would this be evil?

[Rhialto]

I'm going to state this is evil with some caution... As some people have pointed out, Balgus hasn't given us a very complete picture and people are starting to fill in the blanks with their own ideas, with little actual proof coming into it. For example, contrary to what Tsyr seems to think, the age of the daughter has not been mentioned, thus making the constant calls of 'child murder' completely unjustified. Also I happen to agree that the making a critical hit to subdue a killing blow sounds hard, though once again, without any idea of the girl's hit points, I cannot make a certain call on this. And finally, without knowing the nature of the local politician, we really can't make a good call on the character's actions. Is he a nice guy, and the characters are trying to blackmail him? In that case, they've done evil, and I'd definitely consider an alignment change. Is he a harsh bastard given to draconian punishments who has shown no tendency to listen to reason? In that case, I'd say they've been boneheads, who've just been making poor descisions and are now in real trouble. In that case, my descision on alignment would depend on their later actions.

And I agree--this sounds like Fargo d20...

 

[starkad]

I agree with others above...

The DM taking a subdual 'crit' as lethal damage and killing her was a bad call, and I have to question that DM's motive.

Was this evil?

No.

Chaotic?

Yes. I

t's pretty cut and dried hoenstly (at least to me, everyone has a different opinion of evil to be truthful). They didn't kidnap her with intent to kill or torture or worse. They were keeping her safe as ransom. That in and of itself is not inherently evil.

Now if they tortured her, or forced themselves on her while captive.. THAT is evil.

So their actions were selfish, but not dastardly.

 

[bret]

I would consider the kidnapping evil.

PHB 88

Good characters and creature protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatured debase or destroy innocent life, whther for fun or profit.

They were endangering an innocent life for profit. No good character should do this, although it is well within the realm of possible actions by a Neutral character.

The death was accidental. It was also a bad ruling by the GM, the critical damage is of the same type as the base damage. By the rules, it should have been a safe action for the PC.

I think that the actions show a great enough disregard for the law that all the characters should shift towards a chaotic alignment. Given their behavior as described, I would not be surprised if those in the group of good alignment shifted towards neutral soon.

Although the action is evil, I still consider it more of a chaotic action than an evil action. I'm thinking of it from the perspective of would I cause an alignment shift for a Neutral character. I don't think it shows a great enough disregard for life to shift a neutral to an evil alignment. I do think it potentially shifts someone from Neutral to Chaotic.

Anyone who wanted to go NE or CE is definately on the right path. Quit using subdual damage on the hostages and you've got it.

 

[Wormwood]

Kidnapping and beating a small girl to death (in order to terrorize her father---a man whom you had previously injured) was most certainly evil, chaotic *and* stupid.

Congratulations on the trifecta.

Theft, kidnapping, extortion and murder. Sopranos d20?

 

[S'mon]

To everyone saying the GM made a bad call: remember the PC hit her with a *sword*, a large chunk of iron! What on earth is unreasonable about the idea that a critical hit (ie a hit to a vulnerable location like the back of the head) with the flat side of a sword could kill someone? If they didn't want to risk killing her they should have grappled her, or used an unarmed blow (still potentially fatal in real life, BTW).

My own rule for subdual damage (can't recall if this is as per PHB) is that a crit does double (or whatever) dmg normally, if the target is reduced to 0hp all extra hp dmg is lethal, which could well kill a 1st level commoner, realistically enough.

The absurdity of the alternative position is demonstrated by the 'evil high priest' scenario - strike the EHP to subdue, roll a 1, a fumble - should that be a critical hit for lethal damage? I think not.

 

[Zappo]

To everyone saying the GM made a bad call: remember the PC hit her with a *sword*, a large chunk of iron! What on earth is unreasonable about the idea that a critical hit (ie a hit to a vulnerable location like the back of the head) with the flat side of a sword could kill someone?

Oh, it's fairly reasonable. That's not a good reason to do it, though. In standard D&D, a critical hit when dealing subdual damage does not turn the damage into normal. If the DM wishes to change this rule, it's fine, but it is bad to change the rules while the players are using them. If you want to use a house rule, you should state it before the game begins; "DM calls" are used for when there is a rules void, which is not the case. Here we have players relying on clear and estabilished rules which the DM changed under their feet - that's unfair, no matter whether it makes sense or not.

 

[Apok]

To everyone saying the GM made a bad call: remember the PC hit her with a *sword*, a large chunk of iron! What on earth is unreasonable about the idea that a critical hit (ie a hit to a vulnerable location like the back of the head) with the flat side of a sword could kill someone? If they didn't want to risk killing her they should have grappled her, or used an unarmed blow (still potentially fatal in real life, BTW).

"Real life" is the key operating word here. This is not "real life," this is a game which has rules and those rules state that if you are attempting to subdue someone, you don't worry about accidentaly killing them unless you roll a critical FUMBLE, which last time I checked was a roll of 1. In fact, aren't critical fumbles for attack rolls optional rules? But anyways, if the DM wants to monkey with the rules to make them more realistic then he should inform his players of this beforehand rather than making a last-minute call and "justifying" it with a "realistically..." statement. Especially if it's an area that the rules are quite clear on and especially if the consequences are this dire (i.e. the possibility of accidentally killing the girl instead of just subduing her).

