Where is the line between "Killing" and "Murder"?

[Rainman3769]

Hey Playground,

This issue has come up in my D & D 5th ed. campaign. My party consists of a mix ranging from Lawful Neutral to Choatic Evil, and as you can imagine there have been some butting of heads to say the least. In last night's session, the party was THIS close to fighting each other but after narrowly getting cooler heads to prevail, decided writing up a Code of Conduct would be the best way to go. While I already know that process will have its own headaches, arguments and compromises, I had a question I could use some outer influence on.

The first point of the Code is that no party member shall commit murder unless it is unanimously agreed upon. My question is what should be considered murder? I mean, my gut says getting attacked and killing someone while defending yourself is not murder. But what if someone tries to surrender and end the fight but they are struck down anyway? What then? What if an enemy surrenders and begs for his life? But you just KNOW he will lick his wounds and try to kill you again later? What then? These are not examples of what happened in my game, just hypotheticals. With such an alignment array in my campaign I know there will be differing opinions, and I need help coming up with a good middle ground.

Thanks in advance for any and all!

[Esprit15]

Intentional killing that is not in self defense. You already have the caveat of having to agree to it, or I would include that. No stabbing the bartender because you don't like his mustache. No killing more people on a job than is required for the job to get done. However, if assassins jump you, kill them. If the other guy swings first in an argument, have at his kidneys.

Compromise by avoiding instigation, but allowing them to go all out if things escalate. Make sure to have a clause that also discourages encouraging conflict with others.

Really though, the CE guy(s) will do as they please, eventually. They'll just wait until they know they can get away with it.

[Vitruviansquid]

Well, this is highly subjective and would depend on what kind of morality your campaign setting models.

Why not go back to your group and say, "alright guys... we gotta change this murder clause"

[Daishain]

Killing someone that has surrendered is murder, period. The players represent neither the judicial system nor are appointed executioners of the same.

That stated, I would claim that a recurring villain doesn't get mercy regardless. It may be murder, but it is better than the alternative.

[LibraryOgre]

Murder is unlawful killing. Depends a lot on the setting; if you read the Icelandic sagas, killings became murder if not promptly reported, and certain other conditions weren't met. However, outlaws were literally those who were outside the law... the law protected normal people, but you could kill an outlaw without legal repercussions.

In terms of D&D, this usually means that killing bandits and humanoids is completely ok; they are outside of the laws, and so not protected. It gets a bit more dicey with half-orcs (and sil-karg, if you have those), since they MAY be humans, but with half-elves, elves, and dwarves, the standard fantasy realm considers them "people", if not a special class of people. An example, from Joel Rosenberg's "Not Quite Scaramouche": dwarves were specially invited to the Empire, and so molesting them raised things above merely a local matter, and into an Imperial matter. You mess with the dwarves, and the Baron MUST step in, because if he doesn't the Emperor will, and the dwarves (who bring expertise and mining work) might leave.

[Red Fel]

Pretty much what others have said. Murder is a killing that does not carry certain recognized justifications. What are some justifications?

Self-Defense: You can kill someone who poses a real, mortal threat to you. Defense of Others: You can kill someone who poses a real, mortal threat to others. It's Evil: In D&D, killing something inherently Evil is always a Good act, so I'm pretty sure it's not considered murder. It's Not Alive: Killing something that isn't alive (e.g. an undead) or never was alive (e.g. an inanimate object or golem) isn't murder. Caveat: You might have an issue if it is intelligent. But you probably won't. It's Not a Person: In an anthropocentric society, animals and other unintelligent lifeforms are at best property, not people. If it's not considered a person (e.g. it's an animal), killing it isn't murder. Caveat: If it's someone else's animal, killing it may still be frowned upon.
That, I think, is a fairly comprehensive, if not exclusive, list of scenarios where you could kill something in D&D and be reasonably confident it's not murder.

[jedipotter]

The first point of the Code is that no party member shall commit murder unless it is unanimously agreed upon.

This really depends...

Murder is planning to kill someone. It's killing someone on purpose.

Self Defense is not murder, per say, as your not planning to do it. So if your attacked, your not planning on killing someone. Unless, of course, you walk into their path or give them a reason to attack you. You can't walk into someones home, wait for them to attack you and then kill them in self defense.

You get three types of Good:

1. Classic Pure Good--This type of good Never Kills Ever. And yes, in any crazy way you can come up with this type of good never kills. Ever! The only way this type of good will ever kill is by mistake( you know where they duck and the bad guy swings and falls off a cliff ''killing themselves''). This type of good will always give a second chance, infinite times. This type of good will always let an evil person go, full well knowing that they will come back and cause trouble and even kill again and again.

Your typical Disney Good, Cartoon Good and Kid Good is this type of good. You can also see it in adult stuff, a great example is : Saving Private Ryan. Where Captain Tom Hanks lets Evil Nazi Killer Klaud go and has him promise to ''do no more evil''. And who does Klaud come back to kill at the end of the movie....yea, guess.

2.Classic Good This good, sort of tries to be like pure good, but not 100% and not all the time. they will save some, not save others, help some and not help others based on some strange and weird sense of right and wrong. So they can sort of still be good with the ''I can murder-death-kill in self defense because I'm an insane killing machine...sometimes, if I want to be and it is me personally making the call for myself. But others must try to be the Classic Pure Good.

This is the typical good you see in most fiction. The characters will ''try'' to be good, but only to a point.

3.Extreme Good This good is just as ''bad'' as the most Evil you can think of...except that it is good. Extreme Good can do anything....the ends justify any means....as long as it is good. This type of good has no problem with killing, anyone anywhere any time, with the full ''if you are not with us, your against us''. They believe in the good of the many over the good of the few, and yes, would even kill tons of innocents to kill a demon lord.

This type of good is common in lots of myths and stories, but does not really ''fit in'' to the modern world, so you don't see it much in fiction. The ''good celestials and such'' in Supernautral come close as do a lot of the ''good'' celestials in the Good Book ish type movies, such as the movie Dogma.


So you need to pick a type of Good that is Good for your world.

[Knaight]

There isn't a line between killing and murder; murder is a subset of killing. In a legal sense it's a killing which is illegal, in a moral sense it's generally used for a killing that is considered morally unacceptable. In modern societies, killing people who have surrendered tends to trip both of those (though there are moral codes which are totally fine with it).

