D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Shasarak]

What? Murder is murder. Self defence is not murder.



Spoken like a true sociopathic murderhobo. Youd last all of 5 seconds in a real campaign with that attitude. Id also change your alignment to Evil.



A valid point, and the only one you made. The Bouncer is up for attempted murder most likely himself. He resorted to lethal force. He was fair game while so armed.

Well you are right about one thing. I would only last 5 seconds in your campaign because what the hell kind of BS are you even talking about, attempted murder? I dont even...is this supposed to be DnD or is this Law and Order the board game?

Who are these precious NPCs going to go crying to when the Cultists/Demons/Dragons/Giants come rampaging through their town?

 

[Mishihari Lord]

You are wrong. D&D morality is based on real world morality. Otherwise it would be incomprehensible. It changes some things at the edges, but real world morality is at the core. This is especially true in 5e where we have been told that the common usage of words is what holds true for 5e, so the common usage of evil applies here.

It's really not. D&D alignment is based on real world morality in exactly the same way as hit points are based on real world biology, which is to say not at all except they use a few of the same words. Much as hit points are a fictional depiction of biology created for gaming convenience, alignment is ... well, you get the point. Alignment is action-movie morality: it's okay to kill the bad guys because they're bad, now get on with the action. Aaron pointed out some good canonical examples above, and there are plenty of others.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

So the idea that there is a crime of passion committed by a character is a valid and potentially interesting one. But this isn't that type of situation. But there isn't any connection between them, no hatred or passion, just a moment following a combat. Involving a trained individual who has been in many combats.

The measure isn't not taking a life when it's avoidable here. In this case there was no need to take the life at all. It's not a question of whether they could have used non-lethal attacks to capture the opponent instead of lethal damage. It was an unarmed, surrendering individual, with an extra moment granted by the DM questioning the act.

Killing other intelligent "good" races (used to be human and demi-human instead of humanoid) where it is not in self defense is evil. When the situation escalates to combat, which is frequently, we give a pass on whether the characters started it or the bad guys. So there is a lot of gray area. But to kill a surrendering, unarmed individual after all threats are gone? That can't be anything else.

To say they have a choice "by game rules" isn't really relevant either. The game rules are there to determine what the characters can and can't do, and how to determine success. The decision isn't made by the rules, the decision is made by the player/character. When a character is in lethal combat with another, there is no issue with them returning with deadly force. If the hostile creatures are only attacking with non-lethal force, and the PCs escalate to lethal force, that's pushing it. If it's something they do on a regular basis, then I'd say they are evil.

But the more I consider this particular act, I'm not sure how the character themselves can't be labeled evil. Your crime of passion thing - I hunted him down and killed him because he killed my family - that's a different situation, although probably still an evil act. The difference is that the cold blooded killing of a stranger bouncer who is doing his job, then surrenders to the PCs is a different kind of evil act than the revenge killing of one that murdered your family.

So I really think that this is the sort of act that really pushes the character to neutral evil or chaotic evil.

I guess I just view it differently then you. Or I used the wrong terminology. To me, hunting down someone that killed your family is not a crime of passion, but fully premeditated. The criminal had time to think about it and go out of their way to enact their revenge. Killing someone seconds after they were trying to kill you, even if they dropped their weapon and were no longer a direct threat because you were still riding the emotions of the combat doesn't ring of evil necessarily.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

A real-world bouncer who responded to a bar fight by pulling a knife would not only be fired, but arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Drawing a lethal weapon is the exact opposite of "doing his job." It's a bouncer's job to break up fights with a minimum of harm, not put dead bodies on the floor.

Depends on the setting. The barkeep who ends a fight by pulling a shotgun from behind the counter and firing a warning shot in into the ceiling is pretty much a staple of the western genre.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Who are these precious NPCs going to go crying to when the Cultists/Demons/Dragons/Giants come rampaging through their town?

Heroes. Defined, in part, as "people who don't kill helpless townsfolk."

D&D may not be Law & Order, but it's not "Mass Murderers: the RPG," either. Unless one is running an evil-themed campaign, it's not at all unreasonable to expect that PCs don't murder helpless noncombatants, at least those who aren't themselves innately evil.

As I said above, it's partly a mismatch of player/DM expectation, but that said, I don't think the DM is wrong to be, at the very least, surprised by the player's action. These aren't monsters in the wild; they're people, in their home town, trying to protect their livelihood and perhaps even their lives.

 

[Flamestrike]

It's really not. D&D alignment is based on real world morality in exactly the same way as hit points are based on real world biology, which is to say not at all except they use a few of the same words. Much as hit points are a fictional depiction of biology created for gaming convenience, alignment is ... well, you get the point.

No, they are nothing of the sort.

Hit points in 5E Dnd are expressly a pool of luck, resolve, the will to live and health. They are also expressly experience and skill (they improve with experience).

Alignment is action-movie morality: it's okay to kill the bad guys because they're bad, now get on with the action.

