non interferring murder witness: evil or not?

Tonguez · Dec 10, 2003

I'll go Neutral to - its not nice that he did nothing but he it isn't outright evil to not get involved (people irl do it all the time)

JohnBrown · Dec 10, 2003

Well, if you accept the Book of Exalted Deeds definition of good, then it is definitely not good. And if you accept the Book of Vile Darkness definition of evil, then it may well have been evil. Based on the paladin climbs up a cliff which starts an avalanche which kills villagers example, if the character knew that victim’s life was in danger, knew that he could change that situation (according to those two books, the question of whether or not the PCs life might be endangered if he or she tries to help doesn’t really matter) and chooses not to, then according to those books, its an evil act. Not a vile, lose your soul kind of act, but evil nonetheless.

Of course, if you don’t subscribe to WoTC’s view of good and evil, then it’s debatable

Elf Witch · Dec 10, 2003

Korimyr the Rat said:
This one's a darker shade of neutral.

A Paladin would probably need to atone, but he wouldn't be an ex-Paladin for it-- at least not the first time. A warning would be in order.

A pattern of this kind of behavior in a good character would start them to sliding, but it wouldn't make a Neutral character become evil without some other behavior.

I would agree that it is a dark shade of neutral. But I would think that a paladin would become an ex. It goes against everything a paladin stands for. Both the good and the lawful.

AnthonyJ · Dec 10, 2003

Under most ethical systems, not intervening when you are reasonably able to do so is wrong, but not wrong on the scale of actually doing the deed. Per the PHB definitions, however, indifference to an evil deed seems to be neutral, if on the evil side of neutral.

Lord Pendragon · Dec 10, 2003

AnthonyJ said:
Under most ethical systems, not intervening when you are reasonably able to do so is wrong, but not wrong on the scale of actually doing the deed. Per the PHB definitions, however, indifference to an evil deed seems to be neutral, if on the evil side of neutral.

I agree. From what I remember of my college ethics class, a person has more of a claim that you not do something to them, than they actually have to you doing something for them. In this case, the person attacked had a moral claim on the PC, that he not join in on the attack, which the PC obliged. He also had a smaller moral claim on the PC--that he help defend him--that the PC did not oblige.

At the end of the day, it's Neutral. A character who repeatedly acted in such a way would slide into Neutrality. A Neutral character wouldn't experience a change.

And no, I wouldn't make the paladin fall. The act is Neutral. I don't think a paladin need be immediately penalized for Neutral acts as he is with Evil ones. Should he begin to show a pattern of Neutrality, then he has a problem...

Viktyr Gehrig · Dec 10, 2003

Lord Pendragon said:
And no, I wouldn't make the paladin fall. The act is Neutral. I don't think a paladin need be immediately penalized for Neutral acts as he is with Evil ones. Should he begin to show a pattern of Neutrality, then he has a problem...

Zapp: What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Eccles · Dec 10, 2003

This is a purely British legal reply.

There is no obligation to interfere in a crime. There is no obligation ro rescue a drowning person. There is no obligation to endanger yourself if you see a crime in progress. There's an obligation to stop and speak to a police officer if you are instructed to do so, but there's no obligation to call the police in the first place.

If your PC is nto a good PC, I wouldn't penalise them. If they are good, I might give them a speaking to; perhaps a vision from a god if they're a cleric. If they're a paladin, I'd come down on them like a ton of bricks. Paladins, and the whole 'higher standard' nonsense... (I might not ex-paladinize them, but would certainly drop a lot of hints, and slowly strip powers until he or she atoned).

This act is, in my mind, pretty immoral in-game, mind you...

arcady said:
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?

If this was a sign of remorse or something, I'd be inclined to let the entire incident slide, but keep my eyes open for roleplaying opportunities.

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

In-game, I don't think this has any bearing. PCs follow people for all sorts of reasons, and the PC in question might have planned to mug the victim themselves!

Mark Chance · Dec 10, 2003

Ackem said:
Evil. Without question.

Seconded. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for men of good will to do nothing." Real life example snipped, and you should know better, Mark. ~ Piratecat

Tsyr · Dec 10, 2003

Probably not smart to bring real-world situations into an ethics example, Mark...

As it is, I won't pass judgement... There are still three important bits of detail we don't have.

1) Why was the person being killed. Did he do something?

2) Had there been past bad blood or reason to suspect bad blood between the character and the party?

3) Was it in a public space? You say one only needed to open a door to get a ton of people, so...