Unanimous Good

[Witty Username]

I would generally entertain the idea that anyone engaged in war is generally leaning towards non-good. With some affordances for exceptional circumstances.

[NichG]

Sure, there is always escalation logic and if the other side doesn't follow the rules, why should the own side do so ?

But in this case, wouldn't it be justified as well to torture the emperors children to death (if he had any known or cared about them or could make him give up instead of fueling his rage) ?

You can do that. Tell a story about en escalated ruthless conflict without boundaries and no quarter given. But you can't do that while having one side being evil and the other not. That is grey, dark and gritty storytelling.

For me at least, not following the rules or escalating before things become a problem are generally positive traits for me to see in protagonists. A major component of protagonism for me is doing what seems impossible to do, or doing what others cannot conceive of doing. If people are dying because of adherence to a code of honorable battle against what is actually an existential threat, the character who is the first to realize that 'yes this is an existential threat, time to get rid of those rules' is a pretty standard heroic protagonist stereotype at least by my tastes.

But being arbitrarily cruel (e.g. cruel without purpose or need or cause) is definitely a non-heroic trait for me. I would find it much less likely that an author would be able to set things up so that 'torturing the emperor's children to death' is really the thing to do to avoid harms or resolve the situation effectively. I won't completely rule out that a very clever author could somehow pull it off, but I'd have to see it done.

[Batcathat]

I would generally entertain the idea that anyone engaged in war is generally leaning towards non-good. With some affordances for exceptional circumstances.

Would being attacked qualify as exceptional circumstances? While doing questionable things while defending oneself is definitely possible, it feels like defensive warfare itself would be pretty non-indicative of alignment.

But being arbitrarily cruel (e.g. cruel without purpose or need or cause) is definitely a non-heroic trait for me. I would find it much less likely that an author would be able to set things up so that 'torturing the emperor's children to death' is really the thing to do to avoid harms or resolve the situation effectively. I won't completely rule out that a very clever author could somehow pull it off, but I'd have to see it done.

Yeah, pretty much this.

[Satinavian]

Another problem with the false surrender is that it only ever works if the enemy does not expect it.

But if the enemy does not suspect it, the conflict obviously has not yet escalated to that particular level. So false surrenders are always escalating things or rather ineffective.

[Batcathat]

Another problem with the false surrender is that it only ever works if the enemy does not expect it.

But if the enemy does not suspect it, the conflict obviously has not yet escalated to that particular level. So false surrenders are always escalating things or rather ineffective.

If "that particular level" means specifically using fake surrenders, then yeah, obviously. But it could still have escalated to a level where one could find using it justifiable.

But you're right that using it as a standard tactic would obviously not work for long, so even regardless of morality it should probably only be used when there's a chance for complete victory or some other very important gain.

[NichG]

Another problem with the false surrender is that it only ever works if the enemy does not expect it.

But if the enemy does not suspect it, the conflict obviously has not yet escalated to that particular level. So false surrenders are always escalating things or rather ineffective.

I guess I have two problems with this. One is, I don't see escalation as inherently unheroic or unprotagonistic. Recognition of the severity of a threat that others are blind to can be a significant heroic trait.

The other is, there are lots of situations I can think of where an enemy might anticipate false surrender but basically cannot afford to treat all surrenders as false, or where the enemy's goals are specifically to capture and hold (but with the consequences of capture and holding being at a much higher level of stakes). Or you can have situations where the conflict is heterogeneous and the enemy would expect a false surrender from one element of the conflict but not another, and the deception includes also disguising the one as another.

A fictional example that comes to mind is an invading force that wants to execute the king goes to a city they think is ruled by a noble who is on their side, but who has been secretly converted over to the king's side. The noble sends out a messenger who says 'we want to surrender but we have some partisan forces inside the city and your loyalists aren't in full control. We surrender, but let us deal with these rebels so you don't tire your troops, it'll only take a few hours.' Which of course ends up being a delaying tactic for the king's forces to pincer the invaders. To my standards at least that sort of thing is perfectly fine for a heroic protagonist to do.

[Satinavian]

If "that particular level" means specifically using fake surrenders, then yeah, obviously. But it could still have escalated to a level where one could find using it justifiable.

Sure, escalation logic is a thing and it might be justified.

But in such a case, as mentioned, i want it to be treated with the severity it deserves and not as a clever plan.