Oh, and your alternative position of subduing the High Priest of Evil doesn't help your argument any. If you are choosing to subdue him, then obviously you want him alive. Rolling a 1 and doing real damage (possibly killing him) would be an acceptable fumble since you don't want to kill him. Now, I certainly wouldn't say that a nat 1 on a subdual role does normal critical damage. That's just stupid and I'm still trying to figure out why you mentioned it. Any DM who ruled that a nat 1 on a Subdual attempt should automatically Crit & cause real damage would be insane.

 

[S'mon]

Oh, it's fairly reasonable. That's not a good reason to do it, though. In standard D&D, a critical hit when dealing subdual damage does not turn the damage into normal. If the DM wishes to change this rule, it's fine, but it is bad to change the rules while the players are using them. If you want to use a house rule, you should state it before the game begins; "DM calls" are used for when there is a rules void, which is not the case. Here we have players relying on clear and estabilished rules which the DM changed under their feet - that's unfair, no matter whether it makes sense or not.

Darn "Players' Rights Advocates"... *grumble grumble*

If there isn't any way a subdual strike with a sword can do lethal damage, that's a rules void IMO.

I've noticed in 3e that (according to many EN World posts) many players expect to have everything spelt out to them in advance, and complain vociferously if the GM makes a judgement call that differs from the letter of the rules (or, worst case scenario, from the letter of a Sage Advice column). I think 3e has really given Rules Lawyerism a new lease of life. Thankfully in my own group I've seen almost nothing of this, I'd hate to try GMing in a group where it was common.

 

[Kilmore]

To everyone saying the GM made a bad call: remember the PC hit her with a *sword*, a large chunk of iron! What on earth is unreasonable about the idea that a critical hit (ie a hit to a vulnerable location like the back of the head) with the flat side of a sword could kill someone? If they didn't want to risk killing her they should have grappled her, or used an unarmed blow (still potentially fatal in real life, BTW).

My own rule for subdual damage (can't recall if this is as per PHB) is that a crit does double (or whatever) dmg normally, if the target is reduced to 0hp all extra hp dmg is lethal, which could well kill a 1st level commoner, realistically enough.

The absurdity of the alternative position is demonstrated by the 'evil high priest' scenario - strike the EHP to subdue, roll a 1, a fumble - should that be a critical hit for lethal damage? I think not.

It all depends on the DM's interpretation, really. Personally, I regard the hit roll as a success / failure attempt. A crit means the best possible success, a fumble means the worst possible failure. I would have certainly made the fumble lethal damage if I was DM! The same goes for the hypothetical Evil High priest. The attempt was to take him alive for whatever reason, using subdual damage. A fumble in that situation would have been a failure to do subdual damage, possibly meaning that the PC's attempt to capture the EHP alive would have been a failure as well, and the consequences of that action would unfold. Now the PC's may not shed many tears over this, but it may well have serious consequences down the road (information they cannot interrogate him for, contingency spells that go off, violation of the PC's ethos, etc.).

On the other hand, the DM in question may have taken the opportunity to punish the guilty characters for their rash actions by interpreting the natural 20 as the "best clubbin' ever administered", with lethal effect.

 

[Tsyr]

They didn't kidnap her with intent to kill or torture or worse. They were keeping her safe as ransom. That in and of itself is not inherently evil.

As someone pointed out: Kidnapping with no threat behind it is inefective. There has to be implied risk to NOT co-operating with the demands of the kidnapper, esp. true in a world with divination magic (where it's only a matter of time until they find the kidnapped, and are able to, say, Teleport Without Error people in to retrieve her).

I maintain that kidnapping, in and of itself, by it's very nature, is an evil act. You are forcing a person to do something against their will, almost assuredly to their detriment, puting them in danger, causing mental distress to their family and friends, and by the very nature of the crime you must be willing to take steps to ensure that these things happen. (IE, resorting to violence if the kidnapped one tries to escape.).

This is taken from the SRD...

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.

Now tell me. Of that, what does this act most closely fit? Lets se...

Altruism? Nope.
Respect for life? Nope.
Self sacrifice in any way? Nope.
Compunctions against killing the innocent? Nope.
Concern for the dignity of sentient beings? Nope.
Protect innocent life? Nope.

That pretty much covers the things mentioned for good and neutrality... now if we slide on down to "evil"...

Debase or destroy innocent life for fun or profit? (Profit, in this case). Check.
Hurting, Opressing, and Killing others? Yup.

Hmmm...

And let me state one more thing:

It does not matter the REASONS for this act, really. They could have had the best interests of the entire planet in mind. This act was evil. Regardless of if there was malice behind it (I maintain that there was, by the very definition of kidnapping), regardless of the motives, regardless of the circumstances, the act itself was evil.