Is killing things and taking their stuff evil?

[Ironicdisaster]

I mean, they aren't USING it anymore, right?

[Mikaze]

Did you kill them to take their stuff?

Why are you taking their stuff?

[BenignFacist]

.
..
...
....
.....

Yes. It's my stuff.

Give it back!

I needs it for my wives!1!

*shakes fist*

[Shadowlord]

A lot of people tend to confuse Alignment and other game mechanics with actual morality, as well as confusing current moral ideals with those of a medival time period on which the game is losely based. Are you asking if it is morally evil or if it is Evil according to game rules in a Medieval time period? There is a large difference and the answers would be as veried as the people posting in the thread. However for game purposes, undestand that it isn't so much a question of Good or Evil it is a question of Game Mechanics. Killing bad guys (or good guys) and assuming possesion of what used to be their stuff is how the game progresses. That is how you gain wealth and power in order to reach new levels of power and take on increasingly bad (or good) guys in your campaingn. So unless your DM has a whole new system of character progression and wealth accumulation prepared for play in his Home-Brew game, the question of whether it is Good or Evil is rather secondary to the fact that it is how the game is played.

[Shatian]

Is it "eeeevil" ? hmmmm let's see... did you go out of your way to kill it? No....hmm ok. Did you do so out of vengeance...hmmmm...no? Did you do it just because he was looking at you funny...hmm..no? Evil, true evil will do things because they bend the law, or simply because they can. But it is not much different than the LG paladins that walk into the village of orcs and kill everything there. Think about it, will the whole village be full of nothing but Orcs between 15 and 80 all "Evil" ? No there will be women and children and pets there. All to often the paladins and rangers ride in to slay the evil infestation, and walk out with another orc village destroyed. Is that evil ? The LG paladin would say no, so I ask you; is that evil, to offer no mercy, give no quarter?

[Beorn the Bear]

the way you asked the question it is impossible to tell. Defining evil in such an ambiguous context is nigh impossible. Action and motivation in the context of a civilization will help you determine more accurately if that is to be considered an evil act or not.

[Set]

Killing things and taking their stuff? Maybe yes.

Killing people and taking their stuff? Maybe no.

Just make sure that your definition of 'things' doesn't include any people.

Unless their stuff is really nice, in which case, no one would blame you...

[Todd Starbuck]

Maybe, and that's final.

No really, morality is in the specifics... the circumstances. For instance it's one thing to kill someone who is trying to murder you, and quite another to subdue them and then kill them (that's murder).

If the bad guys attack the heroes en route to reclaim a lost relic, killing the bad guys would most likely be self defense.

You can also go with the idea that "things are different" in the setting as someone said above. Society might be fine with you for killing a bunch of kobolds. They may see kobolds the way that colonists saw the Indians or wolves... dangerous pests. Maybe the gods of good see wiping out villages as the greater good. But does that conform with the idea of goodness?

i believe it doesn't. Seeing kobolds as dangerous pests is neutral at best, im<ho. To me, being good involves mercy, compassion... traits that make us vulnerable, but make life worth living. Good PCs should go to great lengths to avoid murder. Laying waste to a goblin village is likely murder.

A solution might be to abandon alignment. Instead, let society judge them as ours does. Or let each deity judge. Each deity would have its own moral code. Pelor might frown on killing kobolds needlessly. A warrior god might see it as good exercise.

If you want a more interesting game... challenge this issue/thinking. Are the goblins evil or desperate? Meaning, are they looking for an easy living by stealing what others have earned or are they somehow unable to fend for themselves and are stealing food to feed their children? Start the story with something typical, cut and dry like "the goblins are raiding shipments". Then when the PCs investigate they might find that the orcs have displaced the goblins or are forcing them into it. Now things are tricky. The players might realize, "if my kids were starving I'd consider stealing" or "if my kids were held hostage, I'd do ANYTHING to save them". What started as clear and simple (and boring) has become complicated and conflicting (interesting).

It might also depend on how you think of free will in the setting. Are drow evil because their spirits are formed my Lolth? Are they genetically disposed to being evil? Are they beaten into submission by their matrons, mocked for showing mercy? Would being less than evil mean death or being at a severe disadvantage? Maybe the environment is so hostile that goodness is a luxury the society can't afford. Look around today and you'll see this thinking.

It matters because if the drow are redeemable, killing them becomes tricky. If they are inherently evil... let the bodies hit the floor.

