What if Tarquin was the villain...

[Kruploy]

...and teenage, human Xykon and his pal Redcloak the new priest of the dark one the heroes?

Assuming no personality changes, would Xykon and the goblin be able to outwit the tyrant or would they be far too weak to beat him and his team?

[Trillium]

:xykon: "Maximized Energy Drain. Maximized Energy Drain. Maximized Energy Drain. Maximized Meteor Swarm."

Tarquin-Shmarquin.

[Porthos]

...and teenage, human Xykon and his pal Redcloak the new priest of the dark one the heroes?

Assuming no personality changes, would Xykon and the goblin be able to outwit the tyrant or would they be far too weak to beat him and his team?


:xykon: "Maximized Energy Drain. Maximized Energy Drain. Maximized Energy Drain. Maximized Meteor Swarm."

Tarquin-Shmarquin.

"teenage, human Xykon" doesn't have Energy Drain yet, never mind the Epic levels to pull off a Maximized one. :smallwink:

[Trillium]

"teenage, human Xykon" doesn't have Energy Drain yet, never mind the Epic levels to pull off a Maximized one. :smallwink:

:elan: "Look! Xykon suddenly gets PLOT amount of XP to make the story really cool!"

:xykon: "Maximized Energy Drain. Maximized Energy Drain. Maximized Energy Drain. Maximized Meteor Swarm."

Tarquin-Shmarquin.

Now it's more consistent.

[Copperdragon]

Xykon would be employed by the empire and be Tarquin's Head Kill People Guy. He'd do that until he had enough Levels and then would attack Tarquin to crown himself.

I doubt he'd team up with Redcloak under that circumstance.

[Rakoa]

:elan: "Look! Xykon suddenly gets PLOT amount of XP to make the story really cool!"

:xykon: "Maximized Energy Drain. Maximized Energy Drain. Maximized Energy Drain. Maximized Meteor Swarm."

Tarquin-Shmarquin.

Now it's more consistent.

I don't see how summing up the story in three lines makes the story any cooler.


Xykon would be employed by the empire and be Tarquin's Head Kill People Guy. He'd do that until he had enough Levels and then would attack Tarquin to crown himself.

I doubt he'd team up with Redcloak under that circumstance.

Tarquin doesn't work with loose cannons. I highly doubt he would consider Xykon as anything but.

[Jay R]

...and teenage, human Xykon ... the heroes?

Assuming no personality changes, ...

Make up your mind. It can't be both.

[Kruploy]

Make up your mind. It can't be both.

When I say heroes I mean heroes for a very loose definition of heroes. They fight against an evil empire and intend to overthrow its figureheads in this scenario. The fact that they most likely intend to create a power vacuum to take advantage of is irrelevant. :smallsmile:

Sure Energy Drain ahoy is a solution but it wouldn't be a very interesting one. We already have OP Xykon in the main comic. It would be nice if he tackled someone stronger than him for once. Then again Tarquin would probably have a negative level repellent ring after all his best buddy drains levels with touch, how else would they high five?

Also, Xykon is prone to solve his problems with excessive violence and Redcloak hates all humans. If they got stuck in one of Tarquin's lawn sooner or later they are going grab his attention.

[Seward]

We've seen what happens when Xykon fights people more powerful than himself.

from Start of Darkness

They toss him in jail and crack bad jokes about him.

He had plenty of that in his early career. By the time Redcloak hooks up with him he's got no minions, no plans and is just beating up low level paladins because he's bored.

[Jay R]

When I say heroes I mean heroes for a very loose definition of heroes.

Don't bother. You want villain-on-villain action, call it villain-on-villain action.

[Mike Havran]

Assuming no personality changes, Redcloak and Tarquin wouldn't have any reason to go against each other.

[Amphiox]

Xykon would be employed by the empire and be Tarquin's Head Kill People Guy. He'd do that until he had enough Levels and then would attack Tarquin to crown himself.

I doubt he'd team up with Redcloak under that circumstance.

