A brief discussion on the nature of alignment

[Vegepygmy]

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.”

That's because a statement of intent is an unreliable indicator of one's true intent. "Actions speak louder than words" and all that stuff.

Nevertheless, it's the intent behind the actions that counts. A blackhearted villain who sets out to burn down the local orphanage but inadvertently saves the world while failing to do so hasn't moved an inch toward becoming Good just because the unintended results of his actions were Good.

And all quoting is selective, Frank. You yourself did the exact same thing. I guess we should all just reprint the entire chapter on alignment from the PHB instead, huh?

 

[Nichols]

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?

In Ravenloft, that's an Act of Unspeakable Darkness. Nets you a big fat curse from the powers that be, usually causing PCs to become NPC villains, often transforming them into inhuman monsters, and occassionally making them darklords.

So, yes, they would be evil, even if attempting to make up for it, and yes, the reason they're taking to make ammends matters.

That's just Ravenloft, which isn't baseline D&D, but it's certainly a viable perspective.

Chris Nichols

 

[I'm A Banana]

Alignment is based on current actions and ideas, not past or future ones.

You are Lawful Good the moment you embrace the principles of LG, no matter what followed before. Similarly, the moment you decide to do something LE, you are LE, no matter what you intend to do about it later.

Of course, there are thematic twists on it (the demon summoner who does it to further good or whatever), but these are pretty much exceptions to the rule.

 

[Vegepygmy]

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)...

No, that's not an example of someone having "good intentions." The intent is still to kill innocent people. That the well-poisoner believes killing innocent people is a wonderful thing to do doesn't make it Good.

Now, if the well-poisoner is operating under the sincere but mistaken belief that the poison he's putting in the well is actually Vitamin X, which will give all the local children strong white teeth and boost their IQs by 200%...that would be a terrible thing done with "good intentions." (But of course, it also wouldn't be Evil of him to do that, even though the results would be tragic.)