| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BBEG: Mwahaha! Soon I will sacrifice all these orphans and—
Paladin: *Kicks in the door* Not so fast, evildoer! I will smite you down!
BBEG: You can't! I'm retreating!
Paladin: Dammit, not again...
BBEG: *Grabs a couple orphans as hostage and flees while the Paladin watches helplessly*
---
Yeah, I'm gonna say that retreating doesn't make any attempt to capture/kill you automatically an evil act.
This might be a bit argumentative, but is it good for paladins to consistently go around stabbing fleeing enemies?
As for my own opinion: I think it's rather cowardly and slightly evil to go around stabbing enemies who have no interest in fighting, are not inherently, magically evil, and are fleeing. These are not merely dirty combat tactics (which violate the unspoken rules of combat), but rather an act of killing because you want to. Although it is dependent on the circumstances, if a player consistently does this, I'd say they're acting game-terms evil. Please convince me (politely) if you believe otherwise.
It was an ape. Would you let a powerful animal loose knowing it had tasted humanoid blood and lived to see another day?
Meh , pretty much everybody has a different view in how these things work , in the end the actually important thing is that the GM just warns the player when he believes they are going too far.
It is the GMs opinion that is final and in this case it probably wont be the only one , it just happens to be the one that actually matters.
In my opnion , to kill said ape would be neutral , it was trying to kill them 5 secs ago after all, so it isnt like the PCs are making an evil act in my opinion.
If a paladin was indeed trying to perform such an act , then i would warn him about it , since doing so a few more times would result in being made neutral and losing his powers. Ofc this would be different if it was some evil villan who intended to perform great acts of villainy in the future... but it was just an ape.
The title really made me hope* this would be a retread of another thread.
*Or maybe dread. I'm honestly not sure.
|
I'd agree that killing somebody currently attacking you is neutral or non-aligned (there's a difference). However, they tried to kill it as it left. That's not exactly a good act, though in the grand scheme of things, it's not all that evil, either.
By that logic - you could never kill a sniper without it being an evil act. As soon as you get close enough to start shooting back, they start to run off.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a paladin was indeed trying to perform such an act , then i would warn him about it , since doing so a few more times would result in being made neutral and losing his powers.wait... how do Paladins even live their lives if neutral acts pull them to neutral?
GM: Did your paladin just eat breakfast?
Player: Uh... yeah?
GM: I'm warning you - that was a neutral act. You need to have you paladin to eat more righteously in the future.
Player: Uh - okay? I get a stockpile of righteous flour to make righteous pancakes with.
GM: Come on now! That's just silly!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a paladin was indeed trying to perform such an act , then i would warn him about it , since doing so a few more times would result in being made neutral and losing his powers.wait... how do Paladins even live their lives if neutral acts pull them to neutral?GM: Did your paladin just eat breakfast?
Player: Uh... yeah?
GM: I'm warning you - that was a neutral act. You need to have you paladin to eat more righteously in the future.
Player: Uh - okay? I get a stockpile of righteous flour to make righteous pancakes with.
GM: Come on now! That's just silly!
Had a shield archon in a game I'm DMing that the players used to make flapjacks on its' tower shield.
They were divine.
|
If a paladin was indeed trying to perform such an act , then i would warn him about it , since doing so a few more times would result in being made neutral and losing his powers.wait... how do Paladins even live their lives if neutral acts pull them to neutral?
That's why I don't believe in neutral actions. :P
I want to say yes, it was too far and for a very extreme and generalizing reason.
Anything that makes a villain sympathetic in my games has led to out of game fights. Anytime I have an NPC that is ambiguously evil has resulted in out of game fights.
A 'kinda bad' villain is taken captive by another villain and the PCs find the first villain chained up in the second villain's dungeon. One PC wants to kill him, another does not. Out of game screaming ensues and game ends with no conclusion.
PCs sneak into a goblin fort. The first encounter is two goblins that do not notice that they are there, one flirting with the other. Rogue decides to sneak up and kill the goblins. Other PCs don't want any part of that because it's just two innocent goblins trying to get laid. Out of game fights ensue and becomes a poison pill that eventually ends the game.
A trickster creature is the creepy gatekeeper to the vault of gods. He's too creepy to not be evil. Half the PCs want to kill him half don't. Out of game fights ensue, game ends.
