Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr. Strangemonkey" data-source="post: 593811" data-attributes="member: 6533">This may be a more pragmatic response then anyone is looking for, but......too this most more in the realm of specific vocational ethics than general morality there are a variety of precedents.  Specifically I think that the situation of most adventuring parties is really more specific to the problems of ultra-light forces than total or non-total warfare.  Which brings in two points:1.) PCs generally operate under motivations and goals that are distinct from those which motivate larger formations of armed men on a basic level of organization not too mention the very real liklihood that they are not operating under the strict politicial ethics of most armies.To illustrate: special forces or the Texas Rangers operate under very different protocols than regular military or police units and PCs are even less regular than they are.  Heck PCs are often less regular than Conquistadors.2.) PCs are nearly always operating very remotely from both support and control.To rephrase a dynamic of the orginal question:Why should you be worried about the ethics of not killing prisoners or pausing to take prisoners in any sort of traditional sense when you have already justified throwing down in the traditional we're a band of four people and we have both the means and the need to go in and wipe out a village in order to achieve or will?That question seems more discrete than the simple question of total v limited warfare as you are already operating outside of the political and social context of warfare or civil behavior.And it does seem to me to dodge the many of the moral requisites that govern prisoner taking in warfare.  After all American Special Forces, to qoute as best I can and blindly, "do not encourage" prisoners.  On the one hand you're not operating in that context and on the other you can't really support them in any sort of ethical manner.So no, I see no imperative for adventurers to take prisoners.Now, going out of your way to kill everyone does seem unprofessional for adventurers and a waste of time and a party could have its own reasons for taking prisoners......but a party should expect that there will be nasty consequences as a result of not taking prisoners.I do, however, see a larger moral question that most parties do not address well, and that is how closely are the adhering to what justification, if any, gives them the right to act in the near totally unorthodox manner that most parties do?I do think there are justifications, but I think that parties often assume them where they require special attention in any sort of larger moral context such as both alignment and the real world.</blockquote>

Verification