is this an evil act?

[ShadowMaster]

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.

To answer your question, yes. His name, Gamlin. His relation with me, he helped me fleeing the underdark where we were kept captive by the Drow Elf as slave.

And yes I like bashing people in dungeon because this is a really fun part of a roleplaying game, but I always try to roleplay my character as best as I can. It is just that IMHO evil is evil and it exists to be destroyed.

 

[Hand of Vecna]

Here's a moral question for ya's -- how Evil is sacrificing a Gelugon (a LE Devil) to a LE Demigod of Graverobbers?

The character (the son of the LE Demigod of Graverobbers mentioned above -- a 2nd Ed. character retired & now serving as 'plot device') did it to (a) make sure the Gelugon would never bother them again, and (b) to send a lil' gift to his dad (it was the first sacrifice ever made for his father-turned-demi-deity).

 

[green slime]

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.

Justice without giving the accused an opportunity to defend themselves is not justice. Its vigilantism. The "whatever" phrase of your statement covers coercion, domination, and a whole list of other reasons why the NPC ended up doing what he did. But it matters not, because he has EVIL on his sheet, and you have GOOD on yours, so whatever you do it is good and just. You can't know he is being insincere. The character in question WAS, saying he was free to go and then murdering him.

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.

Who said anything about walking? Is that the only alternative to mindless slaughter? Steal a bicycle and get wasted? Seems very black and white to me. How Evil does someone have to be to deserve "wastefulness"?

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.

It aint the charm. It is saying he is free to go and then killing him. Good characters are expected to be morally better than the evil dudes, or there is no difference. While the charm was an offensive act, it become murder once the slaver has no chance for self-defence. BTW, I'm of the attitude that the charm and domination spells are at best Neutral, due to their removal of free will.

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.

I agree. But it is important to remember for what goal, and why you are fighting them. Destroying an organisation rarely requires killing all the members.

It is important to remember WHY good is better than Evil. Because it doesn't use all the same nasty tricks.

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.

Until you consider Good and Evil. By accepting the surrender, by showing mercy, the players MAY be attacked at a later date by this character. MAYBE. IF the character attacks at a later date, the PCs will be rightfully wroth, and of course having defeated him once before, should do so again, most likely with fatal results.

On the other, they may also gain a valuable ally, a reformed evil-doer, who is prepared to go to great lengths to aide and protect the PCs, for the mercy they have shown. The value to the PCs of an insider should not be underrated.

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

I wouldn't. But I point that out to players before they start mismanaging paladins in my game.

I know some people like their games B&W. It strikes me that yours is one. Not that I feel that it is better or worse than mine. I just happen to like lots of grey areas for PCs to fall into. YMMV

 

[Tom Cashel]

This was combat; it was a Surprise round.

Touché. That must make it okay. Boy, you Canadians are being smarmy. I thought it was Americans who had problems with ethical choices?

This alignment argument always goes in circles. Are we arguing the rules or real-life morality? Modern ethics or medieval ethics?

We can only agree to disagree; everyone has to make their own alignment choices and make them work in their own game.

[From a strict role-playing standpoint, I still think any follower of Tempus worth his salt would have said to the evil dude, "Hey, evil dude! Turn around and meet your maker!" At least command him to pick up a weapon so you can whack him. The original poster seems to agree.]

 

[deastland]

The most evil thing done, in my opinion, was the charming of the cultist.

Charm interferes with the free will, and bending someone's will seems very evil to me. I believe that the charm spells should have the "evil" descriptor, much like "soul jar". Of course, this is all from my chaotic good point of view. Individual choice and self-determination are sacrosanct.

Stabbing someone when they are in that charmed state just exhaberates the situation.

Evil? Yes.

-Daniel

 

[Celtavian]

Re

You're chaotic good. I don't see what you did as evil.

Now, you are a follower of Tempus, so hitting him while charmed and in the back was against the teachings of Tempus. Tempus preaches strongly about honorable battle. You failed to give the evil priest honorable battle which is against the teachings of your god.


