2008-09-22, 11:10 PM (ISO 8601)
Re: OOTS #595 - The Discussion Thread
Points 1-3: The fact that I don't care means that I'm not going to debate this with you further, because D&D morality, despite your assertions to the contrary, has very little to do with what's in the texts. In practice, D&D alignments are determined by what the players and DM find appropriate; informed by the rules, yes, but hardly dictated by them. Thus, D&D morality is exactly equivalent to real-world morality, just with more obvious heroes and villains.
Originally Posted by EvilElitest
If you disagree with something in a text, then the rest of the text becomes suspect. If you feel it's okay to disagree with the mind control bit, then who are you to claim that I cannot disagree with the alleged "killing is always bad" part? Ergo, drop the damned BoED already.
Demands =/= disagreement, and again, calls for reform ARE NOT TREASON. They would only become treason if the reformers, upon failing to convince the king, began a campaign to bring him down.
If taking someone to trial would be dangerous or unnecessarily complicated in cases where the fate of the world is at stake, then it is fine to kill him, much like unsurrendered, unconscious enemies in the middle of the wilderness in a different campaign. You can't drag them back to civilization, because the lost Orb of Phantasmagoria is going to be used by the Black Moon cultists in a fortnight, and you can just barely get to them on time. Tying them up either invites death or them escaping, and continuing to prey on travelers.
I argue that Kubota has pointed out both danger and unnecessary complication in giving him due process of law, and thus extralegal actions are justified.