D&D 5E (2014) Is he evil?

[Corwin]

A single bouncer was standing against every PC and all the other bar patrons.

Was he? I don't recall that being pointed out in the OP.

 

[GreenTengu]

You know though... the sheer amount of people looking to justify any PC's actions to dodge labeling the PC "evil"....

Think about all the denizens of the world one unhesitatingly paints with a big paint brush as universally evil so that one can slaughter them all without hesitation or regard. Goblins, Orcs, Drow, Hobgoblins, Rakshasa, Naga....

As races that have to survive and cooperate long enough to breed, cloth themselves, create or adapt structures, basically form any sort of functional society at all... If they all universally acted quite evil enough that if one was judging it on the standards of just how evil a PC needs to be in order to be labeled evil, I can confidently state that they would have been extinct long before the PCs were ever born into the world.

So what does "evil" even mean where if you are the wrong race, you are automatically "evil" unless you make great strides (usually involving betraying and slaughtering your own siblings, neighbors and peers for the benefit of a foreign people) in order to prove otherwise and if you live a pretty neutral life where you just do what you need to do to survive and go along with the generally aggressive and xenophobic peer group, you are evil...

BUT, if you are of the "right" race, then you really, REALLY need to go far beyond the bounds of reason (usually involving slaughtering your own siblings, neighbors and peers for the benefit of yourself or an ancient creature) in order to ever be labeled as "evil"-- particularly if you are a "PC".


The more one delves into it, the more the alignment system in just utter crap and fails on the most basic of levels. Or, in the very least, it is wildly misapplied within the structure of the world so as to be subjective from the PC's point of view rather than some omniscient neutral entity classifying things judicially.

 

[Maxperson]

Was he? I don't recall that being pointed out in the OP.

The bouncers are clearly trying to stop the fight. Absent the OP saying that they were not doing their job, assuming that the BOUNCERS are not doing their job is being disingenuous.

 

[Corwin]

The bouncers are clearly trying to stop the fight. Absent the OP saying that they were not doing their job, assuming that the BOUNCERS are not doing their job is being disingenuous.

I did not read, "Everyone was fighting," in the OP to mean, "The PCs and NPC patrons of the bar were all fighting against the bouncers." So, no. We were never given enough information to make such an assumption.

Also, isn't interesting that you claiming, "A single bouncer was standing against every PC and all the other bar patrons." Yet your very next post acknowledges there was more than one bouncer. So really, I took exception to your claim for two separate reasons. Because they both cast the scene incorrectly in different ways. It wasn't one bouncer. And it was never described as 'him against everyone else'.

And finally, please quote the part of the OP that indicated the bouncers were trying to break up the fight. I only read that they were participating. You can make further assumptions if you like. But again, facts not in evidence. For all we know this was a "Roadhouse" style tavern where fighting is a nightly, and popular, activity. Raucous fun.

 

[Maxperson]

I did not read, "Everyone was fighting," in the OP to mean, "The PCs and NPC patrons of the bar were all fighting against the bouncers." So, no. We were never given enough information to make such an assumption.

We are told that there is a fight. We are told that there are bouncer. We are told that one bouncer engaged the battlemaster. It's disingenuous to act as if the bouncers were not doing their jobs.

Also, isn't interesting that you claiming, "A single bouncer was standing against every PC and all the other bar patrons." Yet your very next post acknowledges there was more than one bouncer.

I went and looked again when I responded to you and noticed the plural. So what.

And finally, please quote the part of the OP that indicated the bouncers were trying to break up the fight. I only read that they were participating. You can make further assumptions if you like. But again, facts not in evidence. For all we know this was a "Roadhouse" style tavern where fighting is a nightly, and popular, activity. Raucous fun.

Without something to the contrary, assuming that you are in some bizarro world and the bouncers aren't bouncing is disingenuous.

 

[Uchawi]

I would never let one event determine evil or good, especially when a character is in combat. However, with that stated the player should be consistent with how the character acts, so in that sense the battle master may have a short temper or tunnel vision once provoked. So are you trying to correct the player or character? Two different problems.

 

[Maxperson]

I would never let one event determine evil or good, especially when a character is in combat. However, with that stated the player should be consistent with how the character acts, so in that sense the battle master may have a short temper or tunnel vision once provoked. So are you trying to correct the player or character? Two different problems.

