Should Ragnar Redmane Have Killed That Book?

When a D&D character in one of my games takes a life, or has an opportunity and chooses not to, I like to ask myself whether their action or inaction was or would have been justified. Tonight, one of my characters, Ragnar Redmane, had such an experience, with the added complication that the "creature" he "killed" wasn't actually alive. Ragnar and his companions were storming a wizard's tower, which seemed to be the source of a curse that was apparently enfeebling the minds of countless people in the surrounding city. For the good of a great number of people, the magical effect had to be stopped. But, being adventurers, we knew to expect resistance. Shortly after entering the tower, four books flew off the shelves and attacked us, and naturally, we fought back.

Now, Ragnar could have argued that he was fighting in self defense. Sure, he hadn't personally been attacked at the time he attacked and destroyed a book, but his companions had, and I count is as justified for one person to fight in the defense of another. Yet, the better argument for self-defense belonged to the wizard, whose tower was being broken into. I believe people should have a right to defend their homes against invasion, and these "guard books" seemed to be part of the wizard's home defense plan. But the wizard was, perhaps inadvertently, causing harm to countless people outside, so perhaps it was more justified for Ragnar to fight through the wizard's defenses in the defense of the welfare of everyone outside.

One minor complication is that the books weren't actually alive. The destruction of property is far less egregious than the taking of a life. Yet, even then, that was harm done to the wizard's property, which seems unjust. Yet, the books were attacking people. If either four books or five people had to be destroyed, I would choose to destroy the books, even if the people were in the wrong. But were the books really fighting to the death? Had the four animated textbooks somehow managed to defeat five fifth-level characters, would they really have killed the adventurers? Assuming that the books knew what they were doing, they likely would have tried to incapacitate them so they could be disarmed, bound, and brought before the wizard so we could have a civilized conversation. Lethal force was neither necessary nor justified because no lives were on the line.

Frankly, Ragnar and his companions should have entered the tower (peacefully, if possible) and tried to have a courteous conversation with the wizard. Even after the books attacked, we could have tried to deescalate rather than responding in kind. Likewise, the wizard should have spoken to us before the book fight broke out and/or should have avoided having hurt people in the first place. This conflict was completely avoidable, had either side chosen to talk it out before attacking and/or fighting back.

So, no, Ragnar wasn't justified in attacking the books any more than the books were justified in attacking him. Both parties likely thought they were acting in the defense of themselves and/or other innocent parties, but both parties caused unnecessary and avoidable harm. Ragnar, as an intelligent and morally-capable individual, should have known and done better, and so should we. Even when we think others are attacking us for no good reason, we should probably avoid responding in kind unless it's necessary. Rather, we should try to deescalate and talk it out. It's not always viable to get out of a conflict, and it is sometimes necessary and justified to kill in self-defense, but one should always at least attempt to look for peaceful solutions as well.