Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Alignment myths?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3303681" data-attributes="member: 22779"><p>And thus the "as much as possible" caveat I added in. </p><p></p><p>According to Pros, if I kill an evil target (killing the troll), I have done a good act even if I didn't mean to. But, apparently, killing a good target is not a conversely evil act if I didn't mean to. </p><p></p><p>I have stated this a number of times, but I will repeat it again. I don't consider the woodsman to have committed an incredibly evil act. As evil goes, it's pretty vanilla and more in the realm of tragic rather than terribly evil. But, if you start with the premise that killing children is evil, then, yes, the woodsman has done an evil act. He is repentant because he is a good aligned character and recognises his action for what it is.</p><p></p><p>The problem with alignment that I see most of the time is that people try to come from the position that intent is primary. That if I intended something good, or didn't intend any evil, that excuses my actions. I don't buy into that. Not when alignment in D&D is absolute. An evil act is evil regardless of who does it or why, according to D&D.</p><p></p><p>I also notice that Pros is still mulling over my 2 knights question. Perhaps we could get his view on it?</p><p></p><p>/edit - A further thought occurs to me.</p><p></p><p>I just recently saw Pirates of the Carribean Dead Man's Chest. Good movie and not a bad one for giving illustrations for D&D alignment. Take the last (ish) scene where Captain Jack has returned to the Black Pearl to stand with his comrades against the Kraken only to be shackled to the ship by Elizabeth and left to be eaten by the Kraken.</p><p></p><p>Now, Jack's return is a pretty solidly good act. Coming back to help those in need at great personal risk is generally agreed to be a good act. However, if we let intent come into the picture, we come up with two versions. One, Jack's return heralds a reformation of the character and a rise to goodness through a selfless act. The other says that Jack came back to get into the pants of a woman betrothed to his friend and that selflessness had very little to do with it. </p><p></p><p>We could go either way in our interpretations. That's not the point. The point is, by allowing intention to cloud the issue, we can take the exact same act and paint it as either good or evil (or at least certainly not good). And, depending on which interpretation you follow, you cannot really reconcile the differences.</p><p></p><p>However, if we simply ignore intent, then the act is selfless and good. Elizabeth's action is evil, despite the fact that she was doing it to save everyone else. Her intentions are good - save as many as we can - but her action is pretty squarely evil. Her reaction to her action is in keeping with a good aligned character.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3303681, member: 22779"] And thus the "as much as possible" caveat I added in. According to Pros, if I kill an evil target (killing the troll), I have done a good act even if I didn't mean to. But, apparently, killing a good target is not a conversely evil act if I didn't mean to. I have stated this a number of times, but I will repeat it again. I don't consider the woodsman to have committed an incredibly evil act. As evil goes, it's pretty vanilla and more in the realm of tragic rather than terribly evil. But, if you start with the premise that killing children is evil, then, yes, the woodsman has done an evil act. He is repentant because he is a good aligned character and recognises his action for what it is. The problem with alignment that I see most of the time is that people try to come from the position that intent is primary. That if I intended something good, or didn't intend any evil, that excuses my actions. I don't buy into that. Not when alignment in D&D is absolute. An evil act is evil regardless of who does it or why, according to D&D. I also notice that Pros is still mulling over my 2 knights question. Perhaps we could get his view on it? /edit - A further thought occurs to me. I just recently saw Pirates of the Carribean Dead Man's Chest. Good movie and not a bad one for giving illustrations for D&D alignment. Take the last (ish) scene where Captain Jack has returned to the Black Pearl to stand with his comrades against the Kraken only to be shackled to the ship by Elizabeth and left to be eaten by the Kraken. Now, Jack's return is a pretty solidly good act. Coming back to help those in need at great personal risk is generally agreed to be a good act. However, if we let intent come into the picture, we come up with two versions. One, Jack's return heralds a reformation of the character and a rise to goodness through a selfless act. The other says that Jack came back to get into the pants of a woman betrothed to his friend and that selflessness had very little to do with it. We could go either way in our interpretations. That's not the point. The point is, by allowing intention to cloud the issue, we can take the exact same act and paint it as either good or evil (or at least certainly not good). And, depending on which interpretation you follow, you cannot really reconcile the differences. However, if we simply ignore intent, then the act is selfless and good. Elizabeth's action is evil, despite the fact that she was doing it to save everyone else. Her intentions are good - save as many as we can - but her action is pretty squarely evil. Her reaction to her action is in keeping with a good aligned character. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Alignment myths?
Top