In societies able to function, most killing will be murder. However, as Red Fel says, there are generally exceptions. Self defense is often one, at least within certain restrictions. Cutting down someone who swings a fist or killing someone when escape would be really easy are often frowned upon in modern society, and the first of these is generally frowned upon even in a lot of older societies. Others for consideration, which are generally more a matter of genre convention or historical basis and not modern mores:

Duels.
Revenge Killings.
Killing in response to insult.
Killing families of enemies.
Killing those of a lower class than yourself.


So on and so forth. You'll probably want to establish setting specifics, which could easily be highly variable between setting cultures.

[SiuiS]

Hey Playground,

This issue has come up in my D & D 5th ed. campaign. My party consists of a mix ranging from Lawful Neutral to Choatic Evil, and as you can imagine there have been some butting of heads to say the least. In last night's session, the party was THIS close to fighting each other but after narrowly getting cooler heads to prevail, decided writing up a Code of Conduct would be the best way to go. While I already know that process will have its own headaches, arguments and compromises, I had a question I could use some outer influence on.

The first point of the Code is that no party member shall commit murder unless it is unanimously agreed upon. My question is what should be considered murder? I mean, my gut says getting attacked and killing someone while defending yourself is not murder. But what if someone tries to surrender and end the fight but they are struck down anyway? What then? What if an enemy surrenders and begs for his life? But you just KNOW he will lick his wounds and try to kill you again later? What then? These are not examples of what happened in my game, just hypotheticals. With such an alignment array in my campaign I know there will be differing opinions, and I need help coming up with a good middle ground.

Thanks in advance for any and all!

"Murder" is a strictly legal term. Other than that, I cannot tell you and wouldn't die to forum rules if I could pin it down clearer. But some RL research may help.

[Friv]

Yeah, pretty much. Legally speaking, it depends on the society you're in. Some societies might say that once someone tries to kill you, them surrendering doesn't remove the initial debt and you can legally kill them anyway. Other societies will say that you are bound by law and honor to accept a fair surrender (i.e. a surrender from someone who hasn't already tried to surrender for ten seconds to stab you as soon as you look away), and that you have to ransom that person off to their colleagues or take them to the dungeon or something.

Generally, self-defense is pretty safe. Destroying things that the law doesn't consider people is pretty safe. Depending on the setting, it may not be murder to be hired by the local lord to wipe out a bandit camp, since you're acting as officers of the court passing a sentence.

On the flip side, it's certainly possible (probable, even) that this isn't quite what the party was thinking of when they wrote that agreement. In that case, go with whatever's legal in your place of residence (probably limited to self-defense or very immediate defense of others, but what do I know).

[Mastikator]

Anything that isn't self defense or accidental is murder. If you plan it then it's murder in first degree.

[jedipotter]

So on and so forth. You'll probably want to establish setting specifics, which could easily be highly variable between setting cultures.


The tricky thing to remember is comparing 21st century Western Good definitions of Murder and Killing to well any century from 1st to 18th ish or so....not to mention a fantasy world.

[veti]

Sounds flip, but technically murder is "premeditated, unlawful killing". "Premeditated" doesn't have to mean you sat down and planned it, it can be a momentary thing. You don't even have to be consciously trying to kill someone, so long as you could have "reasonably foreseen" (or some such formula, IANAL and TINLA) that your actions might result in someone's death in some way that you could reasonably have prevented.

"Unlawful" is actually fairly simple: it applies to any killing that isn't covered by a very limited range of special cases/exceptions. What those "exceptions" are, is a matter of your campaign setting. Possible options might include:

Self-defence
Protecting others, or property, from a grave and imminent threat
Acts of war
Legally sanctioned execution
Formal duel
Fair fight
Fair fight outside the bounds of a city/other controlled space
Officially contracted assassination, sanctioned by a duly authorised body

[Knaight]

Anything that isn't self defense or accidental is murder. If you plan it then it's murder in first degree.

There's an obvious hole here for military actions. There's another in some places for assisted suicide. There's yet another in some places regarding property defense or trespassing. Those are just the first three that came to mind, this definition doesn't hold up. Plus, accidental killings can still be murder - to use a really obvious example, accidentally shooting someone with a warning shot is going to be considered murder basically anywhere - so the definition breaks there as well.

[hamishspence]

Murder is unlawful killing. Depends a lot on the setting; if you read the Icelandic sagas, killings became murder if not promptly reported, and certain other conditions weren't met. However, outlaws were literally those who were outside the law... the law protected normal people, but you could kill an outlaw without legal repercussions.

In terms of D&D, this usually means that killing bandits and humanoids is completely ok; they are outside of the laws, and so not protected.

In Cityscape, many "non-PC humanoids" exist in cities - even if as an underclass. There are hobgoblin hirelings, orc labourers, and so forth.

In DMG2, (page 103) it says "The law forbids bounty hunters to harm outlaws after they surrender". So it may be possible for the term "murder" to apply even to outlaws, in a D&D context.

[Mastikator]

There's an obvious hole here for military actions. There's another in some places for assisted suicide. There's yet another in some places regarding property defense or trespassing. Those are just the first three that came to mind, this definition doesn't hold up. Plus, accidental killings can still be murder - to use a really obvious example, accidentally shooting someone with a warning shot is going to be considered murder basically anywhere - so the definition breaks there as well.

Yeah but I thought this thread was specifically about what constitutes murder in the context of a party of adventurers. They made a code of conduct to only commit murder if everyone gives consent. Which means self defense and accidental is the only circumstance that it's not murder.

[jedipotter]

However, outlaws were literally those who were outside the law... the law protected normal people, but you could kill an outlaw without legal repercussions.

In terms of D&D, this usually means that killing bandits and humanoids is completely ok; they are outside of the laws, and so not protected. .


Yea, this does get complicated. A D&D world has a lot of intelligent creatures and people. And there is no ''Federation'' or ''United Nations'' or ''International Law''. Each race pretty much has their own laws for their own people. And you could say every race is very Enlightened with the ''Melting Pot'' philosophy that all races are equal....but then again, there is no reason for any race to do that. And just going by the fluff, it would not seem that say human laws would apply to goblins or that orc laws would apply to elves even if they lived in the same society. So a lot of places would not even consider other races protected under the law. And that is just for the ''like human'' races, and there are tons of intelligent races that are non humanoid and nothing like humans.

