Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 1179063" data-attributes="member: 1288">Hmm...Difficult to judge without knowing the alignments involved, since the actions are acceptible to some alignments and not others. But let's see...1) Unless the rogue is a strict lawful character, I don't see a problem with this. Lying may not be a wonderful thing to make a habit of, but it's not inherently evil. A paladin couldn't get away with this; a rogue probably can.2) Again, unless the wizard is strictly lawful good or lawful neutral, there's no problem with this. And frankly, even if he is lawful good/neutral, you could make an argument, since A) he never promised to give it back, and B) it's fairly foolish to offer a weapon to an imprisoned enemy.3) Okay, now we're getting into the meat of things. If the fighter is of good alignment, he definitely violated his alignment doing this. Releasing an enemy like that might have been justified if the fighter believed his companions were going to inflict horrible tortures upon the dwarf. However, he (according to what you've written) had no reason to think so, and even then, letting the dwarf go unarmed/armored is hardly doing him a favor. If the fighter is neutral or evil, this isn't necessarily a violation, but it was certainly not a good act.4) This one will probably get you the most disagreement, but yes, I'm going to have to vote "murder." The foe was helpless, the party had proven several times already that they were capable of taking him alive, and--as you implied that this took place in a civilized area--turning him over to the proper authorities was definitely an option. Now, if the aristocrat actually represents the law in these parts, you might be able to argue that he was following the laws and dispensing justice as he is permitted to do so. However, this is an extremely unlikely circumstance, and even if it were true, the dwarf would have to be guilty of something that warranted the death penalty, in a culture with no guaranteed right to trial.In short, the aristocrat acted (or so it seems) out of frustration, nothing more, and this would qualify to me as an evil act. Even if it might not be under some circumstances, the way in which he went about it invalidates that possibility.</blockquote>

Verification