PDA

View Full Version : When is it okay to kill?



Dhavaer
2007-02-03, 03:28 AM
You have broken a kidnapping/slavery ring, responsible for several deaths and innumerable shattered lives. You've traced the leaders to a remote cabin. They put up a fight, but your troops subdue them without losses. You have the three leaders unconscious, bound and at gunpoint, and you read their minds.

Leader A: Is just evil. No shred of remorse, empathy or pity. Utterly irredeemable.
Leader B: Unquestionably evil, but with a tiny spark of regret and empathy. Could possibly be made a decent human being with extended rehabilitation and therapy.
Leader C: Not evil, instead crazy. Doesn't comprehend the consquences of what they've done. However, the effects of the brain damage/madness are permanent and irrevocable.

Notes: You have no official standing in your current activities with any government. You do, however, have substantial personal resources (a purchase of double-digit millions is within your capabilities).
Your troops trust your decisions implicitly. They will carry out any executions you order quickly and cleanly.
You do not have any way to prove in a court that they have committed any crimes. Their guilt is not in question, but all you have is the results of mind-reading.
They do not have the capability to mislead your mind-reading abilities.

Jade_Tarem
2007-02-03, 04:01 AM
Odd, there's no evidence that can be found? None at all? You can't, for example, hack thier minds again to see where they've been keeping records, clandestine messages, etc? Did they open fire on you first in this fight? That's evidence...

If so, use that to see that they get what they deserve. The crazy two (yes, two, A is basically a sociopath) are likely to be either sentenced to death or some sort of psych ward - think rubber room. The other will almost certainly be sentenced to something mean.

If not... I guess it depends on your personal ideology.

Out of curiosity, what does this have to do with gaming? Various characters I've played wouldn't have trouble executing the three of them, even some of the good ones, if that's what you mean.

Other than that it seems very much like a morality question. Specifically, the death penalty debate. Here you have serial killer slaver/kidnappers that see no problem with profiting on the misfortune they heap on others. They're guilty as sin, even spark-of-hope man, but they've done the crimes and, under even the loosest, most forgiving codes, have lost thier right to be citizens of most industrialized nations. Even so, whether or not it's our "place" to finish them and send them to some form of final judgement is something of a religious/moral/legal issue. I'd sooner shoot myself than get into that kind of debate here.

On the off chance that you were looking for an alignment breakdown in the DnD system, here goes:

LG: Much as you'd like to kill them all where they lie, these guys get a trial like eveyone else. Take them all prisoner, to some government authority, preferably the one where the most kidnappings/killings took place, and offer your testimony and that of your troops that they showed up evil when you read their minds (read other people's minds to prove that you can) and that they shot at you when you tried to capture them. Submit to tests/subpeonas/etc. until justice is done. If they are let off on some silly technicality, other actions may need to be taken, but until then, we'll see.

NG: This act of good likely will not destroy the balance, and will eliminate some truly evil types from the world. If the evidence-garnering was easier or more credible, you might ship them to some legal system, but as is it's very much a case of "dem's da breaks."

CG: These punks have been enslaving and killing people. They're evil. You know it and so do the people you care about. Evidence is irrelevant. They *are* guilty. Execute them at dawn.

LN: You're sure that these guys broke a law somewhere. Go down the path of LG, but less devotedly. If the guys are let off, that's that.

TN: They disturbed the balance by killing and enslaving, but their ring has been broken and balance is restored. Leave them bound here, nature will do as she will.

CN: Take their stuff, first off. Hand it out to yourself and your senior officers. Now, what to do, what to do? They did some horrible stuff, at least by popular definition, so perhaps you should "take care" of them and brag about it later. Or maybe leave them here...

LE: Were they acting on the government's orders? Too bad, then. Take thier stuff, turn *most* of it in to whatever group you belong to, and kill them.

NE: This is just too perfect. Enslave the enslavers. One will be your butler (though not entrusted with anything vital), one will clean up after your horses/vehicles (time era?) and the crazy guy will catch bullets for you in battle.

CE: Kill them, take thier stuff. Mission accomplished. Who needs morals anyway? In fact, why did you bother reading thier minds? They were weak and so lose the right to live. Game over.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-02-03, 04:14 AM
Okay, first, I want to see any business, legitimate or not, whose leaders keep no transaction records or paper trail of any kind. Or criminals that leave no witnesses. Ever. Including lieutenants and flunkies that can be pressured into talking, liberated victims, etc.

Getting past that...what's my position? Free-roaming, do-gooder mercenary with no governmental standing but have my own small army and millions in petty cash? I am guessing so, for the sake of argument, since in any other position, I'd have been following orders to get to where I am, and would have some parameters of what to do in this situation.

Getting past all that...well, I can't get past the "no evidence" criterion myself, as that's just silly. For the sake of argument though, I will say this: killing in cold blood is wrong, unless supported by a legitimate government and due process under that government's legal purview. Morally, it is wrong for you, a private individual, to order their executions. What you should do, however...I'm not sure, because I'm typing this at 3am. Likely, use your vast NGO resources to imprison them, attempting to rehabilitate Leader B, but simply keeping the two insane men (no sane person is "irredeemably evil") away from where they can do harm.

Why, exactly, is our hypothetical freelancer interefering with these men in the first place? Personal vengeance? The goodness of his heart? Why is he so concerned, when no real legal authority is?

Dhavaer
2007-02-03, 04:35 AM
Evidence: It's not 'no evidence' it's 'no way to prove in court'. You can probably find some evidence, it just won't be enough to bring these guys in. You could, if you really want, go to some nation with a lot of corruption and bribe a judge to have them executed, but how is that different from just shooting them yourself?

Saph
2007-02-03, 04:59 AM
I agree with Jade_Tarem - it depends on what character you're playing.

But since you said: 'your troops' I'm going to assume that you're a military/mercenary commander of some kind, and furthermore that you care about stopping slavers and murderers (that's why you went to the trouble to hunt them down, right?)

In that position, I'd say just kill 'em. March them out in front of the troops, read out the crimes they've committed, and have them executed on the spot. Any other choice gives an unacceptably high chance of them getting away and continuing their work somewhere else. Besides, they had it coming. Once you've done that, get your troops some kind of reward for all their hard work.

I don't see any particular reason to differentiate between A, B, and C.