Teenage Xykon, as he was shown in SoD, was exactly the kind of screw-up stupid-evil villain-type that Tarquin would not employ as a minion (and get rid of immediately if he was already one).

[Emulgator]

:redcloak: Screw it. Implosion.
Now you can add that Redcloak is like level 5 and then Tarquin wins, so yuo can lower Tarquin's level too, and then Xykon and we don't ven now if the personality is young Xykon, or Xykon from now, so too many variables for some strange version of the story is what I see.

[Trillium]

I don't see how summing up the story in three lines makes the story any cooler.


How is murdering an arrogant self-righteous high-level enemy by reducing him to level one and then incinerating him not cool in itself?

[Jay R]

How is murdering ... not cool in itself?

That's how.

[Trillium]

That's how.

You mean Roy slashing through mooks, Belkar decimating hobgoblins, or, say ANY OTHER BATTLE in the comic - is not cool? :smallconfused:

[Jay R]

You mean Roy slashing through mooks, Belkar decimating hobgoblins, or, say ANY OTHER BATTLE in the comic - is not cool? :smallconfused:

No, it's not murder - a defined legal term. Not all killings are murder.

[Keltest]

No, it's not murder - a defined legal term. Not all killings are murder.

I think its pretty clear that he meant "murder" in the sense of brutally overpowering him in a fight, rather than jumping out of the dark with a knife and bad guy facial hair.

Just because a word has a definition does not mean that we need to use it correctly, or that we cant understand people anyway when they do (don't?).

[Trillium]

No, it's not murder - a defined legal term. Not all killings are murder.

Ah, sorry. English ain't my first language. Such subtleties elude me. So, if I get it right, we can't say that someone murdered his grandmother, until he was legally apprehended as a murderer, because it very well may have been a kindly manslaughter? Oh well.

[Domino Quartz]

Ah, sorry. English ain't my first language. Such subtleties elude me. So, if I get it right, we can't say that someone murdered his grandmother, until he was legally apprehended as a murderer, because it very well may have been a kindly manslaughter? Oh well.

No, that's not it - it means that it's not murder unless certain conditions are met (which I think, though I could be wrong, are things such as it being premeditated and the victim not being in a position to defend themselves). The perpretrator being legally apprehended as a murderer, or not, has no bearing on whether or not it was murder. Getting into a fight with someone and killing them accidentally is not murder by the legal definition. Nor is intentionally killing someone in the heat of battle.

[Trillium]

No, that's not it - it means that it's not murder unless certain conditions are met (which I think, though I could be wrong, are things such as it being premeditated and the victim not being in a position to defend themselves). The perpretrator being legally apprehended as a murderer, or not, has no bearing on whether or not it was murder. Getting into a fight with someone and killing them accidentally is not murder by the legal definition. Nor is intentionally killing someone in the heat of battle.

Nice to hear you have different names for different aspects of voluntarily ending other's life by force. Sure makes those aspects very different.

[Asta Kask]

It's a question of intent and context. For instance, most jurisdictions believe that I have a right to defend myself if I'm attacked. If the only practical way of doing so is killing the assailant... that's not murder. In Sweden it's not even illegal unless the defendant uses "excessive force". In other words, if there are other options involving less force (and it is probable that you're aware of them), you should use them. I'm fairly certain the laws in Arkham Massachussets are similar.

[sengmeng]

Nice to hear you have different names for different aspects of voluntarily ending other's life by force. Sure makes those aspects very different.

He's wrong anyway. Premeditation is necessary for a conviction of first degree murder, and the victim's ability to defend his or her self does not matter. Only lack of intent, self-defense (and sometimes, stopping a felony), being a srate-sanctioned executioner, or being in an armed conflict makes killing another human being not murder. You can also be convicted of "felony murder" if you kill someone accidentally while committing a different felony. That's how it's (supposed to) work in America, anyway.

