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

[Mastikator]

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

My bad. A "no murder" pact does not require a you to define what the universal difference between killing and murder in historically accurate legal terms.
You only really need to go as far as "self defense and accident is ok, otherwise everyone must agree on it".

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

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

Edit-

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

[MLai]

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

This is not "dark and gritty", but reality in the wilderness during medieval (or earlier) times. It's just practicality and not being wishy-washy concerning clearly dangerous individuals. Unless you feel that period of time represents the worst in our history.

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

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

[hamishspence]

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

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

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

page 8:

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

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

[Cazero]

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

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

[hamishspence]

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

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

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

[Cazero]

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

[Frozen_Feet]

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

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

[Rondodu]

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

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

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

[hamishspence]

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

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

[Mastikator]

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

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

[hamishspence]

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

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

[Mastikator]

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

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

[Cazero]

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

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

[SiuiS]

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

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

[hamishspence]

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

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

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

[SiuiS]

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

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

[Frozen_Feet]

The idea is called "natural rights" and is deeply tied with the deontological morality D&D alignment represents.

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

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