| Adam Blufield |
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
killing surrendered prisoners was deemed to not be an evil act by the GM (since the prisoners were evil).
Lame.
Evil for the sake of evil robs morality of any depth. If alignment is simply delineating two sides for the sake of combat, there's no difference betwen good and evil since the good characters are the same as evil characters (killing them once they've surrendered). I believe this is an example of a GM who is doing his campaign a disservice.
ALSO, very few characters operate entirely within a single alignment. Hans Solo, arguably a chaotic good character, shoots and kills Greedo, despite owing Jabba money. He doesn't make a habit out of doing this, and it is arguably an evil act (certainly chaotic) but he remains good.
As for a Paladin walking away from the party, the DM might as well end the game anyways. The party is not acting cohesively. This conflict offers an opportunity for players to role play and come to a mutually agreeable solution, but if they're unwilling to compromise the only option is to go their separate ways.