The other is, there are lots of situations I can think of where an enemy might anticipate false surrender but basically cannot afford to treat all surrenders as false, or where the enemy's goals are specifically to capture and hold (but with the consequences of capture and holding being at a much higher level of stakes). Or you can have situations where the conflict is heterogeneous and the enemy would expect a false surrender from one element of the conflict but not another, and the deception includes also disguising the one as another.

If the enemy anticipates a false surrender, they are on guard and won't really be caught unprepared. One might still get a benefit from it, but it is a minor one.
Now, the case with a heterogeneous conflict and using a false surrender while pretending to be another party : That is something prone to really piss off your allies/ that particular third party with all that entails.

A fictional example that comes to mind is an invading force that wants to execute the king goes to a city they think is ruled by a noble who is on their side, but who has been secretly converted over to the king's side. The noble sends out a messenger who says 'we want to surrender but we have some partisan forces inside the city and your loyalists aren't in full control. We surrender, but let us deal with these rebels so you don't tire your troops, it'll only take a few hours.' Which of course ends up being a delaying tactic for the king's forces to pincer the invaders. To my standards at least that sort of thing is perfectly fine for a heroic protagonist to do.

Now i wouldn't count that scenario as false surrender at all. It is centered around a turncoat timing his betrayal for the most devastating effect. That is indeed something turncoats tend to do with no one batting an eye.

[NichG]

If the enemy anticipates a false surrender, they are on guard and won't really be caught unprepared. One might still get a benefit from it, but it is a minor one.
Now, the case with a heterogeneous conflict and using a false surrender while pretending to be another party : That is something prone to really piss off your allies/ that particular third party with all that entails.

The sort of thing I'm thinking of is, say, an enemy force thinks that the citizenry in general won't fight back - maybe they'll be enslaved or some of them killed later anyhow, but not today. So in general they push for a surrender and then leave only a skeleton of forces to keep order while advancing past and extending their logistics support through those areas. The population of one town has actually been seeded with guerilla forces, the town surrenders, and then the guerilla forces use the position behind lines and low security to sabotage the supply lines. In particular if the invading force is either momentarily or even on the whole stronger, its not even necessarily foolish of that force to keep accepting surrenders to move more quickly even if some towns end up being traps like that, so its not like triggering this sort of trick means automatically that the enemy is going to stop to kill everyone in their path, especially if the trick is reserved for cases in which the enemy actually is under some time pressure to move rapidly (they're trying a blitz before allies can muster support or because they have other conflicts waiting in the wings and don't want to be caught on multiple fronts, etc).

I'm certainly not saying 'its always smart to do this' or 'it will never have consequences worse than what is gained to do this', but especially when the stakes of the conflict are at the scale of life and death or enslavement of a populace, this for me would easily be within the leeway I'd give to a defender.

I guess maybe it helps to also say, if the stakes aren't at the scale of life and death or enslavement of a populace or things at least around the severity of what might happen to a soldier in a conflict as a matter of course, neither side can really count as a heroic protagonist for me. The act of using war to resolve something of lesser import than the innate consequences of war would itself count as unheroic.

[Satinavian]

The sort of thing I'm thinking of is, say, an enemy force thinks that the citizenry in general won't fight back - maybe they'll be enslaved or some of them killed later anyhow, but not today. So in general they push for a surrender and then leave only a skeleton of forces to keep order while advancing past and extending their logistics support through those areas. The population of one town has actually been seeded with guerilla forces, the town surrenders, and then the guerilla forces use the position behind lines and low security to sabotage the supply lines.

Now that is super fishy. Because it is using those civilians as shields and outright inviting retaliation on them. That is not something heroes do.

The other part about what kind of wars are justified in the first place are to close to politics for me to discuss in detail.

[NichG]

Now that is super fishy. Because it is using those civilians as shields and outright inviting retaliation on them. That is not something heroes do.

The other part about what kind of wars are justified in the first place are to close to politics for me to discuss in detail.

Well the reason I raise the point is that if we're talking about stuff heroes are doing in a war, for me that automatically means we're already talking about a conflict where the cost of losing is that the civilians die, suffer extremely, or lose things important enough for them to weigh their lives against them. So to my mind, protecting some of them from retaliation today at the cost of letting all of them be slain tomorrow isn't heroic. If the nature of the story is that there are other effective solutions available and the protagonist takes them, fine. If the story is that the protagonist has this option, doesn't take it, and then the story progresses with lots of those people dying anyhow during the events following the blitz, that protagonist can't be a hero for me unless as a result of seeing the consequence of their inaction they have a change of heart about whichever values they used to justify holding back on a possible viable path to avoiding the outcome.

