Why is it evil to kill the prisoners?

[mythago]

Vikings? Taking prisoners was one of the GOALS of the Vikings.

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

OMG! Why do people insist on bringing real life situational ethics into a fantasy game?!? D&D alignment system isn't supposed to handle these situations. D&D is about telling stories and these stories follow a narrative. In this narrative there are good guys and bad guys, and the players decide whether or not they want to be the good guys or the bad guys by their actions. There is no justification necessary, no philosophical or hypothetical discourse is needed: Anybody can tell a hero's actions from a villain's!

Ask yourself, what does the players think they are doing? If they think they are being heroic, then they think they are doing good, and 99% of the time they are right! Don't tell the players that what they thought was heroic, was in fact villainous - that's craptalk. The players are usually perfectly able to make the distinction between what's heroic and what's villainous, and unless you think they aren't be truthful about their real intentions then there is no need to question their call.

Sure heroes sometimes have to make tough decisions. Sometimes they are faced with true dillemmas, but that doesn't make them less heroic. If the players decide they have to kill the prisoners that is a tough decision, but it isn't necessarily unheroic.

So stop making this more complicated than it is, when in fact it is about the easiest part of the game!

 

[I'm A Banana]

I explain it in following:

~Mercy. It is Good to show mercy. Mercy includes not killing those whom you loathe, and who have the ability to kill you. Mercy can tragically not be shown when you are being attacked, but that's why you don't go out to kill, you wait for the thing you're killing to make the first move. Otherwise, you're not Good. Maybe not Evil, but definately not Good. Probably more Neutral than anything. Surrendering is basically throwing yourself on the Mercy of those you surrender to. If those you are fighting have no capacity for Good, or believe you have no capacity for Good, surrender is not an option.

~Presence/Absence of Threat. When something has surrendered, it is no longer a threat. It is coldblooded and Evil to kill something that is not a threat. This, of course, doesn't apply when the creature would definately hurt you after release.

Using these to critera, some are free to surrender, and some are free to show mercy, but it's not an assumption.

I'd say killing an Assassin, while not a Good action, wasn't evil at the time...you release it, and it comes after you. No paladinhood lost.

See, it annoys me more when people use precieved problems to push their agenda...I've dealt with it very satisfactorially, I think. Just because you haven't is no reason to declare alignment useless and wrong...I mean, come on, accept different play styles.

 

[The Firstborn]

Quote:
Anybody can tell a hero's actions from a villain's!


If that were true then this question would not have been posted.

I believe the following is true when trying to determine whether an action is evil or not.

Not based on religion: There are religions that espouse all kinds of various things which one would you base it on.

Not based on culture: The idea that an action is not evil because the society from which the individual taking that action is from condones it is ludicrous. Actions are good or evil no matter what the culture allows. A culture can be evil if it is one which freely accepts or enforces actions that are evil in nature.

Not based on a code: Chivalry, Bushido or any other. Both are designed to allow a ruling class to rule. Both espouse might as right. They also claim that the warriors that are subject to it are due a certain respect from the commoners simply because of their station not because of their actions.

Not based on military accords: They are based on what heads of states of head deem right and wrong.

It is certainly not based on what one expects from others. Orcs do what they do because their society rewards the strong and granting mercy is a sign of weakness.

It is based on what one would want granted to them were they in the prisoner’s position. Mercy.
It is based on what one can be if the decision is made to do so. Merciful.

I wonder how many of us have ever run over a stray dog. I have purely by accident. It made me feel miserable because I watched the dog die unable to do anything about it. I cannot fathom what I would feel if I took the life of another human being when I had to in order to defend myself or to stop someone who was bringing harm to others let alone imagine the self loathing I would feel if I took the life of someone who surrendered to me. I believe that I would have to harden my heart to my own feelings and emotions in order deal with the pain I would feel from my actions. I would try to rationalize my behavior to myself and tell myself that I had no choice. But what about the next time I had to do it. It would probably be easier the second time. And then it would get even easier with each time after that. Eventually I would feel nothing at all as I slit the throat of my captive whilst they pleaded for their mercy. Wait then again maybe I would. I would feel powerful as I felt my victims hot blood spurt onto my skin. Oh what a thrill that would be. After all I would wield the power and life and death in my hands, raw power unlike anything else in the world. I would be as a god to these sniveling, wining beings. The light of fear in the eyes as I draw my blade forth, the momentary struggle, and then ecstasy as I draw my razor sharp blade across the neck of my helpless victim. The life of another person would be nothing to me except for an opportunity to enjoy a moment of pleasure. Just like Jeffrey Dahlmer, Albert De Salvo, Ted Bundy, etc… I WOULD HAVE BECOME A MONSTER. I HAVE BECOME A THING OF GREAT EVIL.


