Is killing someone who wants to die, evil?

[Zappo]

A couple of party members actually suggested just that. Be we had more pressing issues at the time, and neglected the fact that SHE TRIED TO KILL ME!

Oh, and the fact that we ran into the guy already, and he would probably kill us fairly easiliy in the right setting.

I also assumed that there were no easy ways to keep her alive and protected from the evil one. Combined, they are the reasons for which I rate it Neutral.

Still, heroically opposing against all odds teh undead monsters who are bent on teh destruction of teh lives and souls of teh innocent is basically the definition of Good.

 

[Ranger REG]

She was given the choice of being let go (to suffer the wrath of the big evil undead thing that made her do this), or a quick death via my character. She chose the latter. So my character killed her (coup de gras, she failed the fort save).

Is this an evil act?

I want to know who gave her (the NPC) the above choices?

If it's the PC, then it's not a good nor evil act. It's (lawful) neutral. PC gave her the choices, she made her choice, and then you execute it diligently with mercy. Had the PC lied and decided to make her suffer, then it would be an evil act.

Though I do agree, you won't get points for it. Too easy. Personally, a hero would risk trying to save her and her family's soul.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hi Everyone,

The act as others have described is at best Neutral. However, with the character being Chaotic, it seems unlikely that he was truly appealing to the law for back-up, he just took the easy way out.
Effectively, the bard seems a bit of a craven. If the cohort was blackmailed into doing it, I'd be more worried about the BBEG than some poor creature that is having its hand forced. As zappo said, the acts taken by your character were most unheroic and definitely not in the realms of goodly behaviour - far from it in fact. However, it would seem to be on the borderline of neutral and evil. The killing was made more out of convenience than from any other motive.
The fact that she tried to kill you is moot. Her hand was forced and a good character would have recognised that. If she wanted to die, then fine but not by your hand purely for the sake of convenience. Life means more than that to a good character.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[evileeyore]

Last night, an NPC I had initially took to be my character's cohort decided to attack him from surprise. Eventually, he was taken down, but not killed. She later revealed that the souls of her family were being held hostage, and she was being blackmailed into coming after my character to assassinate him.

She was given the choice of being let go (to suffer the wrath of the big evil undead thing that made her do this), or a quick death via my character. She chose the latter. So my character killed her (coup de gras, she failed the fort save).

Is this an evil act?

YES. Period. You took a life without allowing for atonement.

Had you allowed her to walk away, I would say Nuetral. Had you allowed her to commit suicide to save face/honor and acted as her second, agian Neutral.

If you had tried to help save her family--Good.

Law/Chaos aspect depends on the laws of the world and moral choices of the society.

TTFN

EvilE

 

[Bagpuss]

YES. Period. You took a life without allowing for atonement.

Had you allowed her to walk away, I would say Nuetral. Had you allowed her to commit suicide to save face/honor and acted as her second, agian Neutral.

Perhaps you didn't read it correctly he gave her the choice of walking away, she decided on a quick death.

 

[Rel]

In my opinion: Not Evil.

Then again, I think killing some individuals who DO NOT want to die is not evil. Depending on the individual of course.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Not Evil. Probably not quite Good, either, but better than leaving her to be taken again. Offering the choice itself was probably a slight Good, since he certainly had every right to kill her.

 

[fusangite]

In our culture, there is no clear answer to this question. Some philosophies, like Roman Catholicism, believe that it is. Some, like Utilitarianism, believe it is not. What this tells us, in my view, is that such an act cannot be definitely evil. This is simply because I don't think D&D evil and good can really include in their definition things that exist in a grey area between good and evil in the culture of the players.

So, what should you base your views on? In my view, what matters is your character's ideology and that of those who share his basic religion and values. People often seem to think that the alignment system somehow obviates the need for characters to have actual belief systems; in my view, alignment is just an annoying game mechanic that we have to work around when we design these systems.

 

[Ranger REG]

Personally, belief and behavior are separate things. You can believe you're evil, and act on the behavior of evil, or believe you're good and still act on the behavior of evil (Azteccs, for example, have no qualm about human sacrifice to appease their gods for good harvest and health).