D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Greg Benage]

In D&D 5e terms, this is an act that would be typical of a neutral evil or chaotic evil character.

Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

In modern terms, and leveraging some Google psychology, the act exhibits features of an Antisocial Personality Disorder:

• A disregard for laws and social mores
• A disregard for the rights of others
• A failure to feel remorse or guilt
• A tendency to display violent behavior

In particular, the character sounds like a sociopath. "Any crimes committed by a sociopath, including murder, will tend to be haphazard, disorganized and spontaneous rather than planned."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath

In any case, I wouldn't be super-excited about hanging with him. (ETA: No pun intended...but it's a good one.)

 

[Shasarak]

I didn't say anything and we kept on gaming and having fun. Now, thinking back on it, I keep wondering, was this act evil?

No, it is not Evil because the Bouncer came at the PC with a Sword. How is the Player supposed to know if it is a trick or not? When you are playing for keeps then it is much better to finish the fight now.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In modern terms, and leveraging some Google psychology, the act exhibits features of an Antisocial Personality Disorder:

• A disregard for laws and social mores
• A disregard for the rights of others
• A failure to feel remorse or guilt
• A tendency to display violent behavior

Doesn't this describe almost every player character?

 

[Greg Benage]

Doesn't this describe almost every player character?

I wouldn't say "most," but I'd say it's a character type with deep roots in the hobby.

 

[Doug McCrae]

After the fight, the authorities arrived and my character was swiftly arrested for theft. Since it was not my tankard of ale and I hadn't paid for it.

Yeah. That *actually* happened.

I wish to commend the DM for their portrayal of an extremely lawful society. Far too many DMs let adventurers get up to all kinds of hijinks. Casting curative spells without a licence to practise medicine, evading tax on treasure recovered from dungeons, non-standard polearm nomenclature, etc.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

The road to hell...

is a gate.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

There's such a thing as crimes of passion, things done in the heat of the moment. I would classify this as such a thing. Yes, the player could have had the character act differently, but in the character eyes this person was just trying to kill them. The act was very wrong, but I don't think the character is evil because of it.

Taking a life when it is avoidable can't be the only parameter to make someone evil in D&D because then every melee character is evil. They always have a choice ( by the game rules I mean ) to make a melee attack a non lethal attack.

 

[Maxperson]

In D&D, this is in the lawful/chaotic spectrum, and has nothing to do with good/evil.

Someone else brought up whether they had the right, and I was just saying that they didn't

Nope. D&D morality as presented by the alignment system and published books in general, is not the same as real life morality of any kind (at least that I'm acquainted with.) If someone's on team bad-guy then they're fair game.

You are wrong. D&D morality is based on real world morality. Otherwise it would be incomprehensible. It changes some things at the edges, but real world morality is at the core. This is especially true in 5e where we have been told that the common usage of words is what holds true for 5e, so the common usage of evil applies here.

 

[Mouseferatu]

And this is why I've started to consider the DM's attitude toward alignment as being one of those topics that needs to be broached in Session Zero.

Is the world's overall morality based on the real, modern world? Is it based on the popular fictionalized version of the Wild West? Is it more of a Dark Ages thing, where life is so cheap you can end a blood feud or a murder charge by paying a sackful of gold? Are orcs and goblins fair game, even if they're noncombatants or infants, because they're orcs or goblins? What do you expect of your players?

I mean, I consider what the character did in the OP to be evil. Once the guy surrendered, it is evil by modern Western ethics. But for all we know, the two characters were of such different social castes that the character had every right to summarily execute the barkeep for watering down a drink.

What we're seeing here, I believe, is a difference in DM/player expectation, and it's something ought to be resolved--for purposes of moving forward--by an out-of-game DM/player conversation.

 

[Flamestrike]

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).

Thats my whole point. Why didnt the law get involved?

Do you reckon even in the Middle Ages you could just ride into a villiage or town, murder someone in a tavern in full view of its patrons, and nothing happen as a consequence?

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.

What a terrible way of looking at things.

The peasants and patrons should instantly react to the murder (possibly even confronting the PCs), just like real people would. They might be too scared to directly confront a bunch of heavily armed mercenaries, but I would expect some crying out or wailing in shock and horror, some dudes to possibly confront the PCs out of a moral obligation, more to race outside in either fear, or to alert the authorities, or both (and get away from the murderer as fast as possible) and so forth.

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).

Who thinks like this?

And what PCs are going to engage in mass murder to cover their tracks, by fireballing a bunch of scared goodly peasants and bar batrons? How is this even an option for anyone other than the vilest and most unhinged and CE PCs?

Who does this exactly? No sane person. Its the equivalent of machine gunning down a bunch of patrons in a nighclub to cover your tracks after murdering someone. Its the sort of thing that (barring mass shootings, and even they have a series of complex psychological reasons behind them) simply doesnt happen. It's evil of the highest order, would be out of character for anyone barring someone who has consistently portrayed their PC as a totally unhinged and psychotic madman, and in any event would result in the PCs being hunted to the ends of the earth.

How could you travel with someone who did this? The whole party would have to be unhinged psychotic CE madmen for them to even consider travelling together after this. How could you travel with (or trust) a person who has murdered dozens of innocent men, women and children to save your own skin?

I mean think about it.