D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Flamestrike]

Players in my game got themselves caught in a good old bar fight. Flying chairs, broken bottles, etc. Everyone was fighting.

One of the bouncers, sword in hand, takes its chances against the Battlemaster. Bad luck, the Battlemaster keeps shoving and hitting him when he's down. The guy just can’t get up.

The PCs are clearly winning so the remaining "bad guys" scatter into the night. Everyone except our bouncer, who decide to yield.

Battlemaster "I kill him"

DM (me) "What?"

Battlemaster "I kill him"

DM (still me) "He's no threat, he's got his hands in the air"

Battlemaster "He tried to kill me, I kill him"

Coup de grace, bouncer's dead.

I didn't say anything and we kept on gaming and having fun. Now, thinking back on it, I keep wondering, was this act evil?

He's almost certainly evil.

And a murderer. Any reason this Battlemaster wasnt arrested and hung? With his victims family (wife and kids) looking on in tears.

 

[thalmin]

I agree with evil act, not necessarily evil character.
Also, probably not a lawful action. At least worthy of a trial. And most likely, even if found innocent, character and maybe whole party banned from tavern at least, likely from whole town. And having to pay to support widow and children, along with paying for damages to tavern. Also probably making a few long-term enemies.

 

[Warrior Poet]

Players in my game got themselves caught in a good old bar fight. Flying chairs, broken bottles, etc. Everyone was fighting.

Those cats were fast as lightning?

<crickets>

*Ahem* Right, uh . . .

One of the bouncers, sword in hand . . .

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Or, rather, basta, basta, basta, Niccolo! "Bouncer . . . sword in hand?!?!"

"Doctor, I broke my arm in three places." "Stay out of those places!" Whew. Talk about a tough joint!

Years ago in a classic WEG d6 Star Wars campaign, our party ended up at a notorious watering hole in a less-than-reputable part of the galaxy, and the bouncers were all armed with blasters set to stun. As soon as trouble sprung up, it was unconsciousness everywhere: bar patrons, waitstaff, dancers, everybody. And when everyone came around those involved in the brawl were outside, in the street, and not allowed back in until a week had passed.

A sword doesn't exactly strike me as a bouncer's tool . . . .

That said, the following seems . . .

Battlemaster "I kill him"

DM (me) "What?"

Battlemaster "I kill him"

DM (still me) "He's no threat, he's got his hands in the air"

Battlemaster "He tried to kill me, I kill him"

Coup de grace, bouncer's dead.

. . . well, I believe the technical term is "dodgy, at best."

"and when I took the service exam my psych profile fit a certain... moral flexibility would be the only way to describe it... and I was loaned out to a CIA-sponsored program, and we sort of found each other. That's how it works." - Martin Blank, Grosse Pointe Blank, 1997

I didn't say anything and we kept on gaming and having fun. Now, thinking back on it, I keep wondering, was this act evil?

Setting aside my personal desire to get rid of alignments in role-playing games, I agree that not only was the act severely dubious, I think the best way to deal with it (and to enforce social dynamics as a better mechanic than alignment essentialism) is have some consequence for what happened. One poster suggested hanging. Another option might be something like arriving in another town and suddenly everyone avoids battlemaster as though that person is plagued, and the party eventually finds out that no one wants to talk to (shops closed, temples barred, and especially taverns are off-limits) them and their public menace.

I guess this comes back around to a conversation with your players. What kind of game do you want? What kind of game do they want? But there's no reason in role-playing games that societies don't have consequences for actions, even if the bouncer was armed with a sword.

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy." - Ben Kenobi, Zagat's galactic drinking establishment reviewer-at-large.

Still learning,

Robert

 

[Dausuul]

For those saying it's evil, imagine the following scenario: The PC doesn't kill the bouncer but ties him up and hands him over to the local law. The bouncer is put on trial for attempted murder, and on the PC's evidence, he is convicted. As the wronged party, the PC is consulted on the sentence; he argues for death and his arguments are accepted. The bouncer is hanged.

