D&D 5E (2014) Is he evil?

[delericho]

Eh. Good, bad, he's the guy with the gun.

 

[fjw70]

I say the context would deter,one whether it was evil. Did the party get attacked in the bar and the bouncer joined the attackers and tried to kill the PCs? How do you think Conan would deal with that guy?

The legality question and is an entirely different question. But in my experience justice is handled at the whim of the local lord/king and is not a reliable thing.

 

[Charles Rampant]

I would for sure have the forces of law and order arrive to try and arrest the character. As to how the party responds to that? I've repeatedly seen players flip out at the mere suggestion of surrendering or giving up their weapons (usually saying 'we need them to be safe', despite how insane that sounds in the context of a meeting with a political leader) so you might find that that sparks another violent confrontation. I'd be wary of it if you think that will happen, since you could find the campaign abruptly derailed into murderhobo land as a direct result: once you've killed the sheriff and his deputies, you become the outlaws whether or not the campaign was intended that way.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I say the context would deter,one whether it was evil. Did the party get attacked in the bar and the bouncer joined the attackers and tried to kill the PCs? How do you think Conan would deal with that guy?

Which is irrelevant. Asking how Conan would deal with the guy doesn't shed any light onto whether it's a good act or evil, any more than asking how would Hitler deal with that guy.

Part of the point of the alignment system to start with is that the context is specifically not a consideration regarding what is good and what is evil. It's a Star Wars approach to good and evil (even though D&D alignments predate it) - killing Sith and the Empire is good. Killing Dooku who is defenseless and on his knees is evil.

A lawful evil society might condemn the killing because he should have been subject to the law (even if the law would have killed him anyway). In fact, both the fighter and the bouncer might be at risk for execution depending on the laws.

A neutral evil society wouldn't have any problem with the killing, nor would a chaotic evil one. Revenge might be a problem here, though.

None of this would turn the act into a good act. It is an evil act whether sanctioned by the society or not.

The only other alignment that could potentially justify such an act is chaotic neutral, but I don't think that even that would be sufficient here. I can accept a chaotic neutral character justifying killing a known criminal or threat to others, particularly a violent one, even when they have access to the law. But killing a bouncer who is doing his job, and there is no further risk (as far as we know) to the PCs or the people around them? Even that type of character I'd have difficulty rationalizing.

Which means that I guess that regardless of the professed alignment of the character, I would not only say that it's an evil act, but I am questioning their actual alignment. At the very least, perhaps they are not of an evil alignment (yet), but they can't really be of a good alignment either. In fact, I'd probably say that at best they are chaotic neutral, but could be neutral evil or chaotic evil. They are certainly headed in that direction. I'm not sure that there's really any other alignment compatible with actions of that nature. I don't think it would be lawful evil.

 

[Maxperson]

Baloney. If the bouncer tried to kill an unarmed person then that's attempted murder and the PC is justified in dispensing summary justice. If the PC attacked the bouncer then the bouncer was acting in self defense and doesn't deserve punishment.

The PC is not justified in dispensing justice. It's not the PC's job or right to do so, unless they also happen to be empowered by the local government of course.

Remember, this is D&D not Law & Order. I would have no problem with a PC killing murdering bandits out on the highways even if they surrendered. Killing bad guys is what D&D adventurers do, And if the bouncer attacked first then this situation is no different.

Killing bad guys in self-defense is what good and neutral PC adventurers do. Killing bad guys in cold blood is what EVIL adventurers do.

 

[green_destiny]

Yes. Very obviously evil. I dont understand how this is a question.

This.

Killing bad guys in self-defense is what good and neutral PC adventurers do. Killing bad guys in cold blood is what EVIL adventurers do.

And This.

Why are we even debating this or is this a question..? There are a lot of grey areas but I do not think that this scenario is included.

 

[Gonat]

Well.... A group of PC raid an orc cave. Is it an evil act?
The orcsprobably will die in battle but they are defending their homes.
Even if the players find the cave because they followed a trail of violent attacks at some caravans the PCs rarely (if at all) question who are the specific orcs that had committed the raids or capture them for a later trial. They just kill them all and the society reward them for it (the caravan guild problably, or the local governor).
The PCs live in a word where killing intelligent "people" is not always evil (and killing animals and monsters is almost always considered a good thing), moreover often killing is literally how they make their living.

So... killing the bouncer was good? No, not good, but evil? I suppose it depends on information we do not have on that specific campaign.

 

[jayoungr]

In medieval setting? "He who grasp the sword, dies by the sword". He tried to kill the PC and got killed in the proccess.

It would only be "in the process" if the PC had killed him during the combat, while they were both trading blows. Once the bouncer has surrendered, he's no longer trying to kill the PC (if he ever intended to do so), so he's not getting killed "in the process."

 

[GameOgre]

Please don't ask us to make real life moral judgments about fantasy characters in a fantasy setting that we have no clue about.

This is a game and your table. Do you want that to be a evil act? If so then sure! it was! Not a Evil act? ok it wasn't!

in the context of a game Evil is what you make it be.

Alignments are there to act as guidelines to help role playing.


If at your table you WANT people to really think about killing as a last resort and only in self defence or in the defence of others then put them in a world where that morality is true. Not one where you gain levels by how many beings you kill in as short a time as possible.

 

[Corwin]

The fighter's background. Place of origin. The current community where this incident occurred. Its rules and cultural norms. All of these things factor in as far as I'm concerned. Seems it wasn't all that evil if the fighter's allies didn't raise a stink afterward and neither did the local authorities.

---

Reminds me of an RPGA game at a con a few years back, though to a lesser and more humorous extent. I was playing a swashbuckly, rakish fop type with a rapier. Bar brawl ensues. I grabbed for a tankard on the nearby bar to swing as an impromptu weapon, since I didn't want to use my rapier, as deadly force was not called for. Anyway, I grab this random tankard and the DM tells me it is still half full of ale. So I chug it first before swinging it at my adversary. I wasn't about to waste perfectly good ale, after all! All fun and typical cinematic chuckles so far.

After the fight, the authorities arrived and my character was swiftly arrested for theft. Since it was not my tankard of ale and I hadn't paid for it.

Yeah. That *actually* happened.