would this be evil?

[Villano]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am with you Tsyr

"Kidnap" is a loaded word.

But it is the word the originator of the post used. And it is, in all honesty, the correct one. "Retaining" makes it sound like she was someplace and the PCs just had to make sure she didn't leave.

The reality (well, as real as a game can be) is that a group of armed men (I assume the PCs had their weapons) abducted a child and tied her up. Their purpose? To force a politician to free their rightfully imprisoned friend.

And when she wiggles free and screams for help, they smack her with a weapon, accidentally killing her.

I think this meets the average person on the street's definition (as well as all legal standards) of kidnapping (and murder).

We should also remember that the PCs would have to have implied that they would harm the girl. I mean, why else would the politician free the criminal if he didn't believe his child's life was in danger?

There was a tv movie a few years ago. I never watched it (the commercials made it look pretty bad), but the premise was that a man whose son was convicted of a crime (and, I believe, he was actually guilty of it) pulls out a gun (or he may have had a bomb) and holds the jury hostage. His demand is that his son be set free (reading this synopsis, you can see all the logic loopholes and why I would never want to watch it).

It's pretty much the same situation as here.

Now imagine that one of the jurors panics and the man hits her and she dies.

Would you find the man guilty of kidnapping and murder?

 

[Bonedagger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am with you Tsyr

You've got to be kidding me.

Kidnap, abduct, abscond with, steal, swipe, etc.

Any way you slice it, the party took an innocent person hostage simply because she was related to someone their associate had already wronged.

They tried to use a morally reprehensible act to avoid their associate having to take responsibility for a crime.

Purely along D&D's Good/Evil axis, they willingly hurt and oppressed others, putting them right in line with, from the PHB, "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others".

It's an EVIL ACT.

In fact, if you could assign it a specific alignment, the act would be NEUTRAL EVIL. From the PHB: "The criminal who robs and murders to get what she wants is neutral evil."

How can using a COMPLETELY innocent victim to force a wronged person to release the one who wronged them be anything but an evil act?


Patrick Y.

None of them murdered AND robed.

If the theft was justified it could just as well be one hostage for another. Laws can be evil in D&D. We don't know if that's the case here. (How did the politician "lawfully" obtain his wealth)

They might be lawful neutral. The ones who accidently did the killing did seem to follow an "eye for an eye" concept if they thought the politician was evil.


One final note: The killer didn't rob anybody. Did he find this specific robbery ok? That doesn't say anything about him being good or evil. He killed the girl but by accident. Neutral Evil? Don't know

 

[Tsyr]

You know, someone else touched on it briefly above... In the words of someone a couple months ago, I think far too much stuff on the part of a players character is excused and/or overlooked because they have "PC" tattooed on their forhead. Far too much stuff is excused, overlooked, or just plain put up with because a player character is just that... a character a player controls. Parties put up with crap that would never be tollerated if it was an NPC cohort because of that darned tattoo, likewise it acts as a limited "get out of guilt free" card in certain circumstances, and even when it doesn't seem to completely excuse the PCs, it sure allows for a lot more questioning and attempts to excuse their actions than would ever be given to an NPC.

 

[Mort]

Re: Re: I am with you Tsyr

OK, point 1, I agree with. Point 2, I have to say, I don't agree with, at least, insofar as what I said. Them killing the girl is no worse than the adventures attacking an Orc settlement unprovoked and slaughtering everything there (at least, all orcish). This sort of thing happens all of the time in D&D, and nobody gets into a moral quandry about it. Am I saying it shouldn't be punished? No. Am I saying it should have an effect on their alignment? No, at least, no more than slaughtering an Orc village would.

Unless you subscribe to the “orcs are evil by definition, just like demons” position (and this is the position that the campaign [aka DM] takes) then an unprovoked raid on an orc village IS exactly like kidnapping the innocent girl: it’s evil!

What exactly is the question?

I’m not trying to spark a debate on the word “unprovoked,” just saying that if it is in fact unprovoked – it’s evil.
I suppose I should also say since some people are a bit literal that the kidnapping was not "unprovoked" (as there was a reason behind it) but the analysis still applies.

 

[Bonedagger]

Posted by Bonedagger:

Maybe because you're so obviously ambivalent and unclear on the concept?

Yes. That must be it. Your clear wisdom have showen me the way. I thank you.

 

[Tsyr]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am with you Tsyr

None of them murdered AND robed.

By attempting to free a person who was a robber, and was jailed for said crime, they became a part of that crime (Theft), simply by virtue of aiding the criminal. Did they steal themselves? Other than human beings, no. They were still involved, though.

If the theft was justified it could just as well be one hostage for another. Laws can be evil in D&D. We don't know if that's the case here. (How did the politician "lawfully" obtain his wealth)

The original statement was

You are in a group with a rogue that like stealing. She wanders off one night before an adv (to make a lil money) and is caught stealing from a high ranking polit figure.

That sure doesn't sound like a justified theft to me. It sounds like a theif wanting to make some quick cash, and acting on that desire. And stop assuming the politician is evil; we have no evidence of that, for that matter there isn't even any implication of that, and despite popular political humor, politicians are as capable as being good as anyone else.

