would this be evil?

[ConcreteBuddha]

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). ...the thief was stealing for her own gain. ...in her history- yes she loves to steal. She was in jail tho-

Absolutist's answer: Stealing is always evil.

Relativist's answer: Stealing is evil depending on the circumstances. If the thief was stealing from good, honest townsfolk in Bytopia, then he'd be Evil. If the thief was stealing from the drow in Menzoberranzan, it would be good.

So you kidnap the politician's daughter and hold her ransome. ....but the rest of teh group, a cleric, wiz, sorc, ranger and fighter were the ones that kidnapped the girl. We just thought it was the easiest way to get on with the game. Guess not. ...and so the kidnapping was our idea- actually it was the ranger's idea. but we all had a hand in planning it.

Absolutist's answer: Kidnapping is always evil.

Relativist's answer: Kidnapping is only evil depending on the circumstances. If they kidnapped a Good princess gnomette from Bytopia, it would be an evil act. If they kidnapped a CE drow priestess of Lloth to free their Holy Liberator buddy, it would be a good act.

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.

Absolutist's answer: Manslaughter is always evil.

Relativist's answer: Manslaughter is only evil depending on the circumstances. If the PCs slew the princess from Bytopia with a cruel blow to the base of the skull, it'd be evil. If the PCs accidently killed the CE drow priestess of Lloth because she was attempting to escape and warn the rest of Menzoberranzan, then it would be good.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(I've been in way too many L/C alignment threads.)

 

[tburdett]

I think this post pretty much tell my view on this. I'll leave this one now.

Hey Bonedagger, how about I come over to your house and 'retain' one of your children? It's not evil, right?

I'll bind and gag your child and then stand over him or her with a sword or some other large, heavy metal object. Maybe an axe.

If your child happens to get free, or makes too much noise, I'll crush its skull.

How can you read this and not feel the vile evilness of this act?

Place yourself in the position of the child. Are you so completely inhuman that you fail to see the level of terror and emotional damage that this would inflict?

 

[Darkness]

Hey Bonedagger, how about I come over to your house and 'retain' one of your children? It's not evil, right?

You don't have a motivation.
You don't have a reason.

And then you go and try to use this to "prove" a point?

You'd better try again...

 

[David Argall]

maybe evil

You could be right that the PCs are maybe not too evil. We send this to some ivory tower philosphy department to consider, after the trial, conviction, and execution of these !@#$. [Of course as PCs, there likely will be this chance to atone/suicide mission, but same difference.]

 

[Al]

You don't have a motivation.
You don't have a reason.

And then you go and try to use this to "prove" a point?

You'd better try again...

Absolutely. Motivation is more important to alignment, IMO, than action.

For example, if the PCs kill the wizard, thinking that he is a vile necromancer plotting to take over the world, then isn't evil.
If they murder the wizard to nick his equipment, that is.

At the end of the day, the wizard is still dead by the PCs' hands.

So the crux is motivation.

If, in this case, the motivation was that they needed to break out the thief in order to complete a mission of utmost importance, then it was not evil (albeit foolish to use the method they chose). If they just wanted to break their buddy out of jail, it is. Note that, IMO, since we do not have the full details, I'm inclined to think the latter- but I still cannot pronounce an absolute judgement.

Their actions being evil is in balance of probability, but not beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Darkness]

By the way...

Does it even matter whether it was evil or not?

A girl was kidnapped and has died.

And the local watch certainly isn't interested in moral questions, but rather in bringing the the criminals to justice: It clearly was an unlawful act, which ought to be all they care about, barring extraordinary circumstances).

After all, who will get arrested and punished: The Evil nobleman who, even though he abuses those beneath him in station in various ways, acts according to the law, or the peasant (regardless whether he's Good, Neutral, or Evil) who kills the king's deer so he can feed his family (possibly even because the aforementioned noble is taxing him so heavily that he couldn't get by otherwise)?

Thus, it's probably best to first see whether the campaign continues and whether the PCs can survive before debating the relative lack of merits of their preceding actions.

And Tsyr: I haven't read all posts of this thread, but in those of yours that I read, it seems as though you consider kidnapping inherently evil.
If so, please define what you think "kidnapping" is, so I can see whether or not I agree with you.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Let me see if I get this right:



Relativists, a.k.a. Champions of Chaotic Good:

Bonedagger, Darkness



Absolutists, a.k.a. Champions of Orderly Good:

Tsyr, SHARK, tburdett, Wormwood, La Bete, Mort
.
.
.
.
.
.
And they say that L/C doesn't exist in the real world. Pshaw...

