I am often very surprised by the thought process players go through in various role-playing situations.
Having followed clues the heroes determine they need a magical stone from someone who is a pretty bad person. They decide to chat with this person, since this person is in command of a significantly superior force. The bad person agrees to give them the item, in exchange for a favor from them in the future.
They later discuss that, since they are the 'good guys' it wouldn't be right for them to owe this bad person a favor, so while they have him on the operating table (getting the item requires it be surgically removed) they will kill him, claiming that he died during the procedure.......
I'm not a huge fan of alignment since I feel it's an artificial way to define characters. I prefer that the players play the character and then suffer the consequences of the story based on the things they do. I know some folks that run a very strict alignment model, which punishes characters with level loss for acts that are outside the scope of their alignment.
Sure, in a world filled with a vast array of deities that grant miraculous powers every day, there could certainly be some sort of divine alignment 'thing' in place. But I've never personally felt that made a whole lot of sense. Just like I've never liked it when I'm told as a player that I have to choose a deity. If it's not part of my story, why is it important?
But, back to the decision process. So I got a good bit of entertainment watching the party have this conversation about weather or not they should kill this bad person in a less than noble way. There were some good points all around the moral spectrum. I'm not sure what the actual decision was, and that conversation will probably get revisited at tonight's session since the scene will take place during tonight's game. Ultimately, it's really up to the surgeon. So we'll see how this plays out.