[Satinavian]

Even in fiction such conflicts are somewhat rare. And least against people you could surrender to.

Also in such cases there are very little options that are off the table. Sure, false surrenders would be justified, but so would pretty much everything else.

And suddenly i am playing WH40K ordering an exterminatus on a hive world infested with chaos cultists/tyranid infiltrators. And i totally can congratulate myself that this was the best course of action and totally justified. But, well, 40K doesn't really have any good guys and deliberately so.

[NichG]

Even in fiction such conflicts are somewhat rare. And least against people you could surrender to.

Also in such cases there are very little options that are off the table. Sure, false surrenders would be justified, but so would pretty much everything else.

I think we must read and watch very different subsets of fiction then... I mean, Star Wars, Loki, anything with arrogant monologuing antagonists, lots of superhero stuff, lots of isekai stuff, lots of high fantasy... Witcher 3 even had a 'fake bringing your ally in as a fake prisoner to infiltrate the kill-all-magic-users zealots' bit...

[Satinavian]

I think we must read and watch very different subsets of fiction then... I mean, Star Wars, Loki, anything with arrogant monologuing antagonists, lots of superhero stuff, lots of isekai stuff, lots of high fantasy... Witcher 3 even had a 'fake bringing your ally in as a fake prisoner to infiltrate the kill-all-magic-users zealots' bit...

First, that is partially true. I completely avoid superhero stuff because i can't stop poking holes into the plot and the characters are way too shallow/exaggerated. Haven't watched anything superhero in decades and never read the comics. I also haven't actually watched anything Star Wars and recent but that level of storytelling is barely tolerabe if i want to have something to turn the brain off*. And while i can enjoy some isekai like "ascendance of a bookworm", the vast majority is something i abandon after one or two episodes. But there are hidden gems.

Now Witcher 3 is something i did like. I also liked the books before the first game was published. But Geralt is not meant to actually be a hero. He is intended as an anti-hero. Him using dirty tricks and being shunned by society is par of the course. Furthermore that infiltrations (i can't remember it) sounds less like a false surrender and more like the infiltrating in disguise/donning enemy uniforms. Which i earlier explained i personally see as far less problematic

*And that is not a thing i want in an RPG. I expect more serious engagement with the setting and more believable plot and characters.

[kyoryu]

A lot of this just boils down to "do the ends justify the means?" IOW, we're back to that whole consequentialist/deontologist debate.

Personally I think that, no, they don't. At least not to the point where you should engage in "evil" tactics without remorse. There may be instances where you accept doing a bad thing because it may be the least awful option available, but you should still recognize that it's a bad thing, have remorse, and when possible try to have some kind of repentance about it.

It just goes back to my bread example. A "good" person may steal bread to steal starving orphans or their family or whatever. But they'll do it as a last resort, feel bad about it, and probably try to make amends for it when they're able.

[Batcathat]

A lot of this just boils down to "do the ends justify the means?" IOW, we're back to that whole consequentialist/deontologist debate.

Personally I think that, no, they don't. At least not to the point where you should engage in "evil" tactics without remorse. There may be instances where you accept doing a bad thing because it may be the least awful option available, but you should still recognize that it's a bad thing, have remorse, and when possible try to have some kind of repentance about it.

It just goes back to my bread example. A "good" person may steal bread to steal starving orphans or their family or whatever. But they'll do it as a last resort, feel bad about it, and probably try to make amends for it when they're able.

Though there's also the question of what qualifies as an "evil" tactic. Some would include something like "stabbing a person in the back when they're not looking" and some would not.

[Talakeal]

What do you guys think about not murdering a villain when you have the chance?

I have gamed with several people over the years that says if you have the chance to kill a villain (regardless of the means) and you don't take it, then you are just as responsible for all of their future crimes as they are.

I have even had a paladin fall for not executing some bandits, and have repeatedly been told that the description of LG forbids mercy.

[Batcathat]

What do you guys think about not murdering a villain when you have the chance?

I have gamed with several people over the years that says if you have the chance to kill a villain (regardless of the means) and you don't take it, then you are just as responsible for all of their future crimes as they are.

I have even had a paladin fall for not executing some bandits, and have repeatedly been told that the description of LG forbids mercy.

As this thread has probably made abundantly clear, I have a pretty... pragmatic view on how to best deal with bad guys, but I think that sort of Punisher mentality is going a bit too far, at least to apply as a general rule. "If you don't stop them, you're as responsible for this actions as they are" is almost as tired and worn out as "If you kill them, you are just like them" in the cliche department.

