Bag of holding Assassination technique [Archive] - Wizards Community

Bag of holding Assassination technique [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Angatyr
03-26-07, 08:12 PM My players screwed up a machiavellian plan and word got out. Since then assassins have been after them.
They struck a deal with the assassins to do a contract for them and pay money to buy out the contract on them.
The contract they took was 10 targets in 5 days. Many of them were pretty easy targets like prostitutes, but for a few of the other targets they devised an annoyingly efficient method. There are two casters in the party, and they both cast sleep/charm on the target to limit their chances of successful save, then stuff/urge them into a bag of holding.
No mess, no evidence.
Really annoying.
Part of the issue is that sleep says that the target is helpless, but only "slapping" or "wounding" awakes them (not "attacking" or "touching").

Thoughts on the method and ways to counter it.
ClementWillowbreaker
03-26-07, 08:20 PM Do the people they kill actually fit into a Bag of Holding? As in through the diameter of the opening? That is one place to start. If they have to take a hacksaw to their victim to dispose of them (like honest assassins), Sleep ain't going to hold.

Second- no amount of Cha checks are going to get a person (even Charmed) to climb into a Bag of Holding. Would you hop into a chest and let your friend lock you in? I didn't think so.
Angatyr
03-26-07, 08:36 PM It is unclear on the size of the opening, but considering you can put Plate Armour in there, you should be able to put a guy in. Maybe not a half-orc.

As for charm, it uses an example of telling a guy to hold back a red dragon. Clearly fatal, but not needlessly. Additionally, the target does not know it is a bag of holding. you can just say "Hey, want to see if you can fit in this bag, it'll be loads of fun!"
feartheinvinceblehamster
03-26-07, 08:38 PM They. Are. Killing. Prostitutes.

Let them have their fun.
Kouk
03-26-07, 08:43 PM Well the bag opens up like 2 feet.

You could have one be immensely fat, and he wouldn't fit in the opening.

Some simple guards would probably work also, surely a few of their marks know they are being targeted.

Make a target higher than 4 HD, sleep won't work. Roll a save anyway, so they don't know if the guy just got his save or not :devil: You could always just lie and say he succeeded on his save anyway.

If you want them to get caught, there is always divination magic.

By the way, what do they do with the bodies after the victims suffocate?
Angatyr
03-26-07, 08:45 PM The list of targets was :
street prostitute
blacksmith
printer
racketeer
bouncer
merchant
noble
2x palace maids
palace courtier

They bagged the printer, noble and bouncer.
They arsoned the merchant's grain warehouse (grain dust = BOOM).
The blacksmith plan failed and they just butchered him.
The half-orc barbarian choked the prostitute mid-throes.
They haven't done the others yet.
Angatyr
03-26-07, 08:52 PM "what do they do with the bodies"

One they took into the woods, chopped up and left for the animals.
They other two they put in one of the target's homes and set it on fire.
Kouk
03-26-07, 08:58 PM "what do they do with the bodies"

One they took into the woods, chopped up and left for the animals.
They other two they put in one of the target's homes and set it on fire.

Where are the heroes when you need them eh?
Angatyr
03-26-07, 09:04 PM The party is two chaotic neutrals and two lawful neutrals (who only agreed to do this because it was to save their lives).

So yes, they do pretty much whatever they feel like, rather freeing. Also sucks as a DM, because they can work for/against anyone. No "good" guys and "bad" guys in this campaign.
Alcalientre
03-26-07, 10:01 PM You can't be neutral, act evil all the time, and stay neutral. If they're chopping people up for the animals with any frequency, I'd start hinting at an imminent forced alignment change. Maybe they help old ladies across the street in their spare time, to make up for it.

Anyway, if this strategy is ******* you off, just make the targets succeed on the saves.
Angatyr
03-26-07, 10:06 PM As stated, they are doing this to save their own lives (which isn't evil). If they chose to do it, then it is an evilish action.

There is also a school of thought about assassination that if someone has a contract on them, then they must have done something to bring the assassin's attention.
Mystic Theurge
03-26-07, 10:20 PM As stated, they are doing this to save their own lives (which isn't evil). If they chose to do it, then it is an evilish action.

