D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Corwin]

I noticed you keep trying to insert "morally" into it. Even though that was never in your original question. What should I make of that?

 

[aramis erak]

If it's a one-off, not a big issue. If he makes a pattern of such, yes, he's evil. Killing surrendering foes has long been defined as an evil act. More so than enslaving them, even.

Killing of surrendering foes of evil races has long been "overlooked"... but IMO, it's STILL an evil act.

 

[Greg Benage]

I noticed you keep trying to insert "morally" into it. Even though that was never in your original question. What should I make of that?

Just what I said: I should have specified, again. The question in the OP is whether it was an evil act, not a lawful or socially justified one. We can think of lots of examples of societies, historical or fictional, where evil acts would be lawfully and/or socially justified. Most of human history, in fact: men can do what they want with their slaves, men can do what they want with their wives, men can do what they want with their children, etc. In some, but not all, of these cases, there was conflict between what was lawful according to the lawful authority and what was moral according to the moral authority.

The question is whether cutting the throat of a defenseless person in a bar was an evil act, and my challenge therefore should have been: "What's a setting where such an act would be morally justified" (i.e. not evil)? I still think, from what I've gathered, that by the terms of his own moral code the samurai in Rokugan would not be morally justified in cutting the man's throat. I didn't so specify, and I believe that's the source of our miscommunication. That's what I hope you'll make of it.

 

[Corwin]

Greg, I strongly encourage you to go back upthread and re-read the specific exchange that prompted the question of yours which I in turn quoted and answered. Because not even the quote you took from [MENTION=12630]Ahrimon[/MENTION] covered that. In fact, here's what *you* quoted from Ahrimon:

Once he surrenders he may be considered a captive attempted murderer. He could even still be considered a threat. Depending on the law of the land, the PCs may be completely justified and social charged with executing him. They may not be committing murder but instead upholding law, order, and/or peace in the land. A great deal depends on the campaign in this situation.

You responded to that quote with this specific question:

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?

I answered it as I did. I stand by that answer. But now you want to sorta change it up and re-ask. Or rather, recast the original question in a different light. In which case, why would you consider it fair to hold my answer to the same fire?

 

[Greg Benage]

Dude. I've accepted responsibility for the miscommunication. I should have specified that I was interested in moral justification, not legal or social justification (examples of which are legion). My bad. I did the thing wrong. I don't expect you to change your answer. It's fine. Thank you.

 

[Warrior Poet]

Thread side-effect:

In high-fantasy/high-magic worlds, why don't taverns, inns, and all those places where alcohol inevitably encounters the human(oid) digestive and circulatory systems have staff/personnel with some fundamental magics that render the classical "bouncer" irrelevant?

In my current game I wrote about a famous night club in a city with some sorcerers on staff that periodically cast ray of frost for one minute each hour or two all over the walls of a well-insulated room where they keep the sparkling white wine. Voilà! Instant high-fantasy ice box for champagne.

It seems to me more drinking establishments hoping for return business would employ some folks with sleep spells, neutralize poison spells (against intoxication), and the like. Sure, adventurers are more likely to successfully save/resist, but if the fights are being started by others, well . . .

If we're talking about worlds with dragons on the wing, castles built atop clouds, ancient wizards granted unnaturally long life through undead magic, and actual gods intervening in the affairs of mortals, why wouldn't more gin joints have some magic in place to enhance the drinking (cash influx) and reduce the bloodshed?

Still learning,

Robert

 

[Warrior Poet]

D&Dland is a place where a lawful good paladin can invade the homes of sentient beings, kill them, and take their stuff and remain a lawful good paladin. It's never made much sense to me

Agreed.

Still learning,

Robert

 

[Fanaelialae]

Thread side-effect:

In high-fantasy/high-magic worlds, why don't taverns, inns, and all those places where alcohol inevitably encounters the human(oid) digestive and circulatory systems have staff/personnel with some fundamental magics that render the classical "bouncer" irrelevant?

In my current game I wrote about a famous night club in a city with some sorcerers on staff that periodically cast ray of frost for one minute each hour or two all over the walls of a well-insulated room where they keep the sparkling white wine. Voilà! Instant high-fantasy ice box for champagne.

It seems to me more drinking establishments hoping for return business would employ some folks with sleep spells, neutralize poison spells (against intoxication), and the like. Sure, adventurers are more likely to successfully save/resist, but if the fights are being started by others, well . . .

If we're talking about worlds with dragons on the wing, castles built atop clouds, ancient wizards granted unnaturally long life through undead magic, and actual gods intervening in the affairs of mortals, why wouldn't more gin joints have some magic in place to enhance the drinking (cash influx) and reduce the bloodshed?

Still learning,

Robert

That's fine and makes plenty of sense in a high magic setting, but in a campaign world where magic-users are a rarity it's unlikely to happen. Personally, I prefer the latter since I like that it explains how things like plagues can be an issue (there are nowhere near enough clerics to go around) and also why the PCs are in a unique position to make a difference in the world (they're special and have abilities that the vast majority of the population lacks).

 

[Warrior Poet]

That's fine and makes plenty of sense in a high magic setting

Which is exactly why I was specific about that context and qualifier.

Still learning,

Robert

 

[Flamestrike]

Proponents of the death penalty would disagree with you.

Thats because those people (advocates for the death penalty) are not (in DnD terms) good.

They'd be LN at best.