And having a paladin fall over something like that is pretty ridiculous.

[kyoryu]

What do you guys think about not murdering a villain when you have the chance?

I have gamed with several people over the years that says if you have the chance to kill a villain (regardless of the means) and you don't take it, then you are just as responsible for all of their future crimes as they are.

I have even had a paladin fall for not executing some bandits, and have repeatedly been told that the description of LG forbids mercy.

Consequentialism vs. Deontology. That is a very extreme version of a Consequentialist point of view.

And I don't think that Consequentialism can really work at the table, due to the inability to predict what will happen.

[Quertus]

To add yet another twist on this discussion, regardless of the impact of the “hero” doing “non-heroic” actions, my problem is when, in single-author fiction, the single author not only presents the act as good, but doesn’t register that anyone in the universe wouldn’t laud the hero for their cleverness in committing war crimes. At that point, it’s not just the hero, but the story and likely the entire setting that have failed. And, no, playing it for laughs, of “this one idiot opposes the heroic war crimes the hero committed” doesn’t count.

Telling me that the PoV character has a flaw, a blind spot, where they don’t realize just how evil one particular action they take is? That’s… really believable and human, honestly. Maybe not every human has unknowingly committed “war crimes”, but most have committed or accepted actions that deserve HP “unforgivable curses” treatment. So I’ve got no problems with the PoV character taking a misstep - even a big one - even if they are generally presented as “good” or “virtuous” or whatever.

But when they cheerfully commit war crimes, some of their companions need to at least get uncomfortable, if not actually call them out for their actions. The story needs those quick glances that communicate, “should we tell them?” “No, it would destroy them.”, or something equivalent, at a minimum. Otherwise, the author is presenting a morally bankrupt setting - one that isn’t worth my headspace.

[Batcathat]

To add yet another twist on this discussion, regardless of the impact of the “hero” doing “non-heroic” actions, my problem is when, in single-author fiction, the single author not only presents the act as good, but doesn’t register that anyone in the universe wouldn’t laud the hero for their cleverness in committing war crimes. At that point, it’s not just the hero, but the story and likely the entire setting that have failed. And, no, playing it for laughs, of “this one idiot opposes the heroic war crimes the hero committed” doesn’t count.

Telling me that the PoV character has a flaw, a blind spot, where they don’t realize just how evil one particular action they take is? That’s… really believable and human, honestly. Maybe not every human has unknowingly committed “war crimes”, but most have committed or accepted actions that deserve HP “unforgivable curses” treatment. So I’ve got no problems with the PoV character taking a misstep - even a big one - even if they are generally presented as “good” or “virtuous” or whatever.

But when they cheerfully commit war crimes, some of their companions need to at least get uncomfortable, if not actually call them out for their actions. The story needs those quick glances that communicate, “should we tell them?” “No, it would destroy them.”, or something equivalent, at a minimum. Otherwise, the author is presenting a morally bankrupt setting - one that isn’t worth my headspace.

That's true, but it's not exclusive to heroes committing war crimes or other questionable actions. The author's own morality impregnating the entire setting (sometimes with not only all the "good" people agreeing with them, but seemingly the very laws of nature doing the same) is just as common with heroes avoiding "unheroic" actions, no matter how much sense they would make.

[KorvinStarmast]

What do you guys think about not murdering a villain when you have the chance?

your question lacks context.

I have gamed with several people over the years that says if you have the chance to kill a villain (regardless of the means) and you don't take it, then you are just as responsible for all of their future crimes as they are.

I learned a thing many years ago: that in some philosophical systems from East Asia, if you save someone's life you are now responsible for them / their actions. Why? Because if you had not saved their life they'd not be doing anything. That's how my memory has it. There may be a formal paper on that idea which is more thorough, but I share that with you since it is a similar thought from a different direction.

I have even had a paladin fall for not executing some bandits, and have repeatedly been told that the description of LG forbids mercy.

Gotcha GM'ing is a thing. So what?

And having a paladin fall over something like that is pretty ridiculous.

Yeah.

[NichG]

A lot of this just boils down to "do the ends justify the means?" IOW, we're back to that whole consequentialist/deontologist debate.

Personally I think that, no, they don't. At least not to the point where you should engage in "evil" tactics without remorse. There may be instances where you accept doing a bad thing because it may be the least awful option available, but you should still recognize that it's a bad thing, have remorse, and when possible try to have some kind of repentance about it.