The following is not a line from the movie ‘Gladiator’ but rather from a Roman Emperor who was a great philosopher as well.

Quae in vita facimus in aeternitatem resonant.
What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
--Marcus Aurelius

I heard this next line in ‘Robin Hood – Prince of Thieves’.

Nobility is not a birthright, it is defined by ones actions.
--Robin Hood

I really like this next one.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.
--Friedrich Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil

In my mind these quotes sum up what defines who and what a person is to include whether that person is good or evil in his heart.

I have made my argument for whether the act is evil but I would like to make another argument for what can cause this issue to arise in the game.

Part of the problem with D&D is that to many DM’s think that if you free an orc he should:

A. Jump up the second you free him and try to grab your sword so that he can kill you.
B. Shadow you until he has an opportunity for revenge.
C. Lie to you so that he can lead you into a trap.
D. Or some other DM desired action that will punish the PC’s for being merciful which only ends up making PC’s unwilling to grant mercy to any captive.

What if instead the orc did the following:

A. Recognized the party as the powerful warriors they are and decided to serve them, as he would get more booty from being part of their group as opposed to his tribe.
B. Was honorable despite the fact the he is currently evil (redemption may be possible – XP for PC’s) and decides to pledge himself to the characters who argue to spare his life. It is possible to keep ones word even though you are evil. Remember most orcs are only evil because of their social norms.
C. Ran off, and did not warn his fellow orcs because he has had enough of his chief’s warmongering attitude and does not want to face the PC’s in battle again.
D. Something similar that gets the orc out the PC’s hair or makes him an ally.


By the way has the use of poison and whether the action is evil or not been discussed?

 

[nameless]

Quote:
Part of the problem with D&D is that to many DM’s think that if you free an orc he should:

A. Jump up the second you free him and try to grab your sword so that he can kill you.
B. Shadow you until he has an opportunity for revenge.
C. Lie to you so that he can lead you into a trap.
D. Or some other DM desired action that will punish the PC’s for being merciful which only ends up making PC’s unwilling to grant mercy to any captive.

What if instead the orc did the following:

A. Recognized the party as the powerful warriors they are and decided to serve them, as he would get more booty from being part of their group as opposed to his tribe.
B. Was honorable despite the fact the he is currently evil (redemption may be possible – XP for PC’s) and decides to pledge himself to the characters who argue to spare his life. It is possible to keep ones word even though you are evil. Remember most orcs are only evil because of their social norms.
C. Ran off, and did not warn his fellow orcs because he has had enough of his chief’s warmongering attitude and does not want to face the PC’s in battle again.
D. Something similar that gets the orc out the PC’s hair or makes him an ally.

This is a great example. All four of the first things are reasons to grant no quarter. If every prisoner set free automatically came back for revenge at the earliest feasible opportunity, then there would be little reason to take prisoners. However, any intelligent creature has a drive for self-preservation. Sure, there are thing out there (like Orcs) that are willing to risk death against personal gain. But that doesn't mean that they fanatically attack the same overpowering force until death.

Yes, mercy may mean that the problem comes back again to haunt either you or someone else. And if that is the case, then other tactics are necessary. If a DM had vanquished orc foes return in any meaninfgul timeframe, there had better be a good reason. Combat is a very dangerous and chaotic undertaking and probably shouldn't be risked except as a last resort. A wild dog might not learn from being beaten, but any halfway intelligent being should have enough sense not to throw their life away. That's what reneging on surrender usually is: throwing your life away.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

As a caveat I do agree that this is a fantasy game and genre considerations do make it really easy to make a decision.

But one of the freedoms of role-playing is that you can confront the complications without being bound by the realities, consequences, and anxieties that make real life so much more gruesome.

So yeah, this question has a lot of simple answers, but that's no reason to deny yourself the productivity and fun that can be had from approaching the complicated responses as well.