[Trillium]

He's wrong anyway. Premeditation is necessary for a conviction of first degree murder, and the victim's ability to defend his or her self does not matter. Only lack of intent, self-defense (and sometimes, stopping a felony), being a srate-sanctioned executioner, or being in an armed conflict makes killing another human being not murder. You can also be convicted of "felony murder" if you kill someone accidentally while committing a different felony. That's how it's (supposed to) work in America, anyway.

So I guess I was right. Adventurers ARE murderers. Incidentally, Tsukiko appears to be a lawful executioner :smallbiggrin:

[Jay R]

So I guess I was right. Adventurers ARE murderers. Incidentally, Tsukiko appears to be a lawful executioner :smallbiggrin:

Nope. "Murder" is a legal term, and defined by law. Many killings are legal, many others are accidental, some are manslaughter.

If what the adventurer is doing is legal, then it isn't murder.

[Trillium]

Nope. "Murder" is a legal term, and defined by law. Many killings are legal, many others are accidental, some are manslaughter.

If what the adventurer is doing is legal, then it isn't murder.

I haven't seen any of them having a license to kill, which would have power anywhere they went. Sure, battle of Azure City was properly legal and arguably a battle with Tarquin's army is self-defense, although it can be also formulated as "resisting local authorities", but everything else? Dungeon of Dorukan? Wooden Forest? Girard's pyramid? Noooo. That's all murder or attempts thereof.

[Steven]

I've just been reading the Icewind Dale trilogy (I don't know why they are truly some of the worst written fiction I've had the misfortune to read) and I think it provides some good examples of when adventurers are committing murder and when they are not:
When Wulfgar decides to go kill a dragon who is peacefully sleeping not because it's a threat to anyone but because he wants to be king he is committing murder.
When Wulfgar and Drizzt kill a bunch of giants who have killed a couple of dwarves and are part of a plan to conquer their home they are not committing murder.


Edit to avoid double post:


I haven't seen any of them having a license to kill, which would have power anywhere they went. Sure, battle of Azure City was properly legal and arguably a battle with Tarquin's army is self-defense, although it can be also formulated as "resisting local authorities", but everything else? Dungeon of Dorukan? Wooden Forest? Girard's pyramid? Noooo. That's all murder or attempts thereof.

Not really. They go to the Dungeon of Dorukan to hunt down someone they know is evil to his core and, as we can see from the result of the battle of Azure City probably not someone your average state could bring to justice.

Wooden Forest? I'm assuming you mean the part where they were attacked by bandits? That would be self defense as you'll note that they stopped killing when people stopped trying to kill them.

Girard's pyramid: Huh? What? If you mean V's killing of all those people then... You know what? I'm not going to rehash that here.
If you mean fighting the party of people who came there to try and take over the world/kill them/force a dramatic show down with their son then I don't see how you can think that it's murder.

[Trillium]

I've just been reading the Icewind Dale trilogy (I don't know why they are truly some of the worst written fiction I've had the misfortune to read) and I think it provides some good examples of when adventurers are committing murder and when they are not:
When Wulfgar decides to go kill a dragon who is peacefully sleeping not because it's a threat to anyone but because he wants to be king he is committing murder.
When Wulfgar and Drizzt kill a bunch of giants who have killed a couple of dwarves and are part of a plan to conquer their home they are not committing murder.


Edit to avoid double post:



Not really. They go to the Dungeon of Dorukan to hunt down someone they know is evil to his core and, as we can see from the result of the battle of Azure City probably not someone your average state could bring to justice.

Wooden Forest? I'm assuming you mean the part where they were attacked by bandits? That would be self defense as you'll note that they stopped killing when people stopped trying to kill them.

Girard's pyramid: Huh? What? If you mean V's killing of all those people then... You know what? I'm not going to rehash that here.
If you mean fighting the party of people who came there to try and take over the world/kill them/force a dramatic show down with their son then I don't see how you can think that it's murder.

It's been a long time since I read IWD trilogy (I agree that it's horrible), but in that case everything depends. Did they (Drizzt and Wulfgar) have the permission/orders of the local authorities to deal with criminals/invaders (the giants)? Was there a war declared, allowing civilians kill people? Murder is a legal term, and legality has nothing to do with Good or Evil, and even less with Justice. As such, it may have been right and just, but it was a crime nonetheless.

