D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Celebrim]

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.

I'm aware of your side argument, but I consider it both irrelevant and unresolvable. In other words, not only is neither of you is even wrong, ultimately what you are arguing about has no pertinence to the question.

Unless the OP reposts to the thread, we can't know what the bouncers motivation was. BookBarbarian could be right. He could be wrong. Maybe he was intending to strike the Battlemaster in the helm with the pommel of the sword knowing his fist would be pretty much useless against steel, or maybe give the battlemaster a blow with the flat of the blade. Maybe the bouncer, seeing that the Battlemaster was well armed and armored, and fearing for the life of the patrons, decided the only way to ensure the safety of the patrons was to take the Battlemaster down. Maybe the bouncer was just a scoundrel that thought this was a good time to stab someone in the back and get away with it, only to find out he'd bitten off more than he could chew. All of that is pertinent to deciding what the alignment of the bouncer is. Likewise, regardless of the bouncer's intent, the fact that he attacked with a deadly weapon justifies the Battlemaster in believing that the bouncer tried to kill him, and would have been pertinent if the Battlemaster had used lethal force in self-defense. But regardless, none of that is pertinent to the alignment of the Battlemaster because the Battlemaster didn't actually use lethal force in self-defense, but only after he was no longer being threatened.

As such, I can't know whether BookBarbarian mischaracterized anything, but I do know BookBarbarian raised a red herring. I consider some of your posts likewise red herrings. For example, I don't think it matters if the Battlemaster in theory could raise the bouncer from the dead. Not only do we have no indication that the Battlemaster planned to do so, aside the obvious problem that planning to undo evil at some point in the future doesn't mean the act itself isn't evil, punishing someone by potentially temporary death strikes me as disproportionate and unmerciful anyway.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Corwin]

I'm aware of your side argument, but I consider it both irrelevant and unresolvable.

So don't jump in? You are the one dragging it out at this point. Heck, this single post of yours is more words than [MENTION=6802553]BookBarbarian[/MENTION] and my combined posts on the matter. Congrats?

 

[Sadras]

So don't jump in? You are the one dragging it out at this point. Heck, this single post of yours is more words than @BookBarbarian and my combined posts on the matter. Congrats?

What you meant to say was
You're a talker. Listening to talkers makes me thirsty, and hungry...think I'll have two chickens

 

[Celebrim]

So don't jump in? You are the one dragging it out at this point. Heck, this single post of yours is more words than [MENTION=6802553]BookBarbarian[/MENTION] and my combined posts on the matter. Congrats?

If you see to people going back and forth, "Yes.", "No.", "Yes.", "No.", then I consider it fully appropriate to step in and say "Mu."

Since most people do understand "Yes" or "No", but wouldn't understand what I meant by "Mu" and might even have trouble googling for the right answer, it's necessarily to give a less than terse explanation. So, "The dog does not have a Buddhist nature; unask the question." Clear now?

 

[Corwin]

If you see to people going back and forth, "Yes.", "No.", "Yes.", "No.", then I consider it fully appropriate to step in and say "Mu."

Given that you are misrepresenting the brief exchange between me an [MENTION=6802553]BookBarbarian[/MENTION], I'm not sure what to make of all this. Especially since his/her initial response (post #288) to my post was acquiescent. One I immediately responded to with acceptance. The conversation then shifted once more to discussing issues more closely related to the OP and topic proper.

So you can "Mu" like Interrupting Cow all you like, but there was never any back and forth, "Yes.", "No.", "Yes.", "No." as you put it WRT the original contention you seem to have taken issue with. And, again, here you are dragging this off-topic stuff further along by continuing to engage on it.

 

[Shasarak]

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

 

[Celebrim]

Given that you are misrepresenting the brief exchange between me an [MENTION=6802553]BookBarbarian[/MENTION], I'm not sure what to make of all this.

Not that it matters, but no I am not. Anyone is invited to read the exchange of #290-#293 just prior to me posting a response to your side discussion.

Moreover, lowkey13 responded almost exactly the same time I did with a post that was very similar in substance, and which I found myself fully agreeing with, which leads me to think that I'm not coming from somewhere completely out of left field in thinking your back and forth about whether the lethal weapon could have been used with non-lethal intent very much misses the point.

 

[Celebrim]

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

Ok, sure, but then that just transforms the question to, "Do you have a moral obligation to accept someone's surrender, or can you just kill someone in cold blood?"

 

[Corwin]

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