The king is is too curious about the PC's equipment and is asking for favors. Sound s like villain to some players, other players think this is paranoid thinking. Out of game fights ensue games end.
Or I could just have so many wrong groups because in these scenarios similar people were involved but at this point I've been slightly paranoid about having evil be ambiguous or hard moral conflicts. From a while ago on I mostly have villains that are as evil as a necromancer that eats puppies in his lair made out of burning orphans with no more motivation other than his alignment has and 'E' in it. I haven't had any players fighting out of game in a while so I guess it's working.
If a paladin was indeed trying to perform such an act , then i would warn him about it , since doing so a few more times would result in being made neutral and losing his powers.wait... how do Paladins even live their lives if neutral acts pull them to neutral?
Very well i will admit i worded myself poorly , what i meant was this action wasnt inside his LG charater range. I didnt really meant that the action is neutral
Yes the action is evil and even chaotic like many already said, but for me well within what a neutral PC could do , so i would write it down but i wouldnt bug him much for it since it would take many of those for him to become trully evil.
On the other hand for a good PC this would be a really fast way to become neutral.
This is an interesting thread. Personally, I find that scene evocative and effective—you really can't blame an animal for the company it keeps. Shooting the ape is an ugly act, but I wouldn't call it evil. Just excessively practical.
That said, your group is clearly more sensitive (as are you, if the apeshoot was enough to inspire a thread), so I'd be careful about that sort of thing.
That's why I don't believe in neutral actions. :PIf a paladin was indeed trying to perform such an act , then i would warn him about it , since doing so a few more times would result in being made neutral and losing his powers.wait... how do Paladins even live their lives if neutral acts pull them to neutral?
Do you think Druids have to commit an equal number of good and evil actions throughout their lives, lest they get too pulled in one direction or the other? If they save someone's life are they required to also murder someone else to offset it because there aren't any neutral actions they could take instead? Personally (and a little-bit off-topic), I think all actions are neutral and it's the intentions and consequences that range from good to evil. Killing the ape, for example, could be murder, revenge, to preempt the ape's revenge, to preserve secrecy for the group's mission, or even a mercy killing if the ape is already injured. We don't really know what the particulars of the situation are.
On-topic, I'm not sure I understand the original situation posited. Why would the ape running away be a problem? Why would attacking it be a problem? Why would letting it go be a problem? I could list arguments for why a person with any of the alignments would spare the ape or hunt it down. Is the problem related to OOC hangups with some of the players? If someone doesn't want to play a game with ghosts or spiders in it, don't throw those at them; if someone doesn't want to play a game with religious overtones, don't push that on them; etc. Some people have a lot of empathy for animals and don't want to play a game with what they see as animal abuse. As DM/GM, you should be mindful of who you're hosting. If you didn't know about their feelings ahead of time, you should probably have a serious OOC discussion with them to work out where their boundaries are, and then respect those boundaries.
If a paladin was indeed trying to perform such an act , then i would warn him about it , since doing so a few more times would result in being made neutral and losing his powers.wait... how do Paladins even live their lives if neutral acts pull them to neutral?Very well i will admit i worded myself poorly , what i meant was this action wasnt inside his LG charater range. I didnt really meant that the action is neutral
Yes the action is evil and even chaotic like many already said
Respectfully disagree. Valuing the life of oneself and one's companions is neutral and neither evil nor chaotic.
Plus Gorilla Meat. Tasty tasty Gorilla Meat.
On the other hand for a good PC this would be a really fast way to become neutral.Note to self: Don't ever try to play a Good PC in Nox's campaigns. That alignment will not last.
Said animal wasnt trying to kill them , it was trying to run away.
If it was still fighting? Then sure , defend yourself , but killing a wounded animal that is trying to run away and that alone isnt much of a threat to your party?
I really dont see how this has anything to do with valuing your own life. All i could see is the desire to finish the job.
With that said , alightment situations are hard enough while you are playing them, on the forums they are just endless. The GM should make the call , i just gave my two cents , while even i admit there could have been tons of reasons outside the fight to motive the players , for example they wanted to hunt him for food like you said... which is weird to me , but fair.
|
|
Said animal wasnt trying to kill them , it was trying to run away.If it was still fighting? Then sure , defend yourself , but killing a wounded animal that is trying to run away and that alone isnt much of a threat to your party?
