D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Corwin]

I have not found any words in this thread that I agree with more.

After catching up with the last couple of pages of posts I admit to throwing out red herrings, albeit unintentionally. These obviously did not contribute to the discussion at hand and have in fact caused a lot of pointless back and forth. And perhaps back and forth again. And perhaps sideways and up and down. I apologize.

Don't worry about it. Threads this long always end up a mess. It's normal around here.

 

[Celebrim]

...cold blood. Wow. Still? Really? Is it any wonder I've been having trouble discussing things with you?

Seeing as both of our disagreements have come down to you failing to understand basic English, I'd say its no wonder at all.

 

[Celebrim]

I have not found any words in this thread that I agree with more.

After catching up with the last couple of pages of posts I admit to throwing out red herrings, albeit unintentionally. These obviously did not contribute to the discussion at hand and have in fact caused a lot of pointless back and forth. And perhaps back and forth again. And perhaps sideways and up and down. I apologize.

That's such a completely decent and noble thing to say, that my first instinct - after long years on the internet - is to think you are trolling. I apologize for my cynicism, but normally, humanity doesn't do much to make me have any faith in it. Bravo, sir.

 

[BookBarbarian]

That's such a completely decent and noble thing to say, that my first instinct - after long years on the internet - is to think you are trolling. I apologize for my cynicism, but normally, humanity doesn't do much to make me have any faith in it. Bravo, sir.

After a few years on the internet myself I've learned I'm not clever enough to troll. ;-)

 

[Warrior Poet]

In this thread I learned I disagree strongly with the late Gary Gygax on a couple of things, find my own growing dissatisfaction with alignment and alignment essentialism in rpgs heightened, and continue to advocate for more fantasy world drinking establishments to make the smart long-term Humanoid Resources investment in the De-escalating Sorcerer/Bouncer as an employee.

Still learning,

Robert

 

[Warrior Poet]

Also, now that I've seen it . . .

I really want to know what Buurtwinkel is.

Still learning,

Robert

 

[Maxperson]

Are we still talking the D&D kind of supernatural evil, or just people committing immoral acts?

Evil in D&D isn't inherently supernatural.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It does seem that way, but was it wrong of the bouncer. A single bouncer was standing against every PC and all the other bar patrons. When you're that outgunned you have to up the ante to be able to control the situation.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The quotes from Gygax are interesting, and essentially call the Spanish Inquisition LG. The thing with Gygax is that he is often treated as some sort of infallible D&D god, when he's no such thing. I think he was way off base with those quotes.

I don't consider him some infallible D&D god. But in this case, when we are discussing (in part) what the meaning of "good" is, in terms of alignment, and there's a good amount of disagreement over what is "intended" by such an alignment, going back to the person who invented the alignments in the first place is a reasonable thing to consider.

I think it's clear that most people's definitions are often considerably different than Gary's. And certainly the game has evolved/changed including the popular and intended definitions of alignment.

My initial reaction with the OP is "of course it's evil" and furthermore I was a bit surprised that there was any disagreement over that. But as the discussion has continued, not only have alternate definitions of good and evil been presented from other sources, I find it extremely interesting that in the history of D&D itself that the definition of good (at least as it would appear the original designer intended), not only allow such an action as good, but might even condone it.

Essentially, seeing this sort of "intent" or clarification from the original designer sort of reframes a discussion about what alignment means in D&D. At least from a historical perspective. Again, it doesn't mean that the current definitions aren't different regardless.

 

[Maxperson]

The problem is that you can not just say you are going to surrender - the other person has to accept the surrender.

Sure. They can accept the surrender and take the guy into custody. They can refuse the surrender, letting the guy go. Or they can murder an unarmed non-threat in a highly evil act. Refusing a surrender doesn't keep the fight going and allow a self-defense argument to be made.