Why is it evil to kill the prisoners?

[Kichwas]

What I don't get is the insistence that a D&D world must exactly follow the mores of vaguely medieval Western Europe, with all the stuff about peasants being worthless and preserving nobles and so forth. Remember, people, we GMs can make up anything we want.

The problem though... is that modern morality would make the killing of Orc, Goblins, Kobolds, and even black Dragons just because they are what they are wrong...

The dynamics of a constant race-war in D&D do not fit modern morality. They fit the morality used in those times in history when civilizations have clashed in total genocidal war in order to win access to resources, wealth, territory, and security.

The moment you can find it aceptable to make the statement that a given group of people are evil and must be wiped out, you can no longer use most of modern moral arguments -which are based on the principle that everyone is inheritantly equally capable of being on the same moral footing.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I saw Two Towers last night. In it there's a scene where they offer to kill an Orc quickly if he tells them were Aragon is... Was this an evil act then? The orc is no longer a combatant, and yet they offer him no option of mercy.

The orc was dying, as witnessed by the fact that he kicked the bucket not long after they began speaking. What they offered him was mercy--a quick end rather than a slow one.

Plus, remember that the orcs here are an artificially created race that is inherently evil. No change of heart, no chance for redemption--heck, they apparently don't even have young.

Not the same as a captured human prisoner, however vile, nor as an orc in the average D&D setting where they are capable of redemption.

For the record, I never meant to argue that it's never justifiable to kill the prisoners. Sometimes it is. Sometimes there's no choice. I, and others, just wanted to provide reasons why it's not always justifiable.

 

[Oni]

I saw Two Towers last night. In it there's a scene where they offer to kill an Orc quickly if he tells them were Aragon is... Was this an evil act then? The orc is no longer a combatant, and yet they offer him no option of mercy.

The problem with this is that in Middle Earth orcs are utterly corrupted they are evil without question. In other worlds this isn't always the case, when you start cutting down beings that have the potential for good then the morality of it all becomes more fuzzy.

 

[Sulimo]

Re: 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?

Probably not, but thats because the alignment system is flawed in this regard. It was built with a modern Christian outlook, and thus applying it to much older social orders just doesnt work. IMO.

 

[baradtgnome]

what happens when the shoe is on the other foot?

Are the party members ever taken captive? Presumably not by 'good aligned' monsters. That really does not address the good vs evil thing. But it does make the PCs think about summary execution.

Also, if in the 'world' the DM creates prisoners are never taken, (no quarter taken, none given) then everyone would fight to the death. Why would anyone every surrender? Or a reasonably intelligent creature would understand that you have no place to keep a prisoner, and would be unlikely to let them go, so would naturally fight to the death. This would make it harder to interrigate bad guys, they would have no motive to spill the beans.

These aren't necessarily good vs evil issues, just practical considerations in adventuring.

The good vs evil part comes in how the DM defines good vs evil. If a demon can be nothing but CE, then a LG would certainly slay it. If it is considered "fact" by the participants that Orcs are evil with no redemption, then killing of any Orcs would be to add to the greater good. Just don't enjoy it too much.

 

[Umbran]

The problem though... is that modern morality would make the killing of Orc, Goblins, Kobolds, and even black Dragons just because they are what they are wrong...

The dynamics of a constant race-war in D&D do not fit modern morality.

Hm. In my experience, D&D games don't involve "constant race-war". Good aligned PCs rarely get proactive. They don't say, "Hey, orcs are evil, let's go out and kill some just for the heck of it." They don't have orc-hunts instead of deer or fox hunts.

The more usual situation is that PCs learn that orcs (or what have you) are causing trouble, and they then head out to stop that trouble.

That's a big, big difference, morally speaking.

 

[Bonedagger]

Funny thing this concept of a greater good and evil so many want to play by. This group of people seem to agree that good and evil is a higher truth that is not subjective. Now they just have to agree on what that is.

 

[mythago]

The problem though... is that modern morality would make the killing of Orc, Goblins, Kobolds, and even black Dragons just because they are what they are wrong...

We're not talking about fighting Orcs; we're talking about killing helpless prisoners. Two different issues.

IMO, a Good character asks whether it would be worse to kill the helpless prisoner or to release him, especially in light of other possible options. Pure vengeance ("But he tried to KILL ME!") is not an option.

On the "races of evil" idea: In the D&D game I'm in, there are Goblin kingdoms to the north. They have gotten organized under strong leaders, and have declared that they are now independent nations. They have also declared that they will stay in their lands and expect the humans to do the same.

So, should we go wipe them out? They're EVIL GOBLINS, right? But they are doing no harm to the humans. They are, it seems, actually staying in their lands. To bring in armies to wipe them out would not be smart, much less Good.

As has been pointed out, in LoTR orcs are irredeemably evil. They are tainted and corrupted by Sauron. In D&D they tend toward evil, because of their culture--not because of the Dark Lord. It's entirely possible that there could be good Orcs, or that an Orc baby raised in a human or half-orc community could grow up to be a decent person.

 

[GungHo]

Then again, there's a possiblity the orc baby will one day "escape" human captivity and lead its orc brothers in a newer, smarter conquest.

That still doesn't mean you should crack his skull.

 

[DDK]

I saw Two Towers last night. In it there's a scene where they offer to kill an Orc quickly if he tells them were Aragon is... Was this an evil act then? The orc is no longer a combatant, and yet they offer him no option of mercy.

I think that is a different situation altogether.

An example is the argument I have with a long-time friend and gamer-buddy. He likes paladins but we always have the same problem about defining evil and good actions.

In the end, we came to a compromise which I think works for this argument and the TT mention above.

Basically, you have to decide the metaphysical mechanics of the world. Either creatures are BORN evil/good, or they have free will.

In the case of LotR, the orcs and urak-hai are BORN evil. They will never be anything else but evil. It is in their very blood to be evil. They are entirely corrupted by evil. Killing them is essentially striking a blow directly against evil.

However, in a D&D world, if you can have good orcs, then essentially that means orcs have free will to choose. And in such a case, it's evil to murder in cold blood. So unless you decide to have racial alignment absolutes, I say it's evil.