Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tallow" data-source="post: 243142" data-attributes="member: 4962">We define evil very differently then.  That's all I can say about that.  I can't argue the point of whether the Fighter was performing an evil act or not when we don't even define evil in remotely the same way.I guess even with your definition, you gotta ask these few questions:1. Did he plan out the act?2. Did he purposely seek to perform a cruelty?3.  Was the instant death really cruel or just homicide?examples:1. Paladin fights evil champion of Hexor.  Paladin drops Evil champion and then performs Coup de Grace on him to keep him from somehow getting away and performing more evil.  Paladin did something good and will not be punished for it.  He still performed a coup de grace on a helpless foe.  Was this an evil act non-the-less?2.  Paladin performs coup de grace on above Mage in a fit of anger.  Paladin performed an act against his lawful good alignment and should be punished for it.  Severity is up to the DM of course.3.  Chaotic Fighter performs a coup de grace on above mage in a fit of anger.  The act is most certainly chaotic, but is it evil?  Perhaps it has an evil tendency.  He did perform a homicide on a whim, and if he continues to be extremely blood thirsty and with homicidal tendencies, then maybe he will eventually become evil.  Furthermore, while an act may be evil in and of itself, it does not make the person performing the act an evil person.  Intent is very much key to whether a person performing a heinous act is evil or not.4.  Samurai performs coup de grace on his buddy who is performing seppeku.  Is this evil?  Well according to Samurai, it is the ultimate honor to stand for your friend who is seeking honorable seppeku.The point being, there are many reasons why one would perform a coup de grace on a helpless foe.  The fighter did not torture the mage.  he did not flay him and dump him in pickle brine.  He did not cut off his toes and fingers first.  He killed him instantly.  Some would say that was mercy, as he killed him quickly.When arguing evil, good and such, we need to stop using our modern sensibilities towards evil and good to define them in the archetypal way they are used in a fantasy setting.  Even up until the times of the Old West in the mid to late 1800's, killing someone was not evil, even if you were doing so illegally.  US Marshals and other "good" gunslingers killed folk for a variety of reasons. Some just, some not.  Some were based on piques of passion rather than for reasons of law.Was the fighter Chaotic in his action?  Very much so.  Was he evil?  I'd say no.  The mage lied to them, could have possibly got them killed.  He stole from them, etc.  In the Wild West, a lynching would not be out of the question.  Shooting him without asking questions would have been matter of course.  Now take us to a medieval setting, and I'd say it would happen that way even moreso.No, the Fighter was NOT evil, and the player did not deserve to be told he had committed an evil act, and one more he'd have to become chaotic evil.   Of course it is up to the DM's interpretation, I just disagree, as a fellow DM, that it was a justified decision in this case.Andy Christian</blockquote>

Verification