I really dont see how this has anything to do with valuing your own life. All i could see is the desire to finish the job.
Because something as dangerous as that ape which already tried to kill you once isn't likely to do so again once it heals up?
Ok... im confused , are we still talking about an animal companion ape here :P?
Cause he is starting to sound intelligent :P.
You guys present more points , like he could return later , IF they later still remained in the area , he could go for allies , IF said hunter still had allies...
All of that only the GM and players know , that is why i said it is hard enough on the table , on the forums missing the whole picture, it just wont happen.
|
|
Ok... im confused , are we still talking about an animal companion ape here :P?
Cause he is starting to sound intelligent :P.
You guys present more points , like he could return later , IF they later still remained in the area , he could go for allies , IF said hunter still had allies...
If a bear attacks someone and then runs back off into the woods - park rangers are sure to track it down and usually kill it because it's already shown a willingness to attack humans. Should be far more true in this case.
As to intelligence - many characters with animal companions are sure to boost their Int up past animal levels so that they can grab any feat they want.
It depends on the environment. If there were a lion in a city park and I didn't have an effective means for capturing and moving it, I'd put it down even if it were fleeing from me. Just because it doesn't pose a threat to me doesn't mean it doesn't pose a threat to the community.
And in this context, I'm a powerful adventurer, not the flabby software developer that I am in real life. If a lion doesn't pose a threat to me, I'm pretty sure it's only going to be harming squirrels. :-)
Lassie can come for help, why can't a Gorilla? They both have 2 int.
Ofc she can , but even lassie cant get help if there is nobody to help or willing to help , the guy was dead... lets just say that reviving is quite the help i dont think just about anyone would be willing and able to help in this case.
And even then , like i said , we are assuming it a place where she can get help.
Ok... im confused , are we still talking about an animal companion ape here :P?
Cause he is starting to sound intelligent :P.
You guys present more points , like he could return later , IF they later still remained in the area , he could go for allies , IF said hunter still had allies...
If a bear attacks someone and then runs back off into the woods - park rangers are sure to track it down and usually kill it because it's already shown a willingness to attack humans. Should be far more true in this case.
As to intelligence - many characters with animal companions are sure to boost their Int up past animal levels so that they can grab any feat they want.
Like said above , he is just a initial ape animal companion no buffs , you could say that maybe the hunter gave his buddy ape a headband of int +6, fair enough , but we dont know that.
Sure it could be an issue to your normal small village commoner NPC , IF there is a village nearby , maybe they were in some deep jungle far from anything , said ape would not be a danger , again we dont know.
|
|
That's why I don't believe in neutral actions. :PIf a paladin was indeed trying to perform such an act , then i would warn him about it , since doing so a few more times would result in being made neutral and losing his powers.wait... how do Paladins even live their lives if neutral acts pull them to neutral?Do you think Druids have to commit an equal number of good and evil actions throughout their lives, lest they get too pulled in one direction or the other? If they save someone's life are they required to also murder someone else to offset it because there aren't any neutral actions they could take instead? Personally (and a little-bit off-topic), I think all actions are neutral and it's the intentions and consequences that range from good to evil. Killing the ape, for example, could be murder, revenge, to preempt the ape's revenge, to preserve secrecy for the group's mission, or even a mercy killing if the ape is already injured. We don't really know what the particulars of the situation are.
On-topic, I'm not sure I understand the original situation posited. Why would the ape running away be a problem? Why would attacking it be a problem? Why would letting it go be a problem? I could list arguments for why a person with any of the alignments would spare the ape or hunt it down. Is the problem related to OOC hangups with some of the players? If someone doesn't want to play a game with ghosts or spiders in it, don't throw those at them; if someone doesn't want to play a game with religious overtones, don't push that on them; etc. Some people have a lot of empathy for animals and don't want to play a game with what they see as animal abuse. As DM/GM, you should be mindful of who you're hosting. If you didn't know about their feelings ahead of time, you should probably have a serious OOC discussion with them to work out where their boundaries are, and then respect those boundaries.
