would this be evil?

[Tsyr]

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.

One more time: They hit her with a (insert explative of your choice here) sword! Not their fists. Not a sap. Not lead gloves. Not even a club. A sword.

Furthermore, again, as I said, I'm willing to concede that possibly they had no intention originaly of killing her. But they attacked her. Twice (I count the kidnapping as a form of attack.. actualy, I consider it something else, but I'm not going to go into that). A person who attacks someone must be willing to accept the fact that they might kill the person they are attacking. It is always a possibility, no matter how careful you are. You could knock the person over and into a sharp table corner or something, even if the attack didn't hurt them bad. The fact that they attacked her removes their right to claim the death as an accident.

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.

Oh no. They managed to make themselves look quite stupid on their own. The DM didn't need to help them along in that regard. I would compare them to the title of a movie comming out soon based on a rather innane show about stupid people of the same title, myself, but that wouldn't get past the board filters.

 

[Bonedagger]

One more time: They hit her with a (insert explative of your choice here) sword! Not their fists. Not a sap. Not lead gloves. Not even a club. A sword.

The handle of the sword. Maybe it was what he had in his hand. He had to react fast.

 

[Bonedagger]

Oh no. They managed to make themselves look quite stupid on their own. The DM didn't need to help them along in that regard. I would compare them to the title of a movie comming out soon based on a rather innane show about stupid people of the same title, myself, but that wouldn't get past the board filters.

They where handling being stupid well on their own. But the GM made them kill somebody against their will. I still think there is a jump.

 

[Bonedagger]

Furthermore, again, as I said, I'm willing to concede that possibly they had no intention originaly of killing her. But they attacked her. Twice (I count the kidnapping as a form of attack.. actualy, I consider it something else, but I'm not going to go into that). A person who attacks someone must be willing to accept the fact that they might kill the person they are attacking. It is always a possibility, no matter how careful you are. You could knock the person over and into a sharp table corner or something, even if the attack didn't hurt them bad. The fact that they attacked her removes their right to claim the death as an accident.

A lot of "none evil" people don't know their own strenght. I could easy imagine one of these characters having a realitycheck once he discovered what he did.

 

[Wormwood]

The handle of the sword. Maybe it was what he had in his hand. He had to react fast.

Yep. He needed quick reflexes to bash his innocent child hostage in the face.

Which is somehow not evil.

ps. This thread has to be in the running for Best Troll 2002.

 

[Tsyr]

The handle of the sword. Maybe it was what he had in his hand. He had to react fast.

So he drops his sword. It doesn't take any effort. You just let it fall. And for the record, the wording was "back of the sword", not "handle"... back can be taken to mean a lot of things, if you were going to play the "it could be this senario" game. Flat of the blade, back of the blade (if a single edged blade), handle, or pommel. Of all of those, handle is the one I would LEAST likely figure to be the "Back of the sword", as it's not much more than a closed fist unless you have a basket hilt, in which case it's a weapon as true and sound as any mace, at least for the first hit. *shrug*.

Furthermore, if this WAS a prisoner that they were supposedly so intent to not harm, WHY was his sword drawn in the first place while guarding her?

 

[Tsyr]

Yep. He needed quick reflexes to bash his innocent child hostage in the face.

Which is somehow not evil.

ps. This thread has to be in the running for Best Troll 2002.

Yeah, esp. since

she wriggles free from the mouthpiece and starts to scream.

couldn't have possibly had any warning it was going to happen, couldn't have been expected, or couldn't have been taken care of simply by clapping a hand over her mouth .

 

[Bonedagger]

Yep. He needed quick reflexes to bash his innocent child hostage in the face.

Which is somehow not evil.

ps. This thread has to be in the running for Best Troll 2002.

I'll add to that troll now

How old was that "innocent" "child" again?

It said the politicians daughter. For all we know she to could be a growen women and not so innocent.

Why do you keep saying they hit an innocent child?

 

[Tsyr]

A lot of "none evil" people don't know their own strenght. I could easy imagine one of these characters having a realitycheck once he discovered what he did.

First, let me once again remind you that my contention is that the ACT was evil, not nessesarily the characters, though IMC they would promptly become evil after that ordeal. Anyhow...

As I said:

Any time you attack someone.

Any time.

You must accept the possiblity that you might kill who you are attacking.

This is not some new-fangled concept. Accidents happen and people die even in mock combat. I've been involved in a couple of situations in the SCA that, had we not taken very thorough measures to ensure saftey, and had something happened just a bit different, people very way may have died. In what is no more than, essentialy, a game. (To my knowledge, the SCA has never had a death, and I'm glad for that).

Therefor, you are responsible for any death you cause in combat. If it is real combat (IE, not mock combat or combat instruction), it doesn't matter that that wasn't what you set out to do. You entered into a situation where one person very well could die, and a person did die.

In this case, since the combat was unneeded, and the result of an evil act to begin with (Again, you will never convince me kidnapping is not evil), or at the very least a decidedly non-good act that was ill-thought-out, in my view, it is murder.

 

[Mort]

A lot of "none evil" people don't know their own strenght. I could easy imagine one of these characters having a realitycheck once he discovered what he did.

You're doing some serious acrobatics to try and characterise theire actions as anything but evil.

These characters were not akin to Lennie in Of Mice and Men (as in they were not simpletons not capable of understanding their actions). If they were, this whole discussion is meaningless.