D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Maxperson]

Technically, it was "in cold blood." While there is no legal meaning of that term, the idiom means without passion; in other words, in the absence of the heat of passion. As the encounter was no longer in media res, it would be correct to say that the execution of the bouncer would have been (to use the idiom) in cold blood.

A bit of background might help as well-

As a general rule, jurisdiction split on the issue of self defense; some say that it can only be used lawfully when retreat is impossible (you have a duty to retreat before resorting to self defense, if possible), others do not require retreat (stand your ground).* However, I am unaware of any current legal code, or any provision under warfare, that permits the killing of an individual who has surrendered (who no longer poses a threat).

I will refer back to my earlier post when I say that there can always be factors that we are not aware of, but I am somewhat confused that this is still a question; absent facts that we are not privy to, executing an individual who has surrendered is not a "good" act, and is almost always evil (unless excused by Gygax-ian "KILL ORC KILL" gameplay).


*Again, simplified!

Update- saw your post- even with your added definition, it is still cold blooded. It was an act without compunction or clemency; pretty much the definition of it (I surrender! No, you die.) But you're free to disagree.

I disagree with that. The fight had ended, but was still within seconds of full combat. The passions could easily have still been flowing. I've heard about murders where an argument happened and one guy goes upstairs, gets a a gun and shoots the other. They weren't pre-meditated, but a crimes of passion because the anger and emotion was still running hot.

The battlemaster could have been calm and just offed the bouncer in cold blood, or he might have been angry and out of his mind, killing in a crime of passion.

Either way it was evil.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

In a DnD world where there is actual real Evil, I would be surprised you do not see more Inquisitions.

If you were a Good aligned Church then would you suffer Evil to live?

Ed Greenwood covers this a bit in Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms and there are a lot of other reasonable answers to that question.

My take has always been the delicate balance between the Deities prevents too much outright religious warfare. In addition, most campaigns have religion well in the background, rather than one of the primary driving (manipulative?) forces in society. Plus, in an polytheistic pantheon, the Deities are often manifestations of things that occur in the world. That is, there are evil things that happen in the world, and therefore there must be an evil Deity. Most won't actively worship them, but give a nod in their direction in the hopes they can avoid something bad happening. Of course, there will be groups that do worship the evil deities, but the followers of the good will do their best to prevent them from gaining too much power.

Of course, one could argue that the acceptance of "adventuring parties" that slaughter monstrous humanoids and such is a sort of inquisition...

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

Over, under, sideways, down?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Are you suggesting you cannot choose to knock a target out when wielding a dagger?


Parry what? A fist? And gamist perspective aside, *hoping* your armed opponent will choose to knock you unconscious rather than kill you is a bit hard to sell. Go ahead and place your faith in that stranger who just drew a deadly weapon during a brawl. You go ahead and choose to think the best of that person. I wouldn't. Nor should I be expected to.

Edit: Also, what if the sword was a rapier? Would that change anything? I don't recall the OP ever saying what kind of sword was drawn.

Actually, from my perspective, the fact that the bouncer pulled a sword is OK, as discussed earlier, in a frontier/wild-west concept. An example given by somebody else is the barkeep firing a shotgun into the ceiling.

I see it as sort of an, "Enough. I'm stepping in, and I'm allowed to do what is necessary to end this and protect the property of the owner." As depicted in movies and such, that moment (like the shotgun) typically ends the fight. If somebody persists, then a shot (or dagger) over their head, or into the post next to their head does the trick.

One of the inherent problems I often find from players is the automatic assumption that any fight is "winnable" by the party, and therefore they never back down. For example, in the same scene, with the bouncer drawing the sword, I might have to have a dozen or more watch patrol enter with crossbows at the ready to get the point across that the fight is over.

In terms of your edit, I think the difference is really more along the lines of "what if it was a bow or crossbow?" because any melee weapon can be nonlethal in 5e (if you reduce the creature to 0 hit points you can choose to knock them out instead). Of course, since that decision is made at the point you drop them to 0 hit points by this rule, lethal and nonlethal damage doesn't look all that different.

