Is it ethical to incapacitate enemies...

Is it ethical to incapacitate enemies, then walk around and execute them all once combat has ended so they can't wake up and bother you later?

Other urls found in this thread:

immortalpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ashed_Mercenaries
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Depends on the setting. It's warcrime under Geneva Conventions and therefore unethical.
In alternate present / fantasy if no such global decree was passed, you're fine.

I have a character who does the same thing, with an added dose of forced baptism/conversion so they go straight to heaven.

>Depends on the setting.

Another instance where someone forcing this dumb passive-aggressive meme doesn't actually makes sense.

Whether something goes against the Geneva Concentions isn't what determines whether something is ethical, you moron.

Only cowards and murderers kill people in their sleep, hope that answers your question

Is it an ethical war crime, though.

oh, it's super unethical. Most war is unethical. Survival is unethical.
Oh well, do it anyway. What are you going to do, die for ethics like some kinda pacifist? Fuck that.

So what should be a base for whether something is ethical, your personal moral compass?
The question becomes pointless if it's just everyone determining it themselves.

Who gives a fuck about ethics in warfare? You kill the enemy, you incapacitate them in any way you can. Torture is a step too far, but execution of an incapacitated enemy is fine if there's no practical means of keeping prisoners secured.

I sort of feel the best thing to do is to steal all their shit and let them go.
I have made so much money this way in some games, because they keep coming back with more shit.

>I sort of feel the best thing to do is to steal all their shit and let them go.
Depends on the scenario I guess. If it's warfare, no, they're still threats. A bunch of bandits? People you had a brawl with? Sure.

Why not just kill them in the first place?

But you get the best hauls when you do it in warfare.
And the most reliable.

You can still take shit from dead people.

But they won't send those guys at you again with more shit.
And they can run out of guys!

>But they won't send those guys at you again with more shit.
Yes they will, that's how war works you fucking imbecile.

No, they're sending OTHER guys at you with more shit.
Which is all fine and good, until you kill all their guys, but they still have more shit they haven't sent you.
Then you have to go all the way over there and LOOK for their shit.

You're an idiot.

If we're throwing ethics out of the window, another possibility is maiming the captives, dramatically reducing their combat potential while still leaving them fit enough for various peaceful occupation.
The downside is that people might stop surrendering once you build up reputation.

>The question becomes pointless if it's just everyone determining it themselves.

Hence the discussion and people explaining their points of view.

For example, James Bond was always willing to kill people if they were a threat (and had a license to do so), but the Man with the Golden Gun is a story all about how he was put on a mission which would result in him playing the part of an executioner, and how he hated the idea of killing a man in "cold blood." It's something some of the other characters did not really understand, but it's where James Bond drew the line between killing he couldn't avoid and killing for convenience, with the latter making him nothing more than a state-appointed murderer.

While there's many situations where circumstances (not "settings") would make killing a man in cold blood the only moral choice, for the most part it's not ethical. You really need some strong justifications to execute an enemy that is no longer a threat. Those justifications are debatable and plentiful, and some may even have ties to circumstances with the environment or by-products of the culture, but the answer "It depends on the setting" is so pointlessly moronic I can only assume an idiot would try pushing that forced meme and then follow it with "the Geneva Convention defines ethics".

I think you're more of one if you can't appreciate wealth that delivers itself to you.

And -you- are working too hard.

>Another instance where someone forcing this dumb passive-aggressive meme doesn't actually makes sense.
Listen here fucko, this is the board for traditional games. I know you like to pretend it's actually called /tg - creative writing but you'll have to forgive us when all we see is threads that posit random moral quandries and act like it's related to traditional games because you set them in a fictional world.

It makes you a war criminal if you lose. It makes you a hero if you win.

have you considered tying them up?

James Bond is nothing more than a state-appointed murderer, that's the whole bloody point. That's why he's a raging alcoholic and why he can't relate to anyone anymore. It's also why you have characters like Janus and Silvato act as his foil

>James Bond is nothing more than a state-appointed murderer
Yeah, since 2005 when Daniel Craig got the role.

At least don't be passive aggressive about it.

