Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jessemock" data-source="post: 1263449" data-attributes="member: 15694">I vote for evilFirst, 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.</blockquote>

Verification