D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Jester David]

Yup. Outright evil. Good old neutral evil.

This should bite the player in the ass. The bouncer's son should come after the PC. Thirteen years old. Young. Barely able to hold his pa's sword. But determined to avenge his death.

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?

Well, in that situation, it's the State doing the killing. States get away with all kinds of sanctioned evil acts.

Second, that assumed the death penalty is even an option. The bouncer could just as easily be sentenced to hard labor or indentured servitude.

It also presumes the bouncer is tried for murder. Just attacking with a sword isn't deadly in D&D. It's the easiest way to knock someone out.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

It's not at all the same thing. In the above scenario, the bouncer had no control over the life or death of the bouncer. He asked for it, but the government could have said no, go pound sand.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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

Baloney. If the bouncer tried to kill an unarmed person then that's attempted murder and the PC is justified in dispensing summary justice. If the PC attacked the bouncer then the bouncer was acting in self defense and doesn't deserve punishment.

Remember, this is D&D not Law & Order. I would have no problem with a PC killing murdering bandits out on the highways even if they surrendered. Killing bad guys is what D&D adventurers do, And if the bouncer attacked first then this situation is no different.

 

[kalil]

Yes. Very obviously evil. I dont understand how this is a question.

 

[UnknownDyson]

I agree with evil act, not necessarily evil character.
Also, probably not a lawful action. At least worthy of a trial. And most likely, even if found innocent, character and maybe whole party banned from tavern at least, likely from whole town. And having to pay to support widow and children, along with paying for damages to tavern. Also probably making a few long-term enemies.

Probably what would really happen, if the authorities were informed of the fighter's actions, he would most likely be charged with murder and prosecuted if they could get a hold of him.

 

[Horwath]

In our 21st century western civilization standards? Yes, I suppose it's evil, but then again adrenaline does not come with an instant off switch.

In medieval setting? "He who grasp the sword, dies by the sword". He tried to kill the PC and got killed in the proccess.

 

[Shiroiken]

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.

You clipped the part of my post that dealt with that. It didn't appear that the PC was arrested afterwards (play continued), so the law didn't get involved (but may later). If the law doesn't stop the PCs, the locals are still going to turn against the PCs. They can't confront them physically (PCs are skilled warriors, while peasants are not), so they will do what they can to make life miserable for the PCs, hoping that these murder hobos will leave. Theoretically they could form a mob, but depending on level, this is going to end badly for the locals (one fireball could kill a good chunk of the mob, not to mention set fire to the town).

 

[Shiroiken]

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, and by D&D standards you would be considered the righteous character I mentioned. However, I've noticed that most groups allow PCs to do things they would never tolerate from an NPC, simply because it's a PC. The worst example of this was a half-orc barbarian I ran that I wanted to turn into a redeemed hero, but the players (including the LG cleric of Pelor) never stopped me from doing evil acts. So I pushed it towards the ridiculous and eventually allied with a Demon Lord, who I later betrayed to steal his power and ruled his domain in the Abyss. And the party said nothing...

 

[transtemporal]

A "good old bar fight" with weapons? Like, not bottle or chairs, but battleaxes and greatswords?

It really depends if they started the fight or whether they were just defending themselves. And if they started it, whether they had the intention of butchering innocent people (because really, who in the average bar is a threat to PCs).

But no to executing the bouncer (unless he's a paladin).

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Agreed, and by D&D standards you would be considered the righteous character I mentioned. However, I've noticed that most groups allow PCs to do things they would never tolerate from an NPC, simply because it's a PC. The worst example of this was a half-orc barbarian I ran that I wanted to turn into a redeemed hero, but the players (including the LG cleric of Pelor) never stopped me from doing evil acts. So I pushed it towards the ridiculous and eventually allied with a Demon Lord, who I later betrayed to steal his power and ruled his domain in the Abyss. And the party said nothing...

Exactly. This is something that I point out to all of my players when we get going on a new campaign. Killing an intelligent creature is a traumatizing event for (almost) everybody. Even those trained to do it.

You can run the game anyway you want, and the gritty, gray area between good and evil is a very interesting place to play the game. BUT, by design D&D has a very well defined concept of good and evil. It is not setting or culturally dependent. Murder is always evil in the game, and it's a game where there may be repercussions aside from the normal ones (revenge, justice, mobs, etc.). Granted, 5e has separated alignment from class abilities pretty much completely (which I agree with), but the opportunities still exist.

Even the idea of playing evil characters, while difficult to do well (particularly to run a campaign with an evil party), the definition of good and evil is constant.

The game also leans heavily on certain creatures (drow, goblins, orcs, etc.) being evil and therefore acceptable targets for wanton killing. Which is fine in theory, but circumstances arise in my campaigns that make them question that. Even in the early adventures, Gygax put you in that position with scenarios like Caves of Chaos where there are kobold, goblin and orc non-combatant families, mothers and children, and you have to decide how you handle that situation.

There is no question that the OP act is evil. It's not even in a gray area. So now that there's a murderer in their midst, the interesting part of the campaign to me would be how the rest of the party handles it.