- Saph

Leush
2007-02-03, 05:06 AM
-A character of any allignment should be justified in killing the pure evil dude. It's not like any one else is going to suffer as a result. Heck, even he won't suffer for long.
-Killing the madman is mercy killing, although some characters refrain and instead have him sent to a madhouse prison. I wouldn't.
-Killing the one with a shred of decency is acceptable for evil and neutral lazy characters. It is also acceptable for vindictive good. It is not optimal however. Optimal is rehabilitating him and using him in future fights against slavery. It would also be what I would accept of any good/neutral character.

I'd expect that in an RL scenario, they would all die. I expect in a played out scenario where the characters are trying to do good leads to the survival of leader B

The Dirge
2007-02-03, 05:23 AM
Take over their operation! Thats what any NE worth his salt would do.

Yakk
2007-02-03, 11:46 AM
By what standard?

LG, NG, CG? LN, NN, CN? LE, NE, CE?

The more chaotic, the less "what you can prove" matters.

The more evil, the less "is the being redeemable" matters.

On top of the alignment, you have personal moral codes (or lack thereof).

Vespe Ratavo
2007-02-03, 11:50 AM
Hmm....
Leader A: As Belkar would say, "it starts with s, and ends with, litting his throat."
Leader B: Lock 'im up for a while, make him take mandatory therapy.
Leader C: I say put him in an asylum.

NullAshton
2007-02-03, 11:57 AM
According to D&D morality as defined by the Book of Exalted Deeds.... killing them on the spot is evil, because they are an helpless opponent. Though bringing them in and trying them with the current laws of the land is okay, and so is the death penalty, as long as you don't just kill them on the spot while they're bound up and unconscious.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-03, 01:22 PM
Rehabilitation and taking them from a lawless wilderness to a legitimate authority is above and beyond the call of duty, something that would increase overall good in your characters. Killing them won't shift their alignment if it's done humanely. Actually, lawful characters can't bring them into trial, the crimes were committed in an area with no laws, thus it would be illegal to try them in any court, as no court would have proper jurisdiction over the area.

Oh, and the Book of Exalted Deeds is not about being good, it's about being the epitome of good. Playing an exalted character means always going above and beyond the norm. It means approaching perfaction as closely as humanly possible. Ordinary characters are not held to that standard.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-02-03, 01:31 PM
So all three were directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people? Then all three are executed for their crimes. They get a chance to prepare themselves beforehand, of course. Maybe the little spark guy will come around before he's executed. He'd still be executed, but he wouldn't spend eternity in Baator, which is always a good thing.

goat
2007-02-03, 01:33 PM
Pop the lot of them, in the leg.

Then leave them tied up in the wilderness.

If they're MEANT to survive, then they will.

/religious sadist

Indon
2007-02-03, 01:50 PM
I largely agree with Jade's comments, but I'd like to add my own with regards to the lawful alignments.

Mind that lawful individuals don't neccessarily need to regard the laws of any given land as legitimate. A lawful good individual who runs a band of vigilantes may well establish seperate trial procedures for the purpose of enforcing justice, if he does not respect those of the nation he is working in (or works for, say, 'a higher cause' such as for a religion).

Arakune
2007-02-03, 01:53 PM
Leader A: Take his resources, kill him later and send his body parts as 'gifts' on some eventual suspect of some similar criminals as a warning. Send the head as a execution proof to some LG country to legitimate his death.

Leader B: Try to rehabilite him (and making sure he would NEVER kill me) and use his experience as slaver to search for more criminals of this type, info on black market dealers, etc.

Leader C: Study him. Find a cause of why he are that way. Also, make unable to cause any warn (locking him, whatever)

Tengu
2007-02-03, 01:55 PM
Talking from a morally healthy perspective (good and neutral "with good tendencies" alignments in DND):

A: Killing him is a good act, and everyone should do it. Letting him live is a stupid good act, which would be done only by an individual who does not want to kill anyone at all (and in this scenario, I doubt are you put in such a role) or someone very short-sighted.
B: Okay to kill. You might want to try to redeem him, but if he breaks free or pretends to be redeemed and then does something evil, it'd be your fault.
C: Same as B, just switch "try to redeem" with "put into a well-guarded asylum for the rest of his life". And letting him go is a no-no, obviously.

Personally, I'd shoot all of them. From a metagaming perspective, maybe try to redeem B if I'll need his help in the future or if he'll make a badass ally.

Deathcow
2007-02-03, 01:57 PM
All they really need is a big hug. They're just misunderstood, and they had a terribly abusive upbringing in all probability.

Okay, but seriously? IMO, killing defenseless opponents is evil. You're the boss of the troops, right? Throw Villain A in your own personal jail, probably for life, but with the option of therapy. Villain B gets therapy/whatever you want to call it, eventually redeems himself, and becomes a valuable ally in dealing with these people in future. Villain C gets the rubber room, or the equivalent, while people see if it's possible to cure him.

goat
2007-02-03, 02:15 PM
Ooh ooh! Trial by combat!

Both fun AND lawful. For a given value of law.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-03, 03:30 PM
New moral dilemna. You are in a region where no laws apply, thus the slavers, no matter how hideous their deeds, have not technically broken any laws. What do you do then? What if you caught them in a chaotic evil city? What if they are citizens of a chaotic evil nation? What if, according to the laws of their own land, what they have done is not only legal, but commendable?

Dhavaer
2007-02-03, 04:55 PM
New moral dilemna. You are in a region where no laws apply, thus the slavers, no matter how hideous their deeds, have not technically broken any laws. What do you do then? What if you caught them in a chaotic evil city? What if they are citizens of a chaotic evil nation? What if, according to the laws of their own land, what they have done is not only legal, but commendable?

Why should this change anything from the original question?

OzymandiasVolt
2007-02-03, 06:20 PM
(snip) IMO, killing defenseless opponents is evil.(snip)

So if an enemy wants to defeat you, he should just attack you for a few minutes and then drop his weapons if he starts to lose? Because he's defenseless and thus suddenly NOT guilty of the crimes he's committed?

That Lanky Bugger
2007-02-03, 07:47 PM
Line them all up and use one bullet. They're not worth much more than that. It's not a question of redeemability, it's what they've done. In this case, unless they've got personal assets I can appropriate for charitable purposes, they're dead weight.

Their only use now is feeding the crows.

