Quote Originally Posted by Sucrose View Post
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.
So basically, your saying because the text doesn't support yoru argument, your going to declare it irrelevant and move on as if it hasn't' happened, in order to prove your point. So dispite the fact that murder is inherently evil (BoED chapter 1 and 2) your just gong to not counter any argument because it weakens your argument.

um, have fun i guess
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.
Disagreeing with the text is a personal issue. i didn't make the rules i just fallow them. You are disagreeing with it on the basis it doesn't work that way, while i am putting my own personal morals aside and saying "Yeah, it does work taht way, its in the rules, deal with it"

My personal morals are relevant, only the morals of the game, Which are defined in BoED, and so it is perfectly relevant. Just because it doesn't support your idea of vigilante justice doesn't make it irrelvant
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.
Yeah they could be. Treason is a subjective term. A nation might say that gonig against the gods is treason, impliying the king might be wrong is treason, worshiping other gods is treason
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.
No its not, because it is still murder, and when you resort to evil actions, you are admitting defeat
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.
You know, making very narrow and vaugly defined situations doesn't actually prove a point. The solution depends upon the specifics

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.
No because in D&D the murder of an unarmed prisoner are never justified. Its lazy, arrogant, hypocritical, cowardly and most importantly, evil to kill him just because its easier. Good is always the hard way