SlagMortar said:
To me, that is just about the definition of an evil act in D&D terms.
... I don't want to get too hung up about this, but I try to stick to the definitions of "Good" and "Evil" given, because my definition of "good" and "evil" will probably vary with other people's.
[sblock=Good V Evil]Refering to the specific act:
Good Vs. Evil
SRD said:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
"Innocent" is up in the air, but Anton didn't consider the man to be innocent. In his society (think Dumas, if it helps), an insult is essentially a crime. At the very least, Anton didn't debse anyone's life, and he certainly wasn't seeking fun or profit.
SRD said:
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Anton respected the man's life. He probably wasn't altruistic, but I don't think that comes into the situation one way or another. The man showed a lack of dignity, and so Anton brought him to justice. So, probably a yes on the concern for dignity.
SRD said:
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Hurting, no; oppressing, no; killing, yes. No compassion, no; without qualms, no; convenient, no.
SRD said:
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Compunctions against killing (though, person not considered innocent), yes. Commited by a personal relationship, yes.
SRD said:
Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.
Not applicable.[/sblock]
SlagMortar said:
That doesn't mean that it is out of character or that Anton should suddenly show up on detect evil radar. As RA said, there were alternatives to the situation. If death was required then Anton could have challenged him to a formal duel. If he refused, he could have made it clear that only one of Anton or he was leaving there alive. The fact that Anton felt he could not consider those alternatives is why he is Lawful Neutral and not Lawful Good. I like it. I think it was excellent role playing. I can see why Anton would not consider it an evil act. Objectively, he killed an unarmed man when neither Anton nor anyone else was in any danger.
I was kind of upset that I sacrificed roleplaying to let the guy live longer, but thanks.
. But the point withstanding is that he was scared silly with the orcs, and they still didn't kill him, despite menacing with weapons just like Anton did (actually, the sort of menacing with weapons and force of arms to cow someone into doing what you say really is typical of orcs and CE, I think). In contrast, the party seemed much less likely to actually try to kill him (especially with the Intimidate checks they rolled). He's been in situations before where weapons were drawn by bullies, but until then they had never shot the messenger. Unfortunately for him and his remaining family, this time they did.