It just goes back to my bread example. A "good" person may steal bread to steal starving orphans or their family or whatever. But they'll do it as a last resort, feel bad about it, and probably try to make amends for it when they're able.

I think at least for the false surrender, etc things the point is a little more complex, because the argument has been that the consequences are what justify seeing those tactics as evil. If it weren't for things like 'if you do that it might drive the enemy to kill civilians' then it would be rather orange/blue morality to me to pick out particular forms of deception and say 'everything else is fine, but not these'.

You could certain have a deontological stance in a game say 'you mustn't do this', but (again, for me) such a stance would have zero resonance. Fiction written with that stance and presenting it as 'just how morality is' would, for me, just not land.

[Talakeal]

Gotcha GM'ing is a thing. So what?

I don't think it was "gotcha" DMing. Maybe railroading? Likely just a difference of opinion.

The DM just couldn't conceive of a player "disrupting" their hack and slash good vs. evil game dealing with prisoners and the logistics thereof.

[Quertus]

There may be instances where you accept doing a bad thing because it may be the least awful option available, but you should still recognize that it's a bad thing

Very much this.

What do you guys think about not murdering a villain when you have the chance?

Shrug. From the “surrendering bandit leader” thread, I’m obviously not opposed to a character killing a villain when they have the chance, but it’s not a “mandate carnivore” level of “you must slaughter all villains”.

I have gamed with several people over the years that says if you have the chance to kill a villain (regardless of the means) and you don't take it, then you are just as responsible for all of their future crimes as they are.

Exactly as responsible? No. Have responsibility for? Yes.

You have some minor responsibility for everyone you interact with. Every action you take - or don’t take - could harm or assist their mental health, their attitude, their self-esteem, their knowledge and paradigms. Every interaction is an opportunity to make the world a better - or worse - place, regardless of what world that is. With every interaction, have you made it more likely that the world will see a cure to cancer, or a school shooting, a new Paladin or an assassin? Are you enabling the evil princess to abduct the dragon? Yes? Then you have some responsibility for the Dragon’s fate.

I have even had a paladin fall for not executing some bandits,

Now, I’m senile, but iirc a Paladin will only fall based on good/evil, not Law/chaos. “Execution” sounds more like a lawful duty than a motivation for good. And the Paladin is explicitly allowed to spurn the law in the name of good. So… fail. Even if “Law” and “law” get conflated.

and have repeatedly been told that the description of LG forbids mercy.

Bizarro World! Shenanigans! “Lawful Good forbids mercy”?! I’m pretty sure I would have slowly drawn my clue-by-four while asking just which Alignment they thought “mercy” belonged to.

Sure, “Lawful stupid” has trouble with mercy (or any other deviation from the code Law), but, at best, that’s just one more reason to throw out Alignment.

Afaict, to get to “Lawful Good forbids mercy”, you’d have to mistake Lawful for referring to legal codes, *and* firmly embrace Lawful stupid, at which point the hole is dug so deep, someone whose definitions were total chaos, and defined Lawful as “toothpaste” would likely hold the high ground on the validity of their paradigm.

[NichG]

What do you guys think about not murdering a villain when you have the chance?

I have gamed with several people over the years that says if you have the chance to kill a villain (regardless of the means) and you don't take it, then you are just as responsible for all of their future crimes as they are.

I have even had a paladin fall for not executing some bandits, and have repeatedly been told that the description of LG forbids mercy.

Alignment aside, but as far as what reads as heroic to me...

Does the character show more respect for the life of the villain than for the villain's mooks? Unheroic

Does the character show more respect for the life of the villain than for the villain's victims? Unheroic.

Specifically if the character takes responsibility for the villain's fate (e.g. preventing others from making that decision), do they fail to treat the prevention of future victims seriously? This means e.g. sending a villain to a prison that sees yearly breakouts, remanding them to a justice system that consistently fails to secure them, etc. Unheroic and culpable. Doesn't mean they have to kill the villain, but they are responsible for treating the prevention of future predictable harms with proportional seriousness to that which those harms would be due if they were happening presently. Batman reads as a failed protagonist to me for this reason rather than as a hero. Similarly things like the Protectorate in Worm.

At the same time, failing to treat even a villain's life with any respect whatsoever can read as unheroic to me, though it depends on the villain. If a character e.g. kills the wizard villain who has already been stripped of all their powers, its questionable. If that villain could have made trouble in other ways, if their continued existence would continue to cause (even just emotional) harm to their victims then maybe justifiable, but there has to be some fig leaf at least to suggest it's not just that the character enjoys killing (though even then, that could just land in antihero rather than villainous or failed-protagonist to me).

