is this an evil act?

[Brisk-sg]

So a CG rogue shouldn't use his sneak attack ability since it requires that sort of tactic ?

If it is a charmed person under his control, then he shouldn't. Gaining initiative or flanking in combat is different.

In this case, the character (at least from what has been detailed) was under no immediate or certain threat from the individual. The killing appears to have been committed for convenience (or perhaps revenge).

Most people do things for a reason. It is what actions are taken to meet the goals of the individual that alignment represents (IMHO).

The evil overlord who plots to overthrow the government may likely be doing it because he sees the empire as weak and wants to protect it from the growing threat of the goblin armies. Does this make his slaughter of peaceful dissidents good? He is doing it for the perceived betterment of his people.

The slaver deals in his trade because he needs the money to feed his family, and better their position in life. He could barely afford a shack before he joined the trade, but now he can afford a large house. He has servants to meet every need of his wife. Does this make his actions good? He is doing it for the perceived betterment of his family.

In my opinion, these are justifications for the actions they perform.

It is how a character or group deals with a situation to reach there goals, as much as the goals themselves, that alignment represents.

Hum... I guess that turned into something of a rant. Of course, alignment is something that everyone has difficulty agreeing on. We can't agree upon what is moral in Real Life, let alone fantasy.

- Josh

 

[Bastoche]

If it is a charmed person under his control, then he shouldn't. Gaining initiative or flanking in combat is different.

I was anwsering to a comment concerning a "stab in the back". And not a "stab in the back of a charmed person".

 

[green slime]

Wasting a slaver is not evil...

Spoken like a true usurper of souls.

"Wasting" an intelligent humanoid is definitely evil.

There are other ways to teach them the folly of their ways than murder. MOST often, in game, the players have very little choice, as the BBEG attacks, and fights to the death. This is where many get the attitude that it is always right.

What happens when the BBEG surrenders? Repents? Mends his ways? Promises to never harm the fly on a character's head ever again? Do you waste him anyway?

 

[Arnwyn]

Is what you did evil? Heck, yes!

Did you roleplay "correctly"? Yes, you did.

Just because you're CG and did one evil act, it doesn't mean that you're roleplaying "wrong". Good people sometimes do evil things - they're only human. (This bears repeating: Alignment is not a straight-jacket!) People slip.

Just don't make a habit of murdering charmed people from behind, and you'll be just fine.

(And if your group can't agree on what's good or evil, then *always* defer to the DM. He/she is the final arbiter of such definitions in the game. You may disagree, but them's the breaks.)

P.S. You tell 'em, green slime! (I absolutely agree with you.)

 

[Happy Monkey]

In regard to the slaver Greenslime, if he was repentant, misguided, whatever, he should have acted much sooner to reform or quit.

Those who commit evil, like this slaver can't expect to be able to say sorry when they are beaten and just expect to be believed. Being good does not mean you have to suffer the insincere.

In short, waste em I say. If they were seriously trying to turn their life around they put it off one day too late. Just because they are intelligent and humanoid does not mean they automatically get to walk for being (or rather more likely, acting) repentant.

When does killing become murder? If this slaver was going to be put to the sword before the charm, why does charming them first to get intelligence make a difference? The charm was never to be used for the slavers benefit, using charm is an insidious aggressive action. To think that the charmer is responsible for the safety of the charmed that they were trying to slay is a bit much.

BTW I am not advocating mindless bloodshed, but you decide when to talk and when to fight, you also decide carefully whom to fight and why. But once decided you do not let up.

Also, the taking of prisoners requires one to surrender and another to accept surrender. Now maybe the charmed slaver may have wanted to surrender given the hopeless odds but this does not mean you need to accept his surrender.

I consider the above to be quite compatible even for, say, a paladin. One of the better classes.

Anyway.

 

[mmu1]

Evil? Nah... I get really sick of the idea of playing Good characters like they're peacekeepers in Bosnia, or social workers.

Although I'd have had the caster dismiss the charm, and then tell him I was going to kill him, any why.

Although that might be the fact I've been playing a Euthanatos in a Mage game rubbing off....

 

[Tom Cashel]

I was anwsering to a comment concerning a "stab in the back". And not a "stab in the back of a charmed person".

And he was saying that "stab in the back" and "sneak attack" have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Bastoche]

And he was saying that "stab in the back" and "sneak attack" have nothing to do with each other.

A stab in the back is a particular case of "sneak attack". "Sneak attack" is the general idea of honorlessly stabing someone where it hurts: in the eyes, in the genitals, through the lungs, etc while the victim's attention is draw "somewhere else" such as when you stab him in the back, when he tries to defend againts 2 opponements or when you strike from invisibility, etc.

A stab in the back is a "sneaky" attack. And made by a rogue, it is a sneak attack.

 

[Tom Cashel]

"Sneak attack" is the general idea of honorlessly stabing someone where it hurts.

"Honorless" is not necessarily "evil" by the alignment rules.

 

[Bastoche]

"Honorless" is not necessarily "evil" by the alignment rules.

Here is what perivas said:

"I think that the quintessential point to making this an evil act was the fact that you killed him after his back was turned."

The evilest thing in perivas' opinion is the fact the the stab was made from the back; while his attention was drawn somewhere else.

If a rogue had stabbed that guy while invisible, would it be any less "evil" than stabbing in the back ? From perivas' point of view, I don't think so. What is the "moral" difference between a sneak attack and a stab in the back ? There is none IMO. So from that point of view, could a CG rogue couldn't sneak attack ?