If you've got a problem with people using this board for inspiration and for discussing topics that come up frequently in roleplaying games (like what to do with prisoners, a debate that inevitably happens), then say it clearly. Don't pussyfoot around with forced memes.

Depends on the setting is probably older than you

>non-Fleming Bond

Eh, no thanks.

In any case, James really only held himself together because of that single line in his code of ethics, that regardless of the guilt he felt for killing people in the heat of battle, him never crossing that line to kill someone in cold blood is what let him continue on in the service.

>dramatically reducing their combat potential while still leaving them fit enough for various peaceful occupation.
That's why the US still uses mines and we design them not to completely blow someone up, but to remove a leg. So the populace at home sees their soldiers returning home minus legs.

>Killing incapacitated enemies
Chaotic Good
>Killing sleeping enemies
Evil
>Killing those who surrender
Chaotic Evil
>Capturing incapacitated enemies and making them sign a contract to never fight in the war again.
Lawful good

>Ambush on sleeping enemy is Evil
>Killing men you knocked out is Chaotic Good though
Explain.

Killing men who can't fight back is evil.

Killing men who you beat in a fair fight is honorable.

Why not just go for the killshot right away at that point? Kind of stupid to hope they won't keep shooting at you when you kneecap them if you intend to kill them anyway.

>Ambush, main military tactic used since forever is evil
>Killing men who you defeated, when you could take them prisoners or allow to return to their country, is honourable
I think I have found a member of Harmonium here. How does it feel to know you collapsed one of Arcadia's planes to Mechanus?

now, I can sort of see how you could have extracted those statements out of what user said but your version really can't be transformed back into what it had originally come from, it's just too far off now.

Hamstring only one leg, remove their non dominant hand. Leave them crippled just enough to be a use to society in some way, but ultimately flawed for combat. Killing a civilian with these signs of past service in war is frowned upon, especially if they’re just caught in the middle of the war. If they’re responsible for organizing the insurgency or enemy, that’s another story and a fair trial will be held, and they will receive fair treatment while imprisoned

The Harmonium, as-written, seldom kill people. They instead brainwash people in concentration camps.

They presumably use magical music and totalitarian idol units and reyvateils for this brainwashing, seeing how the Harmonium has a musical theme: the faction's name, the factol's title of "Composer," ranks like "Measure" and "Notary" (both in the musical sense), a headquarters in Arcadia called "Melodia," and so on.

The Harmonium was one of the more unfairly-written factions in 2e. The authors were dead-set on demonizing it, since Planescape was written in the 90s, and the setting needed a strawman for "The Man."

Depends on the ethical framework, but yeah it's generally going to be considered unethical. For example there's a utilitarian argument that by executing them you're removing them from the war thus saving both more of your own people and potentially ending the war faster and lowering the overall number of casualties. And you get the chance to give them a clean death, so you're reducing the individual enemy's suffering as well.

Possibly for leadership or people with direct malicious intent to you who will go to great effort to come after you. But against enemy soldiers doing thier job its horribly unethical, in a wartime scenario if you injured them to incapacitation they'll probably be out of the fight for the rest of the campaign or discharged.

>Killing men who you defeated, when you could take them prisoners or allow to return to their country, is honourable

It was standard practice to have a squad dedicated mercy killers behind your army. If you were advancing, you didn't want a wounded enemy soldier to be able to fight, even if he was only hacking at people's legs from the ground. It was the honorable thing to do to protect your own soldiers, and give the enemy a quick death rather than being trampled in the fighting.

>Ambush
>Implying killing men in their tents in an "ambush" rather than a slaughter.
Heros would never stoop so low. There's a large difference between forcing the enemy to fight in the area of your choosing, and murdering them in their sleep.

Nope

You're correct about ethics and warfare being kinda incompatible but what OP described is very much unethical

>Is it ethical to incapacitate enemies, then walk around and execute them all once combat has ended so they can't wake up and bother you later?
Honestly I think the main reason this sounds "unethical" is because the way you described sounds contrived to the tune of you wanting to kill an incapacitated person specifically, rather than the strategic happenstance I'm assuming you mean.

Not to give a shitty "Depends on the setting" answer, but it would very much depend on what the scenario was as to whether or not you're justified.

