D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Flamestrike]

The question becomes, does it matter?

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.

This was in a tavern. In a town. And it was murder. The repurcussions would be greatly more than shopkeepers refusing to serve them.

I mean, if you shoot and kill a man at your local nightclub, you're going to face worse repurcussions than the local McDonalds upping prices on you when you go to buy your next happy meal.

You're going to be arrested and put on trial for murder.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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?

First off, the bouncer had yielded, dropped his weapon, and had his hands in the air. The act was evil, plain and simple, and I can't quite believe there is actually a debate about that. It's flat out murder.

If he was lunging at the characters, or anything like that, then OK, a case for self-defense. But the danger had passed.

So in your court case example, I'd say it's still evil, just a society sanctioned evil. A death sentence for attempted murder? I would expect good characters to potentially be fighting the injustice in the system if possible.

To put it a different way, if the law of the land is the Nazis and you turn them over to the law - yep, evil act.

If the courts are reasonably fair, with a possibility of the death penalty, but also other possibilities, then that's quite different. Although I don't see a judicial system with the possibility of the death penalty for attempted murder as "reasonably fair."

If the law is fair, but he's convicted and given the death sentence because the player lies? Evil.

If the bouncer had committed murder, then surrendered, and the characters still killed him? Murder. Evil.
Turned him into the law knowing that he would potentially face the death sentence? Not evil. Knowing that he would definitely get the death penalty, as long as it's a question of the evidence and if found guilty, that's fine and significantly different than committing murder.

The things that always rate as evil acts are murder, torture, slavery, raping and pillaging, etc. Once the bouncer was no longer a threat, then killing him is murder. If the law is oppressive and evil, then using the law to commit the murder is still murder.

Is the character evil? Well, that's somewhat debatable...I guess. A single act doesn't necessarily make somebody evil, but murder pushes you a whole lot closer. There would have to be quite a bit of redemption.

Would anybody here seriously continue to spend time with a person that did that very thing in real life? Even if he was my best friend, I'd be telling him to drop his weapons and surrender to the police. Unless it was the Nazis. But that would be a game changing move between us.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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

The fight was over. It doesn't matter who drew first at this stage, the bouncer had dropped his weapon, yielded, and had his hands up.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

I disagree with this assessment. If the local law were the Nazis, then a Lawful Good person would not turn them over. The law of the land is evil and corrupt and cannot be trusted to fairly judge the accused.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

Being "lawful" in terms of the local law does not equal "lawful" in terms of alignment.

A lawfully aligned character believes that the law is important to provide a framework of order for society. In general, the greater good is more important that the specific rights of an individual if there is a conflict.

The good/neutral/evil axis is what defines what "lawful" means. A lawful good character believes the law should be just and fair. A death penalty (or right to kill) when a blade is drawn against you is not enough. You must be in imminent danger (or another), if that danger has passed, as it had in the example, then it's no longer an imminent danger.

The right to kill somebody for trespassing is not lawful good. Most importantly, vigilantism is the antithesis of lawful good. Once the bouncer surrendered, any justice to be dealt at that point must be through a fair and just legal system.

 

[Flamestrike]

I disagree with this assessment. If the local law were the Nazis, then a Lawful Good person would not turn them over. The law of the land is evil and corrupt and cannot be trusted to fairly judge the accused.

Thanks for Godwining the thread.

And I agree. Which is why I said 'probably'.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

Personally, I would expect that party to turn against them. If one of my friends or acquaintences murdered somebody in front of me, I wouldn't be comfortable spending time with them expecting them to protect my back. I might stand by them through a trial or something, but the relationship would be changed forever.

 

[Flamestrike]

Personally, I would expect that party to turn against them. If one of my friends or acquaintences murdered somebody in front of me, I wouldn't be comfortable spending time with them expecting them to protect my back. I might stand by them through a trial or something, but the relationship would be changed forever.

Agreed. The BM just outed himself as a dangerous emotionless murdering sociopath. At a bare minimum I wouldnt want anything to do with such a person ever again.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Irrelevant. Once the bouncer surrendered, it became an evil act to murder him while he was defenseless

 

[Imaculata]

Definitely an evil act.