There is also a school of thought about assassination that if someone has a contract on them, then they must have done something to bring the assassin's attention.
Um, not really. Self preservation by any means necessary, including murder in the first, is certainly an evil act. Self preservation without harming anyone else is ok.
Angatyr
03-26-07, 10:28 PM Considering that it is good for a paladin or NG/CG vigilante to kill the bad guys, it isn't inherently evil in DnD to kill.
Killing people as the only way to survive sounds pretty neutral (think about a soldier who kills because he is told to, is he evil, even if he doesn't like it?), especially considering the lawful characters aren't happy about it (as it is illegal).
Neutral isn't just about balance.
It is also apathy towards the ideals of good and evil.
If you don't care if you do good or evil, but try to do what is best for you, without enjoying evil acts, then there is no alignment shift to evil.

EDIT: also, in the real world, self defence and defence of others is an accepted justification for killing someone.
Mystic Theurge
03-26-07, 10:45 PM Considering that it is good for a paladin or NG/CG vigilante to kill the bad guys, it isn't inherently evil in DnD to kill.
Killing people as the only way to survive sounds pretty neutral (think about a soldier who kills because he is told to, is he evil, even if he doesn't like it?), especially considering the lawful characters aren't happy about it (as it is illegal).
Neutral isn't just about balance.
It is also apathy towards the ideals of good and evil.
If you don't care if you do good or evil, but try to do what is best for you, without enjoying evil acts, then there is no alignment shift to evil.

EDIT: also, in the real world, self defence and defence of others is an accepted justification for killing someone.
A paladin does not kill without mercy and would certainly NOT participate in some assassination plot to preserve his ir her own life, so there is a fundamental problem with this. I agree with an earlier poster. What the party is doing can easily be considered evil. They don't seem to be looking for other ways to survive but are eagerly looking for the best way to kill... No mess and all that. I emboldened a part in the quote above and I ask that if the acts aren't evil for the sake of self preservation, why aren't they enjoying it? Why would you call them evil acts if they aren't evil acts? In fact, what I have read so far fits very much into the definition of evil acts. The party is killing common folk simply so that they can survive. I haven't heard anything about avoiding killing anyone or trying to find a way to avoid having to kill anyone. What I have read is that the party is coming up with creative ways to "butcher" a blacksmith.

You mentioned a paladin earlier, and I would again have to say that a paladin would NEVER EVER agree to any sort of murder for hire scheme to preserve his own life. In fact, he would likely do the oposite; inform the authorities of the goings on at the expense of his own life in order to preserve the lives of others.
Kouk
03-26-07, 10:59 PM Well, I would agree that the actions certainly lean heavily towards evil. I was surprised you said they were all neutral, they seem to be taking pleasure in murdering people (you said the barbarian strangled a prostitute while she was "with" him?).

Paying off the contract is good/neutral. Deciding to kill all the assassins that are after you is good/neutral.

MAYBE killing a couple of guys to save your own skin is neutral.

Killing them in creative ways for amusement, destroying property (and endangering nearby buildings) and butchering dead bodies in the forest certainly seems like their neutrality is shifting to evil, but alignment wasn't the point of this post ;)
Max Octavious Xavier
03-26-07, 11:07 PM The list of targets was :
street prostitute
blacksmith
printer
racketeer
bouncer
merchant
noble
2x palace maids
palace courtier

They bagged the printer, noble and bouncer.
They arsoned the merchant's grain warehouse (grain dust = BOOM).
The blacksmith plan failed and they just butchered him.
The half-orc barbarian choked the prostitute mid-throes.
They haven't done the others yet

Considering that it is good for a paladin or NG/CG vigilante to kill the bad guys, it isn't inherently evil in DnD to kill.
Killing people as the only way to survive sounds pretty neutral (think about a soldier who kills because he is told to, is he evil, even if he doesn't like it?), especially considering the lawful characters aren't happy about it (as it is illegal).
Neutral isn't just about balance.
It is also apathy towards the ideals of good and evil.
If you don't care if you do good or evil, but try to do what is best for you, without enjoying evil acts, then there is no alignment shift to evil.

EDIT: also, in the real world, self defence and defence of others is an accepted justification for killing someone.

Killing in a fight is one thing, murder is "the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice". The targets that can fight back effectively might be neutral, but some are clearly murder and murder IMO is evil.
enygmatic_me
03-26-07, 11:46 PM Killing to save ones own life is a selfish, evil action. What your players should be doing is finding a way to turn the tables on the assassins, maybe by working with the local nobility.