 

[Shasarak]

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.

Of course it does not keep the fight going because the step after refusing the surrender is the execution of the enemy.

And also why would I "take him into custody"? That sounds like a Lawful behaviour to me and I dont see Lawful written on my sheet anywhere. My personal code is "No retreat, no surrender" so why would I accept someone elses?

 

[Henry]

Actually, from my perspective, the fact that the bouncer pulled a sword is OK, as discussed earlier, in a frontier/wild-west concept. An example given by somebody else is the barkeep firing a shotgun into the ceiling.

In terms of your edit, I think the difference is really more along the lines of "what if it was a bow or crossbow?" because any melee weapon can be nonlethal in 5e (if you reduce the creature to 0 hit points you can choose to knock them out instead). Of course, since that decision is made at the point you drop them to 0 hit points by this rule, lethal and nonlethal damage doesn't look all that different.

In regards to the shotgun into the ceiling, that's still an incorrect analogy. Bartender attacked the Battlemaster directly, which is more like, "pulled the shotgun and started blasting."

And in regards to the 5e "nonlethal" rule, I love it exactly for these kinds of situations, but I would suggest not a lot of players (especially players of older editions) even know about it. I make sure I mention it to my players every few games for that reason.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course it does not keep the fight going because the step after refusing the surrender is the execution of the enemy.

Right. Evil is as evil does.

And also why would I "take him into custody"? That sounds like a Lawful behaviour to me and I dont see Lawful written on my sheet anywhere. My personal code is "No retreat, no surrender" so why would I accept someone elses?

You wouldn't if you're evil.

 

[Shasarak]

Ed Greenwood covers this a bit in Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms and there are a lot of other reasonable answers to that question.

Interesting, I will have to try and dig up a copy of that to add to the pile of material to be read.

My take has always been the delicate balance between the Deities prevents too much outright religious warfare. In addition, most campaigns have religion well in the background, rather than one of the primary driving (manipulative?) forces in society. Plus, in an polytheistic pantheon, the Deities are often manifestations of things that occur in the world. That is, there are evil things that happen in the world, and therefore there must be an evil Deity. Most won't actively worship them, but give a nod in their direction in the hopes they can avoid something bad happening. Of course, there will be groups that do worship the evil deities, but the followers of the good will do their best to prevent them from gaining too much power.

That makes a certain amount of sense because it could escalate really quickly and then you are left with a Krynn type debacle in order to restore the balance.

In this scenario it would actually make sense for Evil characters to team up with Good ones in order to put down one that had broken the "agreement".

Of course, one could argue that the acceptance of "adventuring parties" that slaughter monstrous humanoids and such is a sort of inquisition...

Ha, no one expects the Adventuring party - especially if they can scry and teleport!

 

[Shasarak]

Right. Evil is as evil does.

No, that was Gump.

You wouldn't if you're evil.

And I also wouldnt if I was good.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

In regards to the shotgun into the ceiling, that's still an incorrect analogy. Bartender attacked the Battlemaster directly, which is more like, "pulled the shotgun and started blasting."

And in regards to the 5e "nonlethal" rule, I love it exactly for these kinds of situations, but I would suggest not a lot of players (especially players of older editions) even know about it. I make sure I mention it to my players every few games for that reason.

Yes and no. I get what you're saying, but usually the next move is for the bartender pointing the shotgun at the patrons, pretty much daring anybody to move.

Like I mentioned before (and related to your comment about the players not remembering nonlethal damage), one of the problems I find is that if the bouncer had simply waded into the fight, shoved a few people aside, and then faced the PCs (probably the biggest threat) and drew his sword and said "Enough. Everybody out, this is over," the PCs would have just attacked him, rather than the expected reaction which is to respect "the law" and the shift from a bar fight to a potential lethal fight, against an opponent that probably has legal protection for his use of a sword, where you do not.

So it's not so much a question of whether he uses the sword or not, as it is that he's signaling that any continuation of the fight will be on his terms.

Nonlethal damage and grappling are much more common things in my campaign, by the way, although we use nonlethal damage in much the way 3.5e did.