Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Ethics of Killing POWs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4023140" data-attributes="member: 54707"><p>We don't really play alignments, each player plays by their own accepted code of what they feels is right, according to personal tastes, religious affiliation, moral compass, and whatnot.</p><p></p><p>Personally I would have never argued with any POW. You just don't argue with POWs, they can either be a source of information and intelligence, good or bad depending on what you think their reliability to be, and how motivated. But you just have to realistically expect disinformation, misinformation, and craftiness out of any POW and so degree of cooperation is always circumstance-dependent. I would have instead employed a simple head nod or shake (or some other very basic means of communication) to verify anything I wanted to know and addressed all information in the form of simplistic, "yes or no" questions. So I think both the method of interrogation and the method of how prisoners are approached as to their real nature, could be worked on as functional matter for future team interactions. This doesn't mean all prisoners are evil, simply that they cannot be trusted and so argument is pointless.</p><p></p><p>As for general treatment of POWs I'm with you. You don't mistreat them, but if one or more became real and lethal dangers to either innocents or my own team, I would kill them if necessary.</p><p></p><p>I think though that you guys could probably work out some arrangement. Such as, "best possible treatment for all POWs, unless they do something dangerous or engage in sabotage, and then a sliding scale of responses would follow, depending upon the threat posed."</p><p></p><p>A call for help, a good a$$ whoopin and a beating to the extremities will calm most situations without the need for real harm. Intentional and serious sabotage, the inflicting of casualties, might result in summary execution.</p><p></p><p>Of course, two basic points with all POWs. Spell out in advance what their responsibilities are and what your response will be if they fail those responsibilities. And never ever, just on principle, trust a POW on any matter, per se. The duty of most enemy combatants and prisoners is to make your job harder, not easier, and so expect opposition, subterfuge, and sabotage if they can arrange it. Keep those two points in mind and it will be hard for them to take advantage of you, because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Also as I said, spell out consequences, both for yourself and your party, so that disputes are handled prior to in-field actions, not afterwards. Forewarned is forearmed, and that goes both for your own team and for those enemies who might suffer from their ignorance of your intentions. I hate to call this a policy matter, cause it ain't really. It's more just general behavioral guidelines and common sense. But common sense always works best when everybody recognizes it from the start, not after you have to explain it later.</p><p></p><p>However if you feel you have a rogue player, then that might lead, like it or not, to an eventual confrontation between your ideals and ways of doing things, and theirs. And if you feel that you can't modify your values to some compromise agreement with the rest of your team, then maybe you need a new team of comrades who more closely match your own morality. That being said though, unless I had good reason to suspect real malignancy on their part, I think that personally as both a matter of law and of good I would trust the descisions of my own team-mates over the actions of an enemy combatant. That is, in situations like these the benefit of the doubt would go to my comrades, and not the enemy.</p><p></p><p>In either case prepare ahead for what that means. Because a prepared head is always better than a slack a$$.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jack7, post: 4023140, member: 54707"] We don't really play alignments, each player plays by their own accepted code of what they feels is right, according to personal tastes, religious affiliation, moral compass, and whatnot. Personally I would have never argued with any POW. You just don't argue with POWs, they can either be a source of information and intelligence, good or bad depending on what you think their reliability to be, and how motivated. But you just have to realistically expect disinformation, misinformation, and craftiness out of any POW and so degree of cooperation is always circumstance-dependent. I would have instead employed a simple head nod or shake (or some other very basic means of communication) to verify anything I wanted to know and addressed all information in the form of simplistic, "yes or no" questions. So I think both the method of interrogation and the method of how prisoners are approached as to their real nature, could be worked on as functional matter for future team interactions. This doesn't mean all prisoners are evil, simply that they cannot be trusted and so argument is pointless. As for general treatment of POWs I'm with you. You don't mistreat them, but if one or more became real and lethal dangers to either innocents or my own team, I would kill them if necessary. I think though that you guys could probably work out some arrangement. Such as, "best possible treatment for all POWs, unless they do something dangerous or engage in sabotage, and then a sliding scale of responses would follow, depending upon the threat posed." A call for help, a good a$$ whoopin and a beating to the extremities will calm most situations without the need for real harm. Intentional and serious sabotage, the inflicting of casualties, might result in summary execution. Of course, two basic points with all POWs. Spell out in advance what their responsibilities are and what your response will be if they fail those responsibilities. And never ever, just on principle, trust a POW on any matter, per se. The duty of most enemy combatants and prisoners is to make your job harder, not easier, and so expect opposition, subterfuge, and sabotage if they can arrange it. Keep those two points in mind and it will be hard for them to take advantage of you, because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Also as I said, spell out consequences, both for yourself and your party, so that disputes are handled prior to in-field actions, not afterwards. Forewarned is forearmed, and that goes both for your own team and for those enemies who might suffer from their ignorance of your intentions. I hate to call this a policy matter, cause it ain't really. It's more just general behavioral guidelines and common sense. But common sense always works best when everybody recognizes it from the start, not after you have to explain it later. However if you feel you have a rogue player, then that might lead, like it or not, to an eventual confrontation between your ideals and ways of doing things, and theirs. And if you feel that you can't modify your values to some compromise agreement with the rest of your team, then maybe you need a new team of comrades who more closely match your own morality. That being said though, unless I had good reason to suspect real malignancy on their part, I think that personally as both a matter of law and of good I would trust the descisions of my own team-mates over the actions of an enemy combatant. That is, in situations like these the benefit of the doubt would go to my comrades, and not the enemy. In either case prepare ahead for what that means. Because a prepared head is always better than a slack a$$. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Ethics of Killing POWs
Top