Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 2145526" data-attributes="member: 27012">The details of the BBC's arguments and assessments of how common or rare this is aside (and I really am not trying to make this discussion either political or religious), I think it points to the fact that people who are not trained to treat captives properly or negotiate with hostage takers at least sometimes do get frustrated by their inability to get results through negotiation and even otherwise good people will consider torture and violance as effective ways to get results, especially when the target of the interrogation or violence is considered to be a bad guy and part of the problem.&nbsp; They need to train real soldiers and police officers not to do these things.&nbsp; It doesn't suprise me that role-players, most of whom have no such training, go down that road because plenty of real people do in the same sort of situation in the real world.&nbsp; If you don't want your players to do nasty things to captured bad guys, then either don't let them capture bad guys, give them an alternative to avoid the frustration that leads down the road to torture, or be ready to get into a lengthy and potentially heated debate about morality if you object.Remember, D&amp;D (and most other role-playing games) are structured to expect the players to resort to violent means to solve problems.&nbsp; That's why the combat systems are so large and the weapon lists are so long.&nbsp; And that's why Paladins carry swords, not daisies.Let's just say that this is an issue that is currently being debated in real world courts and while you may be certain about that (and you are entitled to your opinions), the boundaries of what is or isn't torture is hardly universal.&nbsp; To say any more would probably go someplace that the moderators don't want this to go.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="John Morrow, post: 2145526, member: 27012"] The details of the BBC's arguments and assessments of how common or rare this is aside (and I really am not trying to make this discussion either political or religious), I think it points to the fact that people who are not trained to treat captives properly or negotiate with hostage takers at least sometimes do get frustrated by their inability to get results through negotiation and even otherwise good people will consider torture and violance as effective ways to get results, especially when the target of the interrogation or violence is considered to be a bad guy and part of the problem. They need to train real soldiers and police officers not to do these things. It doesn't suprise me that role-players, most of whom have no such training, go down that road because plenty of real people do in the same sort of situation in the real world. If you don't want your players to do nasty things to captured bad guys, then either don't let them capture bad guys, give them an alternative to avoid the frustration that leads down the road to torture, or be ready to get into a lengthy and potentially heated debate about morality if you object. Remember, D&D (and most other role-playing games) are structured to expect the players to resort to violent means to solve problems. That's why the combat systems are so large and the weapon lists are so long. And that's why Paladins carry swords, not daisies. Let's just say that this is an issue that is currently being debated in real world courts and while you may be certain about that (and you are entitled to your opinions), the boundaries of what is or isn't torture is hardly universal. To say any more would probably go someplace that the moderators don't want this to go. [/QUOTE]

Verification