So, you wanna say that if everyone knows my neighbour has killed his former wife and regularly beats his current one - and most likely will kill her too - I can break in and beat or even kill him? And get away with him being "evil to the core". No sir, I would be a criminal.
"Evil to the core" is no valid crime and if DoD stands in some kingdom, I don't think Roy had king's permission/orders to kill the lich. Also, Roy came there purely out of vendetta. He didn't even know about the Gates then.

Murder is not murder in self-defense, I get it. But breaking in to defend someone else is much different. Remember Roy breaking into bandit camp to save others?
He did what is right, but he had to murder a few people for it.

As for pyramid. First battle with Tarquin was pure self-defense. But a counterattack, especially when they were given an option to retreat - it is attempt at murder. The fate of the world is irrelevant in this case.
Vigilantes who kill are murderers, lynchers are murderers, black ops specialists are murderers, agent 007 is a murderer (except in UK) even if he is saving the world.
Being right and doing what is best does not mean one isn't a criminal or a murderer.

[Steven]

So, you wanna say that if everyone knows my neighbour has killed his former wife and regularly beats his current one - and most likely will kill her too - I can break in and beat or even kill him? And get away with him being "evil to the core". No sir, I would be a criminal.
"Evil to the core" is no valid crime and if DoD stands in some kingdom, I don't think Roy had king's permission/orders to kill the lich. Also, Roy came there purely out of vendetta. He didn't even know about the Gates then.

The 20th century western laws you're quoting are not the laws of OotS.
Evil in OotS is not just an abstract idea. Xykon is literally an undead abomination powered by Evil. I never said anything about the gate at this point and even Roy admited he went there for the wrong reasons.


Murder is not murder in self-defense, I get it. But breaking in to defend someone else is much different. Remember Roy breaking into bandit camp to save others?
He did what is right, but he had to murder a few people for it.

As for pyramid. First battle with Tarquin was pure self-defense. But a counterattack, especially when they were given an option to retreat - it is attempt at murder. The fate of the world is irrelevant in this case.
Vigilantes who kill are murderers, lynchers are murderers, black ops specialists are murderers, agent 007 is a murderer (except in UK) even if he is saving the world.
Being right and doing what is best does not mean one isn't a criminal or a murderer.

Now you're conveniently deciding that the fate of the world is irrelevant. Not giving any actual reasons why it's irrelevant. But okay, lets put that aside for now.
You need to define your terms better because on the one hand you're saying murder is a legal issue, in which case you're applying laws that are more irrelevant to the entire OotS world than the laws of physics are to V, and on the other you appear to be arguing from a moral stand point... Which is it? If you want to make murder a moral issue then we can do that but you'll have to define your terms first.

[Trillium]

The 20th century western laws you're quoting are not the laws of OotS.
Evil in OotS is not just an abstract idea. Xykon is literally an undead abomination powered by Evil. I never said anything about the gate at this point and even Roy admited he went there for the wrong reasons.


Now you're conveniently deciding that the fate of the world is irrelevant. Not giving any actual reasons why it's irrelevant. But okay, lets put that aside for now.
You need to define your terms better because on the one hand you're saying murder is a legal issue, in which case you're applying laws that are more irrelevant to the entire OotS world than the laws of physics are to V, and on the other you appear to be arguing from a moral stand point... Which is it? If you want to make murder a moral issue then we can do that but you'll have to define your terms first.

Sure. And I thought much of OotS teaches that one should not be judged by his alignment. Beginning with Miko, a zealous servant of Law and Good. BTW, right now Durkon is a being of pure Evil, powered by negative energies. Should he be staked right away? I think not.

Saving the world is irrelevant, because reasons for illicit killing are not relevant. A crime for a greater good is a crime still.

Laws change over times and worlds, sure. But "You can't just kill people without local authorities' permission except in self-defense." seems very common.