[Talakeal]

Bizarro World! Shenanigans! “Lawful Good forbids mercy”?! I’m pretty sure I would have slowly drawn my clue-by-four while asking just which Alignment they thought “mercy” belonged to.

Sure, “Lawful stupid” has trouble with mercy (or any other deviation from the code Law), but, at best, that’s just one more reason to throw out Alignment.

Afaict, to get to “Lawful Good forbids mercy”, you’d have to mistake Lawful for referring to legal codes, *and* firmly embrace Lawful stupid, at which point the hole is dug so deep, someone whose definitions were total chaos, and defined Lawful as “toothpaste” would likely hold the high ground on the validity of their paradigm.

The 3E PHB states that LG characters "Hate to see the guilty go unpunished" and then says that an example LG character would be a "paladin who pursues evil without mercy", so it does appear to be RAW.

I would say NG is the merciful one personally.

[kyoryu]

The 3E PHB states that LG characters "Hate to see the guilty go unpunished" and then says that an example LG character would be a "paladin who pursues evil without mercy", so it does appear to be RAW.

An example. Not necessarily indicative of all lawful good characters.

[kyoryu]

Specifically if the character takes responsibility for the villain's fate (e.g. preventing others from making that decision), do they fail to treat the prevention of future victims seriously? This means e.g. sending a villain to a prison that sees yearly breakouts, remanding them to a justice system that consistently fails to secure them, etc. Unheroic and culpable. Doesn't mean they have to kill the villain, but they are responsible for treating the prevention of future predictable harms with proportional seriousness to that which those harms would be due if they were happening presently. Batman reads as a failed protagonist to me for this reason rather than as a hero. Similarly things like the Protectorate in Worm.

But what if the villain's continued acts leads to a greater response, and more organized forces to counter Bad Things and protect and help people? Then is it good to let the villain go?

In other words, maybe the villain causes -10 points of badness, but their existence creates +20 points of goodness? What is the ripple effect of that? Where does it stop?

[Talakeal]

An example. Not necessarily indicative of all lawful good characters.

The second one is an example, the "hates to see the guilty go unpunished" is just made as a blanket statement of fact.

I am fully open to the interpretation that this is just hyperbolic writing, but IMO other people are fully justified in taking it at face value, especially when supported by an example.

[NichG]

But what if the villain's continued acts leads to a greater response, and more organized forces to counter Bad Things and protect and help people? Then is it good to let the villain go?

In other words, maybe the villain causes -10 points of badness, but their existence creates +20 points of goodness? What is the ripple effect of that? Where does it stop?

For me the 'read as heroic' is not so much about whether its good or bad to let the villain go, but rather whether the character actually demonstrates wisdom and care when taking responsibility to decide the villain's fate. It's not so much about the morality of the character's actions as whether the character actually is successful at achieving what they claim to stand for. Someone who says 'trust me, I know how we should do things, I insist we do things my way' and then the consequence of doing things their way is consistently bad, especially if its in ways that really should have been foreseen, becomes a foil or just a kind of 'unwelcome character' rather than a hero to me.

If the character is not taking responsibility, there's more leeway. A character whose group is attacked by bandits, but they deal a quick defeat and move on without wiping out the bandit gang or killing the downed bandits or whatever doesn't give me this problem, because the character isn't saying e.g. 'these bandits should not be killed' or 'I fought these bandits in order to save the people of the region'. Because the character isn't making a claim either explicitly or implicitly about the way things should be done, the fact that they don't conclusively resolve the situation doesn't impact my read of the character as much.

It's like, if the character makes no claim, there's nothing for them to be wrong about. If the character confidently makes a claim, they're now on the hook to prove the rightness of their claim. If Batman just happens to not kill, no big deal. If Batman makes a big fuss about 'I must never kill' and manages to actually permanently reform or put away villains or turn them to the side of the heroes, he has made a claim contrary to the 'common sense of the world' and has backed it up - that reads as heroic. On the other hand, if he makes a big fuss about 'I must never kill' and because of that policy the Joker escapes for the 7th time and kills 100 people, then to me that undermines what Batman is trying to stand for. He might still be a moral person, but he's failed to be a hero (again, for me) in that whatever wisdom or path he stood for or tried to create is being shown by the rest of the fiction to be flawed.

Edit: Basically, to read as a hero to me a character must find and demonstrate some way of being that 'works', and which works towards a world that sounds better to live in to me than the world which lacks that way of being.