I'm not sure correction is what the OP had in mind. He seemed okay with the action and then later worried over whether that action was evil or not.

 

[Uchawi]

I'm not sure correction is what the OP had in mind. He seemed okay with the action and then later worried over whether that action was evil or not.

I meant is the player trying to gain an advantage in the game or is playing in character? It was not obvious why the DM wanted to know if it was evil and what would be done.

 

[Corwin]

So what.

So what? So I was just pointing out that your statement, the one I specifically quoted...

"A single bouncer was standing against every PC and all the other bar patrons."

...was not accurate. And, in fact, misleading, given what little information we've had to go on. That's it. It's the one sentence in your post I clipped out because it was thew one I took exception with. That's so what. And only so what.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You know though... the sheer amount of people looking to justify any PC's actions to dodge labeling the PC "evil"....

I don't think it's a matter of justifying the PC's actions. For me, it's a matter of innocent until proven guilty; remember that in the case of murder you must establish guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The OP's description of events left a lot out. We don't know whether they were in a frontier town or the heart of civilization. We don't know who attacked first, nor have we been made aware of who used lethal force first. We don't know how the fight got started.

What we do know is that there was a bar fight. The bouncer engaged the PC with a sword at some point during this brawl. A few moments after the bouncer surrendered the PC killed him.

Were there extenuating circumstances? We don't know. I'm not a lawyer, but if this PC were to be tried in a modern day court (presumably in absentia, since we are lacking his testimony of events) given only the evidence that we have been given, I suspect that more likely than not that you'd end up with a hung jury. The specifics of an event matter, and in this case all we can do is speculate (or make assumptions) about the particulars.

Now, as I've said previously, I don't believe that morality and legality are directly correlated. However, murder is an act where the two tend to be in line with each other. Obviously, just because the PC isn't found guilty in a court of law doesn't mean that the PC is free of moral responsibility, but it does suggest that there exists at least the possibility for this to have been a non-evil act.

Personally I believe that any killing of another sentient being, whether you can justify it or not, is evil. It might be considered a necessary evil, such as when killing to protect innocents, but that doesn't make it good in my book. Heck, I think that most killing of even non-sentient living creatures is evil. Squashing that spider that was minding its own business? Evil. Not your soul will burn in hell for all eternity evil, but still evil. I catch and release whenever I can for that reason. That doesn't however make mine an objective truth. At best, it is my truth, purely subjective. If an objective truth of good and evil exists, the definition of it is presumably the domain of an unknowable higher power.

The alignment system, of course, does permit killing within the definition of good, so let's look at the definitions:

Lawful good creatures can be counted on to do the right things as expected by society. I think we can agree that unless this society has some really unusual norms, this was not a LG act.

Neutral good folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. While you could perhaps argue that due to some unknown variable the bouncer needed to be put down, this was probably not a NG act.

Chaotic good creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Was the PC acting according to his conscience? We really don't have enough information for that. However, if he honestly believed the bouncer to be a threat to others, this could arguably have been a CG act.

As such, I honestly don't think that it's as simple as declaring the PC's act as evil. There is room for doubt in my mind, particularly within the scope of the alignment system (as opposed to real world morality). As I enjoy telling my players, non-evil does not mean nice. Jack Bauer, from the TV show 24, could arguably fit the definition of CG as defined above and he wouldn't be above killing an enemy who has surrendered if he had reason to do so.

The more one delves into it, the more the alignment system in just utter crap and fails on the most basic of levels. Or, in the very least, it is wildly misapplied within the structure of the world so as to be subjective from the PC's point of view rather than some omniscient neutral entity classifying things judicially.

In my opinion, the alignment system is about as successful in describing a real person's psychology as hit points are at describing a real person's health. Which is to say, they're both extreme simplifications of real world concepts that are reasonably useful as gamist constructs, but they are hardly realistic. Unless you want injuries in your game to be more simulationist, hp suffice. Similarly, unless your intent is to undertake serious philosophical exploration of ethics and morality, the alignment system is sufficient. In the classic style of game where you slay the dragon, save the princess, and earn treasure and acclaim, you don't need more. As long as you don't expect them to be more than they are, they work fine.