Edit: To clarify, if there was an authority I could turn them over to with 100% certainty they'd be judged on my words alone (IE I say they're guilty, they take this for granted as guilt) I'd do so. However, without that luxury there's no point carting them around.

Deathcow
2007-02-03, 07:54 PM
So if an enemy wants to defeat you, he should just attack you for a few minutes and then drop his weapons if he starts to lose? Because he's defenseless and thus suddenly NOT guilty of the crimes he's committed?

See, you're talking to someone who's rediculously optomistic about individual human beings in general (see my sig for an example). Thus, if someone says "Wait, I give up! Don't kill me!", even if they're clearly saying that just because they don't want to die, I'll still believe them enough to not execute them on the spot.

Of course, I'm also a RL pacifist, which affects any moral decisions about killing, etc. Oh, and in response to your second question, he doesn't suddenly become not guilty, but if you kill him, you're guilty too. (As a side note, this is precisely the reason most people hate Paladins- they're too willing to kill defenseless enemies for no better reason than "They're evil!")

Granted, if this took place in a DnD game, my response would be different depending on what character I was playing at the time.

CharPixie
2007-02-03, 08:42 PM
Kill A and B. They aren't much different. Actually, B is worse; A is ruthless by nature. But B; B could have seen sense, but didn't. That's what guilt is. Imprisioning them for life is a solution, too. But, given your lack of legal standing, someone will take offense to you acting as a state.

I don't understand how C *could* be a ringleader. I guess the response would depend on exactly how C was crazy. But, I'd limit the responses to death or imprisionment; if C is capable of something like these without intending it, there is no way C can be let loose on the world.

Now, if you wanted to spend your money to redeem B, I guess it would be possible, but B is little deserving of it. Isn't there a better way to spend your money? Founding a school would change a lot more lives for the better than rehabilitating one man.

Sardia
2007-02-03, 09:56 PM
Kill 'em. Otherwise you run into "Spiderman Syndrome"-- you let them go or lock them up, they escape, they kill again, you capture them once more, repeat.
Since in most games, heroic escapes from supposedly inescapable prisons are quite possible, particularly with a high-level prisoner and low-level guards, you'll never be sure that prison will work to hold them.

Weezer
2007-02-03, 10:28 PM
Kill them, they are evil and commited many crimes so the killing is justified in any case. especially if the legal system wont find them guilty for their crimes. Unless anyone is playing a tight-ass LG character (Read: Saphire Guard)

Seffbasilisk
2007-02-03, 11:26 PM
This is why you shouldn't let combat end until you've slain all you want to slain. If they try to surrender, shout a line like "How many of your victims tried that?" and press the attack.

Sardia
2007-02-03, 11:55 PM
This is why you shouldn't let combat end until you've slain all you want to slain. If they try to surrender, shout a line like "How many of your victims tried that?" and press the attack.

Of course, that's arguably evil, even if you just arrange things so surrender is impractical for your opponents when you could have given them the option.
"If they surrender, we'll have a moral quandry, so let's just kill them instead" probably isn't a good thought process.

Seffbasilisk
2007-02-04, 12:06 AM
Arguably, it's something a Paladin might do in a zealous quest for being the scourging flame expunging the evil within.

Dervag
2007-02-04, 12:07 AM
According to D&D morality as defined by the Book of Exalted Deeds.... killing them on the spot is evil, because they are an helpless opponent. Though bringing them in and trying them with the current laws of the land is okay, and so is the death penalty, as long as you don't just kill them on the spot while they're bound up and unconscious.Could someone who has the Book of Exalted Deeds tell me about its answer to the following question:

What if you are a legal authority? There are systems where specific individuals have the power of "high justice," that is, the power to execute lawbreakers.

If it's wrong to shoot them out of hand, but acceptable to send them to a trial where they would be executed, then what is it if you are an authority with the legal power to execute them?

Fax Celestis
2007-02-04, 12:09 AM
Killing them right here and now is the only way you can be certain of their fates.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-04, 12:32 AM
This is why you shouldn't let combat end until you've slain all you want to slain. If they try to surrender, shout a line like "How many of your victims tried that?" and press the attack.

Aside from that being somewhat evil unless they've tried it before (as the other guy said, it's basically an excuse to kill them all without feeling guilty), it's also quite stupid. You want your enemies to surrender. Therefore, they should have some sort of incentive to do so: If they know you give no quarter, they'll have more incentive to hold out and fight to the death. That's a very bad thing.

Re: The original scenario

Normally, I'd be against someone taking the law in their own hands. It leads to corruption and amplifies all the ordinary miscalculations of a single man. However, this hypothetical mercenary is apparently omniscient and altruistic (or at least concerned about doing things that are morally right), so the law's probably in good hands. Additionally, if the applicable legal authorities would not mete out a suitable punishment (as in the scenario above, in which they will inevitably be released scot-free it seems), then the mercenary has some need to carry out justice on his own. It's best to kill none of them and simply apprehend them all, imprisoning them in accommodations that you can personally arrange. For one thing, as noted above, this gives any future enemies you fight an incentive to surrender, knowing that there is a good chance they won't be killed. Additionally, this gives man B the chance to redeem himself.

Now, other factors may complicate this scenario. If, for instance, these men have the backing of some foreign power, then capturing them yourself could ignite some furor over their return. In this case, it's probably better to execute them on the spot rather than incite an international incident (though I'm loath to state that--It would also be possible to arrest them and claim you've killed them, if your men are truly that loyal).

Jade_Tarem
2007-02-04, 02:26 AM
Could someone who has the Book of Exalted Deeds tell me about its answer to the following question:

What if you are a legal authority? There are systems where specific individuals have the power of "high justice," that is, the power to execute lawbreakers.

If it's wrong to shoot them out of hand, but acceptable to send them to a trial where they would be executed, then what is it if you are an authority with the legal power to execute them?


Then the answer is a lot easier, which means the Book of Exalted Deeds doesn't have it. :smalltongue:

Fax Celestis
2007-02-04, 02:33 AM
Then the answer is a lot easier, which means the Book of Exalted Deeds doesn't have it. :smalltongue:

"The Book of Exalted Deeds: If It's Easy, It's Not In Here."

TheOOB
2007-02-04, 02:41 AM
Heres my take. Killing is never in and of itself a good act, at best it is neutral. You can kill for a good cause, kill for the greater good, but the killing is not itself good.

