>That's a strict way to look at it. Personally, I think there's a bit of >difference between mutual back-scratching, even of a more sinister sort, >and accepting hard currency in return for laying someone out. I think this is splitting hairs. You could make an argument that Loftis would see that Vlad's request was a reasonable one (especially given Dragaeran attitudes towards the eviction of little old ladies) and therefore would have followed through with it regardless of Vlad's agreement to do some "work" for him in return. There's no question of Vlad being "hired". The negotiation between Vlad and Loftis (hope I got his name right) is a direct parallel to the negotiations he did in the Jhereg for similar types of "work". The only question is Vlad's motiviation. If he did it because Loftis helped him and conversely would NOT have done it if Loftis had NOT helped him then it's "murder for hire". If you have any doubts, try re-casting the story in terms of a modern-day policeman agreeing to help a known hit-man out of a jam. He then gives said hit-man all the details needed to take out a corrupt cop and the hit-man in turn kills the corrupt cop. Faced with a real-life example like that, would you really say that the hit-man was just doing a favor and not doing "murder for hire"? >Murder-for-barter can only be agreeable when both parties have something the >other wants. Murder-for-hire can be agreeable anytime someone has sufficient >money, which is probably rather more often, and just feels a little more >immoral than the preceding activity. As to degrees of morality, this just comes back to the post I made the other day about Vlad's transformation into a "rogue" or Robin Hood style character. That is, one who commits acts of crime or immorality with charm and wit and ultimately in the name of a greater good or at least in the name of "justice". The term "Justice" being interpreted as "getting what's coming to them" as opposed to absolute legal or moral justice. >Admittedly, it's not much better or different, but apparently enough so for >it to be acceptable to Vlad. Vlad may not be Mario, but he's essentially in Mario's position now. Instead of being a petty thug at the beck and call of the Organization, he's in a position to be choosy about the "work" he accepts and only do "work" that falls within his code of ethics. In the Loftis case, it's not just about being "paid" by the acquisition of the deed. It's also about Vlad acting as the hand of Justice, slapping down someone who's earned a comeuppance. THAT'S what ultimately makes it palatable or morally grey. Not whether Loftis pays him or not.