non interferring murder witness: evil or not?

[clark411]

Not Nice Neutral.

Definitely falls into the "heck I'm not putting my neck out for that guy" behavior. We can say that the character is hardly heroic in this one instance, but that doesn't mean his choice is villainous.

 

[Cor Azer]

Some considerations...

Your character sees an individual being beaten to death in the street of a city he's visiting. The victim is of a race the PC despises, but is legally welcome within the city.

Beaten by whom? In-town gang? Thugs? Out-of-towners? Local police/guards (it could happen, unfortunately)?

Also, legally welcome does not necessarily mean happily welcome. It would likely matter as to whether the PC's despising of the victim is an individual or societal thing.

The PC knows just within a door to his side is a room full of armed men who can stop the incident and could easily hear a call for help, especially as it would take barely a moment to open that door and call in.

Armed men? Are they guards, or just other adventurers? Do they have any relation/emotions to(wards) the PC? Is there reason to believe they would act to help the victim?

The PC just stands there and watches, until he is spotted by chance and the assailants flee. The victim dies shortly there-after.

Evil or not on the part of the PC?

What if afterwards, the PC tried to stabalize the victim? Does that change anything over letting the incident happen without even shouting out an alarm?

What if the PC was following the victim, and witnessed the entire event from start to finish?

I would likely go with it being a neutral act, possibly eventually shifting good towards neutrality, but not shifting evil.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

I'm late to the discussion, so I'm not going to repeat much that has been said. As I understand alignments, it's clearly a neutral act. Only a good character would feel the need to help and put himself in risk by doing so. The evil character would have looked for a way to profit by the murder, or even helped. To take no action that would endanger yourself - the middle path - is neutral.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

The discussion's been really good, but we're heading for 4th page and I'm still waiting for arcady to put up some more info on the situation.

AR

 

[Hardhead]

I'm late to the discussion, so I'm not going to repeat much that has been said. As I understand alignments, it's clearly a neutral act. Only a good character would feel the need to help and put himself in risk by doing so.

This is the problem with a lot of people's arguments. There was no risk on the character's part.

I agree that only a good character would risk himself to save him, but from the descriptions of neutral characters, I contend that a neutral character, as defined in D&D, would help an innocent if it required no risk or sacrifice on his part.

 

[AnthonyJ]

A point to note: just because a character's evil doesn't mean he feels any obligation to cause malicious harm to others, it just means he's willing to harm others in the pursuit of his goals. An evil character would have been perfectly able to stand there and just watch. For that matter, an evil character might have notified the guards under some circumstances.

Now, as far as threatening alignment, it's agreed that the good action would be to interfere. Therefore, the action was non-good, and a character with a good alignment would be subject to (some) loss of alignment. However, the actions in question were compatible with either a neutral or an evil alignment, and so neither neutral nor evil characters will see significant alignment shift.

 

[clark411]

I agree that only a good character would risk himself to save him, but from the descriptions of neutral characters, I contend that a neutral character, as defined in D&D, would help an innocent if it required no risk or sacrifice on his part.

Oh I'd say that intervening in the brutal murder of someone at the hands of a gang of armed individuals is quite risky.

We don't have the details exactly, but only a hero would approach a group of armed thugs who are in the process of killing someone to cease and desist.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

This is the problem with a lot of people's arguments. There was no risk on the character's part.

I agree that only a good character would risk himself to save him, but from the descriptions of neutral characters, I contend that a neutral character, as defined in D&D, would help an innocent if it required no risk or sacrifice on his part.

I disagree. A neutral character *might* intervene in some way, but might just as well not. Who can say whether the murderers have accomplices on the lookout who would later seek retribution against anyone who interfered? Who's to say that the people applying the beating would not notice the person watching the crime start towards the supposed reinforcements and throw a dagger his/her way?

There may well have been perceived risk, real or not, and to undertake that for a member of a despised race is not consistent with neutrality. A neutral character might have other reasons to intervene, but would not do so for no reason.

The difference is that a good character would feel compelled to help in some way - whether directly (by jumping in) or indirectly (by going for help). An evil character would feel no compulsion to help, and might look to use the situation to his/her own advantage. A neutral character feels no compulsions either way, and would do whatever struck him as the safest option or most worthwhile. Standing by and watching certainly wan't a good act, but it wasn't necessarily evil at all.

 

[Greatwyrm]

In D&D terms, I'd have to say neutral. Characters with Good or Lawful requirements would both probably get dinged for this.

In terms of in-game legal problems. If the victim was a legal resident or visitor to the city, the PC will probably get in trouble in some fashion, especially considering a third-party capable of rendering help was available immediately. I'd say a fine or flogging would be appropriate, depending on the severity of the legal system.

In real world terms, most jurisdictions in the U.S. would charge you with a lesser form of murder if the person died (called "manslaughter" in some places). One context of manslaughter is "reckless indifference to life". If I can't swim, nobody would blame me for not helping a drowning guy. If I can't swim and I know there's a lifeguard in the next room, I can be held responsible for the drowning guy's death if I don't try to get help. Otherwise, you'd probably be charged with failing to report a crime if they lived, a much lesser offense generally.

 

[Gothmog]

A point to note: just because a character's evil doesn't mean he feels any obligation to cause malicious harm to others, it just means he's willing to harm others in the pursuit of his goals. An evil character would have been perfectly able to stand there and just watch. For that matter, an evil character might have notified the guards under some circumstances.

Now, as far as threatening alignment, it's agreed that the good action would be to interfere. Therefore, the action was non-good, and a character with a good alignment would be subject to (some) loss of alignment. However, the actions in question were compatible with either a neutral or an evil alignment, and so neither neutral nor evil characters will see significant alignment shift.

Very good point- evil characters are motivated by self interest, and do not care about others. They do not go always out of their way to be cruel, and might not even enjoy being cruel, but they have no problem harming others if it makes getting what they want easier. Neutral characters still put themselves first, but will put themselves on the line for those they care about (which evils might as well, but likely not). However, for someone they don't know, I wouldn't expect a neutral to do anything- just pass on by or watch is most likely. A good character should put the well-being of others high (if not highest) on his list, and should probably intervene, or at least try to get help. Predjudice isn't good or evil, its simply the result of a small mind and preconceived ideas, which anyone of any ethical situation can have. So I would definitely classify this action as neutral, without good or evil leanings.