Morality of killing prisoners

[Bladeyeoman]

Hey guys!

Definitely not trying to turn this into a big flaming argument. I suspect some of you have strong views on this. So I'd just appreciate perspectives, with the understanding that they may not agree with the perspectives of others on this thread.

It appears to be simple for players to knock enemies unconscious instead of killing them (they can choose to do so with melee weapons, I don't believe there's any penalty for dealing nonlethal damage instead). My players generally try to leave at least one enemy unconscious in any given battle, so that they can question him (which is good! I like them trying to obtain information to help them.)

Almost invariably, they kill said creature after questioning.

Occasionally they frighten a villain enough that he/she/it surrenders before being knocked unconscious (as they recently did with the boss of Lost Mines of Phandelver). In this case, they *also* generally end up killing the prisoner.

Now, as a DM I don't mind my villains dying. Totaly fine. And we're playing largely without alignment - players are trying to play out their character as *characters*. So I don't have to say "Ah! That's not lawful good! You can't do that!".

However, the characters are generally good in the general sense. And I've been trying to wrap my head around the morality of killing prisoners.

On the one hand, I as the DM am going to play out those prisoners as realistically as I can. Which means they're going to try to escape, and may come back to wreak vengeance. And especially if you're facing a villain that is a capable spellcaster with a broad web of spies, it's going to be hard to keep him from escaping, and doing so probably means you don't have the freedom to do other things.

On the other hand, stabbing a prisoner in cold blood seems pretty cold. But that's from the perspective of a society that doesn't have rampaging princesses running around slaying innocent dragons, etc.

Note: In my head, killing someone you knocked unconscious for questioning seems less of an issue - you chose to delay killing him, is all. But even that gets hazy.

Also note: This isn't related to the impact on REPUTATION for killing prisoners. That one is easier for me to work out, but isn't usually relevant when said prisoners die in the dungeon.

Anyways, I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts!

[BiPolar]

This is definitely a tough question and interested to see everyones responses.

From a realworld standpoint, once a person crosses the line from combatant to prisoner certain rights are given to them (namely, not being tortured and killed.)

However, this is a fantasy game and questioning the enemy combatant before killing them for expediency and limitation of further risk (the PCs also don't have a prison system in place like the real world that they can put them in) seems perfectly fine.

If they start torturing though...

[pangoo209]

Personally, this is how I see it.

I think that letting a prisoner go is a Good act, of course.

I think that killing a prisoner is not a evil act, but also not good, unless that prisoner is good.

If the prisoner is a good creature, and they are killed after cooperating with the party, it is a Evil act

If the prisoner is tortured or mistreated before killing them, beyond basic interrogation (I.E. torturing them) it an Evil act.

Obviously this will vary, but that's how I see it.

[MrStabby]

I think it is a case of "don't kill prisoners so far as is reasonably practicable". If players genuinely have reason to believe that the prisoner is still a lethal threat were they to be released AND that there is no alternative to releasing them (on a quest so urgent they can't travel for a couple of days to the nearest town for example) then is is substantially less evil that killing them just because they bore you and you don't want the expense of feeding them.

One way I have found to circumvent this is to enable one (or more) of the party be earn the title of judge. They can then try and condemn to die a prisoner - still not "good", but at least less criminal.

[Contrast]

A lot depends on the specifics of the setting.

Do the players have a reasonable alternative to killing their captives and how much of a threat is the captive? If its a case of spending 20 minutes waiting for the local watch to turn up and they can't be bothered to wait? Hmm. If the enemy is a sorceror, they're 5 weeks from the nearest town and even if they got them there that town wouldn't be capable of holding them and would likely just put them to death immediately based solely on the tesitmony of the PCs? Eh.

Another point to consider is that often PCs will be undertaking a task because the normal processes of law and order aren't capable/appropriate for dealing with the issue.

If you don't want this to be as much of an issue - provide your PCs with a way to non-lethally hold captives and see if they use it.

[suplee215]

This might be too philosophical of an answer but to me morality of an action depends a lot on their motive and also their method. Why are they killing them? Is it to prevent future evil (good)? Is it to make it easier on themselves (more debatable)? Is just to kill (evil)? Are they just ending them quickly or slowly torturing? Either way, one possible way to handle this would be to have consequences for their actions where the players/characters have to question their morality. Maybe a family member of one of the redshirts killed come after them for revenge. Maybe someone doesn't quite stay dead.

[CursedRhubarb]

My group has tried to take prisoners a few times and we've had varied results. When we had a side quest to capture some hobgoblins we had no trouble. But when we've kept one alive to question the DM sets a DC 30 Cha check to get any information from them. This tends to lead to the question of what to do with them and since we've figured killing them while completely helpless would not be a good thing, I've found using Mold Earth to bury them up to their necks as we head out to be a satisfactory medium. They'll likely die and if so, no one can say we did it. If they don't then eventually people will talk rather than be left buried ala Scorpion King style and buried under a pile of our horse's dung.

[Arcangel4774]

I'd say if you want to add morality have reputation be influencing. Their known for killing prisoners, either the prisoners stop giving information or they start require more proof of their safety. As apposed to just saying let me go, they say swear to your God (in the case of paladins or clerics) or something like that. Maybe an "I'll show you..." type of information which now makes more depth. Do they trust the prisoner? Is it a trap?

[BiPolar]

Personally, this is how I see it.

I think that letting a prisoner go is a Good act, of course.

I think that killing a prisoner is not a evil act, but also not good, unless that prisoner is good.

If the prisoner is a good creature, and they are killed after cooperating with the party, it is a Evil act

If the prisoner is tortured or mistreated before killing them, beyond basic interrogation (I.E. torturing them) it an Evil act.

Obviously this will vary, but that's how I see it.

I really like this and agree. It's simple and generally works for the fun of a D&D campaign.

[Bladeyeoman]

When we had a side quest to capture some hobgoblins we had no trouble. But when we've kept one alive to question the DM sets a DC 30 Cha check to get any information from them.

Huh. That seems a bit extreme, although obviously it's up to your DM. I've been really pleased with this systematic way to handle social interactions - your DM might like it: http://theangrygm.com/systematic-interaction/.

[XmonkTad]

I DM'ed a game where I took the CG rogue and dropped his alignment to a CN after he tortured and murdered one half of a duo BBEG.

My reasoning was he had no reason for torture, as his insight check revealed truthfulness. In that instance, it wasn't the murder, it was the "needless" torture. Murder is very easily justified, especially if the crimes of the "victim" are well known. Heck, even by lawful standards, it's still possible to Judge Dredd a baddie who has no means of resisting the execution. Is it good? It would take a lot of arguing to make me believe that. Is it evil? Probably not.

[EvilAnagram]

Okay, so the situation is that you have a sapient creature at your mercy and completely incapable of harming you. You can

A: Leave them chained and bugger off, letting them figure out how to get to safety.
B: Let them go because they can't hurt you in the immediate future.
C: Kill a person so that they can no longer hurt you ever.

If you choose C, I have to wonder why you don't just kill every NPC. If you do that, none of them will ever be able to harm you.

[Breashios]

So as the thread is labeled Morality of killing prisoners, I will first answer that the morality will have to do with what the DM sets as the moral guidelines of the culture or religions followed by the characters within his or her campaign. In general, killing an NPC guilty of the crime of murder (or whatever is deemed equivalent in terms of personal violation and torture) would fall easily under “an eye for an eye”. There may be other crimes depending on the culture, such as cattle rustling that could lead to the same end. Prisoners during war are generally NOT considered guilty of such unless they killed civilians or others that had surrendered previously.

Now the more interesting question to me is: what is the legal and societal basis of such actions, not whether my character can justify his morality. If we are in a lawless area, what are the social norms? If it is normal to kill a prisoner after his usefulness is exhausted, the player characters should know and expect the same end if they themselves surrender or are captured. If the norm is to turn them in to local authorities for a price where their judgment may result in a variety of punishment including enslavement or indentured servitude, the characters likewise might expect their capture to result in ransom or some form of temporary or permanent (until they escape) enslavement instead of death. If the party become known for killing their prisoners due to expediency in the latter case, they will be considered cold blooded murderers, at least by their enemies and those favorably disposed to those enemies.

[Tanarii]

Why does the morality matter?

What should matter is the consequences for their actions. As far as I can tell, there are no negative consequences for their actions. They get the info they need, there are no loose ends, and nobody ever finds out about it. Why shouldn't they kill the prisoners when they are done?

I mean, it's possible that the many characters might have moral objections to doing it. But these players have clearly decided that they don't. So since that's already a non-starter, the only thing that's relevant is consequences.

[BiPolar]

Okay, so the situation is that you have a sapient creature at your mercy and completely incapable of harming you. You can

A: Leave them chained and bugger off, letting them figure out how to get to safety.
B: Let them go because they can't hurt you in the immediate future.
C: Kill a person so that they can no longer hurt you ever.

If you choose C, I have to wonder why you don't just kill every NPC. If you do that, none of them will ever be able to harm you.

Probably because in C, they may not have tried to hurt you in the first place?

[Kish]

I'd be more concerned about the "questioning" part.

That is: is this "questioning" based on: 1) implied threats of torture, 2) actual torture, or 3) an implied or actual offer to let the prisoner go if they cooperate, or 4) none of the above?

For 1) or 2), I'd say the characters are clearly evil. For 3) I'd find the false offer distinctly dubious. For 4), I'd wonder why the prisoner would be actually answering anything.

[Murk]

It sounds like this is something they do easily.

I think there are countless good reasons (some depending on the setting) to kill a prisoner. Besides being practical, it might not even be unethical (especially if there is no safe alternative available).

However, as I see it, for most humans this would be very hard. Most of us might, in such a situation, know that killing the prisoner is okay and practical, but doing it... looking a helpless, sentient creature in the eye, realising that it probably has family and friends and hopes and dreams; and then being the one that pulls the trigger - that should be a tough call to make.

If they want to play consistently good characters, I feel like it doesn't matter as much whether or not killing the prisoner is justifiable, but more that it matters how eager they are to do it. For good people, no matter the ethics or practical concerns, killing someone should never be handwaved; an afterthought; an "oh, yeah, by the way, we kill the dude".
If it is an easy afterthought rather than the result of a hard decision, I would say that is what makes it an evil action.

[BiPolar]

However, as I see it, for most humans this would be very hard. Most of us might, in such a situation, know that killing the prisoner is okay and practical, but doing it... looking a helpless, sentient creature in the eye, realising that it probably has family and friends and hopes and dreams; and then being the one that pulls the trigger - that should be a tough call to make.


Specifically for humans of today who follow certain rules and guidelines set by their society (including secular and religious.) The world your characters inhabit is not the same, and we can not assume it'd work the same. Much in the same way that we can not judge decisions made by other societies in other times as immoral/moral. It may seem like an obvious statement, but that's looking through the lens of our society.

[SethoMarkus]

"Tell us where the stuff's at, so I can shoot ya."

This sums up my feelings on this topic.

If the prisoner knows they will be killed anyway, why would they tell the PCs anything?

If the prisoner is told that they will be let free for cooperating but the PCs kill them anyway, I cannot see how that could possibly be justified as morally right by any standard.

If extreme circumstances force the PCs into disposing of a prisoner after questioning (ie, they need vital information and cannot release the prisoner due to time constraints and the danger the prisoner poses), I would still say it is "wrong", though perhaps "for the greater good".

If you don't use alignments at your table, I don't see how this really comes into play in any case. Unless a PC follows a deity that may or may not have something to say about these actions, as posted above I don't see how there would be any consequences for this behavior.

It does beg the question, though, of why take prisoners or accept surrenders at all in the first place? Aside from gathering information, it just seems sadistic.

I, however, can not begin to consider such PCs as "good" despite their other actions and behaviors.

[Mellack]

Specifically for humans of today who follow certain rules and guidelines set by their society (including secular and religious.) The world your characters inhabit is not the same, and we can not assume it'd work the same. Much in the same way that we can not judge decisions made by other societies in other times as immoral/moral. It may seem like an obvious statement, but that's looking through the lens of our society.

As BiPolar said, plus I would like to point out that it was common throughout history to not consider "others" (those from outside the social group) to be considered equals worthy of concern. Those of other races, religions, tribes, were considered subhuman and otherwise "good" people held no issue with their subjugation and death. I would expect that even easier to happen with a difference of species.

[Fralex]

Here's an exchange a member of my party had with a captured bugbear after he'd finished interrogating it, which made me look at this in a little different light:

BUGBEAR: Spare me!
PLAYER: ...How many have you spared?
BUGBEAR: N-none.

Those were its last words.

[RickAllison]

1) How were they taken prisoner? Were they knocked unconscious while fighting and so are still at heart an enemy combatant? Did they surrender? Did the party offer mercy to those who would surrender? A captive may still be actively opposed to the party and in fact would rather have died than be taken prisoner. These would certainly not be Good to kill, but it is no more Evil than leaving them on the battlefield to be carrion. Someone who surrendered, however, has effectively stated that they are ceasing to be combatants and there is an expectation to be treated as such. Killing them is much darker, and it would need a good reason not to be Evil. Generally, the response to this should be stripping of weapons, documentation and identification (to know if they are repeat combatants and so their promises of surrender were false), and release. If the captives were promised mercy before surrender, then revoking such a promise is certainly Evil.

2) Why was it seen as better to kill them? If it's because the journey back is perilous and the area dangerous enough that release would be crueler than death, a painless execution may be non-Evil even amidst promises of mercy. If it is just because the party can't be bothered to take them back to civilization for trial, probably Evil.

3) Are there mitigating factors? Like a culture that views death in battle as the only way to join the good afterlife may consider the Good way to deal with prisoners is to give them the option to fight to the death. Bringing prisoners of war back for trial may be seen as the Evil option in such a case. These are necessarily very dependent on the specific situation.

[Kish]

Weirdly honest bugbear. In her/his place, I would totally have said, "Everyone who surrendered!" If the person questioning me knows better, I still don't have anything to lose by lying.

I have to wonder if anyone who uses the "modern morality doesn't apply to D&D" argument has read the alignment section of any Player's Handbook since 1ed. Not that it lacks a pedigree--Gary Gygax himself made similar arguments, cheerfully quoting Nazi slogans as "appropriate perspectives for Lawful Good characters"--but the other D&D developers have been getting away from it for a long time, for which I am grateful. A society that holds that only some people are people is an evil society, in D&D, and if that means humans have been a Usually Neutral Evil race for most of our history that's neither here nor there.

[Fralex]

Weirdly honest bugbear.

Yeah, that occurred to me, too. If I were running it I might've had the bugbear not say anything at all, as the realization dawns on it that this is what its victims felt. A fun little dramatic moment regardless.

[Contrast]

Okay, so the situation is that you have a sapient creature at your mercy and completely incapable of harming you. You can

A: Leave them chained and bugger off, letting them figure out how to get to safety.
B: Let them go because they can't hurt you in the immediate future.
C: Kill a person so that they can no longer hurt you ever.

If you choose C, I have to wonder why you don't just kill every NPC. If you do that, none of them will ever be able to harm you.

Lets say the PCs are on their way to a council of war with vital information. On their way they pass through a village who bemoan that they have fallen pray to a group of 3 raiders who are stealing from the isolated farmsteads. The PCs sympathise but are pressed for time so carry on. However on the road - low and behold they are waylaid by those very same raiders! The party, being the competant PCs that they are brutally murder one of the raiders in quick order and badly wound another. Of the remaining two raiders, one tries to flee (only to be knocked unconcious) while the other, seeing this, drops to his knees and surrenders. The PCs don't have time to escort them back to the village (who would surely put them to death anyway for the death of numerous friends and loved ones) or they'll miss the war council.

So A) leave them tied up. This assume you have the ability to tie them up which is definately not always a given (apart from anything else it means you have no rope for a bit). There are three outcomes here. They stay tied up, no-one finds them and they die. This is a much more horrific death than a quick end with a dagger. They stay tied up, someone finds them and they get put to death (or, if its another raider, they continue raiding). They escape and continue raiding.

Option B) Let them go. They clearly can't hurt you - someone above in this thread said letting them go was a Good act! Next time you pass through the area you are informed another 2 farmsteads have been struck as the raiders are still in exactly the same position as before and continued to raid.


Point being - this isn't the modern day and its only as much like a heartwarming movie as the DM feels like making it. You can't always ring the police to come take away the bad guys and not every rogue you meet secrectly has a heart of gold who just needed a stern talking to from the PCs to right his way. Now if you're in a setting or have the ability to hold prisoners without killing them then yes its a lot more morally questionable.

Tying people up and leaving them to their fate is not really the answer. Not least because at some point its likely the PCs are going to get accused of being highwaymen themselves from someone trying to explain why they were left sans possessions on the road :smallwink:

[hamishspence]

There's also "take them with you to the war council (making sure they're secured nearby before going in)."

[Tanarii]

but the other D&D developers have been getting away from it for a long time, for which I am grateful. A society that holds that only some people are people is an evil society, in D&D, and if that means humans have been a Usually Neutral Evil race for most of our history that's neither here nor there.5e leaves Alignments broad enough they can work either way. Since they appear to be a tool to assist players with roleplaying/making in-character decisions, this makes sense. They have to be broad enough to allow freedom for other personality traits to be incorporated, as opposed to being a one dimensional caricature.

OTOH, there are many strong implications that Alignment in 5e is still Objective. In other words, your character might *think* he is good or doing the right thing, but his actual alignment doesn't match that. In other words, if 5e Alignment is objective, a player should choose an alignment to match the typical 'moral' behavior they intend to play the PC as, not what the PC actually thinks their moral behavior is. Then, like, tack on a Flaw along the lines of "I believe I'm doing the right thing, even when if I'm being evil." (That's a little blunt, but I wanted to make the point.)

On the gripping hand, it's important to remember that one of the original basic functions on Alignment is to create Teams, not just believable characters. Team PC vs Team Monster, Team Good vs Team Evil, Team Law vs Team Chaos. Otherwise it just comes down to Team Us vs Team Them. Which is, like, fine and all. But for some people that's not enough. :smallwink:

[EvilAnagram]

Probably because in C, they may not have tried to hurt you in the first place?
Okay, so a thief who robs an old lady is fine. He never tried to harm you. However, a child who throws a rock at you deserves death, according to that rule.

Edit - Question: If they hurt your feelings, is that grounds for moral murder?

[BiPolar]

Okay, so a thief who robs an old lady is fine. He never tried to harm you. However, a child who throws a rock at you deserves death, according to that rule.

I don't think you're trying to be daft, and I don't you think you believe I am either. There is a difference between "hurting" as a random moment like you described and "hurting" as what happened once you've rolled initiative and had a combat encounter.

[EvilAnagram]

I don't think you're trying to be daft, and I don't you think you believe I am either. There is a difference between "hurting" as a random moment like you described and "hurting" as what happened once you've rolled initiative and had a combat encounter.

Cool. What is the difference?

[BiPolar]

Cool. What is the difference?

If your DM (or if you're DM) says either "Surprise round, urchin tosses a rock at you now roll initiative" or doesn't, that's the difference.

The discussion we seem to be having here is you've completed a combat encounter but have left at least one of the enemy alive. What your describing is an entirely different situation.

[EvilAnagram]

If your DM (or if you're DM) says either "Surprise round, urchin tosses a rock at you now roll initiative" or doesn't, that's the difference.
So the moral difference between killing, let's say, a local dock worker who swings at you when he sees you sneaking into a place you weren't supposed to be, an orc marauder who kills for fun but just surrendered, and an urchin with a rock is whether or not initiative is rolled?

Would the meam that poisoning the drink of a slaver to free his captives is unambiguously evil?