I abandoned moral standpoint when I was pointed that "murder" is a legal term, rather than a proper word for killing someone willingly in any circumstances. Ironically, it serves my point, since from legal standpoint there may be no "moral justification" (I'm not touching the topic) to murder, meaning every murder is a murder. And without those, most adventurers - including Drizzt, Wulfgar, OotS and countless others - are murderers.

[Steven]

Sure. And I thought much of OotS teaches that one should not be judged by his alignment. Beginning with Miko, a zealous servant of Law and Good. BTW, right now Durkon is a being of pure Evil, powered by negative energies. Should he be staked right away? I think not.

I'll concede that.


Saving the world is irrelevant, because reasons for illicit killing are not relevant. A crime for a greater good is a crime still.

Laws change over times and worlds, sure. But "You can't just kill people without local authorities' permission except in self-defense." seems very common.

And who exactly are the local authorities in the Dungeon of Durkon? You're still trying to make the fantasy world of OotS conform to modern laws. There is no practical way for any state we've so far seen in OotS to enforce laws on someone like Xykon. As far as we know every state could have a permanent 'Kill the evil lich' exemption to any laws around murder.


I abandoned moral standpoint when I was pointed that "murder" is a legal term, rather than a proper word for killing someone willingly in any circumstances. Ironically, it serves my point, since from legal standpoint there may be no "moral justification" (I'm not touching the topic) to murder, meaning every murder is a murder. And without those, most adventurers - including Drizzt, Wulfgar, OotS and countless others - are murderers.

And the person who pointed out that murder is a legal term was as misguided in applying modern real world laws to OotS as you are. It just doesn't work. There are whole areas in OotS, in the Realms and in most fantasy world where there is NO legal authority. If you're going from a purely legal stand point then you can't apply it where there is no law.
Not only that but we have no idea what the legal situation is in the OotS world is. For all we know it is condoned by all good aligned governments for adventurers to kill any evil creature.

Anyway, if we want to continue this we should probably go start another thread or move to PM so as not to derail this thread any more than we already have.

[Trillium]

I'll concede that.

And who exactly are the local authorities in the Dungeon of Durkon? You're still trying to make the fantasy world of OotS conform to modern laws. There is no practical way for any state we've so far seen in OotS to enforce laws on someone like Xykon. As far as we know every state could have a permanent 'Kill the evil lich' exemption to any laws around murder.


And the person who pointed out that murder is a legal term was as misguided in applying modern real world laws to OotS as you are. It just doesn't work. There are whole areas in OotS, in the Realms and in most fantasy world where there is NO legal authority. If you're going from a purely legal stand point then you can't apply it where there is no law.
Not only that but we have no idea what the legal situation is in the OotS world is. For all we know it is condoned by all good aligned governments for adventurers to kill any evil creature.

Anyway, if we want to continue this we should probably go start another thread or move to PM so as not to derail this thread any more than we already have.

Yeah. My bad. In any case, my original point stands. Xykon and Redcloak usurping empire from Tarquin would be murder.

[Steven]

I'd agree with that.

[DeadMG]

He's wrong anyway. Premeditation is necessary for a conviction of first degree murder, and the victim's ability to defend his or her self does not matter. Only lack of intent, self-defense (and sometimes, stopping a felony), being a srate-sanctioned executioner, or being in an armed conflict makes killing another human being not murder. You can also be convicted of "felony murder" if you kill someone accidentally while committing a different felony. That's how it's (supposed to) work in America, anyway.
What, the entire of America? All of it? I thought that Canada had a more English-derived legal system. And I don't know what on earth the various South American nations use, but I think that places like Venezuela might define "murder" as "What our dictator says is murder today".

[Zerter]

In the Dutch legal system murder requires to be proven: intent (including guilt, meaning self-defense, even excessive, clears you of a murder, tho not neccesarily other charges) and premeditation.


