non interferring murder witness: evil or not?

[Hardhead]

Oh I'd say that intervening in the brutal murder of someone at the hands of a gang of armed individuals is quite risky.

We don't have the details exactly, but only a hero would approach a group of armed thugs who are in the process of killing someone to cease and desist.

[semi-rant] Is it too much to ask that people read the first post before posting their opinions? [/semi-rant]

Once again I will point out that he didn't have to intervene himself, just tell the armed guards through the door next to him. Indeed, the safer course would be to seek help from law enforcement, instead of standing around watching a brutal beating (the thugs might come after you next for any number of reasons, such as silencing a witness).

 

[Kichwas]

I don't want to give too many details and essentially break the debate - because the discussion itself is very interesting.

I myself am one of those people who doesn't find the descriptions of alignment in the DnD core books to be as solid, simple, and hard-fast as some people claim.

Anyway, some situational notes: The other side of that door was a tavern that the rest of the PCs were in, along with several locals - many of them armed.

The victim and the witnesses all had come from the other side of that just moments before.

The PCs were new to the community - so while they know the relationship the victim had with the community now, they did not then. Nor did the PCs personally know anyone in the area - though one PC was in the process of entertaining a group of locals within and building a relationship there.

An alarm could have been sounded without giving one's presence away. As for interference, the witnesses outnumbered the assailants by one via virtue of a wolf companion. They did not know either the victim nor the assailants though they had seen the victim inside the tavern and observed him due to their hatred of the victim's race - but without the two meeting.

The witnesses were the PCs who saw the victim leave. There were two more PCs but they were pre-occupied - one in entertaining the sailors and the other in watching the other (we may have a stalking subplot developing between these two).

None of the PCs in this group are of good alignment, only one is evil - and that was not one of the witnesses. One of the two who was inside is lawful. Unfortunately my stating this may end the Paladin portions of the discussion - which I found very interesting.

 

[LGodamus]

the one thing most people are failing to consider is this...D&D is not a modern game..it is a game of pseudo middle ages...Modern ideas on ethics are just that, modern. The times whence D&D is ,barely, set in are quite different and not just levels of technology. That is why alignment is spelled out in D&D ....to give some sort of compass with which to judge things.

 

[Czhorat]

It looks as if the actual situation is less interesting than we'd been guessing. I, for one, assumed that by "armed men" you meant some kind of militia or other law-enforcement who would be expected to help defend an innocent victim. If they were locals, wanderers, and other strangers who happen to be armed the situation is far less clear. For all they knew, racial hatred could be very common here; perhaps the locals, once alerted, would join in the beating. Perhaps they'd turn on the PCs for thinking about coming to the aid of of of "them". The point is that interfering just got a whole lot more risky and difficult. I still think that a good character would have tried to do something, but no longer think a neutral character would be compelled to help. It just seemed that the result is too questionable.

 

[clark411]

[semi-rant] Is it too much to ask that people read the first post before posting their opinions? [/semi-rant]

Once again I will point out that he didn't have to intervene himself, just tell the armed guards through the door next to him. Indeed, the safer course would be to seek help from law enforcement, instead of standing around watching a brutal beating (the thugs might come after you next for any number of reasons, such as silencing a witness).

A tall order for we internet folk. With all the divergent lines of conversation that go on in threads that amass 4 pages, it's unrealistic to expect people to follow your exact (yet utterly implied by the end) opinion of "help" as running to get guards. The original post listed a number of things that the PC did not opt to do to help, and breaking up the attack was amongst it if the implication was that the character actually followed the victim from the get-go before s/he was assaulted. Getting the guards as an absolutely safe and uninvolving action wasn't established at any point in this thread and getting semi-worked up about it's, well.. I can't see the logic behind it.

The truth of the matter is that until Arcady's most recent post, there was far too little information to say for certain that doing anything other than not being involved was the safest course (not being "involved" as in totally not interacting beyond observation). Running to the guards may be dangerous if the thugs were tools of the state. Moving at all might have been dangerous if the PC in question was hiding mere feet from the assailants, as could calling for help to the next room ("Oy that shadowy barrel just squealed to the foppers- Get it!"). Alternatively, sticking around may have been the most dangerous, or not moving to the guards could be dangerous as the PC may have been next on the list. It's not known. Apparently it wasn't known to the new PCs either who were new in town.

I stick to the idea that Czhorat just posted.. "the result is too questionable" for a neutral character to do anything. A good guy would probably do something and introduce the risk.. an evil guy may risk for a profit. A neutral character might if the winds take him, but opting to not doesn't push this into evil-land.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Evil or not, in France, it's illegal. The law punish the crime of non-assistance à personne en danger.

When someone's life is threatened, and you do nothing to prevent it, you can get a lawsuit. You are required to assist people in danger, to the extent of your possibilities.

In Denmark too. However, I still thinks a neutral act.

 

[Haradim]

I'd probably go with Evil.

But then, I tend to be somewhat biased against the Neutral alignment.

 

[Zappo]

Evil or not on the part of the PC?

It depends on the reasons for the PC's inaction; if he is a natural coward and was just frozen by fear, then it's neutral IMO; if he enjoyed the sight, then it's very evil; if he knew he would draw enemies to himself, or have to pay for the service of the armed men, then it's probably neutral. If, as it seems, the PC just stood there because he doesn't care and thinks it's none of his business, then I'd say slightly evil. Not enough for an alignment change, but more than enough for a loss of paladin abilities, for example.
Further, if the assassin looked like he could be a threat to the PC, then I'd say neutral. Noone is evil for not being a hero, IMO.

What if afterwards, the PC tried to stabalize the victim?

Nudges the action slightly towards neutral. If the character actually feels remorseful for letting that happen, it could bring it to neutral (and, for example, reduce the magnitude of the paladin power loss).

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

I have no clue; if he was following the victim there has to be something more going on that complicates the morality of the situation. For what I know, the victim could be a tanar'ri in Sigil. Legally allowed, but not even a paladin would be expected to protect him.