And if honest guards are trying to apprehend you due to a misunderstanding, the moral thing to do is murder them as they perform their duty?

Question colon if the party is hired as guards, would it be moral for them to execute a prisoner they have apprehended, since processing them would take quite a bit of effort?

[Contrast]

There's also "take them with you to the war council (making sure they're secured nearby before going in)."

Again, there are often going to be issues (don't have enough horses, can't keep them secure, its another x weeks journey and you don't have the supplies for another 2 people etc etc etc). But fine, lets say you do it. You now have some captives who may not have committed any crimes in this area and theres only your word they've committed any at all. They have no incentive whatsoever to take him off your hands.

To be clear I'm not saying this is a problem with no solution. What I'm saying is that the 'good' solution may well take significiant time and effort on behalf of the PCs which, depending on the situation, they could be quite justified in considering themselves not to have the time for. (Edit - its also worth pointing out this is a game people usually play to have fun and relax. They want to get on with being heroes, not nannying Ted the brigand, so that does tend to encourage expedient solutions. /edit)

As I said in an earlier post, if you want to avoid this conundrum then give the PCs a way to circumvent it (a set of shackles which teleports the wearer to a prison while leaving the shackles in place to drop to the floor, the warden of which the PCs are friends with; a custom spell called Mordenkainen's Mediocre Prison, etc).

[CaptainSarathai]

Real-world Examples:

Post WW1, it was established and made into international law (among participating countries) that you don't kill prisoners. War-crimes trials have a strict law for it. Previously, there were treaties and so on, but they were mostly more like codes or guidelines rather than exact articles. Just things like, "a gentleman strikes his colors before the ship sinks and everyone dies" ki d of stuff.

The second example is the Battle of Agincourt. Frequently considered the day that chivalry died, Agincourt was a bloody nightmare for everyone involved. Henry V was basically murder-hoboing his way across France (almost exactly like a D&D party, no joke) and was out of food, exhausted, and on the run home away from a gigantic army of French nobility.
At the time, it was expected that nobles would fight one another to a yield, take each other prisoner, and then ransom one another back to their kindgoms. This code of etiquette was taken so seriously, that knights could be trusted to leave and return to their captors. They were usually held as guests, sort of political prisoners.
Henry had none of that. Most of his army was made of peasant bowmen. So when the French got bogged down in the mud, practically trampled each other, and were too hemmed in to fight - Henry didn't send in his knights and nobles to "fight fair." He sent in the peasants, who went around and just split the throats or stabbed the eyes of the mostly defenseless knights.
But that's not the end of it. Because the French did attempt to surrender. Leaving Henry with a group of prisoners that outnumbered his own army. Fearful that the French would make a second attack and these prisoners would rise up and rejoin their countrymen, as well as facing the logistics of returning so many men across the channel, let alone feeding and providing for them on the way there - Henry had them killed.
Contemporary sources accepted this reasoning and did not criticize Henry for this course of action.
--

In short, they were different times. I think that a 'Good' aligned character should endeavor to give the captives at least a fighting chance. Demand that they travel with you to the next town, understanding that attempts to flee will be decidedly fatal, etc.
However, some villains in D&D are truly just too much of a threat.
Historically, there were no laws protecting a prisoner, and surrendering was throwing yourself at the mercy of the enemy. There were usually political or social reasons why you wouldn't kill prisoners, but 1-2 individuals hardly makes much impact. Especially if nobody is there to witness what you've done. Perhaps "God," if that's something which plays into your campaign - Good/Lawful gods might not take kindly to wanton slaughter. That was the belief in the medieval period as well. But then, that belief often didn't extend to heretics, infidels, pagans, or really just anyone who didn't buy your brand of scripture.

[DarthPenance]

From what I see, it depends, like most alignment situations.
Depends if the local law would execute them anyway or if they'd only be set to prison.
If the race/culture desires death or the particular captive desires death over prison (happened in a game of ours).
Depends on their crimes, a thief that never harmed anyone and was regretful or did it only because he needed to (was poor and had family starving), killing him would be an evil act, now a serial killer/genocider that shows no remorse would probably need to be put down.
In my party example, I'm not the social guy so the others do the interrogations, and I don't know if by luck or the DM's plan, we get separated as we do, me (fighter) and the paladin go secure the area while the other more neutral and evil characters take the interrogation (CN-evilish, LE and TN), they usually do it in secret from others and the prisioner is usually killed by the CN.

[Uzgul]

This is my point of view.
Disclaimer: As DnD is set in a medieval world, I don't like to use modern morality in my campaigns. The authorities tend to act as a medieval one would. Thus prison is a really rare form of punishment and most forms of punishments are immediate (e.g. excecuting a murderer, cutting a thieve's hands off).
I will assume, that the PCs are generally good characters, as for evil ones the morality doesn't really matter. Thus I assume, that they are mostly fighting "the bad guys" and not local guards and farmers.

When PCs take a prisoner, they have a three basic choices at hand:
1. Kill them.
2. Hand them to the Authority.
3. Let them free.

The 1. option has very clear results:
- The prisoner can't do any further evil, e.g. if they caught a bandit, this guy most likely won't suddenly completly turn around and become a good working man.
- The prisoner can't seek revenge.
- The prisoner is dead and doesn't get any chance to do later good, which is unlikely anyways.

The 2. option is very campaign dependent.
As I said, in my campaigns I try to run authorities by medieval standarts. Thus putting someone into prison (to punish him and to reintroduce him to society later) is an alien concept to most of them. They don't see a reason to feed a criminal for multiple years. They only imprison someone because they need something from him. If someone is punished by law, he is punished hard and fast. In the cases of bandits and such, that means puplic excecution.
In most cases, the result of this is just a delayed version of option 1.

The 3. option depends on the prisoner.
- If he is likely to harm others, I would argue that setting him free, can be considered an evil act. As you put innocent lifes at risk for your on (moral) satisfaction. In that case, I consider killing him a good act.
- If he is likely to seek revenge, setting him free results in a big risk of their own lifes.
- If he just followed orders and has no personal reason to seek revenge(e.g. if he is a mercenary and wasn't friends with his now dead allies), they should consider setting him free.
- If he is good, but was mind controlled or such, they should also set him free.

All in all, IMO in most cases killing a prisoner in a medieval fantasy setting is not wrong in terms of morals. I would only consider it to be wrong, when there is no reason for the PCs to do it besides their own satisfaction.
If you apply modern morals, it's wrong. But DnD is not a world, that functions with modern morals.

[hamishspence]

This is my point of view.
Disclaimer: As DnD is set in a medieval world, I don't like to use modern morality in my campaigns. The authorities tend to act as a medieval one would.

That's the thing - according to later editions - authorities in general and good-aligned authorities in particular, tend not to be exactly medieval - but part-way between medieval and modern.

Even in earlier editions, for a good-aligned character to kill a prisoner, was sometimes portrayed as Not Acting According To Their Alignment. (Basic D&D - Eric Holmes edition).

As Kish pointed out:



I have to wonder if anyone who uses the "modern morality doesn't apply to D&D" argument has read the alignment section of any Player's Handbook since 1ed. Not that it lacks a pedigree--Gary Gygax himself made similar arguments, cheerfully quoting Nazi slogans as "appropriate perspectives for Lawful Good characters"--but the other D&D developers have been getting away from it for a long time, for which I am grateful.

[GlenSmash!]

Real-world Examples:

Post WW1, it was established and made into international law (among participating countries) that you don't kill prisoners. War-crimes trials have a strict law for it. Previously, there were treaties and so on, but they were mostly more like codes or guidelines rather than exact articles. Just things like, "a gentleman strikes his colors before the ship sinks and everyone dies" ki d of stuff.

The second example is the Battle of Agincourt. Frequently considered the day that chivalry died, Agincourt was a bloody nightmare for everyone involved. Henry V was basically murder-hoboing his way across France (almost exactly like a D&D party, no joke) and was out of food, exhausted, and on the run home away from a gigantic army of French nobility.
At the time, it was expected that nobles would fight one another to a yield, take each other prisoner, and then ransom one another back to their kindgoms. This code of etiquette was taken so seriously, that knights could be trusted to leave and return to their captors. They were usually held as guests, sort of political prisoners.
Henry had none of that. Most of his army was made of peasant bowmen. So when the French got bogged down in the mud, practically trampled each other, and were too hemmed in to fight - Henry didn't send in his knights and nobles to "fight fair." He sent in the peasants, who went around and just split the throats or stabbed the eyes of the mostly defenseless knights.
But that's not the end of it. Because the French did attempt to surrender. Leaving Henry with a group of prisoners that outnumbered his own army. Fearful that the French would make a second attack and these prisoners would rise up and rejoin their countrymen, as well as facing the logistics of returning so many men across the channel, let alone feeding and providing for them on the way there - Henry had them killed.
Contemporary sources accepted this reasoning and did not criticize Henry for this course of action.

While Henry's actions may have made a lot of tactical Sense, I wouldn't call them "Good". An that's OK. Interesting Characters don't need to be good. In fact I would rather have shrewd tactical thinkers than the Chaotic-Stupid I sometimes see at my table.

Edit: This has nothing to do with the Morality of the issue- English peasants often fought Knights during the times of the Hundred Years War, Ransoming a knight was a great way for Peasants to make a great deal of wealth. I think I read in a book that a third of the Ransom went to the direct captor of the knight, and a third to his commander, and a third to the crown, but I might be mis-remembering. The most notable example I know of is John de Coupland who earned wealth, a Knighthood, and land after capturing King David II of Scotland. I think those Guarding the French Knights at Agicourt must have known they were losing a fortune when following Henry's orders to start killing the prisoners.

[Sigreid]

IMO them killing the prisoner (assuming a real bad guy that kills people and breaks things) is not morally different than turning them over to the king's men so the executioner can do it after they rot in a cell for a few days.

[Mellack]

I tend to think it is a blend of modern and medieval, because it is played by modern people. Generally there has to be a bit of a harsher, crueler world accepted or else why would townspeople send some mercenary adventures to clean out the goblin caves rather than negotiate or send in a police force. Due to the construct of the game, death becomes a common and acceptable result. Otherwise every typical game murder-hobo is incredibly evil.

[hamishspence]

Given that some 50% of "NPCs with PC classes" encountered by parties (according to the DMG in 3rd ed) were Evil - maybe the "typical murderhobo adventurer" embodies those, and the non-evil adventurers tend to be somewhat less ruthless.

[EvilAnagram]

This is my point of view.
Disclaimer: As DnD is set in a medieval world, I don't like to use modern morality in my campaigns. The authorities tend to act as a medieval one would. Thus prison is a really rare form of punishment and most forms of punishments are immediate (e.g. excecuting a murderer, cutting a thieve's hands off).
Depending on the location, most medieval crimes were punished with fines, not mutilation.


I will assume, that the PCs are generally good characters, as for evil ones the morality doesn't really matter. Thus I assume, that they are mostly fighting "the bad guys" and not local guards and farmers.
It seems odd to assume that a party won't get in trouble with guards or run into cases of mistaken identity or opposing motivations between moral people.



The 1. option has very clear results:
- The prisoner can't do any further evil, e.g. if they caught a bandit, this guy most likely won't suddenly completly turn around and become a good working man.
- The prisoner can't seek revenge.
- The prisoner is dead and doesn't get any chance to do later good, which is unlikely anyways.
It's interesting that you can boil everything a human being (or other intelligent species) can possibly do to three things.

More importantly, you're totally willing to declare that people are "unlikely" to change, meaning that statistical uncertainty is grounds for execution. What is the tipping point, I wonder? Does a 33% greater likelihood of criminal behavior demand a death sentence?


The 2. option is very campaign dependent.
As I said, in my campaigns I try to run authorities by medieval standarts. Thus putting someone into prison (to punish him and to reintroduce him to society later) is an alien concept to most of them. They don't see a reason to feed a criminal for multiple years. They only imprison someone because they need something from him. If someone is punished by law, he is punished hard and fast. In the cases of bandits and such, that means puplic excecution.
In most cases, the result of this is just a delayed version of option 1.
Medieval punishments were varied and often utilized fines! Also, nobility often participated in banditry more than peasants, and they rarely faced punishment. Yay, history!

[RickAllison]

5e leaves Alignments broad enough they can work either way. Since they appear to be a tool to assist players with roleplaying/making in-character decisions, this makes sense. They have to be broad enough to allow freedom for other personality traits to be incorporated, as opposed to being a one dimensional caricature.

OTOH, there are many strong implications that Alignment in 5e is still Objective. In other words, your character might *think* he is good or doing the right thing, but his actual alignment doesn't match that. In other words, if 5e Alignment is objective, a player should choose an alignment to match the typical 'moral' behavior they intend to play the PC as, not what the PC actually thinks their moral behavior is. Then, like, tack on a Flaw along the lines of "I believe I'm doing the right thing, even when if I'm being evil." (That's a little blunt, but I wanted to make the point.)

On the gripping hand, it's important to remember that one of the original basic functions on Alignment is to create Teams, not just believable characters. Team PC vs Team Monster, Team Good vs Team Evil, Team Law vs Team Chaos. Otherwise it just comes down to Team Us vs Team Them. Which is, like, fine and all. But for some people that's not enough. :smallwink:

Tanarii, my feeling on this is that 5e alignment is "objective" in terms of whether certain ideas are based on ignorance or malice. A person who genuinely believes (he may be a little insane) that he is helping people by ushering those who are the most innocent and Good to their eternal reward while those who are not so are spared so that they may choose to reform really is Good in his own mind and it may never occur to him that others could feel differently.

Someone who hunts dwarves because he doesn't like dwarves is distinctly Evil. He is ending lives because of malice. Someone who is brainwashed into believing that all dwarves are part of a conspiracy to unravel the world so they can rework it into their personal paradise? Not so much. That isn't just looking at things from a certain point of view, however, it means that a person has only that point of view on the subject. If the person is made to then realize that the conspiracy is false and that dwarves were just like any other person, that justification no longer exists.

Subjective Good and Evil mainly has to do with whether your experiences have given you a perspective where your morality is different than that of the standard. You can't consciously choose a particular perspective, it has to be baked in and is subject to change if faced with the evidence contrary to the reality that has been constructed by the environment. Someone who puts up, for example, the gnomes as a scapegoat for his kingdom's troubles probably qualifies as Evil. Someone who was raised in the environment and whose only experiences with gnomes were being told they were Evil? His only evidence to build that aspect of reality on is the adopted rhetoric of the king. He can't be considered Evil for that objectively because he doesn't have a choice in his outlook. If he meets a good gnome, that reality is then called into question and his further choices do have an impact on whether he is Good or Evil (or Neutral).

To quote the Psijic Order from the Elder Scrolls: "Hold, mage, and listen well... Know that you have set in motion a chain of events that cannot be stopped. Judgment has not been passed, as you had no way of knowing. Judgment will be passed on your actions to come, and how you deal with the dangers ahead of you." Ignorance is excusable, malice is not.

[MBControl]

We players like killing things. It as simple as that. And we like getting in trouble, and killing our way out of trouble.

It's hard to change this habit. I'm personally bad at it. As a good character, it's easy for me to rationalize that he was evil, and leaving him alive puts my party and myself in danger.

The best way to nudge the play style in a different direction is by reward. What I mean is, start making a series of rewards that follow letting a prisoner live.

- He becomes a spy for the group
- He is a great blacksmith and will now be the party's smithy
- She will pop up and save them when things are looking most grim

This will make them stop to consider what they are not getting if they kill the prisoner. It's classic conditioning at it's best. The rats in the lab respond to positive re-enforcement more than negative.

So the problem here is they have to start letting people live to do this. You may have to let a couple escape against their will, in order to reward them. This takes crafty DMing, but once they get a feel for it, the party will start making different choices.

Once They start doing things different, you can go back to betraying them every now and then. HAHAHA

[Tanarii]

Tanarii, my feeling on this is that 5e alignment is "objective" in terms of whether certain ideas are based on ignorance or malice. A person who genuinely believes (he may be a little insane) that he is helping people by ushering those who are the most innocent and Good to their eternal reward while those who are not so are spared so that they may choose to reform really is Good in his own mind and it may never occur to him that others could feel differently.You're talking about intent vs action. Not subjective vs objective.

I was talking about Alignments being objective externally to the PC's beliefs. But not necessarily external to the DMs/Players, so to speak.

I often say in posts that 5e Alignment is about moral and social attitudes, as opposed to being determined by actions. A common retort to that is "but that's subjective. What if they believe they're actions are actually good?" No, it's not subjective at all. It just means that moral social attitude & associated typical but not required behavior is used by the player (not the PC) to inform in-character decisions. What the PC actually believes in-character doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the objective description of their moral / social attitudes, and the associated objective typical behaviors. Those can be objectively good or evil, and shown correctly on the character sheet, while the PC believes something different. Attitudes are not necessarily belief.

I'm not saying 5e Alignments must be objective in all senses, yours or mine. Although I personally think it's fairly strongly implied it is, in the fashion I'm describing.

Edit: I may have wandered off topic in an alignment thread again. Fancy that. :smallbiggrin:

[Sigreid]

While Henry's actions may have made a lot of tactical Sense, I wouldn't call them "Good". An that's OK. Interesting Characters don't need to be good. In fact I would rather have shrewd tactical thinkers than the Chaotic-Stupid I sometimes see at my table.


There is a school of thought that maintains that good leaders cannot afford to be good men, and great leaders are nearly always monsters.

[DragonSorcererX]

Hey guys!

Definitely not trying to turn this into a big flaming argument. I suspect some of you have strong views on this. So I'd just appreciate perspectives, with the understanding that they may not agree with the perspectives of others on this thread.

It appears to be simple for players to knock enemies unconscious instead of killing them (they can choose to do so with melee weapons, I don't believe there's any penalty for dealing nonlethal damage instead). My players generally try to leave at least one enemy unconscious in any given battle, so that they can question him (which is good! I like them trying to obtain information to help them.)

Almost invariably, they kill said creature after questioning.

Occasionally they frighten a villain enough that he/she/it surrenders before being knocked unconscious (as they recently did with the boss of Lost Mines of Phandelver). In this case, they *also* generally end up killing the prisoner.

Now, as a DM I don't mind my villains dying. Totaly fine. And we're playing largely without alignment - players are trying to play out their character as *characters*. So I don't have to say "Ah! That's not lawful good! You can't do that!".

However, the characters are generally good in the general sense. And I've been trying to wrap my head around the morality of killing prisoners.

On the one hand, I as the DM am going to play out those prisoners as realistically as I can. Which means they're going to try to escape, and may come back to wreak vengeance. And especially if you're facing a villain that is a capable spellcaster with a broad web of spies, it's going to be hard to keep him from escaping, and doing so probably means you don't have the freedom to do other things.

On the other hand, stabbing a prisoner in cold blood seems pretty cold. But that's from the perspective of a society that doesn't have rampaging princesses running around slaying innocent dragons, etc.

Note: In my head, killing someone you knocked unconscious for questioning seems less of an issue - you chose to delay killing him, is all. But even that gets hazy.

Also note: This isn't related to the impact on REPUTATION for killing prisoners. That one is easier for me to work out, but isn't usually relevant when said prisoners die in the dungeon.

Anyways, I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts!

Well, my player slaughtered every goblin in the first dungeon of LMoP and interrogated the last goblin and them slit his throat, and he is Lawful Good, well, those goblins had captured his dwarf friend and the first thing they did when ambushing them in the road was say "Humans... wait... Elves? Whatever! Die!".

Also, even though The Hobbit trilogy is as bad as Mid-Chlorians, they taught me one thing: "Orcs/goblins/generic evil minions don't have souls!" (well, in D&D they have, but they will go to the Lower Planes to get screwed anyways).

