Ethics of Killing POWs

[Kahuna Burger]

Perhaps you'd like to address the rest of the post:

nah, it was all stuff that had been covered earlier.

 

[Umbran]

There is no such thing as "basic ethics". People are not born with an inherent understanding of right and wrong. It is behavior that must be learned, and not everyone has a good role model to learn from.

Hm. Maybe not. Research shows some indication that a sense of "fair play" may be partly genetic - Fair play in the genes

Those who were raised in a nurturing environment where concepts like empathy and fair play are the norm often take a lot for granted and make the mistake of speaking of "basic ethics" in a putative sense...

Just to put another scientific reference - Capuchin monkeys exhibit what seems to be a sense of "fair play". So we may not want to talk about it in terms of "concepts", so much as societal norms. And, from the above, it seems that the societal norm may be at least partly hard-wired.

Which is not to say that individuals cannot vary from the norm, or that sentient beings cannot deviate from any particular hard-wired tendency you'd like to name. But it shouldn't come as a surprise that a species can specialize for cooperative behavior, making the ethics more than a conceptual construct.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Hm. Maybe not. Research shows some indication that a sense of "fair play" may be partly genetic - Fair play in the genes.

Yeah, it's been largely my education in psychology and biology that leads me to consider ethics a human norm, rather than philosophy per se. But I understand that many have a radically different baseline so it's not something I take personally if someone thinks the idea is crazy.

Of course how far people take ethics and who they apply them to can vary by both individual and society. To put it in D&D terms, I would posit that it is natural for humans to be "good" to people. The difference between Good and Evil comes from who you think of as a person.

 

[Elf Witch]

After reading this and remembering some issues like this in several games I stand my by decision in my game to require that all the characters have good in their alignment.

My issue with what the warlock did was not that he killed the lizardman it is that he did it without consulting the rest of the party. That there is just asking for trouble. The party should have discussed quickly what was the best thing to do.

I don't have an issue with killing the lizardman the PCs are on mission and this lizardman can give them away. Killing him is one option and I don't see it as a bad thing.

I do have an issue with killing POWs willy nilly when there is no reason to. But I can understand why it may be necessary if the group is out alone in the wildnerness with no way of turing the POWs over and they pose a danger to the PCs mission.

I have a paladin in my game amd we have talked about this situation and he knows that he will not lose his paladin powers if he ever has to kill a POW in a situation like this.

 

[Rykion]

Hm. Maybe not. Research shows some indication that a sense of "fair play" may be partly genetic - Fair play in the genes



Just to put another scientific reference - Capuchin monkeys exhibit what seems to be a sense of "fair play". So we may not want to talk about it in terms of "concepts", so much as societal norms. And, from the above, it seems that the societal norm may be at least partly hard-wired.

Both of those articles seem to indicate humans and monkeys have preference and jealousy, but I don't see fair play. If it was about fair play, the twins would split the money in half or as close to half as possible. Fair play monkeys would share the favored reward. Overall, those articles indicate a general inclination toward negative behavior rather than positive.

 

[Felon]

After reading this and remembering some issues like this in several games I stand my by decision in my game to require that all the characters have good in their alignment.

I think this thread has done a fine of job of demonstrating how having "good" in your alignment does not prevent disruptive behavior.

[quote[My issue with what the warlock did was not that he killed the lizardman it is that he did it without consulting the rest of the party. That there is just asking for trouble. The party should have discussed quickly what was the best thing to do.[/QUOTE]
Sounds nice on paper, but I think the warlock was just feeling a little hot-blooded, and perhaps the situation didn't seem fit for a round of consultation with everyone else at the table.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think this thread has done a fine of job of demonstrating how having "good" in your alignment does not prevent disruptive behavior.


Sounds nice on paper, but I think the warlock was just feeling a little hot-blooded, and perhaps the situation didn't seem fit for a round of consultation with everyone else at the table.

I have found that if the players play their characters as good in some way that they tend to act more like heroes than thugs. I never allow CN in my game they are more disruptive than any evil character.

I am not interested in DMing a game filled with a bunch of anti heroes out for what they can get and not caring who or what gets hurt. I want to DM a game with true heroes in it. And lucky for me I have players that want to do the same thing.

I think disruptive behavior comes in when you try and mix say LG with CN their outlooks on life are so different.

In my game there sometimes is friction between the paladin and the CG spellscale over the best way to handle things but not to the point that it is disruptive to the game. In the end they both want to do the right thing.

The warlock may have been acting hot blooded as you say and letting off steam but he was still in the wrong. The party needs to act as a group if one character goes off and does things like killing prisoners without the other members of the group having a say in the matter then eventually things are going to come to ahead and the hot blooded character may find himself out of the group.

 

[roguerouge]

First off, let's all, myself included, take a deep calming breath here.

If you're on a mission to save the world, then it sounds like you might need some sense of perspective. Why go tell the heads of PC's religions to investigate their activities?

As a player, I had a couple of options. I chose the one that put the decision about what to do firmly in the DM's hands. It was the least disruptive thing that I could do as a player without breaking character or alignment in the face of questionable behavior on the part of these two characters.

As a character, I told them that I was concerned and what I was going to do and gave them the opportunity to come clean before I did anything.

There's a major gear shift when you start speaking of the party being a bunch of pals with all of these happy little cliques within cliques. It makes me wonder where you, your two snitchees, and the killer warlock all fit within the scope of these cliques.

Not well. The warlock and the paladin/binder have friends within the party, but we don't really hang.

Also, whether it was "snitching" or "whistle-blowing" depends entirely on your view of the legitimacy of making bargains with evil outsiders in a campaign that's about preventing cultists from making bargains with evil outsiders. (Or "seeking guidance from a spiritual authority," for that matter.)

You seem at a loss to answer pretty basic questions like how to deal with players engaging in murderous acts that violate your own ethics.

Yes, that's why I asked for guidance on these boards.

Getting together as drinking buddies, dating, and teaching each other can develop a strong since of camaraderie, but they can also remain shallow, fleeting relationships. Which is it here?

A bit of both, actually. With three party members, this character has strong social connections. The other three are pretty much "co-workers," albeit on a very important job.

Also, my character seems to be dead. Which does tend to make the relationships "fleeting," at present.

 

[S'mon]

After reading this and remembering some issues like this in several games I stand my by decision in my game to require that all the characters have good in their alignment.

Conversely it reminds me why I abolished Good & Evil alignments in my game and just use L-N-C. Real world Western concepts of Good have changed a lot since 1974*, yet D&D posits Good and Evil as unchanging absolutes. So we end up with unchanging absolutes that vary according to current real-world conceptions of them. This creates a horrible mess, IMO.

*eg I think in 1974 Kahunaburger's concept of Good would have been considered a lot more outre than it is now.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

There is no such thing as "basic ethics". People are not born with an inherent understanding of right and wrong. It is behavior that must be learned, and not everyone has a good role model to learn from.

Those who were raised in a nurturing environment where concepts like empathy and fair play are the norm often take a lot for granted and make the mistake of speaking of "basic ethics" in a putative sense, as if anyone who doesn't abide by those rules has made a conscious choice not to do so. That's often not the case, particularly in a fantasy world where people are living harsh, often bleak, existences.

In terms of the evidence the idea that ethical behavior and empathy are entirely products of culture or environment is problematic at best.

At the least the fact that mental disorders and physical damage to the nervous system can change the ethical behavior and empathetic capacity of human beings seems to indicate that it's not entirely a software issue.

I'm not saying that these issues are divorced from culture, but I do think that the dichotomy of nurture-relativistic vs. nature-absolute is woefully simple and probably undermines the argument.