Druids are barred neither from being good nor Evil, but from delving into extreme alignments. Remember, too, that alignment is a tool that represents your character's general inclinations, not the other way around. It isn't so much that a druid must perform equivalent actions, but that the kind of person who IS a druid is typically balanced between performing good, Evil, lawful, and/or chaotic actions.
|
Personally in the original situation I would consider killing the ape a good or unaligned act depending on the intention, as if they were in a jungle and it loses all "benefits" of being an animal companion, unless it was highish level AC it is probably less powerful than an average animal, and will be summarily eaten. Chasing it down and beating it into unconsciousness, then raising it until it can fend for itself would be a good act. An evil act would be taunting and/or causing undue harm to the ape. It has been shown that apes have feelings and the like as semi-intelligent beings, so revenge is nowhere out of the question.
|
Don't see anything wrong with killing that ape. Once an enemy starts attacking me, if its in my power, I will see him dead, unless I want him for questioning. Or there is very strong evidence he is being mind controlled.
Ok. There was 1 exception. I have a soft spot for lizards with beady beady eyes.
Also, one of the PCs (the same that killed the hunter btw) tried to finish off the ape when it was obviously retreating. While I have noted the.. tenacity of some people in discussions regarding alignment, I would still like to know: would you consider this an evil act?
Who started the fight? If the attacker tries to flee, kill it. It's your right because he wanted you harm. If you are the aggressor, why did you attack in the first place?
But normally I'd say no, killing someone who, seconds ago, wanted to hurt/kill you but is now retreating it totally ok.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We train our own military to shoot people as they retreat. Note retreating is NOT surrendering. Retreating means "come back later to fight again", which is why we keep shooting. Not that they might have thought this would happen.
Also, players fight to the death in almost every encounter, so they probably just kept the same strategy: keep on fighting, without even thinking about it.
Was it too far? Why? Why were they upset at all? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Maybe they were upset because the ape showed emotion, instead of fighting to the death in a rage, being sad and running away reminded them that harming sentient beings causes emotional pain, leading to suffering. (Sentient beings in the Buddhist sense, not western sense). I think Malwing is on the right track.
Are their no atonement spells in that world? As long as they realize what they did was out of wrath, the event should not even count.
If they had followed the ape, they could have found more treasure or enemies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Survivor_(film)
Go to Cost of Mercy.
|
Some folks must have serious issues with animal control officers in the real world, especially when a dog mauls someone. No matter how peaceful they may seem later, they're usually put down.
Animal control officers must be evil, then, I suppose.
...not that I subscribe to that concept.
I tend to think of it as a proven safety issue.
Another thing to consider this is a combat trained animal. Normal animals usually avoid humans. A combat trained animal does not do this. So now you have a dangerous wild animal that not only does not avoid humans, but is trained to attack them. Chances are very good this animal is going to attack and probably kill a human. While the hunter was alive he could control the ape so that it was not a danger to other humans. Last time I checked being dead gave you a major penalty to handle animal so it would be safe to say the ape is no longer being controlled. That being the case it can be considered a danger to humans. Killing it would not be an evil act.
Some folks must have serious issues with animal control officers in the real world, especially when a dog mauls someone. No matter how peaceful they may seem later, they're usually put down.
Animal control officers must be evil, then, I suppose.
...not that I subscribe to that concept.
I tend to think of it as a proven safety issue.
That is not what happens where I live. What normally happens is those dogs go to an animal shelter where an assessment is made based on its behaviour with other animals and the staff at the shelter. Usually only those dogs that have been specifically trained to attack people are euthanized and then only in the most humane way possible.
The people I know who work in animal shelters are an excellent example of what it means to be a good person. Generally speaking, they regard life as precious and do what ever they can to preserve it with the limited resources they have available to them.
Killing is an absolute last resort for a good person in the real world. A good character should act the same way, even though it is a fantasy world. Killing a fleeing ape to avoid a hypothetical and highly debatable danger that may occur in the future is clearly an evil act. There may be times when killing a fleeing creature is the right thing to do, but that would be only in some rare and highly contrived circumstances.
Finally, to answer the opening post it sounds like you created a wonderful roleplaying opportunity there, I think RPGs are at their best when combat and roleplay mix together in interesting ways, well done!
Another thing to consider this is a combat trained animal. Normal animals usually avoid humans. A combat trained animal does not do this. So now you have a dangerous wild animal that not only does not avoid humans, but is trained to attack them. Chances are very good this animal is going to attack and probably kill a human. While the hunter was alive he could control the ape so that it was not a danger to other humans. Last time I checked being dead gave you a major penalty to handle animal so it would be safe to say the ape is no longer being controlled. That being the case it can be considered a danger to humans. Killing it would not be an evil act.