Simply put, to take the life of another person who is no threat to you just to save your own life is evil.

Also, your "lawful" characters...if they are citizens of the area...might be risking loss of their "lawful" alignment as well.
Angatyr
03-26-07, 11:50 PM I agree with what you said in regards to a paladin, but take the vigilante, which is listed as an archetype for a Chaotic Good Fighter. Not to mention that a fighter's role is to kill, a vigilante hunts down and kills people for a personal/moral disagreement. they don't just kill in fights, they actively hunt and murder people. That is "good".

There is a big difference in dnd between legal and good.

So killing isn't just not evil, it can be GOOD if the conditions are right. Likewise, killing for neither good nor evil reasons is a neutral act.

Remember, real world morals about killing being bad are not the same as dnd morals where killing isn't universally bad (evil).

So how is neutral characters hunting down and killing people to survive evil? (whether the targets are good or evil doesn't matter to a neutral, because they are not concerned about those ideals)

SPOILER: if you are a player in my campaign don't read on!

The situation was a matter of last resort.
Basically the assassin group had sent 5 weak (for the assassin group) at them, who had been defeated, so it was in their interests to not lose anyone else. So to satisfy them, they set up a meeting, where the contract could be absolved and the contracts of the now deceased assassins would be kept, and with an option for the PCs to be recruited by the group (this would be a separate alignment dilemma).
The leader of the assassin group orchestrated this and made it very much a "do what we say or you all die" scenario.

As for figuring out ways to do it, doing a job well (evil or good, or neutral) doesn't really effect alignment. Wanting to be efficient makes sense with the time limit, and covering tracks and evidence is common sense, as being jailed for murder isn't the best way to fulfill a contract and therefore survive.

"Evil acts" was a very poor choice of words, which made the sentence ambiguous, apologies.
The purpose of that statement was to illustrate that unless a neutral character actively plans and does evil things (killing with a reason is not evil, see above in this post), or enjoys doing evil things (like torturing someone to death) then there is no evil being done.
Angatyr
03-26-07, 11:54 PM Simply put, to take the life of another person who is no threat to you just to save your own life is evil.

According to you, not dnd.
A soldier kills because his boss said so. He isn't even necessarily in mortal danger (a siege weapon operator).
That is fine, so how is self-defence worse?

And again, to have an assassins contract out on you you probably did something that bad enough to warrant it.
Neodymium
03-27-07, 12:02 AM what they really need is a bag of devouring.
Angatyr
03-27-07, 12:11 AM murder is "the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice"
that is why there is a big distinction between the lawful/chaos axis and the good/evil axis.

By that definition, their actions are not murder, because it was not malicious, it was survival and business. Their actions ARE unlawful, hence why the lawful characters were opposed to them, but didn't have a choice.

Also by that definition, an assassin who kills not out of malice, but out of a desire for money is also not a murderer.
RorixBladewing
03-27-07, 12:33 AM Especially would be the operative word of that preposition at the end. Don't you love conditionals?

A vigilante is not someone who goes out and kills the people they have issues with. The Vigilante class from Comp.Adv is basically a peacekeeper. "All vigilantes have one thing in common; a burning desire to solve crimes and catch criminals." Vigilantes are considered good because they are killing would-be criminals. Paladins are good because they are killing evil creatures and people. Your lovely 'neutral soldier' example is neutral because he is killing in war. His enemies have the chance to fight back, and are perfectly aware that the army is trying to kill them.

Your players fall into none of these definitions. They are killing people who, as far as the know, might be innocent. Your 'lawfuls' should be completely against just assuming the targets are guilty or evil. That's not lawful, that's chaotic. Killing many to save the few is not good, and when those few happen to be yourselves, that's not even neutral. One murder to protect themselves; meh, that might still be neutral. But TEN? That seems like neutral or lawful evil to me.

"She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience." Taken directly from the desciption of neutral evil. Comitting ten murders instead of even trying to find an alternative seems pretty convenient. If your guys really felt that they had exhausted every possible option rather than going on a killing spree, this might be acceptable. From the way you put it, it sounds more like"Kill these people, or we kill you." "Ok, who's first?"
Max Octavious Xavier
03-27-07, 01:04 AM that is why there is a big distinction between the lawful/chaos axis and the good/evil axis.