 

[Darkness]

Relativist? Me? You bet - everything depends on the exact circumstances.

I'm not for much CG, though.

See, I don't see any value in (and note the emphasis in what follows) upholding a law's letter for its own sake.

(Important side note: This doesn't influence my work as a moderator in EN World - mess with our rules even in the slightest of ways and I'll make sure that you'll be banned alive, you chaotic evil bastard!!!!!!!111!! )

And neither do I see much value in challenging laws or rules "just because" or because "authority sucks" or "change is good [for its own sake]." (Note: Although change is good, change for its own sake isn't always the best idea. ) After all, order brings stability - and not merely stagnation.

Thus, I'm Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis; I know that laws don't exist for their own sake and shouldn't be interpreted to the letter, but rather the spirit. Further, they are neither unfallible nor perfect nor absolute nor immutable. And if they fail to perform sensibly, they need to be changed in a fashion that enables them to do so.
Also, having at least some laws is vital IMO.

For example (deliberately non-inflammatory):

I'm willing to support (and even fight for, if the need is great) a sensible ruler - preferably a NG or N one, with LG quite possibly being next in my list of preference.
Not sure who I'd feel about CG - but then, these people seldom are rulers anyway, so...
A LN ruler wouldn't be very high on my list but if the people who actually created the laws are/were mostly NG, it could work, too.
But I certainly wouldn't want a CN or Evil ruler.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

(Important side note: This doesn't influence my work as a moderator in EN World - mess with our rules even in the slightest of ways and I'll make sure that you'll be banned alive, you chaotic evil bastard!!!!!!!111!! )

Actually, I'm a NG INTP. I would never dream of messing with your rules.
.
.
.

Relativist? Me? You bet - everything depends on the exact circumstances.

I'm not for much CG, though.

Strange. I thought the whole point of Chaotic characters is to keep as many options open as possible. Shades of grey is the color scheme. Namely: Chaotic characters believe that rules are entirely situational and open to interpretation. A.K.A. Moral relativist.

See, I don't see any value in (and note the emphasis in what follows) upholding a law's letter for its own sake.

Neither does anyone else. People who are lawful do not generally uphold the letter of the law just because. Generally, they have reasons for doing so or not, just as you have reasons for doing so or not.

The difference is that once a Lawful character decides to uphold the letter of the law, then they will always stubbornly do so indefinitely.

And neither do I see much value in challenging laws or rules "just because" or because "authority sucks" or "change is good [for its own sake]." (Note: Although change is good, change for its own sake isn't always the best idea. ) After all, order brings stability - and not merely stagnation.

A lack of motivation or an insufficient reason does not necessarily make a person one alignment or another.

Thus, I'm Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis; I know that laws don't exist for their own sake and shouldn't be interpreted to the letter, but rather the spirit. Further, they are neither unfallible nor perfect nor absolute nor immutable. And if they fail to perform sensibly, they need to be changed in a fashion that enables them to do so.
Also, having at least some laws is vital IMO.

The reason why I dubbed you as CG is because you would prefer to use the relativist tool than the absolutist tool. Not because you must always be a relativist. Alignment is not a straitjacket. Just because you believe in having "some laws" does not make you Neutral.

Just as a CG character in DnD can believe in having "some laws." Alignment should not be a cardboard cutout. I do not think you are a Ghaele, just a mortal human with a tendency towards randomness, chaos, surprises, change and individualism.


But of course, I could be wrong...

For example (deliberately non-inflammatory):

I'm willing to support (and even fight for, if the need is great) a sensible ruler - preferably a NG or N one, with LG quite possibly being next in my list of preference.
Not sure who I'd feel about CG - but then, these people seldom are rulers anyway, so...
A LN ruler wouldn't be very high on my list but if the people who actually created the laws are/were mostly NG, it could work, too.
But I certainly wouldn't want a CN or Evil ruler.

Whereas a LG absolutist wouldn't need all of the above rationalizations. They would only support a LG ruler. They would put up with a LN or NG ruler and they would actively denounce any others. Always.


And I disagree that CG are seldom leaders. Example: Winston Churchill was CG.

 

[bensei]

Or to stay in D&D:

Bards are often CG, and they often are the group leader in terms of knowledge and influential and social skills.