D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Maxperson]

Because it's impossible to have a different opinion from yours? No, I don't think so, Max. I know what "evil" means, and I know I don't think killing someone in self defense - even if choosing to defend yourself with more lethal means than they attack you with - is evil.

You should probably hope that you don't ever find out if the State thinks it's evil, because you'll probably end up in prison for a good number of years if you do. You'll also find that having a different opinion doesn't make you correct.

You began your statement by quoting someone else and with "Eh, no." Not by talking about you.
I'm not dictating it. I'm observing it.

You're comprehension failure is astounding. My context is what I say it is, and what I wrote that it was. That context is ONLY games that I have played in. That's it.

 

[fjw70]

The State isn't the arbiter of what is good and evil. Their authority lies with legal vs illegal.

 

[Imaculata]

You should probably hope that you don't ever find out if the State thinks it's evil, because you'll probably end up in prison for a good number of years if you do. You'll also find that having a different opinion doesn't make you correct.

But that's not really relevant to the argument he made Max.

Whether a state thinks something is legal or illegal, is an entirely different thing from what a person may consider moral, or immoral.

The argument is really just about personal definitions of good and evil, not about the actual rule of law (which could very well be wrong on moral issues).

 

[Umbran]

Because it's impossible to have a different opinion from yours? No, I don't think so, Max. I know what "evil" means...

This is self-contradictory, as stated. You implicitly assert that we can have differing opinions - that implies that there is more than one meaning. It follows that you (or Max, or I) don't know what evil means. You at best know what you feel is evil.

The difference between knowledge and personal opinion should be carefully maintained in this context, especially after pushing back on someone else for making the same rhetorical error.

I know I don't think killing someone in self defense - even if choosing to defend yourself with more lethal means than they attack you with - is evil.

The folks around you, broadly speaking, take it that it is okay to meet undeserved force with equal of lesser force. The culture you are in, again, as a broad generalization, does not believe that it is okay to take a life if yours is not in danger. If someone whacks you with a rolled up newspaper, drawing a knife is not justified. If you are looking at a broken nose or rib, or arm, and the other guy ends up dead, you are in the wrong, even if the other guy started it. If you go too far, you step out of the realm of justifiable self-defense, and into your own retaliatory assault.

This is especially true in fistfights. Humans, without a whole lot of training that the vast majority of us don't have, are very bad at killing each other bare handed. One-on-one, until someone picks up a weapon, it is unlikely that anyone's going to end up dead. Drawing a deadly weapon in such a situation is going to typically be seen as escalating aggression, not self-defense.

Now, that's not to say you cannot have a different opinion. But, as soon as you call it a differing opinion, you must also recognize that what you call evil will be meaningless when considering what the world will call your actions.

This allows us to bring this back around to the context of fiction and gaming. For those purposes, there are two kinds of villain - the sociopathic or nacissistic ones who just don't care what others think, and those who really honestly feel they are doing "the right thing", but go too far down the road of the ends justifying the means. In either case, the villain is not defined by what they think of their own actions, but by what *others* think of their actions.

 

[Shasarak]

Thank you for clarifying. I'm really surprised to discover that a samurai in Rokugan is "completely justified" in falling short of his moral code. Here are some concrete examples of that code I found on another site:

• Accepting responsibility for a superior’s shameful actions.
• Aiding a wounded enemy.
• Facing a superior foe in the name of your family.
• Giving a truthful report at your own expense.
• Protecting your clan/family/lord’s interests despite great risk to yourself.
• Acknowledging a Superior Opponent.
• Enduring an insult to yourself.
• Showing kindness to one beneath you in station.
• Showing sincere courtesy to enemies or rivals.

Despite the non-Western setting, it all sounds fairly conventional. And I was under the impression that, in L5R, characters gained Honor by acting honorably, in keeping with this code, and lost Honor by acting villainous. So I am indeed surprised to learn that it's instead a setting where a samurai cutting the throat of a vanquished and defenseless bouncer in a bar would be considered, at worst, neutral. But I do appreciate your patience and willingness to inform me.

Here is another quote about Samurai:

"Even the most innocent Eta can be killed by a Samurai with little or no repercussions"
"A dishonoured Samurai must act immediately to restore his honour. If the source of his dishonour was an insult or betrayal , he must challenge the party responsible"

Really a "Bouncer" in Rokugan legally can not do anything against a Samurai in a bar fight and if he did attack a Samurai with a "Sword" (which is highly illegal) could be executed by the Samurai with "little or no repercussion" to restore her honour.

Rokugan can not be considered to be a "conventional" western society.

 

[Imaculata]

One more reason not to have samurai in your party. Samurai are jerks.

 

[Shasarak]

Yes, self-defense is a valid reason.

Exactly which is why it is surprising to me to see so many panties twisting up over a guy killed after fighting the Party.

It is like watching Arne in Commando and complaining when he kills "helpless" people like poor old Sully or complaining when Danny Glover shoots the surrendering bad guy with the classic "Immunity revoked" line.

Depends on the fight. If someone is punching you and your PC kills them, EVIL ACT!!

There are a crap load of creatures that attack by "punching" you and now it is EVIL!! to kill them? Sure man, if that is the way your group plays sounds like a fine house rule.

Eh, no. Not in any game I've played in since I was a teenager. Maturity changes things.

Yes, Maturity changes things. It makes you realise that killing an NPC in a game of DnD is just an ordinary part of playing DnD.

 

[Shasarak]

One more reason not to have samurai in your party. Samurai are jerks.

Dude, Samurai are great in Bar fights!

 

[Maxperson]

But that's not really relevant to the argument he made Max.

Whether a state thinks something is legal or illegal, is an entirely different thing from what a person may consider moral, or immoral.

I think it's very relevant. We're discussing western morals and good/evil here, because those are at the root of the alignment system and the common usage of good/evil is what 5e uses.

Every one of the legislators was born and raised on those morals and those morals come out in the laws. Using lethal force against non-lethal force is illegal, BECAUSE it's evil.

 

[Maxperson]

Exactly which is why it is surprising to me to see so many panties twisting up over a guy killed after fighting the Party.

Do you know the difference between self-defense and the cold blooded murder of an enemy after a fight?

There are a crap load of creatures that attack by "punching" you and now it is EVIL!! to kill them? Sure man, if that is the way your group plays sounds like a fine house rule.

I can't think of a single one. Maybe you can point them out to me. I do see many that use LETHAL natural weapons, but that is not at all the same thing.