Why is it evil to kill the prisoners?

[Celtavian]

Very dependent on situation and character...

For me personally, it depends on what type of character I am playing and the situation.

For example, my paladin did not take prisoners very often during the RttToEE even when we defeated the opponents or they surrendered. Why? He did not have the means to contain them nor the facilities to judge them.

This being the case, he judged them himself and carried out a sentence of death for conspiring to murder the world by releasing an evil power of madness and destruction. He did a few times release those men who had children hoping that they would find a reason to turn from evil. He also did not execute any elves because he believed that he could not end the life of a creature who lived many lifetimes beyond that of a man. He did not have the wisdom to judge a being who had a 1,000 years to turn from evil.

Normally, he would take prisoners in the hopes that they can be redeemed. This is in character for him because he is a worshipper of Lathander, the god of renewal, birth, and the morning. Even though they don't specifically detail his faith, I believe that Lathander's faith would push the idea of redemption. His followers would do their best to redeem any sentient being that might be redeemable.

This is completely a matter of character not just alignment. The situation also had an effect on my characters choice. They are both important factors to take into account when deciding what to do with prisoners, especially if they are of your own race.

On the other hand, I played a Barbarian who ruthlessly destroyed his enemies down to the last child. He was Chaotic Neutral and he had little love for those he fought against. He would kill them all and pile their corpses and burn them.

Quite a few times this made the good members of the party unhappy, but the barbarian would not allow his enemies to rebuild their strength and come after him again.

This is another example of a character trait rather than alignment. The barbarian had a certain philosophy about war, and his actions fit his philosophy.

I believe you can be any alignment and take prisoners if it is in character for you. Even an evil character might take prisoners and do a variety of things with them like conscript them into his army, sacrifice them to an evil god, ransom them or release them to build up his reputation.

It all depends on motivation and character. This should be the big determining factor as to why a PC would take a prisoner. Maybe you should take the time to ask your PC's why they are taking prisoners? Make them question their judgement and maybe their reasons will surprise you. Or maybe they will decide they have no reason to take prisoners after battles and just slaughter everyone.

Talk to you players. Part of your job as a DM is to help your players develop character traits during gameplay. If you are a player, ask the other players why they take prisoners. Give them something to think about.



One last thing to note. Most of the warriors of old were not good. Good people are people who follow certain values. One of those values includes being merciful to a fallen enemy.

If you have ever read Tolkien, then take a look at the conversation between Gandalf and Frodo concerning Gollum and why Bilbo did not kill him. Tolkien tries to convey that killing is not always the best way to deal with evil because most of those who are evil did not necessarily start out that way. It is unknown as to what will become of an evil person.

Who is to say that an evil person cannot be redeemed. Perhaps, most of your players who have good alignments choose to believe that good people should believe in the possibility of redemption and thus they must grant mercy to those who sue for it.

I am glad to see that quite a few people believe in the idea of mercy and redemption and choose to have their good characters react accordingly. I must admit that not many DM's take the time to roleplay this idea. Although I do think the underlying reason people don't slay the helpless is because they believe mercy is an important trait for a good person, even if they don't consciously say this is the reason.

Do not fault good players for being merciful. Mercy is a trait of the good.

 

[Zappo]

It's evil because good people aren't interested in killing the enemy, they are interested in defeating them. Killing is a necessary evil when you're being attacked, especially in D&D where not only a knocked-out foe can come back like new from the brink of death in a few days (without even taking into account magical healing). IRL, if you beat someone so hard that he would die in a few minutes, and then stabilize him, he would be out of action for months anyway.

But ultimately, good people don't break into someone's house to improve their fighting skills, loot their possessions, and kill them all. They do so, because that someone is evil and a danger to the land and possibly the world, but once that is no longer the case, there is no more reason to kill him.

