Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rel" data-source="post: 2164621" data-attributes="member: 99">But see, if I'm interpreting the scene correctly (and somebody tell me if I'm not because I haven't actually seen it - yet), he didn't do it to intimidate anybody.  He kicked the guy into the engine because the dude being kicked was unrepentantly evil.  He flat out told the good guy that he intended to hunt him down and kill him when he was offered a chance to go free.That seems to me to be the underlying lynchpin of this entire discussion.  Much has been made of the issue of the captive being "helpless" or "no threat to the PC's" (or protagonist in this case).  But that isn't really true.  The bad guy IS a threat to the protagonist in this case.  What he is essentially conveying by his words is that "I will not kill you right now because you have the upper hand.  I WILL kill you later when I get the upper hand."  In my opinion, only an idiot would allow someone like that to live.It's a bit of a different story if the bad guy repents and says, "now that you've shown me the light I promise that I will change my ways."  But if he's actively telling you his intentions to bring about your death in the future then booting his ass into the engine is simply smart.If Good requires that you let guys like that go on their merry way then Good is pretty soon going to be an Endangered Alignment.  And good riddance."Think of it as evolution in action."</blockquote>