Would this be evil?

[The Thayan Menace]

Ruffians Getting Served = Justice

Would humiliating your opponents like this, by taking them down several pegs, be considered an Evil act at all?

If it is ... then many educators, parents, and policemen are Evil.

-Samir

 

[Nifft]

IMHO this is the model of Good behavior.

"For punishment, you must do good works which aid those you harmed."

Cheers, -- N

 

[coyote6]

It's not like they're making them mop up vomit with their own hair, lick the stables clean, or work until their health or lives are endangered, right? Making them do a little labor isn't evil, IMO.

 

[WayneLigon]

No way is it evil. For the Chaotic Good people, it's probably the perfect way of dealing with these louts.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's a bit like the 'poetic justice' punishments 1938 Superman used to hand out. For example forcing a mine owner with lax safety standards to work in his own mine.

 

[jjsheets]

I would consider it a good act. If the PCs have any form of legal justification in doing so, and it isn't explicitly illegal to do so, I would also consider it lawful. Otherwise, chaotic.

The sole argument for such punishments being evil is that it is taking away, briefly, the personal freedom the bullies/rakes have. Unfortunately, the punishment is in response to an actual evil act (bullying), and thus the punishment is good aligned. If the PCs jumped the gun and simply assumed the loudmouth rakes or seedy looking bullies were going to do something (but don't), then such a punishment is evil, since it is without merit.

Hmm... that seemed like more than two cents...

 

[Merkuri]

When trying to determine good and evil I try to think in terms of selfish/selfless. To put one's own wellbeing ahead of the wellbeing of others is evil, and to put the wellbeing of others ahead of the wellbeing of yourself is good.

That being said, "punishing" thugs by making them do nasty chores is not really either of those scenarios. While the heroes may get some pleasure out of watching thugs being humiliated, they aren't really being harmed much. If there is evil there, there's very little of it. And one could argue that the heroes are thinking of the wellbeing of the thugs' victims, but they're not really sacrificing anything themselves (though they did when fighting the thugs, but that was earlier), so if there is good in the deed it's only very little good.

The net result is a neutral act.

 

[Aeric]

I wouldn't call it a neutral act. Neutrality implies that you're not willing to go out of your way to help (good) or harm (evil) others. The scenario as described is something I would definitely consider going out of your way.

The motivation for the action seems to be teaching the uppity nobles a lesson, in the hopes that they will treat poorer folk better having experienced their drudgery first-hand. There is no real benefit to the PCs unless they get their kicks watching nobles do chores, so it could hardly be called an evil act.

This sounds like something a CG character would do; bring those nobles down a peg or two!

 

[Aeric]

I would also classify it as a good act because there is self-sacrifice involved--maybe not immediately, but as the OP stated, the nobles will focus their ire on the PCs. The reward, if any, they receive from the peasants will pale in comparison to the trouble they've placed themselves in as a result of their actions. Self-sacrifice with little to no reward? Good.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

Not evil. I could see Batman doing it. But not at sword point. At Batarang point.