Hij die opzettelijk en met voorbedachten rade een ander van het leven berooft, wordt, als schuldig aan moord, gestraft met levenslange gevangenisstraf of tijdelijke van ten hoogste dertig jaren of geldboete van de vijfde categorie.

[Kruploy]

Amusingly enough, the legal situation in the Empire of Blood makes the OotS the criminals and Tarquin, the legal officer. :smallamused:

Tarquin is perfectly justified in literally every act he does because he owns the country while Roy and his pals are little more than criminals obstruting the fine general.

One could even make the argument that Tarquin was looking out for the interest of the Empire by attempting to capture the gate and the OotS are terrorists who denied him the opportunity to aid his kingdom by providing it with a powerful artifact.

[Jay R]

And the person who pointed out that murder is a legal term was as misguided in applying modern real world laws to OotS as you are.

"modern"? It's been the term for a criminal killing with malice aforethought for 1,000 years. It's used in Beowulf (line 2055) to talk about how horrible somebody is to a hall full of warriors, so it clearly isn't just killing.

In any event, murder means "unlawful killing with malice aforethought". Using it to refer to an act of self-defense, or of war, is simply incorrect usage.

That's not applying modern real world law; it's using words correctly.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Amusingly enough, the legal situation in the Empire of Blood makes the OotS the criminals and Tarquin, the legal officer. :smallamused:

Tarquin is perfectly justified in literally every act he does because he owns the country while Roy and his pals are little more than criminals obstruting the fine general.

One could even make the argument that Tarquin was looking out for the interest of the Empire by attempting to capture the gate and the OotS are terrorists who denied him the opportunity to aid his kingdom by providing it with a powerful artifact.
I'm fairly certain Windy Canyon is outside the boundaries of the Empire of Blood, meaning Tarquin has no real authority there. He cannot charge the Order with any crimes committed there, he cannot judge them there, and he cannot execute them. I guess the terrorists argument could be made, but it's a stretch.

[Steven]

"modern"? It's been the term for a criminal killing with malice aforethought for 1,000 years. It's used in Beowulf (line 2055) to talk about how horrible somebody is to a hall full of warriors, so it clearly isn't just killing.

In any event, murder means "unlawful killing with malice aforethought". Using it to refer to an act of self-defense, or of war, is simply incorrect usage.

That's not applying modern real world law; it's using words correctly.

Sorry I should have checked up thread when I was typing my response to Trillium because what you said backed up what I was saying about how there has to be a legal jurisdiction for it to be murder if you're taking it in a purely legal sense and not allowing for the way people might use it in day to day speech. My apologies for being lazy.

[Jay R]

Sorry I should have checked up thread when I was typing my response to Trillium because what you said backed up what I was saying about how there has to be a legal jurisdiction for it to be murder if you're taking it in a purely legal sense and not allowing for the way people might use it in day to day speech. My apologies for being lazy.

No problem. We've gone back and forth, clarified our meanings, and reached agreement. That's the way it works in a discussion (rather than an argument).

[Steven]

No problem. We've gone back and forth, clarified our meanings, and reached agreement. That's the way it works in a discussion (rather than an argument).

And we did it on the internet no less...

Actually now I'm a bit scared.....

[Jay R]

And we did it on the internet no less...

Actually now I'm a bit scared.....

If only this power could be harnessed and used for good.

[masamune1]

I'm fairly certain Windy Canyon is outside the boundaries of the Empire of Blood, meaning Tarquin has no real authority there. He cannot charge the Order with any crimes committed there, he cannot judge them there, and he cannot execute them. I guess the terrorists argument could be made, but it's a stretch.

Actually it doesn't seem to be in anybody's boundaries, so he can do what he likes- there are no laws.

Since he's parked his army out there, you can call it a conquest, so he does now have the legal authority.

With regards to James Bond, I've gotten the impression that there is some secret international treaty that grants certain people a Licence to Kill, so he might not be limited to the UK. I'm basing that on the fact that Bond works for MI6 (which deals with external threats to the UK, so having a licence to kill that applies only within it seems kind of dumb), and a passing mention in Goldfinger to one of his opposite numbers, who was also licenced to kill.