[jitzul]

One time when my party invaded a pirate hideout under a bar we left one person alive after interrogating him about what to expect. When we finished clearing out the hideout we returned to the bar above and the person we left alive ran off with a person sized chunk of gold(our ranger has a item that allows him to turn people he has shot into gold.). If there is anything I have learned from that and many many many trpg threads is that dm's LOVE coming up with things that bite the pc's in the ass. The way I see it if a pc ain't killing a prisoner because of general muderhoboness then they do it because they know letting the prisoner get away will bite them in the ass.

[Drackolus]

Our group usually doesn't really do alignments. We still may have ideas on the character's alignment, but it's more or less a private thing.
The worst thing about morality in D&D is that, eventually, many characters would realistically become estranged, essentially killing one or more characters in dialogue. You have to bend over backwards to explain why the party is together, when the real reason is that the players are in the same game.
I don't think most players want to have their characters effectively killed by popular vote of the party, even when they aren't disruptive. Especially since a campaign with moral questions likely have more well-developed and interesting characters.
Then again, you could argue that inter-party conflict is inevitable and not necessarily a bad thing, and I would not argue that point.

[Saeviomage]

5e only has a few very restricted cases where alignment matter:

When choosing what damage spirit guardians does (which IMO should be up to your diety's personal views - a good aligned cleric of death might put out necrotic, while an evil cleric of light should be throwing out radiant).

When casting glyph of warding (where it's going to be used as shorthand for "do I generally agree with this guy's morals")

When travelling to the outer planes (where it actually might make sense to use it).

When using a talisman of pure good/evil (where again it seems to be shorthand for "is this guy on the same side as me?")

Apart from that, it has literally no effect. You don't lose levels for changing alignment, no classes require it, you don't lose XP for not playing to your alignment etc.

So unless your party is heading to the outer planes (in which case, start tallying), don't use alignment at all. After all, it's not written on the character's head.

All of the scenarios that use alignment can also be resolved by asking the question "would the creator of this item/glyph/the owner of this plane agree or disagree with this character's general principles?" and applying the bad result if the answer is no.

[Vogonjeltz]

Hey guys!

Definitely not trying to turn this into a big flaming argument. I suspect some of you have strong views on this. So I'd just appreciate perspectives, with the understanding that they may not agree with the perspectives of others on this thread.

It appears to be simple for players to knock enemies unconscious instead of killing them (they can choose to do so with melee weapons, I don't believe there's any penalty for dealing nonlethal damage instead). My players generally try to leave at least one enemy unconscious in any given battle, so that they can question him (which is good! I like them trying to obtain information to help them.)

Almost invariably, they kill said creature after questioning.

Occasionally they frighten a villain enough that he/she/it surrenders before being knocked unconscious (as they recently did with the boss of Lost Mines of Phandelver). In this case, they *also* generally end up killing the prisoner.

Now, as a DM I don't mind my villains dying. Totaly fine. And we're playing largely without alignment - players are trying to play out their character as *characters*. So I don't have to say "Ah! That's not lawful good! You can't do that!".

However, the characters are generally good in the general sense. And I've been trying to wrap my head around the morality of killing prisoners.

On the one hand, I as the DM am going to play out those prisoners as realistically as I can. Which means they're going to try to escape, and may come back to wreak vengeance. And especially if you're facing a villain that is a capable spellcaster with a broad web of spies, it's going to be hard to keep him from escaping, and doing so probably means you don't have the freedom to do other things.

On the other hand, stabbing a prisoner in cold blood seems pretty cold. But that's from the perspective of a society that doesn't have rampaging princesses running around slaying innocent dragons, etc.

Note: In my head, killing someone you knocked unconscious for questioning seems less of an issue - you chose to delay killing him, is all. But even that gets hazy.

Also note: This isn't related to the impact on REPUTATION for killing prisoners. That one is easier for me to work out, but isn't usually relevant when said prisoners die in the dungeon.

Anyways, I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts!

Well, how you approach this might depend on how it is role played.

Ie it's the players who decided that a creature didn't die, but the characters are just searching to see if there were any survivors for interrogation.

Second, as you role play the prisoners, have them bargain with the PCs, surely they would ask things like:

If I tell you what you want to know, will you release me unharmed?

It's entirely possible that NPCs would never cooperate, not trusting the PCs or would only provide lies, believing the PCs will kill them no matter what.

If the characters develop a reputation for killing prisoners that precedes them, maybe nobody ever cooperates.

[furby076]

In my opinion.
If its possible to lock up the prisoner (e.g. jail, hand to sheriff, etc) and they dont do it...then evil
If it is not possible to lock up, then most of the time its not evil...you said it, the npcs may come back later

Why did i say most of the time....if you, the DM, rp the character as begging for mercy, showing a portrait of his family, and all insight/zone of truth spells the person is going to repent....then killing him is evil.

Monsters get no quarter. I aint letting that devil, vampire, medusa, etc go

[Tanarii]

Apart from that, it has literally no effect. You don't lose levels for changing alignment, no classes require it, you don't lose XP for not playing to your alignment etc.Apart from being part of the basis for in-character decision making in 5e, aka role playing.

I don't know about you, but I feel like roleplaying is a pretty important effect.

You can ignore it, cut it out, and do your in-character decision making without it. Just like you can ignore ammunition tracking or marching order. But all these things are in the rules, and all of them have quite large effects on the game's play experience, if you actually choose to use them, as opposed to ignore them.

[Doug Lampert]

While Henry's actions may have made a lot of tactical Sense, I wouldn't call them "Good". An that's OK. Interesting Characters don't need to be good. In fact I would rather have shrewd tactical thinkers than the Chaotic-Stupid I sometimes see at my table.

Edit: This has nothing to do with the Morality of the issue- English peasants often fought Knights during the times of the Hundred Years War, Ransoming a knight was a great way for Peasants to make a great deal of wealth. I think I read in a book that a third of the Ransom went to the direct captor of the knight, and a third to his commander, and a third to the crown, but I might be mis-remembering. The most notable example I know of is John de Coupland who earned wealth, a Knighthood, and land after capturing King David II of Scotland. I think those Guarding the French Knights at Agicourt must have known they were losing a fortune when following Henry's orders to start killing the prisoners.

English Longbowmen were respectably well paid. They were not poor. The Italian Mercenary companies were largely founded by English common soldiers who had no interest in returning to merely being some of the richest non-gentry in England. The archers were paid roughly half as much as the very professional and well paid English Men-at-Arms (and a man-at-arms was required to maintain a warhorse) and the archers had ransoms of their own.

And Henry saved the 500 or so guys worth a significant ransom. The fact that one Duke hadn't dressed properly for his station and was "accidentally" killed was considered a tragedy by contemporary chroniclers. At least some chronicles blame the 6,000 poorer French prisoners who were killed on the French third line commander who was trying to organize another attack and thus scared Henry into ordering the bulk of his prisoners killed.

[nweismuller]

One period-appropriate response to surrendered enemies that would normally be considered honorable and non-ruthless when you don't have the ability at hand to keep prisoners- 'granting them their parole'. This, essentially, consists of getting the sworn word of the surrendered people that they'll not do whatever (fight against you in war, prey on farmsteads, whatever). You then let them go free. This is their one warning. If you catch somebody you've granted parole to violating the terms of it, you have the perfect right to kill them out of hand and not take further surrenders, since obviously they can't be trusted.

This is well within the capabilities of PCs, and might be worth suggesting to players who want their PCs to behave in a more honorable and Good fashion.

[Malifice]

It's clearly and unabiguously evil.

Moreso if the PCs make a habit of it.

Id certainly change their alignments to reflect this.

[Mellack]

It's clearly and unabiguously evil.



Looks at 50+ posts debating topic....considers there has been millenia of debate over morals...

I don't think that means what you think it means.

[Malifice]

Looks at 50+ posts debating topic....considers there has been millenia of debate over morals...

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Yeah it does. If I was on operations in Afghanistan and our squad captured some insurgents after a firefight, and we proceeded to interrogate them for intel and then cut their throats after we were done, we did something evil.

Our squad can debate that all the way to the stockade if we wanted.

Same deal if the cops intentionally shoot you in the face in the interrogation room at the station after arresting you. They go to jail.

Both acts are unlawful not because they are morally neutral, nor becuase they are morally good, but because they are morally evil. Like rape is morally evil, or murder is morally evil; acts like that are prohibited for a reason.

Civilised society is very clear that killing someone who has surrendered, no longer poses you any threat, and is at your mercy is evil. Only one civilised nation still practices the death penalty, and its an outlier in a great many things.

Im not saying you cant assert that rape, murder or torture are 'good' acts. Go nuts. I know plenty of prisoners who honestly believe that they're 'good' people, and the people they killed or raped or maimed or whatver 'deserved it'.

My position is that those acts are not good acts. They never will be good acts. No amount of subjective justification or debate makes the good acts. You can argue it all you want with the Judge, but you go to jail and get branded an evil monster.

If you want to play a guy that ruthlessly kills helpless captives (after torturing them for information) and honestly believes you're a good person, go for it. Just in my games, you're doing it with an 'E' in the alignment section of your character sheet.

Seriously. How are we debating that people who systematically kill helpless people are anything other than evil? I suppose this is a DnD forum. Ive seen people on here argue that the mass genocide of babies can be a good act.

[The Glyphstone]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country

Bit of an aside, but there are 56 countries that still practice the death penalty. Only one is a Western country (and only four are industrialized), but equating 'Western' = 'civilized' has some extremely negative connotations that you almost certainly didn't intend.


On-topic, I'd agree that if we are keeping with the pseudomedieval, pseudomodern melange of morality that D&D settings tend to adopt, parole is probably the best compromise for good parties that way to take prisoners. Outright murder of helpless prisoners is, IMO, evil; refusing to give quarter in the first place isn't good, but it doesn't have the inherent betrayal of trust element.

[Mellack]

I will answer how very simply, we do not necessarly use modern morals. By modern rules if we were to chop off a hand for theft, it would be considered barbaric. Historically it was acceptable. Slavery was considered proper for much of history. Some people do not need to apply present day standards to their historical fantasy games. If you and you gaming group choose to, have a great time. That does not make it a universal rule, and claiming so does not mean it is unambigious. Much smarter people than you and I have had such debates for years. Clear is the last thing morals are.

[Sigreid]

I will answer how very simply, we do not necessarly use modern morals. By modern rules if we were to chop off a hand for theft, it would be considered barbaric. Historically it was acceptable. Slavery was considered proper for much of history. Some people do not need to apply present day standards to their historical fantasy games. If you and you gaming group choose to, have a great time. That does not make it a universal rule, and claiming so does not mean it is unambigious. Much smarter people than you and I have had such debates for years. Clear is the last thing morals are.

There's really not much point in getting into an alignment debate with him. It's become abundantly clear that he is set in his outlook and will just constantly restate it. That's fine for his games and has no bearing on mine.

[Marlowe]

What happens to prisoners if they don't get killed? On either side? Are they held captive? Are there places to hold them captive? Are there third-party neutral factions that can take them in? Can they be ransomed back? Exchanged? Used as bargaining chips? Are there truces and parleys occasionally to allow these these to happen?

In too many campaigns, the answer to all these questions is no. The enemy is a soulless mass of killers who kill what they can and kill what they can because they're a soulless mass of killers. Like the nameless Bugbear quoted above. And from their point of view, the PCs and whatever faction is they represent is exactly the same. And so, prisoners tend to be nothing but liabilities.

If this sort of thing isn't going to happen, the PCs need to be shown that the opposition is capable of acting reasonably and being treated with. And it seems a lot of people aren't interested in running worlds where such happens.

[Syll]

Some people do not need to apply present day standards to their historical fantasy games. If you and you gaming group choose to, have a great time. That does not make it a universal rule, and claiming so does not mean it is unambigious. Much smarter people than you and I have had such debates for years. Clear is the last thing morals are.

This may be the single best response to an alignment thread I've ever seen.

[Cglied]

"If the prisoner knows they will be killed anyway, why would they tell the PCs anything?

Agreed. If it's custom that prisoners aren't kept alive, why would anyone ever yield or surrender?

[Mellack]

Marlowe makes a great point. Many (most?) game worlds seem to be run like an action movie. There are the heroes, and there is the bad guys they fight against. Both sides do not get to be full, reasoning, in depth characters usually. The opponents are mooks who are there to be run over, like an action movie. People do not moan about how many people Rambo or Legolas kills. Many people play for a relaxing good time, not morality plays.

[Finback]

I'm trying to think of it as how each alignment would handle it:

LG - no. There is a duty to the prisoner's wellbeing, regardless of why they are in there.
NG - Depends on the crime, but it should be something done under extreme pressure or for a very good reason.
CG - justifiable, especially if the prisoner committed a greater crime
LN - no, because there are systems in place
N - hard to say here, because neutral can be too damned ambivalent
CN - they probably would, because too often, CN is Chaotic Random
LE - probably not, because a) systems exist for a reason b) they might be useful in the future as bargaining chips
NE - more likely, a deal will be made - we'll release you, for a favour..
CE - yeah kill them all! Blood for the Blood God etc etc

[Malifice]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country

Bit of an aside, but there are 56 countries that still practice the death penalty. Only one is a Western country (and only four are industrialized), but equating 'Western' = 'civilized' has some extremely negative connotations that you almost certainly didn't intend.

True. It was a poor choice of words, and I retract it. I certainly dont equate [western] with [civilized]. To be totally honest, I hate the word 'Western' and the ethnocentrism all too often attached to it.

My point being that few enlightened or developed nations (as in high HDI, stable poltical systems, high standard of living etc) practice the Death penalty. The USA and Japan spring to mind as the noteable exceptions. Its use has been almost universally abolished in comparable nations (such as the UK, Western Europe, Australia, NZ, Latin America and Turkey) for reasons that have been debated elsewhere at great length (that I wont get into here).

I doubt that few people even in nations that have the death penalty view Capital punishment as morally 'Good'. Morally neutral (an eye for an eye, or punishment that fits the crime or a 'necessary evil') at best.


I will answer how very simply, we do not necessarly use modern morals. By modern rules if we were to chop off a hand for theft, it would be considered barbaric. Historically it was acceptable. Slavery was considered proper for much of history. Some people do not need to apply present day standards to their historical fantasy games. If you and you gaming group choose to, have a great time. That does not make it a universal rule, and claiming so does not mean it is unambigious. Much smarter people than you and I have had such debates for years. Clear is the last thing morals are.

It gets back to your own view of morality in your game. If your game features objective morality, and slavery is objectively evil, then it remains so regardless of how society views it.

And as a side note, if you think Slavery was considered proper and good throughout history, you never spoke to the Slaves.

[Malifice]

I'm trying to think of it as how each alignment would handle it:

LG - no. There is a duty to the prisoner's wellbeing, regardless of why they are in there.
NG - Depends on the crime, but it should be something done under extreme pressure or for a very good reason.
CG - justifiable, especially if the prisoner committed a greater crime

Erm no. All three alignments are good. Good people oppose harming or killing the defenceless.

A CG person certainly wouldnt approve. A LG person might tolerate the practice for irredeemable monsters, but would prefer it gotten rid of.


LN - no, because there are systems in place

Actually a LN PC (acting under color of law) would even (reluctantly) perform capital punishment on a person whose guilt and complicity in an evil act has been proved. They'd insist on a fair hearing of the facts of course.

I had a LN Hellknight PC in my Golarion campaign once, and he was given a warrant to capture and eradicate bandits from the river kingdoms. They were given a fair trial, and if convicted, executed for banditry.


CN - they probably would, because too often, CN is Chaotic Random


They'd be quite likely to oppose the death penalty (being strong individualists).


LE - probably not, because a) systems exist for a reason b) they might be useful in the future as bargaining chips

A LE person would be most likely to support the death penalty. In fact the first thing most tyranical dictators (your textbook LE) do is execute rivals or dissedents (lawfully... by enacting laws that make those dissidents actions liable for capital punishment).

[Finback]

Erm no. All three alignments are good. Good people oppose harming or killing the defenceless.
A CG person certainly wouldnt approve. A LG person might tolerate the practice for irredeemable monsters, but would prefer it gotten rid of.

But if we're talking about prisoners here, then I see that the LG person would be "we are entrusted with these people's wellbeing while being punished/restrained", whereas the CG person might see a reason to justify killing for the greater good, disregarding the law.

e.g. Space-Squid Hitler is taken prisoner for destroying a planet full of innocents. LG hero says, "he will be taken into custody and will pay for his crimes" - CG hero says, "we should kill him now for what he did to all those innocents".




Actually a LN PC (acting under color of law) would even (reluctantly) perform capital punishment on a person whose guilt and complicity in an evil act has been proved. They'd insist on a fair hearing of the facts of course.

I had a LN Hellknight PC in my Golarion campaign once, and he was given a warrant to capture and eradicate bandits from the river kingdoms. They were given a fair trial, and if convicted, executed for banditry.

Agreed, if that was the due process - he followed the system in place. But isn't the question about killing someone already taken prisoner - including those who may be already convicted, and the imprisonment is their punishment? That's how I'm seeing it - if imprisonment IS the punishment, then a LN hero would be obligated to follow the due process of the law - which extends to care and protection of those under imprisonment.

(I'm wondering if we're all working from a range of definitions of "prisoner" - 'NPC we have tied up and are delivering back to the authorities" versus "NPC in a prison cell/gaol we found on our adventures".

[Wymmerdann]

Keep in mind that PC's rarely have legitimate legal authority delegated to them.

There seems to be a gradual shift in this conversation from "executing prisoners because they are no longer useful" to "executing prisoners because of the crimes they have committed". In my experience, players are prone to dressing up what is clearly the former as the latter for the sake of convenience.

Having recently played through as a silver-tongued oathbreaker, I feel comfortable marking up any character that tried to disguise the former as the latter as evil.

I think one aspect at play here is that we, as DM's and as players, do not humanise our foes because it ruins the power fantasy with a sense of responsibility. "What do you mean I need to apply the Geneva Conventions to this goblin!". All GM's should make an intentional decision about the degree to which they're allowing the adventure dynamic [and power fantasy] to drive their narrative, and the degree to which they intend realistic consequences to come back to haunt the players. Swinging between the two can be jarring for PC's, who feel they've been baited by a GM into failing a morality play.

One obvious solution for the "realistic consequences" side of thingswould be to humanise npc's [even as prisoners]. Characters who are taken prisoner have lives outside of that role, and it suits the power fantasy, but weakens the moral underpinning of the narrative, to ignore that. Obviously there are exceptions to this [as the power fantasy of D&D has shaped all manner of always-evil villains to suit it] but they should be seen as exceptions to a general rule.

Even a dodgy mercenary may have a wife and kids back home. When your pc's are rifling through his possessions with his blood on their hands, they find a lock of hair, silk kerchief or other personal keepsake, which reminds them of this fact. It doesn't need to be a lengthy subplot with a vengeful Inigo Montoya child, but a timely reminder that player actions have consequences can return much needed depth to any GM's narrative. The Fridge Horror typified by V's discovery of the Draketooth stronghold is another narratively appropriate response to this kind of problem [albeit with a significant impact on the main plot/quest].

[RickAllison]

Im not saying you cant assert that rape, murder or torture are 'good' acts. Go nuts. I know plenty of prisoners who honestly believe that they're 'good' people, and the people they killed or raped or maimed or whatver 'deserved it'.

I seriously have to ask, because you say this equivalent in essentially every alignment debate no matter how little it relates to the three (murder is appropriate for discussion for this one at least): Why are you fixated on taking these alignment debates straight into rape and torture?

