non interferring murder witness: evil or not?

[Kahuna Burger]

Within the definitions of D&D morality, this act is neutral.

The fact that many of us would define the act differently in the real world has nothing to do with the question at hand, and in fact, talking about real world morality is an express train toward thread closure. That discussion, if anyone wants to have it, belongs at Nutkinland.

I find this a very odd way of looking at allignment. If we cannot bring the real world into as straightforward the example as this, then you are basicly saying that allignment is not related to ethics. And if allignment is not related to ethics, I say ditch it for any non supernatural issues. Just say that the D&D cosmology seperates magic and outsiders by two axis, the foo-bar seperation and the geek-nerd axis. Some classes and most spellcasting are magically tied to one "orientation" and usually people of radically different orrientations don't get along.

But if you are going to call one of those axis good vs evil, and claim that the personal non magical actions of characters interact with the supernatural axis, then say that the real definitions and interpretations of good and evil are irrelevant... Honestly, thats crazy. Either character ethics play a role in D&D or they don't. If they do, real world comparisons are a useful, perhaps even vital way of judging so called grey areas (this isn't one, IMO, I'm on the 'way evil' side.) If they don't, allignments are a concern for spellcasters and outsiders and need new names...

Kahuna Burger

 

[jessemock]

I vote for evil

First, I'm going to give Arcady the benefit of the doubt: the moral quandary is a moral quandary. This means that the victim in question is either not evil or is evil and the PC doesn't know it. A situation to the contrary would eliminate the quandary, because destroying evil is good, under the SRD. Further, the victim and the character have no personal history, as this would also collapse the quandary.

The point is that the PC has made a racist judgement: the character despises a certain race, one not definitonally evil, and has, on this basis, chosen not to aid the victim.

Given that the assailants actually flee at the sight of the character, the PC was at no time in immediate danger. The PC may or may not have been aware of this.

Now, given that the assailants flee eventually--after the PC has spent some time watching the attack, it seems reasonable to suppose that the act of alerting the guards would not have drawn the attention of the assailants.

It's also interesting that the PC doesn't simply not interfere: why stand there and watch? This implies an element of interest on the PC's part--an interest that, given the PC's prejudice, could reasonably be characterised as malevolent.

This fact also demonstrates that the PC determined either that the assailants presented no danger or that watching the attack was worth the risk.

A neutral character would have kept on walking, a good character would have intervened.

Only one option left.

 

[Tsyr]

I find this a very odd way of looking at allignment. If we cannot bring the real world into as straightforward the example as this, then you are basicly saying that allignment is not related to ethics. And if allignment is not related to ethics, I say ditch it for any non supernatural issues. Just say that the D&D cosmology seperates magic and outsiders by two axis, the foo-bar seperation and the geek-nerd axis. Some classes and most spellcasting are magically tied to one "orientation" and usually people of radically different orrientations don't get along.

But if you are going to call one of those axis good vs evil, and claim that the personal non magical actions of characters interact with the supernatural axis, then say that the real definitions and interpretations of good and evil are irrelevant... Honestly, thats crazy. Either character ethics play a role in D&D or they don't. If they do, real world comparisons are a useful, perhaps even vital way of judging so called grey areas (this isn't one, IMO, I'm on the 'way evil' side.) If they don't, allignments are a concern for spellcasters and outsiders and need new names...

Kahuna Burger

They are ethics.

They just aren't OUR ethics.

 

[takyris]

Just weighing in on the neutral side of things.

It also depends, as it always does, on the character's motivation.

- Too scared to do anything -- No Step
- Want to watch -- Step toward Evil
- Don't want to risk being known as snitch -- Step toward Neutral from Good, but not toward Evil from Neutral
- Don't want guards to stop fight -- Step toward Evil
- Caught by conflicting desire, don't want to get into fight with my own race, but don't want to see even somebody from a race I despise get killed -- No Step

If the level of despise is one of those elf-dwarf things, for example (ie, not dwarf versus orc, elf versus drow, where there's a clearly delineated good-evil difference), then the PC is not evil for failing to overcome his ingrained prejudices enough to try and stop people, but would have stepped toward Good by trying to do so.

A person heading toward Good, or in Good, would have done something, even if it was sneaking off to go get guards.

A person in Neutral or heading that way either didn't care ("Last time I tried to stop this, it turned out to be a murderer getting beaten to death by the victim's friends -- who am I to judge again this time?") or was conflicted ("He's one of THOSE people, but that doesn't mean he should just be KILLED... that's something THEY would do").

A person in or heading for Evil wanted to stay anc watch without getting his own hands dirty.

And there are other restrictions. In one of my campaigns, there was a deity devoted to healing and life. His clerics were forbidden to kill except in defense of one who absolutely could not defend himself (ie, children). He was free to destroy undead and constructs and attack outsiders until they were banished to their homeworld, but he was could not lift a hand help his fellow PCs, except by healing them, even if they were in a losing fight.

Someone with a similar mindset might have thought that, from a perspective of preserving the most amount of life, waiting until the attackers left and then doing his best to heal the victim was the best course of a bad lot.

Overall, not saying that it's right or good or wonderful. In real life, there aren't any races that I dislike enough to have that kind of quandry, but it's good for D&D to bring that kind of thing up once in awhile to make the players think a bit. I'd like to think that I'd try to help, if not by attacking the attackers, then by calling for the guards.

But maybe I'd freeze up in fear. Who knows.

 

[Hardhead]

Again, I restate: Your view is fine in the real world. It is not, strictly by the letter, true in the DnD cosmology.

According to the SRD, a neutral character has "compunctions against killing the innocent." Assuming the person being beaten to death was innocent, it would be an evil act. True, neutral characters "lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others," but since saving the person wouldn't have incurred any commitment or sacrifice, that portion isn't really relevant.

OTOH, his actions probably aren't henious enough to qualify as "evil" as the SRD reads, either.

In summary: I would argue that a strict reading of the alignment puts this as either neutral-but-almost-evil or "evil lite." It seems more evil than what the SRD says neutral characters do, but less evil than how it describes evil characters acting. Definitly a gray area between neutral and evil, from a rules perspective.

 

[Tsyr]

Technically, it says "Has compunctions against killing"... Not against watching others kill.

 

[Buttercup]

I find this a very odd way of looking at allignment. If we cannot bring the real world into as straightforward the example as this, then you are basicly saying that allignment is not related to ethics.

No, I'm saying that this is a game with clear definitions of good and evil behavior that have little to do with real world considerations.

Honestly, thats crazy.

Well, that's a useful and polite thing to say. I guess I won't attempt to discuss this further with you, given the tone you're taking.

 

[Buttercup]

It also depends, as it always does, on the character's motivation.

- Too scared to do anything -- No Step
- Want to watch -- Step toward Evil
- Don't want to risk being known as snitch -- Step toward Neutral from Good, but not toward Evil from Neutral
- Don't want guards to stop fight -- Step toward Evil
- Caught by conflicting desire, don't want to get into fight with my own race, but don't want to see even somebody from a race I despise get killed -- No Step

Exactly. But with the information we have been given so far, the only judgement we can make is that, according to the D&D moral compass, the act is neutral.

I hope Arcady comes back and gives us some more information.

 

[Crothian]

It's not an evil act. He's not winning any good sumaritan awards but he's not doing anything evil either.

 

[Epametheus]

I think not interfering is what a normal person would do, and so it's Neutral.

Paladins or priests of most good-aligned dieties would catch some flak from the Boss for not interfering, though.