D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Corwin]

Greg, this rabbit hole you keep saying you don't want to go down, but continue to, is a bit of a red herring to me. You asked if there was a setting where such things could happen. I gave it. That should have ended it. These further digressions may even seem a bit of goalpost moving. Since they are straying pretty far from your initial claims/question.

 

[Greg Benage]

You asked if there was a setting where such things could happen. I gave it.

And I'm trying to understand your answer better by asking you to clarify it for me. It seems to me you're confusing matters of lawfulness with matters of morality. It seems to me -- based on my limited knowledge of Rokugan -- that you've given an example of a society in which it would not be unlawful for a state actor (a samurai) to kill a defenseless peasant, but also one in which that act would actually violate the actor's moral code. That was not what I asked for, and I don't feel I've moved the goal posts. You seem to disagree but won't say why. Okay, fair enough.

 

[Imaculata]

Thats ridiculous. 'lawful' does not mean 'Abide by the local laws'. You could simply abide by your own laws or your own code of conduct.

You're right, I think I was thinking more of a Lawful Good character when I wrote that.

 

[The Old Crow]

But that's the thing. The act is evil.

It's not a question of being on the same page about law and justice, as law and justice has nothing to do with whether murder is evil.

And he had plenty of recourse - don't kill him. Tie him up. Walk away. Knock him out.

And even if the law of the land allows him to kill an unarmed, and no longer hostile person, it doesn't matter. It's still evil.

And yet, the OP had to post here to ask, after letting it slide when it happened. This also assumes that the players intent was to be evil. I read it like the OP is bothered by what happened, and the player was bothered by being attacked with a lethal weapon during a bar brawl, and decided to end the matter. Just seems like good sense to ask the parties involved what they were thinking and what their expectations were.

I know there have been times DMing where I would be What The?? at some players action, but asking their intent usually cleared things up. Also been times as a player where my character's actions were assigned the wrong motive by a DM because my interpretation of how the campaign world worked was not what they intended.

 

[Corwin]

And I'm trying to understand your answer better by asking you to clarify it for me. It seems to me you're confusing matters of lawfulness with matters of morality. It seems to me -- based on my limited knowledge of Rokugan -- that you've given an example of a society in which it would not be unlawful for a state actor (a samurai) to kill a defenseless peasant, but also one in which that act would actually violate the actor's moral code. That was not what I asked for, and I don't feel I've moved the goal posts. You seem to disagree but won't say why. Okay, fair enough.

Not quite. Your original question, the one that kicked off this little diversion, was:

Really? Have you ever played in or even heard of a setting where an adventuring fighter is "completely justified and socially charged" with executing a defenseless bouncer, who just surrendered, in a bar, after a bar fight?

Given the context of this discussion, and under the pretense that this tavern worker pulled a sword during an unarmed brawl, yes my point still stands. A samurai w/c/should mete out instant justice after the fight. And "completely justified and socially charged" (your words) in doing so. That's the nature of that setting. *Must* the samurai kill the bouncer? Of course not. But is it acceptable *by the setting*? Absolutely. And that was the criteria you established by your own question. The question I was answering. Not these ones you are using now to change the topic.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Proponents of the death penalty would disagree with you.

Nice try, but different situation. Presumably an objective and fair trial and sentencing took place. And we've already discussed the situation where the party knows the law is corrupt and they won't receive a fair trial, and they turn them over to them anyway.

But, in the process of responding, it did highlight a problem with the presumed definition of evil (which is related to the L5R tangent).

Here's one example - Killing an intelligent, non-evil opponent is not evil when done:
In self-defence
To protect another
In times of war, against enemy combatants (unless capture is a viable option).

I would hope most of us would agree with this, although the third point leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

It's clear that most of us agree that the OP where the character killed a man who was not an enemy combatant (as in the enemy in a war), who was unarmed and surrendering, is an evil act.

The fact that some question that or attempt to justify first really surprised me. When I read the post, I honestly found it surprising that it was even asked, but didn't think my "me too" response that it is obviously an evil act would be needed. It was when people questioned it was when I felt I needed to reply.

The reality is, any definition other than, "killing another intelligent creature is evil" has justifications for the times that it's not evil to kill the same being. Which isn't really a problem, since that's the situation in our own world. There are people who agree with the death penalty, and those that don't. There are pacifists who don't believe war, or even self defense is sufficient. There are vegans that don't believe killing any living creature is acceptable (although ironically some of them agree with the death penalty or going to war).

And this could actually be an interesting thing between characters.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

And yet, the OP had to post here to ask, after letting it slide when it happened. This also assumes that the players intent was to be evil. I read it like the OP is bothered by what happened, and the player was bothered by being attacked with a lethal weapon during a bar brawl, and decided to end the matter. Just seems like good sense to ask the parties involved what they were thinking and what their expectations were.

I know there have been times DMing where I would be What The?? at some players action, but asking their intent usually cleared things up. Also been times as a player where my character's actions were assigned the wrong motive by a DM because my interpretation of how the campaign world worked was not what they intended.

The DM did ask, and he killed him anyway. I don't think you have to intend to be evil. His intent was to kill an unarmed man.

I will agree, after a few other posts, that the setting might define an evil act differently, but in this case the OP didn't specify that they were using anything but the standard rules, in which case I would consider it an evil act.

But yes, communication is always the best approach when there's a question. And if this were my campaign, I'd be happy to not impose any sort of ramifications if there really was a confusion about the situation. Then again, if I were another player in the same campaign, I would have spoken up and said that wasn't cool before it happened.

 

[Greg Benage]

Given the context of this discussion, and under the pretense that this tavern worker pulled a sword during an unarmed brawl, yes my point still stands. A samurai w/c/should mete out instant justice after the fight. And "completely justified and socially charged" (your words) in doing so.

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.

 

[Corwin]

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.

Yes, because despite all the weeds you are again trying to drag us out into, that was still the answer to your original question.

 

[Greg Benage]

Yes, because despite all the weeds you are again trying to drag us out into, that was still the answer to your original question.

I'm truly not trying to drag you into any weeds, but I do think I should have specified, again, "morally justified," because you're understandably focused on legal and social justification in the context of the setting. That's my bad, and as a result, I think we've misunderstood each other. At least, it's easier for me to blame this on my failure to communicate than it is to get my head around a samurai who is morally justified (completely!) in falling short of his own moral code. Thanks again.