is this an evil act?

[ShadowMaster]

Last session we charmed a guy (which is member of an evil cult) and we asked him a bunch of question before I told him to leave. So far so good, but as soon has he turned his back I killed him with a single him.

The thing is that I'm chaotique Good, and I'm fighting hard for the eradication of evil throughout Faerun. I'm wandering if I did my roleplay correctly. (BTW, I'm a follower of Tempus).

Since we stopped at that point last session, I told my master that I'm gonna check with you guyz to see if we're going to change that part from the story or not.

your turn

 

[Crothian]

Why did you kill him? Just because he was part of this cult or something else?

 

[ShadowMaster]

His cult took a lot of the villagers from our town as slaves. He's part of that cult, so we have to put an end to that threat. I thought that, by the name of Tempus, it could be the good thing to declare war to those bast***s. But, once again, maybe I was wrong and that's why I'm asking.

 

[Crothian]

Did he take part in this mass slaving, or is he just like weekend member?

I think if you knew he was guilty of these criomes then it is okay. However, if he just had the club's decoder ring, you might have gone a little overboard.

 

[Darkness]

What are you fighting for - revenge or justice? If the latter, you screwed up - otherwise, it's understandable.

Not that Tempus would particularly care anyway, being CN...

edit - As for it being evil: Well, could you have brought him to justice or something?

 

[med stud]

Im not sure if a Chaotic Good character would need to bring him to justice to fulfill his alignment. Someone who doesnt like order and organizations would probably judge prisoners on the spot, based on his moral alignment (in this case, the prisoner would be judged on a Good basis, whatever that is).

Besides, a fair trial for a slaver in a pseudomedieval world would with 99.9 % certainity get the cultist hanged, so from a strictly humanitarian POV it was better to kill him when he didnt expect it then to let him go through an execution.

 

[perivas]

I think that the quintessential point to making this an evil act was the fact that you killed him after his back was turned. If he had been fighting your group and killed, it was fair to kill him. If he was captured and then given a dagger to fight against you in a dagger duel to prove his innocence or favor from Tempus--a god of battle--and killed, that would have been in character and fair. If he had been subject to a trial and judgment on your part with the ability to offer his side of the story, it may be fair to kill him.

If he was unarmed, essentially helpless and unaware of your intent as you ordered him to leave and stabbed in the back, that's plain evil. Short of torturing him to death, you couldn't have done much worse.

 

[Tom Cashel]

As a follower of Tempus (God of war) you should have challenged him to a fight to the death. If he wins, he's free to go. Trial by combat: it's the Tempus way.

I think whether it's evil or not is secondary to the fact that Tempus would not look favorably upon striking someone down like that.

But yeah, it was pretty evil. Trial by combat would still be good, but would also be pretty damn chaotic.

Sez me!

 

[Bonedagger]

Had this guy given you any reason, other than having the wrong alignment, for you to go all Jack the Ripper on him? Are there not supposed to a diff. between how good an' evil do their stuff? It was convenient to wack him, eeh?.. You're just seeking out an' excuse for being your own regulary evil bitching self. So the guy said "I eat babies" or was it just YOU thinking 'He eat babies'.


As for it being evil or not. In D&D alingments are preventing such moral problems like yours. If it's evil just kill it. Good and evil are actual forces. You have a reason to feel threatend. (You being chaotic it was ok not to care about the law.)

That's why I don't use alingments btw. To boring. The new ally-system from modern seems close to what I prefer. Now. Convert to my way of thinking.

 

[Tom Cashel]

No.