No, its not. It never has been, and never will be. Alignment has never ever been described in those terms (barring some random quote by Gygax that gets bandied about every now and then, which is nothing more than a statement on his own views on aligment).

Certainly since 3E at the very least, killing, harming and opressing others = Evil. Mercy, compassion and kindess = Good.

And I hate to break it to you, but most 80's action heroes are probably Evil. Antiheroes like the Punisher and so forth most certainly are.

I dont see Luke Skywalker murdering defencless and unarmed prisoners. His old man did against Dooku, but we all know how that worked out for him, and even he knew it was wrong. I dont see Superman or Batman doing the same.

To you the only difference between Good and Evil is that 'Evil people rape, murder and torture everyone, while Good people only rape, murder and torture evil people'. Its a patently absurd position to have.

Well you are right about one thing. I would only last 5 seconds in your campaign because what the hell kind of BS are you even talking about, attempted murder? I dont even...is this supposed to be DnD or is this Law and Order the board game?

Its a roleplaying game. You're in a tavern in town, and someone pulls a sword on you and attempts to kill you.

Thats attempted murder.

Unless your game world is some kind of theoretical anarchic free for all where there are no laws of any kind, because in every human civilisation since the dawn of time, drawing a weapon on someone and trying to kill them is against the law.

Who are these precious NPCs going to go crying to when the Cultists/Demons/Dragons/Giants come rampaging through their town?

Ahh I see. You're obviously expressing a LE argument here:

(Your PC turns to the patrons of the tavern with a sneer, as he wipes the blood from his sword and a soft bloody gargling can be heard from the dying Bob):

'Listen up. He got what was coming to him. He shouldnt have angered me. It served him right. Remember, you all need me to keep you safe; think on that you worthless peasants. Anyone else have any problems with what I just did, and I'll kill you where you stand too. Then I'll kill your families. Remember, in this town, my word is the law.'

 

[Shasarak]

Heroes. Defined, in part, as "people who don't kill helpless townsfolk."

Bah, Heroes. No such thing...just lies that women tell their children.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Bah, Heroes. No such thing...just lies that women tell their children.

Okay. Well, then, it's a good thing we aren't required to play in each others' games.

 

[Shasarak]

Okay. Well, then, it's a good thing we aren't required to play in each others' games.

I thought we already clarified not wanting to play Law and Order?

 

[Shiroiken]

Thats my whole point. Why didnt the law get involved?

Do you reckon even in the Middle Ages you could just ride into a villiage or town, murder someone in a tavern in full view of its patrons, and nothing happen as a consequence?

I agree, and feel the DM messed up. However, assuming the law doesn't get involved (for whatever reason), the rest of my post is valid. Depending on how far the session progressed, the DM might be able to have the law get involved later, but otherwise he'd have to ret-con the session and many DMs (including myself) hate to do that.

What a terrible way of looking at things.

The peasants and patrons should instantly react to the murder (possibly even confronting the PCs), just like real people would. They might be too scared to directly confront a bunch of heavily armed mercenaries, but I would expect some crying out or wailing in shock and horror, some dudes to possibly confront the PCs out of a moral obligation, more to race outside in either fear, or to alert the authorities, or both (and get away from the murderer as fast as possible) and so forth.

I'm not saying they wouldn't do those things, I just pointed out a generality for after the fact. All of this assumes that the moment has passed and is dealing with the aftermath (probably from at least a day or two later). Remember, this was not the end of the session, and the DM didn't have any of these things happen. Unless they ret-con it, none of that happened.

Who thinks like this?

And what PCs are going to engage in mass murder to cover their tracks, by fireballing a bunch of scared goodly peasants and bar batrons? How is this even an option for anyone other than the vilest and most unhinged and CE PCs?

Who does this exactly? No sane person. Its the equivalent of machine gunning down a bunch of patrons in a nighclub to cover your tracks after murdering someone. Its the sort of thing that (barring mass shootings, and even they have a series of complex psychological reasons behind them) simply doesnt happen. It's evil of the highest order, would be out of character for anyone barring someone who has consistently portrayed their PC as a totally unhinged and psychotic madman, and in any event would result in the PCs being hunted to the ends of the earth.

How could you travel with someone who did this? The whole party would have to be unhinged psychotic CE madmen for them to even consider travelling together after this. How could you travel with (or trust) a person who has murdered dozens of innocent men, women and children to save your own skin?

I mean think about it.

Really? You think a player who just had an unarmed bouncer cut down because he dared attack him with a real weapon is going to try to avoid harming the peasant mob? They would justify it as self defense and slaughter everyone. Many players use D&D as escapism, allowing them to do things that would be considered wholly inappropriate in real life.

As for the other PCs, as I noting in another post, Players (in general) are far too hesitant to oppose the actions of another PC, simply because they are a PC. Some players will do so, but IME, they're fairly rare.