Quick alignment question. Is intent the same as action?

[Tsyr]

Re: Re: evil vrs good

It isn't.

I have been referring to the moral quality of the act. What that does to the overall balance of the character is a separate issue, and cannot really be discussed without a context.

Killing off such a potent minion of good is no small shakes, though. We aren't talking about whether he sneers at beggars in the street, or cheats at dice. We're talking about killing one of the more powerful forces for good on the planet. Extraordinary acts have extraordinary consequences.

I think what he meant is that, from the way most people seem to play, if Mr. Chaotic Neutral fighter who wanted to test his strength went out and killed a Gold Dragon, he would be penalized by the so-called "Average DM"... but if the same fighter killed a Red Dragon, aformentioned DM wouldn't respond equaly strongly in a good way.

I've noticed that a lot of people do seem to kinda think this way, for some reason... I've never understood it either.

 

[Al]

The alignment is primarily in the intent. This can be easily demonstrated by taking the same action with two different intents:

The Scenario: The character has killed a merchant.

Situation A: Having discovered that the merchant is secretly running a slaving operation, the PC has appealed to the courts to get his operation closed down. The merchant has bribed the authorities, and they 'fail' to find these activities. The desperate PCs have broken into the slaver's house to find documents to incriminate him, but find the slaver in his office. The slaver draws his dagger, but the PC is to quick and launch three arrows into his black heart. He does not stir.

Situation B: Newly coming to town, the PC needs some loot...fast. Spying a rich merchant's house, the PC breaks in and starts ransacking his vaults. The furious merchant comes down, knife in hand, but the PC is too fast and kills him.

Now, in Situation A, the 'killing' is probably chaotic good. In Situation B, it is probably neutral evil. Yet it is the same merchant and the same action. Specifically, the action taken alone is meaningless. 'Good' PCs happily romp through orcish fortresses killing their guards- but they are not censured because in the 'context' this is deemed 'acceptable'. If they had broken into an orcish fort purely to ransack its vaults and killed the guards, this would be evil. Therefore, it is not the action, but the intention behind it which must count.

 

[Umbran]

Re: Re: Re: evil vrs good

I've noticed that a lot of people do seem to kinda think this way, for some reason... I've never understood it either.

*nod* Well, it's a common theme. Heck, it's a common thread of human experience - being good is hard, being evil is easy.

Look at one of the defining movies of the fantasy/sci-fi genres: Star Wars. The Dark Side is the fast route to power, the easy way out. The Light Side requires discipline and sacrifice.

We should remember how one ought to figure alignment - not on an act-by-act basis, but as a long-term average of behavior. One should step back and look at the character's behavior and motives as a whole. If he's a nice guy who takes risks and puts himself out to help others, he's Good. If he's a guy who goes out of his way to do things that hurt others, he's Evil. If he doesn't really try to go to either side, he's probably neutral.

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re: evil vrs good

Killing off such a potent minion of good is no small shakes, though. We aren't talking about whether he sneers at beggars in the street, or cheats at dice. We're talking about killing one of the more powerful forces for good on the planet. Extraordinary acts have extraordinary consequences.

I wouldn't see the difference between killing a begger in the street and a gold dragon, but i dont think the power of the victem is related to the consequences of the perp.

Gold dragon=good begger in my world.

joe b.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Is intent the same as action?

In my opinion ...

No

 

[William Ronald]

Intent and action can be very different.

Just because you think of doing something does not make it the equivalent of doing it. Indeed, the intent behind an action can be ambiguous to an outside observer.

Take the movie, Full Metal Jacket and the last scene.



SPOILER
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

The protagonist sees a woman, a Viet Cong operative, who is crippled and partially paralyzed. The other soldiers are determined to leave the woman to be devoured by rats and die a painful death. It is certain that no one will remove the woman or allow her to be removed.

The protagonist realizes this woman is responsible for the death of a friend. He shoots her. Was this an act of vengeance or an act of mercy?

Same action. Two different possible motives.

 

[Avatar_V]

Don't call a man honest...