Though, some players will prefer a more traditional "us vs. them" and "red beady eyes == kill them all". Sound like anyone you know from the real world?

If you really want to dig into it, run a game where the PCs are kobolds or goblins or orcs. Add some stats for hunger and pecking order. See what the PCs do when they are bullied by bigger orcs and they are starving. Make them drow and put them in a society that sees good as evil and vice versa.

Another way to making things interesting is to have all humans. That way the characters and players might see themselves in their enemies. Or just decide they don't care.

[stonechild]

Evil or not would depend on the intent behind the action. The question should be was it done with malice, as in "I took his head and made off with his stuff, ha,ha!" vice "He was dead and had no need for that flaming bastard sword he just tried to kill me with so I took it."
Of course this is more of a right vs. wrong issue than good vs. evil. Like tomb robbing (we call it dungeon delving) is not necessary evil (unless you're looking for bodies to animate) but many cultures would consider it immoral (wrong) if not illegal.
My 2 coppers anyway.

[Ravingdork]

Good/Evil alignment axis = morality
Chaos/Law alignment axis = ethics

If you killed the victim specifically to take their stuff that is undoubtedly evil.

If you killed them because they threatened to harm you or others, and THEN you took their stuff you are either very mercenary (if you took it for profit) or very desperate (if you actually need the gear to help accomplish your mission/save more lives). Neither are evil, though it may well be frowned upon by some.

If you took their stuff for the sole purpose of keeping it out of the hands of other evil villains (possibly even seeking to destroy it if the loot itself is way powerful or way evil), then that is almost always a good-aligned act.

[Havelock]

stonechild wrote:

Like tomb robbing (we call it dungeon delving) is not necessary evil (unless you're looking for bodies to animate) but many cultures would consider it immoral (wrong) if not illegal.

I had a character who would thoroughly ransack any tomb, graveyard or crypt no matter how sacred or what consequences it would bring. To quote: "Graveyards are a breeding ground for Unlife. People should burn the dead."

[kenmckinney]

Since D&D is a game about killing things and taking their stuff, either

1) it isn't evil

or

2) everyone should play evil characters!

[LilithsThrall]

Ironicdisaster wrote:

I mean, they aren't USING it anymore, right?

Yes.

What I'm wondering is why the question came up. Is that the motivation your GM gives you to adventure? Sounds boring.
Raise the issue with your GM. Tell him you'd like to have different adventures - rescuing the kidnapped child of the nobles, stopping the bandits committing highway robbery (so that the peasants can get food), ending the curse on some bloodline, etc.

[EWHM]

You bloodthirsty barbarians :-) You should be smiting your opponents until they're unconscious and dying or surrendering, then stabilizing them if necessary. THEN you take their stuff, and THEN you ransom them back to their liege/family/clan/tribe/whatever for approximately 3 times their yearly income. One never kills even a minor noble or knight if one doesn't have to. Even a man at arms is worth a healthy ransom. Always treat your prisoners with the respect due the station you're ransoming them back as. Not every single conflict has to end with grieving widows and fatherless orphans, although war does leave many widows, so marry well.

[Oliver McShade]

<@><@>

~~slips in, takss your TV, CD player, and Bed (with or without the girlfriend on it :) ~~

Possion is what you can get away with. What does good or evil have to do with it :D

~~slips out, with your wallet ~~

[GodzFirefly]

Are we going to start asking if it's evil to not bury or have a funeral for your enemies next?

More seriously, what are you suggesting as an alternative? Are you burying the enemy's gear with them? Letting the enemy's gear lay unused on the ground while their bodies are left to the scavengers? Searching out the enemy's family, informing the family that you killed your enemy, and returning the gear to the family with an apology?

If you'd left them alive, making them a prisoner, it would be a no-brainer to confiscate the enemy's gear (particularly weaponry.) Why does their death make it harder or more wrong to take their gear?

[Windquake]

Ironicdisaster wrote:

I mean, they aren't USING it anymore, right?

One of my players continually refers to PF, D&D, and similar games as "Hobos with knives".

And the more I think about it, the more he is right. Basically a random group of people roam around, invading habitats, killing the creatures that live there, and taking their stuff.

:P

[Mistah Green]

Windquake wrote:

Ironicdisaster wrote:

I mean, they aren't USING it anymore, right?