By that definition, their actions are not murder, because it was not malicious, it was survival and business. Their actions ARE unlawful, hence why the lawful characters were opposed to them, but didn't have a choice.

Also by that definition, an assassin who kills not out of malice, but out of a desire for money is also not a murderer.

It's your campaign and you can define blue as green, up as down etc... IMO you are taking a overly narrow definition of "innocent". Just my 2 cents.
Angatyr
03-27-07, 01:11 AM From the way you put it, it sounds more like"Kill these people, or we kill you." "Ok, who's first?"

That is only because it would take too long to describe all the events leading up to the situation. After they killed the most recent assassin, the boss assassin and most of his group showed up and offered the deal with the proviso that if they failed to kill the 10 in 5 days, the party would be killed. The party then had an attitude of how to get this done asap for efficiency, and to be done with the whole messy affair, and the lawfuls complained about it extensively. If they were GOOD characters of any sort, they may have opposed the deal and been killed, but they are neutral, so do not hold any strong views for/against killing beyond personal advantage.

As for the vigilante in Comp. Adv. That isn't exactly what I was talking about. I meant more the description of a CG fighter.
If a person kills because of a persons criminal status, that is more concerned with the victim's law/chaos status.
I would call this attitude LN/LG or even LE as law doesn't have to be the law of the land, it can be own beliefs too, and they are unconcerned over whether the victim was stealing to feed their family, or for personal gain.
If they kill because the victim is a bad person, then they are concerned with the good/evil status, and would kill based on that and so is closer to NG/CG. A chaotic good vigilante does not care about whether the people he kills are criminals, as he himself spurns the law (should he then commit suicide after executing his first target?) he kills them because he believes them to be bad(evil), regardless of the law.

Slight aside: Where do you stand on the following: It was a good thing to execute Saddam Hussein because he was evil. I say yes, but you may/probably do disagree.
Angatyr
03-27-07, 01:17 AM It's your campaign and you can define blue as green
Are you picking on my colour-blindness? (I LOLed)

