would this be evil?

[Kibo]

Is it feasible to raise the slain daughter?

BTW, if you can't pay for it, you could just kidnap the relative of a high priest and force him... Ah, well - maybe not.

Also, and regardless of whether somebody already knows that she's dead, you could try to get some creature with shape-changing powers (e.g., an erinyes) to look like her and still arrange an exchange.
Be careful, though; the chances aren't too good...

Wow did you guys screw up. Jay Mohr was supposed to kidnapp the head of the thieves guild. Not a noble's daughter. The beauty was supposed to be that there was no kidnapping; man, what some people won't do for love and gambling debts. I wonder which npc is going to have their father beaten senselessly with a skillet to establish Dennis' character?

Or maybe the similarity to The Suicide Kings is purely of my own invention.

 

[Wormwood]

Or maybe the similarity to The Suicide Kings is purely of my own invention.

I was thinking Fargo, myself.

 

[Rhialto]

I have to repeat the question from my previous post:

Why is it important to know if this behaviour was evil?

This is the key question, since the D&D alignment system is a guideline, not an ultimate truth. Technically it is only important for the impact of some divine spells or for some PrCs. All the rest is role-playing.

Behaviour is just a little too complex to be able to classify into a 3x3 matrix,
so why are you trying to do it? Why is it important to classify?

Try to answer this question!

Because this "guideline" is based on actions, either good or evil. Thus if one does actions which are evil, then it changes your alignment. This is how the alignment system works. End of story. Yes, you can use it differently, but then you're using it wrong.

And for everyone who wishes to assure me there's no such thing as good or evil actions in the real world, because all behavior is relative--if I meet you in person I will bludgeon you to death with a metal baseball bat. I will then force myself upon your female spouses/siblings/acquaitances, steal all of your possessions, and burn down your house.

And from where I stand that's a good thing.

 

[Magius del Cotto]

OK, this is how I view the sequence in general:
Rogue's actions: CN or CE, either of which the rogue already is, so no big deal there. Probably not enough to shift the G/E balance, but that's up to interpritation.
Kidnapping the daughter: Evil. I'm not going to justify it on the law/chaos access because in any event (lawful, chaotic, or neutral), kidnapping (and similar things) are defined the same (well, more or less, but that's another issue).
Reasoning behind the kidnapping: Chaotic.
Hitting her over the head with a sword: I don't think that this is, per se, evil, but rather stupid. She presented a situation that was bad, and the PCs tried to act on that. Sorta like how most of the "orc massacres" work...
Killing her: Again, not necessarily evil, per se, but more stupid than anything else. This is probably going to seal their fate, no matter that it was unintentional. Of course, with a good DM, this situation could always be twisted to make an epic story. Of course, it's probably not going to happen.
All in all, this was a relatively minor evil act ("orc massacres" anyone?), followed by a series of really stupid decisions. I'd say call a reset (dream sequence, time warp, whatever...) and start the adventure over again. If this sort of thing happens again, go ahead and have them face the flames, since they would have proven that they don't deserve that 14 intelligence that's floating around in the group somewhere.

 

[Agback]

Re: Re: Re: would this be evil?

Sorry, but adventuring is home invasion and murder of 'evil' races.

Technically, adventurers do a whole buttload of murder and kidnapping, as well as armed robbery and so forth.

The adventurers you know might do. But even they have the justification that they are warriors in an ongoing race war that makes it impossible to deter and punish evil otherwise, and makes this sort of activity a necessary act of war in defending their peoples from open enemies. The characters in this example do not. Their motive was to protect an evildoer and lawbreaker.

And I will point out yet again that there are many other kinds of adventures than dungeon-crawls, and other campaign settings than continual war between races.

Regards,

Agback

 

[Agback]

IMHO, it's not so much rules-lawyering as just wanting stuff to work somewhat consistantly.

The characters, after all, have been living and learning in the game world all their lives. They ought to know how things work there.

The players, meanwhile, are entitled to resent being trapped into doing something through ignorance of what their characters would have known. Insofar as the rules provide the only information they have about how the game world works, they are entitled to resent having the rules changed to their detriment after they have already committed to courses of action on the basis of what the rules told them about the world.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Friadoc]

I guess I'll finally voice my opinion on this,

...instead of poking fun at some of it.

I'm of the opinion that the party willfully commited an evil act, with the result being the death of their hostage.

A member of their group, known to get a buzz from stealing, was caught by the local law. They were within their rights for arresting said member, although we do not know the details of the local government and laws, as well as whether or not it's a Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic society, etc.

