Roleplaying: kill the evil guy or not?

Remove all ads!

So, the question here is how would one who is good-aligned deal with an NPC encounter where the NPC is evil, but does not attack the character, and it might even offer some help.

Accept his help and kill it? Do not accept his help and kill it? Let it live?

This is a continuation of an argument started in another thread (Poewrful items in the OC). We can take as a specific example the succubus one encounters in the Luskan Tower (in the upper levels, the one imprisoned which is an ally of the archmage and asks for your help).

So, I guess a lawful good can easily kill her (and be in character). But a neutral good?

Arguments have been made that she is a demon, and demons a are inherently evil, and any good oriented char should kill one on sight. But, on the other hand, a drow (which is also evil) is only 'corrupted', and may be let live.

I have sort of a different view. For me, the essence of neutral good is that it does not kill unless absolutely necessary (as killing can be construed as being evil in itself). Now, one can argue that destroying evil is good; but this requires one to make a judgement; and if it is not crystal clear that one do not deserve to live (like, for example, one of the escaped convicts in chap II which boasts about killing children) then the NPC should be let live.

 

Depends. Lawful Good is probably the most likely to kill daemonic or undead beings on sight. However, when it comes to taking justice into your own hands and killing humanoids who have done evil rather than beings evil by nature, Chaotic Good is the most likely alignment.

My Lawful Good characters don't attack anything with a yellow circle (Shadow Hart being the only exception, as the need to save the life of the elf's wife overweighed the need to preserve the Shadow Hart). They try to reason with enemies when possible, but there's a limit to concessions.

For example, they would buy stuff back from the thief rather than attack and kill him, but they won't part with their gold because a couple of robbers will attack and get killed otherwise.

"Your evil ends here" easily applies to militant orcs, goblins and other such, including humanoid bandits who don't ask for mercy and promise to change their ways. However, this doesn't extend to raiding the temple of an evil god in a peaceful city.

In short, no one gets killed for being evil. No one gets killed for having done things. Enemies generally have to attack first unless they've already been launching attacks. Mercy is given when asked.

In NWN, my biggest problem has been the white dragon Tymofarrar. It's obvious that he has eaten humanoids, stolen artifacts and ordered the use of poison on the current holder and also betrayed his ally in the crime. On the other hand, when he says he's going to kill you, you have the option to make him promise to stay within the mountains with his kobolds, as well as the opportunity to buy the stolen artifact back and Deekin's freedom peacefully. I'm opposed to killing creatures on principle unless it's deamons or the undead, but I'm also not in favour of exposing humanoids to risk of death. Still, it looks like he's only eaten those humanoids who attacked him and, obviously, eating them is not an evil act for him any more than the killing already is. Well... tough nut to crack.

 

The fate of Tymofarrar is actually a very hard one to decide... i usually tend to sit and think about it for a while before getting to action.

As a Lawful Good, i ended up killing him. Although it was a tough decision.
My Neutral Good didn't kill him, i ended up having the blame on J'Nah instead. As solving things without bloodshed is preferred. Afterall... i still managed to free deekin, get the artifact and making him stay in his rock. Since i managed to get things "good" i saw no need in killing him... His betrayal was out of question, since it was against whom i saw as the evil one. And the humanoids... well they had it comming.
My Chaotic Good... well i'd kill him, since he was behind the whole kobold attack.

Lawful Evil... abuse his knowledge. Get him what he wants. Kill him.
Neutral Evil... kill him, just becouse. He might have riches, and i gotta put that trinket in to use anyway...
Chaotic Evil. Well, only had one chaotic evil character, as i don't like the whole perspective of them. But of course, he killed the dragon as well.

