Which of the following best describes questioning whether or not someone can be held accountable for their actions due to their character?

The concept being described involves examining the relationship between an individual's character and their accountability for their actions. This reasoning aligns closely with the ad hominem fallacy, where an argument is directed against a person's character rather than addressing the substance of their actions or arguments. When one questions someone's accountability based on their character, they are essentially suggesting that the person's flaws or traits invalidate their actions or credibility. This fallacy shifts the focus away from the actual issue—what the individual did—and redirects it to who they are, making the ad hominem the best fit for this description.

The other options represent different logical fallacies. The appeal to authority involves asserting a claim is true based on the authority of someone stating it, rather than the merit of the argument itself. A complex question assumes something within the question to be true and asks for a response, effectively trapping the answerer in a misleading inquiry. The straw man fallacy misrepresents an argument to make it easier to attack, diverting attention from the original point of contention. Each of these is distinct from the questioning of accountability based on character, reinforcing the appropriateness of choosing ad hominem in this context.