 

[DDK]

Imagine standing in front of someone. They're on their knees, bloodied, dirty, sobbing. Your chest is heaving from the effort of putting him in that position. You've stripped him of his weapons and armour. He's tied up. In his eyes, you can see the fear.

You hold his head by his hair and pull it back to expose the throat. He struggles and cries in desperation but you've gagged him and so all you here is muffled pleas for mercy. You then slice his throat with your dagger. Blood gushes out, some even spurts ten foot away. You hear the gurgling of it in the mans throat and he coughs as he begins to die, not of blood loss, but from drowning in his own blood. The body convulses. The eyes go dim. You've just killed someone in cold blood.

Now imagine yourself in the place of the victim. Feel the desperation. The fear. The hand grabbing your hair. The knife against your throat. The sheer helplessness as you struggle to breathe. The pain. The anguish. And then everything fades to black.

And you say you can't see a reason why this is evil?

 

[Hand of Evil]

It is not if you do not define it as such.

If you look at history you will find a few peoples took anothers life after combat and it was considered right.

I think WE today have been condintioned to believe all life is important and that it is 'not right' thing to do. It is labeled savage, anamistic, barbarian.

 

[Numion]

So, in WW2 the allies should've executed each one of the germans after the war, because it would've been 'the right and good thing' to do? And all the japanese? Finnish? Italians?

In LotR they should've executed all captured human auxiliaries of Sauron & Saruman?

Whatever the rationale, doesn't sound too good to me. But people are quite adept at justifying most bizarre actions to themselves, so I'm sure someone will

 

[Elf Witch]

I think it really depends on who your enemy is. We had a situation in one of our games where we defeated a horde of goblins. The women and children surrendered to us. Some of the party including a cleric of ST Cuthbert felt that they needed to be killed that to let them go was to dangerous. Their kind had surronded and harrassed a city of humans for years and if we let these go they would join up and bred more. Some of the others in the party felt that to kill an enemy that had surrendered was an evil act, in the end they goblins were killed.

But what if the enemy had been soldiers from other country? Not evil creatures most of them of a good alingment who were doing what they had been ordered to do and being loyal to their king. Killing them after they had been captured is a very evil act and a dishonroble one as well.

 

[Nifft]

If the battle is one of State vs. State, where each State recognizes the other as a legitimate political entity, those states can make formal agreements about what is "just conduct" during war. Such agreements will only work so long as each side polices itself.

If the battle is between entities which do not recognize the legitimate right of the other to survive, there really are no rules. If you're fighting an enemy who will, if released, return to his horde and report on your strengths and weaknesses, it's insane to not kill him.

-- Nifft

 

[Numion]

If the battle is one of State vs. State, where each State recognizes the other as a legitimate political entity, those states can make formal agreements about what is "just conduct" during war. Such agreements will only work so long as each side polices itself.

If the battle is between entities which do not recognize the legitimate right of the other to survive, there really are no rules. If you're fighting an enemy who will, if released, return to his horde and report on your strengths and weaknesses, it's insane to not kill him.

-- Nifft

German vs. USSR was total war; they didn't respect any conventions. And I don't think that it could be seen as "good" actions.

On your second comments: are the only options kill or let go? What about imprisonment? Hel-lo?

 

[Nifft]

German vs. USSR was total war; they didn't respect any conventions. And I don't think that it could be seen as "good" actions.

Very much agree. Which is why state-vs-state combat, with both sides adhering to the Geneva Convention, is preferable.

On your second comments: are the only options kill or let go? What about imprisonment? Hel-lo?

I thought we were talking about PC parties, where the options were kill or release. Imprisonment is good if you've got the logistical infrastructure to implement it. Most parties don't -- hell, some armies don't.

-- Nifft

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Many of these historical figures most likely were not good. Can you give a historical example of a person who was good who savagely killed prisoners?

Most of the war leaders I have read about who killed prisoners were conquerors who wanted power or prejudice leaders who decided their enemies needed to be cleansed from the earth. Neither of these reasons is good.