As my goody two-shoes actually had to concider it, my evil's didn't and well as for the neutral, well i haven't played neutral in SoU yet, but i guess it would be something in the line of seeing who offers the most.
As i like to keep my neutrals either mercenery-style or as thieves... But as i see it, there's not much general thievery involved in NWN.
(Except for killing them on the streets at times.
Thing is, they don't tend to taunt me with threats, nor sneak up on me... noo they charge ahed with warcries expecting me to stand there like a doll instead of:
A: Chopping them to bits.
B: Running away.
C: Calling the authorities (which, i guess, involves a little bit of running).)

EDIT: Typo, grammar etc...

[ July 18, 2005, 01:22: Message edited by: erikhk ]

 

Hum... That is an interesting topic. Some characters can et obsessed with getting rid of evil and become evil in the process.
For instance (off topic) take Keldorn in BG2 he is a good natured man, the archetype of the paladin but he is also a bigoted self righteous zealot.

I believe the main argument is whether the character believe that someone is evil by nature or through one's deeds. If your character starts detecting evil and waving his holy blade every time it goes "ping" then there is a problem (a miserly shopkeeper can be NE and a perfidious knight can be CE they certainly don't represent the same threats to society).

A really good character would be merciful without being naive which would be tricky at times. Morality is a hard thing to live by even in a game...

On the other hand a truly evil character could really enjoy the predicaments he could set for a LG pally. Especially using his oath against himself. This wouldn't work so well with a more flexible NG or a CG.

IMO a LG character would be more severe, less inclined to compromise, but he/she should never turn into a ruthless psychotic killer. There is a thin line that shouldn't be crossed by these characters without the most dire consequences.

 

Well, with Tymofarrar, if I remember correctly, I did not have a choice. I was going to let him live, but he did not want to live up to his part of the deal and attacked me.

I don't know, I thought a lawful good is sort of obliged to kill evil on sight. The code you describe, Chevalier, seems to me more suited to neutral good. For me, the embodiment of lawful good is lord Nasher in Neverwinter. Killed poor Fentick just to sort of make sure the law has its scapegoat and appease the masses. I was strongly tempted to drop a fireball on him next time I saw him (in chap IV) . It's too bad the game does not allow you to express your opinions of the stupid leadership of Neverwinter.

How about Meldanen? Do you kill him after he surrenders or let him live?

 

If he's doing it just to find a scapegoat, that sounds more like Lawful Evil to me. Complete disregard for human life other than his own, combined with adherence to the letter of the law.

 

@khaavern: The kind of approach you describe (Lord Nasher) doesn't look particularly Good or even Lawful if we are picky. It would even be evil, were it not for the fact that Fenthick actually did quite a lot with Desther and his ignorance was somewhat willing. The Lawful Good kind of behaviour was what Aribeth displayed, not wanting to have anything to do with the blood of an innocent. Lord Nasher himself is Lawful Neutral and I suppose that's fitting. As for Meldanen, I let him live. Tymofarrar attacks you but you have the dialogue options to persuade or intimidate him.

 

A LG character wouldn't have killed Fentick just to please the mob. It annoyed me that the poor bastard got killed (perhaps this incident was one of the highlights of the OC) since I found it was undeserved... He helped Dester because he believed he could redeem him, not because he wanted to be part of his scheme.
I believe that a LG character is the most suited to go through the OC (how could you justify an Evil character... I tried and it all sounded rather silly)

@Khaavern: killing evil on sight is not what I would call "good"... It is always possible to discriminate between a pit fiend and a common thief, but somebody who would kill a gobelin (or a drow) just because it is (or is supposed to be) evil wouldn't be Good either.

 

Fiends are relatively easy at first glance but still pretty tough if you look into it. Maybe you aren't supposed to get out of your skin to redeem a glabrezu, but let's say you're on a spying mission in the camp of a fiendish army or an abyssal "city" or whatever such. You don't think twice about getting rid of obstacles but you still don't really go out at night to assassinate one or two... out of a thousand. You're more likely to search for a solution instead. On the other hand, cleaving through the ranks of non-evil opponents (typical war between mortal kingdoms), you aren't really supposed to hold each single opponent at sword edge and talk him into surrendering.