Quick alignment question. Is intent the same as action?

[Methinkus]

Is intent just as damning as action? Lets say I have a CN fighter who is only concerned with improving his own skills and abilities. Lets say he respects dragons and views them as the ultimate target. Lets say he would be more than willing to kill a Gold dragon just to prove he could do it. There is no anger towards the dragon, he never crossed it in the path and actually respects its views on morality even though he does not share them, but he would want to fight and kill it as a way of testing his mettle. Evil?

Ok, example the second; lets say this guy is hired to kill this other guy – he has no levels of assassin and is therefore not already damned as “evil” (I disagree with this ruling, but that was a whole different thread) – whom he knows nothing about. He is ok with this, but a week before the deadline – get it? “dead”line? Ha ha ha – the man falls ill and dies on his own. The first man never committed an evil act. Does his alignment change?

The point is, in both the examples no crime was committed. We can even say that they have both been outstanding members of their communities in the past. However, both people were willing to do something rather questionable (well, hideous). They never acted on these evil impulses, but philosophically they fit the mold as outlined in the PHB of evil. In my experience as a player action counts more that intent when it comes to alignment and a persons normally wouldn’t change until that character had actually done something very evil. How would you rule these cases as a DM or even as another player in the group?

 

[alsih2o]

if a p.c. intends to save the town, but burns it down accidentally, the intent counts, seems to me it also goes the other way, intent is everything, after all the road to helll isn't paved with anything else!

 

[Valicor]

I don't knwo how others handle it, to me a pc can think about it, consider it, even make all the preperations. But unless he actually goes through with the act, it is irrelivent.

Actions Speak Louder Then Words.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

I would have to agree that intent is the same as action as far as alignment is concerned. If you plan to murder someone (and seriously try to pull it off), it's just as bad as doing it.

I changed a PC's alignment once because he kept eyeing the dire wolf pups that another character had adopted, and was considering their murder. He never did it, so I changed his alignment from chaotic good to chaotic neutral. Seemed about right, and he didn't care.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

alsih2o - That's like saying being subject to temptation is the same as actually doing evil. I have an ex-roommate who for the longest time I intended to beat to a bloody pulp if I ever saw him again. (Trust me, I had bucketloads of provocation) But when I finally did see him, I didn't follow through. I even managed to have a reasonable discussion with him, after I surpressed a fair bit of rage. So should I be tried for assault and battery because of my previous intentions? Am I a blight on society because I occasionally have these kind of impulses, even though they are always controlled? Do my intents and impulses show who I am, or does how I act on them?

And as for the guy who burns down the town... Isn't he responsible for recompense? Accidently burning down the town may not have been an evil act, but leaving without paying for the damages in some capacity definitely would be. His intent clears him in the first instance, but he still has to take responsibility for that action.

To the assasin question: IMO, the evil act was taking the job in the first place. The murder itself is secondary to that.

 

[Jerrid Al-Kundo]

Per the DMG, intent is meaningless. The reason being that you can claim to any desire you want for just about any action. Thus, intent cannot be quantified with an actual effect, while a declared and resolved action can. In addition, in the default setting, Good and Evil are tangible forces, unlike our real world where philosophy and outlook pertaining to Good and Evil can vary from person to person.

That said:

1: Chaotic Neutral ("Because I can...")

2: No single act should change your alignment unless it is done strictly for the reason of such a transition.

2A: Becoming an Assassin (per the Greyhawk Assassin PClass in the DMG) does not make you Evil; Rather, they only accept you into the organization if you are Evil to begin with. The "murder for entry" is simply to show your willingness to kill for them. The ruling regarding this is to keep non-Evil PCs from joining the organization for whatever reason.

The Burning Town Question: Does the PC stand up, confess, and work to correct the matter (Lawful Good), walk away hoping his involvement isn't noticed (Chaotic) or actively run to escape punishment (Neutral, possibly Evil depending on the extent of the measures he takes to avoid punishment).

Now, you can make it that intent matters, but you are opening the door to debates over actual intent over stated intent, which need not be the same thing, and invite metagame thinking into declared PC actions.

 

[Henry]

I agree with Canis (about 75% of the way - you had me up until the very last about the assassin) - the reason the old saying IS "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is because it is the actions that damn you, not the intent. Intentions might (I stress might) mititgate it, but only in rare cases.

A person who takes an assassin's contract is on the road to evil - but I would say a lawful good person who takes an assassin's contract is at worst lawful or true neutral (depending on WHY they took the contract). If they KILLED the target, then it's solidly evil to me. But it gives you that chance to turn back, that chance to go from lawful neutral back to laeful good, before turning the corner of evil.

Kicking a puppy is an evil action, but kicking a puppy when you've had a bad day doesn't merit it. Typically, a good person who behaves in a low-key evil manner will express guilt and sorrow for their actions, and repent. If they make their actions a regular habit, then they have move to the morally ambiguous ground of Neutrality.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Intending to do something is very different to actually doing it. In the case of the CN fighter, he seems to be acting in character. He's not interested in good or evil, just chaos, and therefore considering a LG creature to be the ultimate target certainly isn't an evil act.

I also agree with Wolfen Priest though, that changing a good aligned character to neutral if they keep considering evil actions. That is, after all, exactly what the neutral alignment is needed for sometimes.

 

[alsih2o]

Originally posted by Canis I have an ex-roommate who for the longest time I intended to beat to a bloody pulp if I ever saw him again. (Trust me, I had bucketloads of provocation) [/B]

the provocation is the difference, if oyu intende yto beat him sense less without provocation you are evil, with provocation you are simply vengeful

 

[Vaxalon]

If someone is willing to kill for no other reason than his own aggrandizement, but has never had the opportunity, then he carries some amount of taint of evil. He would carry more, much more, if he ever actually fulfilled that desire.