In every debate, you are the first to go full straw-man and start pulling the rape and torture cards and it is rather disturbing. I don't think anyone besides you has ever brought rape into the discussion, yet you insist on introducing it into debates. Thievery? You pull the rape card. Whether sacrificing one innocent for an entire world is justifiable? You pull the rape card. Morality of killing prisoners? You pull the rape card. It is majorly disturbing and it becomes an awkward sticking point where no one wants to discuss those sections because they don't want to discuss that crap! Just don't do it. It contributes nothing except to be hostile and triggering.

[hamishspence]

I seriously have to ask, because you say this equivalent in essentially every alignment debate no matter how little it relates to the three (murder is appropriate for discussion for this one at least): Why are you fixated on taking these alignment debates straight into rape and torture?

In every debate, you are the first to go full straw-man and start pulling the rape and torture cards and it is rather disturbing. I don't think anyone besides you has ever brought rape into the discussion, yet you insist on introducing it into debates. Thievery? You pull the rape card. Whether sacrificing one innocent for an entire world is justifiable? You pull the rape card. Morality of killing prisoners? You pull the rape card. It is majorly disturbing and it becomes an awkward sticking point where no one wants to discuss those sections because they don't want to discuss that crap! Just don't do it. It contributes nothing except to be hostile and triggering.

Torture came up in the very second post in this thread:


This is definitely a tough question and interested to see everyones responses.

From a realworld standpoint, once a person crosses the line from combatant to prisoner certain rights are given to them (namely, not being tortured and killed.)

However, this is a fantasy game and questioning the enemy combatant before killing them for expediency and limitation of further risk (the PCs also don't have a prison system in place like the real world that they can put them in) seems perfectly fine.

If they start torturing though...

[Mutazoia]

As someone already said, It depends on the setting, but also the motivation.

For instance, in a SWD6 game i was running a few years back, one player was playing a bounty hunter. He managed to capture a criminal (wanted dead or alive) by stunning him. He took his weapons and armor, handcuffed his hands behind his back, and then said "I shoot him in the head." When asked why he answered "because I want his ship."

In the Star Wars Universe, this earned him an instant Dark Side point, because he killed an unarmed man, not in self defense, or in defense of others, but for reasons purely motivated by greed.

In a Traveller game, it wouldn't have been viewed as very nice, but there would be less serious ramifications.

In a fantasy game, killing prisoners might not be a good act, but that doesn't automatically make it an evil one either. Do the PC's have the time and resourses to lug this prisoner around until he can be turned over to authorities? Do Authorities even exist where they are? Are they a criminal in this jurisdiction (if such a concept exists in world)? Who is the prisoner? Is the prisoner considered a "good guy" or not? Did the PC's just grab some random farmer, grill him for an hour and then lop off his head? Too many situational factors to accurately judge something as vague as "killing a prisoner".

[StoicLeaf]

We just had a situation like this.
I usually DM but am currently playing in a side adventure as someone is on holiday, so the main plot can't advance. ANYWAY, story time!

My character is being brought along on an adventure. She really wanted to see what adventuring is like, she's the guard captain for the PCs back at their castle, she's considering a career change! The adventure outline is that a filthy rich gnome wants us to go hunt down a secret basement in a castle because he thinks there'll be a hidden shrine there that'll prove that the nobles that used to live there worhshipped such and such god.
As we're approaching the castle, we find a hobgoblin sentry camp. There's 10 of them, 2 of them have horns, there are goblins and wolves with saddles on their backs. We assume the castle is being held by hobgoblins and that reinforcements might be an issue. We setup, I plead and beg with the rest of the group to at least try talk to them, they reluctantly agree, the person talking doesn't exude strength or anything a hobgoblin would respect (think rabbit staring at headlights) and a fight ensues.
Now, the hobgoblins are no match for our group. My character takes out 4 of them in the first round (shooting to remove from combat, not explicitly kill), the others get erect with murderlust and kill anyone that my character doesn't down. Some of the downed foes bleed out, others are killed by my co-adventurers, I can barely threaten them into leaving the leader of this group alone as I bandage his wounds.

We handcuff the hobgoblin captain to a tree and question him. We become aware of the fact that the once long abandoned castle had now become occupied by a hobgoblin/goblin group; they are part of a much larger army, the nearest human settlement was 4 days away, we had no idea where the main bulk of the army was camped. We couldn't really learn much more.

My character argued we should give him a dagger and send him off into the forests. He's been severely wounded, he won't be fighting for another few weeks. he can't make it to the castle before us, the terrain won't allow it. The others say no, it's easier to kill him. It's also safer; he knows our numbers and position, he might warn the others. A heated debate ensues about ideals, one of the other guys in the group simply executes the hobgoblin whilst my character is distracted.

Later on we assault the castle at night. They die unarmed, most of them as they slept. We discover maps and some unencrypted correspondence; the army is a week away and there are no other forces in the area. My character learns that out in the wilds, ideals are rather expensive; there's no control over what'll work out and what won't. Therefore it's important to take work that'll clearly benefit those that need protecting. Some dumb basement isn't worth the 40+ dead now being picked at by birds.


I realise this doesn't answer the OP's question.
The thing is, I don't think you can clearly answer it in such as way that you can cover each and every permutation of the prisoner dilemma.
I think if your players aren't sociopaths, in their heart of hearts, they know whether what they did was right or not.
And as a DM, you do, too! Imo, the best thing you can do is wait for their complacency and wait for them to do morally dubious things in a city.
Have someone witness it. Roleplay it out. Execute your PCs if appropriate.

[RickAllison]

Torture came up in the very second post in this thread:

The torture part was more of a general claim, while I went more specifically for the third category. Please show me where that category has any relevance to this thread before he brought it up.

[BiPolar]

Torture came up in the very second post in this thread:

To be clear, I brought up Torture because the OP was asking about "questioning" prisoners. Interrogation can, and does, wander into the torture category.

[Tanarii]

One obvious solution for the "realistic consequences" side of thingswould be to humanise npc's [even as prisoners]. Characters who are taken prisoner have lives outside of that role, and it suits the power fantasy, but weakens the moral underpinning of the narrative, to ignore that. Obviously there are exceptions to this [as the power fantasy of D&D has shaped all manner of always-evil villains to suit it] but they should be seen as exceptions to a general rule.

Even a dodgy mercenary may have a wife and kids back home. When your pc's are rifling through his possessions with his blood on their hands, they find a lock of hair, silk kerchief or other personal keepsake, which reminds them of this fact. It doesn't need to be a lengthy subplot with a vengeful Inigo Montoya child, but a timely reminder that player actions have consequences can return much needed depth to any GM's narrative. The Fridge Horror typified by V's discovery of the Draketooth stronghold is another narratively appropriate response to this kind of problem [albeit with a significant impact on the main plot/quest].
My experience is that "Please, what about my children?!" is something that come from the mouth of many a captured humanoid. I've used it myself many times. Especially AD&D 1e DMs, when humanoid lairs was more common. The look on newer player's faces (including mine) when they realize half the combatants they just slew were women defending their lair ...

Similarly, I regularly have humanoids pockets have various trinkets, keepsakes, and the like. I mean, in theory you can skip that stuff when the players are just throwing it all away and keeping the cash. But if you do that, you're changing the flavor of your world, because the players can only see what you describe. But you're absolutely also encouraging murder-hoboism.

Of course, the ultimate encouragement for murder-hoboism is the majority of games is that PCs almost never face consequences for murderhoboing actions, at least those done outside of civilization. And sometimes inside.

[BiPolar]

Ultimately, this comes down to what kind of world did the DM create and what type of play did everyone want to engage in.

As has been said above a few times, moral compasses can vary widely by culture/time and discussions of morality in general are far from complete. At the end of the day, if you want to go deep into a highly moral world, you probably shouldn't be campaigning. Any creature you encounter has a story and a history. When you find out why they're doing what they're doing and whether or not they have a family, killing of any kind becomes abhorrent. If you want to play a complete non-combat RPG, it can work. With D&D, you do need to hand-waive some moral concerns. I'm not saying murderhoboism is the norm, but killing absolutely is.

And many of us play this game for fun and escape. Having to worry about whether or not the BBEG was abused as a child, has a family that he loves and loves him, etc etc can take a lot of fun out of the world if it isn't what everyone was hoping to get out of the RPG. Because any killing for any reason can be seen as "evil".

[Tanarii]

Because any killing for any reason can be seen as "evil".Given how few people IRL would agree with that statement, not every game of D&D is going to approach anything like that viewpoint. I mean, I suppose if you're a hippie beatnik from the 60s trying to play D&D, or trying to play in the campaign of someone who regularly defines all killing as "murder", then you could end up at that extreme.

[EvilAnagram]

I will answer how very simply, we do not necessarly use modern morals. By modern rules if we were to chop off a hand for theft, it would be considered barbaric. Historically it was acceptable. Slavery was considered proper for much of history. Some people do not need to apply present day standards to their historical fantasy games. If you and you gaming group choose to, have a great time. That does not make it a universal rule, and claiming so does not mean it is unambigious. Much smarter people than you and I have had such debates for years. Clear is the last thing morals are.

Sure, people saw it as acceptable (far less than you're suggesting), but moral philosophers dating back to ancient Greece, not to mention countless religious authorities, have been very clear in condemning similar behavior as immoral.

Accepted and moral are not equivalent terms, especially in a world with an absolute morality.

Furthermore, almost none of the posts arguing that it's fine have made any effort to argue their point beyond a tautology. There's hardly a debate here since no side is making any actual arguments.

[Stealthscout]

5e only has a few very restricted cases where alignment matter:

When choosing what damage spirit guardians does (which IMO should be up to your diety's personal views - a good aligned cleric of death might put out necrotic, while an evil cleric of light should be throwing out radiant).

When casting glyph of warding...

This bears more repeating from the early posters - alignment is only a quick tool for identifying groups and not an 'ability score' of some kind that needs to be kept up to date.

In my games, I overtly declare that your alignment doesn't matter and you should only write it down for your reference. I will decide your alignment based on your actions when it actually matters. This has a surprising ability to make people actually play to what their character should do and damn the consequences. Kill him off or tie him up - so long as you can explain why your character thinks that way, it is good roleplaying.

That said, I get to use the same logic in reverse. Try the following situations:

You pull forth the talisman of ultimate evil and... let's take a look at what you did over the last couple sessions and why you did them for a minute
The glyph of warding flares and you realize that you have been negligently breaking every vase in the temple since you came in and the god of smithing doesn't care if you are good or not - you shall be exploded for your evil actions


You only have to do this once, and they will know that your actions matter and play accordingly forever. Otherwise, you can play your character 'true' and not get caught up in discussions about what the true nature of 'good' is. That kind of talk tends to make any conversation turn into a moral grand melee without end.

[BiPolar]

Given how few people IRL would agree with that statement, not every game of D&D is going to approach anything like that viewpoint. I mean, I suppose if you're a hippie beatnik from the 60s trying to play D&D, or trying to play in the campaign of someone who regularly defines all killing as "murder", then you could end up at that extreme.

Heh, very true. Although with the discussion we've been having on whether or not someone "deserves" to die it can be extrapolated that it wouldn't be hard to find a reason not to kill them. There's almost always a reason not to do it, and very few cases where something has absolutely no redeeming qualities or reasons to be left alive.

Even in war, do the soldiers you are fighting deserve to die? Is it morally acceptable to kill someone because your nation/religion told you to and because they're nation/religion told them to kill you? (I expect of lot of flames for this, but if you're going to question the morality of killing...)

[Tanarii]

This bears more repeating from the early posters - alignment is only a quick tool for identifying groups and not an 'ability score' of some kind that needs to be kept up to date.And it bears repeating that the alignment rules in 5e do matter. It's one of the rules (ie tools) the game provides for Roleplaying. You can pretty easily ignore the alignment rules, just as you can ignore the rules for ammunition or marching order / other activities while traveling affecting if you get to make a perception checks. But if you do you're playing a modified version of the game, and you will experience a different game because of it. So yeah, it matters quite a lot.

[hamishspence]

It's for early on in the game - when the player specifically wants to be a particular alignment, and thus, has to pay attention to what's written in PHB about that alignment.

Over time, the player may lose interest in being that particular alignment, and/or there will grow a disconnect between Player's Version of It and DM's Version Of It. Hence alignment change.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I doubt that few people even in nations that have the death penalty view Capital punishment as morally 'Good'. Morally neutral (an eye for an eye, or punishment that fits the crime or a 'necessary evil') at best.

And you'd be wrong*. Reports and such on support for the death penalty show that generally, many if not most who support it believe that it is a just punishment for certain crimes - i.e. a moral good.

Also, I'd bear in mind that while few 'enlightened' nations (a description which isn't really helping your case, incidentally...) practice the death penalty, those few include the big ones - the combined population of the USA, Japan, Israel and Brazil** is a pretty big number. Add in the 'enlightened' nations currently considering readopting or extending the death penalty (i.e. Turkey and Israel), and the large numbers of people in favour of it in abolitionist countries (generally a strong minority if not a majority - support for the death penalty only became a minority in the UK in 2015, 50 years after abolition), and it becomes clear that there is by no means a universal or even majority opposition to execution, even in 'enlightened' countries. And of course, the majority of the world population live in un-'enlightened' countries.

*At least, I think so, because I think you meant "I doubt that many people...". If you didn't, apologies.

**Brazil maintains the death penalty for severe military offences during wartime. The current regime hasn't ever applied it, but the Third Brazilian Republic has also never actually been in a state of war, so it remains quite plausible that it might were such a situation to come to pass.

[longshotist]

honestly, as a DM i cringe whenever the players discuss leaving one alive for questioning. most of the time there's really no good ending that's going to come out of it.

for example, a dungeon is overrun with evil goblins. the party slaughters a group of them, leaving one alive for questioning. why would it help the party? it just watched all it's comrades get killed. offering to let the goblin go doesn't feel like it would be very convincing. where would it go? join up with the rest of the goblins the party plans to kill? leave the dungeon and try to survive in the world alone for the rest of its days?

i'm running a spelljammer-esque game right now, and the party is investigating an ancient dwarven forge on an asteroid. the long-abandoned forge is currently occupied by firenewts who were dropped off there to work on some sort of ritual. After defeating a patrol of the firenewts, the party kept one alive for questioning. they offered to let it go and leave the forge complex - where's it gonna go? then they offered to let it return to its master, who it said would only sacrifice it to Imix. They're sitting there debating what to do, threatening the firenewt with a blade held to its neck. I had it spit a gob of fire in the threatening character's face.

My feeling, as a player and DM, is when it comes to monsters, just kill 'em. Maybe, MAYBE under certain circumstances glean some info from defeated monsters, or if it's a significant NPC villain capture them and bring them to justice. but i avoid taking prisoners of random monsters and minions. There's rarely an end point that doesn't involve killing them anyway. As someone mentioned in the replies, if you brought a dangerous prisoner back to the nearby village they'd either kill them there anyway or be unable to contain the threat themselves.

[EvilAnagram]

honestly, as a DM i cringe whenever the players discuss leaving one alive for questioning. most of the time there's really no good ending that's going to come out of it.

for example, a dungeon is overrun with evil goblins. the party slaughters a group of them, leaving one alive for questioning. why would it help the party? it just watched all it's comrades get killed. offering to let the goblin go doesn't feel like it would be very convincing. where would it go? join up with the rest of the goblins the party plans to kill? leave the dungeon and try to survive in the world alone for the rest of its days?

i'm running a spelljammer-esque game right now, and the party is investigating an ancient dwarven forge on an asteroid. the long-abandoned forge is currently occupied by firenewts who were dropped off there to work on some sort of ritual. After defeating a patrol of the firenewts, the party kept one alive for questioning. they offered to let it go and leave the forge complex - where's it gonna go? then they offered to let it return to its master, who it said would only sacrifice it to Imix. They're sitting there debating what to do, threatening the firenewt with a blade held to its neck. I had it spit a gob of fire in the threatening character's face.

My feeling, as a player and DM, is when it comes to monsters, just kill 'em. Maybe, MAYBE under certain circumstances glean some info from defeated monsters, or if it's a significant NPC villain capture them and bring them to justice. but i avoid taking prisoners of random monsters and minions. There's rarely an end point that doesn't involve killing them anyway. As someone mentioned in the replies, if you brought a dangerous prisoner back to the nearby village they'd either kill them there anyway or be unable to contain the threat themselves.

So if the party can't figure out what to do with them, kill 'em.

This just raises the question of what the party should do with street urchins. Surely, those thieving rascals can be quite the nuisance, so would the acceptable thing to do in your game be to remove the nuisance? To hell with rats in the cellar, are orphans in the alley the first level pest in your games?

[longshotist]

So if the party can't figure out what to do with them, kill 'em.

This just raises the question of what the party should do with street urchins. Surely, those thieving rascals can be quite the nuisance, so would the acceptable thing to do in your game be to remove the nuisance? To hell with rats in the cellar, are orphans in the alley the first level pest in your games?

no, i was thinking more specifically along the lines of monsters in a dungeon, in particular ones who had explicitly been fighting the party with intent to kill.

[EvilAnagram]

no, i was thinking more specifically along the lines of monsters in a dungeon, in particular ones who had explicitly been fighting the party with intent to kill.

Well, most enemies in a dungeon are humanoids. So, what separates one humanoid from another?

If a group of farmers, mistaking the party for a threat to their land, attack them in defense of their homes, should the party kill them after subduing them?

[longshotist]

Well, most enemies in a dungeon are humanoids. So, what separates one humanoid from another?

If a group of farmers, mistaking the party for a threat to their land, attack them in defense of their homes, should the party kill them after subduing them?

i'm not sure why you're nitpicking and glossing over the fact i've specified MONSTERS IN DUNGEONS more than once now.

There's a lot of facets to this discussion, certainly. Grabbing the wrist of a pickpocket in the city is one. Misunderstandings traveling through someone's land is another.

Battling against armed monsters whose intention is to kill you in a trap-filled lair is quite another. That's what i'm responding to. I suppose, in your example, if the farmers were chaotic evil and kidnapping innocent people and bringing them back to their lair, and the party was dispatched to deal with them, and on sight the farmers attacked with deadly intent, that'd be closer to the equivalent.

[EvilAnagram]

i'm not sure why you're nitpicking and glossing over the fact i've specified MONSTERS IN DUNGEONS more than once now.
Right, and I asked what the difference is between a monstrous humanoid and a non-monstrous humanoid. I'm just trying to learn your point of view.

Are you saying the location is important? If orcs are attacking a city, do their prisoners suddenly deserve rights since they are no longer in their home (the dungeon)? Why do creatures have less of a right to live in their own homes? Does that same standard apply to non-monstrous humanoids? Is a burglar morally obligated to kill the residents of the home he burgles?

I'm just saying that if there are moral rules for killing any and all goblins you find in a goblin lair, then I want to know what those moral guidelines are and how widely they are applicable.

[tieren]

I think we need a simple spell or uncommon item that would shunt prisoners to a fairly benign alternate plane where they could go on about their business with little risk of ever finding the party again.

Or perhaps something like obliviate to just wipe their memory of the party where appropriate (not where the prisoners continued existence would be a threat to third parties).

[jas61292]

This kind of thing is what I think of as a "bad action." Not an "evil action" but a "bad action." In my way of thinking, an evil action is one that is unambiguously evil, regardless of circumstances. A bad action, on the other hands, is one that without taking into account circumstances or reasons is evil, but that said circumstances or reasons could actually cause to not be evil. While many actions could be done in the name of either good or evil, bad actions are inherently evil unless there are mitigating circumstances.

