Evil or just.........mostly evil?

[moritheil]

In the strict morality DND system, stepping on a dead man is not evil. It does not matter if you stop to think about it or not.

Of course, he wasn't dead yet. Hence the thread.

 

[Goldmoon]

Was stepping on the dwarf an evil act? That's an easy one.

No. It was a desperate act for personal survival. The dwarf was a goner anyway - reaching down to save him could very well have drowned you both.

It was neutral. As was previously and correctly mentioned, trying to save the dwarf would be a good act (generally - saving him because you think it's the only way you will be saved is not "good" - but also not the situation here).

Finally, you actually did try to save thr dwarf after you got out. That's very possibly the best you could do - I liken this to an airplane decompression. What do you do if you have a small child? Save yourself first so that you may help the child (you put on your own mask first)

It looks to me like you're playing a neutral character anyway.

Definately sounds like your group has some player maturity issues to work thorugh. I hope no evil characters are allowed - that would make things worse.

No, no evil characters allowed. That would really complicate things.

 

[KarinsDad]

Of course, he wasn't dead yet. Hence the thread.

So, is it relative morality or not?

If you think the dwarf is dead, is it an evil act to step on him, regardless of whether he is actually dead or not?

Conversely, if the dwarf would have grabbed her legs, would it have been an evil act for the dwarf, regardless of whether he pulled her in to drown or not?

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

 

[moritheil]

Conversely, if the dwarf would have grabbed her legs, would it have been an evil act for the dwarf, regardless of whether he pulled her in to drown or not?

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

You're going to tell me, with a straight face, that a relatively intelligent (or at least, not notably idiotic) character stopped to think about things for a while and it never occurred to them that they were not absolutely sure that the dwarf was dead?

BoED has a line about how a character might climb up on a mountain to escape some orcs that are almost certainly going to overwhelm and kill him. There is a very small - almost negligible - chance that if he does that, he will cause an avalanche. That avalanche may kill or injure people in a village below.

If he is good - the term they use is good, not exalted - he cannot climb the mountain and thereby escape almost certain death, because of the tiny, tiny possibility that he might harm someone in the village below.

I will be the first to agree that this is a ridiculous standard to apply in real life. It is, however, the DnD standard of good.

 

[Goldmoon]

No, my character was not 100% sure the dwarf was dead. I didnt check for a pulse or a heartbeat. I acknowledge that I could have tried to reach down and grab him. My hold on my whip was secure and I wasnt sinking any further at the time. If I had let go with one hane though I probably would have not been strong enough to pull us both up. I saw no reason, however to risk my life on someone I just met (even though he was trying to save me) when I thought he was probably dead anyway. I think the reason everyone is upset is because I (the player) knew the dwarf was alive but I acted in character instead of meta-gaming like everyone else.

 

[KarinsDad]

You're going to tell me, with a straight face, that a relatively intelligent (or at least, not notably idiotic) character stopped to think about things for a while and it never occurred to them that they were not absolutely sure that the dwarf was dead?

What if it were a rock or a submerged log instead of the Dwarf?

It's one thing to step on the Dwarf if you feel him touching you and grabbing you, and hence you know he is alive.

It's another to feel something, consider it might or might not be the Dwarf and he might or might not still be alive, and to step on it.

That is a neutral act. Regardless of whether he is alive or not, and regardless of whether she considered this question or not, the fact remains that the Dwarf is already either dead or drowning. Saving yourself at the expense of a Dwarf who already apparently cannot get out might allow you to then retrieve the Dwarf a few moments later. Staying in the quicksand might not present those opportunities.

Certain DND actions are absolutely good or evil. For example, casting an evil spell is always evil.

Certain DND actions are relatively good or evil. Casting Magic Missile is evil, neutral, or good depending on who you are targeting and why you are doing it.

If you have RAW DND alignment rules quotes that back up that every DND action has absolute morality to it, please quote it.

BoED has a line about how a character might climb up on a mountain to escape some orcs that are almost certainly going to overwhelm and kill him. There is a very small - almost negligible - chance that if he does that, he will cause an avalanche. That avalanche may kill or injure people in a village below.

If he is good - the term they use is good, not exalted - he cannot climb the mountain and thereby escape almost certain death, because of the tiny, tiny possibility that he might harm someone in the village below.

I will be the first to agree that this is a ridiculous standard to apply in real life. It is, however, the DnD standard of good.

This is also a ridiculous standard to apply to DND and really does not help your POV.

If people live next to a mountain with avalanches, they will either have their village protected from them, or they should not be living there in the first place.

The term is "good", not "stupid".

 

[irdeggman]

No, my character was not 100% sure the dwarf was dead. I didnt check for a pulse or a heartbeat. I acknowledge that I could have tried to reach down and grab him. My hold on my whip was secure and I wasnt sinking any further at the time. If I had let go with one hane though I probably would have not been strong enough to pull us both up. I saw no reason, however to risk my life on someone I just met (even though he was trying to save me) when I thought he was probably dead anyway. I think the reason everyone is upset is because I (the player) knew the dwarf was alive but I acted in character instead of meta-gaming like everyone else.

Is this about those of us on the board or those in your gaming group?

Those of us on the board who think this was an evil act are basing it upon the fact that it was a conscious decision to take an action that was assuring the death of a character that had gotten into the situation by trying to help your PC.

My opinion was that since your PC was a bard is that the character should have more than a rudimentary knowledge about how long one can hold his/her breath as a side benefit (knowledge wise) of the character's profession (read - bard and perform skills here).

Whether or not the PC knew anything about the hardiness of a dwarf the PC should, IMO, have some knowledge (above the norm) on how long one can hold their breath.

 

[irdeggman]

Yeah, I agree that we have some player issues. Of the 5 we have only 2 are seriously bad. I think maybe the group can be salvaged. Only time will tell.

Then you need to get up with the DM and initiate a group conversation abotu gaming style.

IMO, if you do not then there will be a festering under the surface because people are acting on perceptions and not understanding of what the other gamers are thinking and this will cause players to act things out in-character when they shouldn't be.

 

[irdeggman]

My answer was and is: Yes, it was, but who cares? The character is neutral and can perform evil or good acts freely in order to survive. It makes no practical difference if the action was evil or neutral.

Ahh but the character was not neutral. The PC was neutral good at the start.

From the SRD:

GOOD VS. EVIL
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

Neutral Good, “Benefactor”: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them..

Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.

Whereas the following sounds like the closest desciption to how the OP is attempting to play her PC.

Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

 

[Artoomis]

...Whereas the following sounds like the closest desciption to how the OP is attempting to play her PC.

Sounds more like the below to me:

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.