a lot of party tensions.

I don't think it is evil to kill a prisoner in some situations. If a prisoners tries to escape and gets killed that is not evil it is a risk that the prisoners accepts when he tries to escape.

I do think it is evil to kill a prisoner who agrees to cooperate and then does and then the party kills him because they don't know what to do with the prisoner.

Pladins often get screwed with this. According to a lot of people they are required to accept a surrender even when they know that they are in no postion to handle a prisoner. And if they don't accept the surrender thay may lose their abilities but if they do accept it then they are put in the postion of endangering the mission they are on. It is a no win scenero for the paladin.

 

[prospero63]

I would expect that.

Followup question(S). Would killing your character be a lawful good act in those circumstances? Or, to be more in line with the original scenario, if your gag is removed to argue with you, and you in turn yell out for help, are then knocked out and while unconscious are summarily executed, would that be a lawful good act? Would the remaining characters decide "well, that was the lawful good, right and just thing to do, let's move on to other things" or would they say "those evil bastards killed our buddy... it's time to bring some payback"?

 

[mmadsen]

Okay because sometimes I get the feeling that players feel that there should be two sets of rules on how things work one for the NPC and one for the PCs.

That's very true in the sense that PCs are expected to have quite a bit of plot protection. They're not the "red shirts" who get killed by an unseen attacker so that the audience knows what the protagonists are up against; they're the protagonists who overcome the menace.

In most games, the DM would simply say, "You know, if you cry out, the lizard men will kill you." Or, if the PC outclasses his captors, he'd say, "sure," and let the high-level PC escape.

I don't think it is evil to kill a prisoner in some situations. If a prisoners tries to escape and gets killed that is not evil it is a risk that the prisoners accepts when he tries to escape.

I do think it is evil to kill a prisoner who agrees to cooperate and then does and then the party kills him because they don't know what to do with the prisoner.

Exactly.

 

[mmadsen]

Followup question(S). Would killing your character be a lawful good act in those circumstances?

If killing a character would have been just and good in the original combat, then killing that character after he betrayed you would still be just and good.

Would the remaining characters decide "well, that was the lawful good, right and just thing to do, let's move on to other things" or would they say "those evil bastards killed our buddy... it's time to bring some payback"?

If the enemy kills your friend, you don't generally absolve him for killing your friend nicely.

 

[Fenes]

Pladins often get screwed with this. According to a lot of people they are required to accept a surrender even when they know that they are in no postion to handle a prisoner. And if they don't accept the surrender thay may lose their abilities but if they do accept it then they are put in the postion of endangering the mission they are on. It is a no win scenero for the paladin.

I think a lot of DMs react to a paladin PC with "Oh, cool, let's put him into positions where whatever he does is wrong!" It took "Oath of Swords", "The Warlord's Own", and of course "The deeds of Paksenarion" to cure me of this, and make playing a Paladin in my games possible and fun.

I would, based upon this, expect the paladin to be able to justly decide on the spot if the surrendering enemy deserved death or not, and take it from there.

 

[evilbob]

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...

Ok, then you should probably take additional time out-of-game to resolve this situation with the other players and/or especially the GM. It might be that your GM enjoys the conflict/struggle here, and it certainly plays for an interesting narrative - but that doesn't always make for a fun game.

Personally, I think there is very little left to keep your character associating with the CN warlock at this point - regardless of your struggles, it sounds like it would be your belief that you could do this better and more in line with what is "right" without that character. A LG character, IN MY OPINION, would never, ever kill a prisoner nor allow it to happen under any circumstances. At best, your character would probably keep the warlock under constant surveillance and attempt to thwart additional "borderline evil" actions; at worst, this is going to be resolved in a PVP fight. Both of those options are not fun (to me, anyway).

If the GM wants your character back, you could suggest that he allow you to change your alignment like the others (and possibly a few other things if you feel like it), just so that there's not such a major intra-party conflict. If he's dead-set on keeping you LG with the CN warlock in the party, you could discuss with him the fact that he is setting up a major train wreck that sounds like it's not too far off.

 

[prospero63]

If killing a character would have been just and good in the original combat, then killing that character after he betrayed you would still be just and good.

Even when the circumstances are this:

1) The character could only speak because someone rashly removed his gag
2) The character had been knocked out an was no longer any kind of threat

If the enemy kills your friend, you don't generally absolve him for killing your friend nicely.

Vengeance... a decidedly chaotic emotion and course of action...

 

[prospero63]

Ok, then you should probably take additional time out-of-game to resolve this situation with the other players and/or especially the GM. It might be that your GM enjoys the conflict/struggle here, and it certainly plays for an interesting narrative - but that doesn't always make for a fun game.

Personally, I think there is very little left to keep your character associating with the CN warlock at this point - regardless of your struggles, it sounds like it would be your belief that you could do this better and more in line with what is "right" without that character. A LG character, IN MY OPINION, would never, ever kill a prisoner nor allow it to happen under any circumstances. At best, your character would probably keep the warlock under constant surveillance and attempt to thwart additional "borderline evil" actions; at worst, this is going to be resolved in a PVP fight. Both of those options are not fun (to me, anyway).

If the GM wants your character back, you could suggest that he allow you to change your alignment like the others (and possibly a few other things if you feel like it), just so that there's not such a major intra-party conflict. If he's dead-set on keeping you LG with the CN warlock in the party, you could discuss with him the fact that he is setting up a major train wreck that sounds like it's not too far off.

QFT

 

[Rykion]

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)".

So saying they are known to eat intelligent humanoids seems to be an accurate paraphrase of that to me. Intelligence is usually assumed with most humanoids in D&D, and the part about captives and slain foes reinforces it. I actually pointed out in post 194 that lizardfolk eating humanoids wasn't actually as common as is believed.

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.

It actually doesn't matter that it was a lizardman, but believing that capture probably equals getting eaten tends to motivate people. The lizardman stopped being a captive when he broke the terms of his parole and actively aided the party's enemies.

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.

I find that few parties actually have people with the heal skill. Low skill rank equals possible fail and more time eaten up retrying.

The OP doesn't mention how the info was gained. If it was the DM just saying "you knocked him out" it can still be seen as at the metagame level rather than at the character level.

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.

Because intent is 9/10ths the law, and depending on motivation the exact same act can fall under different D&D alignments. I've never said the act of killing the lizardman was good, but with the right intent it could fall under the LG alignment.

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".

Notice the "closemindedness" and "judgetmentalness" of lawful. There is also a specific section of the PHB just for LG. The one word summary for the alignment is "crusader." LG can describe anyone from a do no harm pacifist to a self righteous paladin who has no time for mercy for those who cross him on a mission.

This will be my last post on this thread because I've made my position pretty clear. We just disagree on what actions may fall under specific alignments in D&D. Personally, I generally find all killing to be an evil act, even if it is justifiable. I was responding to character actions in a make believe world and my interpretation of RAW of that world.