is this an evil act?

[Celebrim]

I'm casting my support behind Tom Cashel. As a long time player of CN's, I agree that it really doesn't matter whether it was good or evil, or whether the guy you killed was good or evil, and it certainly doesn't matter that it was fair.

However, it does matter whether you had a choice in the matter. If you had a choice, that is to say, this guy wasn't going to be any further harm to you, then choosing to stab him in the back is a trend toward evil and if you'd just as soon do this all the time, play CE.

As a CG character, this goes double. A CG character should be pretty reluctant to stab someone in the back, and need a really good reason. You didn't seem very reluctant, and you didn't give a really good reason. Of course, as a CG vigillante type a good reason might be 'the evil b*stard deserved it'. But 'he was a member of an organization' IS NOT a good chaotic reason. Chaotics judge individuals not organizations. What did this guy do in particular to deserve getting stabbed in the back? Did you see it? Did you have an alternative to stabbing him? Did you even look for one?

Remember as a chaotic, everything is personal. Everything that is not personal is meaningless. (Keep in mind of course that noone short of a god is a perfect paragon of thier morality all the time.) Stabbing someone in the back depersonalizes the killing, which is fine if your CE and don't think of other people as persons anyway, but not so fine if you are CG.

As a CG person, you are trying to live up to certain standards. Typically, CG is described as someone who believes most strongly in what we'd today call universal human rights and freedom. Charming someone else is a fine point, but I suppose it makes a sort of chaotic brand of justice if he was a slaver.

I'm kinda of courious as to what your character sees as admirable in Tempus. In what aspect does he worship the war god? What virtues do you share?

Zerovoid: What makes you think it is ok to kill someone while they are helpless no matter how they are helpless? Once they are helpless haven't you generally won?

 

[Oubliette]

Nah, I don't think it was evil. Not necessarily good, but not evil. It really depends (as others have said) on how you view your motivation and how you view your god's dogma.

 

[Terraism]

Because I muse out loud, I just got to try to explain this thread to my roomate - a nongamer - who's starting to be slightly interested in the debate, at least. Now, after that less-than-amusing tidbit...

I'd say that, in that case, I'd call it the lesser of two evils - presuming you knew this person was actively involved in the slaving, etc. If so, they you prevented him from ever doing it again. Kudos. On the other hand, it was a relatively despicaple way of doing it, especially considering he considered you a friend at the time. So, yeah, I'd say it's an evil act, but less so than risking that he'd have the opportunity to repeat his own.

As a follower of Tempus, however, I'd agree with most of the others - it'd be more appropriate as a nice melee that quickened the blood and loosed his. Mmm.. Tempus smiles upon combat. Enjoy.

 

[tleilaxu]

killing is bad

 

[LostSoul]

killing is bad

But killing bad is good!

 

[David Argall]

More details needed

Stabbing the guy in the back is mere efficiency. It does not change the alignment of the action. Doing it without trial counts as chaotic. It hardly ranks as good since the very idea of killing has to be classified as evil. So we need some justification here.
He is a slaver, which gives us a start, but did we need to kill? Or could we have disposed of any threat he might be by lesser means? If he was just going to go off and be a slaver and an evil, dicing him now is reasonable for a CG. But you should be thinking of alternate plans.

On a different point, Charm Person is not Control Person. Our charmed fellow should have been very suspicious of why his new friend was wanting him to blab secrets in the midst of strangers, probably hostile ones as well. And he likely would have been unwilling to expose his back to anyone.

 

[Berk]

no way in hades was what you did evil. cowardly yes, evil no.

 

[ShadowMaster]

Ok, but is that possible for a character (which has charisma 6) to be played without such thing as honour? I'm a fighter, yes, but that's the first time that I want to play one without such LAWFUL rules.

As I said, he want to get rid (heradicate) all evil sources in the world as paladins do but, as a chaotique, on his own rules. For me, poisoning an evil sorcerer is a good action not an evil action. I don't care if he could have been reeducated to the path of good, he choose to be evil so he's gonna be evil but, in hell.

Asking him to go on a duel is only to respect my god not my alignment.

 

[green slime]

It was evil. A minor evil, yes. But still evil.

Of course you wanted to stab him in the back. Its easy to get rid of your problems that way isn't it? Imagine how much easier life would be if you could get rid of ALL your problems like that? That pesky paladin fellow getting your goat? A quick jab between the ribs will remove that problem. That Giant Purple Worm trailing your party causing you a headache? Give it a snack to slow it down. That sanctimonious priest should do just fine. Now there is no point to letting that heavy belt pouch get swallowed by that atrocious worm, it has no use for the contents.

The road to hell is paved in good intentions (preventing a supposedly greater evil by killing the evil cult member rather than attempting to convert him to the cause of good). We know too little about the evil cult member. Was a minor player, or the BBEG? What was his destiny? Does he have a family?

I think you should live with the mistake, and not badger your DM to replay that last scene. Instead incorporate the angst that the realization about what your PC has done into your character.

 

[green slime]

Ok, but is that possible for a character (which has charisma 6) to be played without such thing as honour? I'm a fighter, yes, but that's the first time that I want to play one without such LAWFUL rules.

As I said, he want to get rid (heradicate) all evil sources in the world as paladins do but, as a chaotique, on his own rules. For me, poisoning an evil sorcerer is a good action not an evil action. I don't care if he could have been reeducated to the path of good, he choose to be evil so he's gonna be evil but, in hell.

Asking him to go on a duel is only to respect my god not my alignment.

A chaotic good character does have respect for the individual, and for freedom.

Which your present PC obviously does not.

In DnD, Evil and Good are absolutes. Whether your character personally regards specific actions as evil or not is irrelevant.

The question could then be "I consider the sacrifice of newly borne humans to be a good deed, for the worship of my God. Thus sacrificing the babies is a good deed. What do you think?"

IMO, this is of course preposterous. Such a god would not be good, and thus the practice would not be good.

The only characters in the 3e core rules with poison use are Evil (blackguard, assassin). There are major drawbacks for others. With reason. There is a reason poison is included in the DMG. It is for DMs, not for players. So by this admittedly debatable standard (to which I hold my players) you cannot be CG and use poison.

I find it personally difficult to envision a dishonourable, good person.

Before getting in such debates, which can actually errupt in to much flaming and heat, it is always best to check with your DM on his/her view, BEFORE you get yourself into such problematical theological/philosophical Alignment discussions.

The fact that you bring this up here, and are going back to your DM implies to me that neither of you have given much thought to Alignment, Ethos, and Behaviour in your game previously.