Also, If you kill someone, it is not always evil. Sometimes killing someone is a good thing that will help the world and the killing itself is not grey, it is good, period. If you slay a priest of an evil god who does evil to others in the world, you did a good act.

This may not have been the most honorable act, but it was not evil. It was a good act that ended the life of an evil priest.

I laugh at those who think such a priest should receive a fair trial. You folks are too damn lawful. A trial is lawful, but it is not justice. It is merely a lawful process.

I am quite sure that this evil priest was not someone they caught hanging out at the local tavern who was rumored to be an evil priest. He was an evil priest probably doing evil activities in some hidden temple where all kinds of despicable acts were carried out. He also probably cast evil magic.

Good riddance to the scum bag. As I said, the only thing he did wrong was not give the evil priest an honorable death in battle per the dogma of Tempus. Other than that, I see nothing wrong with a chaotic good character killing an evil priest anyway he so chooses. Heck, he could have poisoned him for all I care.

Killing an evil priest is and always shall be a good act.


Celebrim,

If a person did some of the things these evil villains in D and D do, especially the ones who worship evil gods, you bet I would kill them without a second thought. Hell, if I had my way, I would do in alot of the people we jail now such as serial killers and just about any child molester/rapist, mass murderer, terrorists, slavers and other people who commit crimes so vile that they deserve to die.

I would be just as comfortable allowing them a chance to repent to whatever god they pray to before they were killed. This is much better solution to me than letting them go to prison where they might possibly escape with the help of fellow cult members or godly or arcane magic.

In fact, I often dispose of the bodies of major villain NPC's in a manner that ensures it will be no easy task to bring them back. I dump them in rivers or summon creatures to eat the corpse. If they are disintregated, I sweep up the little pile of dust and make sure to deposit it in strange places as I go.

I like making sure the dead remain dead.

 

[green slime]

Celatvian:

The original post made by 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.

Makes no mention of the dude being a PRIEST of Evil. Rather a MEMBER of the cult.

Why and how he was a member, his exact rôle in the cult, was left out of the commentory.

Furthermore, Shadowmaster posted:
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.

So he is a Cult MEMBER, but not likely the mastermind, nor one of the major players in the cult. But as Shadowmaster has yet to provide an adequate description of his part in the Cult, we cannot assume he is anything but a minion.

So we can not say the character of Shadowmaster eradicated a great evil. It doesn't seem likely that it was someone who would have registered as evil with a detect evil spell.

I can understand the motive for the deed, but no, I would not call it a good deed.

I'll also point or that posting your sentiments on RL people placed in incarceration is inappropriate for this board. The Death penalty is a political issue which should be avoided to prevent flames.

 

[Silver Moon]

Is this an evil act?

I just sent an email to my DM asking him to redo that scene. I'll challenge that guy in a duel to death.

What? Since when does this game system allow for "do overs" if a player changes his mind about something after the fact?

 

[ShadowMaster]

Re: Is this an evil act?

What? Since when does this game system allow for "do overs" if a player changes his mind about something after the fact?

Never that's why we decided to go over. Actually, I don't want to change my action anymore, I'm not playing a paladin but a simple ex-slave Dwarven Fighter. He did what he though was good, but, after the fact, he realize that he should have ask this guy to stop helping this evil cult of face death.

We have to keep in mind that we are in a different world which focus on a fight between good and evil.

---- EDIT----
BTW, we've already restarted a full combat sequence because of a misunderstanding in the rules that changed the fight totally. We decided to redo it with the correct ruling. So, I don't see any problem in doing so, but, as we all know, there are as much different way of gaming than there exists people that play DnD.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Re: Is this an evil act?

What? Since when does this game system allow for "do overs" if a player changes his mind about something after the fact?

This game has allowed for "do overs" from the beginning.

More correctly, it doesn't "forbid" them, therefore, rightly, leaving it up to the individual group to decide if a scene/action can be replayed.

Very rarely, I allow it myself.

I find it better to hit rewind on rare occasions, rather than simply try and soldier on through.

IMX, it removes the sour taste that can hang over a campaign after a screw-the-pooch-moment.

Patrick Y.