Take Klingon Law, for an example: If someone kills your family member or mate, you can go to that person and challenge them to a duel. If they or you die in the fight, then there is no legal repercussions. This is allowed under Klingon Law. But the Federation does not agree: walking into someones home, challenging them to a fight and killing them is murder. Cardaisan law has you guilty until proven innocent and trials are just for show as the verdict is known well before the trial. And again, the Federation does not agree with this practice.

So each law is right...in their lands, but not elsewhere....

[Algeh]

For the purposes of what you actually care about (reducing intraparty conflict in a D&D campaign), I suggest that trying to define "murder" is probably not the most helpful way to go about this. Probably having a more freewheeling discussion on "in what kind of situations am I allowed to kill someone without checking with the party first" which doesn't try to sort it into "murder" and "not murder" but rather "party is ok with that" versus "party is not ok with that without input" would get a better sense of where everyone is on the issue. The problem with the word "murder" is that everyone thinks they know what it means, but (in the context of "what is ok to do in a D&D party") everyone is probably working from different enough assumptions that the term itself creates more problems than it solves.

Some situations to discuss (I'm making this list knowing this is for an at least partly evil party):
- Enemy surrendered, but we don't really want to keep an eye on him, because that's a lot of work
- That guy in the bar is becoming personally irritating to me
- Intelligent humanoid/monster/whatever but not default/typical PC race
- Armed group, therefore might attack us in the future
- Paladin
- Alignment we generally dislike
- Has lots of shiny things and no one else is looking
- Attacked us first, but not much of a threat
- We heard a rumor, which we have not confirmed, that they are working against us
- Caster appears to be starting to cast a spell of some kind
- Belongs to a group I've ticked off in the past, so they're probably out to get me

and so on. Some of these many parties would consider fair game, depending on surrounding circumstances, others very few parties would. It really doesn't matter which are "murder" in any given jurisdiction (well, it does if your characters get caught and it's murder in whatever jurisdiction they're in), just which the rest of the party will put up with. Taking away a loaded term like "murder" will probably make the discussion go more smoothly and be more likely to stay D&D focused rather than digressing into real world "what if" arguments.

[Cerlis]

Well if yall are being serious then you should understand there is no line. There is Murder. There is Understandable Murder (Like vengence) and then there is justifiable Murder (capitol punishment) and most law enforcement in most towns would be a bit horrified by a bunch of random people doing any of those. Towns severally hurt (read: many citizens tortured, enslaved and murdered) would overlook such action though.

What you need to do though before you waste any more time spend any time on this document (or more time) is sit down with the players themselves and ask then (speaking for the sake of a good game) what they want this game to be (A serious storytelling experience, a sandbox gta game, ect..). Its most likely that like my most recent party* that everyone is just treating the game differently. One person is useless because she's just screwing around in a sandbox. One is trying to honestly play their character, one is in GTA 6 :Dragon Bugaloo

If this is true then hopefully you can convince the moral characters to have a more protagonist centered morality (like is lampshaded by Elan in Order of the Stick with his "Yay, the people who's names I know are alive") while convincing the murder hobos that its not in their best interest to keep picking fights and burning bridges (because that Huge dragon might just be a teenager dragon with a pissed off mother)

For instance my character is suppose to be Neutral good. But she's a teenage Dragonborn (13 yrs old) with a personality based on Kora (the Avatar). Well meaning and trying to do her best at what is right but obtuse, not subtle and prone to aggression. Via her Naive personality combined with a little strong-arming certain party members (and manipulating them) as well as a few subversive tactics (Like secretly getting alone with the prisoner to get him to give them the directions he was going to give then untying him ) i've manage to succeed in playing in this party without having to alter her character.

However, i think its most likely that there are just some players that came up with admirable characters and dont want to taint the mental image they have of them, while others just want to play GTA6:Dragon Bugaloo. In which this contract is simply a bandaid.

*My character is a Neutral Good grey dragonborn cleric who is young inexperienced, reckless and aggressive but trying to "do the right thing". We have a "Lawful evil" played Chaotic evil Blue Dragonborn who likes to torture people and his first reaction to conflict is killing it. We just got rid of a Chaotic Neutral (The other evil) warlock who nearly killed us when he started a fight by blasting some bandits in the face (or rather blasting the wood next to his face, and failing to be useful that fight), and a Chaotic Good Druid who sees the entire world as an excuse to use her cool powers like giving flowers to tortured goblins covered in their own filth from almost getting slaughted by us to make them feel better.

So basic D&D party.

[Nobot]

Murder is taking a life with "malice aforethought". It must not be done on a whim or 'in the heat of the moment'. An example would be to have an argument in the tavern, get your ass kicked by the taverner and sneak into his house the next night with a +5 Dagger of Slaying to kill him in his sleep.

Manslaughter is taking a life in the heat of the moment or on a whim. An example would be to have an argument in the tavern, engage in jolly old fisticuffs, but getting carried away and stabbing someone to death with the dagger you keep in your boot. In my opinion, killing someone who surrendered, immediately after he surrendered, might fall in this category. This is debatable.

Involuntary manslaughter is taking a life unintentionally through negligence / carelessness. An example would be to carelessly leave your +2 Vase of Flowerholding on a second floor windowsill that is too narrow to hold it. It falls and lands on someone, killing him.

And then we have self-defence with excessive force. An example would be getting robbed by an unarmed robber and respond by Phantasmal killer, Finger of death or Meteor swarm.

This is my jurisdiction, though, which is known to be a bit rough on the vigilante.

[hamishspence]

Murder is taking a life with "malice aforethought". It must not be done on a whim or 'in the heat of the moment'. An example would be to have an argument in the tavern, get your ass kicked by the taverner and sneak into his house the next night with a +5 Dagger of Slaying to kill him in his sleep.

Manslaughter is taking a life in the heat of the moment or on a whim. An example would be to have an argument in the tavern, engage in jolly old fisticuffs, but getting carried away and stabbing someone to death with the dagger you keep in your boot. In my opinion, killing someone who surrendered, immediately after he surrendered, might fall in this category. This is debatable.

