so, exactly how evil are we talking here? (kinda long)

[Tiefling]

I would think of killing a defenseless person as against most D&D codes of honor rather than codes of morality. Honor is usually associated with the Lawful alignment, so wouldn't such an action be chaotic?

Of course, if this were real life I would answer considerably differently, but this is D&D.

 

[Hejdun]

and the DM says: "killing a defenseless person is an evil act."

Sounds like you need some help from South Park.

"He's coming right for us!
*BANG*

 

[Oni]

So killing someone that can defend themselves isn't evil? Would it be ok to wake him up then murder him? I guess it was an evil act every time a person in that campaign world was executed by the judical system, as bound prisoners I'm sure they couldn't defend themselves.


I think this has a lot more to do with the law v. chaos axis of alignment than good and evil. What if the arrow had just killed him instead of putting him to sleep, would that have been evil? Personally I think dispencing a little frontier justice would be the right thing to do, and I would even go so far to say that not doing so in this situation would be more wrong given that there is absolutely no doubt as to the validity of his crimes.


Also keep in mind that he didn't start out defenseless, he failed to defend himself properly and that is how he got in his current state, why should he get a second chance because he got knocked out rather than being killed.

 

[smetzger]

1) The DM's interpretatation of alignment is the only one that matters.

2) There is no penalty for a Rogue switching alignments.

3) What's the Rogue's personality? Is he more like Dirty Harry, Indiana Jones, Spider Man, or the Punisher?

Given 1 & 2, I think its much more important for the Rogue to act in a manner consistent with his personality.

 

[green slime]

Well, I agree with other posters here, to a degree.

I think the DM has made his point clear: It is an evil act.

This is not to say that you are automatically Evil by committing this one act.

Some games consider it OK, others feel that Good guys are better than bad guys for a reason: They don't "stoop" to those tactics. Either method provides for more challenges: On one hand, it allows characters to roleplay their angst "Did I do the right thing" on the other hand it provides problems with "What do we do with all these prisoners 120 miles into enemy territory?"

Neither is "correct" in the meaning of "One True answer". What do the other players in your game feel? It is supposed to be fun... Not necessarily always realistic. Real wars get real messy real quick...

 

[Negative Zero]

wow, cool! thanks for all the replies. lemme see if i can keep up ...

Drawmack, you're one bad man! sadistic in the worst way! i like you already! seriously tho, i dunno if that'd be the way to go. i agree that it sounds more like torture.

A good alignement is not necessarily about what a character will do in a fit of passion, its about how he or she deals with it after the evil act is done.

Enkhidu, very well said. imma have to remember that for the next time this issue comes up.

reveal, i agree totally with your assesment of the senario. i.e. that he's confusing RL and in game morality. add that to Oni's comments on prisoner executions and there's a valid point there. altho it can be contested by the notion that a prisoner has already faced a judicial system, the point that this is a RL concept and not necessarily appropriate for a fantasy world still holds ture. (emphasis on "necessarily.)

RedSwan78, persoanlly i'm sure that the situation isn't as bad as you make it sound, tho i'm also sure that some of it is valid. the bad guy's save was rolled in secret, so the GM could have fudged if he wanted to. (a tactic i certainly understand.) of course, he did try to claim credit as a "good GM" for letting the bad guy fail his save, which seemed really hokey to me. this was followed up by alignment threat. a tiny bit of railroading i think, but considering that he's usually very good at not railroading (or at least hiding it very well) i can let this one slide.

Tiefling, exactly what i was thinking. it's an issue of chaos vs. law rather than one of goodness vs. evil. and it is a fantasy/medieval world; no the one that we live in. then again, our GM is a lwayer in RL after all.

green slime, i really like what you said. so much so, i'm gonna close with your quote:

It is supposed to be fun... Not necessarily always realistic. Real wars get real messy real quick...

~NegZ

 

[Oni]

reveal, i agree totally with your assesment of the senario. i.e. that he's confusing RL and in game morality. add that to Oni's comments on prisoner executions and there's a valid point there. altho it can be contested by the notion that a prisoner has already faced a judicial system, the point that this is a RL concept and not necessarily appropriate for a fantasy world still holds ture. (emphasis on "necessarily.)

The involvement or lack therein of the of a judicial system is a matter of the level of formality and sanction by ruling bodies, not right or wrong. These notions may or may not be the guiding light of such institutions however they are not one and the same.