There's an old yiddish proverb that says: Don't call a man honest just because he hasn't had a chance to steal. It seems to be the consensus that if the character killed the great gold for no reason it would be an evil thing, perhaps evil enough to change his alignment. Does the fact that there's no dragon around make him a fundamentally better person? Sure you can argue that we're all tempted by things; but this a difference between being tempted and giving in to those temptations (or more accurately, being willing to give in). I guy could really dislike his neighbor and be tempted with thoughts of violence against him, but if he recognizes these thoughts as what they are and squashes them, he's in the clear. But, if he imagines it and forms plans of how to hurt the guy, if he grows to genuinely hate him, then the fact that he hasn't got around to anything violent yet means nothing! Clearly the character in question has not 'squashed' his whim to slay an incredibly powerful and good beast. All actions start as thoughts, and so it's the thoughts that are the root of the problem. The actions are secondary. Intentions are most certainly what counts. Actions are only reflections of them.

 

[gvbezoff]

My two cents? As for the CN fighter killing the gold dragon to "test his mettle", that is an evil act. Absolutely no different that if I were to buy a gun and go out and shoot a few police officers to "test my mettle" against them. Hey, I respect them and all, but I wanted to see if I could take them down. Evil evil evil.

I go the other way on the guy who accepted a contract to kill somebody, then had the victim die of other causes. Up until the time came to commit the murder, the potential assassin had the opportunity to reconsider his decision and decide not to go through with the killing. There is no telling whether he would have done the deed or not. Until he actually commits the act, no evil has been done.

 

[Archangel]

Intent, Motive, Action - my take

First, I must agree with Umbran for the most part on including the motive axis in figuring out if the act is good or evil.

Second, each DM must decide this to some extent on his own. Some are raised in an atmosphere (religious, cultural, etc.) where indeed 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' (this seems to hold the most water with those who believe in hell). Running a world in this way is definitely doable (in fact, many campaigns probably use this basis). Characters just have to be careful of what they do, instead of why (obey the commandments, be virtuous, etc.).

Some people, OTOH, come from a culture where intent and motive are more important and 'evil acts' can be justified and deemed good. In these campaigns there are often more 'gray areas', and the question 'why?' must be answered more often.

I cannot say which is better or worse (I can, but that would be my bias and upbringing, not a neutral analysis of how to abjucate alignment).

With that said, I do see a double standard in a lot of campaigns. PCs are often able to get away with evil actions based on their intent, while NPCs are made to be the enemy based on their actions. I find this interesting, but not something to worry too much about (unless it is affecting the game).

Once again, it may not be better (or fit into the way a person is taught), but I think that intention and motive should be factored in for the game (at least for the PCs). It allows them to act in a way that we gamers are used to them acting (even if in the real world, some of our religious views would condemn the PCs for being as bad as the evil they are supposed to be fighting).

Remember, try to allow the greatest suspension of disbelief while keeping the integrity and enjoyability of the game intact.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sure you can argue that we're all tempted by things; but this a difference between being tempted and giving in to those temptations (or more accurately, being willing to give in). I guy could really dislike his neighbor and be tempted with thoughts of violence against him, but if he recognizes these thoughts as what they are and squashes them, he's in the clear.

That's because most people are neutral.

Being tempted with an act of evil is still thinking Bad Thoughts.

In D&D, the truly good and righteous don't even think bad thoughts. The Paladin doesn't want to cause suffering to anybody...he's basically immune to temptation, to a certain extent.

Simply being tempted means there's some evil; some petty spite or vengeance; in your soul that makes you want to do bad things. Wanting to commit the murder is as evil as actually comitting it without a good motive.

Of course, it's always fun for me, as a DM, to do a bit of the tempting. I LOVE alignment quandries...that's part of why I love planescape so much. It shows that even with absolutes, it's not all cut-and-dried.

I like Umbran's system of Motive-Intent-Action. If all three are evil(e.g.: You kill someone...beause you desire to...because he was an easy target with a lot of money that would make your life better), chances are that the act itself was evil.

And what people have said about one action not determining alingment is very true.

If you plot a revolution, are you Chaotic?

....or if you plot it in a orderly, methodical way to undermine a government you see as haphazard and mostly run by one goofus with Divine Right? Are you still chaotic then?