D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Maxperson]

It also seems to me that my machine society argument was a well reasoned, albeit hypothetical, example and that you've resorted to ridiculing it because you can't refute it using logic. I could, of course, be mistaken. Do you have a counter argument that doesn't involve meaningless comparisons to "Santa and his elves"?

I'm not ridiculing it. I was coming up with more fiction like the robots. As for your argument, do you have one that doesn't involve western society inexplicably and spontaneously deciding that murder isn't evil?

 

[Shasarak]

When we get to the point of arguing the non factual points that all Birds Fly and Punching is non fatal then that is probably as far as I want to go.

As for western society spontaneously deciding that murder isn't evil, how many unarmed people do you need the police to have to kill?

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION] If you really want to discuss that last question, send me a PM and I would be more than happy to. This is not the place for it, though.

 

[machineelf]

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'm not sure anyone is trying to justify it as being lawful (I haven't read every response, though). I think people are just trying to see where it fits on the scale of Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil. Since he was defending himself, it might not be a completely evil act. The most we can say for sure is that it definitely wasn't a completely good act on the alignment scale.

So, again, we're talking about how this fits in with the game's alignment scale; we're not saying that in the real world this would be a good thing to do.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

People keep using the term innocent to describe the bouncer because during the last seconds of the fight he gave up. That is NOT innocent. That is realizing too late he couldn't actually defeat the people he attacked and hoping for mercy.

Cold blooded murder keeps being used also. It was not cold blooded. One person stopped fighting seconds ago. The same person who was attacking with a weapon moments before. Emotions, good and bad, run high more then 1 millisecond after someone is attacking you.

Was it wrong? I think most of us think so. Does it make the person evil if this is an isolated incident? Not in my opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

I think people are just trying to see where it fits on the scale of Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil. Since he was defending himself, it might not be a completely evil act. The most we can say for sure is that it definitely wasn't a completely good act on the alignment scale.

The only problem with that theory is that he was NOT defending himself. The fight was over and any defense done when the bouncer surrendered.

 

[Maxperson]

People keep using the term innocent to describe the bouncer because during the last seconds of the fight he gave up. That is NOT innocent. That is realizing too late he couldn't actually defeat the people he attacked and hoping for mercy.

Cold blooded murder keeps being used also. It was not cold blooded. One person stopped fighting seconds ago. The same person who was attacking with a weapon moments before. Emotions, good and bad, run high more then 1 millisecond after someone is attacking you.

Was it wrong? I think most of us think so. Does it make the person evil if this is an isolated incident? Not in my opinion.

Yes and no. A bouncer doing his job is still innocent. That depends on whether others were using lethal weapons or not. Innocent or no, he had given up, so no defense was happening by the murderer, and the murderer had no right as judge, jury and executioner.

Murder of passion is still evil, though. What we are arguing is that the murder is an evil act. We are not saying that it makes the person evil necessarily. A pattern of evil acts would, however.

 

[nightwind1]

Even putting aside Alignment questions-

Of course it's evil. Or, at least WRONG.

The guy surrendered, weaponless. Even after doing his job, in his own place of employment.

How anyone could see that as not-evil is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

Yes and no. A bouncer doing his job is still innocent. That depends on whether others were using lethal weapons or not. Innocent or no, he had given up, so no defense was happening by the murderer, and the murderer had no right as judge, jury and executioner.

Murder of passion is still evil, though. What we are arguing is that the murder is an evil act. We are not saying that it makes the person evil necessarily. A pattern of evil acts would, however.

Ahh, I thought all this discussion was in relation to the question of " Is he evil? " Especially when paladin codes and samurai behavior was swept up into the mix. I still don't agree with the term innocent for a person in the bouncer's position though. Obviously they were doing their job, but taking up arms in a barfight still isn't close to innocent.

 

[tomBitonti]

With respect to the point about Mayan culture, there seems to be room to argue what would be the motivation for the law against murder.

Maybe it was about establishing order.

It might have been about maintaining power (of the elites who viewed the common person as chattel; then, not an offense against the person, but against their master).

It might have been viewed as a grave sin against the priests, who asserted absolute authority over life and death. To kill a person would be to deny the gods their right to take a sacrifice of their choice.

It would seem to be hard to tease out the definite reasons. Especially since those who make rules tend to shade them in the best light from their perspective as the rule makers.

With respect to the bar fight, there are details which could make a difference. If the bouncer drew a weapon and used it threateningly to control the crowd (akin to shooting a shotgun at the ceiling), and then relented when the clearly overpowering PC didn't give ground, then the act is unlawful and evil. But if the bouncer took advantage of the brawl to try to do in the PC, then the PC's action could be viewed more charitably. Or if the bouncer threatened a non-combatant (the PC's helpless sister, who was incidentally caught up in the brawl), then the perspective changes yet again. I think we need to know the motivation of both the bouncer and of the PC to reach a solid conclusion.

Thx!
TomB