For example, in many worlds, summoning demons might be an outright evil action, regardless of your intent or the circumstances. It doesn't matter if you think you are doing it for a good reason, you are releasing evil incarnate into the world, and that is evil. On the other hand, a lot of things, such as stealing, are simply bad actions. Stealing can absolutely be justified, but stealing by itself, without mitigating circumstances, is evil. At its core, stealing is causing misfortune to someone for your own benefit. That is practically the definition of evil. However, it is very easy to find circumstances where stealing is justified, and not evil. Maybe the "victim" is an evil overlord, and you need to steal the magical thingy to save the world. Doing so would certainly not be evil. But its important to note that for a bad action not to be evil, the justification must be good. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor, without any reason other than wealth disparity is evil. Being in an unfortunate or desperate situation is not an excuse to commit evil. However, say you are stealing from the rich to give to the poor, because the poor are only poor due to the rich unfairly taxing them and taking their land and valuables, that would not be evil at all. The good reasoning (helping the oppressed against their oppressors) justifies what would otherwise be a bad act.

Now, how does this all relate to the topic at hand? Well, like stealing, killing is very much a bad act. Not necessarily evil, but absolutely evil without mitigating circumstance. In combat, when it if your life against theirs, killing will almost always be justified (well, assuming the combat in general is justified). But when you have them prisoner, and they are no threat to you, it becomes far, far harder to justify this act as not being evil. 99% of the time, people seem to try and justify it by saying that a released prisoner could come back to haunt them in the future, but I do not believe that a chance of maybe avoiding future trouble is justification for evil. Such philosophy is the path to evil, as it is essentially saying "take the easy way, regardless of what you have to do." Convenience or practicality are not justification. They are excuses.

That said, are there situations where such a killing could be justified. Absolutely, but it would require that the only real options be "release" or "kill" and that the downsides of "release" be far worse than "he might get backup." If say, he is the last guy needed to preform a dread ritual to summon a dark god, and if you let him go he will do so, then yeah, sure, kill away. But ultimately, this is about doing what is actually for the best. Not what is easy or simple or practical.

Good is not convenient. You have to learn to live with that, or accept that you are not good.

[Douche]

is the target of your interrogation really a prisoner though? You neutralize one long enough to get some information out of him. Then you eliminate the threat afterwards, same as if you'd slain him in combat.

That's different than being a prisoner, methinks. If you've chained someone up & you're bringing him back to town to face the Kings Justice, that's a prisoner.

[longshotist]

Right, and I asked what the difference is between a monstrous humanoid and a non-monstrous humanoid. I'm just trying to learn your point of view.

Are you saying the location is important? If orcs are attacking a city, do their prisoners suddenly deserve rights since they are no longer in their home (the dungeon)? Why do creatures have less of a right to live in their own homes? Does that same standard apply to non-monstrous humanoids? Is a burglar morally obligated to kill the residents of the home he burgles?

I'm just saying that if there are moral rules for killing any and all goblins you find in a goblin lair, then I want to know what those moral guidelines are and how widely they are applicable.

i see what you're saying, and i agree there are many situations that can arise in a game with consequences to be considered. i suppose the best answer is that, of course it's circumstantial.

the point i meant to make regards the specific example of adventuring where PCs keep one thing alive for questioning when there is little to no outcome that is positive for the captive. the party is creating the moral quandary by taking the prisoner in the first place. they don't give any thought to the combatants prior, and the only reason they have a prisoner is the final blow that would have killed the last one they decide to make it subdual. Not to bring the creature to justice or out of compassion/understanding of enemies but only for their own benefit (information).

There's certainly merit for establishing broad moral guidelines for your game, and fostering the immersion by addressing the larger questions you raise. I can't tell you what the widely applied morality of your game is. If those situations arose in my game we'd address them. In a specific situation like I mentioned initially, where the party is removing a very real evil threat that involves battling evil creatures who have taken over an area with intent to do harm on a broad scale, the morality of battling them isn't a question for our group. Taking one of them prisoner for the purpose of gaining information, without any real benefit offered to the prisoner, could be avoided if the battle concluded the way it had progressed - monsters trying to kill the party, the party overcoming the monsters.

[jas61292]

is the target of your interrogation really a prisoner though? You neutralize one long enough to get some information out of him. Then you eliminate the threat afterwards, same as if you'd slain him in combat.

That's different than being a prisoner, methinks. If you've chained someone up & you're bringing him back to town to face the Kings Justice, that's a prisoner.

It is dishonest to consider an incapacitated opponent as a threat. The broad justification for killing in combat is self-defense. When you are no longer actively fighting, that justification falls apart. At that point, killing is about simplicity or convenience, which is an excuse for evil, not a justification redeeming an otherwise evil act.

[EvilAnagram]

is the target of your interrogation really a prisoner though? You neutralize one long enough to get some information out of him. Then you eliminate the threat afterwards, same as if you'd slain him in combat.

That's different than being a prisoner, methinks. If you've chained someone up & you're bringing him back to town to face the Kings Justice, that's a prisoner.

That's an interesting question: does having someone at your mercy make them a prisoner? For example, if a police officer neutralizes a threat by tackling and restraining a dangerous perpetrator, are they obligated to arrest them, or should they regard them as still a threat and pop them in the head?

[Douche]

The broad justification for killing in combat is self-defense.

Right, we sneaked into this dungeon of doomsday cultists to destroy their desecrated altar of profane darkness & killed everyone on the way from the door to the deepest labyrinth out of self-defense. It's their own fault for deciding to try to stop us.


That's an interesting question: does having someone at your mercy make them a prisoner? For example, if a police officer neutralizes a threat by tackling and restraining a dangerous perpetrator, are they obligated to arrest them, or should they regard them as still a threat and pop them in the head?

Strawman of a comparison. A more apt description would be a soldier & enemy combatant. Not a policeman & a citizen of his own country.

Furthermore, even in the soldier description... If you're going to bring realism into it, the enemy you've just subdued has withstood a severe beating at this point. He's been stabbed , crushed, & set on fire. If there were the option in D&D to have a state between dead & alive during combat (aka, dying.. while remaining conscious) then you'd have much more of an opportunity to discern information without having to execute prisoners.

It just doesn't make sense to me that wanting to keep a death cultist alive long enough to find out the Master PlanTM somehow makes you morally obligated to now look out for their well-being or something. Obviously context matters & you shouldn't go killing a 15 year old lookout for the bandit gang who hasn't actually committed any real crimes himself. But when it's a henchman of the clear villain?

[EvilAnagram]

Right, we sneaked into this dungeon of doomsday cultists to destroy their desecrated altar of profane darkness & killed everyone on the way from the door to the deepest labyrinth out of self-defense. It's their own fault for deciding to try to stop us.

If the doomsday cult is attempting to bring about doomsday, isn't it self-defense to stop them?

[Asmotherion]

Well, I can tell you what it's definitly not: good.

It can be anywere from neutral to evil on the good-evil axis, depending on the situation (however the situations you describe look more evil than neutral). On the other hand, if they justify that they believe the enemy will try and take revenge if left unchecked, it could pass as neutral in a very general sence

On the Law-Chaos axis, it can be Lawful to neutral. If the prisoner was promised freedom as long as they talk, it's Neutral. If no promises were made, it's Lawful. A chaotic character would not take a prisoner in the first place, or at least would act in contrast to his basic nature in doing so.

[jas61292]

Right, we sneaked into this dungeon of doomsday cultists to destroy their desecrated altar of profane darkness & killed everyone on the way from the door to the deepest labyrinth out of self-defense. It's their own fault for deciding to try to stop us.

As I said in my larger post, it is absolutely OK to kill a prisoner, if there is justification for it beyond "well, they might get reinforcements" or something equally weak. If they are a member of this "doomsday cult" and the "desecrated altar of profane darkness" and their escape could doom the world, then yeah, kill the crap out of them after you are done interrogating. While it might not be in as direct a way, such killing on your part effectively is self-defense (or the defense of other people).

But this is more the exception than the rule. Going into a dungeon and killing everything because it is there is going to be an evil thing if you do not have a very, very good reason. Taking a prisoner and killing them because they sided with your opponent, and not because they personally are a material threat in any way, is going to be evil.

And yes, that said, vast majority of PCs are probably evil, regardless of what is written on their character sheet. But what do you expect from a bunch of people who's occupation is pretty much killing things?

[BiPolar]

And yes, that said, vast majority of PCs are probably evil, regardless of what is written on their character sheet. But what do you expect from a bunch of people who's occupation is pretty much killing things?

THIS.

That's what I was trying to get at earlier. PCs in most campaigns have chosen a life of adventure which generally includes killing things without looking too carefully at what they're fighting. Pretty much any beast would qualify as something NOT to kill, but we go and kill them anyway. They're just beasts being beasts without any evil intent.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

i'm running a spelljammer-esque game right now, and the party is investigating an ancient dwarven forge on an asteroid. the long-abandoned forge is currently occupied by firenewts who were dropped off there to work on some sort of ritual. After defeating a patrol of the firenewts, the party kept one alive for questioning. they offered to let it go and leave the forge complex - where's it gonna go? then they offered to let it return to its master, who it said would only sacrifice it to Imix. They're sitting there debating what to do, threatening the firenewt with a blade held to its neck. I had it spit a gob of fire in the threatening character's face.

Don't they have a brig? Or at the very least a cargo hold?

[jas61292]

Pretty much any beast would qualify as something NOT to kill, but we go and kill them anyway. They're just beasts being beasts without any evil intent.

Indeed. And while to be fair, there is often some self defense involved, it is often only because they chose to put themselves into situations that would require self defense. Killing a rhino in self defense because it is charging at you is not necessarily an evil thing to do.

But if it is charging at you because you broke into its zoo enclosure in the middle of the night to cut off its horn and sell it on the black market for money, well... that self-defense argument kinda just flew out the window there.

And, in my experience, such situations as this are the better comparison for most adventurers.

[BiPolar]

Indeed. And while to be fair, there is often some self defense involved, it is often only because they chose to put themselves into situations that would require self defense. Killing a rhino in self defense because it is charging at you is not necessarily an evil thing to do.

But if it is charging at you because you broke into its zoo enclosure in the middle of the night to cut off its horn and sell it on the black market for money, well... that self-defense argument kinda just flew out the window there.

And, in my experience, such situations as this are the better comparison for most adventurers.

To play devil's advocate, why do you have to kill it? Why can't you just knock it unconscious/trap it and release it? It's just a beast being a beast, you don't have to kill it. In fact, why'd you even enter it's territory and/or make it feel threatened?

I am absolutely not advocating for building an RPG around not killing anything, because I think most of us are playing this because we enjoy the combat as well as the roleplay. The line between right/wrong is blurry, but I think in general it's a case-by-case situation between the DM and the players as to the situation and their motivations. But in general, If as a DM you're going to penalize them for killing, you shouldn't penalize them for NOT killing (return of that enemy, etc.) To do both could make for a very un-fun game unless everyone is on board with that type of world.

[Pex]

Players are willing to let prisoners go if the DM will let them. If the party is not punished later by the prisoner bringing back reinforcements or helped set up an ambush in a later combat with some bad guys to exploit their weaknesses learned in their previous encounter or bad mouths the party with NPCs ruining their reputation, players will let the prisoner live and go on his merry way. As soon as the party regrets letting a prisoner live and go, they'll never let a prisoner live and go again. The only thing the goody-two-shoes would insist upon is that it's done as quickly and painlessly as possible.

If a prisoner refuses to answer the party's questions truthfully, he's dead. He'll live even if the party had to use Intimidate to get him to talk.

Brownie points for the DM if the former prisoner returns on camera in the future as a "normal" NPC going about his business willing to parley with the party possibly even becoming a friend, but this isn't necessary. The players will be just as happy never seeing the prisoner again.

[RickAllison]

I think this is rather funny because our group takes prisoners all the time! We had a bandit that we tied to the ceiling until he could be properly dealt with, but his boss necromancer came by and caught him in the Cone of Cold he used on us... Then we took a werewolf as a prisoner when he was only knocked out (thrown in the water) and last that campaign was going, we were taking him to have his curse lifted at out expense. And also kind of against his will. I figure he has to be able to choose to become a werewolf when he is not already beholden to the beast. And I mean the first one wasn´t even by a particularly good guy! He was an assassin and thief who happily was willing to torture the information out. But he promised that they wouldn´t kill him and so he tried his level best to get the bandit out of there without him dying. Couldn´t do much about a Cone of Cold, though...

[Tanarii]

Yeah, the best reason not to kill prisoners is to get them on your team. Like in the "goblin pet" thread, although I found the word 'pet' pretty offensives. Kill them, Murder them after capture in cold blood, enslave them, torture them ... but don't demean the poor bastards with attitude that they're your pet. Show the some respect! heh

[Vogonjeltz]

This may be the single best response to an alignment thread I've ever seen.

Within the context of D&D as a system it's also totally wrong.

D&D has a defined moral code that is universally applied. It doesn't matter what people did historically or in modern real life, because none of that is an applicable metric insofar as the game is concerned.


In a fantasy game, killing prisoners might not be a good act, but that doesn't automatically make it an evil one either. Do the PC's have the time and resourses to lug this prisoner around until he can be turned over to authorities? Do Authorities even exist where they are? Are they a criminal in this jurisdiction (if such a concept exists in world)? Who is the prisoner? Is the prisoner considered a "good guy" or not? Did the PC's just grab some random farmer, grill him for an hour and then lop off his head? Too many situational factors to accurately judge something as vague as "killing a prisoner".

Inconvenient doesn't make the act not evil. It's evil for precisely the reason the player gave, "because I want his ship". It's predatory behavior.

[Syll]

Within the context of D&D as a system it's also totally wrong.

D&D has a defined moral code that is universally applied. It doesn't matter what people did historically or in modern real life, because none of that is an applicable metric insofar as the game is concerned

It is however, not said in the context of D&D as a system; it is within the context of of the endlessly circular arguments of alignment and/or morality that crop up with regularity.

And if the objective morality of the D&D system were so transparent, these threads would not occur, besides.

[Addaran]

A lot of people just mention getting one prisoner to get info then kill him. The OP mentioned that it's not the only case of prisoner. There's also the case where the enemy stop fighting and surrender.


It's one thing i absolutely hate when my players or my teammates do. Promising someone his life in exchange for something....then killing him anyway. You know who usually does that? The crazy despicable CE villains. (don't trigger the alarm and put the money in the sack and you'll live *when it's done* haha sucker, BAM)

Not sure how it goes in IRL hostage situations, but in movies at least, they never promise the criminal to let him go free of charge if he doesn't kill the hostage. It's clear that they'll answer his demands to save the lives of the hostage, but that he'll never get immunity for his crimes (especially if he killed some guards or hostage already).

In a weird way, i'm way more okay with threat and torture to get information. If you really believe the enemy is irredeemably evil and must be put down, i prefer the Punisher's method. "There's no way in hell i'm letting you live. But i need information. You can give it to me now and have a quick death. Or i'll find a way to make you talk, no matter how horrible. " At least, he's not pretending he'll let them go.

[Laserlight]

Players are willing to let prisoners go if the DM will let them. If the party is not punished later by the prisoner bringing back reinforcements or helped set up an ambush in a later combat with some bad guys to exploit their weaknesses learned in their previous encounter or bad mouths the party with NPCs ruining their reputation, players will let the prisoner live and go on his merry way. As soon as the party regrets letting a prisoner live and go, they'll never let a prisoner live and go again. The only thing the goody-two-shoes would insist upon is that it's done as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Quoted for truth. If you-the-DM don't think the LG paladin should kill prisoners, then you need to make it at least reasonable for him to avoid it. Make it clear that hobgoblins and other Lawful types are known to honor their parole. Tell the players that everyone knows that captured orcs are perfectly willing to fight for their captors. And bear in mind that if you then have a hobgoblin break parole, what you are actually telling the players is "never leave a prisoner alive, ever, because I will screw you over and laugh at you for ever trusting me."

As for "why would you surrender if you know they're going to kill you anyway"--you could argue that "a quick beheading is better than a spear in the guts or a mace crushing the hip", but you don't need to. Historically, people have surrendered despite knowing they were likely to be not only killed but tortured as well. :smallyuk:

[Wymmerdann]

And bear in mind that if you then have a hobgoblin break parole,

Good point.

The human/hobgoblin/black knight who strictly honours his parole because he's honourable like that sets up a great recurring antagonist who I, as a player, would appreciate for the depth he provides the story.

It provides a fun window to examine the growth of the npc and pcs later in the story when they cross paths again, and to show that NPCs and the setting generally change and grow while the PC's are off being heroic.

[Kish]

And if the objective morality of the D&D system were so transparent, these threads would not occur, besides.
If many people look at "tigers have stripes" and remain convinced that tigers are monocolored, does that prove the sentence is unclear?

I would point out that the assertion you praised openly and explicitly rejects any concern for what's in the books in favor of an appeal to Lots Of People Play This Way. It does have one advantage--it's far more honest than most arguments against the alignment system, lacking only the acknowledgement that that's what it is.

[Sigreid]

Within the context of D&D as a system it's also totally wrong.

D&D has a defined moral code that is universally applied. It doesn't matter what people did historically or in modern real life, because none of that is an applicable metric insofar as the game is concerned.



Well yes and no, since good and evil is defined by intelligent gods. There's even plenty of D&D lore about "good" gods making morally questionable choices. Heck even in the MM description of the angel they're listed as lawful good, but doing as commanded without hesitation, guilt or remorse no matter what it is.

[Deleted]

This is definitely a tough question and interested to see everyones responses.

From a realworld standpoint, once a person crosses the line from combatant to prisoner certain rights are given to them (namely, not being tortured and killed.)

However, this is a fantasy game and questioning the enemy combatant before killing them for expediency and limitation of further risk (the PCs also don't have a prison system in place like the real world that they can put them in) seems perfectly fine.

If they start torturing though...

I really wish that tv, movies, and books would tell the truth about torture. it just doesn't work.

Sure, if you pick up joe smoe and start on him it can get you info. But against soldiers and operatives, torture just doesn't work enough to be justified.

I think if this got talked about more, players would be more hesitant to go down this dark route in game... I think many players go this way because they think it leads to a favorable outcome.

[Sigreid]

I really wish that tv, movies, and books would tell the truth about torture. it just doesn't work.

Sure, if you pick up joe smoe and start on him it can get you info. But against soldiers and operatives, torture just doesn't work enough to be justified.

I think if this got talked about more, players would be more hesitant to go down this dark route in game... I think many players go this way because they think it leads to a favorable outcome.

If you can stomach torture, the real issue is that since it is possible to make someone say anything you want so the problem becomes corroboration. It's essentially impossible to tell if you are being given real data or just told what they think you want to hear unless you have additional data points you correlate and cross check. After all, the truth may not have any relationship to what you want to hear.

I like to think I couldn't stomach torturing someone.

[Syll]

If many people look at "tigers have stripes" and remain convinced that tigers are monocolored, does that prove the sentence is unclear?

I would point out that the assertion you praised openly and explicitly rejects any concern for what's in the books in favor of an appeal to Lots Of People Play This Way. It does have one advantage--it's far more honest than most arguments against the alignment system, lacking only the acknowledgement that that's what it is.

I don't believe he was rejecting "any concern for what's in the books" Rather, I read his post as objecting to any individual insisting they alone have the authority to determine what is or is not -objectively- moral, universally and unilaterally.

Fortunately, if I am wrong about his intent, Mellack can definitively say so.

Your tiger isn't objectively striped if I'm convinced you are referring to a puma. (Which is to say that preconceived notions and personal experience alter perception of a baseline a great deal. )

[Ninja-Radish]

As a DM, you have a say in this as well. 1) Are the PCs in the middle of nowhere, far away from any urban areas and law enforcement authorities? 2) If released, is the prisoner likely to seek revenge with a bigger group of bad guys? 3) If released, is the prisoner likely to report information regarding the PCs back to the big bad guy?

