D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Corwin]

Really? Have you ever played in or even heard of a setting where an adventuring fighter is "completely justified and socially charged" with executing a defenseless bouncer, who just surrendered, in a bar, after a bar fight?

Legend of the Five Rings.

 

[Flamestrike]

Really? You think a player who just had an unarmed bouncer cut down because he dared attack him with a real weapon is going to try to avoid harming the peasant mob? They would justify it as self defense and slaughter everyone.

Not if they were aged over 12 in real life.

At my table both the DM and the other players would discuss this with the player in question OOG. I'd (as DM) make it very clear that I viewed this as mass murder, a thouroughly evil act, and psychotic in the extreme. I would make it clear that I would be changing his alignment, and that the ramifications of would almost certainly result in the Character being kicked out of the party, and likley hunted down by the local Lord who likely hires a bunch of far more powerful NPC adventurers to bring this villian to justice.

In short, I would explain that I expect better from my players (unless the player was making a concerted effort to portray an Evil sociopath), and that act will have repurcussions that would be tantamount to a death sentence.

I have to agree with you both here.

Alignment isn't described in those terms. But the game has an understood morality that is presented as being based on a good vs evil.

But evil is defined quite differently than our world. The game presents things like goblins and orcs as inherently evil, and they exist purely for the PCs to kill... But the evil creatures are presented as eligible for PCs to kill without any moral questions at all.

That is complete nonsense.

Orcs and Goblins are not inherently evil. Heck, not even Demons and Devils are. Alignment in DnD is a choice - even for those creatures comprised of the outer planes that correspond to those alignments.

Asmodeus was once an Angel. Grazzt was once a Devil lord. Erinyes were once Angels. A Succubus Paladin exists. Titans rebelled against the Gods and several of them turned to Evil. Fallen Solars are a thing. And so forth. Tieflings and Aasimars choose alignmnets. And so on.

Orcs are evil because they are raised evil. They are raised to embrace arbitrary violence, rape and pilliage. That is what makes the CE.

Alignment isnt a game of 'tag' where Evil people [rape, murder, torture] everyone, and Good people only [rape, murder and torture] Evildoers.

What distinguishes Evil and Good are actions, not choice of victims.

Evil people are prepared to murder, rape and torture. They view mercy and compassion as weaknesses. Good people instead demonstrate mercy, respect for life and compassion. They avoid harming or killing others.

So killing isn't always evil.

Killing isnt always evil, but it is never good. At best it is morally neutral.

The only time a Good person should be killing anyone is when that killing is in self defence or the defence of others, no other option reasonably presents itself, and the act is proportionate to the threat posed.

A police officer shooting an armed suspect. A solider engaged in offensive operations against a foreign invading army. Local heroes taking up arms to protect a villiage from the predations of a dragon, or rescuing kidnapped children from a Kobold lair.

About the only other time killing is acceptable is a mercy killing (the person is in great suffering, and you only kill to ease that suffering, with the consent of the person you kill).

DMs can take that and blur the lines, which I think makes things much more interesting. As I mentioned before, the inclusion of non-combatants (civilians) of "women and children" in Caves of Chaos is one of those. Most groups see them as just more stuff to kill.

Thats not a problem with alignments; thats a problem with immature nerds who overpopulate our hobby.

 

[Flamestrike]

Thing is, I've played D&D in GTA murder-hobo mode and had a good time. I have absolutely no problem with that kind of game. I hope the insistence in some quarters that killing defenseless persons doesn't constitute an evil act is really just defensiveness on behalf of that playstyle. In any case, I've said my piece, and then some, so I'm done.

Get out of my head.

I always find these threads depressing. Peeps winding up condoning rape, torture, murder, infanticide and even full scale genocide as 'perfectly good acts to engage in'.

Considering human history, we probably shouldnt be shocked. More acts of evil have been perpetrated under the banner of 'the greater good' than any other banner, ever.

