Ethics

Rights are a spook, they probably don't even exist in a medieval fantasy world.

>Do "human" rights exist in the world?
Of course they do.
>They're just social constructs as you know.
Irrelevant to this discussion.

>Rights are a spook,
So is every thought of yours. They are just thoughts. Not real.
Your entire existence is a fiction.
And that doesn't matter at all. It's real enough to you.

>they probably don't even exist in a medieval fantasy world.
Murder was actually illegal in Europe 1000 AD.

Not him, but he's a potential threat, if the rest of the gobs launched another attack, and while they were distracted he woke up he could attack while they were distracted. I mean I guess you could chain him up, but in a battle situation that's still one more thing to worry about when like half the party is already near death.

>I'm having a hard time understanding how an unconcious goblin would be a threat.
It COULD pass its saving throws and join the second wave I was worried about.

Keep in mind this one (or the corpse next to it Its been a few weeks) basically forced down one of our guys in one shot and our party was injured and tired.

The way I try to approach it is the James Bond approach.

James Bond has a license to kill, and does so frequently, but he hates to do it "in cold blood." In the heat of a fight, it's one thing, but outside of that you need a particularly good reason to kill someone, and "they're evil" is not a particularly good one.

If the goblin was dying, and no one had the talent or time to save its life, putting it out of its misery is appropriate. BUT, it's always important to not act without the consent of the group, and to explain why you're killing something.

Since it was already dying, It was no longer a threat, so your rationalization isn't appropriate. Your group does have some reason to be upset with you for killing something in cold blood without expressing proper cause, but overall this is less a question of ethics and more of procedure, since killing the goblin was appropriate if done so for the right reasons.

Oi that party member was an elf. You can do whatever you want to an elf without consequence.

>And that doesn't matter at all. It's real enough to you.
>Implying it doesn't, implying it is, implying I don't realize that I very likely am a figment of my own imagination if such a thing could even be said to exist

>Murder was actually illegal in Europe 1000 AD.
That didn't mean it was conceptualized as illegal because of the concept of human rights. Furthermore the definition of murder is restricted to being a legal definition that only applies from within a framework of specific laws, which may or may not cover goblins.

Bleeding heart bullshit.

Basically think of the stereotype of paladins being the no fun lawful good dumbass except we didn't have a paladin at that point.

You were part of that as well.

(We faded to black since I know SOMEBODY is going to ask)
>I mean I guess you could chain him up,
We used up our chain.

One of the three injured party members was an elf.

Was the goblin an outlaw which means that you are legally allowed to kill them like a wolf?

Was your civilization pre or post Magna Carta (1200s)? If post-Magna Carta then due process must apply to the execution of a goblin.

>which may or may not cover goblins.
Which is why I was asking.

>That didn't mean it was conceptualized as illegal because of the concept of human rights.
Your right to not be murdered is a direct consequence of other people being forbidden from murdering you.

>Irrelevant to this discussion.
Of course it is relevant. Since they're social constructs it's entirely plausible for the world to not have "human" rights.

No it's not melly! Ya damn faggot whore!

>it's entirely plausible for the world to not have "human" rights.
Without some measure of protection from your fellow humans, you can't live together with them.
If humans are incapable of living together, civilization is impossible.

>Killing after surrender
You done fucked up hard. This is one of the worst possible things you could do from a practical standpoint. Now everyone knows never to surrender to you, ever.

That's completely backwards. The unconcious combatants are a liability to the enemy. They have to either spend manpower to take care of them, or waste spell slots to revive them. If nothing else, they work as a distraction.

You'd have to ask the DM about how the laws apply to goblins to know for sure. I doubt the local human government is gonna care that you killed a goblin, but the goblin "government" probably will.

Are you a paladin? Are local goblins basically people, rather than monsters? If the answer to both of these is no, then fuck them.

Well in that case I have to say that you were in the wrong. The rest of the party seems to be in the mindset of playing damn big heroes, and killing prisoners in cold blood just isn't a thing that should happen in heroic adventures. Since you're the odd man out it's kinda on you to change your mindset about the game, or end up being the That Guy of the situation. Whether killing a goblin is morally justifiable or not is irrelevant to the situation, it's about the theme of the adventures the rest of the players want to be involved in.

Tell them about the head booping ya received from melly as well when ya refused to listen to her!

>Now everyone knows never to surrender to you, ever.
Only if you leave the eyewitnesses alive, mind you.