 

[Kraedin]

You are accosted by highwaymen while traveling. You defeat them in combat, and take two prisoner. You can now:

A)Execute them.
B)Release them.
C)Turn them over to the authorities.

Options A and C almost certainly lead to the death of the prisoners. Option B does not immediately lead to the death of the prisoner, but they will likely be captured eventually, leading to death.

All options result in the death of the prisoners, yet A is considered evil. That does seem rather odd.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But there's a LOT of moral implications in it. If you've taken a prisoner, you've rendered the foe helpless.

When is it good to take a helpless life?

I'd argue Never. If you take it anyway to prevent it from coming back later, that's Neutral (understandable, bt not incredibly heroic). If you kill them because they wanted te kill you, that's Evil (taking vengeance, and thus having pleasure in their death).

Even if he's put to death by the guards that eventually capture him, is that a Good thing? Wouldn't it be better to keep him helpless so that he can be persuaded to come around? And isn't it up to the Law to determine if the man was justified in his actions (if the society was a Good one, they certainly wouldn't begrudge a poverty-stricken man who was starving and whose house had been taken by a corrupt noble...you have to take into account the motive for the action).

But that's why most people are Neutral and not Good. It'd be arguably foolish to *not* kill the bandit, because he could still hurt you. That, I think, is one of the hallmarks of Good. You do things that wouldn't nessecarily be in your best interest because it is the Right Thing to Do.

Though, I must say, I'm putting this into practice toot suite, to see how my PC's react to it.

 

[Alzrius]

You are accosted by highwaymen while traveling. You defeat them in combat, and take two prisoner. You can now:

A)Execute them.
B)Release them.
C)Turn them over to the authorities.

Options A and C almost certainly lead to the death of the prisoners. Option B does not immediately lead to the death of the prisoner, but they will likely be captured eventually, leading to death.

All options result in the death of the prisoners, yet A is considered evil. That does seem rather odd.

Option A is considered evil because taking the life of a helpless person is considered wrong. You assume that they will be eventually killed by someone if they are let go, but that is far from being certain, so we can write off option B as leading to death. Option C isn't evil because any republic is empowered by its constituant citizens to be able to legally kill people. In essence, the authority figures declare it to be okay, so it is. Thats why legal executions are not murder. Hence, not evil. Doesn't seem odd at all.

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

As a caveat I do agree that this is a fantasy game and genre considerations do make it really easy to make a decision.

But one of the freedoms of role-playing is that you can confront the complications without being bound by the realities, consequences, and anxieties that make real life so much more gruesome.

So yeah, this question has a lot of simple answers, but that's no reason to deny yourself the productivity and fun that can be had from approaching the complicated responses as well.

Very true.

However, let me reitereate my argument: If the players play the part of the heroes - and does so in earnest - their actions should almost always be considered Good. I would find it very annoying if my DM put me in a dilemma where I had to make a tough choice just to tell me afterwards that the choice I made was evil?!? No, it wasn't. It was a difficult decision - a dilemma.

Whom to save? The life in front of you or the several lives away from you?

Heroes have to make tough decisions quite often. That doesn't make them less heroic, less good.

I guess, what I am really saying is, don't penalize the players for having to make hard decisions. Those are indeed a very interesting part of roleplaying. But don't try to entrap them. If the players want to play the part of the heroes they will automatically do the right thing - whatever that may be. The choice they take, they take as heroes.

Now, I'm not saying that the choice they take shouldn't have consequences. If they chose to break the law, people will want to punish them, but let the consequences be In Game; don't tamper with the players idea of the PCs as heroes unless you really believe the players don't play the part.

Originally posted by The Firstborn
Anybody can tell a hero's actions from a villain's!

If that were true then this question would not have been posted.

But it is nonetheless almost always the truth. Remember, D&D isn't portraying reality with all the ambiguities that brings with it. D&D is a game, and the game mechanics are constructed in consideration of the genre, the narrative of fantasy fiction. Thus, there are heroes (Good guys), villains (Bad guys), and people who are neither (Neutral guys). The heroes doesn't suddenly become villains because of a difficult decision: It would break the narrative (and common sense). When Good guys become Evil, they do so because of significant plot devices. The DM doesn't just snap her fingers and switch the alignment. That would be unfair to the PC's player into the extreme.