D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Shasarak]

True, but if a guy comes at you with a sword in real life but then puts it on the ground and kneels down I would absolutely consider it wrong to kill him.

With the adrenaline pumping after a life and death fight? Chances are you will not even be able to understand what he is saying.

 

[Imaculata]

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.

No, that is absolute nonsense.

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.

I ride a bike. And when you ride a bike, your view is not restricted by anything. You have total 360 degree vision. You can look in each direction, and be absolutely 100% sure that there is no one on the intersection, and won't be for miles when you run that light. It is absolutely impossible in those situations for some traffic to magically materialize out of thin air. You are dead wrong.

Situations where you are that sure exist. And THAT is what he was talking about. Legally it would still be wrong to run that light. But realistically, you are not endangering anyone.

But I think you're missing the point of the example that @Fanaelialae was giving. The example wasn't about hypothetical situations in which a driver has bad judgement, and thinks he's 100% sure, but it's really more along the lines of 90%. The example was about whether it is morally right to run a light, when you ARE absolutely sure and correct, and there is NO danger. And those situations do happen in real life, and especially in traffic, all the time.

 

[Neurotic]

Killing defenseless opponent who surrendered and the fighting is finished is an evil act. You might want to rationalize it by saying it was self-defense (it would be if he killed him in the fight) or he might (note MIGHT not WILL) stalk the character, but that makes it no less evil. Right thing within civilized city would be to turn him to the authorities. If this is some pirate (or otherwise lawless) place, it might be "normal" to kill the one threatening you. But it is still an evil act. Just by being in a city with evil tendencies does not move the borders of "Good" and "Evil" within DnD universe, just moves "normal" further from "Good" side.

 

[Shasarak]

It seems pretty obvious from the above quote from Gary that killing enemies that have surrendered is not an evil act and that even Paladins can do it without any Alignment consequence.

So that answers the question once and for all for me.

 

[Neurotic]

It seems pretty obvious from the above quote from Gary that killing enemies that have surrendered is not an evil act and that even Paladins can do it without any Alignment consequence.

So that answers the question once and for all for me.

I missed that and now that I read it I still disagree. Esp. with the conclusion: "killing enemies that have surrendered is not an evil act" - unless I misread something, GG explicitly says that such execution can (and should) be done if the opponent is evil

Anyhow, I fail to see how normal bouncer in random town could be actual threat to a PC and furthermore, they are within the city (with its appointed law representatives) fighting fellow humans, not somewhere in the wilds fighting monsters.

Killing another human, probably non-evil, surrendered, harmless and within city limits. Evil act.

 

[Maxperson]

No, that is absolute nonsense.

There are hundreds of dead and injured people that say it's not. Killed and maimed by people who were 100% certain that things were safe for them to break the law.

The example wasn't about hypothetical situations in which a driver has bad judgement, and thinks he's 100% sure, but it's really more along the lines of 90%.

Now THAT is absolute nonsense. You are either absolutely sure(100%) or you are not(90%). You cannot be both absolutely sure and not absolutely sure simultaneously. This is not schrodinger's red light.

The example was about whether it is morally right to run a light, when you ARE absolutely sure and correct, and there is NO danger. And those situations do happen in real life, and especially in traffic, all the time.

The fact that you can have bad judgment and kill/maim people even when 100% sure, means that it's morally wrong to do so. In your bike example here could have been a small kid wearing cloths that accidentally camouflage him against the background. You didn't see him even though you were 100% sure. He dashes out into the crosswalk when he is supposed to and you kill him.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[BookBarbarian]

With the adrenaline pumping after a life and death fight? Chances are you will not even be able to understand what he is saying.

Which is why I didn't mention what he has saying. I mentioned what he was doing. Dropping his weapon and assuming a non-aggressive posture. In fact, apart from sitting or lying down, kneeling is about the most non-aggressive posture someone can assume. It's effectively communicates "my life is in your hands execute me if you will."

 

[fjw70]

A bouncer who is trying to break up a fight and then surrenders would not appear to fall into this category.

In the original post the bouncer wasn't trying to breakup a fight. He tried to kill the PC.

 

[BookBarbarian]

In the original post the bouncer wasn't trying to breakup a fight. He tried to kill the PC.

I just re-read the OP. Nowhere does it say that the bouncer was trying to kill the PC. The bouncer could have been trying to subdue those fighting in the pub with the flat of his blade.