Was V's act evil? (Probable spoilers!)

[Vegepygmy]

The comment about cases like these being in legal textbooks: what is the expected verdict- for killing someone in a lifeboat just before it casts off, in order to take their seat, when there are no seats left?

There might be a jurisdictional issue if you're in international waters, and I don't know the first thing about maritime law, but as far as western law (i.e., English common law and that derived from it), they're textbook examples of murder, so I don't know what point Fenes was trying to make.

Yes, I am a lawyer. A criminal prosecutor, in fact.

 

[hamishspence]

"Is there a criminal lawyer in this town?"
"We think so, but we can't prove it."

Sorry, the joke just sprung to mind.

That said, BoVD stresses that all killings that are murder, are evil, as does Fiendish Codex 2. However BoVD makes a rather generous definition of murder implying that "irredeemably evil" creatures are excluded, and that it tends to have "nefarious motives"

However, in this context, I'd say "I want to survive" can actually be pretty nefarious.
A signature I saw said: "Look after number one" is not evil. Evil is "look after number one while crushing number two" And here, i'd say the acts fit that definition.

And also, since the so-called "iredeemably evil" dragons have been shown in various supplements to not be such, I'd say they aren't covered by the "iredeemably evil" excuse.

(Going by Half-dragon entry in MM, "Alignment: same as the base creature" should have an "Often" in it, since the sample half-black dragon is described as Often CE in its entry)

BoVD: "Sacrificing others to save yourself is an evil act. Its a hard standard, but thats the way it is."

 

[Fenes]

There might be a jurisdictional issue if you're in international waters, and I don't know the first thing about maritime law, but as far as western law (i.e., English common law and that derived from it), they're textbook examples of murder, so I don't know what point Fenes was trying to make.

Yes, I am a lawyer. A criminal prosecutor, in fact.

I am a laywer too, and if the only way to save yourself is to kill someone else, then it isn't murder. The lifeboat situation is not as clear cut as this, but if there's just one floating device, and it can just carry one, and there are two who cannot swim on it, then both can drown the other one without committing murder.

One actual case was when a man was trying to kill his wife, she was fleeing, and ran over an old woman on the stairs in their house, which got killed by the fall - this was no murder.

The point I am making is that you're not expected to die for others, and to save yourself you have the right to kill others - if that's the only way to save yourself.

 

[hamishspence]

Way I see it is- its a case of finders keepers- first to the lifebelt gets it, and killing someone else to save your own life- when the other person has not used violence toward you, is at best manslaughter and at worst murder.

Same would apply if its two divers underwater, and one has just discovered his bottle is completely bust and he cannot get to surface without the other diver's bottle (and there is not enough to divide between the two) Yes, it would be incompentence, but still applies.

Or any other "only enough resources for one" situation- if the other person is already in possession of the resources, killing them to get the life-saving resources is murder.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I am a laywer too, and if the only way to save yourself is to kill someone else, then it isn't murder.

Sorry, but that's just flat-out wrong. See here: "Duress is no defence to murder, attempted murder, or treason involving the death of the sovereign... In cases where the choice is between the threat of death or serious injury and deliberately taking an innocent life, a reasonable man might reflect that one innocent human life is at least as valuable as his own or that of his loved one. In such a case a man cannot claim that he is choosing the lesser of two evils."

The lifeboat situation is not as clear cut as this, but if there's just one floating device, and it can just carry one, and there are two who cannot swim on it, then both can drown the other one without committing murder.

That's because there is no "malice aforethought," not because one person's life is more valuable than another's. In the lifeboat situation, there is no culpable mental state--no mens rea--that would make the act criminal.

One actual case was when a man was trying to kill his wife, she was fleeing, and ran over an old woman on the stairs in their house, which got killed by the fall - this was no murder.

Correct. Again, because there was no "malice aforethought."

This is a very different situation than the "shoot a person to make room on a lifeboat" and "bash your fellow shipwreck survivor to avoid sharing water" examples hamishspence described. In those situations, there is very clearly sufficient opportunity for the actor to reflect upon what he is about to do, and a decision to abandon the pursuit of alternative remedies. In those situations, the act is performed with "malice aforethought," and the actor would be guilty of murder.

The point I am making is that you're not expected to die for others, and to save yourself you have the right to kill others - if that's the only way to save yourself.

You are not expected to die for others, but neither are they expected to die for you, and you have no right to weigh the relative value of two lives and make a decision as to which one shall prevail. There is no "right to kill others" if that's the only way to save yourself, because who is to say that you have perceived the situation correctly? Maybe there is another way to save yourself, but you haven't discovered it yet (in the shipwreck situation, perhaps, unbeknownst to you, a rescue ship will arrive before your shared water supply runs out...or maybe there's a natural spring somewhere on the island, but you haven't found it yet).

 

[Fenes]

If you have to push someone down a stairs to escape, there's no "maybe". It doesn't matter if accept or expect beforehand that the person may die as a result of your action, or don't consider that outcome - it's not murder.

I am very glad I am not living in England or anywhere else where common law applies then, since I consider a law that makes me in some situations face either a murder charge or death plain evil.

 

[Vegepygmy]

If you have to push someone down a stairs to escape, there's no "maybe".

I didn't say there was a "maybe." I said there was definitely no "malice aforethought." That seems to be what you're not grasping.

The law recognizes that shooting someone in a lifeboat to make room for yourself is evil, and it calls that evilness "malice aforethought." The law also recognizes that shoving someone aside in your panicked flight out of a burning building is not evil; it's just human frailty.

It doesn't matter if accept or expect beforehand that the person may die as a result of your action, or don't consider that outcome - it's not murder.

Yeah, actually, that's what separates us from beasts: our ability to consider beforehand the consequences of our actions. Well, that and hopefully a sense of decency toward our fellow man.

I am very glad I am not living in England or anywhere else where common law applies then, since I consider a law that makes me in some situations face either a murder charge or death plain evil.

We all face death, my friend. I guess what makes the difference is how we choose to face it.

 

[DM-Rocco]

From Rich Burlew's "Order of the Stick" ongoing web-comic, strip 639:

Under your D&D's alignment system, was V's act evil? (If you don't play D&D, or use alignment, just answer using your best knowledge of "D&D morality.)

The link appears broken. Is there another place to read it?

 

[Remus Lupin]

Well in some states in the United States, isn't there also a consideration of "reckelss disregard for human life," which would qualify an act as murder? In such a case, i could imagine a jury determining that pushing down the woman would qualify as "reckless disregard"

Also, if you're pushing her down in order to commit murder of someone else, woudln't the felony murder rule apply?

 

[Nymrohd]

How would it qualify as reckless? Reckless implies indifference to consequences. And I think the poor old lady got pushed down during the frantic flight of the victim of the attempt.

What is reasonable conduct, let alone moral, while under duress is an often heated and certainly involved debate and to my understanding it always boils down to whether one human life can ever be weighted against another. Trying to reform that debate and apply it in the reality defined by D&D is infinitely more complicated.