If the players had jumped at the opportunity to get some kills, or suggested, or reacted with "we will kill whoever you want, as many as you want, just don't hurt us." then I would definitely attribute evil to them.
But they didn't.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Angatyr 03-26-07, 08:12 PM	My players screwed up a machiavellian plan and word got out. Since then assassins have been after them. They struck a deal with the assassins to do a contract for them and pay money to buy out the contract on them. The contract they took was 10 targets in 5 days. Many of them were pretty easy targets like prostitutes, but for a few of the other targets they devised an annoyingly efficient method. There are two casters in the party, and they both cast sleep/charm on the target to limit their chances of successful save, then stuff/urge them into a bag of holding. No mess, no evidence. Really annoying. Part of the issue is that sleep says that the target is helpless, but only "slapping" or "wounding" awakes them (not "attacking" or "touching"). Thoughts on the method and ways to counter it.
ClementWillowbreaker 03-26-07, 08:20 PM	Do the people they kill actually fit into a Bag of Holding? As in through the diameter of the opening? That is one place to start. If they have to take a hacksaw to their victim to dispose of them (like honest assassins), Sleep ain't going to hold. Second- no amount of Cha checks are going to get a person (even Charmed) to climb into a Bag of Holding. Would you hop into a chest and let your friend lock you in? I didn't think so.
Angatyr 03-26-07, 08:36 PM	It is unclear on the size of the opening, but considering you can put Plate Armour in there, you should be able to put a guy in. Maybe not a half-orc. As for charm, it uses an example of telling a guy to hold back a red dragon. Clearly fatal, but not needlessly. Additionally, the target does not know it is a bag of holding. you can just say "Hey, want to see if you can fit in this bag, it'll be loads of fun!"
feartheinvinceblehamster 03-26-07, 08:38 PM	They. Are. Killing. Prostitutes. Let them have their fun.
Kouk 03-26-07, 08:43 PM	Well the bag opens up like 2 feet. You could have one be immensely fat, and he wouldn't fit in the opening. Some simple guards would probably work also, surely a few of their marks know they are being targeted. Make a target higher than 4 HD, sleep won't work. Roll a save anyway, so they don't know if the guy just got his save or not :devil: You could always just lie and say he succeeded on his save anyway. If you want them to get caught, there is always divination magic. By the way, what do they do with the bodies after the victims suffocate?
Angatyr 03-26-07, 08:45 PM	The list of targets was : street prostitute blacksmith printer racketeer bouncer merchant noble 2x palace maids palace courtier They bagged the printer, noble and bouncer. They arsoned the merchant's grain warehouse (grain dust = BOOM). The blacksmith plan failed and they just butchered him. The half-orc barbarian choked the prostitute mid-throes. They haven't done the others yet.
Angatyr 03-26-07, 08:52 PM	"what do they do with the bodies" One they took into the woods, chopped up and left for the animals. They other two they put in one of the target's homes and set it on fire.
Kouk 03-26-07, 08:58 PM	"what do they do with the bodies" One they took into the woods, chopped up and left for the animals. They other two they put in one of the target's homes and set it on fire. Where are the heroes when you need them eh?
Angatyr 03-26-07, 09:04 PM	The party is two chaotic neutrals and two lawful neutrals (who only agreed to do this because it was to save their lives). So yes, they do pretty much whatever they feel like, rather freeing. Also sucks as a DM, because they can work for/against anyone. No "good" guys and "bad" guys in this campaign.
Alcalientre 03-26-07, 10:01 PM	You can't be neutral, act evil all the time, and stay neutral. If they're chopping people up for the animals with any frequency, I'd start hinting at an imminent forced alignment change. Maybe they help old ladies across the street in their spare time, to make up for it. Anyway, if this strategy is ******* you off, just make the targets succeed on the saves.
Angatyr 03-26-07, 10:06 PM	As stated, they are doing this to save their own lives (which isn't evil). If they chose to do it, then it is an evilish action. There is also a school of thought about assassination that if someone has a contract on them, then they must have done something to bring the assassin's attention.
Mystic Theurge 03-26-07, 10:20 PM	As stated, they are doing this to save their own lives (which isn't evil). If they chose to do it, then it is an evilish action. There is also a school of thought about assassination that if someone has a contract on them, then they must have done something to bring the assassin's attention. Um, not really. Self preservation by any means necessary, including murder in the first, is certainly an evil act. Self preservation without harming anyone else is ok.
Angatyr 03-26-07, 10:28 PM	Considering that it is good for a paladin or NG/CG vigilante to kill the bad guys, it isn't inherently evil in DnD to kill. Killing people as the only way to survive sounds pretty neutral (think about a soldier who kills because he is told to, is he evil, even if he doesn't like it?), especially considering the lawful characters aren't happy about it (as it is illegal). Neutral isn't just about balance. It is also apathy towards the ideals of good and evil. If you don't care if you do good or evil, but try to do what is best for you, without enjoying evil acts, then there is no alignment shift to evil. EDIT: also, in the real world, self defence and defence of others is an accepted justification for killing someone.
