Ethics of Killing POWs

[DragonLancer]

The only Convenient option is to kill him. If this was the scene in a movie, killing an unconscious enemy is something you expect the evil bad guys to do. The good guys go in, knock people out(and sometimes tie them up), shoot people who are actively shooting at them, rescue the damsel, and escapes with the damsel.

Picture this: Group of heroes is breaking into a drug dealers mansion. They capture a guard and force him to unlock some doors. When some other guards approach he shouts out. Someone knocks the guard out. You know what Doesn't happen next? They don't execute that unconscious guard. They might hit him again to make sure he's still knocked out by the time they leave. Willfully executing an unarmed, unconscious person is what the evil guys do.

We're not talking Hollywood script writers here though. This is a game of D&D, where even the most LG paladin raids monster lairs, kills them and takes their stuff (in a nutshell). In the example given, outside of factors not disclosed to us, I think the warlock did the right thing. Its not the morality or ethics that we live by but it is when we're talking adventurers whose lives are on the line in enemy territory.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

...The narrative matters more than that rather significant inconvenience.

I understand that kind of motive, and I hope things work out for your game. This sort of thing is one of the two reasons why I do not run games that are dependent on a long arc narrative. It is difficult to guarantee the same characters stay in the game over a long period of time. My own games tend to be driven by the plots of NPC villains who do not care much about who it is that tries to oppose them, or how. I do run some plot arcs that are dependant on specific characters, but I try to keep those arcs very short. The one such arc I just ran in my own game had to conclude without the relevant character being present, because he could not make it, and I wont cancel a game if I can guarantee at least 3 other players show up.

If you want an in game solution, have your DM drop a Helm of Opposite Alignment on your character. Then you can at least fit in and justify out of character actions. Or you can crank it up to 11, and and get a bit of revenge on the guy who is acting too evil by becoming his best friend, and doing things that are both evil and highly inconvenient for that character. Just try to have fun with it.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Rykion]

Picture this: Group of heroes is breaking into a drug dealers mansion. They capture a guard and force him to unlock some doors. When some other guards approach he shouts out. Someone knocks the guard out. You know what Doesn't happen next? They don't execute that unconscious guard. They might hit him again to make sure he's still knocked out by the time they leave. Willfully executing an unarmed, unconscious person is what the evil guys do.

Others have covered the this is pure Hollywood aspect. The analogy also fails to take into account that it is a time of war and the drug dealers are enemy combatants. The drug dealers are also cannibals. The heroes also have to deal with an entire countryside of combatants, not just a mansion. They can't just round a few corners and be safe. I'm assuming they are at least several hours of travel from friendly territory. Leaving a guard knocked out or tied up in this situation would jeopardize the lives of all the heroes.

 

[darthkilmor]

Others have covered the this is pure Hollywood aspect. The analogy also fails to take into account that it is a time of war and the drug dealers are enemy combatants. The drug dealers are also cannibals. The heroes also have to deal with an entire countryside of combatants, not just a mansion. They can't just round a few corners and be safe. I'm assuming they are at least several hours of travel from friendly territory. Leaving a guard knocked out or tied up in this situation would jeopardize the lives of all the heroes.

Removed for being completely inappropriate.

- Xath

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Removed

The guy in that image had just bombed the officer with the pistol's family home. Gratuitously targeting unarmed civilians because they were related to army personnel. Summary execution is entirely fitting, he should feel lucky the guy wasn't truly vindictive or he would've found a montagnard to make it last.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

With the knowledge I have now, after the warlock's action I would have kept on the mission until completion and then confronted him when it was safer to do so, though only because the warlock took it upon himself to execute the lizard-folk without getting approval from the party.

Heck, the parties I've been in would've rolled initiative to get to execute it first.

Brad

 

[Piratecat]

Gang, please don't use real-life political situations and references when discussing D&D issues. I know that makes things trickier, but they're not appropriate here.

 

[Jasperak]

Heck, the parties I've been in would've rolled initiative to get to execute it first.

Brad

That's why lawful evil is the best alignment.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Fair Warning these are statements of a Lawful Evil individual

Having gone back over the OP and considered this the actions of the party were not unethical. Harsh yes, but not unethical. As the OP stated this is a time of war and the party are engaged in offensive operations inside enemy territory. Under these circumstances it's taking prisoners at all that is exceptional most special forces units will not not prisoners in such circumstances unless that is the purpose of the mission. When they took the prisoner the deal was essentially that in return for betraying his own unit they would not kill him (or torture him for the info as they presumably would have had he resisted). Not very bright, prisoners like torture are generally not trustworthy sources. Attempting to run them into an ambush is exactly the sort of thing you expect a prisoner to do they're the enemy after all. But when he tried alerting his comrades with the screaming he was an active threat and once more a valid target. No different than firing on an artillery spotter who may not be an appreciable threat himself, it's what they can call in that matters. Having been in close contact with the party simply knocking him out and leaving him isn't sufficient. If found he's too great an intelligence threat due to what he might reveal about the party to his chain of command. Toting him along unconscious is just not practicable and produces a greater threat in itself. About the only thing that can be done is kill him, to let him live is to endanger the party. In fact they should crush the skull and jaw to prevent use of speak with dead by enemy clerics.

 

[Felon]

Okay. I've seeking advice on what my character's reaction should be to a character who killed a POW last night in game.

Maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread, but what is the hook tying this party together? Fortune-seeking? Altruism? Soldiers serving some authority? A bunch of guys who met in a tavern and decided to go bash some lizards?

You need to establish what your party is doing together in the first place. If you're do-gooders, why do the rest put up with a bloodthirsty warlock? If you're a bunch mercenaries, why would the others put up with your repeated tattletaling?

If it's not clear what your party is doing together, suggest that the party have some rules of order. If they're not amenable to that, then a LG urban ranger (IOW, a cop) is not appropriate for that group.

My impression is that you have one of those groups where everyone makes up whatever character they feel like playing without regards to what anyone else is playing. You're in the same party simply because you're the player characters. If a metagame motivation is the only reason to be together, then there's no point in applying simulationist logic to your interactions.