If the answer to one or more of these questions is yes, then the DM shares responsibility for the slaughtered prisoners along with the players, because you have left the PCs with no real alternative to killing prisoners.

[Vogonjeltz]

Right, we sneaked into this dungeon of doomsday cultists to destroy their desecrated altar of profane darkness & killed everyone on the way from the door to the deepest labyrinth out of self-defense. It's their own fault for deciding to try to stop us.



Strawman of a comparison. A more apt description would be a soldier & enemy combatant. Not a policeman & a citizen of his own country.

Furthermore, even in the soldier description... If you're going to bring realism into it, the enemy you've just subdued has withstood a severe beating at this point. He's been stabbed , crushed, & set on fire. If there were the option in D&D to have a state between dead & alive during combat (aka, dying.. while remaining conscious) then you'd have much more of an opportunity to discern information without having to execute prisoners.

It just doesn't make sense to me that wanting to keep a death cultist alive long enough to find out the Master PlanTM somehow makes you morally obligated to now look out for their well-being or something. Obviously context matters & you shouldn't go killing a 15 year old lookout for the bandit gang who hasn't actually committed any real crimes himself. But when it's a henchman of the clear villain?

The relative "goodness" of the subject isn't of merit in the morality of your actions.

Taking someone prisoner only to kill them later is wrong (and that would apply to both war and peace, there's no exception just because you're at war)

[Vogonjeltz]

Well yes and no, since good and evil is defined by intelligent gods. There's even plenty of D&D lore about "good" gods making morally questionable choices. Heck even in the MM description of the angel they're listed as lawful good, but doing as commanded without hesitation, guilt or remorse no matter what it is.

Yeah, no. In D&D we have actual alignment explanations of what it means to be a variety of good and evil, relativism doesn't come into it.

[jas61292]

As a player of both good and evil characters, personally I resent the notion that characters "have no choice" but to kill a prisoner if the DM is going to have them come back to hurt the players. Or more generally, I just resent the notion that there is ever any situation in D&D where you "have no choice." Acting like killing is your only option because of what the DM does really just means that you lack imagination, imo. Especially if your character is supposedly good. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a character who is perfectly fine with killing people all the time. Evil is fun to play on occasion. But if you are supposed to be a good guy hero, and the only options you can think of are "let them go free" and "kill them" and you think the latter is the better option, I question whether you are really playing the character you say you are.

[Pex]

As a player of both good and evil characters, personally I resent the notion that characters "have no choice" but to kill a prisoner if the DM is going to have them come back to hurt the players. Or more generally, I just resent the notion that there is ever any situation in D&D where you "have no choice." Acting like killing is your only option because of what the DM does really just means that you lack imagination, imo. Especially if your character is supposedly good. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a character who is perfectly fine with killing people all the time. Evil is fun to play on occasion. But if you are supposed to be a good guy hero, and the only options you can think of are "let them go free" and "kill them" and you think the latter is the better option, I question whether you are really playing the character you say you are.

If the entire party is the holy order of goody-two-shoes saint blessings you'd have a point, but that is most often not the case. It doesn't matter how much the goody-two-shoes of the party wants to let the prisoner live and go. As soon as the party regrets the decision the next time the situation happens the not so goody-two-shoes of the party (which does NOT mean Evil PCs) are not going to let the prisoner live and go. The goody-two-shoes has already lost the argument due to the last time he got his way it bit them in the tuchus. He will lose the party vote. The prisoner will be killed by the not so goody-two-shoes, and that's when the goody-two-shoes will at least insist it be quick and painless.

[War_lord]

Real life really isn't a good guide to fictional morality. Superheroes are archetypes of good in popular culture and closely related to fantasy heroes. They're also masked thugs who operate outside the Law, have no concept of due process, casually break and enter, (aggravated) assault anyone they declare criminal, and are frequently shown doing things like dangling henchmen over fatal drops in an attempt to get information from them (which is torture in real life, even if you have no intent of actually carrying out the threat).

As a DM you can either have simple morality (Orcs are evil, you are good, killing all the Orcs is good) or complex morality (Orcs are sentient creatures with their own complex society of both good and bad, just like us and we need to carefully navigate a middle ground between what is expedient and what is moral). Trying to have it both ways (Orcs are evil, until you take one prisoner, then they're suddenly people too) is just being inconsistent and is going to lead to long arguments at the table. If you expect "good" to have a specific Paladinesque code in your campaign you need to outline that early on, and stick to it.

[Dr. Cliché]

Unless your world has an equivalent of the Geneva Convention, I think the players are well within their rights and alignment to kill at least some prisoners.

Now, if they capture an honourable soldier who is fighting for his country or such, then killing him once they're done is probably an evil act.

However, if their prisoner is a sadist (or any person who'll kill/maim/torture for no good reason), an officer or leader (who is actively directing his men to commit evil acts), or just extremely powerful; then I think killing them is justified.

- In the case of sadists or bloodthirsty maniacs or people just in it for the killing, I think we can safely say that they're doing the world a favour by removing them (not to mention getting justice for all the people they managed to kill before the party captured them).

- In the case of the leaders (the big bad and his lieutenants), these are the people who devised the evil plan(s) and sent soldiers or whoever to enact it. They should be held accountable for their crimes. You could maybe argue that the party should turn them over to the proper authorities, but somehow I doubt that said authorities will be any more merciful.

- In the case of especially powerful enemies (which often overlap with #2), there's a case to be made that they are simply too dangerous to be left alive. Imagine how hard it is to pin down the lv18 sorcerer leading the local cult of devil-worshippers. Do you really want to go through that again? I mean, even if you turn them over to the authorities, can you guarantee that they can handle such a threat? If you come back the next morning to find a smoking crater where the city prison used to be and that the devil cult has been revived anew, I somehow doubt people will be praising you for your outstanding morals.

The main point though is that surrendering (or being knocked unconscious) does not erase your crimes. You don't get to massacre 3 villages and then just walk away because you cooperated with the party a bit. Executing murderers is not an evil act.

One other point is that it might sometimes come down to whether local authorities are available at all (if you're in enemy territory, you can't just walk to the nearest prison with a captured soldier). And whether you can be sure of their integrity (there's no point handing a villain over to the city watch for trial and imprisonment/execution if he's just going to bribe them and be walking away free within the hour).

[Douche]

I really wish that tv, movies, and books would tell the truth about torture. it just doesn't work.

Sure, if you pick up joe smoe and start on him it can get you info. But against soldiers and operatives, torture just doesn't work enough to be justified.

I think if this got talked about more, players would be more hesitant to go down this dark route in game... I think many players go this way because they think it leads to a favorable outcome.

One time we took a prisoner & my first instinct was to bribe him. It made sense in context. He was just a cutpurse who happened to be an innocent bystander to the actual badguy thing we wanted to learn about. So we had to chase him down & restrain him. Then I offered him some gold for his info. Rolled a 12 on my persuasion check, didn't even get advantage considering I was giving him something he wanted. Failed.

Then someone else had enough & cast Phantasmal Force on him to mind-**** him into insanity until he told us what we wanted to know.

It just bristles my toe hairs sometimes, that you try to roleplay as a good guy & make a compromise or something (or, ya know, bribe a guy for gold) when the easier solution is nearly always the evil one.

[Dr. Cliché]

It just bristles my toe hairs sometimes, that you try to roleplay as a good guy & make a compromise or something (or, ya know, bribe a guy for gold) when the easier solution is nearly always the evil one.

Isn't that the point though?

If the evil solutions were no more effective or convenient than the good solutions, there'd be no point ever using them. :smalltongue:


EDIT: It makes me think of video games which offer good and evil choices. And they invariably look like this:

A small girl runs up to you, tears streaming down her face. "Please, sir, my cat is stuck in that tree."
Do you:
- Climb up the tree and try to rescue the cat. (good)
- Flay the child's face off with a cheese-grater. (evil)

Notice that the evil option doesn't actually solve anything. It's just evil for the sake of evil.

A more sensible choice would be:
- Climb up the tree and try to rescue the cat. (good)
- Throw something at the cat to knock it out of the tree. (evil)

Now the evil choice still solves the problem, but in a manner that risks injuring the cat. However, it's likely to be a lot quicker and far less risky to you.

[Tanarii]

IMX this ain't a nothing question. I've actually seen players get very angry at other players for choosing to knock out an opponent (in dungeons, far from civilization) as opposed to just killing them at 0 hps, because now they have to decide what to do with the prisoner. Not a one-time thing either.

Edit: to be clear, the usual reason players get angry is they expect a session disrupting argument. I've seen that happen a few times in 30 years of playing D&D. But strangely, I more often see players get upset another player chose to take a prisoner in the first place, and almost disrupting a session with their anger about the potential disrupting. Go figure.

[BiPolar]

As I said earlier, the problem lies more in player expectations in the world that they are playing in.

If there isn't a method for them to 'deliver' prisoners or a general rule that freed prisoners won't come back to bite them in the arse (for the most part...especially if there isn't a way to deliver prisoners to authorities), then the party is in a Catch-22. Don't be evil, but being good will always have an associated punishment.

That's a terrible world to play in. If you want your players to "do the right thing", make sure the right thing is available to them. If not, then don't complain and punish them when they don't "do the right thing."

[jas61292]

If the entire party is the holy order of goody-two-shoes saint blessings you'd have a point, but that is most often not the case. It doesn't matter how much the goody-two-shoes of the party wants to let the prisoner live and go. As soon as the party regrets the decision the next time the situation happens the not so goody-two-shoes of the party (which does NOT mean Evil PCs) are not going to let the prisoner live and go. The goody-two-shoes has already lost the argument due to the last time he got his way it bit them in the tuchus. He will lose the party vote. The prisoner will be killed by the not so goody-two-shoes, and that's when the goody-two-shoes will at least insist it be quick and painless.

You are just proving my point. You are trying to simplify things into only two options, and then claiming that one is not viable. Not only do I find your situation hilariously unrepresentative of any actual game I have played, but I also see it as a false choice. This is not a situation of good vs evil, where even good people are forced to choose evil due to DM pressure. It is a choice between quality role playing and lack of imagination.

In any part of a D&D game, if you ever feel there are only two choices, especially if one seems obviously superior (if not ideal), you are not thinking hard enough.

[Demonslayer666]

The relative "goodness" of the subject isn't of merit in the morality of your actions.

Taking someone prisoner only to kill them later is wrong (and that would apply to both war and peace, there's no exception just because you're at war)

There are exceptions.

At peace: The prisoner tries to escape.

At war: behind enemy lines, enemy surrenders, taking them prisoner is not possible, letting them go is not possible, they will compromise the mission and your life.

[BiPolar]

There are exceptions.

At peace: The prisoner tries to escape.

At war: behind enemy lines, enemy surrenders, taking them prisoner is not possible, letting them go is not possible, they will compromise the mission and your life.

Or think of a covert ops mission (which is probably more like what adventurers do). They are not going to let someone go that has 'discovered' them. They will get what info is needed to complete their mission and then remove loose ends...for the Greater Good. But again, if the world doesn't allow or reward the good choice, the good choice will never be taken and PCs shouldn't be given the stick if there isn't another option presented by the DM.

[jas61292]

There are exceptions.

At peace: The prisoner tries to escape.

At war: behind enemy lines, enemy surrenders, taking them prisoner is not possible, letting them go is not possible, they will compromise the mission and your life.

Like in all things though, you can paint with a broad brush to make things seem acceptable, even if they aren't. Yes, if someone "will" comprise the mission and your life, then killing may be appropriate. But how often is that the case? Far more often they simply "might" compromise the mission and your life. But literally everyone you meet "might" do that, and while if they might with a certain degree of certainty, it may be acceptable to act on it, there is a point where this crosses from necessary sacrifice to unneeded evil. After all, if the only needed justification is that someone might cause a threat to you, wouldn't it be justified to kill everyone you meet while on a mission?

[Demonslayer666]

Like in all things though, you can paint with a broad brush to make things seem acceptable, even if they aren't. Yes, if someone "will" comprise the mission and your life, then killing may be appropriate. But how often is that the case? Far more often they simply "might" compromise the mission and your life. But literally everyone you meet "might" do that, and while if they might with a certain degree of certainty, it may be acceptable to act on it, there is a point where this crosses from necessary sacrifice to unneeded evil. After all, if the only needed justification is that someone might cause a threat to you, wouldn't it be justified to kill everyone you meet while on a mission?

I'm not talking about "might", I'm talking about an enemy that was trying to kill you two seconds ago has now surrendered.

[Tanarii]

If you want your players to "do the right thing", make sure the right thing is available to them. If not, then don't complain and punish them when they don't "do the right thing."Ya. My very first post in this thread was a comment that the morality of the issue is kind of irrelevant. What's relevant are consequences.

I don't mean that the DM should invent arbitrary punishments for doing the wrong thing or the right thing. I mean that they should understand the reasonable consequences that are possible in the world they're setting the PCs in, and what morale approaches (and difficulties) the players will face for that.

I mean, I've both ran and played in games where we agreed we want to be good & heroic ... in a world and setting that made doing so incredibly hard. Trying to stay to the good path meant suffering hardships. And I've played in games where we just didn't give a crap about morality and wanted to throw dice, but the DM made it exceedingly easy to not care about letting enemies flee and release prisoners without any negative consequences.

[Pex]

You are just proving my point. You are trying to simplify things into only two options, and then claiming that one is not viable. Not only do I find your situation hilariously unrepresentative of any actual game I have played, but I also see it as a false choice. This is not a situation of good vs evil, where even good people are forced to choose evil due to DM pressure. It is a choice between quality role playing and lack of imagination.

In any part of a D&D game, if you ever feel there are only two choices, especially if one seems obviously superior (if not ideal), you are not thinking hard enough.

You appear, if unintentionally, to be missing that the decision is not the players' alone. The DM has his say by means of what happens when a prisoner is allowed to live and go. There can be more nuance, if you will, on what others have mentioned in regards to the demeanor of the prisoner - cultist fanatic vs just some guy doing his job to cover the extremes. If the party lets the cultist live and go, they are less likely to blame the concept of letting the prisoner live and go when the cultist comes back with reinforcements, blaming their own naivete instead. The next reasonable prisoner they capture can live and go without a problem. However, if they do let just some guy doing his job live and go and the DM has that NPC come back later with a vengeance, the DM's vote is shown to be never let the prisoner live and go.

[Douche]

Isn't that the point though?

If the evil solutions were no more effective or convenient than the good solutions, there'd be no point ever using them. :smalltongue:

Not when it comes to social interaction. You catch more flies with honey, after all.


Or think of a covert ops mission (which is probably more like what adventurers do). They are not going to let someone go that has 'discovered' them. They will get what info is needed to complete their mission and then remove loose ends...for the Greater Good. But again, if the world doesn't allow or reward the good choice, the good choice will never be taken and PCs shouldn't be given the stick if there isn't another option presented by the DM.

This is why you need Phantom Steed as a spell. You can knock your loose ends unconscious, tie them up, & the Phantom Steed can run them 13 miles away before they wake up. With a speed of 100, it's unlikely any enemies will be able to stop it or even react to it either. Good way to get rid of mooks that you're too honorable to execute.

I also really like the concept of Demi-Plane. It would be really cool to put people in an interdimensional prison that's inaccessible to anyone but you. Sorta like Supermans Phantom Zone. Shame it's an 8th level spell though. I mean it makes sense, since it's such a powerful spell, but it means you hardly ever get a chance to use it.

[BiPolar]

Not when it comes to social interaction. You catch more flies with honey, after all.



This is why you need Phantom Steed as a spell. You can knock your loose ends unconscious, tie them up, & the Phantom Steed can run them 13 miles away before they wake up. With a speed of 100, it's unlikely any enemies will be able to stop it or even react to it either. Good way to get rid of mooks that you're too honorable to execute.

I also really like the concept of Demi-Plane. It would be really cool to put people in an interdimensional prison that's inaccessible to anyone but you. Sorta like Supermans Phantom Zone. Shame it's an 8th level spell though. I mean it makes sense, since it's such a powerful spell, but it means you hardly ever get a chance to use it.

Although with both of those options, unless they've encountered someone nice enough to free them, feed them, they're gonna die a pretty bad death.

[jas61292]

This is why you need Phantom Steed as a spell. You can knock your loose ends unconscious, tie them up, & the Phantom Steed can run them 13 miles away before they wake up. With a speed of 100, it's unlikely any enemies will be able to stop it or even react to it either. Good way to get rid of mooks that you're too honorable to execute.

This is what I'm talking about right here. When presented with two bad options (from the character's perspective), rather than choosing the lesser of two evils, good (as in high quality, not the alignment) characters look to find a third way.

Now in this specific case you'd probably want to direct the horse to a designated place, and maybe not tie them up except to keep them from falling off, so that they don't die of starvation due to being tied up in the middle of nowhere, but the general idea is great. Remove the problem without needing to unnecessarily kill.

[Douche]

This is what I'm talking about right here. When presented with two bad options (from the character's perspective), rather than choosing the lesser of two evils, good (as in high quality, not the alignment) characters look to find a third way.

Now in this specific case you'd probably want to direct the horse to a designated place, and maybe not tie them up except to keep them from falling off, so that they don't die of starvation due to being tied up in the middle of nowhere, but the general idea is great. Remove the problem without needing to unnecessarily kill.

I mean you can get into the granularity of it if you want, but in my specific case we the person was fully capable of breaking the bonds on their own. It was more of a minor inconvenience. I suppose you could leave them with a dagger or sharp stone too, just in a hard to reach place so it would take them some time to access it. We also tied her directly across the back of the steed like you see in those western films so there was no risk of falling off (I mean I guess your DM could be a douche to you for trying to do the right thing & have them fall off, face down into a shallow puddle so they drown in 2 inches of water if he really wants to... but at that point you've done all you can reasonably do. It's an act of god at that point)

[asmartfellow]

I'm fine with it.

It's a game.

At the end of the day, morality should not remotely factor into a fantasy game. Would WE the PLAYERS run out and kill people? No. Would we ever do 1/10th of the crazy crap we have our character's do? no.

Moot to think on it, or discuss it beyond being a thought exercise.

If you've ever been a part of an EVIL campaign, and I mean REALLY evil player characters, then you know it can be quite fun as a release of a wilder side of nature. Keep in mind, none of the people I've ever played with could be capable of such monsterous atrocities our characters did (I hope).

Again, Kill 'em, don't kill 'em. Doesn't matter. Not in the least.

[Sigreid]

Yeah, no. In D&D we have actual alignment explanations of what it means to be a variety of good and evil, relativism doesn't come into it.

The chief elven god shot out the orc god's eye and the gnome god dropped a mountain on the kobold god, basically for lulz.

In earlier editions LG dwarves, encouraged by their LG god, hated orcs so much that they actually got combat bonuses against them and it was normal to attack orcs on sight unprovoked.

In 3.x Book on evil (I think it was the book of vile darkness, but not 100%) described the creation of Hell as the deities of good sending angels and archangels to fight the demon onslaught and when their angels came back damaged and broken gave them a small bit of dimensional space to go to so they wouldn't have to deal with the consequences of the war.

I would consider all of those morally questionable.

[hamishspence]

You're thinking of Fiendish Codex 2 rather than BOVD. Since this is the devils' own version of their origin story, it'll naturally be filtered through their own perspective.

The novel with Corellon shooting out Grummsh's eye (Evermeet) paints Corellon as a victim of ambush, and there's similar exculpatory versions of why Garl collapsed something on Kurtulmak.