One of my players continually refers to PF, D&D, and similar games as "Hobos with knives".

And the more I think about it, the more he is right. Basically a random group of people roam around, invading habitats, killing the creatures that live there, and taking their stuff.

:P

Which is exactly the same as what orcs do. They just choose acceptable targets.

There's a reason why no one really takes D&D alignments seriously.

[LilithsThrall]

Windquake wrote:

Ironicdisaster wrote:

I mean, they aren't USING it anymore, right?

One of my players continually refers to PF, D&D, and similar games as "Hobos with knives".

And the more I think about it, the more he is right. Basically a random group of people roam around, invading habitats, killing the creatures that live there, and taking their stuff.

:P

Like I said, this isn't a problem with the game system. It's a problem with lazy GMs. You can take the same GM and have him run another game system (with the exception of games that have different concepts of gear - like Champions) and you'll have the same problem. You can play DnD with motivations other than "kill things and take their stuff".

I'm the first to criticize the DnD alignment system. I think that sacred cow should have been barbequed a -long- time ago, but it's not that bad.
In fantasy settings, it's typical for there to be white hats and black hats.

[Kaiyanwang]

LilithsThrall wrote:

Like I said, this isn't a problem with the game system. It's a problem with lazy GMs. You can take the same GM and have him run another game system (with the exception of games that have different concepts of gear - like Champions) and you'll have the same problem. You can play DnD with motivations other than "kill things and take their stuff".

+1 to this. The motivation of people in the gameworld can be far more complicated.

This counts for orcs, too, BTW.

[Ironicdisaster]

@Mikaze and BenignFacist, thank you for understanding the spirit of the thread.

@The rest of you: Please stop responding to stupid questions as if they were legitimate. My question was not a valid question. It was intended as a social commentary for all the other "Is it evil to ---" threads. Please phrase your comments in the form of mockery, kthxbai

[LilithsThrall]

Ironicdisaster wrote:

@Mikaze and BenignFacist, thank you for understanding the spirit of the thread.

@The rest of you: Please stop responding to stupid questions as if they were legitimate. My question was not a valid question. It was intended as a social commentary for all the other "Is it evil to ---" threads. Please phrase your comments in the form of mockery, kthxbai

Here's a counter question - is asking stupid questions in an attempt to be snide counter productive or just stupid?

[Ironicdisaster]

LilithsThrall wrote:

Ironicdisaster wrote:

@Mikaze and BenignFacist, thank you for understanding the spirit of the thread.

@The rest of you: Please stop responding to stupid questions as if they were legitimate. My question was not a valid question. It was intended as a social commentary for all the other "Is it evil to ---" threads. Please phrase your comments in the form of mockery, kthxbai

Here's a counter question - is asking stupid questions in an attempt to be snide counter productive or just stupid?

Potentially both, but at no time did I suggest that I was going to change the world. I just wanted to let you all know my opinion of such topics. Call me names all you wish, just don't misunderstand me, please.

[Bard-Sader]

I was under the impression that by RAW, in DnD Intent has no bearing on alignment. Acts are either inherently good or inherently evil. In DnD good and evil are quantifiable, as defined (arbitrarily I believe) by the universe at the moments of creation.

I know. It's stupid. Really stupid. I mean, that is why if you raise some undead red dragon skeletons to rescue orphans from a burning building (they're immune to fire), you have brought Evil upon the world, and may start shifting alignment.

[loaba]

Shadowlord wrote:

A lot of people tend to confuse Alignment and other game mechanics with actual morality, as well as confusing current moral ideals with those of a medival time period on which the game is losely based. Are you asking if it is morally evil or if it is Evil according to game rules in a Medieval time period? There is a large difference and the answers would be as veried as the people posting in the thread. However for game purposes, undestand that it isn't so much a question of Good or Evil it is a question of Game Mechanics. Killing bad guys (or good guys) and assuming possesion of what used to be their stuff is how the game progresses. That is how you gain wealth and power in order to reach new levels of power and take on increasingly bad (or good) guys in your campaingn. So unless your DM has a whole new system of character progression and wealth accumulation prepared for play in his Home-Brew game, the question of whether it is Good or Evil is rather secondary to the fact that it is how the game is played.

The above is the best answer in the thread.

Engaging in encounters, and looting afterwards, is the most basic means of character power progression in D&D. It really is what the game is all about; killing things and taking their stuff.