"Second degree murder" seems to fill the gap between First Degree Murder (which requires premeditation) and Manslaughter.

[Jay R]

People have been trying to figure this out for thousands of years. We're not likely to come up with a complete answer in this thread.

Start with some general principles, and then make judgement calls based on the exact details of each specific situation. This is (part of) why most civilized societies use judges and/or juries.

[Mr.Moron]

The correct responses have been given in posts #1 and #6. Though I'd add the caveat "If it's evil" probably only applies to things that embody evil inherently, rather than beings with true free will. That part is kind of up to personal taste though.

[Slipperychicken]

what if someone tries to surrender and end the fight but they are struck down anyway?

When you deliver the final blow with a melee weapon, choose to KO the guy instead of killing him.



What if an enemy surrenders and begs for his life? But you just KNOW he will lick his wounds and try to kill you again later?

Then restrain him, kill him, or throw him in jail. Just don't let him go free.

[Frozen_Feet]

People have been trying to figure this out for thousands of years. We're not likely to come up with a complete answer in this thread.

If you want a complete answer, crack open the lawbook of your nation-of-residence and stick to it.

The funny thing is, though, that for all the semantics concerning the various categories of homicide, most people don't need to be told them to keep away from those sorts of behaviour. The fact that you need to resort to, not just rules lawyering, but actual lawyering is a sign of commendable levels of Lawful Evil in the party. :smalltongue:

[Rondodu]

This issue has come up in my D & D 5th ed. campaign.

[…]

My question is what should be considered murder?[…]
I don’t think this is the right question to ask. I think the right questions to ask are “What would my character consider murder?” and “What would the group consider murder?” None of which we can give you a definite answer to.

This is an in-character question. Sure, we can debate what actual societies consider murder and discuss premeditation and other stuff. Such debate can help you decide what your character believe is murder, but that’s it. Whatever you (out-of-character), we or various societies consider to be murder is irrelevant. Some characters might come from a culture where revenge is considered OK; others might not.

Moreover this Code of yours applies inside your (in-character) group. What this group consider murder will be what is applied in the end. Disagreement might appear. Solutions to this issue include: carefully defining the terms beforehand (booooooring!); or heated (and possibly, bloody) debate over a freshly created corspe. Much more fun.

[sktarq]

Murder = killing someone who shares the same socio/legal covenant as the one declaring it such and in a manner not considered acceptable under that covenant.

[LibraryOgre]

In Cityscape, many "non-PC humanoids" exist in cities - even if as an underclass. There are hobgoblin hirelings, orc labourers, and so forth.

In DMG2, (page 103) it says "The law forbids bounty hunters to harm outlaws after they surrender". So it may be possible for the term "murder" to apply even to outlaws, in a D&D context.

Yeah, I don't play most of the newer editions; orcs are pretty much monsters-with-tools. Hobgoblins are more likely to have something resembling a nation, but they're separate from human societies, for the most part (aside from some limited interchange and trade). Half-orcs aren't much better than full orcs, and may be considered full orcs unless they're part of that lucky few who look human enough to pass.

As for the DMG2 quote? That's going to entirely up to the law, isn't it? The law there might forbid bounty hunters to harm outlaws after they surrender, but the law over here says "Don't bring me the whole body, just the part called for in the contract."

Heck, a lot of the 2e FR material more or less said "Rangers are the final authority on law while in the wilderness; they can do whatever they please and it is within the law."

[Aedilred]

"Second degree murder" seems to fill the gap between First Degree Murder (which requires premeditation) and Manslaughter.

The distinction between manslaughter and >1-degree murder is a blurred one. Essentially, manslaughter (in England&Wales at least) most likely arose as a way to convict people of homicide without having to apply the mandatory death sentence which was then in place (it's now a mandatory life sentence). Thus murder came to be defined narrowly, by intention (to kill or seriously wound) and any lesser culpability was manslaughter.

Manslaughter then got carved up into different classes - voluntary and involuntary; unlawful act, gross negligence, and so on, which accounts for the specifics of the case. Some jurisdictions have also introduced tiers of murder (the degrees) although their specific meaning varies by jurisdiction.

Second-degree murder seems to exist to take account of the emergence of a different interpretation of the mens rea sufficient for murder - usually recklnessness (rather than intention) will suffice and this is the way the law is usually applied (murder is still a common-law crime in England, rather than a statutory one). Second-degree murder explicitly makes recklessness sufficient for murder but of a type less serious than intention.

Of course, the definition of murder is largely if not entirely a legal one and not an ethical one, so looking at it on those terms is to judge it by the wrong alignment axis. The fantastic universes that RPG characters inhabit also tend to contain a much higher risk of violence and much less effective law enforcement, making homicide more commonplace and often more justifiable, not to mention their own legal systems, so our real-life definitions of murder and the like aren't necessarily going to wash.

I think Rondodu has the right answer: this is something that has to be worked out from an in-character perspective and largely on an individual/group-based one. Of course that doesn't preclude introducing the characters to jurisdictions which have a different interpretation of murder... but again, that's an in-character legal distinction, rather than an ethical one. Just because the Kingdom of Homicidia has no law against murder doesn't mean it's not just as non-Good to kill someone there than in the neighbouring Empire of Harmlessland.

[Knaight]

Yeah but I thought this thread was specifically about what constitutes murder in the context of a party of adventurers. They made a code of conduct to only commit murder if everyone gives consent. Which means self defense and accidental is the only circumstance that it's not murder.

Sure, but a party of adventurers could easily be a paramilitary force which gets to play by military rules. Property defense could also easily come up - taking work as caravan guards is a pretty standard fantasy trope after all. Even assisted suicide could be relevant, though I can't say I've ever seen that one come up in a game.

[jedipotter]

Sure, but a party of adventurers could easily be a paramilitary force which gets to play by military rules. Property defense could also easily come up - taking work as caravan guards is a pretty standard fantasy trope after all. Even assisted suicide could be relevant, though I can't say I've ever seen that one come up in a game.


In FR, in the nation of Cromyr, an adventuring group must be licensed by the crown. This allows them a bit of wiggle room as the day-to-day laws don't apply to them in the same way they do commoners of the realm. Of course the paper only means something to that kingdom.

