Would this be evil?

[DragonLancer]

It's not an evil act at all. If I had to pick an alignment for this act, I think that I'd have to say it feels more Chaotic than anything else. It's teaching them a lesson by seeing how others feel, but its not done for lawful reasons (punishment for a crime in the case of the thugs) but more to say that this is not how you treat others because I'll make you do the crap stuff to teach you a lesson.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Given the medieval setting and moral parameters of the game, it is inherently wrong to go against the nobles in the first places – as individuals born into nobility they and the actions they take are automatically the moral and ethical right. There will be repercussions for this against the PCs and the barkeep they will have brought down by their actions.

As for the thugs, I would say it was not evil, but did involve a lot of unnecessary fuss and bother. Killing them would have been quick, simple and to the point. It would also avoid repercussions.

 

[Nifft]

Given the medieval setting and moral parameters of the game

Medieval parameters? In my D&D?

I thought those died when they hit my armor spikes.

-- N

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Are any of you actualy suggesting that HUMILIATION is an evil act? Get serious.

 

[Arkhandus]

Not Evil. Neutral at worst. The PCs are still Good-aligned and not at risk of dropping to Neutral or Evil alignment. They're not at the upper end of the Goodly spectrum, but they're still Good.

 

[green slime]

IMHO this is the model of Good behavior.

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

Cheers, -- N

Hooray! Some sense emerges!

 

[Yalius]

As long as he didn't take undue pleasure in the actual humiliation, I wouldn't even worry about the paladin participating. That's a great example of a punishment fitting a crime without over-reacting.

 

[Mouseferatu]

As long as he didn't take undue pleasure in the actual humiliation, I wouldn't even worry about the paladin participating.

Worry? I'll take it a step further and say this is exactly the sort of thing a paladin should be doing, when he's got scoundrels on his hands who deserve punishment, but probably aren't even worth turning over to the local authorities.

 

[wedgeski]

In no sense evil, but the PC's may get into trouble for taking the law into their own hands. A perfectly Chaotic Good act.

 

[Mouseferatu]

And BTW, at the risk of starting a whole different alignment debate...

There is, IMO, no such thing as a "neutral act." You can have a good act, an evil act, or an act that is neither good nor evil--but it is not neutral. "Neutral" is a lack of action. It's passive, not active. People who "strive for balance" do so either via acts that are neither good nor evil, or a combination of good and evil acts. But by definition, you cannot have a "neutral act," because "neutral" implies inaction.