[RickAllison]

You're thinking of Fiendish Codex 2 rather than BOVD. Since this is the devils' own version of their origin story, it'll naturally be filtered through their own perspective.

The novel with Corellon shooting out Grummsh's eye (Evermeet) paints Corellon as a victim of ambush, and there's similar exculpatory versions of why Garl collapsed something on Kurtulmak.

So when it is the Fiends telling the story, you assume that they are telling it from a viewpoint that makes them sound better. Yet when it is the Good gods telling the story, you think that the way they describe it isn't doing the same?

Just playing devil's advocate here, but doesn't that seem a bit hypcritical?

[hamishspence]

Honesty is supposed to be more a tenet of Good than of Evil. Admittedly more Lawful good.

It was Ecology of the Kobold that first portrayed Kurtulmak as the victim of his own trap - "hoist by his own petard" so to speak.

A Grand History of the Realms showed context - Garl's rescuing captured gnome souls from Kurtulmak.

And the "orc story" is that Corellon never shot out Grummsh's eye in the first place and that he was always one-eyed.

[Sigreid]

You're thinking of Fiendish Codex 2 rather than BOVD. Since this is the devils' own version of their origin story, it'll naturally be filtered through their own perspective.

The novel with Corellon shooting out Grummsh's eye (Evermeet) paints Corellon as a victim of ambush, and there's similar exculpatory versions of why Garl collapsed something on Kurtulmak.

My lore largely goes back to AD&D. Corellon just plain enjoyed f-ing with Grummsh, just as a sample. All the novels came well after I started playing.

[hamishspence]

Evermeet was published in late AD&D, shortly before 3rd ed came out.

[Sigreid]

Evermeet was published in late AD&D, shortly before 3rd ed came out.

Yes, late to the game. But then my Deities and Demigods is a first printing with all the stuff they were forced to take out in it.

[Vogonjeltz]

If the entire party is the holy order of goody-two-shoes saint blessings you'd have a point, but that is most often not the case. It doesn't matter how much the goody-two-shoes of the party wants to let the prisoner live and go. As soon as the party regrets the decision the next time the situation happens the not so goody-two-shoes of the party (which does NOT mean Evil PCs) are not going to let the prisoner live and go. The goody-two-shoes has already lost the argument due to the last time he got his way it bit them in the tuchus. He will lose the party vote. The prisoner will be killed by the not so goody-two-shoes, and that's when the goody-two-shoes will at least insist it be quick and painless.

This is why I prefer having some kind of adventuring party contract that lays out the details: Who makes decisions, how prisoners are handled, what proportion of treasure or payment each member receives, etcetera.

What's weird is that people act like they couldn't just release them naked into the wilderness instead. Sure, they might not make it, but at least they'd have a chance.

Or better, bring manacles and have a plan for what to do with a prisoner.


Unless your world has an equivalent of the Geneva Convention, I think the players are well within their rights and alignment to kill at least some prisoners.

Given that this is a fantasy approximation of medieval societies, there would, usually, be some kind of code of conduct or code of honor, or chivalric code or something that governed proper etiquette as regards combat, the taking of prisoners, and so forth.

Yes, you can violate such things at will, but that's how you know when someone is being an Evil git, when they willy nilly abuse the standards of behavior in extreme ways.

For example: Killing a prisoner.

Note: An exception would exist if the express purpose of capturing the person was to execute them in a more formalized structure. i.e. You, Mad Pendrick, have been tried in abstenia and judged guilty of the crimes of murder, larceny, and other crimes enumerated on this warrant, the penalty proscribed is death by hanging. Will you come willingly? *Answer is negative, combat ensues, party captures Pendrick to carry out the penalty as described by the warrant*


One other point is that it might sometimes come down to whether local authorities are available at all (if you're in enemy territory, you can't just walk to the nearest prison with a captured soldier). And whether you can be sure of their integrity (there's no point handing a villain over to the city watch for trial and imprisonment/execution if he's just going to bribe them and be walking away free within the hour).

A fair point, but it would be more honorable to let them die on their feet with a weapon in hand. Sure, you both know they don't stand a chance (you did just beat them in combat), but it's a far cry better to let them go out fighting than to merely slit their throat (even if that is just a question of if they're utterly at your mercy or not).

I'd caution that this is an extreme and rare corner case. Nearly all of the time you would just be in the wilderness with a bandit captive from an attempted ambush or something. If you're in a position to interrogate someone, you should also be in a position to release them on parole or leave them gagged and tied up in a bush for later or something.

I mean, even if they get found by someone whose an enemy, seriously, what is the worst that happens? They already know that someone fought a pitched battle, there's a big old pile of bodies right there.

For my own part, I tend to engage in conversations with my opponents in combat, asking questions and so forth.

If they're willing to surrender, I'd easily

[Ninja-Radish]

Given that this is a fantasy approximation of medieval societies, there would, usually, be some kind of code of conduct or code of honor, or chivalric code or something that governed proper etiquette as regards combat, the taking of prisoners, and so forth.

Yes, you can violate such things at will, but that's how you know when someone is being an Evil git, when they willy nilly abuse the standards of behavior in extreme ways.

Not to nitpick, but the Code of Chivalry only applied to knights. Common soldiers back in the middle ages had no such protection, and could be tortured, abused and/or executed on a whim.

Also, it's my feeling that DMs unintentionally cause most of these killing the prisoner issues. Here's an issue I've seen come up with a number of DMs:

DM: The Hobgoblin surrenders.

Group: Aw crap, what do we do with him now?

DM: Remember, you guys are up against the clock and the fate of the world is in your hands.

Group: Great. Is there a town we can drop him off at nearby?

DM: No, the nearest town is 150 miles away through dragon infested mountains.

Group: We can't let him go, he'll go back to the Archlich and tell him where we are, then he'll send his thousands of Hobgoblins after us. I guess we kill him.

DM: Congratulations, you're all evil now.

Honestly, these are the kinds of bullcrap scenarios I've run into time and again. DMs in my experience bear more responsibility for slaughtered prisoners than PCs do.

[War_lord]

This is why I prefer having some kind of adventuring party contract that lays out the details: Who makes decisions, how prisoners are handled, what proportion of treasure or payment each member receives, etcetera.

What's weird is that people act like they couldn't just release them naked into the wilderness instead. Sure, they might not make it, but at least they'd have a chance. Or better, bring manacles and have a plan for what to do with a prisoner. Given that this is a fantasy approximation of medieval societies, there would, usually, be some kind of code of conduct or code of honor, or chivalric code or something that governed proper etiquette as regards combat, the taking of prisoners, and so forth.

Releasing someone naked into the wilderness, unless they actually have special training in dealing with exactly that situation, is invariably fatal. In fact they'll probably be facing a worse fate then if you just got the fighter to behead them with his/her sword, which was historically considered one of the quickest means of execution. Chivalry, like most "warrior codes" was an ideal to be aspired to, not something Knights were actually bound to follow, and it also applied only to Knights not mercenaries or the common soldier. The name Chivalry actually comes from the French for Horsemenship. We have a Class that follows a warrior code in D&D already, that's what a Paladin is, not every player wants to be a Paladin.


Yes, you can violate such things at will, but that's how you know when someone is being an Evil git, when they willy nilly abuse the standards of behavior in extreme ways.

For example: Killing a prisoner.

In Medieval times killing prisoners was only forbidden if they were Nobility or Clergymen. Peasants and men-at-arms could be killed freely. Even Knights were at risk of summary execution with their captor decided that Ransom (the usual motivation for capturing Knights alive) was impractical or that carting prisoners around was disrupting the campaign. Which, ironically is the same reason D&D characters execute prisoners.


Note: An exception would exist if the express purpose of capturing the person was to execute them in a more formalized structure. i.e. You, Mad Pendrick, have been tried in abstenia and judged guilty of the crimes of murder, larceny, and other crimes enumerated on this warrant, the penalty proscribed is death by hanging. Will you come willingly? *Answer is negative, combat ensues, party captures Pendrick to carry out the penalty as described by the warrant*

Right, so you want the party to capture someone who just tried to murder them, and probably did murder several people before them. Tie him up, drag his arse all the way back to town (wasting time, water and rations with the additional risk he'll escape and probably kill again) to face a kangaroo court of peasants who are just going to have him executed anyway, probably in a far more painful way then the beheading or sword through the heart the party would give him? As the Chaotic Good party Rogue why the hell would I not object to any part of that course of action?




A fair point, but it would be more honorable to let them die on their feet with a weapon in hand. Sure, you both know they don't stand a chance (you did just beat them in combat), but it's a far cry better to let them go out fighting than to merely slit their throat (even if that is just a question of if they're utterly at your mercy or not).

Slitting someones throat is a far quicker death then giving them a dagger and telling them to fight your heavily armed party in order to appease your sense of honor. That sounds like something a Lawful Evil Death Knight would do.


I'd caution that this is an extreme and rare corner case. Nearly all of the time you would just be in the wilderness with a bandit captive from an attempted ambush or something. If you're in a position to interrogate someone, you should also be in a position to release them on parole or leave them gagged and tied up in a bush for later or something.

I mean, even if they get found by someone whose an enemy, seriously, what is the worst that happens? They already know that someone fought a pitched battle, there's a big old pile of bodies right there.

A career murder like a bandit is unlikely to be bound by an oath of parole, because they're probably not Lawful. Leaving them tied up in a bush is a terrible idea, they could escape, or be found by something or someone far less "merciful" then you.


For my own part, I tend to engage in conversations with my opponents in combat, asking questions and so forth.

If your games run on "Princess Bride" rules and you enjoy that, that's great. Not every Campaign works like that.

[Dr. Cliché]

Given that this is a fantasy approximation of medieval societies, there would, usually, be some kind of code of conduct or code of honor, or chivalric code or something that governed proper etiquette as regards combat, the taking of prisoners, and so forth.

A few points:

- First off, the point of the Geneva Convention is that it's supposed to apply to everyone. In contrast, the codes you're talking about are likely to vary between kingdoms, between classes of people (the code of chivalry was only for knights) and between individuals. And that's before you get into the ethics codes of orcs and such.

- Second, any codes like this are likely to be guidelines rather than law (even when authorities are available).

- Third, how would these be enforced? if you kill a prisoner in the middle of nowhere, do you really expect it to be traced back to you? What's more, if that person was a known murderer, would anyone seriously care?



Yes, you can violate such things at will, but that's how you know when someone is being an Evil git, when they willy nilly abuse the standards of behavior in extreme ways.

For example: Killing a prisoner.

Executing someone who has massacred villages or who is a one-man-army is hardly a willy nilly abuse.

What's more, I think you are vastly overestimating the extent of these behavioural codes. What you're talking about is paladins. Maybe knights (but then this would only apply if the prisoner was a fellow knight or noble, and even then there would likely be grounds to break the code depending on circumstances - e.g. an opponent who fought without honour may be entitled to dishonourable treatment). Anyone else would have no such behavioural code in the first place.



Note: An exception would exist if the express purpose of capturing the person was to execute them in a more formalized structure. i.e. You, Mad Pendrick, have been tried in abstenia and judged guilty of the crimes of murder, larceny, and other crimes enumerated on this warrant, the penalty proscribed is death by hanging. Will you come willingly? *Answer is negative, combat ensues, party captures Pendrick to carry out the penalty as described by the warrant*

This confuses me. The party was apparently fighting the guy, so presumably the objective was to kill him. The fact that they managed to capture him alive doesn't change that. Nor does it erase his crimes.



A fair point, but it would be more honorable to let them die on their feet with a weapon in hand. Sure, you both know they don't stand a chance (you did just beat them in combat), but it's a far cry better to let them go out fighting than to merely slit their throat (even if that is just a question of if they're utterly at your mercy or not).


What you're describing is a far more evil act. You are deliberately prolonging their agony and making them die a far more painful death.

Why not get two prisoners and make them fight each other to the death while you're at it? :smallconfused:



I'd caution that this is an extreme and rare corner case. Nearly all of the time you would just be in the wilderness with a bandit captive from an attempted ambush or something. If you're in a position to interrogate someone, you should also be in a position to release them on parole or leave them gagged and tied up in a bush for later or something.

Why would you ever release them 'on parole'? Unless you literally carry around parole officers in a Bag of Holding, then you're just freeing them to continue their banditry.

This again seems like an evil act (certainly a cowardly one). You are letting their past crimes go unpunished and giving them the opportunity to inflict more pain on others who can't defend themselves the way you could.

[Sigreid]

- Third, how would these be enforced? if you kill a prisoner in the middle of nowhere, do you really expect it to be traced back to you? What's more, if that person was a known murderer, would anyone seriously care?


CSIFR coming this fall to FOX!:smallbiggrin:

[Breashios]

I think it is worth saying again - I believe the morality of killing prisoners comes down to what the DM has set as the normal mores in his world or the personal beliefs of the character (perhaps based on who they worship). I am more interested in the practical repercussions of the act.

In the campaign I ran the party started out in a town where bandits were stopping merchants and taking a share of their wares and coin, but had not killed anyone. The party eventually caught up to them. After defeating them, about a third dead, one escaped, they took the rest back to town where they were tried and sold into indentured servitude for their crimes. The party was paid a portion of their sale price and given all their valuables for their trouble.

They later attacked a more nefarious group in an abandoned keep, freeing prisoners that had been forced into unmentionable services. In my mind, they had the right to kill them all for their crimes, (only two had really surrendered - the rest tied up when unconscious due to spell effects or subdued), but they chose to escort the handful still alive along with the freed prisoners back to the town they had earlier helped. After the prisoners testified to the acts they had been subjected to, the town constable found them guilty, but did not know what to do with them.

It was rather funny to me, but the party paid for a prison to be built and have been leaving about a third of their accumulated treasure to pay guards to run it under the constable's direction throughout the campaign, constantly adding a prisoner here or there. The town has come to accept that the party are doing good and are justly imprisoning evil doers, so no more trials are have been needed. The party has since gotten ransoms paid for some higher status prisoners and has let one go on his parole.

Of course, all of this is dependent on the way I have structured the society in civilized lands. If I did not establish that criminals were punished in an established manner and that nobles regularly do follow through on their word when given parole, the party would have acted differently throughout.

The people that have said it is the DMs fault or whatnot - I guess I have to agree.

[Bohandas]

I will answer how very simply, we do not necessarly use modern morals. By modern rules if we were to chop off a hand for theft, it would be considered barbaric. Historically it was acceptable. Slavery was considered proper for much of history....

To be fair people were barbaric for most of history. I'd go as far as to say that civilization has only really been civilized for the past fifty years or so, and that's in favorable cases like the US and the commonwealth of nations.

In any case regarding the question at hand about what to do with prisoners I recommend the Binding spell

[Alatar]

In my group, our longstanding habit is to let 'em go. We even let them keep their weapons. It's a dangerous world out there. We do that because we're heroes. Heroes don't murder prisoners, or leave them defenseless in the wild.

We do council them to reconsider the path they have chosen to walk in life. Sternly.

And if they fought a good fight, we tip generously.

[StoicLeaf]

In my group, our longstanding habit is to let 'em go. We even let them keep their weapons. It's a dangerous world out there. We do that because we're heroes. Heroes don't murder prisoners, or leave them defenseless in the wild.

We do council them to reconsider the path they have chosen to walk in life. Sternly.

And if they fought a good fight, we tip generously.

I'm curious.
How often has that bitten you in the ass?

[Tanarii]

We do council them to reconsider the path they have chosen to walk in life. Sternly.I hope there's some serious winger-wagging too. :smallbiggrin:


And if they fought a good fight, we tip generously.makes me think of 8-bit or OoTs, spoofing the entire concept of D&D. Gonna use that next time I play a session doing that. It's been a while, but that's perfect!

[Vogonjeltz]

Not to nitpick, but the Code of Chivalry only applied to knights. Common soldiers back in the middle ages had no such protection, and could be tortured, abused and/or executed on a whim.

Also, it's my feeling that DMs unintentionally cause most of these killing the prisoner issues. Here's an issue I've seen come up with a number of DMs:

That's why I favor not taking them prisoner in the first place or leaving them tied up until you return. If they complain about being tied up, tell them the alternative option under the circumstances and let them choose one.


Releasing someone naked into the wilderness, unless they actually have special training in dealing with exactly that situation, is invariably fatal. In fact they'll probably be facing a worse fate then if you just got the fighter to behead them with his/her sword, which was historically considered one of the quickest means of execution. Chivalry, like most "warrior codes" was an ideal to be aspired to, not something Knights were actually bound to follow, and it also applied only to Knights not mercenaries or the common soldier. The name Chivalry actually comes from the French for Horsemenship. We have a Class that follows a warrior code in D&D already, that's what a Paladin is, not every player wants to be a Paladin.

Personally I'd rather have a chance than none at all. If they really want to be executed on the spot, you can always offer that up as an alternative to being freed, alive. As for chivalry, yes, it's an ideal, an ideal rooted in doing a good thing as opposed to just taking what you want, which would fall under an evil thing. The primary wa


In Medieval times killing prisoners was only forbidden if they were Nobility or Clergymen. Peasants and men-at-arms could be killed freely. Even Knights were at risk of summary execution with their captor decided that Ransom (the usual motivation for capturing Knights alive) was impractical or that carting prisoners around was disrupting the campaign. Which, ironically is the same reason D&D characters execute prisoners.

Being forbidden doesn't make it good or not wrong. It just means very few people were capable of being good.

Raping was also common practice in war (and outside of war for that matter), that doesn't make it not evil. Pillaging, often not forbidden by authorities, still doesn't make it right. You're employing the wrong metric.


Right, so you want the party to capture someone who just tried to murder them, and probably did murder several people before them. Tie him up, drag his arse all the way back to town (wasting time, water and rations with the additional risk he'll escape and probably kill again) to face a kangaroo court of peasants who are just going to have him executed anyway, probably in a far more painful way then the beheading or sword through the heart the party would give him? As the Chaotic Good party Rogue why the hell would I not object to any part of that course of action?

If they're wanted for murder? Yes.

Being inconvenienced isn't an excuse for being evil.


Slitting someones throat is a far quicker death then giving them a dagger and telling them to fight your heavily armed party in order to appease your sense of honor. That sounds like something a Lawful Evil Death Knight would do.

It's both quicker and more evil. Again, expediency isn't tantamount to correct, right, good, or anything else beyond base utilitarianism, which is typically amoral if not outright evil.


A career murder like a bandit is unlikely to be bound by an oath of parole, because they're probably not Lawful. Leaving them tied up in a bush is a terrible idea, they could escape, or be found by something or someone far less "merciful" then you.

And? Are you saying that they might die is worse than murdering them? It's unclear what your point is.


If your games run on "Princess Bride" rules and you enjoy that, that's great. Not every Campaign works like that.

It's speech, there's literally no limits on speaking, the DMG even covers how players might talk down a hostile enemy and most every adventure describes the motivations of NPCs and when they might be convinced not to fight anymore. So, yeah D&D runs on "Princess Bride" rules, as a rule.


A few points:

- First off, the point of the Geneva Convention is that it's supposed to apply to everyone. In contrast, the codes you're talking about are likely to vary between kingdoms, between classes of people (the code of chivalry was only for knights) and between individuals. And that's before you get into the ethics codes of orcs and such.

- Second, any codes like this are likely to be guidelines rather than law (even when authorities are available).

- Third, how would these be enforced? if you kill a prisoner in the middle of nowhere, do you really expect it to be traced back to you? What's more, if that person was a known murderer, would anyone seriously care?

Relevance? This was a question of morality, not law. It doesn't stop being evil if you don't get caught.

