D&D 5E Is he evil?

[fjw70]

I just re-read the OP. Nowhere does it say that the bouncer was trying to kill the PC. The bouncer could have been trying to subdue those fighting in the pub with the flat of his blade.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary I think it is reasonable to assume when someone participates in a fight with a sword that the intent is to kill.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaculata]

There are hundreds of dead and injured people that say it's not. Killed and maimed by people who were 100% certain that things were safe for them to break the law.

There is kind of a big difference between thinking there is no one there, and there literally being no one there. And the latter happens way more often.

Now THAT is absolute nonsense. You are either absolutely sure(100%) or you are not(90%). You cannot be both absolutely sure and not absolutely sure simultaneously. This is not schrodinger's red light.

You misunderstand me. Sometimes people think they are absolutely sure, when their car obscures their vision. See, in a car you can't look 360 degrees around you. Cars have blind spots. And so, even when you think you are absolutely sure, you can be only 90% sure, or less, due to incomplete information.

But the example was about "what if you DO have complete information, and it is absolutely safe?"

The fact that you can have bad judgment and kill/maim people even when 100% sure, means that it's morally wrong to do so. In your bike example here could have been a small kid wearing cloths that accidentally camouflage him against the background. You didn't see him even though you were 100% sure. He dashes out into the crosswalk when he is supposed to and you kill him.

Yes, if the Predator happens to be crossing the road... I hit him...

...with my BICYCLE. But he's fine. I don't kill him.

(You can be 100% sure that there is no one for miles on this road)


Quite often in traffic you can be absolutely sure. Take for example when you're crossing the road at Route 66, in the middle of Death Valley. You can look for miles both left and right, and you can say with 100% certainty if any traffic is coming.

And this also happens at intersections, especially if you ride a bicycle. There are NEVER kids wearing camouflage crossing the road! Never! You can be 100% sure that when you run a red light, and there is no one there, that no traffic with pop up out of thin air. Especially if you live in a country with very flat open roads.

But I think you're still missing the point of the hypothetical moral example. The example is not about whether you can be absolutely sure. But it's about whether laws are always morally right... and they are not, because context matters. Law cannot cover every circumstance, and quite often a law can be broken without it being morally wrong.

Take for example when I leave my car at a parking lot longer than the allowed time, and avoid a ticket anyway. Is this immoral? I would say not. But it is still breaking the law.

 

[Corwin]

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, a person who participates in a barfight, and then kills a bouncer (you know, the people charged with preventing barfights) who does not pose a threat AFTER the fight has ended is a murderer.

Is that a definitive, exceptionless answer? It comes across as such to me which is why I am asking for clarity.

Or maybe I should first ask what you mean by, "Unless there is evidence to the contrary." What evidence and in what way? Do you mean evidence that contradicts whether the accused person actually killed the bouncer?

 

[Corwin]

Yes, if the Predator happens to be crossing the road... I hit him...

...with my BICYCLE.

Although I admit I stopped after the first Google item that came up, so I don't have any kind of statistics, at least one person died this year from being struck by someone riding a bicycle. So there's that.

 

[Imaculata]

Although I admit I stopped after the first Google item that came up, so I don't have any kind of statistics, at least one person died this year from being struck by someone riding a bicycle. So there's that.

I'm not saying that a bicycle accident can't end badly. But at the speeds at which I ride my bike, I'm not going to kill anyone. Not even if I run a red light, and crash into a 62-year-old woman. Besides, here in Holland pedestrians and bicyclists have separate lanes, and they cross any road side by side. It's quite brilliant traffic design. This is also the reason why most bicyclists in the Netherlands don't wear a bicycle helmet. You don't need one.

I've been riding a bike all my life, and have NEVER crashed into anyone. A car did hit me from behind once, because they were looking at the scenery, and not at the road.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shasarak]

I missed that and now that I read it I still disagree. Esp. with the conclusion: "killing enemies that have surrendered is not an evil act" - unless I misread something, GG explicitly says that such execution can (and should) be done if the opponent is evil

Anyhow, I fail to see how normal bouncer in random town could be actual threat to a PC and furthermore, they are within the city (with its appointed law representatives) fighting fellow humans, not somewhere in the wilds fighting monsters.

Killing another human, probably non-evil, surrendered, harmless and within city limits. Evil act.

It would be evil if the PC, knowing that this "bouncer" attacks patrons with deadly weapons, to let him live to kill again.

If he repents then fine, go to your afterlife to get your just reward.

 

[Shasarak]

Which is why I didn't mention what he has saying. I mentioned what he was doing. Dropping his weapon and assuming a non-aggressive posture. In fact, apart from sitting or lying down, kneeling is about the most non-aggressive posture someone can assume. It's effectively communicates "my life is in your hands execute me if you will."

So you really can not complain if you are executed then, right?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

So you really can not complain if you are executed then, right?

Not without aid of magic, at least.