The reason for this is simple, perhaps the most defining traits of "good" are mercy and self sacrifice, a perfectly good (read, more good then most, if not any of the dieties) would never kill, even if it ment they would die because they refused to kill, the concept being that any being, no matter how evil has a chance at redemption, and killing them elimates any chance they will ever have at atonement, and thus saving their soul.

That said, killing is not always evil either. Killing for survival (hunting) is not a good thing, but it's not evil, falling into neutral terrioty, also killing when your life, or the lives of others are directly threatened is also neutral and not evil, if you don't kill them, then someone who quite frankly is a better person then them will die. Keep in mind however, that if your life, or the life of another is not immediatly threatened, killing is an evil act. When that blackguard over there has thier sword to the neck of an innocent townsperson you can kill them because thats the only way to save that persons life, but if that same blackguard is just walking down the street you can't just kill him and say it's not evil, sure in the future the blackguard may kill others, but right now he's not, and killing him right now is lazy when you could try to find a way to save both the blackguards life and the life of anyone he may kill in the future (say by apprehending him and putting him in prison.)

Risking your life to fight a bunch of monsters attacking a town is a good act, but not because your killing monsters, because your risking your life to protect innocents. Killing is never "good" per say, but it can have good results.

Caewil
2007-02-04, 02:51 AM
Killing is okay when you can get away with it. Since there are no repercussions in this case, I'd go ahead.

TheOOB
2007-02-04, 02:56 AM
Killing is okay when you can get away with it. Since there are no repercussions in this case, I'd go ahead.

Well, in D&D the repercussion is inherient in the alignment system, people who do evil things become evil, no matter how much they can "get away with it"

Caewil
2007-02-04, 02:57 AM
Well, in D&D the repercussion is inherient in the alignment system, people who do evil things become evil, no matter how much they can "get away with it"
Which is why they have Evil PRCs, etc. Fun!

Seffbasilisk
2007-02-04, 03:18 AM
Aside from that being somewhat evil unless they've tried it before (as the other guy said, it's basically an excuse to kill them all without feeling guilty), it's also quite stupid. You want your enemies to surrender. Therefore, they should have some sort of incentive to do so: If they know you give no quarter, they'll have more incentive to hold out and fight to the death. That's a very bad thing.

Actually you don't want them to surrender. If they surrender you'll have to deal with them, guard them, feed them, etc. If instead they flee in terror, or even better flee in terror at the mere thought of going against you, regardless of numbers, then you've done your job well. Let them know that Evil does NOT pay, unless the payment can be weighed out in the corpses of thier comrades in evil.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-04, 01:15 PM
Actually you don't want them to surrender. If they surrender you'll have to deal with them, guard them, feed them, etc. If instead they flee in terror, or even better flee in terror at the mere thought of going against you, regardless of numbers, then you've done your job well. Let them know that Evil does NOT pay, unless the payment can be weighed out in the corpses of thier comrades in evil.

The scenario feature a guy with an arbitrarily large amount of wealth. Besides, "Kill them all so that we won't have to deal with them" isn't exactly morally sound. Beside, what if you've got them cornered and they can't retreat any further? Surrendering is a good way to bypass a lot of nasty bloodshed.

Jade_Tarem
2007-02-04, 03:13 PM
Killing is okay when you can get away with it.

I trust you'll understand if I don't give you my address anytime soon.:smalleek:

Starbuck_II
2007-02-04, 03:43 PM
You have broken a kidnapping/slavery ring, responsible for several deaths and innumerable shattered lives. You've traced the leaders to a remote cabin. They put up a fight, but your troops subdue them without losses. You have the three leaders unconscious, bound and at gunpoint, and you read their minds.

Leader A: Is just evil. No shred of remorse, empathy or pity. Utterly irredeemable.
Leader B: Unquestionably evil, but with a tiny spark of regret and empathy. Could possibly be made a decent human being with extended rehabilitation and therapy.
Leader C: Not evil, instead crazy. Doesn't comprehend the consquences of what they've done. However, the effects of the brain damage/madness are permanent and irrevocable.

Notes: You have no official standing in your current activities with any government. You do, however, have substantial personal resources (a purchase of double-digit millions is within your capabilities).
Your troops trust your decisions implicitly. They will carry out any executions you order quickly and cleanly.
You do not have any way to prove in a court that they have committed any crimes. Their guilt is not in question, but all you have is the results of mind-reading.
They do not have the capability to mislead your mind-reading abilities.
What level?
A Heal or Wish/Miracle woule cure the madness.
So C is questionable. He can be salvaged.

Callos_DeTerran
2007-02-04, 03:56 PM
I know I probably shouldn't comment on this thread, since my persanol viewpoints are a bit....at odds with other peoples but theres also the D&D view point of it. Hence I shall give both.

My opinion:
None of them are innocent of their crimes except for the last one. The crazy guy. Should they be brought into justice? Sure, maybe. Would I do it? Heck no.

Pure evil guy? This one is self-explanatory, and not "Kill him because he's evil". Its "Kill him because hes evil, sold other beings and to slavery and other mean things. And no matter what I do, he will continue to do so if given half the chance." In other words, kill him preferably in some ironic manner that is suitable to his crimes.

Guy with consience? Harder to rationalize but its the same principle really. He's evil, he's done evil things. Sure, with enough work he might change his ways but then again he might not. How to handle it? Well...two ways actually. One is kill him in a humane way and give him a giid burial and nothing more. The other is dispatch several guards and pay them to follow him around. Tell him that his new mission in life is to reunite all of the families that he's broken up, paid back those left behind of the ones killed, and what not (Giving the guards funds to dish out to him when approbiate to accomplish it). When he's done, have him brought back and get another brain scan. You still get a decent gather of evil (Lets say 40%) then he's paid his dues but still is excuted with full funeral rites so he can find redeemption in the great beyond. If he scans enough good then he goes free essentially. Keep paying a guard to follow him everywhere to ensure theres not a fallback. Done. Next guy.

Guy C...Basically the same as the second solution to B but with less work. Explain to him his crimes (Making sure he understands what they mean even if he doesn't get that he did them), take him to a priest and absolve him, get him anoited and whatnot. Then excution. With any degree of fairness he'll still be accepted to the good side of the great beyond to live in happiness and sanity. Not still repenting like guy B but geuine and untainted happiness and sanity. He didn't know what he was doing afterall, he can no more be held to blame then someone affected by dominate person.

