Should Krusk Kill Captain Harigan?

My current D&D character, a barbarian sailor named Krusk Bloodfist, has recently been shanghaied by a pirate named Captain Barnabas Harigan. Upon meeting the pirate captain, Krusk made his dissatisfaction with the captain's actions clear by saying, and I quote, "You've made a bad mistake, Barney. NO ONE SHANGHAIS KRUSK BLOODFIST AND LIVES!!"

That was a week ago, in the game. Since then, Krusk has been doing the work that has been asked of him, mostly to avoid punishment and keep up his impressive physical build. He likes to exercise, he knows that if he wasn't working hard on this ship, he'd be working hard on some other ship, and it keeps him from getting lashed for disobedience. The conditions on this ship aren't all that bad, either. The work isn't too difficult (at least, not for him), the food is decent, and the company he keeps is a little rough, but mostly okay. The main downside, in Krusk's mind, is the lack of pay, but he could learn to live with even that. People don't really need money; they need the things you can buy with money, like food, clothing, and shelter. If you already have all the food, clothing, and shelter you need, you don't really need any money, though, of course, more money is always welcome.

All told, Krusk hasn't actually hated working for Captain Harigan, and he no longer has any real reason to want to kill him, except for one: He said he would. Of course, this is a very bad reason to kill a person. If there was ever an oath that was okay to repent of, this would be one of them. But in Krusk's mind, this wasn't an oath; it was a threat, and he's the kind of person that feels the need to make good on his threats. If he doesn't kill Captain Harigan, that means that Captain Harigan basically got away with kidnapping him, and Krusk is too proud to let an offence that severe go unanswered.

Yet, Krusk has other reasons to be reluctant about killing Captain Harigan. First, it'd be difficult. Captain Harigan is well-equipped and has powerful friends. All Krusk has is what he has managed to steal from other pirates over the past week, plus a handaxe that someone else stole for him, and his allies are all first or second level adventurers that are similarly under-equipped. But I'm sure they could manage. If they really wanted to make it happen, I'm confident that this adventuring party could manage to kill Captain Harigan, yet there would be consequences.

The second reason Krusk is reluctant to make good on his threat is how messy it would be. If the party killed Captain Harigan, the second-in-command would become captain and almost certainly cause serious problems for the party. If the party also killed the second-in-command and/or instated a new captain in the old captain's place, it would probably be one of the party members, meaning that the party would then become responsible for managing nearly two dozen shanghaied pirates, plus some officers who were probably loyal to the last captain.

The party could avoid such complications and entanglements by escaping the ship, but that, too, would be tricky. Firstly, they don't know where they are. To find out where they are and how to get to the nearest piece of habitable land, they'd need access to navigational tools and a map. They could probably find such things in the captain's quarters or his office, or wherever, and they could probably steal a lifeboat and some provisions, but this is an extremely complex plan, and a lot could go wrong. If the party wants to kill Captain Harigan and then make their escape, they would have to plan their assassination very carefully. It would be far easier (and safer) to just not go through with it.

But while Krusk doesn't care about the moral implications of killing Captain Harigan, I do. I want to make it clear that I believe that Krusk's motivations for wanting to kill Captain Harigan and for not wanting to kill Captain Harigan are all entirely wrong. Though I, thankfully, have never had to test the strength of my conviction in this belief, I believe that people should do the right thing for the right reasons, no matter the cost. Even if Captain Harigan should be killed, Krusk's reasons for wanting to kill him are very bad reasons, mostly including pride and revenge. And Krusk's reluctance about killing Captain Harigan is equally poorly founded, mostly based on the idea that killing Captain Harigan would be too much work and that there isn't enough in it for him. Unlike most of my past D&D characters, Krusk is not a good role model.

But, setting Krusk and his misguided motivations aside, I have to wonder: Does Captain Harigan deserve to die? He is, at the very least, a kidnapper. He has also had at least one man tortuously executed for a pettier crime. Given that he is a pirate, he probably kills and steals on a regular basis, so if Captain Harigan isn't killed, he would probably go on killing and stealing and kidnapping. Were we tried in a court of law, I am confident that Captain Harigan would get either a life sentence or a death sentence. So, yes, in my opinion, Captain Harigan does deserve to die, just not for the reasons that Krusk cares about.

And that leads me, finally, to my real question: Should Krusk kill Captain Harigan? Is it morally good for a person to do a morally good thing for morally wrong reasons? Assuming that killing Captain Harigan truly is the right thing to do, should Krusk be the one to do it? Or, would killing an evil person, and thus preventing several future evil acts, be itself an evil act if one does it for evil reasons? I believe that God cares about motivation, and I don't think that God would justify Krusk in killing Captain Harigan just to get even with him. Then again, I also don't think God would justify Krusk in not killing Captain Harigan just because it's easier than killing him. I could be very wrong here, but I think that God would want Krusk to kill Captain Harigan, not as punishment for his past sins, but to keep him from repeating them.

But that's not going to happen. I can't change Krusk's character overnight. Krusk doesn't actually give a darn about what's right or wrong, and he's not going to. So the question remains. Given that Krusk's motivations are the wrong ones, should he kill Captain Harigan anyway, or would it be better, morally, if he didn't kill him, given that his reasons for not killing Captain Harigan are also morally wrong?

Next Wednesday, I'm going to play D&D again, and Krusk is going to meet up with the rest of the party to decide what they should do about their current situation. In that meeting, Krusk will discuss his reasons for killing or not killing Captain Harigan. Krusk is clearly a bit torn on the matter, meaning that the rest of the party will probably determine what the party ultimately does, but if it comes to a vote, Krusk is torn enough that I could justify deciding his vote for him. The trouble is that I'm somewhat torn as well, which is why I thought I'd turn to you to ask for your advice.

What do you think? Given his motivations for and against doing so, should Krusk kill Captain Harigan?