non interferring murder witness: evil or not?

[Hardhead]

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.

Agreed. The fact that it was so ridiculously easy to help save this person from being beaten to death pushes it into "evil" territory.

 

[Tsyr]

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

 

[Rel]

I think I'd take into consideration any comments the player made about the character's state of mind. If he described himself as riveted by the landing of each blow, delighting in the suffering of the individual being beaten even though he was not the one delivering it, I'd say that was fairly evil. Then again, if the player were describing it in that manner then I'd say they probably already knew that.

If he described himself as being inclined to aid someone in that situation, but unable to overcome his personal prejudice for the race of the person being killed, I'd say that sort of internal struggle is just a tad on the shady side of the Neutral Box.

More objectively though, I'd take a different perspective on the question: Say the character was Neutral and liked being Neutral and didn't want his alignment slipping into Good or Evil. What option is open to him? If alerting the guards is clearly Good and aiding in the beating is clearly Evil, then there must be a middle road. I'd say that "walk away" is probably the MOST middle of the road solution. Stand by and watch is a tad more evil, but again nothing to threaten his Neutral status.

 

[Buttercup]

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.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I disagree that "doing nothing" is by definition neutral.

I agree wholeheartedly. I chose the phrase "take no exceptional actions" very deliberately. I also don't believe that there are very many actions that will make you evil instantly. Most will merely push you along the path and it is the accumulation of these actions that make you evil.

More objectively though, I'd take a different perspective on the question: Say the character was Neutral and liked being Neutral and didn't want his alignment slipping into Good or Evil. What option is open to him? If alerting the guards is clearly Good and aiding in the beating is clearly Evil, then there must be a middle road. I'd say that "walk away" is probably the MOST middle of the road solution. Stand by and watch is a tad more evil, but again nothing to threaten his Neutral status.

Hmm. I really am not a fan of that sort of meta-game thinking. I've intentionally taken out all penalties to alignment shifting in order to make this sort of argument irrelevant in my games. If someone justified their actions in that manner, I would be looking for way to change that player's behavior. Not saying its not a valid way to play the game, its just not how I want to play (or run) the game.

A characters actions should define their alignment, their alignment should not define their actions.

 

[dcollins]

By the D&D core rules, sounds like Neutral.

 

[Numion]

A characters actions should define their alignment, their alignment should not define their actions.

Amen. And this makes most of this kind of threads pretty moot (although entertaining), if we're not talking about paladins.

One good or evil act shouldn't change alignment immediately, and even if it did, it wouldn't have large consequences. Momentary lapse, which can happen to anyone. At least IMC.

We would all be evil if everything counted.

 

[Rel]

A characters actions should define their alignment, their alignment should not define their actions.

I don't disagree with you at all and I doubt that myself or any of my players would think of it in the way I described above. We spent a dozen years playing Rolemaster (which doesn't have an alignment system) prior to switching over to 3E when it came out so we're used to thinking of character motivations, not alignment. I just thought that it my be an interesting direction to approach the issue from.

Looking at the situation again from a Neutral perspective, say I'm playing a hard-bitten, self-serving Neutral Rogue. I witness this scene start to unfold. I figure that I could get the guards involved, but the less I have to do with the law, the better. If I intervene and attack the guys delivering the beating, I might be making a powerful enemy so that's not a hugely attractive option either. So I walk away or hide nearby and watch what happens and listen to see if anybody drops a name or other useful info. Sounds fairly Neutral to me, if shaded a bit toward Evil.

OR, I decide that, by intervening and saving the person getting the beating, I will almost certainly gain an ally who will be greatly in my debt. Maybe he's got money or connections or influence that I can use to my own gain. So I attack the thugs, drag the unconscious guy into a nearby inn ("My buddy here had a bit too much to drink. I need a room to let him sleep it off.") and wait for him to come around. Then I tell him how I saved his life and barely escaped with my own but I'm glad to see that he survived. He says he's forever in my debt...yadda, yadda, yadda...Step 3: Profit!

So there I did the "Good" thing, but I did it entirely for personal gain. S'okay, I won't make a habit of it (the "Good" part, not the "personal gain" part). I'd still say that was a Neutral act, if shaded a bit toward Good.

 

[Gez]

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.


And personally, were I the DM in this situation, my ruling would be that it's evil. It's evil out of pettiness and uncaring -- and that's how evil insidiously progress.

 

[Arnwyn]

Evil or not on the part of the PC?

Answer: It is evil if you (or the DM) says it's evil. Simply put, I am not arrogant nor presumptious to try to tell you what the universally correct answer is... for alignment questions, only the players and (especially) the DM can make that decision, based on how the DM has defined morality in his/her game.

IMC, based on the information given, this would be an evil act. I would have considered it neutral if there was no help nearby and the PC would have had to put himself in danger to conduct a rescue. However, since help was *so* close and *so* easy to get, inaction in this case would be evil (as I would rule IMC). YMMV.

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?

IMC, it would. The PC could have realized he made a terrible mistake, and tried to make things "right". This puts it back into neutral ground, IMO. YMMV.