D&D viewpoint:

Guy A: They have a place for him. Its called Baator. Unless theres a Sanctify the Wicked at the ready (A spell I very much disapprove of and consider evil) there really is no hope for him. Kill him and let Asmodeus teach him why its a good idea to play well with others over the course of eternity.

Guy B: Also easy again. Pay for a Gate spell and send him to the Seven Mounting Heavens with a well respected envoy to explain his case. They'll know how to set him right better then you anyway.

Guy C: Obviously he is able to take care of himself. Outfit him for a planar expedition as well but this guys destination is Limbo, somewhere he'll be very much at home (Well you could send him to the Far Realms but that screams horrible idea all over). Train him in how to handle the equipment he'll need to survive then then its bon voyage. All of them but one died, but lets face it. He deserved it.

Dhavaer
2007-02-04, 04:01 PM
What level?
A Heal or Wish/Miracle woule cure the madness.
So C is questionable. He can be salvaged.

Spells that powerful simply aren't available. The effects of the brain damage/madness are permanent and irrevocable.

I_Got_This_Name
2007-02-04, 04:27 PM
Real Action: Probably use my immense resources to imprison them; if I've got an arbitrary amount of money and a whole bunch of troops fighting for me and trusting my decisions completely, I'm practically a state already, so I grab some island nobody wants and declare my nationhood, and imprison these guys.

I might have A killed, but only because I know, for certain, that he is guilty and irredeemable. B would probably be imprisoned for life, with a possibility of parole when my psychics say that would be a good idea. C is, as has been pointed out, little different from A; I don't know which side I'd err here (life imprisonment without parole, or death).

D&D action: For A and C, the answer is easy. First, I go to the Negative Energy Plane, or some other inhospitable plane with few inhabitants (Elemental Fire is too densely populated); if no planar travel, then the bottom of the sea works too. Then, I build a nice strong fortress there, warded against everything I have the resources to prevent. I petrify A and C, and store them, separately, in vaults in the fortress, then fill the place with deathtraps, seal it up, and destroy the plans with an Erase spell, followed by burning them, then disintegrating the ashes, if possible. Possibly then erase key memories from the builders' minds, and implant false memories of the design. I then set scouts to patrol the entrance to this deathtrap complex, along with a few dummy sites, at random intervals, so that if anyone breaks in, I know.

B might get put in a third vault here, or might get imprisoned in a separate prison on the surface, unpetrified, and allowed to reform.

Actually, anyone I want to stay dead goes in vaults; I might save money by having a heavily-guarded storage vault in my base, then waiting until I have about a dozen petrified enemy leaders (from different groups) and sticking them all in the same deathtrap complex. Alternately, I might want to scatter A and C in separate prisons, not just separate vaults in the same one.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-04, 04:46 PM
What level?
A Heal or Wish/Miracle woule cure the madness.
So C is questionable. He can be salvaged.

A) The Sanity variant rules suggest that Heal shouldn't work against permanent insanity. Wish/Miracle (and probably Psychic Chiurgery) are suggested as possible cures, but not always.

B) I don't think this is high-fantasy DnD, so that magic probably doesn't exist. My immediate first guess (both from the fact that Dhavaer is the OP and from the fact that you're holding them at "gunpoint") was that this is a Modern scenario. Thus, not only are high-level magic spells missing, but also the Outer Planes and other forms of the afterlife are likely irrelevant (though I know little about Modern, I don't think afterlives are dealt with) and, most importantly, there is no alignment system, and no need to worry about whether your actions are CG or LE (that is to say, this is solely a moral/ethical question divorced from alignments).

Yakk
2007-02-04, 04:47 PM
Rehabilitation and taking them from a lawless wilderness to a legitimate authority is above and beyond the call of duty, something that would increase overall good in your characters. Killing them won't shift their alignment if it's done humanely. Actually, lawful characters can't bring them into trial, the crimes were committed in an area with no laws, thus it would be illegal to try them in any court, as no court would have proper jurisdiction over the area.

The idea of juristiction is a pretty modern one -- international law has been built up over the last few centuries.

Even today, a nation can "lawfully" send police/troops and arrest people in a second nation for crimes committed within a third nation. The second and third nation might not agree with that "lawful" right, but who says two lawful people agree on what is right?

Goodness, by the PHB, consists mainly of being willing to sacrafice yourself to protect innocents. Evilness consists mainly of not giving a crap about protecting innocents. Neutrality is about feeling squeemish about innocents, but not being willing to sacrafice your own life to protect some innocent they don't even know.

I really don't get where you are going or coming from. Your questions seem to be D&Desque, but you seem to want an absolute moral opinion. By the nature of roleplaying, different characters have different beliefs about what is "ok" and what isn't "ok".

Heck, even people do. There are lots of marginally evil people reading the board, lots of marginally good people reading the boards, and metric tonnes of wishy-washy neutral people, (using the D&D alignment spectrum) and they will disagree about what is ok and what is not ok in a particular circumstance.

Jade_Tarem
2007-02-05, 02:51 AM
Yakk has a point.

Also, I don't recall that the crimes were commited in an area with no legal system, just that that's where you caught and captured them. It's really hard to run a slavery ring in a land of cavemen or subsistence farmers with no government, which is what committing these crimes in a land with no governing body would mean.

And on top of that, if even one of the victims was a citizen of Nation X, that nation gets dibs on "jurisdiction" as you put it. "Male captus, bene detentus" and all that, especially with slavers and serial killers.

Chavik
2007-02-06, 12:37 PM
originally posted by Goat: Pop the lot of them, in the leg. Then leave them tied up in the wilderness. If they're MEANT to survive, then they will.

I agree with goat... pop them in the legs or cut off their good hand and let them survive in some sort of enclosure...

the_tick_rules
2007-02-06, 10:05 PM
hmm. this debate will rage forever so i dunno if anything i say will help.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-06, 10:24 PM
I really don't get where you are going or coming from. Your questions seem to be D&Desque, but you seem to want an absolute moral opinion. By the nature of roleplaying, different characters have different beliefs about what is "ok" and what isn't "ok".

Purely D&D standpoint. Whether or not the Paladin will lose his powers and that sort of thing. Nothing terribly serious. From a more serious standpoint, if you took the trouble to take the guys alive, you might as well bring them in alive. Of course, with D&D being in a more medieval society, hanging them on the spot might actually be considered justice. In their terms, not mine.