>Not to give a shitty "Depends on the setting" answer, but it would very much depend on what the scenario was as to whether or not you're justified.

"Depends on the circumstances" is very different from "depends on the setting".

OP was being purposely vague just to draw up more discussion, but there's at least something more to the answer than "the world dictates what's ethical".

>Hence the discussion and people explaining their points of view.
Philosophy goes in Veeky Forums my man, in Veeky Forums people talk about game ethics.

>Anti-quest faggots hunger for more blood.

Mine just doesn't want to deal with prisoners. Especially low ranking slavers (which was what we were fighting last). He usually just executes them out of pragmatism.
Although he did capture a pirate and let the people he enslaved kick him out an airlock and blast him with the ship's guns.
He did take one prisoner, but that was for other reasons.

No

In space settings it's totally ethical to vent people. Oxygen, food, and water are to valuable to waste on prisoners.

Unless you plan to Shanghai them.

>Who gives a fuck about ethics in warfare?
>Torture is a step too far

If they are incapacitated, then they can't fight back.

>Heros would never stoop so low
So a "hero" would kill someone who can't fight back unless that person is asleep?

>So a "hero" would kill someone who can't fight back unless that person is asleep?
Well the implication was that they could and did fight back, but lost.

Only after a fair fight and only if the person deserved it.

I imagine most would say not. I imagine it's more efficient to neutralize without making a distinction between incapacitation and termination except to perform cleanup when active hostiles aren't present to be a higher priority.

It's combat, not a sportsball match. Wipe them, clean up the screamers and keep moving.

Most of the time, torture is the equivalent of a hunter burning 1,200 Calories on an 800 Calorie kill. There are more effective options most of the time.

ftfy
>killing in whatever way seems right and rightous at the time with no meaningful overarching code
Chaotic good
Also
>killing in whatever way is reasonably convient at the time
Chaotic nuetral
>killing in whatever way is convient and funny at the time
Chaotic evil

>killing enemy combatants, regardless of combat readiness, in order to preserve self-interests
Unaligned

>offering surrender, or honoring voluntary surrender
Good

>rescinding surrender terms after combatants have been pacified
Evil

>killing explicit noncombatants
Evil

>specifically targeting unready hostiles
Clever

>specifically targeting unready hostiles when it creates unnecessary risks to the objective
Wishes to be the Clever guy, probably Evil

>killing for the purpose of entertainment
Evil

This isn't hard.

>killing explicit noncombatants

>Implying killing the capitalist dogs who profit from and fuel the war effort isn't the most righteous justice.

Opinions discarded.

I don't really get why it's unethical. If you know they will wake up and attack you later, they're going to die either way. If you're just killing them when you can grab the item and fuck off before they'll be back up, then you're just killing them for fun.

A lot of this topic just strikes me as lawful stupid.

The use of other individuals through political or economic pressures in order to commit violence is no different from picking up the gun and shooting. Targets are registered as combatants. Moral dilemma resolved.

You just might be LE if...

You wonder why your Machiavellian schemes are considered a social faux pas.

If they're nazis, it's actually righteous and correct.

>Is it ethical to incapacitate enemies, then walk around and execute them all once combat has ended so they can't wake up and bother you later?
>once the combat has ended

I'm confused. Are you incapacitating enemies in the middle of combat only to execute them once combat is over? Why aren't you simply killing them in the middle of combat...? It's arguably harder to fight an enemy with the purpose of subduing them than it is to fight them with the intent to kill.

From the way you've worded this, I would say that it is unethical. It doesn't make sense to incapacitate enemies in the middle of combat just to execute them afterwards when you could've just killed them in combat in the first place.

To be fair, the only unethical response to a nazi is letting it live.

I mean, it all depends on the target really. Goblins? That's just pest control. Cultists who want to destroy the world? That's just reducing personal risk. Especially if there are even more further into the dungeon, why would you leave a mass of nut jobs napping right behind your flank?

Soldiers from another kingdom who have not committed any war crimes? Sure that's a clear case of unethical and evil actions.

>I'm confused. Are you incapacitating enemies in the middle of combat only to execute them once combat is over?