[Esprit15]

See, all the legalese is why I skipped it and made a definition that works for the party.

[Slipperychicken]

Hey, let's try using the real-world distinction.


Killing = Ending someone's life.

Murder = Killing which I [the speaker] don't like.

[Tengu_temp]

No legalese here, no cynical "all killing is the same" crap, just stuff that might be actually useful in a game:

Killing in self-defense is not murder. Killing in defense of someone else (example: a village is attacked by bandits) is not murder. Killing someone who has obviously evil intentions and is about to act on them (example: an evil wizard tries to use a magical artifact to conquer the world) is usually not murder.


But what if someone tries to surrender and end the fight but they are struck down anyway? What then? What if an enemy surrenders and begs for his life? But you just KNOW he will lick his wounds and try to kill you again later? What then?

The first of those is murder - you generally don't kill someone who surrendered, it's evil. The second one depends on whether he did that before, or not. Faking a surrender is almost as evil as killing someone who surrendered, because it makes people distrust those who surrender and be less likely to actually spare them. Because of that, if someone faked a surrender in the past, and now is faking surrender again, you are free to kill him. And if it's the first time you met... Well, tie him up and hand him over to authorities. Letting defeated bad guys go without making sure they're repentant and won't commit any more evil is what Stupid Good characters do.

[Mastikator]

Sure, but a party of adventurers could easily be a paramilitary force which gets to play by military rules. Property defense could also easily come up - taking work as caravan guards is a pretty standard fantasy trope after all. Even assisted suicide could be relevant, though I can't say I've ever seen that one come up in a game.

You really think they would've needed to come up with a "no killing" pact if they were mercenaries or part of some paramilitary force?

[SiuiS]

I'm pretty firmly agreeing with Tengu Temp on this all, (bat)man knows his stuff.

[veti]

Faking a surrender is almost as evil as killing someone who surrendered, because it makes people distrust those who surrender and be less likely to actually spare them. Because of that, if someone faked a surrender in the past, and now is faking surrender again, you are free to kill him. And if it's the first time you met... Well, tie him up and hand him over to authorities. Letting defeated bad guys go without making sure they're repentant and won't commit any more evil is what Stupid Good characters do.

Waitaminute - what's the difference between "faking a surrender", which you say is pretty definitively evil, and "surrendering, then trying to escape", which is a staple of the genre?

Back in World War 1, the rules of war said that if you'd been taken prisoner once, escaped, and were recaptured, you could be shot. The theory was that if you escaped, you weren't supposed to go back into action, but sit out the rest of the war as a civilian - it was the gentlemanly thing to do, in return for the restraint your captors had shown by keeping you alive in the first place. By WW2, I think (though I'm not sure) that rule was no longer recognised. Are you advocating something like that?

Because if so, it seems to follow that a lawful good character can never surrender, as it commits them to "not opposing evil" in the future.

I'm sorry, but at the root, the difference between killing and murder is purely a legal one, so trying to avoid legalese in discussing it is like trying to play D&D without dice: whatever you end up playing in that scenario, it's not going to be D&D.

Killing another person is murder, unless it's covered by one of a limited list of exceptions. What those exceptions are, is entirely down to the laws and customs of your setting.

[Tengu_temp]

Waitaminute - what's the difference between "faking a surrender", which you say is pretty definitively evil, and "surrendering, then trying to escape", which is a staple of the genre?

The difference is that someone who is faking a surrender is actively trying to backstab his captors - as soon as you stop paying attention to him, he'll strike at you again. He's still fighting, even though he pretends he's not. Someone who tries to escape from captivity, on the other hand, is simply trying to get to freedom. His surrender was genuine, he only tries to escape after he's been captured.



I'm sorry, but at the root, the difference between killing and murder is purely a legal one, so trying to avoid legalese in discussing it is like trying to play D&D without dice: whatever you end up playing in that scenario, it's not going to be D&D.


Actually, to me it's a matter of morality; murder is always evil, but killing not necessarily.

[veti]

The difference is that someone who is faking a surrender is actively trying to backstab his captors - as soon as you stop paying attention to him, he'll strike at you again. He's still fighting, even though he pretends he's not. Someone who tries to escape from captivity, on the other hand, is simply trying to get to freedom. His surrender was genuine, he only tries to escape after he's been captured.

Nope, I still don't see it.

Suppose I'm sitting quietly at my campfire, when half a dozen enemy soldiers step out of the surrounding woodland and point their guns at me. I put my hands up, because I'm not insane.

Then suddenly shooting breaks out, and I realise the rest of my team has come back in the nick of time. During the next few seconds, I have the opportunity to grab the gun of one of my erstwhile captors and prevent him from killing one of my team. Should I do it?

If so, then a dispassionate observer might reasonably conclude that I was "faking" surrender. But if not, then one of my team - the ones I have an obligation to help, to the best of my ability, and who are currently risking their own necks to save me - is going to die because apparently I'm too honourable to save them.


Actually, to me it's a matter of morality; murder is always evil, but killing not necessarily.

That doesn't help you distinguish between them. "Murder is evil", doesn't really tell you anything about how to identify murder.

[YossarianLives]

I would say killing somebody is murder. Of course you could never stop a party of murderhobos (which most D&D parties including my own are) killing everything that poses a slight threat to them. But I would still say that there are other ways of stopping somebody from killing you without slaughtering them. Such as using a nonleathel weapon, casting a spell like hold person, or just negotiating with them.

My characters are almost always diplomancers.

[Sartharina]

Actually, to me it's a matter of morality; murder is always evil, but killing not necessarily.In which case, it's NOT murder to Refuse a Surrender. Accepting a surrender then killing someone is murder, but refusing a surrender (Either on suspicion that the person's faking it, or will not honor it, or simply because their wrongs are so great they are not permitted to try to use surrender to escape their earned doom) is not evil.

In War, it's probably Evil to refuse a surrender, but that's because the actual battle is between nations, not against the individuals doing the fighting.

It's perfectly acceptable to tell the Evil Emperor "No, you die standing" when he attempts to surrender, no matter how honest his surrender request is. It's usually NOT acceptable to say "Nah, we'll kill you all" to a bunch of rank+file soldiers that have surrendered.