CockroachTeaParty
2007-02-06, 10:53 PM
Anybody here ever read 'The Watchmen?'

What would the alignment of Rorschach be?

krossbow
2007-02-06, 11:00 PM
Eh; I view it as okay whenever it's convienient for my characters.


Granted, I try to avoid it, and usually use saps and such to deal a little subdual damage, but if the character is trying to kill someone, I don't break a sweat over their death.

Dervag
2007-02-06, 11:11 PM
Heres my take. Killing is never in and of itself a good act, at best it is neutral. You can kill for a good cause, kill for the greater good, but the killing is not itself good.I would argue that no number of killings under a specific subset of conditions and for a specific subset of reasons (killings in defense of that which should be defended) can ever make someone good into a neutral. If neutral acts don't change alignment, then I'm prepared to accept this statement.


The reason for this is simple, perhaps the most defining traits of "good" are mercy and self sacrifice, a perfectly good (read, more good then most, if not any of the dieties) would never kill, even if it ment they would die because they refused to kill, the concept being that any being, no matter how evil has a chance at redemption, and killing them elimates any chance they will ever have at atonement, and thus saving their soul.I'm not sure I buy that. If your argument is valid, then it does not matter how much good is destroyed or how much evil is created; a perfectly good being would be indifferent to those considerations in the face of the prospect of taking a life.

And I don't accept that.



Keep in mind however, that if your life, or the life of another is not immediatly threatened, killing is an evil act. When that blackguard over there has thier sword to the neck of an innocent townsperson you can kill them because thats the only way to save that persons life, but if that same blackguard is just walking down the street you can't just kill him and say it's not evil, sure in the future the blackguard may kill others, but right now he's not, and killing him right now is lazy when you could try to find a way to save both the blackguards life and the life of anyone he may kill in the future (say by apprehending him and putting him in prison.)What if you couldn't? It really is harder to take someone alive than to kill them. Sometimes it isn't "just lazy" to do the easy thing, because the hard thing may be impossible in the situation.

Deliberately allowing powerful agents of evil to live until the moment when they are an immediate threat hands them the opportunity to do more murder and to get away with it. I don't think that's acceptable.

Good and pacifism are not the same thing.


Actually you don't want them to surrender. If they surrender you'll have to deal with them, guard them, feed them, etc.All that is considerably less dangerous than fighting them to the death.

Which would a smart character rather do: fight an enemy of comparable power, or have that same enemy say "I give up. This isn't worth dying over?"

I say the latter. And that's why it's better to accept surrenders.


If instead they flee in terror, or even better flee in terror at the mere thought of going against you, regardless of numbers, then you've done your job well.Until your enemies mass and drag you down, or until you're killed by sheer bad luck when you go up against one of those enemies who knows that being confronted by you is a death sentence.

Real people don't always run from an enemy just because that enemy won't take surrenders. In fact, real people quite often fight in that situation, because an enemy who won't take their surrender isn't likely to let them get away.

Yakk
2007-02-07, 09:02 AM
Purely D&D standpoint. Whether or not the Paladin will lose his powers and that sort of thing. Nothing terribly serious. From a more serious standpoint, if you took the trouble to take the guys alive, you might as well bring them in alive. Of course, with D&D being in a more medieval society, hanging them on the spot might actually be considered justice. In their terms, not mine.

So you are holding up a LG paladin as the top-end-of-goodness?

Narmoth
2007-02-07, 10:52 AM
In a medieval world I would kill them myself on the spot. Deeds, not intent counts.
There's no way in a medieval world they could be redeeamed.
In a futuristic world I would put them in some lawfull good goverments prison / mental healthccare and then anyone redeeamed would be set free later.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-07, 11:36 AM
So you are holding up a LG paladin as the top-end-of-goodness?

No, but I'm too lazy to come up with a better example.:smallbiggrin:

Mewtarthio
2007-02-07, 11:40 AM
In a medieval world I would kill them myself on the spot. Deeds, not intent counts.
There's no way in a medieval world they could be redeeamed.
In a futuristic world I would put them in some lawfull good goverments prison / mental healthccare and then anyone redeeamed would be set free later.

Could you explain why redemption is impossible in the medieval world but perfectly doable in the modern?

Incidentally, as I said above, this is the modern world. You're holding them "at gunpoint," remember?

Diggorian
2007-02-07, 12:05 PM
Without knowing a lot of detail on the setting I'd suggest the following: I think that D&D-like goodness should always offer surrender first. If they do, go to Capture below. If they fight, dont hold back nor heal them once they're down.

Good guys strip the slaver's stuff to compensate their victims. Evils keep it, if they dont take over. Neutrals can do the same as Goods, but will deduct operating expenses from the booty first. :smallbiggrin:

Capture: Take all three before any authority with jurisdiction on their crimes using the clues that led ya to them as evidence against them plus anytrhing else incriminating ya find.

If no authority exists, take them back to their former slaves, strip them to what they let the slaves have, give the slaves their weapons, and let karma come. Turnabout is fair play. :smallwink:

Tallis
2007-02-07, 12:20 PM
They are a proven danger to society. Execute them all.
If B can somehow be used for good (as a hound to hunt down slavers or to track down and rescue surviving victims) then keep him alive, but under heavy guard. Once the task is accomplished scan him again, if he has repented then free him. If not then either execute him or, if it can be done safely, keep him as a slave. He has taken away the freedom of countless others. He's given up his own right to freedom.
If you're worried about the morality of killing them you could falsify evidence and take them to the courts. You know they're guilty, let someone else decide the appropriate punishment.

Tweekinator
2007-02-08, 09:25 AM
I'm for killing them all. A and B both deserve it, while C, though crazy, picked the wrong kind of crazy to be; he's basically a rabid dog to be put down.

Also, by virtue of the fact that you have chased these guys to their remote cabin and that you have subdued them, lends itself to the premise that the government is either incompetent or corrupt, or both; giving you the moral obligation to mete out justice yourself, killing or imprisoning them. Even if the government isn't, the fact that they have committed said crimes, and that they won't/can't be convicted on a court of law would be a miscarriage of justice.

Spartan_Samuel
2007-02-08, 09:36 AM
Kill them. They purposely impede upon the freedom of others, not to mention the right to pursue happiness.

