Can good characters let evil characters die?

[Tom Cashel]

I'm curious, have any of you guys read the myriad of alignment threads on these boards?

Of course...but it came up in our game and suddenly became a huge issue for the session...not just a thread! But we've made it one...

Because I have the capacity within me to kill someone who is attempting to attack me or my family, than I am EVIL?
I'll leave the question at that, with no more details, to see your response.

I don't think he said that you are evil if you kill someone in self-defense or in defense of your family. He simply made the distinction that in the game, an evil alignment does not mean that the PC or NPC in question has actually done anything "evil." Apples and oranges.

But in this specific case, keep in mind, the other group was robbing the same tomb as the PCs, and it was basically a fight to see who would loot the 200-year old corpses...the PCs won, and had an ethical debate over what to do with the prisoners.

Perosnally, I liked the idea of sending them back as a "message." We kick butt...do not mess with us, that sort of thing.

 

[Eosin the Red]

This is true weirdness?

I suppose Jedi's should not use lightsabers, they are after all capable of defeating others in non-lethal ways.

Conan must max out the CE scale by many of these responses.

Wolverine is one of the greatest villians to ever grace the pages of comic books?


Smaking down badguys who are waiting to AMBUSH you is never wrong. I call it the "Puttin'em out of their misery maneuver."

Sometimes these issues can be a moral delemia, but not when being ambushed by a bunch of thugs. If the fight had been in the woods and the PC's were jumped by a few homesteaders for tresspassing, yea, you got issues. Not when the folks in question are murderous, thievin, bushwackers (it doesn't matter what their alingment was).

 

[reapersaurus]

I don't think he said that you are evil if you kill someone in self-defense or in defense of your family. He simply made the distinction that in the game, an evil alignment does not mean that the PC or NPC in question has actually done anything "evil." Apples and oranges.

Well, if you extrapolate my example (which i would have done later), there are thieves who come into my home.

They threaten me with knife or gun.
We struggle, I get control.
In a fury, and WITH CONSCIOUS CHOICE, I kill them.

I am evil.

Even worse, based on his words, since I think these thoughts, or have this as a plan (theoretically), than I am evil right now, without ever committing the act.

Tom, you can't seriously believe that someone would show up as evil in D&D without ever performing an evil act, do you?

Does ANYONE think that?

 

[SableWyvern]

Well, if you extrapolate my example (which i would have done later), there are thieves who come into my home.

They threaten me with knife or gun.
We struggle, I get control.
In a fury, and WITH CONSCIOUS CHOICE, I kill them.

I am evil.

Even worse, based on his words, since I think these thoughts, or have this as a plan (theoretically), than I am evil right now, without ever committing the act.

Tom, you can't seriously believe that someone would show up as evil in D&D without ever performing an evil act, do you?

Does ANYONE think that?

I think its possible, though it would be rare.

Frex: IMO, someone who fervently desires to inflict pain and suffering for simple pleasure, but is afraid to do so because of the consequences (punishment, ostracism etc...) or through simple cowardice (what if my victim gets the upper-hand, or his friends come after me?) could well be considered evil (and detect as such).

OTH, it could be argued that this is a form of neutral mindset.

 

[LostSoul]

They threaten me with knife or gun.
We struggle, I get control.
In a fury, and WITH CONSCIOUS CHOICE, I kill them.

I am evil.

No. You're Neutral.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think it would be beneficial to the game if good characters spared the lives of evil villains more often. The point of being good is to have qualms about what to do with defeated, yet evil, villains. In the end the evil guys should be spared. The reason is two fold. First, if you spare them no one can accuse you of being evil. (They might accuse you of being naive, but that's part of the hero business). Second, if you spare them they come back for revenge. This is a good thing - it leads to another adventure. Moreover the DM gets to flesh out an NPC. Some positive meta-gaming never hurt anyone.

It's cowardly to kill defensless evil villains. Although you can do any of the following:

1) Challenge the villain to single combat to the death.

2) Sentence the villain to death an execute him in an orderly fashion. Which includes witnesess and the act of reporting the incident to the proper authorities. Obviously this option is for the lawful characters.

