is this an evil act?

[Balgus]

evil- but understandable...

I just have to ask the question: "Did you know anyone in the village he enslaved?"

Cause if you knew someone in that village (not even related- just know) it is understandable and even condoneable (is that a word?)- maybe even called for. But if it was just "I heard it happened and wanted to do something about it" then you are just a)a glorymonger, or b)a killing freak

Personally, I think you did it out of personal reasons, and not out of pity for the enslaved villagers (since you failed to mention that in the original post), and used that as a reason (or excuse) as to why you did it.

 

[Tom Cashel]

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 ?

A sneak attack happens in COMBAT. You put yourself at risk to enter combat and deliver that sneak attack.

The situation described was one in which a prisoner was told he was free to go, and when he turned to walk away he was struck down with a single shot.

Those are very different situations, IMO. The idea that "sneak attack" is evil is ludicrous.

It's not the killing, it's how you do the killing.

That's all I'm saying. That's all I've been saying.

 

[Bastoche]

A sneak attack happens in COMBAT. You put yourself at risk to enter combat and deliver that sneak attack.

The situation described was one in which a prisoner was told he was free to go, and when he turned to walk away he was struck down with a single shot.

Those are very different situations, IMO. The idea that "sneak attack" is evil is ludicrous.

It's not the killing, it's how you do the killing.

That's all I'm saying. That's all I've been saying.

Whatever....

 

[jdavis]

This could go on forever. You will never get one unified view. Roleplay it out, incorporate all of this into your character. Lets face it you were wondering about it or you would of never posted it, let the character wonder too, that's just good roleplaying. Alignment is a guideline, even though your action was in a real grey area it's not enough to change your alignment. A character that balances his need to rid the world of all evil with that tiny grain of doubt in the back of his mind about his methods makes for some good roleplaying.

 

[Celebrim]

I guess this answers the question of whether or not D&D can provide a moral compass with a resounding 'NO!', since we can't get about half the posters here to admit that murder is evil.

Stop gaming this question. Would you do this IRL? If you say someone do this, would you consider it evil? Since some of you can't seem to relate to anything that is not couched in fantasy terms, look at it this way. Why didn't Frodo or Bilbo kill Golem? Surely they were justified in doing so. After all, Golem meant to kill them. They had every right to protect themselves. In the case of Frodo, not only did he have the right (chaos), but some would say he had the duty (law). Afterall, if he let Golem kill them or otherwise frustrate the Quest, then it wasn't just Frodo's skin that was on the line, but the lives of every free citizen of middle earth. How dare he be so presumptious to be merciful? How dare he risk such evil be unleashed?

Because he was good, and good people are reluctant to kill. This showed no reluctance to kill, and very little justification. A reasonable justification might be that the character in question was known to have committed murder, or was known to intend murder as soon as he escaped the characters control. We got no such justification.

Without some such justification, this was murder. Plain and simple. The question 'was this evil' is not that relevant.

The real question is 'Was it good roleplaying?', which is somewhat harder to answer given the limited information we have.

To a large extent the murdered man strikes me as being like an ancient red dragon in a 10'x10' room, that has no past and no future, does not eat or sleep, and whose whole purpose was to sit around and wait to get into a fight to the death with the first PC to come through the door. What do we know about this murdered man? Did he have a family? Did he have children? What did he do when he was not sitting around waiting to get murdered? What crimes had he committed? Where did he live? Did he like doing what he was doing? Was he a fanatic or a paid hireling?
Did he dream of retiring from this trade? Was he himself charmed into the service of the slavers?

It's alot easier to kill a faceless NPC than it is one who has a face, and what strikes me is that the PC didn't even want to look into the NPC's face (literally and figuratively) when he killed him.

 

[jdavis]

It's not that people can't decide if murder is evil, it's that they can't decide on a definition of murder. It's a fantasy game, throw the real world out the window.

The hobbits compasion was supposed to be one of their strongpoints, killing or not killing golem wasn't about good or evil it was about Frodo's heart. His compassion didn't make him good it made a better person. Not every good character in the LOTR would of let Golem live.

 

[Bastoche]

huh? ah! You mean Gollum.

 

[jdavis]

oops....., so there wasn't a 700lb stone statue following them around? I'll write it 100 times on the board. gollum, gollum, gollum.....

 

[Bastoche]

lol

 

[LostSoul]

A sneak attack happens in COMBAT.

This was combat; it was a Surprise round.