That said - it's not murder to kill someone who doesn't honor a surrender for any means.

[Slipperychicken]

Actually, to me it's a matter of morality; murder is always evil, but killing not necessarily.

That doesn't help you distinguish between them. "Murder is evil", doesn't really tell you anything about how to identify murder.

That's because calling it evil is the difference between killing and murder.

[Tengu_temp]

Suppose I'm sitting quietly at my campfire, when half a dozen enemy soldiers step out of the surrounding woodland and point their guns at me. I put my hands up, because I'm not insane.

Then suddenly shooting breaks out, and I realise the rest of my team has come back in the nick of time. During the next few seconds, I have the opportunity to grab the gun of one of my erstwhile captors and prevent him from killing one of my team. Should I do it?

You probably should. Doing this is no longer evil, because you didn't surrender thinking "just you wait and turn your back to me, then I'll shoot you!" - your surrender was genuine, the circumstances just changed since then.

If your rescuers are defeated and you surrender again, however, your captors are free to shoot you on the spot if they feel like it, and it won't be morally wrong, unlike if they decided to shoot you when you surrendered for the first time.

{{scrubbed}}

[hamishspence]

You probably should. Doing this is no longer evil, because you didn't surrender thinking "just you wait and turn your back to me, then I'll shoot you!" - your surrender was genuine, the circumstances just changed since then.

If your rescuers are defeated and you surrender again, however, your captors are free to shoot you on the spot if they feel like it, and it won't be morally wrong, unlike if they decided to shoot you when you surrendered for the first time.

If the character has "given their parole" - a promise that they won't try and escape, or attack their captors, if the opportunity comes up - then breaking that parole could be called "betrayal" which tends to be frowned on in Good circles.

[Frozen_Feet]

@Tengu_Temp: calling the "all killing is murder" -attitude "cynical" is somewhat pointless. Both cynicist and idealists of certain sorts are prone to thinking like that.

[Rondodu]

If the character has "given their parole" - a promise that they won't try and escape, or attack their captors, if the opportunity comes up - then breaking that parole could be called "betrayal" which tends to be frowned on in Good circles.
Isn’t “chaotic good” a DnD thing?

[Slipperychicken]

{{scrubbed}}.

My apologies, I didn't explain earlier. That's not what I mean to do at all.

I mean to recommend that the most useful thing for the OP's party to do, rather than trying to get a universal perfect definition of murder from internet strangers, is to instead determine subjective, flexible guidelines among their own members regarding what killings they deem to be acceptable. That is to say they ultimately need each other to agree to achieve the desired outcome (to reduce disagreement and ill-will). That's because they're trying to create rules which establish expectations and reduce disagreement within their own group, and I think an agreement which accounts for their own subjective opinions will do that better than one which outsiders create and impose without taking that into account.

If we create a definition which the party happens to disagree with, no matter how much we all agree on its perfection, it's not as useful because consensus on them needs to come from the party, rather than the internet.

[hamishspence]

Isn’t “chaotic good” a DnD thing?

It is - but CG people are still cautious about actually betraying anybody - unless they can convince themselves that it's the moral thing to do. Still, by BoVD, Betrayal is normally Evil, and not something Good characters should do a lot.

[Jay R]

@Tengu_Temp: calling the "all killing is murder" -attitude "cynical" is somewhat pointless. Both cynicist and idealists of certain sorts are prone to thinking like that.

He didn't. He called the "Murder = Killing which I [the speaker] don't like" attitude a cynical one. Slipperychicken has not said that all killing is murder. Instead, he has made a clear distinction between what is called killing and what is called murder, and the attitude is indeed cynical.

[Sartharina]

My apologies, I didn't explain earlier. That's not what I mean to do at all.

I mean to recommend that the most useful thing for the OP's party to do, rather than trying to get a universal perfect definition of murder from internet strangers, is to instead determine subjective, flexible guidelines among their own members regarding what killings they deem to be acceptable. That is to say they ultimately need each other to agree to achieve the desired outcome (to reduce disagreement and ill-will). That's because they're trying to create rules which establish expectations and reduce disagreement within their own group, and I think an agreement which accounts for their own subjective opinions will do that better than one which outsiders create and impose without taking that into account.

If we create a definition which the party happens to disagree with, no matter how much we all agree on its perfection, it's not as useful because consensus on them needs to come from the party, rather than the internet.

You can't get a solid definition for something measured on any alignment but "Lawful", because that's the only one that is based on rigid definitions and categorization. Good and Evil are defined by loose guidelines and "You'll know it when you see it".

[MLai]

Killing someone that has surrendered is murder, period. The players represent neither the judicial system nor are appointed executioners of the same.
Vehemently disagree with all the posters who express this opinion, not just the above dude. Fantasy medieval land is not 2014 Earth 1st-world nation with trial by judge and jury. There aren't so many finicky rules.

If you fight a bandit in the woods and he surrenders, what are you gonna do? Drop everything you're doing in order to haul his ass 100 miles back to town, so that the townsppl can hang him anyways? See, you don't get the benefit of calling the police. Suddenly trying to act like a 1st-world citizen becomes a ridiculous endeavor.

No, you hang him on the nearest tree. Read some Arthurian romance: A knight only grants mercy to enemy knights who ask for it. You know why only enemy knights? Because they're the only ones who would observe a mutual code of conduct. No mercy is ever granted to common bandits. They attacked you; they don't have any rights.

[hamishspence]

Vehemently disagree with all the posters who express this opinion, not just the above dude. Fantasy medieval land is not 2014 Earth 1st-world nation with trial by judge and jury. There aren't so many finicky rules.

If you fight a bandit in the woods and he surrenders, what are you gonna do? Drop everything you're doing in order to haul his ass 100 miles back to town, so that the townsppl can hang him anyways? See, you don't get the benefit of calling the police. Suddenly trying to act like a 1st-world citizen becomes a ridiculous endeavor.

No, you hang him on the nearest tree.
In DMG2 though, those rules do apply.

And as Champions of Valor puts it "Heroes should not think they can disregard the rule of law just because they're out of earshot of a town" - it makes a point that they should be prepared to bring back surrendered enemies alive.

[Sartharina]

In DMG2 though, those rules do apply.