 

[Nareau]

I agree with Oni here. Some questions you might want to ask your DM, in order to clarify his world-view of good and evil:

1) Is it evil to kill someone who CAN defend themselves?
2) Is it evil to kill someone who can only defend themselves poorly (ie, a goblin with no character levels)?
3) Is it evil to let someone die after knocking them out (ie, bleed to death from -5 to -10 hp)?
4) Is it more evil to use Power Word: Kill than it would be to use Hold Person and then CdG the enemy?
5) Are there any forms of capital punishment in the world?
6) What other options are available to the PC's that will reasonably ensure that the BBEG won't rape or murder anyone else?

I personally would do anything possible to avoid killing another person. However, if I were in a situation were I became willing to kill someone, their level of consciousness would not change my decision...nor do I think it would change the morality or ethics of my action.

OTOH, I think that D&D works from a fairly "conservative" model of Good and Evil. That is to say, the rules are written such that certain creatures and acts are by their very nature Evil. Situational morality and extenuating circumstances don't have much place in such a world. If your DM is taking this strict moral stance, then you have an easy option: everyone in the party readies an action to attack him when he wakes up (by natural means or a spell). He'll have a brief moment of not being helpless; then you'll be morally justified in killing him.

If I were a player in this game, there's a good chance I would have stormed away from the gaming table during this scene. For one, it does sound like the DM might be changing the world's moral system in order to save a BBEG. Even if that weren't the case, I think this is something the DM should have made very clear from day one.

Finally, do you have a decently high-level druid available? All you need is a Summon Nature's Ally: Pixie; it's got magic arrows of forgetting stuff. Presto, Tabula Rasa!

Spider

 

[Kareyev]

Unless your name is Vash the Stampede in most role playing game your character murder. It may be in self defense, in cold blood, or somewhere in between, but that is what happens. If the DM is going to rule that CdG is an evil act, that is their prerogative. I've played and run worlds where that has and has not been the case. Each creates its own flavor of game.

Just to throw another option out there letting him go may be a better option? It would show the other henchmen of Mr. Big and Evil that you would let them go as well. This buys you at least two things. First, if they see things going bad they may surrender or just walk away. Secondly if someone catches you in a similar situation they will remember what your actions were.

Hmm. Maybe Mr. Vash was on to something there. Of course as he found out letting them live has consequences as well.

LOVE AND PEACE!

 

[green slime]

Spider, you read too much into the warning given the group.

It could just have been that ("A BTW, you remember that..."), or it could have been frothing at the mouth by the DM, or, perhaps one of the other players actually thought to ASK... (Although it would seem not, given Negative Zero's description.)

It could very well be a DM desperately trying to save a BBEG... or it could be just that, a warning. I wouldn't go storming off everytime the DM warns a player about the consequences of an action...I would at least wait until after the game and discus it with the DM and other players, so there is no misunderstandings in the future.

I'll answer some of your questions, as I see these situations applied to my campaign. Note that I'm not pretending that this is superior, merely that this is how we do things IMC, which for clarity has nothing to do with Negative Zero's.

Spider asked
1) Is it evil to kill someone who CAN defend themselves?

Yes, it could be.

Spider asked
2) Is it evil to kill someone who can only defend themselves poorly (ie, a goblin with no character levels)?

Yes, it could be.

Spider asked
3) Is it evil to let someone die after knocking them out (ie, bleed to death from -5 to -10 hp)?

Yes, it could be.

Spider asked
4) Is it more evil to use Power Word: Kill than it would be to use Hold Person and then CdG the enemy?

Are we talking execution methods? or in the heat of battle? Doesn't it vary according to who you are fighting? Wild ravenous lycanthropes, or a samurai defending his lord's honour... Not every battle is one of life and death.

Spider asked
5) Are there any forms of capital punishment in the world?

As there is Evil in the world...

Spider asked
6) What other options are available to the PC's that will reasonably ensure that the BBEG won't rape or murder anyone else?

You mean as opposed to incarceration, redemption, banishment, removal of facilities, ...

Spider stated
However, if I were in a situation were I became willing to kill someone, their level of consciousness would not change my decision...nor do I think it would change the morality or ethics of my action.

No? But would your method change your decision? What if the only method available to you caused this person an incredible amount of anxiety and pain? What if this person showed incredible remorse for his actions that led you this drastic decision? What if being unconscious prevented the person from even stating their case? Would you be so willing to take the blood of another on your suppositions of their guilt?

Yes, certain beings in the DnD multiverse are irredeemably Evil. These deserve no mercy whatsoever. However placing all BBEG in this category is less entertaining, IMHO.

I think awakening him with the party at the ready hardly counts for being able to defend one's self...

Sounds like the real mercy for a fallen foe... So much for the flower of Chivalry.