Its a combination of this fact, and the fact our hobby is overflowing with socially maladjusted nerds with low social skills (someone had to say it), the difficulties demonstrating the required level of empathy towards a fake person (murdering children is a very different story if the baby is actually there in front of you) and the fact that DnD both expects and mechanically rewards violence that make these discussions infuriating.

 

[Greg Benage]

Legend of the Five Rings.

Wow, you sucked me back in for one more post.

Literally meaning "way of the warrior," Bushido was the code by which nearly all samurai in Rokugan strived to live.

The Seven Virtues of Bushido were:

Jin (Compassion) - Just as the farmer does not grow crops merely to fill his own belly, the warrior does not fight for himself alone. A samurai must be constantly aware of the duty to protect others.

Yu (Courage) - Only fear of death can destroy life; the samurai replaces it with an understanding of danger.

Rei (Courtesy) - A samurai is neither a bully nor a brute killer. He must treat his enemies with courtesy.

"Samurai have no reason to be cruel. They do not need to prove their strength. A Samurai is courteous even to his enemies. Without this outward show of respect, we are nothing more than animals. A Samurai is not only respected for his strength in battle, but also by his dealings with other men. The true inner strength of a Samurai becomes apparent during difficult times."
-Akodo's Leadership

Chugo (Duty and Loyalty) - Actions and their consequences define those who take them. The samurai's loyalty to those that he guards for is unshakeable.

Gi (Honesty and Justice) - Set lies aside. A samurai does not make honesty or justice a matter for debate; he knows that there is only truth and falsehood, justice and injustice.

"Be acutely honest throughout your dealings with all people. Believe in justice, not from other people, but from yourself. To a true Samurai, there is no shades of gray in the question of honesty and justice. There is only right and wrong."

Meyo (Honor) - Praises and curses are not what defines honor; the samurai reserves his judgement for himself.

Makoto (Sincerity) - A samurai's words and his actions are one and the same. To 'promise' would be redundant.
their vows very

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That is complete nonsense.

Orcs and Goblins are not inherently evil. Heck, not even Demons and Devils are. Alignment in DnD is a choice - even for those creatures comprised of the outer planes that correspond to those alignments.

Asmodeus was once an Angel. Grazzt was once a Devil lord. Erinyes were once Angels. A Succubus Paladin exists. Titans rebelled against the Gods and several of them turned to Evil. Fallen Solars are a thing. And so forth. Tieflings and Aasimars choose alignmnets. And so on.

Orcs are evil because they are raised evil. They are raised to embrace arbitrary violence, rape and pilliage. That is what makes the CE.

And you also missed my point. It's not a question of what they can be, or what they were, or what they are, it's not the exceptions, it's the expectations.

The expectation, as presented in the game, is that goblins and orcs are evil and you are free to kill them. It doesn't say "Alignment: Most are raised in horrible conditions and become chaotic evil." It says Alignment: Chaotic Evil"

"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers...Such was the role of the orcs, he (Gruumsh) proclaimed, to take and destroy all that the other races would deny them. To this day, the orcs wage an endless war on humans, elves, dwarves, and other folk."

"​Orcs...exert their dominance and satisfy their bloodlust by plundering villages...slaying any humanoids that stand against them."

"Their lust for slaughter demands that orcs dwell always within striking distance of new targets."

Or from 2nd edition:

"Orcs employ sniping and ambush tactics in the wild. They do not obey the “rules of war” unless such is in their best interests; for example, they will shoot at those who attempt to parlay with them under a white flag unless the orc leader feels it is advantageous to hear what the enemy has to say. They abuse human rules of engagement and chivalry to their best advantage. They have a historic enmity against elves and dwarves; many tribes will kill these demihumans on sight."

The expectation for most people sitting down at a game of D&D is that they can happily go about killing goblins, orcs, demons and such, and never even consider whether it's good or evil.

They are not described as "learning to be evil" they are described as evil. They are vilified. There is never any question that a paladin was going to lose their abilities by killing as many orcs as they could.

