would this be evil?

Darkness: I'm quite happy with the dictionary definition of kidnap, actualy. And it seems to fit here too:


Taken from Merriam-Webster OnLine:

Main Entry: kid·nap
Pronunciation: 'kid-"nap
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -napped or kid·naped /-"napt/; -nap·ping or -nap·ing
Etymology: probably back-formation from kidnapper, from kid + obsolete napper thief
Date: 1682
: to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud and often with a demand for ransom

I consider kidnapping one of the three Major Crimes a person can commit against another human being: Murder, Rape, and Kidnapping.

I do not think kidnapping can ever be "non-evil". I think that it can, under extreme circumstances, be justified, but it's always an evil act. And when I say extreme, I do mean extreme. This situation was nowhere near extreme enough to justify it. It wasn't even in the same country as extreme enough.

Now see, I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that good people can commit evil acts. It's one of the things that makes situations like war and violence so mentaly... well... flavorfull, in a game anyways, and so terrible IRL. And I do agree that an evil act can be justified with a greater good. But to me, the act itself is still evil.

And to me it's telling that, at every chance they had to do the right thing, this group did the wrong thing. Instead of parley, or offering to post bond, or just leaving, or just a good-old-fashioned jail break, they take a hostage. Instead of, when the girl got her gag off, saying to themselves "Oh well, this stupid idea didn't work" and throwing themselves on the mercy the law, they clobbered here. Instead of just holding a hand over her mouth. And instead of just clobbering her, they hit her with a big-arse peice of metal (even ignoring the fact it's a SWORD for a minute, it's still as deadly as a crowbar, even if you don't hit with the sharp side of the blade).

Stupid? Yup. But as I put forth above someplace, I think that in a person's moment of stupidity they reveal alot about themselves. When they don't stop to think things through with all the social norm filters slapped on, they tend to revert to more or less their "essential nature".

As to this:

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

No, neither do I. I think, however, that there are some core laws that ethicly and moraly always apply, however, regardless of the situation. Breaking into someones home to take stuff for no reason other than your own gain is generaly a no-no, for example. It's just common decency. Turn the tables and ask if you would want people breaking into YOUR home and taking stuff? No? Then you might wanna think twice before you do it. Same with kidnapping, rape, murder, etc. I don't think anyone, even an adventurer, even with that damnedable "PC" tattoo on their forhead, should be allowed to break these and run around killing, raping, kidnapping, and robbing people with total impunity. When the PC is forced in that direction by outside circumstances, it should be a well-thought out act on the PCs part, and if they aren't evil, it should be the absolute last thing that they could possibly try to accomplish a greater good, when all other options have been tried and failed.

Now, you might get the idea that my games must be pretty angst-filled or something. They aren't. My players are just as capeable of being bloodthirsty as any other players, and so am I for that matter. They can enjoy slaughtering a hoard of orcs in the same way any other group can. But when they DO slaughter a hoard of orcs, you can be sure they have more justification than "they are orcs!", such as the orcs being a group of raiders that have been raiding a town and carrying off young girls or something. And you can be sure that someone, some where, has tried other options before adventurers were called in.

And given the nature of orcs (And, for that matter, a number of other demi human races) there are rarely NOT places the adventurers can find work. And when things seem peaceful? Well that's when the really fun stuff starts. Mystery, deception, exploring, etc.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thing is, Tsyr, I think you're kind of influenced by the whole modern America view of kidnapping as a VERY BAD THING with kidnappers being SCUM OF THE EARTH. (And yes this is generally the case...) The problem this wasn't always the case--in most versions of the Robin Hood legends, Robin essentially kidnaps people, and holds them hostage for ransom. And yet Robin is always the hero...
 

No everyone would agree that Robin Hood was a hero. I've always considered him to be, essentially, a Robbing Hoodlum.

Some people will always believe that the ends justify the means, and others will always disagree. Some people live in the middle, and have no firm beliefs. They exist from moment to moment without the benefit of a moral compass. I see these players as a group of individuals who clearly lack a moral compass.

No inherently good person would have undertaken the actions outlined above.

Could you ever see yourself kidnapping a child, for any reason?

Regardless of whether or not I planned to harm the child, I am unable to think of a situation that would overcome my basic belief that kidnapping is wrong.

Additionally, any crime perpetrated against a child deserves the harshest penalty possible.

I would hope that the nobleman in this case would spare no expense in hunting the PC's down and having them dragged back to the city for trial and execution.

As the DM I would NOT balance the encounter in any way. These individuals would be tracked by the best rangers and casters available. Tracked, apprehended, tried and then executed.

The death sentence would be carried out immediately and the PC's would be given the same chance to escape that the child had, NONE.

The executioner would bludgeon each PC to death. He would then have his assistants ram a spike through the posterior of each PC and place those spikes near the main entryway into the city. They would remain there, with a sign detailing their crimes, until their stench became unbearable.

