A brief discussion on the nature of alignment

[The Lost Muse]

As a followup to the thread on burning off the faces of old ladies...


Suppose a character had comitted a single terribly evil act - perhaps colluding with the demons of the abyss and allowing a massive encursion onto the material plane, perhaps betraying their closest companion, the details are unimportant.

My question is: If someone has comitted such an act, would they be considered evil, even if they were trying to make up for it? Does the reason they are trying to make up for it matter?

 

[frankthedm]

If someone has comitted such an act, would they be considered evil, even if they were trying to make up for it?

In my game Detect Evil and other detect alignment spells, aura strength is based on deeds, not hit dice for normal mortals. That deed would get you an Overwhelming Chaotic & Overwhelming Evil aura. Congrats, you have made many fiends jealous!

You would have that on you aura till it was worked it off. A deed that foul would likely take longer than an elven lifetime to rectify. A deed like that is also the type to get oneself cursed by the gods to never die so you have more than enought time to do so.

Does the reason they are trying to make up for it matter?

Of course it does, If their motivations are good ones of guilt remorse and wanting to undo the suffering he or she caused, then they count towards redemption. If the goal is a selfish, I don’t want to rot in the abyss, no the deeds don’t.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My question is: If someone has comitted such an act, would they be considered evil, even if they were trying to make up for it? Does the reason they are trying to make up for it matter?

Reposted from this thread:

It all depends on how one rules alignment.

Is it an indication of one's personality and state of mind, or is it a record of one's past deeds?

Let's take Xena as an example. She's slaughtered innocents, trampled people underfoot in her climb to power, pursued her own ends by whatever means necessary, etc, etc.

Then she has a change of heart, vows to repent for her wickedness, and devotes herself to heroic deeds.

At this point - when she's decided to be a force for Good, but before she's actually taken any tangible actions in its name - is her alignment still evil, is it neutral, or is it good?

You'll find people who will argue for all three.

Some will say that because she is determined to do good deeds, and finds her past acts repugnant, she is good.

Some will say that because she has performed no good actions to balance the scales, she is evil.

And some will say that putting evil behind her means she is no longer evil, but until she has actually worked for good, she cannot be good... so for now, she is neutral.

-Hyp.

 

[No Name]

Would one single act of great goodness make a person good?

Direction is more important than magnitude.

 

[FireLance]

It all depends on how one rules alignment.

Is it an indication of one's personality and state of mind, or is it a record of one's past deeds?

To follow off Hyp's post, it's too bad that the D&D rules don't actually address whether alignment is due to deeds or intent. If you would like to introduce this complication into your games, perhaps detect evil and other similar spells could detect both deeds and intent, and paladins would only be barred from associating with those who continue to have evil intentions.

 

[Vegepygmy]

To follow off Hyp's post, it's too bad that the D&D rules don't actually address whether alignment is due to deeds or intent.

AFAIK, they never come right out and say so, but it's pretty easily inferred that intent is the relevant factor.

"A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment..." (PHB, p.103)

"...it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good." (DMG, p.134)

And so on.

 

[FireLance]

AFAIK, they never come right out and say so, but it's pretty easily inferred that intent is the relevant factor.

"A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment..." (PHB, p.103)

"...it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good." (DMG, p.134)

And so on.

Good catch .

Well, there you go, then.

 

[frankthedm]

Good catch .

Well, there you go, then.

Bad catch actually, selective quoting. The DMG list that example as an unlikely happening at the end of the section that deals with alignment change.

DMG page 134 "If a player says “My neutral good character becomes chaotic good,” the appropriate response is “Prove it.” Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by the players.”

 

[wmasters]

Alignment is one of the aspects of the game that I've not really been happy with since AD&D and try as I might I can't find an easy solution to it. Personally, my argument in the case you've presented would be that they're good, as they are seeking redemption for the evil acts that they accept as wrong, so in they're present state of mind they are unlikely to behave in an evil manner.

Of course, often I don't actually know what an evil manner is... if my character slaughters a group of 20 innocents in their sleep because in doing so he saves the populace of a city, is he evil? I don't know. How about if he makes a pact with Devils to do it? What if he's a paladin, does it breach his code of conduct? And what if there were alternatives, but the character didn't investigate enough to find them?

Equally, is it really the act of a good character to kill the chaotic evil fiendish kobold that's dropped his weapon and is running away in terror? Or should he instead have sought redemption for the character, brought him in to the proper authorities etc?

Personally, I don't think either the first character is evil or the second is good, but there are plenty of people that would disagree with both opinions.

 

[Azalnubizar]

well, isn't this the old problem of alignment in D&D?

basically I would agree with those posted before me, that a single good or evil act of great magnitude does not in itself make the actor evil or good by itself.
Let's take something wholly evil... a vampyr f.e. ... and he manages to kill a lich that planned (and nearly succeeded) in taking over the world... but the vampyr did it, because he hated the lich, not because he wanted to save the world... would this vampyr suddenly be good?! No!

Therefore the intentions behind the actions do matter.
But here comes another one - it is said, that in the D&D-cosmology alignment is not dependable upon personal opinions... like, the guy who poisons the well of a city is evil, even if he believes (for himself) that killing all those people is mercyfull toward them and therefore believes himself that his act is a good one (and therefore has good intentions)...

now, following this, I think only good intention doesn't make a good person.
but, as learned from the first one - good acts don't make a good person either...

this would lead to the assumption, that only if a person has good intentions and in his believes a good act is the same as in the general D&D-cosmology, then he is a good person.

last, but not least, there is the good cleric that goes to war with his army against another good army (which he believes are bad). Now, the good cleric naturally believes he is on the rigtheous side and therefore, by attacking the bad country, does a good deed (he is having good intentions). Furthermore (assume) his believes go conform with the D&D-Cosmology.
Last is the question - a good person with good intention (in terms of D&D-Cosmology) doing an evil act (would be killing a good cleric be an evil act? - never mind) - would he be considered good? Let's assume not (allthough I'm not 100% convinced).

this all would lead to:
A good person is a person that does good deeds with good intention that have to go conform with D&D-Cosmology.

Back to the original question. I do not believe, that if a "good" person did one "evil" deed without evil intention would cease to be good on the spot. If his intentions where good (which need to go conform with D&D-Cosmology) he would (IMHO) stay alignment "good". Allthough, once he sees the result of his actions he might feel an enormous amount of guilt - which can easily shake his believe in the good side and make him a possible suspect to corruption.
Now, if the intentions where good, but his believes does not go same as D&D-Cosmology, we are having the same situation as the example above (the one where someone poisons the city well). In this case, yes, I think the character should switch to evil immediatly.
Last, if his intentions where selfish or he had other evil intentions, again, yes, he should certainly switch to evil.

This all does not mean, that a god or other divine power wouldn't most certainly disapprove of the act and might very likely take away a paladins or clerics powers until attonement.

In the first case, I would think, that redemption would be possible, in the later two I do not believe (allthough you should never say no).


The whole problem with all of this is the general "alignment"-thingy of D&D-Cosmology.
Alignment there is a general overall thing and not a personal thing.
This makes it very difficult, once a characters believes of alignment does not go conform with the D&D-Cosmology. Let's take for example the assassine that uses poison to try to kill off the enemy evil archmages, because otherwise these would overrun, kill, enslave his own country. This assassine cannot be good or even neutral by D&D-Cosmology-standards. Allthough, the assassine might think of himself of a very heroic and good person (rescuing a whole country might lead to this assumption). And this is the whole conflict - I think it would be better to have good & evil be defined by the person personal believes (and possible influenced by a church or divine power if the person believes in this).

just my 2 cents

Azal