non interferring murder witness: evil or not?

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

actually, no. There are very few definitions of good and evil behavior, and they are all broad enough to need interpretation. Which is where the real world comes in.

If you honestly believe that good and evil are sufficiently defined in D&D (and thus no real world definitions need to be brought in) then anything not covered in the rules is neutral. I'll get started on my child molesting palidan right away... A few paragraphs are not clear definitions and I have a hard time taking the assertion that the D&D ethical system can be considered complete on its own seriously.

Oh, I'm sorry, I stepped outside of the clearly defined and oh so well observed rules of polite and non challanging discussion on this board so you can ignore anything I say. *snort*

kahuna burger

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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

Thats a really sad cometary on humanity... That a normal person would (in modern terms) stand beside a police call box and watch a murder without literally lifting a finger to press the button? I don't consider that normal.

The only thing that makes this situation anything but evil could be the statement that the character "despises" the race... unfortunately, since the rest of the situation makes it clear that the race in question is not an inherently evil one, I consider that level of considered racism to be evil in and of itself, so that doesn't help any.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Hardhead]

Thats a really sad cometary on humanity... That a normal person would (in modern terms) stand beside a police call box and watch a murder without literally lifting a finger to press the button? I don't consider that normal.

Agreed. Would a normal person risk his own life to jump into the fray? No.

But would a normal person, knowing that there are police right behind the door next to him, not even bother to alert them as a man gets beaten to death in front of him? No way. I imagine the vast majoirty of people would take the two seconds to poke their head through the door and say "Hey, someone is getting beaten to death over there."

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

True, but the SRD doesn't specify who is doing the killing. IMO, it could be the character in question, or anyone else. From the descriptions, neutral NPCs are generally against innocents dying (even if they won't make sacrifices to stop it). In this case, no sacrifce or commitment was required to stop it, thus, it doesn't fall squarely under "neutral" as defined by the SRD.

Admitedly, it doesn't fall squarely under evil, either, so it's a bit of a judgement call. I'd lean toward evil, based on the little bit of detail provided.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Agreed. Would a normal person risk his own life to jump into the fray? No.

But would a normal person, knowing that there are police right behind the door next to him, not even bother to alert them as a man gets beaten to death in front of him? No way. I imagine the vast majoirty of people would take the two seconds to poke their head through the door and say "Hey, someone is getting beaten to death over there."

of course if the possible rescuers are neutral wrt the PC (and there's no indication in this example that they aren't) ducking inside the door is the safest thing for the PC to do if he is afraid of the violent gang. And once he's in there, letting them know why he wanted off the street (there's a mob out there) is hardly a difficult action...

Kahuna Burger

 

[takyris]

Actually, the safest thing to do MAY be to alert the guards, but the safest thing from an INSTINCT perspective is to hold still and hope that the violence doesn't catch you. In real life, when confronted with a group violence situation, people are less likely to yell for help or help themselves than they are to just kind of freeze and go into a kind of psychological stress defense mechanism where they try to shut it out and force an assumption that "someone will make it stop".

Collective somethingorother, if I recall correctly. People getting mugged and left for dead, and nobody in the crowd does anything until one person finally overcomes the instinct and moves in to help, at which point the rest of the crowd usually breaks.

One comedian -- more of a social-commentary comedian with "real world issues" than a ha-ha comedian -- was talking about driving up and seeing an accident on the side of the road, and a guy lying there unmoving, with a crowd around him. The guy stopped and started doing CPR, and then someone in the crowd said, "No, you're doing it wrong, I know CPR, that's not how you do it." And the comedian sort of went, "So why the frell were you standing there doing nothing?!" The natural herd animal response is to cluster together and hope that the carnivores go away, even though we herd animals now have large herd animals with guns and badges whose job it is to protect us. We don't think about that, instinctively.

That is, mind you, my one psych class back in college. Actual people who know anything about psychology should set this straight, preferably starting their posts with "Tacky, you ignorant pinhead..."

Anyway. Regardless, for all that, I don't think that that's what we're talking about here. We're talking about someone who is NOT fearing for his own life, as much as he's carefully weighing his options and deciding that, while he wouldn't make an effort to kill this person of another race, he won't lift a finger, even with no threat to himself, to save them.

If there were fear, I'd probably go with neutral, but in the absence of fear (which is what I'm starting to assume, after a reread of the original post), I'd go with Step Toward Evil, although not, of course, an alignment-changer all by itself.

 

[Hygric]

Well, for my two cents, it was a neutral act, but could have been an evil act if the player was giggling hysterically at the time...

More importantly though is that it was a non-lawful act. I'd bust a paladin for this failure to support the laws of society.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Actually, the safest thing to do MAY be to alert the guards, but the safest thing from an INSTINCT perspective is to hold still and hope that the violence doesn't catch you. In real life, when confronted with a group violence situation, people are less likely to yell for help or help themselves than they are to just kind of freeze and go into a kind of psychological stress defense mechanism where they try to shut it out and force an assumption that "someone will make it stop".

Collective somethingorother, if I recall correctly.

That is, mind you, my one psych class back in college. Actual people who know anything about psychology should set this straight, preferably starting their posts with "Tacky, you ignorant pinhead..."

I wouldn't start or end it that way, but I'd point out the flaw in applying this - there was no collective (diffusion of responsibility) here. The character was by all acounts alone, the situation in which psychologically he would have been most likely to help.

In a crowd this works, alone, it doesn't. Since he was alone, he should have looked for help or at least his own safety...

Also, this is average person psychology. We are (one would hope) talkign about an adventurer here - someone who naturally seeks out danger and challanges it. assuming he was scared and not able to think of how to deal with violence would be silly (and yes, I realize you weren't actually doing that).

(on a totally off topic note, just knowing about this psychology helps you avoid it. This actually is true for many bits of human nature, which is why I think people should be educated as much as possible to examine their instincts.)

Kahuna Burger

 

[takyris]

Darn right, KB -- having read all those psych tests and seen what most people do due to social pressure (continuing pressing the "Shock" button that is "hurting" another participant because a guy in a white coat is telling them that it is necessary to do so, not getting up to check on the obvious sound of someone falling and hurting themselves outside becaue nobody else in the room does so, etc), I now know that I'm going to be hit with that kind of feeling -- and I can overcome it, hopefully, by knowing that it's an instinct and not "good thinking".

And yeah, good point on this not being a) An ordinary person, or b) A group situation.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Also, this is average person psychology. We are (one would hope) talkign about an adventurer here - someone who naturally seeks out danger and challanges it.

Wow. That made me blink. That is the one point on this thread that really brings the "It is evil" part of the argument into better focus for me.

From the information given, I'd still cast it as a neutral act though.

If the character had no reason to fear the guards, then it becomes an evil act, though I can still see ways of casting the situation such that it wouldn't be. Especially if you add in the bandaging at the end.

But truthfully, even outside of the alignment issue, if I had a charater in one of my games who habitually acted like this, I think it would be an issue. Or more accurately, in two separate games I've had characters who've acted like this. And it was an issue. In one case, I internally moved the character from CG to CN, and was actively looking for ways to turn them evil and into a villian. In the other case, he was allready CN, but had recently sworn his allegence to a cause that would have lead him down the evil path anyway.

Evil? Maybe not fully blown evil. But it sure is some nice gateway evil.

 

[Datt]

This reminds me of the last episode of Seinfield.

The gang is in a small southern town and they watch a guy get car jacked. They did nothing other than watch and laugh at the guy getting jacked. They end up getting arrested for not rendering aid or something and get sentenced to jail. So while not doing anything might not be evil it is probaly illegal.