They would then be taken beyond the confines of the city and left for scavengers to feed upon. Their corpses would be spelled to prevent raising, resurrection, reincarnation, or undeath.

During the time that the PC's were rotting on the spikes I would have the players roll up new characters. I would have these new characters start in the same city where the previous PC's were executed. The first thing they would notice as they entered the city would be the corpses of their previous characters.
 

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

Arcane Runes Press said:
It's an EVIL ACT.
Yeah, well you take philosophy 101 enough times and they've got you believing all sorts of crazy stuff. Next thing you know you're in Denmark with black nikes making giant batches of pudding and waiting for Anne Hech to bring the spaceship back from Otto's 4th Dimensional Intergalactic Flux Capacitor Lube & Tune.

On a related note, I think I'll get a pet skunk and name her Daisy.
 

This thread has entered my

{Deleted for the sake of Eric's Grandma} hall of fame.


On the plus side:

Congratulations Tysr.

You were on this thread from almost the beginning, and you managed to stay polite, reasoned and well spoken throughout a *ahem* dubious and touchy thread.

So,

[golf claps]

you're going into the manuscript for the Summerlands, Arcane Rune Press' big old hardcover [coming next year :)] game of victorian/renaissance dreams and fairytales.

The question is:

Would you rather be a knight or a philosopher/magician?

[end golf claps]

Patrick Y.
 

Once, in Robotech game, when our party of veritech or valkyrie pilots got some time off from fighting in the jungles south america commando style (stupid dave), we got to fly around. In the process of infiltrating an enemy installation, in mecha this time, I managed to capture a guy who I thought might have information. One of the other players wanted to kill him to "send a message" or something vague and unreasonable. Instead of going the dark comedy rought we decided to stick with our action/comedy. My character politely informed Francis Liber that this would be unwise as life was short enough and I had him relatively outgunned. He of course escalated the conflict by indicating his armored valkyrie with it's 64 odd missles was good to go. Now in meta, I always thought the name Liber sounded a little fruity. And well a first name like Francis...on the weekends he had an interior design business that speciallized in track lighting, and flamboyant color schemes IYKWIMAITTYD. Also I had decent odds, his not so decent. But poor Francis always felt lucky. Usually just before the trigger was pulled on a .357. He was *that* kind of punk. But when the cool dave said, not to worry he and his even bigger guns had my back, Francis chilled. Our party, for all of our last half hour of SNL comedy, never went that far off into Tyler Durden land. We took a firm stand against sevear psychotic episodes. At least that time.
 

He was the one who made them look stupid after all.
I nominate this statement as the stupidest comment in the thread! I saved this all the way to the very end because I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw it. I find it counterproductive to argue with people who make statements like this.
For all we know she to could be a growen women and not so innocent.
And I nominate this as runner-up for the stupidest comment!

My apologies to the community and the mods, but when I start popping out my eyes and shaking my head, I gotta say what I think! :rolleyes:
 

bloodymage said:
I nominate this statement as the stupidest comment in the thread! I saved this all the way to the very end because I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw it. I find it counterproductive to argue with people who make statements like this.
And I nominate this as runner-up for the stupidest comment!

My apologies to the community and the mods, but when I start popping out my eyes and shaking my head, I gotta say what I think! :rolleyes:


You know Bloodymage. Even if it is just a game it's always nice to see somebody with the capacity to get emotionally involved. I think you are overdoing it however.
 
Last edited:

Wow. I managed to say something that both sides of the argument took offense at... Interesting...
Tsyr: I admit, I did overgeneralize with what I said, but the meaning is pretty much the same. I was going with something that I thought most DMs/players would understand.
TBurdett: The events you describe would class the politician (note: not nobleman or mayor or any other title, just politician) as a definite evil person, the type of guy that adventurers go after. They kidnapped and killed one person, enough to get them locked up for a good long time, or even hung, but not enough to engender the sequence of events you describe. That goes beyond the realm of just punishment and into the realm of petty revenge and hate. Of course, it would allow for an interesting plot to develope...
I still maintain that while the death itself isn't necissarily evil (as per my Orc point), the kidnapping that set the situation up was definitely Evil, and the reasons unlawful. I'm as much a moral relativist as the next guy, but I just can't see any way to twist the facts (unless the daughter was, indeed, an evil sorceress aiding her diabolical father in ruling the area with an iron fist, or some other such nonesense, which, I may add, hasn't been noted by the original poster) into making the kidnapping a good act or even make the reasons neutral.
 

No everyone would agree that Robin Hood was a hero. I've always considered him to be, essentially, a Robbing Hoodlum.

Pedantic note: Robin Hood was, originally, more than a guy who effected a wealth transfer from rich to poor. He was once Sir Robin of Lockesley, IIRC, and was dispossessed by the evil King John. His unlawful antics were supposed to be protecting the commonfolk from the lawful but evil behavior of the powerful.
 

Remove ads

Top