Ethics of Killing POWs

[Slander]

There are a lot of aspects to consider. I don't think anything like Geneva rules should have any bearing on this decision except in the most progressive (read modern) of societies. Prisoners of war in the middle ages were not treated exceptionally well, and death was all but assured if they rebelled.

The bottom line is the lizard man was living on borrowed time. PCs were not obligated to let the lizardman live. He would have been killed right away except the party had use for him. There was an agreement that as long as the lizardman proved useful, he would live. Alerting guards isn't useful to the party by any stretch of the imagination, even if it was expected.

Now, if the lizardman lived up to his part of the bargain, and THEN he was slain, there would be more justification for a confrontation with the warlock. But as it stands, the worst thing the warlock did was deprive the party of an asset. If you want to confront him, confront him on that, not "killing a prisoner".

 

[Yalius]

So, let me get this straight. You're on a mission to rescue some prisoners-- who have not been executed by their captors. One or more of those prisoners is a PC? I assume the PC has at the very least made an escape attempt; I can't imagine a PC who would just sit by and wait to be rescued.

Yet, when the party captures a lizard man, he's executed for attempting to call for help?

Seems to me like the lizard men are acting more civilized than the PCs. Or are the PCs trying to goad the lizard men into executing all of their prisoners, too?

Remember, the original reason for not executing prisoners was an expectation of reciprocity in wartime, that your own captured soldiers would not be executed in turn. Notions of international law, the law of war and Geneva Conventions post-date humane treatment of prisoners by millennia.

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

I think that the simplest way to determine the righteous course is to consider what actions you would expect if the situation were reversed. If a PC was captured, and being forced to lead the way towards the other PCs hiding place/fortress, and was resistant to identifying traps, called for help when feeling threatened, and was summarily executed on the spot, how would you judge those actions?


If your character is an honorable and just man, I believe that he would confront the Warlock about his actions, and condemn them. After which, complete the mission at hand, and then afterwards confront the entire party about the actions of the group as a whole, and where to go from here. State your moral convictions and explain that you cannot stand by and do nothing when those convictions are violated. Ask if you can expect that those morals will be respected while you travel together, and if not, make the decision as to whether or not it is worth continuing to adventure with your companions and sacrifice your integrity by doing so.

And really, that's not a simple answer, it's one you can only reach through in character thought as to the value of your mission, your characters friendships with those in the group, and the importance of your characters moral virtues.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Notions of international law, the law of war and Geneva Conventions post-date humane treatment of prisoners by millennia.

Just ask the Mytileneans... The argument in the ancient Athenian assembly over what to do with prisoners of a city taken during the Peloponnesian War assumed humane treatment as a default that had to be overcome by the righteous indignation of wronged Athens.

I expect Good characters to behave ethically. Not with "20th century morality", not with ancient Athenian morality, but with basic ethics grounded in respect for the dignity of sentient beings. I don't think calling that anachronistic meshes well with history.

 

[Slander]

Modern expectations of fair treatment of prisoners only goes back about 200-300 years. Prior to that, death or slavery was the norm. The Greeks allowed other Greek prisoners to live to avoid the collective weakening of the Greek city-states. But Greeks had no qualms about killing foreign prisoners. At various times in the middle ages, prisoners of war could expect to be ransomed back to their homelands at the end of the war. [citation]

However, when prisoners weren't executed, they were being held by the state/kingdom ... in a jail ... away from the battle lines, and more importantly, away from allies. Prisoners weren't held by a small band of soldiers actively infiltrating enemy territory.

As others (and yourself) have said, the circumstances that the PC were in was far more dangerous, and the tolerance for prisoner disobedience was next to nothing. Whether the lizardman was physically armed or not, as long as the group remained in the midst of an enemy encampment, he was an active threat to the PCs. In those circumstances, calling for help was just as dangerous to the PCs as if he swung a sword at them, and just as much a violation of the terms under which his life was spared.

