Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Viktyr Gehrig" data-source="post: 2492100" data-attributes="member: 9249">Showing deference to proprieties, even though it's inconvenient. Hauling him in for a trial is more Lawful in the same way that using a healing potion on him is more Good.Doesn't mean that cutting his throat is unLawful or that letting him bleed out (if mortally wounded) is unGood. Just means there were more Lawful or more Good options available.Personally, I think as long as there were other active combatants, and our sleeping victim could've been reactivated by a good kick from one of his allies, CDGing him is a neutral act and basic common sense. If Sleeping Beauty were the last enemy on the field, it gets sticky. Some pretty common codes of honor wouldn't allow it, but not everyone (not even all Lawful characters) are bound by those codes. There might be an issue of whether or not the bandit falls under the law's protection, and whether or not the characters had legal authority to kill him in other than self-defense-- but that's still not Chaotic enough to really shift his alignment much.Morally, the character's on a bit of rough ground, killing him in his sleep. Sure, he suffered a potentially lethal attack, but the enemy was already incapacitated. Best argument I can see here is that killing him prevented him from preying on others-- but that's more of an LE argument than any kind of Good. I'd call it a Neutral act, or maybe mildly Evil-- it won't make the character any better of a person, but his eyes aren't going to start turning yellow any time soon if that's the worst he's got.Giving the guy a chance to make his peace, and at least letting him know who's killing him and why-- that makes it a Neutral act, without a trace of Evil. Simple, clean, and probably for the best. Problem is, the bad things they think he did, he did right in front of them. Matter of fact, he did one of those bad things directly to his executioner. A trial would be pure formality-- and pure formality is an aspect of Law. Morally, there's no difference between killing a man after a fair trial and killing him without one. Ethically, it makes all the difference in the world.</blockquote>

Verification