Still evil? If not, what's different? What I just described is essentially what the PC actually did, except it's taking the lawful approach (do it through the courts and proper authority) instead of the chaotic one (do it yourself on the spot). Why are the PC's actions inconsistent with, say, Chaotic Neutral?

 

[ccs]

In my game such an act would definitely come back on the character/party.
It might not happen right away that session, but it also wouldn't just be ignored.

 

[Shiroiken]

The question becomes, does it matter?

Was the party arrested, with the Fighter facing criminal charges? Doesn't sound like it, since you said you continued the game.

Is there a paladin (or other morally righteous character) in the group that should have a hard time accepting it? If so, you might have that player suffer bad dreams from the guilt, opening a RP opportunity within the group (just try to keep it away from PvP if your group doesn't do that).

Is the character LG, and should have some guilt about what he's done? If so, you could easily have him be haunted by the spirit of the NPC he murdered. Not a Ghost (per the MM), but a spirit that haunts him and proves to be a nuisance until he repents. If the character pushes back against it, perhaps the NPC does become a Ghost or Revenant to hunt down the PC more directly.

If none of these things are true, then you might just want to shrug it off as a one time deal. If the character begins to show severe signs of evil tendencies, then perhaps an Avenger Paladin may come a calling. It really depends on what you want to do with it.

Personally, I would have the town turn against the party, since they have such low regard for the locals. Shops may sell them inferior goods for inflated prices. Inns are full, preventing them from renting a room. Perhaps the local thieves guild knows they have free reign because the militia/guards are less inclined to believe these murder hobos. I don't believe in rewards or punishments... only consequences.

 

[Shiroiken]

For those saying it's evil, imagine the following scenario: The PC doesn't kill the bouncer but ties him up and hands him over to the local law. The bouncer is put on trial for attempted murder, and on the PC's evidence, he is convicted. As the wronged party, the PC is consulted on the sentence; he argues for death and his arguments are accepted. The bouncer is hanged.

Still evil? If not, what's different? What I just described is essentially what the PC actually did, except it's taking the lawful approach (do it through the courts and proper authority) instead of the chaotic one (do it yourself on the spot). Why are the PC's actions inconsistent with, say, Chaotic Neutral?

In the example given, the verdict is not guaranteed. If anyone else in the bar had a weapon drawn, the bouncer would be well within his right to follow through with bare steel. It might be hard to prove that the bouncer wasn't trying to disarm the Fighter. Additionally (assuming a thorough legal code), the bouncer may only be charged with attempted manslaughter or even just assault (neither of which may warrant death). Not to mention the locals are more likely to sympathize with one of their own, as opposed to an adventurer.

As to your question of Alignment, these actions are not inconsistent with any Evil, True Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral character. Even a good character might be forgiven for a transgression, but that doesn't change the act from being evil (murdering an unarmed person).

 

[mellored]

It's a pretty evil act.

Whether it's lawful or not depends on the law.
The law may (or may not) state that your allowed to kill someone if they draw a blade against you.
Heck, in some states it's legal to kill someone just for being on your property.


Though it sounds like he acted out of vengeance rather than following any kind of rule.

 

[Flamestrike]

For those saying it's evil, imagine the following scenario: The PC doesn't kill the bouncer but ties him up and hands him over to the local law. The bouncer is put on trial for attempted murder, and on the PC's evidence, he is convicted. As the wronged party, the PC is consulted on the sentence; he argues for death and his arguments are accepted. The bouncer is hanged.

Still evil? If not, what's different?

Because the State is killing him and not the PC.

A Chaotic good PC probably wouldnt co-operate with the authorities if he knew that the person was facing the death sentence. He'd follow his conscience instead.

A Lawful Good person probably would co-operate with the authorities, but would also ask the Court for lenience against the killer, and for the death sentece to be commuted.

A Lawful Neutral person probably would co-operate with the authorities, without fear or favor of the result.

A Lawful Evil person probably would co-operate with the authorities, in the hope the accused got put to death, and would use every legal trick in the book to ensure the accused was hung from the rafters. He'd probably ensure he was there to see the deed done as well.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Not enough info. Once the bouncer drew, what happened? Did the battlemaster attack him anyway, or did the bouncer attack first?