Ethics of Killing POWs

[Sol.Dragonheart]

To clarify my position, I think the Warlocks actions were more borne of a sense of expediency, not any maliciousness on his part. As in, the Lizard has proved due to his reticence/refusal to identify traps in the area, and calling for aid, that he is no longer of use to us, and is in fact a liability. As such, eliminating him now saves time and trouble, and we can proceed with the mission.

This is not E, but nor is it G. It's solidly N, and the fact he did it without consulting the rest of the party and solely on his own judgment is C. So, he's doing a good job staying consistent with his character as it was stated he is CN. However, the actions he has taken are in conflict with a LG characters sense of responsibility, justice, and fair/equitable treatment of others, so the LG character is perfectly in character and in the right to confront him about it. And I think he should, or the player should consider how to adapt to having a character who will violate his sense of morality on a semi-consistent basis.

Personally, I would be more concerned about a possibly maleovelent Demonic Blackguard than a pragmatic Warlock, but the point of contention is the Warlock, for the moment.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Part of the answer depends upon whether you (and your DM) consider alignment to be descriptive or prescriptive.

It sounds like you are more towards the prescriptive side, which makes it difficult for me to give advice here since I'm definitely on the descriptive side of the fence.

However, I'm with the people who expect that adventurers, even LG adventurers have no qualms about finishing off a downed foe (sleep and CDG have been standard modus operandi for LG parties since my first ever game of D&D decades ago).

POW implies to me a certain agreed status and code of conduct as per the Geneva convention. What if fighting foes that don't agree with that? What happened in the days before such humane conventions? I would imagine that you wouldn't have to look far to see what might be considered pretty raw standards of brutality by 21st century ethics.

Personally I like to play and run games which use "fantasy historical" ethics rather than 21st century western ethics, so that might help you to judge whether any advice I give is worth listening to in your context!

Cheers

 

[Fenes]

It also depends on how you see "lawful". Does it means following the laws of the land, or simply acting in a more strict, principled (or following a code) way?

I see it as the later, and my lawful characters are not following the laws of the country they are in, they are simply much more likely to follow their own code/honor, and less likely to bend their views/morals. Less flexible, so to speak.

Personally, I dropped contemporary morality from D&D, trying for a more ancient/medieval set of morals to judge good and evil, going from intent, not absolute value, and also let alignement follow actions as their consequence, not dictate actions.

 

[S'mon]

I see it as the later, and my lawful characters are not following the laws of the country they are in, they are simply much more likely to follow their own code/honor, and less likely to bend their views/morals. Less flexible, so to speak.

I think it depends more on whether your code is something you developed yourself, or whether you rely primarily on an external source. Only the latter is Lawful to my mind.

 

[Fenes]

I think it depends more on whether your code is something you developed yourself, or whether you rely primarily on an external source. Only the latter is Lawful to my mind.

I disagree. That would mean that the character who developed a code of chivalry, and a code of law, for his country would not be lawful, but those following it would be, even though they would react and act the same.

 

[roguerouge]

First, thanks so much to everyone for their advice. It's really helping clarify my thinking. I'd love to hear more.

Random extra bits of info that were sparked by comments here:

1. The paladin/binder/possible blackguard issue was brought up the session before the warlock issue came up. I lost that argument on the old standbys: we're behind enemy lines, "she hasn't done anything yet!", and we can't abort the mission (to investigate her condition further). I could not agree with you more that the paladin/binder is a major issue and it's only on the back burner due to party consensus and lack of other options at present.

2. The lizardfolk started the war, and they've almost made a major advance. We didn't know why at the time. After the warlock's summary execution of the POW, we found out that they were stirred to action due to what they believe to be human interference with their eggs. (It is, of course, the BBEGs that are behind it.)

3. After the warlock's summary execution of the POW, we found out how they keep their prisoners. Evidently, the lizardfolk king is a sadist who likes to pound prisoners to a pulp. Kindly old shaman heals them up, disagrees with the king's bellicose policy, and may end up helping us out. Prisoners, however, do get killed after some time. By being eaten. Again, not stuff we knew at the time, although clearly the mission presupposed that the lizardfolk were not likely to kill prisoners immediately.

 

[DragonLancer]

Nothing. The lizard was, with its attempts to draw guards down upon you, actively a threat. It's no different than it trying to take a weapon and fight its way out. He signed his own death warrant.

Now, if the lizard had cooperated fully and hadn't tried to do you harm by leading you into a trap and rousing the guard, then you might have a case for some righteous indignation.

QFT (again).

Players get too hung up on this. If the POW cooperates, fine. If not...

 

[Severson]

I appreciate the details of the Geneva Conventions and the discussion of 21st century morality. That is fine if you are sitting around a table in clean conditions. But if you are struggling to survive behind enemy lines, dirty and exhausted and all, and... in this case you see your friend kill an innocent lizard man... I'm not sure your alignment enters into it. You aren't sitting there thinking...I am LG, I must therefore do this. You may be appalled at the action but would likely thinking: Lizardmen are coming! I must do what I can to survive here.

You must have had a moral quandry about allowing the Warlock into the group?

Also, your character would not self-identify as LG. The Warlock would not self-identify as CN. Your character doesn't think of the Warlock as CN. It's not like the old days of having an "alignment language" that was like a secret between cult members. There are only actions to consider. I would say not to get trapped by alignment. I think it can bring the whole game down a notch.

Other thoughts?

 

[S'mon]

I disagree. That would mean that the character who developed a code of chivalry, and a code of law, for his country would not be lawful, but those following it would be, even though they would react and act the same.

I think he'd only definitely not be lawful if he developed it wholly ab initio, like the Nietszchean value-creator. If it was based on existing custom and tradition, or on divine revelation, then he could potentially be lawful.

Edit: Also, if the monarch self-limits, binding himself by his own code, like Arthur, that's a good sign he's lawful. If he remains the sole determinant of the content of the code, so that whatever he declares good now, abrogates what he declared was good last week, then he's not lawful.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I appreciate the details of the Geneva Conventions and the discussion of 21st century morality. That is fine if you are sitting around a table in clean conditions. But if you are struggling to survive behind enemy lines, dirty and exhausted and all, and... in this case you see your friend kill an innocent lizard man... I'm not sure your alignment enters into it. You aren't sitting there thinking...I am LG, I must therefore do this. You may be appalled at the action but would likely thinking: Lizardmen are coming! I must do what I can to survive here.

Actually, imo, thinking about what the right thing to do is even when it's not relaxing and convenient for you is pretty much what separates the good from the neutral. Neutral people think "maybe this is the right thing to do, but it's too hard / my circumstances don't allow it / someone else will deal with it". Good people do the right thing.

I'm what some people call an alignment prescriptivist, but for me, it's more being an alignment predictivist. I see alignment as a character trait, and if it does not predict what your character will do in the vast majority of cases even, or especially, the difficult situations then you simply were never that alignment. If you've been accepting spell effects from an alignment that wasn't actually there, then there is a mechanical issue that I take issue with as a DM.