Narmoth
2007-02-08, 03:52 PM
Could you explain why redemption is impossible in the medieval world but perfectly doable in the modern?

Incidentally, as I said above, this is the modern world. You're holding them "at gunpoint," remember?

Medieval prison: chained to the wall in a gloomy dungeon with rats and a tourturist to keep your company.
Sci-fic prison run by a good goverment: psychological treatment (not clockwork orange style) in an enclosed confinement meant to bring out the better side of the criminals

Matthew
2007-02-08, 04:05 PM
That's one type of medieval prison. However, it isn't the only type. The Emperor Alexius, according to the Alexiad, actually imprisoned a man who tried to assassinate with the intention of reforming him.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-08, 04:53 PM
Why is everyone so keen on killing these guys? I'm not a pacifist, but you've already defeated them. Let's not forget that you've apparently got virtually unlimited resources and an army of loyal men following you. I mean, maybe if the slavers had devoted, loyal followers who would be willing to risk their lives breaking them out later you'd be better off killing them (you've got psychic powers, so you can figure this out), but otherwise why not just imprison them? They pose no threat to you, and at least one can be redeemed.

Teloric
2007-02-08, 05:16 PM
A lot of this judgement comes from the mind reading. I'd say if you are a lawful type, turn them in to the local authorities and let them perform their own mind reading and judgement.

However, if you are in a lawless environment, then your position as leader of the troops that captured these villains is the position of authority and judgement. Sounds to me like a quick and merciful execution would be too good for these guys, so that's what you should do. Hang them, or behead them.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-08, 06:25 PM
From a D&D POV, it's pretty likely that the official punishment for their crimes is going to be death, because fantasy worlds usually work on at least semi-medieval morality.

Being products of that society and given absolute proof of their guilt, I see no problem with executing them for their vile crimes. These aren't minor sins they've committed. The important thing is that their guilt has been established beyond any possibility of doubt, which it has.

On a personal level, I would consider bad guy B to be the worst of the three. C is insane so can't help what he's doing. A is irredeemable, hence he has convinced himself that what he is doing is fine and not wrong in any way shape or form. But B knows and understands what he is doing is wrong, and still does it anyway!

Mewtarthio
2007-02-08, 07:42 PM
From a D&D POV, it's pretty likely that the official punishment for their crimes is going to be death, because fantasy worlds usually work on at least semi-medieval morality.

Being products of that society and given absolute proof of their guilt, I see no problem with executing them for their vile crimes. These aren't minor sins they've committed. The important thing is that their guilt has been established beyond any possibility of doubt, which it has.

This is not "semi-medieval morality." This is some sort of world with modern tech (or at least guns). Knowing that, do you still consider execution the best option?

Woot Spitum
2007-02-08, 08:02 PM
This is not "semi-medieval morality." This is some sort of world with modern tech (or at least guns). Knowing that, do you still consider execution the best option?

I don't remember anyone saying it had modern tech. Even if it did, some cultures would probably approve of immediate death in any event, or worse yet, run the accused through a sham trial. Different cultures have different ideas of justice. For example, dwarves actually consider the death penalty more humane than banishment, due to their culture. Automatically assuming that justice in D&D is exactly like that of a typical modern democracy simply doesn't due the setting justice. Character's views on justice are determined largely by their own culture.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-08, 08:06 PM
This is not "semi-medieval morality." This is some sort of world with modern tech (or at least guns). Knowing that, do you still consider execution the best option?

I'd have to know more about the moral/ethical base of the society in question to make that call. Technology is not necessarily an indication of sociological position. A post-apocalyptic world, for example, would likely be tribal, with justice being extremely rough & ready, yet a great deal of technology might have survived.

Role playing to me is about getting inside the character's head - and that means knowing the precepts he's operating from. Without knowing those, I can't begin to answer the question.

***

I completely agree with Woot, too.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-08, 08:08 PM
I don't remember anyone saying it had modern tech. Even if it did, some cultures would probably approve of immediate death in any event, or worse yet, run the accused through a sham trial. Different cultures have different ideas of justice. For example, dwarves actually consider the death penalty more humane than banishment, due to their culture. Automatically assuming that justice in D&D is exactly like that of a typical modern democracy simply doesn't due the setting justice. Character's views on justice are determined largely by their own culture.


You have broken a kidnapping/slavery ring, responsible for several deaths and innumerable shattered lives. You've traced the leaders to a remote cabin. They put up a fight, but your troops subdue them without losses. You have the three leaders unconscious, bound and at gunpoint, and you read their minds.

But I was only saying that we can't assume medieval morality here. You also make another good point: We can't assume any sort of justice system whatsoever.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-08, 08:10 PM
I must admit I read 'gunpoint' in the original statement as metaphorical rather than actual, and that the question was for standard D&D campaign ethics.

I absolutely stand by my opinion that bad guy B is the worst of the three, however.

Diggorian
2007-02-09, 02:37 AM
Tangentally related RPG occurance.

A D&D game. Traveling caravan entertains the PC's before trying to rob them. Paladin is handling all the mooks while LG monk and True Neutral wizard pursue fleeing ringleader.
Hurt bad, ringleader stops running and surrenders.

While monk binds him the wizard talks about how he's going to be executed. Ringleader plays tough guy, smirks that he aint afraid of the local's justice. Wizard's sense motive fails against his bluff, ringleader appears confident. Wizard decides to execute him with magic missles.

Monk roundhouse kicks the wizard away before bending to treat the now dying captive. Paladin shows up finally and backs up the monk, who stabilizes the prisoner. I gave the wizard a check to show a step towards Neutral evil (not a shift yet), cause his action fit the behavior of that alignment.

What struck me was the callousness he showed to life, as Dhavaer's characters are atleast considering what the right thing is shows the moral restraint traditional heroes are made of.

J_Muller
2007-02-09, 02:47 AM
A touchy situation. You know they are guilty, but you have no evidence with which to conduct a trial. In this situation, you must make a field decision as to their fates.

Jail B, kill A and C. The irredeemable and the crazy will just cause problems if you leave them alive. The remorseful may become peaceful prisoners, and there is no reason to kill them if they are truly remorseful about their crimes.

Beleriphon
2007-02-09, 03:12 AM
Could you explain why redemption is impossible in the medieval world but perfectly doable in the modern?