And as Champions of Valor puts it "Heroes should not think they can disregard the rule of law just because they're out of earshot of a town" - it makes a point that they should be prepared to bring back surrendered enemies alive.But they can disregard Rule of Law if they're Not Lawful, or, in the case of Paladins and other Knightly-types, the Rule of Law gives them discretionary power of jurisdiction.

[Mr.Moron]

Vehemently disagree with all the posters who express this opinion, not just the above dude. Fantasy medieval land is not 2014 Earth 1st-world nation with trial by judge and jury. There aren't so many finicky rules.

If you fight a bandit in the woods and he surrenders, what are you gonna do? Drop everything you're doing in order to haul his ass 100 miles back to town, so that the townsppl can hang him anyways? See, you don't get the benefit of calling the police. Suddenly trying to act like a 1st-world citizen becomes a ridiculous endeavor.

No, you hang him on the nearest tree. Read some Arthurian romance: A knight only grants mercy to enemy knights who ask for it. You know why only enemy knights? Because they're the only ones who would observe a mutual code of conduct. No mercy is ever granted to common bandits. They attacked you; they don't have any rights.


This is a matter of setting and tone. In my current game, there certainly isn't a "String 'em up" attitude towards any criminals where the players are, bandits or otherwise.

Certainly folks are allowed to defend themselves, but if anyone was going around performing summary executions they'd be in trouble if the authorities find out.

You're trying to apply your own views of how things should work in a way that's far too broad. Not every game is going to to be a gritty, dark and cynical attempt at recreating the worst of our history.

[hamishspence]

But they can disregard Rule of Law if they're Not Lawful, or, in the case of Paladins and other Knightly-types, the Rule of Law gives them discretionary power of jurisdiction.

Even CG jurisdictions like elven kingdoms may have a concept of "innocent till proven guilty" among other things.

[Sartharina]

Even CG jurisdictions like elven kingdoms may have a concept of "innocent till proven guilty" among other things.Assuming there is a jurisdiction in the area at all. Otherwise, it results to Law of Nature.

For those who do answer to a jurisdiction, though - said monsters/bandits/etc usually prove themselves guilty pretty quickly (You SEE them do it, if you're not the ). Paladins are invested with the authority to be investigator, judge, jury, and executioner.

[Knaight]

You really think they would've needed to come up with a "no killing" pact if they were mercenaries or part of some paramilitary force?

It's not a "no killing" pact, it's a "no murder" pact. I could easily see that being relevant, particularly if the players are the sort to kill random NPCs for no reason. Even for mercenaries, there's a bunch of noncombatants, people who've surrendered, people on their side they don't particularly like, so on and so forth.

[hamishspence]

Assuming there is a jurisdiction in the area at all. Otherwise, it results to Law of Nature.

For those who do answer to a jurisdiction, though - said monsters/bandits/etc usually prove themselves guilty pretty quickly (You SEE them do it, if you're not the ). Paladins are invested with the authority to be investigator, judge, jury, and executioner.

Maybe in LG areas. In LN areas a paladin that acts like this and gets caught, might find themselves on the wrong side of a dungeon door.

And these aren't paladins - these characters are LN to CE. What matters here will be:

"Are we going to get into trouble for doing some killing, in this case?"

[Sartharina]

Maybe in LG areas. In LN areas a paladin that acts like this and gets caught, might find themselves on the wrong side of a dungeon door.

And these aren't paladins - these characters are LN to CE. What matters here will be:

"Are we going to get into trouble for doing some killing, in this case?"Who are LN to CE?

CG characters are driven by their conscience. Most LN adventurers are also entitled to be Judge, Investigator, Jury, and Executioner. NG characters are also not bound by law to not kill someone who's doing sufficient Evil.

[hamishspence]

Who are LN to CE?


The OP's party:


Hey Playground,

This issue has come up in my D & D 5th ed. campaign. My party consists of a mix ranging from Lawful Neutral to Choatic Evil, and as you can imagine there have been some butting of heads to say the least.

[Mastikator]

It's not a "no killing" pact, it's a "no murder" pact. I could easily see that being relevant, particularly if the players are the sort to kill random NPCs for no reason. Even for mercenaries, there's a bunch of noncombatants, people who've surrendered, people on their side they don't particularly like, so on and so forth.
My bad. A "no murder" pact does not require a you to define what the universal difference between killing and murder in historically accurate legal terms.
You only really need to go as far as "self defense and accident is ok, otherwise everyone must agree on it".

The pact stipulates that murder is ok, as long everyone in the party agrees to it.

If they were in a war situation or were mercenaries hired to kill people then they would not have made this pact. This thread is looking at 3 pages of post not related to the original subject.

Edit-

There is a very good reason you don't need to and shouldn't try to define it perfectly, the party is a group of what, 3-6 people? They can very easily deal with "which kills are acceptable" on a case by case basis before every kill that isn't in self defense.

[MLai]

You're trying to apply your own views of how things should work in a way that's far too broad. Not every game is going to to be a gritty, dark and cynical attempt at recreating the worst of our history.
This is not "dark and gritty", but reality in the wilderness during medieval (or earlier) times. It's just practicality and not being wishy-washy concerning clearly dangerous individuals. Unless you feel that period of time represents the worst in our history.

What's there to think about? They attacked you, or were attacking some innocent victims when your adventurous knight errant rode up and intervened. They get to get off easy just because they realized they were outmatched and called for mercy? How is one knight going to reliably look after 3-4 (or more) bandits?

If you fuss about with a situation as clear as that, how are those adventurers able to do any questing? Find a bunch of unsavory-looking chaps lugging around what looks like ill-gotten loot? Well, how can you fight them aren't you committing robbery yourself? Why are you attacking them shouldn't you ask them to go to town first and have the matter investigated fully, with them getting free legal representation?

[hamishspence]

This is not "dark and gritty", but reality in the wilderness during medieval (or earlier) times.

But D&D isn't modelled entirely on "medieval or earlier times" - at least not socially, not these days. BoED kind of lampshades that, as well as pointing out that even if you are running a much more medievalistic campaign than normal D&D, what counts as Good and Evil doesn't actually change.