Oh we met him later, he's a millennia old caster of indeterminate level who knows things about the characters that would require mind reading or future sight. That was on a diplomacy bodyguard quest

No "human" rights doesn't equal no protection.

>Was the goblin an outlaw
It was a thieve that tried to kill us to get some meat we got paid to guard

> Magna Carta
It a custom world the DM built.

It never surrendered tho, its friend did but it didn't.

Also we were level 1s and now 2s and one three, nobody cares who we are, we don't have songs about us, we just generic run of the mill adventures as far as the world is concerned.

>They have to either spend manpower to take care of them, or waste spell slots to revive them. If nothing else, they work as a distraction
>They have to

No, they don't. If that was a modern soldier or something sure, but fucking goblins?

The goblins do seem to be basically people. We latee met with their leader to try to deal with a conflict between the local goblins, kobolds and ratmen. And no, OP is not a paladin, he is a warlock.

You've got a whole party of witnesses, and goblins are known for being sneaky.

We aren't particularly heroes, we just honor surrenders. I mean seriously one of our party members created a werechimera in the town and got eaten by it. It's still on the loose.

Nothing a good fireball can't solve.

>> Magna Carta
>It a custom world the DM built.

But what is it based on? If it's just medieval England with the numbers filed off then asking if it is pre or post Magna Carta makes perfect sense.

You are no longer generic.
You are now those guys who kill their prisoners.

That's not a right though, a right is supposedly universal and supersedes all other systems. So regardless of the legal system allowing or disallowing it it would still be "wrong" to kill you. When conceptualized within a legal framework however it is contextual, non-universal and only supersedes the will of those with no power. It's entirely possible for a legal system to deny your right not to be killed because your killer had more power than you did.

If you're gonna kill 'em all already, why care what they think?

You should have killed him immediately without accepting his surrender, preferably without letting him finish offering it at all.

That way it's making sure a target is done, not zapping a detainee.

t. military

Well if that means that I don't need to deal with a prisoner dilemma anymore then good!

>we just honor surrenders
You never told me that before I killed the goblin, and that one NEVER surrendered, but you know what it did do? It tried to fucking murder us in cold blood.

>No, they don't. If that was a modern soldier or something sure, but fucking goblins?
Yes they fucking do if they want the unconcious goblin to be any kind of an asset. He was unconcious, making DSTs, you tit.

He COULD have passed those without any help.

Honestly I thought my party would be in such a murder frenzy that I had to act quick to save the one goblin (Keep in mind nobody else said to take one alive before I did), so I did that before executing the murder thief.

And then what, stay at 0hp for an extended period of time? The worst case scenario is that he rolls a 20 and gets 1 hp back. But it's still a fucking goblin at 1hp who is more likely interested in fleeing and surviving rather than fighting.

You haven't explained yet how he was a threat, and I'm still waiting.

Theft implies no violence.
If violence is employed, it's robbery.

>low functioning sociopath cannot wrap their head around why war prisoner executions are morally and practically reprehensible

>"hey guys lets take these goblins alive. They could be useful!"
>[5 seconds later]
>"LOL I just killed one of our captives!"
>"Wait why are you all looking at me like that"

>But it's still a fucking goblin at 1hp who is more likely interested in fleeing and surviving rather than fighting.
Or its a goblin that COULD make an attack and one shot a party member AGAIN.

Like if I came to you guys bitching about how a wounded goblin got up and hurt my character you faggots would have told me it was my fault for not confirming the kill and don't tell me you wouldn't because I've seen that happen, many times.

It's a monster, that's how it's a threat. If it runs away, it'll just come back to hurt people again.

>Dude objective morality lamo!
Fuck off ya git.

No, that's actually normal soldier behavior. Wars are hella dirty.

And practically, user.
Read better.

He took one gob prisoner because he surrendered, he finished off one who DIDN'T surrender, and may have posed a threat during the coming battle.

It's normal behavior for guys that wind up losing due to poor policy, sure.

We only needed one and even that is taking a risk (tho a small one since we had chains)

I can confirm I feel guilt, probably more than most of you, but that faggot still attempted to MASS MURDER US!

Like holy shit, how the fuck is this even a question?

>Practically reprehensible
What does this even mean?

>Unconscious people cannot be in a state of surrender

That's because we were in the way of their regularly scheduled prosciutto heist.

After a day maybe. If he survives.

Doesn't really seem like an immediate threat.

It is weird that you are hqving problems understanding why people wouldn't like you executing prisoners, yes.
Shouldn't even be a point of contention, but here you are.

