Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kichwas" data-source="post: 576837" data-attributes="member: 891">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.</blockquote>

Verification