3) Cast Atonement on the villain in the hopes he will convert to your alignment.

4) Tie them up and leave them.

5) Send them on their way.

Anyway. If you spare the villain and the DM wants him dead the villain will probably meet his destiny shortly by his own accord. Perhaps he falls off the cliff, gets impaled and electrocuted, who knows? Have anyone seen this in a movie?

 

[Hand of Evil]

You DIDN'T just say that.

That is so off from almost everything I have read on these boards.

I'm curious, have any of you guys read the myriad of alignment threads on these boards?
It's fine if you haven't, but we're treading on much-charted ground that can erupt quickly...

So.. Hand of Evil.
Because I have the capacity within me to kill someone who is attempting to attack me or my family, than I am EVIL?
I'll leave the question at that, with no more details, to see your response.

No you are not evil because you were protecting home and family. The killing could be seen as an evil act but it was not cold blooded and you would be resolved of your act. You ask why? It was not defined as an evil act in my list.

Don't get me wrong here, what I am talking about is a game not the real world. People in the real world are a lot more complex than a character, we know what is right and wrong (most of us), players need to have it defined.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Tom, you can't seriously believe that someone would show up as evil in D&D without ever performing an evil act, do you?

These alignment discussions always turn into ethical discussions about REAL LIFE, is what I think. I don't think you're evil if you kill someone in defense of your family. I think that the "conscious choice" you're talking about in that hypothetical situation is not really conscious at all. It's instinct, self-preservation, whatever you want to call it. Now if you subdue the intruder, tie him up, and then when the police are on their way you DECIDE that you'd be "doing society a favor" by slitting his throat...well, that's kinda "evil," isn't it?

But to answer the question I quoted: in the rules of the fantasy game called D&D, where there can be moral absolutes (to some extent), it says that Detect Evil detects the presence of an "evil aura." It doesn't just detect evil intent, like in 2E. I guess what we should be debating is whether someone who had never committed evil acts would have an evil aura, or if its enough to be Neutral Evil to have an evil aura.

In my opinion...IN D&D good is good and evil is evil. Real-life examples don't work because real life is usually a little tiny bit more complex than the d20 system.

 

[Tom Cashel]

1) Challenge the villain to single combat to the death.

Now that's a great idea, Frosty...didn't come up during the course of play but if it had...my dwarven fighter would have gone mano a mano with that bugbear barbarian ("bugbearian") in a heartbeat. Exciting too.

 

[Mr. Grimm]

Well, if you extrapolate my example (which i would have done later), there are thieves who come into my home.

They threaten me with knife or gun.
We struggle, I get control.
In a fury, and WITH CONSCIOUS CHOICE, I kill them.

I am evil.

Even worse, based on his words, since I think these thoughts, or have this as a plan (theoretically), than I am evil right now, without ever committing the act.

Tom, you can't seriously believe that someone would show up as evil in D&D without ever performing an evil act, do you?

Does ANYONE think that?

Well in your burglary example above, I don't think it's necessarily an evil act. Is the homeowner so enraged because he or his family were threatened? That's not evil, that's animal. Or to bring matters closer to that of the game starting this thread: What if after subduing the robbers you now have no one to turn to as far as the law goes? What if you were in the middle of no where with no idea what these people who JUST TRIED TO KILL YOU were capable of doing? How do you deal with them and hope that they don't come back or try to harm you later in revenge. As I said before, it's up to the character, not their alignment and I don't think capital punishment for attempted murder is wrong.

As to someone showing up evil who has never committed an act of evil, I wholly believe it possible. How many people like Hitler never directly pulled a trigger? Just because a man doesn't commit an act, doesn't mean that he wouldn't if he couldn't. Just because a conspiracy to kill fails before it is executed doesn't make those potential actions any less abhorrent, or evil, just those who failed (thankfully) less competent.



But as usual, what I find funniest about this moral crisis can be summed up best by the following:

Originally posted by Tom Cashel
But in this specific case, keep in mind, the other group was robbing the same tomb as the PCs, and it was basically a fight to see who would loot the 200-year old corpses...the PCs won, and had an ethical debate over what to do with the prisoners.