Mystic Theurge 03-26-07, 10:45 PM	Considering that it is good for a paladin or NG/CG vigilante to kill the bad guys, it isn't inherently evil in DnD to kill. Killing people as the only way to survive sounds pretty neutral (think about a soldier who kills because he is told to, is he evil, even if he doesn't like it?), especially considering the lawful characters aren't happy about it (as it is illegal). Neutral isn't just about balance. It is also apathy towards the ideals of good and evil. If you don't care if you do good or evil, but try to do what is best for you, without enjoying evil acts, then there is no alignment shift to evil. EDIT: also, in the real world, self defence and defence of others is an accepted justification for killing someone. A paladin does not kill without mercy and would certainly NOT participate in some assassination plot to preserve his ir her own life, so there is a fundamental problem with this. I agree with an earlier poster. What the party is doing can easily be considered evil. They don't seem to be looking for other ways to survive but are eagerly looking for the best way to kill... No mess and all that. I emboldened a part in the quote above and I ask that if the acts aren't evil for the sake of self preservation, why aren't they enjoying it? Why would you call them evil acts if they aren't evil acts? In fact, what I have read so far fits very much into the definition of evil acts. The party is killing common folk simply so that they can survive. I haven't heard anything about avoiding killing anyone or trying to find a way to avoid having to kill anyone. What I have read is that the party is coming up with creative ways to "butcher" a blacksmith. You mentioned a paladin earlier, and I would again have to say that a paladin would NEVER EVER agree to any sort of murder for hire scheme to preserve his own life. In fact, he would likely do the oposite; inform the authorities of the goings on at the expense of his own life in order to preserve the lives of others.
Kouk 03-26-07, 10:59 PM	Well, I would agree that the actions certainly lean heavily towards evil. I was surprised you said they were all neutral, they seem to be taking pleasure in murdering people (you said the barbarian strangled a prostitute while she was "with" him?). Paying off the contract is good/neutral. Deciding to kill all the assassins that are after you is good/neutral. MAYBE killing a couple of guys to save your own skin is neutral. Killing them in creative ways for amusement, destroying property (and endangering nearby buildings) and butchering dead bodies in the forest certainly seems like their neutrality is shifting to evil, but alignment wasn't the point of this post ;)
Max Octavious Xavier 03-26-07, 11:07 PM	The list of targets was : street prostitute blacksmith printer racketeer bouncer merchant noble 2x palace maids palace courtier They bagged the printer, noble and bouncer. They arsoned the merchant's grain warehouse (grain dust = BOOM). The blacksmith plan failed and they just butchered him. The half-orc barbarian choked the prostitute mid-throes. They haven't done the others yet Considering that it is good for a paladin or NG/CG vigilante to kill the bad guys, it isn't inherently evil in DnD to kill. Killing people as the only way to survive sounds pretty neutral (think about a soldier who kills because he is told to, is he evil, even if he doesn't like it?), especially considering the lawful characters aren't happy about it (as it is illegal). Neutral isn't just about balance. It is also apathy towards the ideals of good and evil. If you don't care if you do good or evil, but try to do what is best for you, without enjoying evil acts, then there is no alignment shift to evil. EDIT: also, in the real world, self defence and defence of others is an accepted justification for killing someone. Killing in a fight is one thing, murder is "the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice". The targets that can fight back effectively might be neutral, but some are clearly murder and murder IMO is evil.
enygmatic_me 03-26-07, 11:46 PM	Killing to save ones own life is a selfish, evil action. What your players should be doing is finding a way to turn the tables on the assassins, maybe by working with the local nobility. Simply put, to take the life of another person who is no threat to you just to save your own life is evil. Also, your "lawful" characters...if they are citizens of the area...might be risking loss of their "lawful" alignment as well.
Angatyr 03-26-07, 11:50 PM	I agree with what you said in regards to a paladin, but take the vigilante, which is listed as an archetype for a Chaotic Good Fighter. Not to mention that a fighter's role is to kill, a vigilante hunts down and kills people for a personal/moral disagreement. they don't just kill in fights, they actively hunt and murder people. That is "good". There is a big difference in dnd between legal and good. So killing isn't just not evil, it can be GOOD if the conditions are right. Likewise, killing for neither good nor evil reasons is a neutral act. Remember, real world morals about killing being bad are not the same as dnd morals where killing isn't universally bad (evil). So how is neutral characters hunting down and killing people to survive evil? (whether the targets are good or evil doesn't matter to a neutral, because they are not concerned about those ideals) SPOILER: if you are a player in my campaign don't read on! The situation was a matter of last resort. Basically the assassin group had sent 5 weak (for the assassin group) at them, who had been defeated, so it was in their interests to not lose anyone else. So to satisfy them, they set up a meeting, where the contract could be absolved and the contracts of the now deceased assassins would be kept, and with an option for the PCs to be recruited by the group (this would be a separate alignment dilemma). The leader of the assassin group orchestrated this and made it very much a "do what we say or you all die" scenario. As for figuring out ways to do it, doing a job well (evil or good, or neutral) doesn't really effect alignment. Wanting to be efficient makes sense with the time limit, and covering tracks and evidence is common sense, as being jailed for murder isn't the best way to fulfill a contract and therefore survive. "Evil acts" was a very poor choice of words, which made the sentence ambiguous, apologies. The purpose of that statement was to illustrate that unless a neutral character actively plans and does evil things (killing with a reason is not evil, see above in this post), or enjoys doing evil things (like torturing someone to death) then there is no evil being done.