If by that you mean killing the ape was a neutral act I would agree, but it certainly is not a good act. If I was GM I would have no issue with a neutral character acting in this way from time to time, but if it became habitual they would slide towards evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some folks must have serious issues with animal control officers in the real world, especially when a dog mauls someone. No matter how peaceful they may seem later, they're usually put down.
Animal control officers must be evil, then, I suppose.
...not that I subscribe to that concept.
I tend to think of it as a proven safety issue.
That is not what happens where I live. What normally happens is those dogs go to an animal shelter where an assessment is made based on its behaviour with other animals and the staff at the shelter. Usually only those dogs that have been specifically trained to attack people are euthanized and then only in the most humane way possible.
The people I know who work in animal shelters are an excellent example of what it means to be a good person. Generally speaking, they regard life as precious and do what ever they can to preserve it with the limited resources they have available to them.
Killing is an absolute last resort for a good person in the real world. A good character should act the same way, even though it is a fantasy world. Killing a fleeing ape to avoid a hypothetical and highly debatable danger that may occur in the future is clearly an evil act. There may be times when killing a fleeing creature is the right thing to do, but that would be only in some rare and highly contrived circumstances.
Finally, to answer the opening post it sounds like you created a wonderful roleplaying opportunity there, I think RPGs are at their best when combat and roleplay mix together in interesting ways, well done!
...exactly what we're talking about? Well, except that it's a far more dangerous ape?
Oddly, I've always considered getting rid of a known threat to be a definite GOOD act.
|
|
Killing a fleeing ape to avoid a hypothetical and highly debatable danger that may occur in the future is clearly an evil act.
It's just an animal. Unless you're in a world where eating meat is evil - that argument is silliness. Last time I checked - rabbits & deer etc. almost always flee from hunters. Are all hunters evil?
And that doesn't even take into account that the ape was trying to kill them mere seconds before.
That is not what happens where I live. What normally happens is those dogs go to an animal shelter where an assessment is made based on its behavior with other animals and the staff at the shelter. Usually only those dogs that have been specifically trained to attack people are euthanized and then only in the most humane way possible.
It depends upon how vicious the attack was. If it maimed someone - that dog is going to be put down - no question. Likely the same thing if it's not the first time it's been pulled in after biting someone.
Killing a fleeing ape to avoid a hypothetical and highly debatable danger that may occur in the future is clearly an evil act.It's just an animal. Unless you're in a world where eating meat is evil - that argument is silliness. Last time I checked - rabbits & deer etc. almost always flee from hunters. Are all hunters evil?
And that doesn't even take into account that the ape was trying to kill them mere seconds before.
That is not what happens where I live. What normally happens is those dogs go to an animal shelter where an assessment is made based on its behavior with other animals and the staff at the shelter. Usually only those dogs that have been specifically trained to attack people are euthanized and then only in the most humane way possible.It depends upon how vicious the attack was. If it maimed someone - that dog is going to be put down - no question. Likely the same thing if it's not the first time it's been pulled in after biting someone.
You have made an interesting points there. In a world where you can create food via magic without killing anything then yes it may be evil to hunt for food. I am not 100% sure on that answer, I think it would depend on the details.
Regarding the dog example, like you said it depends on the situation. The authorities don't go around arbitrarily killing dogs, they have to be convinced of the danger and also have no other reasonable options. At the moment there are some dangerous dogs in animal shelters, not a huge number, because they need to be kept separate from the other animals and it ties up a lot of resources.
I agree with the other posters regarding this as a silly debate, at least as far as alignment goes. If the ape had surrendered (an amusing thought in itself) killing it might well be evil, but killing a fleeing enemy wouldn't be anything but neutral in almost all circumstances. And with the little context we have, we can't come to any kind of conclusion like that.
This is what happens when you ask questions about alignment in the forums.
