Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="La Bete" data-source="post: 453128" data-attributes="member: 6079">eeeeeevil....As always, topics like this get around to the "the ends do not justify the means" vs "the ends don't justify the means, but what if...." argument. which is, unfortunately is a bit of a circular argument...In any case, here's my 2 cp:Disregarding whether the rogues actions in going out stealing was stupid (it was - as a veteran rogue player, these guys are barely a notch above bindlestiffs, IMO), and disregarding whether the mayors daughter was a child (other than a heightened gut-response, it doesn't make a difference), and disregarding the possibility that there was a Greater Good, or QOVI, the partys actions were evil, but the characters might not be.Why?As noted by various posters, kidnapping is evil, as it places an innocent person in danger. It is less evil than, say, ordering the roast baby in a white wine sauce, but it is still a (small 'e')  evil act.Smacking the hostage (with a sword or not) to stop her shouting is also a small 'e' evil act - there were a lot of other options there.So, the acts were evil (on a side note evil isn't the best word for these - perhaps non-good might be better) and despite any justifications, I don't think that there really any wiggle room on this.However I don't believe that this necessarily makes the characters evil. Running through the possibilities:Paladins, and other Lawful Good devout characters: I would hope would never have entertained this plan, however if they went through with it, would lose their paladinhood and/or the favour of their gods -whether or not the hostage was killed.Other good characters would certainly drift towards neutral, and its DM's choice as to whether they change immediately - personally, I'm not a big fan of the 'one-action' alignment change.Neutral characters would have a chalk mark on the "Evil" side of the register - but definitely shouldn't change to evil - yet.Evil Characters. All in a days work, hey?(As for law vs chaos - pretty much ditto)Of course, as far as the town they are in is concerned, they are definitely Capital 'E' Evil, and I imagine there will be a lot of enthusiasm for some hangin' going around. Their reaction may make my next point moot...Where to from here? With all due respect to SHARK, and others, I don't believe that this has to be the end. Personally, the complete ####-up the party has made of the situation, make for some very interesting possibilities - firstly, if they escape this town, they will be fugitives from the law, at least in the general area. They may be forced into the wilderness, amongst other outcasts for some time, and will (or should) be haunted by the fact that their stupidity and evil acts caused the death of an innocent person. The campaign could even possibly build up towards the possibility of redemption......On a last note, the ruling of subdual crit = killing the hostage is.... interesting. It is within the GM's right to rule this, because of  the situation, but I think it is a bit capricious - 20's are normally supposed to lead to desirable results, not the reverse of what the character intended. Doesn't make a difference to the 'e' question - they were still putting her in harms way, and whether or not they intended to kill her, they were responsible for her safety...(long, sorry.)</blockquote>

Verification