D&D 5E Is he evil?

[tomBitonti]

Things are a little more complicated, though. Some drivers will take the rules of driving as a part of an agreement that was made when they accepted their license. Then, breaking a driving rule is breaking that agreement, and wrong.

But it's still not clear: If the wrong was in breaking the agreement, and not wrong because the action was fundamentally wrong, then was breaking the rule actually wrong?

Thx!
TomB

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not seeing it. You weren't coming up with your own hypothetical scenario to counter mine, you just meaninglessly compared my hypothetical scenario to a fictional character. Given that I was quite up front about the scenario not being a real world example, it came across as very dismissive at the very least.

You're hypothetical scenario was completely fictional. It had no basis in reality. You could have used aliens or Santa, which was my point.

Sure thing. I've largely been avoiding real world examples in lieu of historic or fictional ones because I don't want to violate ENWorld's policies, but I've come up with several examples that should be safe.

Cheating on your spouse. Immoral but perfectly legal.

Not in many countries. It may be legal in the US, but not everywhere. Further, I never claimed every bit of morality was legislated. Only that the vast majority that is legislated is in compliance with the morality of society.

Lying is another example. Immoral but commonly legal.

See above.

Parking on the side of a street longer than the posted limited. Not immoral but certainly illegal.

Sure. As I said, there are some exceptions.

Driving through a red light after having made absolutely certain that you cannot possibly harm anyone by doing so (a long red light on a deserted road at 3 am). Not immoral but quite illegal.

People sometimes die when that happens. You don't always see pedestrians. When you break that law, you are risking the death of others, even when "certain" that it is safe. That's immoral. You don't have the right to risk the life of another just because you are impatient at a light.

 

[Imaculata]

People sometimes die when that happens. You don't always see pedestrians. When you break that law, you are risking the death of others, even when "certain" that it is safe. That's immoral. You don't have the right to risk the life of another just because you are impatient at a light.

But he's talking about a situation where you're 100% sure, and there really is no one there. There are plenty of situations in daily life where you stop at an intersection, and there's literally no one else there for miles. There are no corners they could suddenly pop up from. No blind corners. There's no one else besides yourself for miles. And still you have to wait for that red light.

 

[Maxperson]

But he's talking about a situation where you're 100% sure, and there really is no one there.

And I'm saying that you can be 100% sure and THINK that no one is there, yet be wrong. Even when you are 100% sure, you are still taking a chance.

There are plenty of situations in daily life where you stop at an intersection, and there's literally no one else there for miles. There are no corners they could suddenly pop up from. No blind corners. There's no one else besides yourself for miles. And still you have to wait for that red light.

Because of the above situations. Yes, you will be correct in the vast majority of instances, but it still happens that in the circumstances you describe, people are hurt or killed when the driver turns out to be wrong.

 

[Corwin]

So did this Battlemaster have the legal status of a Samurai? If so, he's Lawful and possibly Evil; some samurai abused their authority in Evil ways.

If he did not hold such a role, if he had not been properly entrusted with the authority of kirisute gomen, then any actual samurai should find him and kill him, for infringing on what is theirs and theirs alone, no?

None of this was really ever the point. I brought up samurai/L5R in direct response to someone positing a question with the intent of claiming that there aren't settings which would account for justifiably killing the bouncer after the fight ended. That was the only reason I brought it up. It was never meant to try and claim the battlemaster had some kind of parallel authority or social dynamic to compare to. It was never intended to relate the two. I was just proving that questioner wrong. Nothing more.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Warrior Poet]

The concept you are looking for in criminal law is referred to as malum in se and malum prohibitum.

"I am struck that LaBoeuf is shot, trampled, and nearly severs his tongue, and not only does he not cease to talk, but spills the banks of English!" -Rooster Cogburn, True Grit, 2010

(Couldn't resist.)

Still learning,

Robert

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Krachek]

Damned the trial is still not over!

Hang him ASAP, stop discussion.

 

[Shasarak]

What trial? No one is going to do anything except a whole bunch of hand wringing that is just the way it works.