would this be evil?

[Bonedagger]

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

*snip*

You are making many assumptions and then claiming they give base for proff.

 

[La Bete]

agreeing with Tsyr again? grumble.

If you wanted to be really nice. I'd call it negligent homicide, if nothing else... but frankly, I think "murder" fits well enough

Yup, yup. You could say that killing the girl was a mistake (an accident would be pushing it). They didn't intend to kill her according to the original poster. But it doesn't matter. In every way shape and form, they are responsible for what happened to her, when they decided to kidnap her.

She's dead.
She died at their hand.
It's their fault.

Simple.

Now, as far as their intentions go, we could speculate for hours as to why they did what they did, however the original poster said that it "seemed like the best way to get the thief out".

If they had noble intentions (how?!?!?!), this might mitigate their drift towards NE, but it doesnt mitigate the fact that what they did was: (select all that apply)

illegal
immoral
wrong
bad
evil
callous
cruel
sadistic

And hopefully the players/characters realise that.

 

[La Bete]

basically punishing you for it.

I think that when the GM ruled that the 20 killed the hostage, what he was trying to say was:

"Listen up, you primitive screwheads!!!"

 

[Mort]

Re: ad infinitum

You are making many assumptions and then claiming they give base for proff.

Actually, by attempting to give noble motives to the party in question you are making far more assumptions than Tsyr ever did.

Looking at the original post the party kidnapped the girl as a bargaining tool to getting the PC thief out of jail and did so because they thought it was the “quickest way.” Trying to attribute any noble motive there is a stretch at best.

Sure, there could conceivably be a situation where the PC’s actions were not evil. Looking at the original post on its face, however, this certainly isn’t it.

 

[Tsyr]

Re: To darned many Re:'s

You are making many assumptions and then claiming they give base for proff.

Well, given you gave me NO indication which of my posts you were replying to, this is a shot in the dark, but... assuming you were refering to the one where I quoted a brief snipped of the original post a couple posts up...

I am not "making many assumptions". What I am assuming , though, (And I won't deny this) is that since this topic was one the poster sought out an answer to, he would have mentioned something as important as, say, the politician being evil, or that the party had an earth-shaking goal that they were being prevented from, (As someone earlier suggested, don't remember if that was you), etc etc. I can only discuss meaningfully what has been posted... it's sorta silly, IMO, to invent a number of possible situations that could have been, when we have been given no indication any of them were the case. That would be like... oh... if someone asked you to pick up milk at the store for them, you picking up eggs instead because they might have misspoke.

But one thing I am not doing, despite your accusations, is using these as a base of proof. I'm simply not going to give them the benefit of the unlikely doubt in this case unless I have shred of reason to do so.

 

[Bonedagger]

If you wanted to be really nice. I'd call it negligent homicide, if nothing else... but frankly, I think "murder" fits well enough

The players wanted to subdue her. They had no intentions of killing her. More important: They (the players) had so far as I know no reason to think it would kill her.

The DM should not be able to change the characters motives by letting them do things the players didn't intent. He was the one who made them look stupid after all.

 

[Bonedagger]

Re: Re: ad infinitum

*wrong post*

 

[Bonedagger]

Re: Re: To darned many Re:'s

Well, given you gave me NO indication which of my posts you were replying to, this is a shot in the dark, but...

Your lasted one at the time. See below.

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.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

 

[La Bete]

The DM should not be able to change the characters motives by letting them do things the players didn't intent

OK, yes, its a valid point that because the GM ruled that the crit on a subdue killed her, he twisted their intent, and things happened which they didnt want to happen.

Hey, how often does that happen?

WHile, yes it could be argued that the GM made a bit of a b#stard call, the players could have avoided it by...

Not using a sword to subdue
used magic
re-gagged her
etc.

However, it doesnt answer the question of the thread, is this evil? Hmmm. Kidnapping/assaulting an innocent person. Killing her 'by mistake'.

 

[Bonedagger]

The players wanted to subdue her. They had no intentions of killing her. More important: They (the players) had so far as I know no reason to think it would kill her.

The DM should not be able to change the characters motives by letting them do things the players didn't intent. He was the one who made them look stupid after all. (Edit: As in "she died. Therefore the characters have evil motives")