It's not like "killing or torturing prisoners is inappropriate for Good characters" is unique to BoED, either - it goes right back to 1978's Eric Holmes version of Basic D&D:

page 8:

If the Dungeon Master feels that a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent with his declared alignment, he may rule that he or she has changed alignment and penalize the character with a loss of experience points. An example of such behaviour would be a "good" character who kills or tortures a prisoner.

Neutral characters might be able to do so and remain Neutral - at first - but it's made pretty clear that Good characters should not consider themselves "empowered to act as Judge Jury and Executioner".

[Cazero]

page 8:
If the Dungeon Master feels that a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent with his declared alignment, he may rule that he or she has changed alignment and penalize the character with a loss of experience points. An example of such behaviour would be a "good" character who kills or tortures a prisoner.

The example you quoted speaks of a prisonner. A good character can perfectly act as judge, jury and executioner by refusing the surrender of the bandit. He won't torture and/or kill a prisoner since he won't be taking any.
And judge, jury and executioner is just the quintessential paladin IMO. He might judge the bandits as not worthy to live anymore, but he also might spare them. In any case, he definitly can't afford to take them prisoner for his next dungeon crawl or whatever, and have to make an instant trial of some sort.

[hamishspence]

While Roy's not a paladin but a LG fighter - he objects strongly to both cutting the throats of captured bandits, and selling them into slavery:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html

After the rest of the bandits have been talked into giving up the bandit way - all that's left are the two leaders. Yet they are not subjected to "instant trial and execution".

[Cazero]

Yes, because he acted as judge, jury, and did not sentence them to death, removing the need to act as executioner.
He would also drop Xykon into lava (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0887.html) without hesitation. That's the exact same situation, except with a worse criminal who definitly must be taked down.

[Frozen_Feet]

There were a lot of other punishments than simple execution for criminals. I say "simple execution", because many of the other punishments still would likely cause death to the punished. One classic example that comes to mind from Westerns: putting a person on horseback with his hands tied, and then sending the horse to run to whatever direction.

Also, many wilderness-dwelling cultures didn't kill surrendered bandits (etc.) because they perceived them as evil, per se. Instead, they killed them because they perceived the alternative as worse. What alternative, you may ask? Abandoning them in the wilderness with no equipment or means of travel. Again, the likely end result for that would've been a dead criminal, but dying in such a way was considered horribly cruel; it was more merciful to just kill surrendered criminals on the spot.

[Rondodu]

If the character has "given their parole" - a promise that they won't try and escape, or attack their captors, if the opportunity comes up - then breaking that parole could be called "betrayal" which tends to be frowned on in Good circles.


It is - but CG people are still cautious about actually betraying anybody - unless they can convince themselves that it's the moral thing to do. Still, by BoVD, Betrayal is normally Evil, and not something Good characters should do a lot.

You call it betrayal, but it seems to me it’s more duping people to save your own life. Which I believe Neutral or Chaotic Good characters would be ok with.

[hamishspence]

I suppose betrayal implies having actual loyalty in the first place, before losing it.

Still - if a person "fakes loyalty" then, when their true loyalties are revealed, the victims of the fake will feel 'betrayed'.

[Mastikator]

Yes, because he acted as judge, jury, and did not sentence them to death, removing the need to act as executioner.
He would also drop Xykon into lava (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0887.html) without hesitation. That's the exact same situation, except with a worse criminal who definitly must be taked down.

You can't seriously compare Xykon to a tied up and defeated bandit? Xykon is an epic level lich, he is never unarmed and he is never defenseless. Simply standing next to him puts you in immediate mortal danger, it's self defense to push him into lava (not that it would kill him) unprovoked.

[hamishspence]

You can't seriously compare Xykon to a tied up and defeated bandit? Xykon is an epic level lich, he is never unarmed and he is never defenseless. Simply standing next to him puts you in immediate mortal danger, it's self defense to push him into lava (not that it would kill him) unprovoked.

They're talking about the phylactery with Xykon's soul in it - that's the "Xykon" that Roy is dropping into the lava in the dream sequence.

[Mastikator]

They're talking about the phylactery with Xykon's soul in it - that's the "Xykon" that Roy is dropping into the lava in the dream sequence.

Eh you're still in terrible danger just holding his phylactery.

[Cazero]

The argument about relative power does not counter my point.
My point is that a Good character, even if Lawful, can be judge, jury and executioner without violating his alignement, even while doing it bypass every legal institution existing.
The power of the being you judge is taken in consideration during the "trial", wich is one of the reasons why Roy would kill Xykon while he choose to spare common thugs. But, and here is my actual point, he still choose to be judge, jury and executioner, as he was not acting in self defense in both case and did not consult any form of legal official.

Yes, simply holding the phylactery of a lich might be dangerous, for common people. Not for the band of adventurers who took down said lich. And even then, the phylactery is as close of unarmed prisoner as a lich can get.

[SiuiS]

Y'all know that legal issues have jurisdiction, right? That's why both privateers and marshals existed; because outsid of a certain area legal institutions have no power.

If you base your decisions on legal a systems nowhere near you and not anywhere worth considering, you're missing the point. Legal systems are self limiting; outside of legal bounds, murder is not murder anymore.

[hamishspence]

Which is why piracy is an international crime - a "crime against humanity".

Same might apply in D&D - every nation having a concept of "pirates need to be opposed" and accepting the right of other nations to bring pirates in for trial, should pirates be successfully captured.

In the real world - if someone were to commit murder in Antarctica, it would still be murder - even if the continent itself is "no man's land".

[SiuiS]

In the real world - if someone were to commit murder in Antarctica, it would still be murder - even if the continent itself is "no man's land".

Is it? I don't think we can discuss it, but where could I look into that? It's an interesting idea.

[Frozen_Feet]

The idea is called "natural rights" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights) and is deeply tied with the deontological morality D&D alignment represents.

Natural rights are those that every person should have by the virtue of existing - they are independent of legal bodies, customs or beliefs. In the same way, in deontological alignment system things are labeled Good, Lawful, Evil, Chaotic or Neutral in relation to universal moral and ethical principles. This is how you can get concepts like "illegal law" or "chaotic evil government". It means the written law (= legal rights) is in violation of natural rights, or the laws of the nation are in violation of the Cosmic Law.

In this case, the natural right being violated is "right to live". Unless a person's existence directly and immediately threatens your (or someone else's) right to live, killing them is a crime.