Which likely just means that if he kills someone and is caught, he can be quickly extradited (probably with various exceptions or loopholes, and the government requiring an explanation), meaning the policy is the opposite of Mission: Impossible ("the secretary will disavow all knowledge of your actions"). He's been arrested several times in the course of the movies but is never prosecuted and is usually quickly released.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Actually it doesn't seem to be in anybody's boundaries, so he can do what he likes- there are no laws.

Since he's parked his army out there, you can call it a conquest, so he does now have the legal authority
However, the Order are still not criminals, and Tarquin is still not an officer of law there, especially since he hasn't actually claimed that land. He can do whatever he wants, but he is not doing it with any legal power. Admittedly, he could probably trump up charges if he wanted to, and his soldiers would obey his orders anyway, so the whole thing is kind of moot.

[masamune1]

However, the Order are still not criminals, and Tarquin is still not an officer of law there, especially since he hasn't actually claimed that land. He can do whatever he wants, but he is not doing it with any legal power. Admittedly, he could probably trump up charges if he wanted to, and his soldiers would obey his orders anyway, so the whole thing is kind of moot.

Well, again, telling his soldiers to slaughter the Order after they have showed up may indeed count as legal if the area in and around Girards Gate is now considered the territory of the Empire of Blood.

Technically, anywhere he walks or so much as gazes upon could be considered the property of the Empire of Blood now, just by his presence and say-so. So long as it isn't claimed by anyone else.

Bare in mind this isn't something like International Waters, where everyone has agreed that no-one can exercise their authority there; this is more like early colonial times and "finders, keepers". Tarquin takes the law wherever he goes until he runs into the territory of someone else.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Fair enough, I see your point.

[sengmeng]

What, the entire of America? All of it? I thought that Canada had a more English-derived legal system. And I don't know what on earth the various South American nations use, but I think that places like Venezuela might define "murder" as "What our dictator says is murder today".

I'm pretty sure none of those places are commonly referred to as 'America' but are, in fact, called 'North America,' 'Canada,' and 'South America,' and just as I don't say 'The Democratic People's Republic of the Congo' every time I refer to that country, I'm not going to bother saying 'The United States of America' every time I refer to my own, since only people who are being deliberately obtuse misunderstand that I mean the country, not the continent.

and since we're speaking for other people, I'd like to thank you on behalf of the Canadians and Venezuelans for remembering to mention them when Americans start speaking as if they're the only ones in the hemisphere. The lizard-feminists would be so proud of you.

[Keltest]

It's been a long time since I read IWD trilogy (I agree that it's horrible), but in that case everything depends. Did they (Drizzt and Wulfgar) have the permission/orders of the local authorities to deal with criminals/invaders (the giants)? Was there a war declared, allowing civilians kill people? Murder is a legal term, and legality has nothing to do with Good or Evil, and even less with Justice. As such, it may have been right and just, but it was a crime nonetheless.

Ignoring for the moment that the whole idea of ten towns was an area for rogues and criminals to go when they cant go anywhere else, yes they did, actually. Or at least Drizzt did, Wulfgar doesn't recognize their authority. Its not stated in the IWD trilogy, but in the Dark Elf trilogy right at the end, where Drizzt is given a quasi-official position acting as a guard for the northern border, so that he could stay in the area without being in the city. Which makes it especially ironic when the councilors don't consider him a credible source.

And also yes, the giants had killed two dwarves, which is how Drizzt and Wulfgar found them in the first place.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

...and teenage, human Xykon and his pal Redcloak the new priest of the dark one the heroes?

Assuming no personality changes, would Xykon and the goblin be able to outwit the tyrant or would they be far too weak to beat him and his team?

They'd beat him; with the help of Mitd and Right-eye.

[Tectonic Robot]

Geesh, what's the definition of murder got to do with who win; Teenage Xykon and Redcloak or Tarquin?

Anyway... it all depends on comparative levels. Does Tarquin have his old adventuring party?