The longest running introductory adventure, Keep on the Borderlands, says this:

"The Realm of mankind is narrow and constricted. Always the forces of Chaos press upon its borders, seeking to enslave its populace, rape its riches, and steal its treasures. If it were not for a stout few, many in the Realm would indeed fall prey to the evil which surrounds them. Yet, there are always certain exceptional and brave members of humanity, as well as similar individuals among its allies - dwarves, elves, and halflings - who rise above the common level and join battle to stave off the darkness which would otherwise overwhelm the land. Bold adventurers from the Realm set off for the Borderlands to seek their fortune. It is these adventurers who, provided they survive the challenge, carry the battle to the enemy. "

The adventure is to the Caves of Chaos, which are inhabited by kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, orcs, ogres, and others.

The current introductory adventure also starts with a goblin ambush, and then clearing out the goblin lair. While there is a sidebar on what the goblins know if you capture or charm one, but there is no consideration whatsoever for negotiating a truce or peace with the goblins, or what to do if the PCs want to try that tact.

That's not to say that you can't run a campaign that digs deeper into the morality behind that construct. And many (including me) do, because it's a lot of fun, and very interesting too. I find presenting moral or ethical challenges to the players make for very interesting games.

 

[Flamestrike]

And you also missed my point. It's not a question of what they can be, or what they were, or what they are, it's not the exceptions, it's the expectations.

We dont kill people based on expectated alignment though, anymore than we do based on the persons actual alignment.

We kill them when they pose a direct and imminent threat, and we are required to do so to protect life in self defence or the defence of others, and no other option reasonably presents itself.

If a LG Paladin stormed into the tavern and attempted to kill me, then using lethal force in response to that threat is no more evil that if a CE Orc did the same.

We dont judge actions based on the alignment (real or percieved) of our victims.

Killing, harming and opressing others = evil. The only time it is morally neutral to do it, is when it is the only option reasonably at hand to prevent the harming, killing and opressing of others, the threat is direct and imminent and you act in proportion to the threat.

If Orcs raid your villiage, you can engage them in open warfare (killing them, raiding their outposts, ambushes, assaults, defensive actions the works) - however at the same time you should be seeking a peacefull solution (peace) to the problem that minimises harm and loss. You should be merciful to POW's, show compassion and kindness, minimise civilian losses etc.

The expectation, as presented in the game, is that goblins and orcs are evil and you are free to kill them.

No its not. That is not the expectation of the game at all. If you dont believe me, open your PHB and look at the illistration of the Paladin.

They are not described as "learning to be evil" they are described as evil. They are vilified. There is never any question that a paladin was going to lose their abilities by killing as many orcs as they could.

Yes there most definately is. A Paladin who slays a defensless Orc for no other reason than he is an Orc, falls.

It is an act of evil.

The longest running introductory adventure, Keep on the Borderlands, says this:

"The Realm of mankind is narrow and constricted. Always the forces of Chaos press upon its borders, seeking to enslave its populace, rape its riches, and steal its treasures. If it were not for a stout few, many in the Realm would indeed fall prey to the evil which surrounds them. Yet, there are always certain exceptional and brave members of humanity, as well as similar individuals among its allies - dwarves, elves, and halflings - who rise above the common level and join battle to stave off the darkness which would otherwise overwhelm the land. Bold adventurers from the Realm set off for the Borderlands to seek their fortune. It is these adventurers who, provided they survive the challenge, carry the battle to the enemy. "

The adventure is to the Caves of Chaos, which are inhabited by kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, orcs, ogres, and others.

The current introductory adventure also starts with a goblin ambush, and then clearing out the goblin lair. While there is a sidebar on what the goblins know if you capture or charm one, but there is no consideration whatsoever for negotiating a truce or peace with the goblins, or what to do if the PCs want to try that tact.

Exactly. The adventure frames the scenario as a war, with the 'forces of Chaos' attacking the PCs homeland ('the realm of mankind'), and the PCs as fighting a defensive battle against the evil forces of chaos that live outside the keep.

