Quote Originally Posted by Laurentio II View Post
It does, in terms of "reasonable force".
What this means is that there are more excuses/reasons for killing when the victim is free and armed than when a helpless prisoner. It gives no support to any claim that killing the helpless prisoner is especially horrible. Either way somebody is dead.

Quote Originally Posted by Laurentio II View Post
But this is a real life case. OotS works in a fantasy, epic setting, where the value of human life is much lower.
Largely irrelevant to the point at hand. Whether one steals $1000 or $10,000, one is still stealing.

Quote Originally Posted by EvilElitest
by D&D rules, V commited an evil action.
Nope. An unlawful action definitely. Evil, that's an entirely different story. The idea that he killed for convenience is a misreading. It had been an act of mercy not to kill Kubota earlier. V simply stopped granting mercy. [BED does say one should always be merciful, but quickly turns around and shows that "always" in fact means "almost always", which is also the D&D definition of "always evil".]

Quote Originally Posted by Stormoverkrynn
V in this case was willing to kill an active member of his party.
V was entirely too willing to threaten to kill. However, there is the saying "threatened men live long lives." An extremely high percentage of threats do not get carried out.
Essentially V was bluffing. He made the threat and Elan "called" it by not understanding it. So she had the choice to back down or kill, and chose to back down. So we have to rule V was not [yet?] willing to kill.
Now we can hardly rule V innocent here. If V had scared Elan into attacking, a quite possible result, we would blame her for any resulting damage. So he is on distinctly shaky ground here. Those of us who don't like the idea of mage sliding to evil have to be quite worried. But so far there are at least grounds for hope.

Quote Originally Posted by Warren Dew
By the terms of Kubota's surrender, and by Elan's acceptance of the surrender, they have agreed to settle their differences in court.
As has been noted, V is not bound by Elan's agreement. And by being chaotic, Elan is not particularly bound either. [Given that there was no formal agreement, a lawful wouldn't be that bound either.]
Surrender does not carry with it any binding restrictions on the other side. You have surrendered, you are property, to be used as desired. What surrender does is eliminate a large number of the moral grounds for harming you. You are not trying to hurt someone, and are not trying to escape. That makes it much harder to find grounds for just cutting your throat.

Quote Originally Posted by Warren Dew
Saying "okay, I agree to take this to a magistrate as long as you don't fight back" to fool someone into allowing himself to be tied up, then taking advantage of that to knife them in the back, is not good - it's evil.
Chaotic yes. Evil, that depends on the death, not the technical details about how.

Quote Originally Posted by Warren Dew
If Miko had accepted a surrender from Belkar in the storeroom, then chopped his head off after tying him up, she would have fallen there and then.

it's strongly implied that Miko would have fallen by killing Belkar in the second panel of 285, even though Belkar deserves death, has not surrendered, and is not prisoner,
That seems the inferior reading. V defends Belkar, not on any grounds like Miko's attack would be evil, but by saying she hates Miko more. Roy denies it is a matter of good or evil [which here implies that the good act would have been to dice Belkar]. And in 286 we learn that Belkar's idea was dangerously flawed. So assuming Miko would have fallen is very much just an assumption.

Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower
How is telling Hinjo the truth a threat to V?
Hinjo is lawful and thus he has a very high possibility of trying to arrest V for murder. At the least, he is going to investigate, and annoy V, taking time from his research. From a purely personal view, Hinjo will likely cause V more trouble than Kubota would have. V could have just continued the research all thru the trial and beyond. It is the fleet and the rest of the party that get any benefit from the killing. [which meets some of the standards for a good action according to many theories].


Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower
truly logical thinking would have realized how poorly the action would be received by the other members of his group (including Haley). It would also have lead to the realization that the act would make V's teammates less likely to trust or cooperate with the wizard.
So do you think V really values this?

Quote Originally Posted by teretorn
#0399
«would it not just be wiser to execute all three of them and be done with it?»

Haley countered that with "Sh'heah, right" and then went to explain why that would not solve the problem. Being wrong or evil wasn't one of the reasons not to do it.
Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower
The expressions displayed by Haley and Elan in the tenth panel, to say nothing of Haley's comment in the eighth, say otherwise.
Quite the contrary actually. In the 8th, Haley is talking about soul binding as evil. By contrast, she has not said that killing Nale & friends is evil. So the implication is that killing the prisoners is not evil, merely a bad idea.

Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower
V's observation that he was representing the halfling's viewpoint was just another way to say, "Okay, it's evil, but is there any other reason it's a bad idea?"
V's comment was "intellectual discussion", indicating his distaste is for Belkar's limited brainpower. However her question does not concede the action is evil at all. Rather it also asks "Is the action actually evil in this case?" [Belkar's approval of such an idea does not mean it is evil, but it is hardly a good sign after all.] Haley's failure to reject the idea as evil is not an absolute sign she agrees the idea isn't evil, but since she starts talking about effectiveness, one would assume that she at least has doubts on the point. One often starts with the solid argument and leaves the questionable points for later, if at all. When we add in that she does find something else evil, we have a decent case that the killing of the prisoners is not, of itself, an evil act.