D&D 5E Is he evil?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

This is self-contradictory, as stated.

No, it isn't.

You implicitly assert that we can have differing opinions - that implies that there is more than one meaning.

Words often have many meanings, especially in the English language.

It follows that you (or Max, or I) don't know what evil means. You at best know what you feel is evil.

We can all know what evil means and feel that differing things fit that meaning and that different things don't fit that meaning - So no, it doesn't follow that you, Max, or I, don't know what evil means.

The difference between knowledge and personal opinion should be carefully maintained in this context

Which is the precise reason I bothered to try and mention to Max that there isn't one single universally accepted definition of what is or is not evil.

The folks around you, broadly speaking, take it that it is okay to meet undeserved force with equal of lesser force.

There is not enough information present in the provided "kill someone that was punching you" example to be certain that those punches are not being met by equal or lesser force by way of a less physically opposing victim of assault using a weapon as an equalizer. So I chose to assume the other information not present as being not present, making the case one that isn't clearly certain to be evil, while Max and you seem to be choosing to assume the other information not present as being only possibly the correct information to make this event an example of evil intent.

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.

No, if I am looking at a broken nose, rib, or arm, and the other guy ends up dead, I was attacked with potentially lethal force, retaliated with potentially lethal force, and am lucky to have survived. Because a blow that can break a bone is a blow that could have killed.

 

[werecorpse]

Wow, a lot of posts on a subject I would have thought was straightforward.

Imo, in d&d, killing an unarmed human who has surrendered to you is an evil act.

If there are direct consequences due to the act doesn't depend on the alignment on the character sheet but on the act. Neutral observers will likely react toward the PC as they would as if they have an evil murderer in their midst. The fact the victim is a person hired to keep order in the tavern means the law might be particularly unimpressed. The issue that the bouncer had previously been armed, fighting the PC and the slaughter was done in the heat of the moment might be used as factors to mitigate against a severe punishment.

On another level If the character claims to be some other alignment its up to the DM what if any consequences there are. If it's a treasure hunting murder hobo game maybe none. If it's got more roleplaying depth then maybe a shift towards evil, a need for atonement, deity troubles etc.

this is sort of reaction (the killing) IME is fairly common amongst new players who sort of enjoy the ability to take outrageous action without any real world consequence. That's fine and part of the fun of certain styles of games. It's up to the DM and players to decide on the type of game and if the bar room brawl was just another version of a dungeon bash or if it was something else.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

I disagree. The role of a government is not to dictate what is good and evil, but rather to create rules that allow for a functional society. When governments hold themselves up to be moral authorities it's generally time to be wary IMO, because such governments quickly become oppressive from what I've seen.

The problem stems from the fact that two ideas of what is moral won't necessarily the same. We can generally agree on the major points (murder is wrong), but there are many other points where people won't agree. To avoid any real-world examples, let's imagine that in some fictional religion it is taboo to wear the color blue on alternate Tuesdays. To devout followers of this religion, wearing blue on those days is a grave sin and might even be considered evil. To non-followers, there's obviously nothing wrong with it. Arguably, society is not hindered from operating smoothly if some people wear blue on alternate Tuesdays. As such, if followers of this imaginary religion were to push through a law prohibiting everyone from wearing blue on alternate Tuesdays, I would consider that oppressive and evil even though many followers of that religion would likely consider it to be just and good (and I guarantee you I would still think that way even if I were a follower of this fictional religion).

That isn't to say that legislation which is in line with the tenants religion is bad by default. Sometimes the rules which governments create dovetail nicely with morality (you can't go around hurting people just because you feel like it is a good rule both for an orderly society and a moral one). Other times those rules have little to nothing to do with morality (I don't think too many people would argue that parking in a no-parking zone is an evil act, but it will still get you a ticket).

I think it's not only a mistake but also outright dangerous to conflate the two. It is not the government's role to dictate what is moral. In trying to do so, governments create less moral societies. Morality is heavily about intent IMO, therefore if the only reason I avoid wearing blue on alternate Tuesdays is to avoid the legal ramifications, then I'm not being moral even though it might appear that I am.

Using lethal force against non-lethal force is illegal because it is bad for a society if every time someone throws a punch, the other guy pulls a gun. If that sort of thing were allowed you'd soon have anarchy. Keep in mind that from a legal perspective, even using non-lethal force is prohibited for most people under most circumstances.