The group decides to kidnap the daughter, my inference is that she is a child (or minor), instead of staging a prison break, or bribing an official. Why? Who knows, their choices (do they need the thief that badly? owe them in some way? loyalty?)

The child, obviously in fear of being taken by these strangers, tries to call for help. A party member's response? Hitting her in the head, hard enough that it kills her. Other options? Lots, including gagging her with cloth, etc. Did they do it? Nope.

I don't know about you, but has anyone seen the movie 'Ransom' with Mel Gibson? I don't know about you, but I felt all the kidnappers, even the dumb-one, were being evil in one form or the next.

You steal a youth from her home, so as to black mail her father into releasing their friend and accidentially kill her when trying to gain her silence.

Blunt force was used, from the edge of a sword, and she died. No spells. No gags. Minor restraints.

I'm sorry, but I don't need motives to know the act was evil. Hell, depending on the society it could even be considered Lawful Evil - remember, it's evil within the constructs of a society's structure.

The party had options, but they took the easy route and really screwed the pooch.

It might not be full blown, Lolth is coming over for tea, evil, but it was an evil act.

Within the constructs of the game it was evil, it's pretty evident. Kinda like how certain spells have - [Evil] - next to their names.

Personally, if the group is smart, they should run like crazy. Leave behind their friend, hope no connection is made, and just run.

Those of a divine nature, with a Lawful or Good diety are pretty much going to be introuble, but that's just my opinion.

Just tonight my Lawful Neutral Wizard fired a ten-foot wide by one-hundred foot long lightning bolt into a wall of barrier shields - he was forty feet from the shield, it blasted right through it and killed the seven orc warriors holding the shields. It also killed the women and children. They might be orcs and it might be justified and it might be excusible since he could not see them, but he still feels guilty about it, as he considers it evil.

He'll be making a lot of prays to Mystra, but his life will go on - hopefully the same can be said for the party too, from this thread.

 

[Gizzard]

... A villain routinely puts others in harm's way to save his or her own neck -- better that others die, surely.
The utter selfishness of an evil character rarely leaves room for empathy. He is so consumed with his own goals and desires that he can think of no reason not to succeed at the expense of others. At best, other creatures are cattle to be used, preyed upon or led. At worst, they are gnats to be ignored or obstacles to be bypassed.

--Book of Vile Darkness, M. Cook

So, does that hit the nail on the head or what? ;-)

 

[Kilmore]

Okay... here's a question. Considering the chance, which in a reasonable game session would be rather slim, that the majority of the party survives past the next gaming session, do the players consider their characters to be good despite this unfortunate chain of events? And if so, how are they dealing with it?

How would your good aligned characters react in a situation where poor judgement results in actions that would be considered evil, and lethal to an innocent?

If I was fond of the character, and felt like roleplaying the drama, and keeping the character good, the character would run far far away. Even if nobody in the town was able to trace me to the crime, I would never be able to bear returning. I would be sick to the depths of my soul. I would compartmentalize, internalize, and do my damndest to shake the terrible event from my mind. But it wouldn't happen. The murdered little girl's image would be seared in my mind... when I try to sleep, eat, laugh, love... whenever I see a little girl of her age. While adventuring, I wouldn't be able to bear killing even orc babies, and I may dedicate my adventures to helping children. Maybe when I felt the strain was too much, my character would return to the town, confess everything, and face the music.

If I wasn't so keen on keeping the character good, I'd let the event become the first step on the long slide to total bastardhood.

Neutral character's reactions would be different, and an evil character may not even be effected at all. Maybe.

 

[David Argall]

critical hit

"the DM made a terrible call saying that a critical success on a subdual strike results in a killing blow"

Not at all. a-A critical hit is one that does extra damage. It is not one that strikes to do precisely the amount of damage you want.
If you are attacking this 5 hp NPC you want to take prisoner and decide to just whack away since your 1d8+2 will only put him in negatives and then you can do some healing... But you crit and do max damage, you have a dead body on your hands. The same applies to the kid. You crit her, you do more damage to her. Now we might argue that the rules do not really allow for subdual damage to be fatal, but this is obviously a flaw in the rules and the DM is entirely correct to make that a possibility.
b-the prisons are full of people who killed someone violently, but unintentionally. It is an entirely reasonable result that the party tried to shut the kid up and were too successful.

On the basic question, yes these are obviously evil actions and if the party is to avoid being evil, it has to do something. Whether it will want to, or what it will be are still questions. But the DM call of "You killed your prisoner" is a fine one.