D&D 5E Is he evil?

Actually if it was a dagger the bouncer had used, a weapon which is designed only to kill, I think the situation is different.
Are you suggesting you cannot choose to knock a target out when wielding a dagger?

He had a sword. A sword can be used to parry. A sword can be wielded like a club using only the flat of the blade to strike. While I do think that an actual club is a far better weapon for a bouncer I don't think that just because he used a sword means deadly intent.
Parry what? A fist? And gamist perspective aside, *hoping* your armed opponent will choose to knock you unconscious rather than kill you is a bit hard to sell. Go ahead and place your faith in that stranger who just drew a deadly weapon during a brawl. You go ahead and choose to think the best of that person. I wouldn't. Nor should I be expected to.

Edit: Also, what if the sword was a rapier? Would that change anything? I don't recall the OP ever saying what kind of sword was drawn.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Yeah. I think its important to remember that this "bouncer" brought a knife to a fist fight. Regardless of whether he deserved to die, and all this discussion of evil or not, he escalated the scenario. He turned the scene deadly. He did. At least how I read the OP. And I admit I may likewise be bringing my own bias into it. But that's how it seems to me.

Agreed, but we aren't judging the alignment or the wisdom of the bouncer. But as far as that goes, the bouncer at least has the excuse that it was his duty to protect the bar and its patrons. We don't really know what provoked the fight, nor do we know the bouncers full motivation, but the PC's were clearly armed and armored when the fight broke out.

As inexplicable as the bouncer's conduct may be, the battlemaster's conduct is even more inexplicable. The battlemaster was apparently content to meet deadly force with subdual force the entire time he was threatened by the bouncer, but once the bouncer had yielded and was no longer a threat, then and only then did the battlemaster resort to lethal force. It's a lot easier for me at least to by sympathetic to the bouncer than the battlemaster. What happened here is at best, equivalent to a cop who gets attacked by a guy with a gun, decides to out of apparent hubris disarm his attacker with his bare hands, and then only after the attacker is disarmed, has his hands up, and is begging for mercy, does the cop pull out his sidearm and pop the attacker in the face because "he tied to kill me". Even more so than the cold blooded nature of the murder, the reasoning to me is telling.

And I say, "at best", because it's not clear to me that the Battlemaster is socially, legally, or morally equivalent to a magistrate of the peace.

Generally speaking, in the real world if you find yourself caught in a bar fight, if anyone dies you'll be charged with murder. Doesn't matter who threw the first punch. Doesn't matter what the other guy does. In most cases if you are in a public place (ei, not in your home), you have a duty to retreat and anything you do to escalate the situation will make you culpable in the outcome. Self-defense will be in most cases not considered a valid defense. And self-defense is certainly not a valid defense after the imminent threat to your person has ended.

In a culture divided into nobles and commoners, the aristocratic status of the Battlemaster might protect him depending on the specific laws. But killing someone in cold blood like that is no less murder. The range of alignment options we have for the Battlemaster are "anything but good", but the action itself is evil.
 
Last edited:



4. Finally, and this is the most important thing- if the Battlemaster had killed the bouncer during the brawl, I don't think people would be arguing. But killing the bouncer after a complete surrender is different.

Precisely. There is no element of self-defense in this at all.
 


I hate to wade in again (really, I do!), but I have to point out the following (limited by the paucity of information in the OP)-

1. There is no indication in the OP that the bouncer ever struck the battlemaster.

2. The battlemaster "kept shoving and hitting him (the bouncer) while he was down."

3. As a general rule (both today, and, assumedly, in this campaign world), those tasked with security of the premises have a greater right than those invited in and fighting on it.

4. Finally, and this is the most important thing- if the Battlemaster had killed the bouncer during the brawl, I don't think people would be arguing. But killing the bouncer after a complete surrender is different.

To me (4) is the key. Many people are (wrongly) analogizing this to self defense. Self defense ends when the threat ends;* here, the available evidence is that the threat has ended.

Now, the Gygax quotes provided seem to provide a kind of extended justification (to borrow a term from debates about casus belli) for a preemptive strike- that the creature is inherently evil (ORC, KILL IT!) and that if you don't kill it, it will kill again.

Unless there is something I am missing, there is no evidence that Bouncers are humanoids, or inherently evil, so you can't use the Gygax rationale.

Finally, I would go back to (3), and note that as a matter of right, the bouncer had the right to both be in the bar and to use violence - the battlemaster did not. So ... there's that as well.



*Again, general rule.
And yet none of that really relates to the specific (sub)discussion I was having with [MENTION=6802553]BookBarbarian[/MENTION]. But okay. Still further, some of your points are speculative and not in evidence.
 

I don't think we can know from the information in the original post what the bouncer's motivation was.
What are you talking about? Have you been following along the last few dozen posts? I never said anything about the OP. I was talking directly to [MENTION=6802553]BookBarbarian[/MENTION] about how *s/he* colored the bouncer's motivation. Please take it up with him/her.
 


Well, you are certainly welcome to continue your conversation about hypothetical weapons and outcomes!
Gee, thanks.

Just pointing out that what matters is the surrender.
That's not *all* that matters, though. Right? Accuracy and truth matter too? Not recasting things differently than stated? Intentionally or not. That matters too I hope?

And from the OP, he surrendered, and the DM stated, "He's no threat, he's got his hands in the air"

So the crux is really about the morality of executing those that have surrendered.
We're 300 posts in. This thread is about a lot of things at this point. The original topic has been exhausted. Or do you have something new and unique to contribute to the OP's post?
 

Remove ads

Top