And, yes, if you kill a prisoner and dump the body maybe they come back as a Revenant because you gave them a "cruel and undeserving fate" by taking them prisoner and then not providing proper care. (MM 147 for Ghost or Revenant 259)


Executing someone who has massacred villages or who is a one-man-army is hardly a willy nilly abuse.

What's more, I think you are vastly overestimating the extent of these behavioural codes. What you're talking about is paladins. Maybe knights (but then this would only apply if the prisoner was a fellow knight or noble, and even then there would likely be grounds to break the code depending on circumstances - e.g. an opponent who fought without honour may be entitled to dishonourable treatment). Anyone else would have no such behavioural code in the first place.

After you took them prisoner? Yeah, it really is. Don't take them prisoner in the first place.


This confuses me. The party was apparently fighting the guy, so presumably the objective was to kill him. The fact that they managed to capture him alive doesn't change that. Nor does it erase his crimes.

They have to deliberately take them captive, it doesn't just happen.


What you're describing is a far more evil act. You are deliberately prolonging their agony and making them die a far more painful death.

Why not get two prisoners and make them fight each other to the death while you're at it?

For one thing they'd be alive instead of having blades stuck into them, so that seems blatantly kinder than your suggestion of keeping them alive just to murder them when they're at your mercy.


Why would you ever release them 'on parole'? Unless you literally carry around parole officers in a Bag of Holding, then you're just freeing them to continue their banditry.

This again seems like an evil act (certainly a cowardly one). You are letting their past crimes go unpunished and giving them the opportunity to inflict more pain on others who can't defend themselves the way you could.

It's mentioned earlier, parole means under their own supervision on their honor to obey the terms of their release, if they fail to do so they are subject to death at any time (i.e. you can slay them and it's lawful to do so).

If they were subject to a warrant, you should be following that instead of making up the justice system as you go along. If not, don't pretend they committed a crime because you were in a fight.

[Dr. Cliché]

Relevance? This was a question of morality, not law. It doesn't stop being evil if you don't get caught.

If laws and codes of ethics are irrelevant, why did you bring them up in the first place?



And, yes, if you kill a prisoner and dump the body maybe they come back as a Revenant because you gave them a "cruel and undeserving fate" by taking them prisoner and then not providing proper care. (MM 147 for Ghost or Revenant 259)

I'll take the risk.



After you took them prisoner? Yeah, it really is. Don't take them prisoner in the first place.


No it isn't.

Taking someone prisoner does not grant them any rights. If you think they are a good person, then you may feel obliged to treat them well. However, if you're dealing with a known murderer (or worse), then you can do with them as you damn well please.



They have to deliberately take them captive, it doesn't just happen.

You've missed the point entirely. The person they took prisoner was trying to kill them. The fact that he is no longer in a position to do so does not erase the fact that he tried in the first place.



For one thing they'd be alive instead of having blades stuck into them, so that seems blatantly kinder than your suggestion of keeping them alive just to murder them when they're at your mercy.

Okay, now I know you're trolling.

You literally said that it would be kinder to let them "die on their feet". Yet somehow they'll end up alive at the end of it. Do you understand what words mean?



It's mentioned earlier, parole means under their own supervision on their honor to obey the terms of their release, if they fail to do so they are subject to death at any time (i.e. you can slay them and it's lawful to do so).

Yeah, but how are you going to enforce that? Do you seriously have nothing better to do than follow every bandit around to make sure they're staying on the straight and narrow?

And what about the ones who aren't human? Have fun trusting that Mind Flayer to be on its best behaviour in future.



If they were subject to a warrant, you should be following that instead of making up the justice system as you go along. If not, don't pretend they committed a crime because you were in a fight.

You know that attempted murder doesn't stop being attempted murder when the victim successfully defends themselves, right?

Also, do you seriously need a warrant before you'll defend yourself from bandits? Or to take down the local orc encampment or demon cult?


Don't drink and post, kids.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, but how are you going to enforce that? Do you seriously have nothing better to do than follow every bandit around to make sure they're staying on the straight and narrow?

And what about the ones who aren't human? Have fun trusting that Mind Flayer to be on its best behaviour in future. I get the feeling you don't know what parole means in a non-modern-criminal context.

But yeah, it's really stupid to trust someone that isn't likely to be trustworthy. That's why you kill monsters out of hand. Maybe after you've captured them and tortured them a little. That's why they're Team Monsterous Evil. So you can get away with that. :smallyuk:

[Alatar]

I'm curious.
How often has that bitten you in the ass?

Less often than you might expect, but every once in a while it does. I blame the tipping. And not to get too meta, we do about 3 encounters a session with or without recurring villains. And every once in a great while we pick up an ally.



I hope there's some serious winger-wagging too. :smallbiggrin:

"Look at what your life has become. You only get one, you know. Normally. Isn't it time you considered Pelor?"

"Uh, yeah. Pelor. I'll, uh, have to give that some thought."

"You do that. Here are your weapons and a small parting gift. Do you have a water skin? It's important to stay hydrated. Now beat it."

[Dr. Cliché]

I get the feeling you don't know what parole means in a non-modern-criminal context.

I understand it, I just think that it's a terrible idea.

Here's the thing though - if you have no ability or intention to enforce parole, how exactly does it differ from just 'letting someone go'?

I'd also question whether it counts as parole if you just release a prisoner you caught. I thought the idea of parole was that they were released early from a prison sentence? As in, they've actually been tried and convicted of a crime - not just picked up by some adventurers and then let go if they promise to be good.



But yeah, it's really stupid to trust someone that isn't likely to be trustworthy. That's why you kill monsters out of hand. Maybe after you've captured them and tortured them a little. That's why they're Team Monsterous Evil. So you can get away with that. :smallyuk:

:smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

I'd also question whether it counts as parole if you just release a prisoner you caught. I thought the idea of parole was that they were released early from a prison sentence? As in, they've actually been tried and convicted of a crime - not just picked up by some adventurers and then let go if they promise to be good. I don't think you do understand parole. It had nothing to do with criminals. It was entirely to do with releasing captured prisoners of war.

But not some random schmooks, or bandits, or (in D&D) a couple of goblins or orcs. It was nobles or officers involved. They were released on the grounds they wouldn't fight again, or that a ransom would be paid, etc. (Also local parole like being allowed to visit a local town or whatever was a thing.) It was on the noble or officers honor.

So yeah, you're point about trustworthiness of captures bandits/humanoids/bbeg henchmen is spot on.

[Dr. Cliché]

I don't think you do understand parole. It had nothing to do with criminals. It was entirely to do with releasing captured prisoners of war.

Ah, okay.


But not some random schmooks, or bandits, or (in D&D) a couple of goblins or orcs. It was nobles or officers involved. They were released on the grounds they wouldn't fight again, or that a ransom would be paid, etc. (Also local parole like being allowed to visit a local town or whatever was a thing.) It was on the noble or officers honor.

Out of interest, would the person granting the prisoner parole also need to have sufficient status/authority?



So yeah, you're point about trustworthiness of captures bandits/humanoids/bbeg henchmen is spot on.

At least i got something right then. :smallwink:

[Ninja-Radish]

Where are people getting this idea that executing prisoners was considered evil in medieval warfare? The Geneva Convention had provisions for the treatment of prisoners of war. Before that, no such rights existed.

The "executing prisoners is evil" crowd is taking modern morality and applying it to the pseudo medieval setting that is D&D.

[Tanarii]

Out of interest, would the person granting the prisoner parole also need to have sufficient status/authority?
Depended on the era. I mean a, in some eras a lowborn commoner could get super-rich by capturing a noble back and ransoming them back. Later in the age of sail it would be the French military leaders, who were also all nobles, releasing high ranking British officers back to their country.

(The word was originally French. I'm fairly sure that later era is when it really entered the English language. So the chivalric era may not 'count' for use of the word, so to speak, even though similar things were done.)

[EvilAnagram]

Where are people getting this idea that executing prisoners was considered evil in medieval warfare? The Geneva Convention had provisions for the treatment of prisoners of war. Before that, no such rights existed.

The "executing prisoners is evil" crowd is taking modern morality and applying it to the pseudo medieval setting that is D&D.

Why would we apply medieval standards of morality to a pseudo medieval setting?

Also, you are conflating the behavior of warrior castes with the moral philosophy of the time. The two are not equivalent.

[Vogonjeltz]

If laws and codes of ethics are irrelevant, why did you bring them up in the first place?

I said the legal status was irrelevent and I never brought them up, you did. Ethical standards might also have some importance, but those aren't the same thing as a moral code of conduct. Confusing the two may be a root cause of your error.


I'll take the risk.

Ok, no whining when the evil comes back to bite you later though.


No it isn't.

Taking someone prisoner does not grant them any rights. If you think they are a good person, then you may feel obliged to treat them well. However, if you're dealing with a known murderer (or worse), then you can do with them as you damn well please.

In point of fact it makes you morally liable for their well being. You can (in a literal sense) do anything, you're just morally obligated not to. Having total control doesn't excuse evil.


You've missed the point entirely. The person they took prisoner was trying to kill them. The fact that he is no longer in a position to do so does not erase the fact that he tried in the first place.

Yes, it does, because it's no longer the heat of the moment. The second they are taken prisoner they're no longer a threat and killing them is no longer justified, ergo it becomes murder most foul.


Okay, now I know you're trolling.

You literally said that it would be kinder to let them "die on their feet". Yet somehow they'll end up alive at the end of it. Do you understand what words mean?

You're confusing the two possible outcomes, one being parole without arms, the other being allowing them to die in combat. Avoid lashing out like that when you make an error, it only makes you look small.


Yeah, but how are you going to enforce that? Do you seriously have nothing better to do than follow every bandit around to make sure they're staying on the straight and narrow?

And what about the ones who aren't human? Have fun trusting that Mind Flayer to be on its best behaviour in future.

If you come across them in the future committing banditry, or happen to hear of it, you action it then.

I don't think it'd be even possible to take a monster like that captive, as they have plenty of means to continue combat even fully restrained.


You know that attempted murder doesn't stop being attempted murder when the victim successfully defends themselves, right?

It stops being self defense once the aggressor has been stopped. At that point it's no longer self defense, it's murder.


Also, do you seriously need a warrant before you'll defend yourself from bandits? Or to take down the local orc encampment or demon cult?

Uh no? I said you'd need one to slaughter someone you took prisoner. Adventurers are not the law, they don't have the legal authority to kill someone in cold blood, so (ironically) if they do that they could be tried for murder.

[Vogonjeltz]

Where are people getting this idea that executing prisoners was considered evil in medieval warfare? The Geneva Convention had provisions for the treatment of prisoners of war. Before that, no such rights existed.

The "executing prisoners is evil" crowd is taking modern morality and applying it to the pseudo medieval setting that is D&D.

No, the "summary execution is a-ok" crowd just demonstrates a total absence of historical knowledge.

In particular, look under the "Early Sources and History" tab:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution

[Syll]

In point of fact it makes you morally liable for their well being. You can (in a literal sense) do anything, you're just morally obligated not to. Having total control doesn't excuse evil


If you come across them in the future committing banditry, or happen to hear of it, you action it then.
.

I would posit that you are also morally liable for the actions they commit after you release them to their own cognizance.

Happening to hear of their continued banditry suggests there is a victim or victims' blood that has been shed as a direct result of your (in)actions

[Sigreid]

Uh no? I said you'd need one to slaughter someone you took prisoner. Adventurers are not the law, they don't have the legal authority to kill someone in cold blood, so (ironically) if they do that they could be tried for murder.

Depending upon where all this is happening the party may, in fact, be the only law there is. it's not uncommon for adventurers to operate outside the jurisdiction of any kingdom.

[Grim Portent]

I would posit that you are also morally liable for the actions they commit after you release them to their own cognizance.

Happening to hear of their continued banditry suggests there is a victim or victims' blood that has been shed as a direct result of your (in)actions

But by that sort of philosophy you are also just as liable for every person that dies that you could have prevented. Every beggar that starves because you didn't personally hand them food or money is just as much your fault as any people killed by a person you spared in combat.

[Syll]

But by that sort of philosophy you are also just as liable for every person that dies that you could have prevented. Every beggar that starves because you didn't personally hand them food or money is just as much your fault as any people killed by a person you spared in combat.

Assuming you are only referring to the beggars I had direct knowledge of, then I would agree. I might clarify however, that this was in response to the contention that prisoners should not just be spared, but released to their own devices, kits intact with nothing but their word that they won't do it again.

[Grim Portent]

Assuming you are only referring to the beggars I had direct knowledge of, then I would agree. I might clarify however, that this was in response to the contention that prisoners should not just be spared, but released to their own devices, kits intact with nothing but their word that they won't do it again.

Actually on second thoughts I don't think my comparison was particularly good. My fault for throwing it together rather than sitting and actually thinking it through properly.

Letting a beggar die due to inaction is a moral failing on your own part since no other moral actors are involved.

Trusting in someone not to pursue a life of evil is naive, but I would have a hard time viewing it as a moral failing even with prior evil behavior on the part of the person being trusted, especially if the means of evil, such as swords and spears in a bandits case, are removed and they are told to pursue an alternative lifestyle. Everyone gets one second chance so to speak, and you are never at fault for giving them that chance.

In general I would not consider someone responsible for the behavior of a separate moral actor unless that person was acting on their orders, in which case responsibility falls on both.

[Syll]

In general I would not consider someone responsible for the behavior of a separate moral actor unless that person was acting on their orders, in which case responsibility falls on both.

What if it's good behavior, and not bad? Would it be unrealistic to suggest that should this bandit take his 2nd chance to heart and found an orphanage, that you would feel somewhat responsible?

[Ninja-Radish]

No, the "summary execution is a-ok" crowd just demonstrates a total absence of historical knowledge.

In particular, look under the "Early Sources and History" tab:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution

Ummm...did you actually read those sources you linked? Only one of them is even tangentially related to the medieval warfare discussion we were having. The other two are much too recent to apply. Also, a couple of philosophical quotes from historical figures isn't evidence of anything with regards to how prisoners of war were treated in the middle ages.

If you had linked a copy of some kind of official documentation from that period of time, that would be different.

[Grim Portent]

What if it's good behavior, and not bad? Would it be unrealistic to suggest that should this bandit take his 2nd chance to heart and found an orphanage, that you would feel somewhat responsible?

I would definitely feel proud of them and happy that mercy worked out for the best, but I don't think I would be justified in feeling responsible for them turning a new leaf and doing good. I probably would feel partly responsible anyway, but it would be a selfish feeling fanning my pride rather than one that actually makes sense for me to feel.

[Dr. Cliché]

I said the legal status was irrelevent and I never brought them up, you did.

No I didn't.


Ethical standards might also have some importance, but those aren't the same thing as a moral code of conduct. Confusing the two may be a root cause of your error.

The error is yours. You seem to be confusing internal moral codex with externally imposed codes of ethics.



Ok, no whining when the evil comes back to bite you later though.

Yes, because dead prisoners are more likely to come back and bite you than living ones. :smallconfused:



Yes, it does, because it's no longer the heat of the moment.

Irrelevant.


The second they are taken prisoner they're no longer a threat and killing them is no longer justified, ergo it becomes murder most foul.

Killing someone as punishment for their crimes is not murder - it is execution. And there is nothing wrong with it.

Why are the lives of murderers so much more valuable than the lives of their victims?



You're confusing the two possible outcomes, one being parole without arms, the other being allowing them to die in combat. Avoid lashing out like that when you make an error, it only makes you look small.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with parole. Let me refresh your memory:



A fair point, but it would be more honorable to let them die on their feet with a weapon in hand. Sure, you both know they don't stand a chance (you did just beat them in combat), but it's a far cry better to let them go out fighting than to merely slit their throat (even if that is just a question of if they're utterly at your mercy or not).




What you're describing is a far more evil act. You are deliberately prolonging their agony and making them die a far more painful death.

Why not get two prisoners and make them fight each other to the death while you're at it? :smallconfused:




For one thing they'd be alive instead of having blades stuck into them, so that seems blatantly kinder than your suggestion of keeping them alive just to murder them when they're at your mercy.

Where did parole inter into it?



If you come across them in the future committing banditry, or happen to hear of it, you action it then.

And what about the people they have hurt or killed in the meantime?

Again, you are valuing the lives of known murderers more highly than the lives of their potential victims.



It stops being self defense once the aggressor has been stopped. At that point it's no longer self defense, it's murder.

See, this is a clear case of you applying current-day laws to a medieval/fantasy setting.



Uh no? I said you'd need one to slaughter someone you took prisoner. Adventurers are not the law, they don't have the legal authority to kill someone in cold blood, so (ironically) if they do that they could be tried for murder.

Again, you are looking at things from a modern-day perspective.

I hate to break it to you, but no one in medieval times is going to care one iota whether you kill bandits or cult leaders or warlords immediately in self-defence, or later after capturing them.

No, you don't need a warrant to kill a prisoner who was captured trying to kill you. In terms of authority, you see incredibly naive about how far the law extends and how it can be enforced. If you start killing nobles or knights, then sure. But, if you're killing bandits, pirates, monsters, cult-leaders etc., no one, no one is going to expect you to have a warrant or arrest you for murder. Because, what you're neglecting completely, is that these people are already criminals. Their own actions have already made their lives forfeit - all you're doing is saving the local knights/soldiers/guards some work.

Also, you seem to be conflating morals with laws, but whatever.

Anyway, look at it the other way round - what you're saying is that known bandits and murderers can just try to kill anyone they like. And, unless they're killed on the spot, then that person has a legal and moral obligation to treat their would-be assassins as well as possible and then set them free with no repercussions. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

[hamishspence]

In 3rd ed, the DMG2 took the approach that while PCs could use lethal force on outlaws - this only applied until the outlaws surrendered - after which, "standard laws" forbade them from harming the outlaws.

This suggests that "right to execute" tends to be reserved to governmental jurisdictions - which would then try those outlaws and convict or acquit them, and probably execute them if convicted.

In that context, if PCs are caught handing out summary executions, by the local authorities, they may be the ones being outlawed.

[Dr. Cliché]

In 3rd ed, the DMG2 took the approach that while PCs could use lethal force on outlaws - this only applied until the outlaws surrendered - after which, "standard laws" forbade them from harming the outlaws.

This suggests that "right to execute" tends to be reserved to governmental jurisdictions - which would then try those outlaws and convict or acquit them, and probably execute them if convicted.

A few points worth noting here:

1) The section is specifically about high-level adventuring parties who go rogue and are subsequently declared outlaws (it makes no mention of whether it also applies to common bandits and such).

2) The rules on killing seem to relate specifically to bounty hunters.

3) Perhaps most interestingly, it says that outlaws who surrender can't be killed.

Hence, the authorities might distinguish between prisoners who actually surrendered and prisoners who were simply knocked unconscious.



In that context, if PCs are caught handing out summary executions, by the local authorities, they may be the ones being outlawed.

Thing is though, I see this scenario as taking place in areas where there isn't any local authority (if there was, you'd probably just dump the prisoners on them and save yourself the bother).

I think killing prisoners is much more likely to come up when the nearest 'local' authority is leagues away. In which case, it's pretty doubtful that they'd even find out that those people had been killed, let alone trace it to you.

Still interesting to note, though.

[hamishspence]

Champions of Valor (Faerun-centric) had a similar approach, without the specification that it was adventurers that had been declared outlaw.

Outside of a kingdom, on "international ground" I could see a similar approach being taken to the way piracy might be handled (which has "international waters").

The average country might, for deterrent value if nothing else, want to publicise their trials of pirates/outlaws etc, to stress to the ordinary citizenry that the government is capable of catching and "bringing to justice" these people.