I'm pretty sure the implication is something akin to Black Company, with how they frequently used mass sleep spells to incapacitate enemies to circumvent or remove them stealthily. For instance, using mass sleep on an inn where some local bandits are staying at.

Where does combat fit into this, then? OP specifically says "so they can't bother you when it's all over." It's one thing to mass sleep a group of bad guys and then kill them. What OP is describing doesn't sound like that. What OP is describing sounds like there's a fight, some guys are incapacitated, and when the fight is over those unconscious guys are summarily executed. I'm curious why they weren't simply killed during the fighting.

I hadn't taken magic into account, though.

I suppose you could for instance, lure them into a room with a sleeping gas trap. Alternatively maybe he fell down the stairs, passed out due to blunt damage to the head, or something like that.

I mean where's the line?

>Hit them in the head with a rock.
>Hit them in the head with a club.
>Stun baton
>Stun gun
>Lightning (paralyze) magic
>Sleep magic

When does it become morally upsetting?

>Hey guys, what do you want to eat
>Eh, depends on the restaurant
This is what you sound like right now. When people ask you for your opinion, they want you to offer input based on your own personal preference. Saying "it depends" offers nothing, it's a non-answer that forces the other party to make assumptions on your behalf while carrying the conversation upon their own shoulders.

Now my personal opinion on the matter is simple, are they enemies that can be safely delivered to an authority that can try them based on the nature of the crime and can we deliver these people without going too far out of our way? If it's yes to both, they live. Otherwise, they get executed because fuck trying to escort 5+ bandits to a city when the closest settlement is more than a day's travel.

...

>Philosophy goes in Veeky Forums my man
Nigger, what more do you want to take from us? You took our smut, our drawfags, our writefags, our quests, our forum games...

What more could you possibly want to take away from the board?

But that doesn't change the fact that you are now executing people who are completely unable to resist, whether they were asleep or incapacitated in combat is of no consequence.
This is especially true considering you *could* take either group prisoner.

Ahhh yes, heroes are known for rewarding honorable and just combat with a dogs death

>Saying "it depends" offers nothing, it's a non-answer that forces the other party to make assumptions on your behalf while carrying the conversation upon their own shoulders.
It still needs more specification. Are we talking about goblins? Bandits? A Paladin that just happens to have a different perspective on the situation? There are so many details that change it from killing just to be edgy to just common sense.

>Whether something goes against the Geneva Concentions isn't what determines whether something is ethical, you moron.
It pretty much is, actually. I can forgive you for not knowing the difference between morality and ethics, but don't condescend to people who are more informed than you.

Well I mean it ultimately all boils down to WHO you're executing.

Knocking out and summarily executing a bunch of two bit thieves would obviously be an extreme and questionable response. Whereas executing some homicidal maniac from the local death cult would be a much more understandable and reasonable way to handle the situation.

Is it therefore moral to kill an incapacitated enemy knowing that in doing so you prevent a greater loss of life, potentially amongst civilians or other non-combatants?

>Hey guys, what do you want to eat
>Eh, depends on the restaurant
>This is what you sound like right now.
...Yes?

Are we going to a sushi place? a pizza place? are you assuming that LITERALLY every restaurant in the serves the same food? Or are you just the kind of pleb that only goes to places that do burgers?

>warcrime under Geneva Conventions
Only if the said targets fly a UN-recognised state flag.
If the targets are unmarked, ie. either insurgents or black ops, the saw is the law. Phosphorus, flamethrower, even killing the after incapacitation is free.

So you can rape them beforehand.

It's more like asking someone what they want from the menu before you've even decided on where you're eating desu

> are you assuming that LITERALLY every restaurant in the serves the same food?
No, I'm assuming that you're not a fucking idiot and have enough autonomy to say "eh, I feel like eating X tonight if that's alright with you guys" instead of going "eh, depends on the restaurant."

One gives me an idea of where people want to order from, the other just tells me that you either have no preference or no initiative.

It's both unethical and a waste of time. Just kill them during the fight.
At least in that situation they're still hostile combatants and thus fair game.

...

