non interferring murder witness: evil or not?

[jasper]

How silly of me. Obviously the real world and ethics have nothing to do with each other. I guess I'm just stupid.

In d&d no. In real life ethics are the color of the rainbow. In the game it is either shades of grey or black and white.

.....Remember, when it comes right down to it, the DnD alignment system is painfully simple. It's like a three year old... You have "Good men" and "Bad men" and a few "Ok men"....... clearest example of how the DnD alignment works.

I give you a :cookie

As for the original question. I say neutral.

 

[Hardhead]

Isn't "doing nothing" Neutral by definition?

The SRD sez:

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.

So, from that, I would say neutral. However, I think two things complicate the matters, and make it more "evil."

(1) The immediacy of the event. It isn't an abstract question. ANYONE can just not give money to charity or whatever. It takes a special amount of not-goodness to ignore someone being beaten to death in front of you.

(2) The ease with which he could have helped. It wasn't that he "lacked the commitment to make sacrifices." He didn't have to make any sacrifice at all, just opened a door and told the guards. He seems to have failed to demonstrate the "lack of compunctions against killing the innocent" that the neutral alignment requires.

So, I'd put this as borderline between neutral and evil. Probably "evil lite." A paladin would definitly loose his status, but he's not a paladin (I hope!).

However, there are some possible mitigating factors:

(1) He tried to stabilize the person. Maybe he realized how wrong he was, and he went to help, but was too late. If he at least realized his error, that helps.

(2) If he suspected the person of being evil. He'd have to have a pretty strong suspicion, though.

(3) If the race was "always evil" according to the MM. If it was "usually evil" I might give him a LITTLE slack, but considering this town let whatever race it was walk freely, you'd have to assume that if the *were* "usually evil," these were a special case. (A more civilized tribe of orcs than normal, ect).

 

[Numion]

Let me guess:

1) Person getting the beating was up to no good?

2) Witness had something to lose by calling for help?

Anyway, I'd call the act neutral. Putting yourself into mortal danger to save someone cannot be a requirement to be nonevil. And there would've been a mortal danger - obviously the folks whose crime you were going to stop would have no trouble doing it to you too.

BTW - one more question: how did the witness know it was a beating to death, instead of a regular whoop-ass?

 

[Hardhead]

Anyway, I'd call the act neutral. Putting yourself into mortal danger to save someone cannot be a requirement to be nonevil.

I think you misread the post. There were guards just a few feet away (behind a door) that he could have called. It would have involved no mortal danger to the watcher.

 

[Numion]

It wasn't that he "lacked the commitment to make sacrifices." He didn't have to make any sacrifice at all, just opened a door and told the guards.

Oh, but there was a sacrifice, or wouldn't you consider a group of people ready to beat someone to death thinking you a snitch not a sacrifice? There was a clear and mortal danger in getting involved in this, even just by running for the cops.

 

[Numion]

I think you misread the post. There were guards just a few feet away (behind a door) that he could have called. It would have involved no mortal danger to the watcher.

I think you misread my post. The mortal danger here is making a dangerous group of ass-kickers as your enemies. If there was a line of sight, they would've seen who did the telling.

Anyway, this sounds too much like a set-up to me. I need more info.

 

[Hardhead]

I think you misread my post. The mortal danger here is making a dangerous group of ass-kickers as your enemies. If there was a line of sight, they would've seen who did the telling.

But what he ended up doing was standing there and watchign the whole thing, until they saw him and fled (probably assuming he would do what any decent person would do and report them).

OTOH, by going through the door and telling the guards, they probably wouldn't have ID'd him. So if that was his goal, he failed pretty badly.

 

[billd91]

Your character sees an individual being beaten to death in the street of a city he's visiting. <snip>
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?

I guess my question would be: Does it matter?
Alignment isn't too restrictive for anyone unless they are benefiting from some kind of exalted status as in the Book of Exalted Deeds or are paladins. Even good characters can sometimes slip for a variety of reasons without significantly threatening their alignment status. If this happens a lot, however, then I think a DM would be justified in treating the character as no longer good. If the character does things that are good most of the time and for the right reasons, then they should be treated as good even if they stand by and let someone get kacked.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

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

This is a good question - too often neutrality is just a highway that leads between the destinations of good and evil. In my view (and keep in mind I don't worry much about "D&D" definitions of the matter), being Good or Evil requires effort. It's like swimming against a current. Go with the flow, taking no exceptional actions, and you're neutral. In order to truly be Good, you must not only not do evil, you must actively do good. Likewise with evil. There's a sort of gravitational pull that pulls you back towards neutrality if you don't make an effort to maintain your convictions.

Think of Bill Muny from Unforgiven (Clint Eastwood's character). In the past, he was unquestionably evil, killing people, robbing, doign all manner of despicable deeds. By the time of the beginning of the film, though, he has left that all behind. I'd call him Neutral. He hasn't really done anything to become Good, that's for sure. He just kind of became neutral by virtue of not having been diligent about being Evil.

 

[Czhorat]

This is a good question - too often neutrality is just a highway that leads between the destinations of good and evil. In my view (and keep in mind I don't worry much about "D&D" definitions of the matter), being Good or Evil requires effort. It's like swimming against a current. Go with the flow, taking no exceptional actions, and you're neutral. In order to truly be Good, you must not only not do evil, you must actively do good. Likewise with evil. There's a sort of gravitational pull that pulls you back towards neutrality if you don't make an effort to maintain your convictions.

I disagree that "doing nothing" is by definition neutral. There was a real-world event almost exactly like this quite a few years ago in New York City. People were quite shocked, and the murder became a symbol for the cold-hearted uncaring nature of modern life. Let's change the scenario a bit. Instead of a gang of thugs, imagine you see someone slip off a bridge and start drowning. For no reason other than to make the example even more simple, there's a long rope sitting on the bridge, a guy in a lifeguard uniform napping across the street, and a floatation device of some kind leaning against a nearby tree. If you shrug and say "not my problem" then you bear some of the ethical responsibility for the victim's death.

There IS a point at which the personal risk is no longer acceptable and would not obligate a reasonable person. If someone were being beaten by fifty men, for example, and you were all alone without access to help... well, in that case there's no reasonable chance to help. In the scenario originally described, though, it seems clear that an innocent person was about to be killed and could be rescued without a great deal of personal risk or even effort. In this case a good person is ethically obligated to do something to help.