is this an evil act?

[herald]

Evil.

 

[ShadowMaster]

The thing is nobody has the same vision of the friggin alignment thing. As being the player with the most experience in DnD, I've always dictated what is lawful/chaotique and good Vs. bad.

Once again we're being faced with the question: "is killing evil an act of goodness or not?". At this time, it is always the same thing: some people says yes while other says no. You read that it is fine in a book and the oposite in an other book.

Simple question. Why is it bad to kill evil people? Are they evil or not? Should they be killed or not? Why should I lost my time trying to talk with them if I can eliminate them. Not everybody wants to get them in the good path.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Once again we're being faced with the question: "is killing evil an act of goodness or not?".

I think we all know that under the D&D alignment system (which should be the only yardstick for a discussion like this), killing evil beings and creatures is what heroes do. They might attempt to bring them to justice in the rare times they are captured alive, but mostly villainous beings are there to go down fighting. The question is not whether it is evil to kill. The whole game revolves around the combat rules, for Eris' sake.

The question is HOW you go about killing evil. If a paladin goes into the lair of a cabal of vile assassins and puts them all to the sword in combat, then that is an heroic and valorous act of self-sacrifice. However, it is unacceptable under the D&D alignment system for the paladin to poison the water supply, or hire a wizard to drop cloudkills into the assassins' lair and behead them as they come running out.

Chaotic goods and Neutral goods will have their own way of eliminating the assassins, possibly involving guile, trickery, or subterfuge.

Too many people confuse their real-world moral compass and personal opinions of good and evil with what it says in the Player's Handbook. If you can't back up your claims about alignment with a passage from the Core Rules, then it doesn't really have any bearing on the D&D alignment system, as published.

Alignments are absolutes, and if that doesn't seem "realistic" enough, that's because alignment is just another rule in a very complex game system. It's nothing whatsoever to do with real world ethics.

 

[Brisk-sg]

I believe the act itself is evil.

The one act does not make your character evil though. Alignment should represent consistent action in most cases.

In my opinion of the rules, alignment should not limit the actions of the characters, but should shift with the pattern of their actions.

Alignment, from a mechanical standpoint, is a mechanic largely for determining if certain spells affect an individual and as a quick gauge of the actions they are likely to take.

I would not have your DM redo the scene simply to appease your god. If your character feels guilt for the action (due to any justification) then he will likely remain good. If he does not feel guilt for the action or continues to take such actions regardless of guilt then he has started on a path toward an evil alignment.

-Josh

 

[laiyna]

The act is evil, though not as dark as it gets, but defently dark-grey.

Killing a person unsuspectatly is evil.
Killing a person that is under your responsebility (charmed) is evil.
Charming a person against his will is evil.

But in that action also counts:
Destroying/attacking an evil group.
Protecting the inocent.

I would just make a note as a GM that you did an evil act, and if you continue on this course I would change your alignment to Chaotic Neutral.

Laiyna

 

[Bastoche]

The thing is that I'm chaotique Good, and I'm fighting hard for the eradication of evil throughout Faerun.

And you're french Canadian

 

[green slime]

The thing is nobody has the same vision of the friggin alignment thing. ...

Which is why you should always check with the DM first, to clear things up.

Once again we're being faced with the question: "is killing evil an act of goodness or not?". At this time, it is always the same thing: some people says yes while other says no. You read that it is fine in a book and the oposite in an other book.

Because some people have difficulty in accepting the absolute morality as it is written in DnD. Still others see grey areas.

Simple question. Why is it bad to kill evil people? Are they evil or not? Should they be killed or not? Why should I lost my time trying to talk with them if I can eliminate them. Not everybody wants to get them in the good path.

How do you know that an NPC is evil? Not with Detect Evil, which will only register if they are powerful clerics. Because he is commiting evil acts. So you go over there to stop the Evil Plan (tm). Now which is more imperative? To stop the plan or kill the BBEG? Why is talking to an Evil guy lost time? Your callousness displays your lack of care for individual freedoms, and comes across as CE, rather than CG. The ends justify your means.

You can't convert all Evil people, nor will you be given the opportunity to. But if the guy surrendered, are you going to stab him in the back too?

Seriously, most Evil guys are just mildly evil. Are you going to eradicate all money-grabbing greedy merchants?

 

[Bastoche]

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

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

 

[Happy Monkey]

Wasting a slaver is not evil.

The charm was simply a good strategy. Similarly you can strike from concealment.

Underhanded is not evil.

You should never fight the fair fight because the odds are 50/50. If the odds are better than 50/50, it is not "fair".

If you want to fight fairly, would you do criticals/sneak attacks/surprise round attacks??? Before I shut up I'll say it aloud that the fair fight does not exist. That all said, beware of resorting to violence, the next fight may be unfair to you (IC of course ).

 

[Tom Cashel]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sneak attack doesn't require that anyone's back be turned, only that they lose their Dex bonus to AC.