Incidentally, as I said above, this is the modern world. You're holding them "at gunpoint," remember?

Its not impossible, but it is a matter of perspective. Lets take a look at the situation from some different nation states from D&D. In the areas controlled by Waterdeep you'd be in trouble for killing the guys from a legal perspective, but I seriously doubt the Lord of Waterdeep would mind. Alustriel of Silverymoon again not a big deal, but her influence barely extends outside of her own city. Your in Thay, well you probably just murdered a bunch of agents of the goverment, so you'd better run. Nobody likes it when a 25th level wizard and lich is mad at you.

Moving to Eberron. Karrnathi justice on the lot would be swift and unpleasant, so you probably get a big huzzah from the king. Breland is largely a lawful state, but they also don't like slavers so its kind of up in the air, the king could very well just pardon you if you were charged for anything (I suspect that he would). The other nations would have some variation of the above. Good times.

Over all, I would call down the righteous might of smashiness and hang them at the earliest opportunity.

Narmoth
2007-02-09, 06:47 AM
That's one type of medieval prison. However, it isn't the only type. The Emperor Alexius, according to the Alexiad, actually imprisoned a man who tried to assassinate with the intention of reforming him.

Jeah, and noblemen and merchants inprisoned waiting to be ransomed would often also be held in relatively comfortable inprisonment. Still, as only one has even a slight posibilllity to change, I have to be shure that they don't escape. Also, allthrough I have an army, I haven't got a comfortable prison for such ocasions, so I can either drag them along or send them to local authorities to whom I can't prove their guilt.
Anyway, I have no way (except lobotomy) to reform them, and I won't let anyone run free in case they reformed. Also, I can't guaranty their or my mens safety if I drag them along, so it's not an act of mercy to keep them.

Jayabalard
2007-02-09, 09:14 AM
/shrug unless I'm acting as the agent of some government who specifically has charge me with capturing them, the situation itself is flawed.

"You have broken a kidnapping/slavery ring, responsible for several deaths and innumerable shattered lives. You've traced the leaders to a remote cabin. They put up a fight, and your troops kill them during the fight because they didn't surrender"

No mind reading needed. Put their heads on display in the appropriate place and problem solved.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-09, 03:12 PM
/shrug unless I'm acting as the agent of some government who specifically has charge me with capturing them, the situation itself is flawed.

"You have broken a kidnapping/slavery ring, responsible for several deaths and innumerable shattered lives. You've traced the leaders to a remote cabin. They put up a fight, and your troops kill them during the fight because they didn't surrender"

No mind reading needed. Put their heads on display in the appropriate place and problem solved.

You're assuming that your troops are going out of their way to capture them alive. It's possible that, once you broke into the cabin, they threw down their weapons and gave up.

Well, my arguments have been assuming the leaders surrender at some point. If you had to kill all the slavers and bludgeon the ringleaders into unconsciousness, then bind them firmly for mind reading, go ahead and execute A and C. In fact, the only reason I've been recommending keeping them alive is, as I pointed out earlier, the pragmatic reason of showing how you treat those who surrender. B should be kept alive though; he can be reformed.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-09, 05:12 PM
This just occured to me, but how does detect evil help you tell the difference between unrepentant, potentially repentant, and just plain crazy? I thought it only revealed auras, and even then I'm not even sure that that anyone humanoid outside of those belonging to divine magic-based classes even give off auras. Detect thoughts isn't much help, since it only detects surface thoughts, not deep, innermost feelings.

Jade_Tarem
2007-02-10, 01:04 AM
It doesn't, it only helps to determine aura presence, strength, and location. You need other spells to tell the difference between Dhaver's A,B, and C, although C *might* not scan as "evil." If you really focused hard, or else had the help of Blessed Sight, which is to Detect evil what Arcane Sight is to Detect Magic, then you may be able to sense a small variation in the evil "glow" between A and B. In either case, you're not going to receive descriptive advice of the kind Dhaver gives in the OP, which is why he uses a "mind reading" spell/device/contrivance.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-10, 03:11 AM
This just occured to me, but how does detect evil help you tell the difference between unrepentant, potentially repentant, and just plain crazy? I thought it only revealed auras, and even then I'm not even sure that that anyone humanoid outside of those belonging to divine magic-based classes even give of auras. Detect thoughts isn't much help, since it only detects surface thoughts, not deep, innermost feelings.

Dhaever used some sort of unknown doohickey that gives you a complete and accurate psych profile of any subject.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-10, 04:20 AM
It's just a theoretical. I don't really see whether or not it's possible within the standard rules matters all that much :)

Dhavaer
2007-02-11, 06:55 PM
The 'gunpoint' was not metaphorical, your troops are using modern firearms. The world is in many way as it is today, with the obvious exception that magic exists. It's not widely known, however.

Deathcow
2007-02-11, 07:54 PM
The fundamental question, Dhavaer, is: what system of morality are we using? Real life morals, or D&D morals? It's a difficult question: D&D morals are unquestionably objective, imposed from on high by the gods. Therefore, there is a right and a wrong answer. Whether you believe that RL morals are subjective or objective depend on your belief in the divine, which varies from person to person. Therefore, it is impossible to know whether there is a right or wrong answer, and even if there were, it would be near-impossible to figure it out. Is morality based on action, or intent? Is it ever acceptable to kill?

Personally, I don't believe in the taking of human life (IRL) to solve problems. Using violence as a solution to violence only prolongs violence in the long run. And in this case, how is killing them more moral than putting them in prison for life? Either way, they're prevented from harming innocents, but if you imprison them you give them the chance at redemption. Even if they don't take it, that's still points for you for allowing them the chance. If you don't allow them to redeem themselves, you become responsible for their damnation. If you give them a chance, and they don't take it, then it's their fault and theirs alone.

Dhavaer
2007-02-11, 07:58 PM
The fundamental question, Dhavaer, is: what system of morality are we using?

Whatever system you would normally use.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-12, 12:46 AM
MY normal system would be that it's wrong to kill another human being under any circumstances. Because killing someone takes away all they are, all they might be, and all future descendents. Even if someone is a total bastard now, whose to say their great-grandson will not be of huge benefit to the world?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-12, 12:49 AM
It's okay to kill if it makes you feel good.

J_Muller
2007-02-12, 01:11 AM
Hahaha...
Hahahahahaha...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
lawl...