nightwind1
Explorer
It was cold blood. The bouncer was unarmed and surrendering.
Not in my opinion, at least.cold–blood·ed
Pronunciation: \ˈkōl(d)-ˈblə-dəd\
Function: adjective
1 a: done or acting without consideration, compunction, or clemency <cold–blooded murder> b: matter-of-fact, emotionless <a cold–blooded assessment>
Ok, sure, but then that just transforms the question to, "Do you have a moral obligation to accept someone's surrender, or can you just kill someone in cold blood?"
I appreciate you continuing to give me these permissions. And I will take you up on it. I do disagree. And I guarantee I'm not the only one. I know this because we have countless pages of people saying as much. We are talking about a rash decision made in the moments following a heated battle where the bouncer pulled a deadly weapon. No. Your definition of cold-blooded is overly broad as far as I'm concerned. And ill applied.Update- saw your post- even with your added definition, it is still cold blooded. It was an act without compunction or clemency; pretty much the definition of it (I surrender! No, you die.) But you're free to disagree.
Actually if it was a dagger the bouncer had used, a weapon which is designed only to kill, I think the situation is different. He had a sword. A sword can be used to parry. A sword can be wielded like a club using only the flat of the blade to strike. While I do think that an actual club is a far better weapon for a bouncer I don't think that just because he used a sword means deadly intent.
Voldemort, Davy Jones, and the Red Skull all find your comment insensitive.But, opinions are like ... noses. Everyone has one.
The original topic has been exhausted.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.