Like I said earlier, a soldier acting in collective self defence against a foreign invader is not evil, any more than a police officer is for shooting an armed bank robber, or the French Resistance were evil for fighting back against the Nazis.

You dont have to sit and wait for the raid to come. If offensive operations against the invader (ambushing them on the way, an assault against HQ, a raid on their camp or whatever) is likely to minimise innoent casualties and losses and provide a decisive blow against your enemies then go for it.

If the Orcs were just minding their own buisiness, had a peace treaty with the local humans, were just trading with the local Goblins and not being a problem to anyone, then riding into their camp and slaughtering them is evil.

 

[Maxperson]

It was the actual illustration of Chaotic alignment before the good-evil-neutral axis was even added to the game (although the victim was a kobold; not a human).

Can you cite a definition of alignment from some edition of the game in which cold-blooded murder was "okay"?

Chaotic was in Basic, not one of the editions. Basic was a concurrently released D&D game. That's why the editions start with 1e and go to 5e.

 

[Imaculata]

I wonder how a medieval society would have looked at this incident. I think they may have felt that the bouncer was fully in his right to draw a sword, since it is his place of work. So if things get out of hand, it is his job to break up fights... by any means necessary. Whether we agree if he was justified to draw steel is besides the point. He may have acted in accordance with the law of the land.

A player deciding to execute a man after he has already surrendered, is playing his own judge and jury. That is not a lawful act, and it is an evil act. I wouldn't change the player's alignment to evil immediately, but if he was lawful before, he no longer is now.

 

[Flamestrike]

I wonder how a medieval society would have looked at this incident. I think they may have felt that the bouncer was fully in his right to draw a sword, since it is his place of work. So if things get out of hand, it is his job to break up fights... by any means necessary. Whether we agree if he was justified to draw steel is besides the point. He may have acted in accordance with the law of the land.

If it was medieval society, he likely wouldnt have been allowed to own a sword. Additionally (assuming a Feudal society) he probably would have been a Serf or the equivalent (and thus himself the property of the local Lord) unless he was a Freeman.

In any event, killing a Serf is bad. Really bad. At a minimum the PC would be lawfully required to compensate the Lord financially. Even then, he would probably be hung for the killing (just as he would if he stole one of the Lords cattle, or killed one of the Lords Stags without permission).

The core of the Feudal system is the Serfs work for the Lord in exchange for his protection.

If the local Lord cant protect a Serf from getting murdered by the first bunch of masterless vagabonds that stroll into town, he's not doing his job. He would be obliged to track down and punish the PCs and seek restitution from them.

If this is a Feudal system, the PCs exist outside of it. This is really really bad for the PCs.

If the society is more akin to the late middle ages, and Freemen exist (those outside the Feudal pyramid) then a codified system of laws also exist, regulating commerce and conduct between those Freemen. Those laws almost certainly prohibit the killing of an unarmed man who has surrendered to you.

A player deciding to execute a man after he has already surrendered, is playing his own judge and jury. That is not a lawful act, and it is an evil act. I wouldn't change the player's alignment to evil immediately, but if he was lawful before, he no longer is now.

Thats ridiculous. 'lawful' does not mean 'Abide by the local laws'. You could simply abide by your own laws or your own code of conduct.

 

[Shiroiken]

Not if they were aged over 12 in real life.

At my table both the DM and the other players would discuss this with the player in question OOG. I'd (as DM) make it very clear that I viewed this as mass murder, a thouroughly evil act, and psychotic in the extreme. I would make it clear that I would be changing his alignment, and that the ramifications of would almost certainly result in the Character being kicked out of the party, and likley hunted down by the local Lord who likely hires a bunch of far more powerful NPC adventurers to bring this villian to justice.

In short, I would explain that I expect better from my players (unless the player was making a concerted effort to portray an Evil sociopath), and that act will have repurcussions that would be tantamount to a death sentence.

You may expect better of your players, but there are a LOT of players and DMs who think differently. I'm not disagreeing that it was evil, only discussing the consequences in game.