 

[fjw70]

The attitudes around using lethal force to meet non-lethal force seems to be changing as evidenced by the stand your ground laws. With good reason too. "Non-lethal" force can be lethal. There was a case couple years ago around here where a soccer ref was punched in the head by one of the players and the ref died as a result.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree. The role of a government is not to dictate what is good and evil, but rather to create rules that allow for a functional society. When governments hold themselves up to be moral authorities it's generally time to be wary IMO, because such governments quickly become oppressive from what I've seen.

I don't think you understood my post. The government isn't dictating good and evil. Society did. The government is dictating the laws and punishments based around what society has determined is evil.\

And to tie it in to the topic further, what western society determines to be good and evil is at the root of all alignment in D&D, since it was designed by westerners for westerners. If we understand it to be evil in real life, it is evil in D&D.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't think you understood my post. The government isn't dictating good and evil. Society did. The government is dictating the laws and punishments based around what society has determined is evil.\

And to tie it in to the topic further, what western society determines to be good and evil is at the root of all alignment in D&D, since it was designed by westerners for westerners. If we understand it to be evil in real life, it is evil in D&D.

I strongly disagree.

Look at Prohibition for example. A vocal minority pushed through legislation making the consumption of alcohol illegal. Then to enforce it, the government mandated that manufacturers who make alcohol for purposes other than consumption add poisons to deter people from imbibing them. Of course, people inevitably consumed those anyway and a lot of people died.

I can't see how society was dictating what was evil in that case, given that the majority of people composing the society at the time considered the consumption of alcohol to be acceptable. Given that the government was willing to kill people to enforce this law, I consider the whole affair highly amoral, even when judged by the standards of the time.

To put it another way, consider this: cheating on one's spouse is arguably an evil act in "western" morality (as well as many other moralities). However, the government does not go around arresting and punishing cheaters in western society.

There is not a one-to-one correlation between what "society" deems moral and what the government deems legal. It does dovetail sometimes, as I said before, but that doesn't mean that one is directly responsible for the other. The government is responsible for creating rules to ensure that society functions. Just because some laws are moral doesn't necessitate that the laws were dictated by morality. I would say that a law's function in society should be the primary consideration for why the law exists.

 

[GameOgre]

Personally I think its a dang good thing the PC put down that bouncer! He must have instinctively known or somehow sensed the evil coming off of him. Oh? you didn't hear? That bouncer had a shrine set up to Bane and the skulls of all those missing children everyone's been talking about. Thank the gods someone stopped him!

I hate retconning games but have no aversion to making things work out if someone makes a mistake. I'm not trying to hold a seminar on gaming morality but instead just trying to have fun gaming with friends.

Yeah sometimes they mess up..sometimes I do. It's cool.

 

[Maxperson]

I strongly disagree.

Look at Prohibition for example. A vocal minority pushed through legislation making the consumption of alcohol illegal. Then to enforce it, the government mandated that manufacturers who make alcohol for purposes other than consumption add poisons to deter people from imbibing them. Of course, people inevitably consumed those anyway and a lot of people died.

I can't see how society was dictating what was evil in that case, given that the majority of people composing the society at the time considered the consumption of alcohol to be acceptable. Given that the government was willing to kill people to enforce this law, I consider the whole affair highly amoral, even when judged by the standards of the time.

To put it another way, consider this: cheating on one's spouse is arguably an evil act in "western" morality (as well as many other moralities). However, the government does not go around arresting and punishing cheaters in western society.

There is not a one-to-one correlation between what "society" deems moral and what the government deems legal. It does dovetail sometimes, as I said before, but that doesn't mean that one is directly responsible for the other. The government is responsible for creating rules to ensure that society functions. Just because some laws are moral doesn't necessitate that the laws were dictated by morality. I would say that a law's function in society should be the primary consideration for why the law exists.

To sum up our debate.

Me: Birds fly.

You: I strongly disagree. Look, an emu and an ostrich.

Yes, there are exceptions. No, they don't prevent the rule.

 

[Fanaelialae]

To sum up our debate.

Me: Birds fly.

You: I strongly disagree. Look, an emu and an ostrich.

Yes, there are exceptions. No, they don't prevent the rule.

That's exactly right, except from where I'm standing you're the one talking about emus and ostriches.

 

[fjw70]

That's exactly right, except from where I'm standing you're the one talking about emus and ostriches.

But society has decided that emus can fly and the government has affirmed that decision into law so it must be true.