>They tried to murder us
>Yeah but its k, we did try to stop them from stealing after all
>No they never asked US to surrender

Goblins aren't people.

Who the fuck cares if he's not an immediate threat? If you see a time bomb that's set to blow up in a week, are you going to wait until there's only 5 minutes on the countdown to do something about it?

Right I should point out that this is D&D goblins are evil fucks by nature.

That you are doing something very impractical.
There are many useful things to do with a wounded prisoner. Even releasing them to the enemy side is more advantageous than killing them due to increased logistical weight.

You didn't try to kill the drow boy that was going to sacrifice you to a demon? You enslaved him and made him a sex toy instead.

Says here that they are usually, which means they are people and not preprogrammed killbots.

A restrained, unarmed goblin with at most 1 hit point (if not 0hp and stable) isn't that much of a threat.

Besides, it's good to have more prisoners for interrogation. If you do them one at a time, it's harder for them to lie to you.

And tattooed his dick before rising it.

>There are many useful things to do with a dangerous vermin that would love nothing more than to slit your throat while you sleep.

>normal soldier behavior

You've never enlisted, right?

Cause he was upfront about it as a wager in poker.

Its like the difference between an assassin poisoning your food or fighting a gladiator in fair combat after the horn blows signaling the start of the match.

But that's not what you are bad about You are just mad about his penis.

He just wants to claim because he's a horrible person, everyone else must be and will scream about how everyone else is doing it too, despite all evidence to the country.

Yes, there are.
Also,
>Slitting throats while asleep
What kind of chucklefuck party doesn't take watch?
Your behavior is extremely non practical.

>Things that Never Happened™
>posted to your local "Make Shit Up Because Anything Goes" Board
>brought to you by desperate, pathetic NARPfags

>dindu nuthin

>Is not a threat
He's NOT a threat to the 3 guys on the verge of death who could keel over if a strong breeze hit em? Oh sure user, sure.

>My question is holy shit really? It is a fucking goblin, and not some orc baby, this guy just tried to murder us.

I see this a lot.

Western culture players are very often predisposed to seeing an 'incapacitated' enemy as "helpless and thus immoral to kill": Even if it's an evil goblin bent on murdering you.

It's just one of those cultural idiocies, like marching into the middle of a field with muskets, nothing to do with real 'ethics' or 'honor'.

Good on you for protecting your party, fools who give their enemies weapons though they may be.

...I think there's a story here that needs to be told.

>r/nothingeverhappens

It's the shortest route to being sure you will never have to deal with that specific threat again. It's very practical.

>Your behavior is extremely non practical.
First, it's "impractical". Second, that's not my behavior at all, because I would stomp on the goblin's until it's a fine crimson paste, thus giving the entire party one less thing they need to keep an eye on.

>tips fedora

try
>hey Veeky Forums I want to shitpost about alignment in deendee, but I'm too autistic to get in a game so here's a story I've made up

>I will do the thing forces that lost historically do because I cannot use resources to their fullest

Great counter argument, allow me to counter it with a smug anime girl.

Goblins aren't resources, they're vermin.

This is the abridged version

I don't think that's equivalent.

That's not even smug, you piece of shit.

>Veeky Forums normally
>REEE LAWFUL GOOD ISN'T LAWFUL NICE OR STUPID, KILL ORC BABIES ALL DAY LONG THEY ARE EVIL YOU'LL NEVER FALL SMITING EVIL BEST DAY OF MY LIFE!!!

>Veeky Forums today
>Wow what the fuck, you killed a goblin who tried to kill you? You heartless monster didn't you even consider the fantasy universal declaration of human (goblins are totally human) rights? You sick heartless fuck, you monster, I hope people don't use coasters when they come over to your house.

Vermin are a resource. Especially in war

Oh, quite the contrary. A monster is a monster, and it's only a matter of time before they're a threat to someone again, so why wait?

>I hope people don't use coasters when they come over to your house.
3edgy5me

Not when the war is against the vermin, you dumb piece of shit.

app.roll20.net/campaigns/chatarchive/1731881
I wonder if this works, search "Hashag"

If they attacked you with intent to kill, then their own right to life is forfeit.

Unless you have such a surplus of healing tools/spells that fixing the goblin wouldn't be troubling with resources, a method of reliably restraining the gobbo alongside his friend and an actual plan with what to do with him afterwards, it's too impractical to expect a group of injured mercenaries to treat a gobbo like a modern PoW.

It's a necessary evil at best, but the alternative isn't worth the risk.