D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Leatherhead]

Really? Have you ever played in or even heard of a setting where an adventuring fighter is "completely justified and socially charged" with executing a defenseless bouncer, who just surrendered, in a bar, after a bar fight? The Hollywood mythos of the "wild west" is often invoked, but even in that kind of setting this would be murder (or a "wrongful killing," if you prefer). Even if the killer were not an adventuring fighter but a lawman or political/religious authority of some kind, there would still be a formal process for any rightful execution of the man, and cutting his throat where he kneels on the tavern floor is not such a process.

You just described Judges from the 2000AD comic. Or the Judge Dredd movie, which you might have heard of.

 

[Greg Benage]

You just described Judges from the 2000AD comic. Or the Judge Dredd movie, which you might have heard of.

I don't understand. Judges were "adventuring fighters completely justified and socially charged with executing defenseless bouncers, who just surrendered, in a bar, after a bar fight?" I thought they were some kind of lawmen in a dystopian future society. Is there something about these stories that makes the Judges incapable of evil acts? I guess I'm not tracking.

 

[Leatherhead]

I don't understand. Judges were "adventuring fighters completely justified and socially charged with executing defenseless bouncers, who just surrendered, in a bar, after a bar fight?" I thought they were some kind of lawmen in a dystopian future society. Is there something about these stories that makes the Judges incapable of evil acts? I guess I'm not tracking.

Sorry, didn't clip enough.

I was referring to the lawman doing executions on an incapacitated prisoner in the middle of a bar. But then again they do have the authority of judge, jury, and executioner, due to the overstretched and under-resourced nature of the setting. Judge Dredd, who is usually considered a good guy in the setting, typically carries out such executions for infractions such as attacking a Judge, namely himself.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the fighter in question has such authority.

 

[Greg Benage]

Sorry, didn't clip enough.

I was referring to the lawman doing executions on an incapacitated prisoner in the middle of a bar. But then again they do have the authority of judge, jury, and executioner, due to the overstretched and under-resourced nature of the setting. Judge Dredd, who is usually considered a good guy in the setting, typically carries out such executions for infractions such as attacking a Judge, namely himself.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the fighter in question has such authority.

Nor does it tell us anything about whether or not the killing was an evil act. The matter of authority might tell us whether the killing was lawful in the setting, as I already noted, but the matter of authority tells us nothing about whether the killing was evil. That's why I was confused. I'm more familiar with Judge Fredd from Munchkin, but is there something in the comics that suggests Judges never commit evil acts?

 

[fjw70]

I think it's really scary that people are doing such mental gymnastics to try and justify second degree murder. Killing captives, prisoners of war, or otherwise defenseless non combatants has never been considered lawful or honorable behavior in any civilized society. I know we are talking about a fictional situation in a D&D roleplaying game but it isn't very far away from reality. I thought the responses to this thread would be almost universally condemning, should have known better. A question then, do you find police executions of unarmed non combatants to be justified? Did they have it coming to them anyway?

Actually what is evil or not is far from being a settled question. Here in the US the following issues are widely disagreed as to whether these are evil acts of killing:

1. The death penalty.
2. Killing an unarmed person that breaks into your house.
3. Stand your ground laws.
4. Going to war to safe guard the world's oil supply.

The legal question is a different question and one not posed in the OP. But in medieval times if a knight had killed an unarmed peasant in a tavern would he have faced punishment? I don't know enough about medieval law to say.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Another current contentious issue is whether torture can be a moral act.

 

[Greg Benage]

Actually what is evil or not is far from being a settled question. Here in the US the following issues are widely disagreed as to whether these are evil acts of killing:

1. The death penalty.
2. Killing an unarmed person that breaks into your house.
3. Stand your ground laws.
4. Going to war to safe guard the world's oil supply.

There are areas of real moral ambiguity. The situation in the OP is not one of them.

The legal question is a different question and one not posed in the OP. But in medieval times if a knight had killed an unarmed peasant in a tavern would he have faced punishment? I don't know enough about medieval law to say.

Where and when in "medieval times"? Broadly, weregild up to the 9th century, at least, even for murder. A freeman would have been worth 200 shillings, while a noble was worth 1,200 shillings (Mercia). The value of a shilling was one cow or sheep, depending on where you were. Gradually replaced by capital punishment with Christianization.

 

[fjw70]

There are areas of real moral ambiguity. The situation in the OP is not one of them.

Based on what? This thread would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[BookBarbarian]

When ever I see threads of this type i always cringe a bit. *duck* Here comes the alignment argument!

I think it boils down to asking the wrong question. Instead of asking "is he evil?" or even "is it evil?" a DM should ask "how will the inhabitants of the game world i.e. townsfolk, local law enforcement, lords and barons, the players chosen deity, other deities etc. act in response to the character's actions. The other Players should also ask how should their characters act in response to this character's actions.

I personally would have any good aligned player i was running distance themselves from this Battlemaster. He is clearly not the type I want at my back when the proverbial dragon-dung hits the fan. Were I a running a lawful character I might even attempt to bring him to justice. Were I running a chaotic evil character I would slap him on the back and congratulate him on a job well done.

 

[Greg Benage]

Based on what? This thread would seem to indicate otherwise.

Like the student lounges in freshman dormitories, I'm not certain the existence of argument on the forum disproves the claim. But I'd be satisfied if anyone could point me to a real-world historical example of any society in which a civilian killing a defenseless person in a bar would not have been considered an evil act. Beyond that, I'd even be satisfied with someone making a rigorous philosophical argument for why this act was not willful, harmful, and morally unjustified (i.e. evil); or even a rules argument that it isn't evil based on the alignment definitions in D&D 5e. The "that's just your opinion, man" bromides aren't very persuasive to me.

Thing is, I've played D&D in GTA murder-hobo mode and had a good time. I have absolutely no problem with that kind of game. I hope the insistence in some quarters that killing defenseless persons doesn't constitute an evil act is really just defensiveness on behalf of that playstyle. In any case, I've said my piece, and then some, so I'm done.