More on-topic, it does create a potentially interesting RP opportunity for the players, and I would've liked to be there to see it. :)
It may be silly but I am glad you decided to join it anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing to consider this is a combat trained animal. Normal animals usually avoid humans. A combat trained animal does not do this. So now you have a dangerous wild animal that not only does not avoid humans, but is trained to attack them. Chances are very good this animal is going to attack and probably kill a human. While the hunter was alive he could control the ape so that it was not a danger to other humans. Last time I checked being dead gave you a major penalty to handle animal so it would be safe to say the ape is no longer being controlled. That being the case it can be considered a danger to humans. Killing it would not be an evil act.If by that you mean killing the ape was a neutral act I would agree, but it certainly is not a good act. If I was GM I would have no issue with a neutral character acting in this way from time to time, but if it became habitual they would slide towards evil.
If it is a neutral act, how can it cause the character to become evil? At most it should cause a good player to become neutral, but even that is stretching it.
To turn evil requires that you regularly engage in evil acts. People seem to have the idea that to be good every action you take has to be good or you turn evil. They also don’t apply the same criteria to evil or neutral characters. Saying a good character turns evil for a single evil act no matter how small is ridiculous. A good person does not suddenly turn evil for a single act of theft any more than a mass murderer turns good for saving a child from being hurt by an animal.
Neutral acts should for the most part not cause someone to change alignment. Humans (and humanoids) are not perfect. We are all a mixture of good and evil, law and chaos. We all have our flaws and virtues. Most acts don’t have any alignment associated with them. Is eating good, or evil? How about killing a chicken for dinner? Is bargaining hard for your services evil? What alignment is listening to music, or singing a song?
Another thing to consider is if killing a helpless animal is evil that make the majority of humans evil. Unless you are a vegetarian you have all participated in the killing and eating of eating of animals. How is this any less evil than killing the ape that attacked you? What makes the cow any more important than the ape?
I read a book where someone was teaching a person to hunt. One of the things he stressed is that if you wound an animal but don’t kill it you should follow the animal if at all possible to finish it off. The reason he gave that leaving a wounded animal was cruel. Many animals die from the wounds even if they are not immediately killed. If the wound becomes infected the animal will die a slow painful death. If the animal is a predator it may not be able to hunt and will die of starvation. He considered hunters who allowed this to happen to be evil.
Because killing is normally an evil act, but sometimes there are mitigating circumstances. If you become a habitual killer, well there can't possibly be mitigating circumstances on every occasion, therefore you slide towards evil.
My understanding of how alignment works is that it is a reflection of how your character acts. It was not intended as a straightjacket that limits your options. If you act like you are a different alignment, then you become that alignment. Neutral acts should eventually cause a change in alignment towards neutral, it should not be easy to maintain an extreme alignment like lawful good or chaotic evil, that is why the bulk of humanity is neutral. You have to question: if making neutral acts doesn't make you neutral alignment, what alignment should you be? And how do you become neutral?
|
|
Because killing is normally an evil act, but sometimes there are mitigating circumstances. If you become a habitual killer, well there can't possibly be mitigating circumstances on every occasion, therefore you slide towards evil.
Killing is not an evil act.
Murder is an evil act.
You can't murder something that isn't sentient anyway. (In Pathfinder terms a decent reflection would be an Int of at least 3, maybe more.) You also can't murder something which just started a fight with you and was fighting mere seconds ago.
By your logic all butchers are evil. As are executioners. Probably soldiers too. Certainly every adventurer who ever picked up a blade or staff.
Since Pathfinder is based around the idea of good adventurers going off and killing stuff - obviously not the case.
No, it's neutral. The ape is an enemy. Fleeing doesn't suddenly change that. Retreating isn't a magical status that makes someone killing you a bad person.It's evil. Does the player care? It's not like he's playing a Paladin, that you've told us.
Players get so uppity about alignment, but this isn't 1st edition D&D where alignment changes incurred an XP penalty. Unless you're an alignment-restricted class, there's no reason to care about it, really. It's all about character growth.
This might be a bit argumentative, but is it good for paladins to consistently go around stabbing fleeing enemies?
As for my own opinion: I think it's rather cowardly and slightly evil to go around stabbing enemies who have no interest in fighting, are not inherently, magically evil, and are fleeing. These are not merely dirty combat tactics (which violate the unspoken rules of combat), but rather an act of killing because you want to. Although it is dependent on the circumstances, if a player consistently does this, I'd say they're acting game-terms evil. Please convince me (politely) if you believe otherwise.
The rules of combat absolutely allow for the killing of an enemy who is retreating. It's frankly idiotic and suicidal not to.