Angatyr 03-26-07, 11:54 PM	Simply put, to take the life of another person who is no threat to you just to save your own life is evil. According to you, not dnd. A soldier kills because his boss said so. He isn't even necessarily in mortal danger (a siege weapon operator). That is fine, so how is self-defence worse? And again, to have an assassins contract out on you you probably did something that bad enough to warrant it.
Neodymium 03-27-07, 12:02 AM	what they really need is a bag of devouring.
Angatyr 03-27-07, 12:11 AM	murder is "the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice" that is why there is a big distinction between the lawful/chaos axis and the good/evil axis. By that definition, their actions are not murder, because it was not malicious, it was survival and business. Their actions ARE unlawful, hence why the lawful characters were opposed to them, but didn't have a choice. Also by that definition, an assassin who kills not out of malice, but out of a desire for money is also not a murderer.
RorixBladewing 03-27-07, 12:33 AM	Especially would be the operative word of that preposition at the end. Don't you love conditionals? A vigilante is not someone who goes out and kills the people they have issues with. The Vigilante class from Comp.Adv is basically a peacekeeper. "All vigilantes have one thing in common; a burning desire to solve crimes and catch criminals." Vigilantes are considered good because they are killing would-be criminals. Paladins are good because they are killing evil creatures and people. Your lovely 'neutral soldier' example is neutral because he is killing in war. His enemies have the chance to fight back, and are perfectly aware that the army is trying to kill them. Your players fall into none of these definitions. They are killing people who, as far as the know, might be innocent. Your 'lawfuls' should be completely against just assuming the targets are guilty or evil. That's not lawful, that's chaotic. Killing many to save the few is not good, and when those few happen to be yourselves, that's not even neutral. One murder to protect themselves; meh, that might still be neutral. But TEN? That seems like neutral or lawful evil to me. "She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience." Taken directly from the desciption of neutral evil. Comitting ten murders instead of even trying to find an alternative seems pretty convenient. If your guys really felt that they had exhausted every possible option rather than going on a killing spree, this might be acceptable. From the way you put it, it sounds more like"Kill these people, or we kill you." "Ok, who's first?"
Max Octavious Xavier 03-27-07, 01:04 AM	that is why there is a big distinction between the lawful/chaos axis and the good/evil axis. By that definition, their actions are not murder, because it was not malicious, it was survival and business. Their actions ARE unlawful, hence why the lawful characters were opposed to them, but didn't have a choice. Also by that definition, an assassin who kills not out of malice, but out of a desire for money is also not a murderer. It's your campaign and you can define blue as green, up as down etc... IMO you are taking a overly narrow definition of "innocent". Just my 2 cents.
Angatyr 03-27-07, 01:11 AM	From the way you put it, it sounds more like"Kill these people, or we kill you." "Ok, who's first?" That is only because it would take too long to describe all the events leading up to the situation. After they killed the most recent assassin, the boss assassin and most of his group showed up and offered the deal with the proviso that if they failed to kill the 10 in 5 days, the party would be killed. The party then had an attitude of how to get this done asap for efficiency, and to be done with the whole messy affair, and the lawfuls complained about it extensively. If they were GOOD characters of any sort, they may have opposed the deal and been killed, but they are neutral, so do not hold any strong views for/against killing beyond personal advantage. As for the vigilante in Comp. Adv. That isn't exactly what I was talking about. I meant more the description of a CG fighter. If a person kills because of a persons criminal status, that is more concerned with the victim's law/chaos status. I would call this attitude LN/LG or even LE as law doesn't have to be the law of the land, it can be own beliefs too, and they are unconcerned over whether the victim was stealing to feed their family, or for personal gain. If they kill because the victim is a bad person, then they are concerned with the good/evil status, and would kill based on that and so is closer to NG/CG. A chaotic good vigilante does not care about whether the people he kills are criminals, as he himself spurns the law (should he then commit suicide after executing his first target?) he kills them because he believes them to be bad(evil), regardless of the law. Slight aside: Where do you stand on the following: It was a good thing to execute Saddam Hussein because he was evil. I say yes, but you may/probably do disagree.
Angatyr 03-27-07, 01:17 AM	It's your campaign and you can define blue as green Are you picking on my colour-blindness? (I LOLed) If the players had jumped at the opportunity to get some kills, or suggested, or reacted with "we will kill whoever you want, as many as you want, just don't hurt us." then I would definitely attribute evil to them. But they didn't.