They might be lawful neutral. The ones who accedently did the killing did seem to follow an "eye for an eye" concept if they thought the politician was evil.

Nothing lawful here; this was a pure chaotic streak, through and through.

Second, I must remind you again, the post gives no clue that the politician even MIGHT be evil, any more than the 1-in-3 chance that any NPC technicly has to be evil.

Third, it's still not eye-for-an-eye. Kidnapping an innocent person is not eye-for-an-eye with a theif -who might I point out, DID commit a crime, no matter how evil you might think the laws are, and in point of fact a crime that would have been a crime in almost any law anywhere on the planet-... No, it's more like gouging out someones eye because they slapped you... WHEN you had done something to earn being slapped, no less.

One final note: The killer didn't rob anybody. Did he find this specific robbery ok? That doesn't say anything about him being good or evil. He killed the girl but by accident. Neutral Evil? Don't know.

Well, I disagree... it DOES say something about him.

And I wish you would stop saying that it was an accident... that brings to mind something innocent, like, oh... I dunno, he accidently ran over her as she ran out into the path of his horse-and-cart as he was on his way to market to innocently peddle some chicken eggs. I don't extend the courtesy of "accident" to something like this, myself. Mistake or Error in Judgement? Maybe. If you wanted to be really nice. I'd call it negligent homicide, if nothing else... but frankly, I think "murder" fits well enough.

 

[Bonedagger]

You know, someone else touched on it briefly above... In the words of someone a couple months ago, I think far too much stuff on the part of a players character is excused and/or overlooked because they have "PC" tattooed on their forhead. Far too much stuff is excused, overlooked, or just plain put up with because a player character is just that... a character a player controls. Parties put up with crap that would never be tollerated if it was an NPC cohort because of that darned tattoo, likewise it acts as a limited "get out of guilt free" card in certain circumstances, and even when it doesn't seem to completely excuse the PCs, it sure allows for a lot more questioning and attempts to excuse their actions than would ever be given to an NPC.

Well. Obviously people have different views on how the D&D alingments should be defined. Anybody would probably agree that having a DM making an alignment ruling you very much disagreed with wouldn't be much fun. (Pick one from this thread) So giving the players some extra freedom in this area improves everybodies fun.

 

[La Bete]

"PC" tattooed on their forhead.

Its a valid point - and it covers a lot of what went on in the (admittedly brief) description in the first post of this thread.

The thief goes and commits random burglary, but the part sticks by her, because shes a PC. Mmmmm.. of course a more rational approach might be, "She's where? In Jail? Dumb####, she can stew there, we're not busting her out again."

Return to character gen for the thiefs player. If it had been an NPC, most parties wouldnt even think twice.

As far as the kidnapping goes, imagine that your character has gone along (reluctantly) with this nutty plan to kidnap the mayors (adult or child, it doesnt matter) daughter. Now, as things start going wrong, one of your 'mates' smacks her in the head with a sword and 'accidentally' kills her. "I was just trying to shut her up" he says. But, because he's a PC, you let him get away with it.

(Of course in this situation, I'm more of the opinion that everyone involved, not just the one using the sword to subdue with, is responsible for the hostages death.)

One more time - yup, the actions the party took were evil - not bowel-clenchingly evil, but evil nonetheless. Ditto callous, cruel and certainly unlawful. Not to mention thoroughly dopey. I hope you guys were strung out on Mountain dew when the kidnapping decision was made.

Lastly, as a cross-poster mentioned, "if you have to ask if it is evil, then it is". Alsways a good rule of thumb. Ditto if you ask "will this cause me to lose my paladinhood?" etc.

PS. Ummm, y'know, its a game. Its make-believe. I dont think terms such as 'sick' and 'morally bankrupt' are entirely necessary. Even if Bonedagger is trying awful hard to split some semantic fine hairs...

 

[mirzabah]

You are in a group with a rogue that like stealing. She wanders off one night before an adv (to make a lil money) and is caught stealing from a high ranking polit figure. You need to get her out of jail by tomorrow in order to go on your way (and will prolly never come back to this town).

So you kidnap the politician's daughter and hold her ransome. While holding her hostage, she wriggles free from the mouthpiece and starts to scream. You hit her with the back of your sword to subdue her, but crits. the DM rules that you hit her so hard that she is bludgeopned to death.

Puting aside that you now have to deal with the law, but was that act evil? was the kidnapping evil? hitting her to shut her up? and what happens now? The adventure hasn't even started yet and we are in a heap of trouble.

I wouldn't say evil so much as foolish. And it sounds like your DM is of this same opinion and is basically punishing you for it.

 

[Tsyr]

Re: Re: I am with you Tsyr

*reference to attacking an innocent group of orcs*
This sort of thing happens all of the time in D&D, and nobody gets into a moral quandry about it.

Errr, wrong. Actualy, a fair number of people DO. In my games, that would make you just as evil as killing an innocent camp full of humans. And I've read enough posts to know I'm not alone in this.

Is it so hard to believe that in some peoples games adventurers don't wander the lands like unholy scourges, raping the cattle and riding out on the women, slaying whatever crosses their path as long as it has green skin (and sometimes if it doesn't), return to the inn for a night of ale and whores, then repeat the next day ad naseum?