Honestly, I would chastise the scout for ungagging the prisoner as much as I would if he gave the lizardman a sword. An armed prisoner has two choices: continue to be passive or attempt to fight for his life. By ungagging the prisoner, the scout basically forced a situation where the lizardman fought for his life (by proxy through his nearby allies). An honest mistake, but it triggered the warlock to react to a threat.

And in a world where a lizardman with one hitpoint is just as dangerous as a lizardman with 30, with help on the way that unconscious lizardman was still a threat. One heal spell, one heal potion, and there is another combatant fighting you.

 

[Jasperak]

Let me try and explain why I think the DM is important here. I have always believed that it is the campaign world and predominant culture that dictates what is lawful and good. If the DM has created a world that presupposes an enlightened belief in the sanctity of life for all sentient beings, then your character should confront the warlock.

One of the problems with that is then the predominant LG churches would have to frown upon anybody looting the tombs of sentient beings. They also would not be able to condone "conversion by the sword." IMHO for an enlightened LG church to allow clerics and paladins to exist they must draw the line somewhere between them and all the other races out there and the cleric or paladin should know what he can do and not do; who he can kill and not kill.

The point of that is that your character would most likely take cues about "lawful goodness" from those enlightened institutions around him. If your character feels that same way as one of the LG churches, then he would behave in a manner similar to their followers. If not, then he should have some reason why he believes differently. Maybe the church allows its followers to go out and kill non-believers, and your character believes differently.

In most of the games I've played/DMed I used the predominant LG church to show how that alignment related to behavior, by using the dogma of the institution and the actions of its followers.

As for the whole killing while unconscious question, I have no problem with the warlock's actions. It seems in character; something you could expect from a CN; something I would not penalize for as a DM in this case. Your character's reaction on the other hand is based on his view of LG that is crafted by the campaign world, not necessarily 20th century morality. What is right and what is wrong in your world? Would a paladin lose his status because of that action? Can a LG wizard cast sleep so others could kill?

Just ask, What Would Hieroneous Do?

Sorry for the ramble, I'm tired. :\

 

[S'mon]

Now, if the lizardman lived up to his part of the bargain, and THEN he was slain, there would be more justification for a confrontation with the warlock.

Yes - if you accept the surrender of a prisoner pledge "Surrender and you won't be harmed", the prisoner complies and does not rebel, and then you kill him, that is un-chivalrous and un-LG. But this case seems a long way from that. There are plenty of WW2 movies where the heroic Allied soldiers capture a German, the German betrays them or tries to escape, and the Allied soldiers shoot him (or her, in Where Eagles Dare). It's not presented as being a war crime, even by the generally high standards of WW2 in western Europe.

 

[S'mon]

I think that the simplest way to determine the righteous course is to consider what actions you would expect if the situation were reversed. If a PC was captured, and being forced to lead the way towards the other PCs hiding place/fortress, and was resistant to identifying traps, called for help when feeling threatened, and was summarily executed on the spot, how would you judge those actions?

I'd think that was fair dinkum by the NPCs. Also if a LG PC had given his parole - pledged *not* to try to escape etc - and then called for help, breaking his word, I'd regard that as un-LG behaviour, depending on the interpretation of LG in that campaign. CG, maybe.

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

I question whether or not the fact the creature took action to aid its fellows and attempt to prevent raiders from making further progress into its homeland/territory, is grounds for its termination. Regardless of any moral compunction it had to honor an agreement it made with the PCs, it has a larger duty to its people and land, and it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise.

The fact remains that the Warlock killed a helpless prisoner that presented no immediate threat to the group. The hostile action taken by the prisoner had already been dealt with when he was rendered unconcious, and the Warlock killed him out of hand.

 

[S'mon]

I question whether or not the fact the creature took action to aid its fellows and attempt to prevent raiders from making further progress into its homeland/territory, is grounds for its termination. Regardless of any moral compunction it had to honor an agreement it made with the PCs, it has a larger duty to its people and land, and it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise.

The lizardman's behaviour was arguably brave, selfless and heroic, and could be characterised as LG. Doesn't mean executing it wasn't LG.