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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Viktyr Gehrig" data-source="post: 596987" data-attributes="member: 9249">I find this moral logic puzzling. How can an act be Good, or Neutral, for a group to perform, if it is Evil for an individual? If anything, this is a discussion of Lawful versus non-Lawful behavior, and even within that context, the Lawful character might be within his rights (and his alignment) to kill the prisoners. Lawful alignment relates both to a personal code of honor and an interest of preserving the group over the individual-- related concepts. However, not every code of honor will forbid killing someone who is helpless-- particularly if they became helpless as a result of dishonorable or unlawful actions.  As for group/society cohesion, the scale is roughly balanced between preserving the rule of law and maintaining the safety of its weaker citizens. Bandits are a threat to civil society, and not every traveler is as powerful as the adventuring party. By killing the bandits, they are preventing other innocent travelers from being accosted. This can be arguably considered a Lawful act-- local laws determine whether or not it is legal, but unless the bandits are secretly members of the nobility or are working for the local ruler, chances are the local authorities (especially of the time) would applaud the heroes' actions. The biggest issue at stake is whether or not the character in question gave his word to the prisoners that they would not be slain without trial. While this would normally be part of agreeing to surrender, it is not always the case-- many field surrenders consist of nothing more than throwing your weapon down and screaming "MOMMY!" until the combat is over. Even then, a loose moral guideline like an alignment should allow for the occasional lie-- only a Paladin or other knightly, code-bound character should suffer for one breach.</blockquote>

Verification