Why not just preface your response with "well, if it involves X then Y is the preferred method, otherwise it's Z."

You have hundreds of thousands of words to express your opinion, why not exercise them and contribute to the conversation?

No, that's what your dumbass is conflating the scenario as being, rather than what it actually is.

If you want Pizza, say "I want Pizza." Don't say "depends on the restaurant" and be surprised when everyone else is in the mood for burgers and fries.

Ask vague questions, get vague responses.

The only person you're hurting in the end is are at least capable of yourself. The rest of us are at least capable of expressing an opinion at least so we can just ignore you until you actually contribute.

This is a stupid fucking analogy for one, and for the other it also literally depends on the setting where you are when determining what restaurants to eat from.

If you're in the city there's a wider variety. If you're in a rural town there isn't much to choose from.

In this case, "depends on the setting" is the equivalent of "what's there to eat in town?"

I sincerely doubt that you're in an area where you only have one thing to eat, so obviously you're going to have a choice and a preference.

Even then, if you say that you want Pizza and you find out that Pizza isn't available, it doesn't mean that you suddenly stop liking Pizza, it just means that you have to go with whatever's available to eat at that particular moment.

I'm just going to assume you're too indecisive to contribute to these types of conversations, give you one last (you), and ignore you until you start contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way.

>I sincerely doubt that you're in an area where you only have one thing to eat
It depends on, get this, which area I'm in.

I do frequent a town where literally the only available food source is a little gas station grocery store.

>Even then, if you say that you want Pizza and you find out that Pizza isn't available, it doesn't mean that you suddenly stop liking Pizza
>it just means that you have to go with whatever's available to eat at that particular moment.
Oh gee, does that not imply that, hmmm, one's choice of food is greatly dependant on the SETTING?

>>it just means that you have to go with whatever's available to eat at that particular moment.

So basically whatever is available to eat depends on the setting.

Depends entirely on the enemy and where you are fighting.
You gotta ask yourself a few questions
>Is your enemy the kind to return to the fight a few days later to try and kill you again? Or will they return to their homes after being beaten?
>Will they show you the same courtesy?
>Do you have enough manpower and resources to keep them imprisoned if one of the above two questions is no?
>Will their side pay you a ransom for their safe return?
>Will the ransom cover the cost of feeding them and keeping them under guard?
>Will they try and escape their bonds and kill you in your sleep or sabotage your war effort?

One of the more prominent forces in my setting has a certain policy.
At the start of a war, enemy soldiers taken captive are to be disarmed, given a small brand and sent home with a warning to not return to the field of battle.

If any enemy combatant is ever discovered to have a mark on them, a blanket "Kill" order is given on all prisoners taken after that point, as the people they are fighting are not to be trusted to fight in a civil manner.

>At the start of a war, enemy soldiers taken captive are to be disarmed, given a small brand and sent home with a warning to not return to the field of battle.
>If any enemy combatant is ever discovered to have a mark on them, a blanket "Kill" order is given on all prisoners taken after that point, as the people they are fighting are not to be trusted to fight in a civil manner
An interesting concept, if not for a conventional army then maybe some smaller specific group or order.

> the people they are fighting are not to be trusted to fight in a civil manner.
If we're talking rank and file soldiers in armies I'm not sure how well that would hold up (Unless it was just a personal mercy out of kindness on your part). I doubt a general would let perfectly good soldiers retire just because they've exhausted their free life. Similarly I also wouldn't hold it as a mark against a soldier's character to continue fighting for his homeland (Although I also wouldn't blame you for killing him the second time around.)

>if not for a conventional army then maybe some smaller specific group or order.
Mercenary companies from one specific culture.
They've been at it for centuries and its very well know what the mark means.

If a general orders a marked man to fight again, he very well may desert just to prevent his buddies from being executed

immortalpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ashed_Mercenaries

>Mercenary companies from one specific culture.
>They've been at it for centuries and its very well know what the mark means.
That makes much more sense.

Yes, this has not been written in as of yet but certain cultures get considerations regarding prisoners of war, as executing prisoners tends to mean your employer stops paying you, or it means previously non-hostile natives are now combatants.

uh if they're an evil race like orcs then yeah its cool