Why is it evil to kill the prisoners?

[Kichwas]

Seriously...


I just don't see it.

If someone is bent on killing you, and you've just finished killing all but a few of their companions...

If you've managed to morally justify this...

Why is it then suddenly evil to kill them because you've stopped fighting long enough to question them?


Where did this idea come from, cause it certainly doesn't measure up to any warfare ethics outside of the Geneva conventions on POWs. And that convention certainly has little place in fantasy, or even most other genres.

If you're in a war, or any lethal conflict, you begin by justifying the murder of your opponants. Why does this suddenly stop at some point?

If you break into someone's home with the intention to killing as many of them as you can in order to improve your martial skills and take their possessions, how do manage to consider that morally superior to killing the one's you've captured for information?

Every day in our fantasy RPG campaigns the PCs play out Mai Lai on any Orc or Goblin villages they find, then insist on sparing anyone who lives past the point where the PCs decide to take a break and gather info on where they can find more people to kill and loot to steal...

I'm having a real issue with sense of disbelief over seeing PCs that gun for going after and killing NPCs, then have a sudden turn of heart and find moral issues in killing those they capture...

It seems highly suspect to me. It smacks of a lack of a proper grasp of morality, or of warfare ethics -even modern ones.

-shrug-

Just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

[jgbrowning]

yep. its why i don't worry about alignments.

joe b.

 

[Kichwas]

But even without the thought of alignments, I fail to see the moral issue.

It seems to me the moral focus is in the wrong place.

Even with alignments, I fail to see this act as the one that classifies as evil, nor even unlawful.

 

[Dragongirl]

It's not just a modern issue. Look back to the codes of chivalry.

 

[Kichwas]

Ah...

So northwestern european codes for the treatment of captured nobility are the rules of good behaivor?

Well.... those same codes are why you would generally put captured peasants to the sword. They garnished no ransom after all...

And they apply to so few of the people engaged in warfare, and in a context of warfare that was limited warfare, not total warfare. Codes of civilry have no place in a form of warfare that involves home invasion, slaughter, pillaging, and plundering.

Contrast Civilry against Viking concepts.

And... it still fails to say why there is any evil in it. It's an example of a code yes, one more of honor (and law) however, and not so much an issue of ethics / morality.

Modern ideals of Chivalry are however, a bit different than historical ones...

But does that mean that to be good you -have- to be a paladin? I thought that worked the other way around...

 

[Dragongirl]

Good and evil is generally a matter of one's religion. Obviously you already made your decision that it is not evil. If you are the DM then go with that, it's your game.

 

[Lenelie]

Adhered to or not the Geneva Convention is a good idea. Once you take away their weapons and ability to fight back, killing prisoners is essentially murder. Morally justified or not that is what it boils down to imo.

Lenelie

 

[demadog]

Oh man I see a chance to use a Gandalf quote....must resist...must resist.

 

[Mouseferatu]

All right, try this.

The reason some people consider killing in war as justifiable is because it's basically a question of self-defense. Sure, it's larger than "him vs. me," but it still boils down to that in the end. The idea is, in essence, "I may morally kill my enemy because he is dangerous to me."

Once someone is disarmed and taken prisoner, they no longer pose a threat. Look at the self-defense argument. If some guy's coming at you with a knife, you can legally kill him in self-defense. If, however, you instead break his arm and knock him out, he no longer poses a threat--and you can no longer legally kill him.

That's why some people feel that it's okay to kill the goblins when they're fighting back but not after they've surrendered. It's no longer justifiable, because they're no longer dangerous.

Note that I'm not necessarily this is the only reason for feeling this way; I'm just pointing it out as one possibility.

 

[Maldur]

Its basically the difference between: fighting and execution.

IMO the lawful good cleric should stabilise all. Not just his comrades in arms.

But this argument is old. It boils down to inherent evil and taught evil.