Alignment - Action As Intent

[Fifth Element]

But this is a seriously contrived example.

Of course it is. This is an alignment discussion, and on internet fora alignment discussions may only be framed in terms of contrived examples.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

My example specifically stated that this paladin was lacking in Wisdom. There's no minimum Wis needed to become a paladin. Is an unwise paladin an evil one?

Ask Belkar....

But seriously, creature which lack the intellect to take moral responsibility for the consequences of their actions are neutral. So it is possible that such a person could not actually be a paladin, nor is he lawful good - anymore than a loyal and friendly hunting dog is.

(too dumb for allignment - bring on the Thog lovers!!!!!)

 

[Mark Chance]

Some time ago, a player wanted to play a paladin. He asked me about alignment, paladin codes, et cetera. I gave him these basic axioms of moral philosophy as guidelines:

1. It is never good to commit an evil act for a good end. Likewise, performing a good act for an evil reason renders the act evil for purposes of judging the actor.

2. It is more important to be right than to be successful.

3. For an act to be evil, three criteria must be met: the act itself must be evil, you must know its evil, and you must choose to perform the act.

Within these parameters, the trite examples of the BBEG threatening to kill so-and-so unless the PC does evil thing X fall apart. Sure, the BBEG can claim that it's the PC's fault so-and-so died, but he's a BBEG who pulled the trigger. Why is anyone taking his moral judgments seriously?

 

[green slime]

Putting yourself in harm's way to protect an innocent is a good act.

Putting yourself at minimal risk to obtain a good result is a shrewd act.

It should be possible to be both good and shrewd. Balancing the risks is just good judgment.

If you take risk upon yourself, even if it's minimal, you are doing good IMHO. If you put others at risk for your own benefit, even if it's minimal, you are doing ill IMHO.

Cheers, -- N

¨

haha! Not so fast Mr Nifft!

My example clearly showed that the non-hero's intent was not to rescue the damsel in distress, but merely to put on the pretense; by implementing a not-so-daring, methodical, meticulously-planned, rescue "attempt."

The declaration: "To rescue the innocent" is widely proclaimed to all and sundry. Advertising is paid for. On National Primetime TV. Yet the desired effect, the intent, is one of deceit and failure. Even if during the implementation of the plan, an element of risk is posed to the non-hero's life, this risk is not for the benefit of the innocent, but merely for his own nefarious plans.

According to your measure, this evil genius is good, by whit of his declarations.

I'd argue, that while he may be perceived as "Good" by the community at large, he most definitely is not, and would not be judged as such by those able to perceive his intent.

 

[green slime]

3. For an act to be evil, three criteria must be met: the act itself must be evil, you must know its evil, and you must choose to perform the act.

The path to hell is lined with good intentions.

I'd argue:

It is possible to commit an Evil act unwittingly (classic story).
It is possible to commit an Evil act, and not have the faintest idea it is evil.
It is possible to be forced/coerced to do an Evil act, that would require atonement.

But that is only my take.

 

[Nifft]

Okay, how about a stupid but LG fighter. He's got no one to pray to. He knows that LG fighters are supposed to kill evil beasties, especially when there's a distressed damsel involved. Being too stupid to realize he'll get everyone killed, he charges in, and eventually gets everyone killed.

He's evil, is he?

Huh?

I just argued that someone isn't evil for doing that. Poorly conceived and played, perhaps, but not evil.

-- N

 

[Nifft]

1. It is never good to commit an evil act for a good end. Likewise, performing a good act for an evil reason renders the act evil for purposes of judging the actor.

Word.

2. It is more important to be right than to be successful.

Word.

3. For an act to be evil, three criteria must be met: the act itself must be evil, you must know its evil, and you must choose to perform the act.

Not word. However, I'd agree if we re-worded a bit:

3. For an act to be irredeemable, three criteria must be met: (...)

Some acts are irredeemable. For everything else, there's atonement.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

My example clearly showed that the non-hero's intent was

Irrelevant. Remember, this is alignment without intent.

As to the rest of your post, I don't really understand it.

Did the "rescuer" actually create the situation which put the princess at risk of dragon? If so, he's evil already for endangering the princess, and his rescue attempt is a sham -- because the net effect of his actions was to put more innocent princesses at risk.

Did the dragon situation arise without his involvement? If so, he's profiting off someone else's action without actually changing the situation or putting himself at risk. Neutral.

Is he actually taking some personal risk, and increasing the odds of the princess surviving by his action? If so, it's a marginally good action (at worst).

You're allowed to profit from good actions.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

The path to hell is lined with good intentions.

I'd argue:

It is possible to commit an Evil act unwittingly (classic story).
It is possible to commit an Evil act, and not have the faintest idea it is evil.
It is possible to be forced/coerced to do an Evil act, that would require atonement.

I agree with most of this. IMHO, the only irredeemable (non-atoneable) acts are the ones that are made willingly and knowingly.

You can do the wrong thing and suffer for a bit, but if you are humble enough to recognize your mistake and atone, you can be forgiven. Pride, anger, fear, hate -- these lead to making more bad decisions, which lead to the Dark Side.

IMHO, it should be possible to commit Evil acts with good intentions, and it should be possible to atone for your sins. Makes for better stories.

Cheers, -- N

 

[buzz]

This is where I bring out the Xena example.

I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that in discussing alignment, you should keep in mind that it's a mechanic that applies to D&D characters. It's doesn't apply to real people, or fictional people from sources other than D&D characters created by players. The only valid way to pose the question is, "If a player created a character like Xena, what alignment might they give her?"

The answer is: Whatever alignment they want; it's their PC.

Any deeper answer would depend on how the player's DM handles alignment changes and mechanical effects of the PC's backstory.

If we assume that pseduo-Xena begins play as the reformed villain we see in the show, it's reasonable that the PC be Good, and possibly Neutral or Chaotic on the Law/Chaos axis. Mimicking the behavior of TV-Xena, the PC will protect the innocent, and that's by-the-book Good. Naturally, old foes and her troubled past could then be common plot elements as the campaign moves forward.

If we assume that pseudo-Xena begins play as a rampaging villain, and, say, 10 levels in, the player thinks that it would be cool for the character's arc to suddenly reform themselves and seek to undo all the wrong they've done in the past, well... it's well within the DM's purview to say, "Okay, your epiphany changes your alignment to Good, though you are still Chaotic." Naturally, old foes and her troubled past could then be common plot elements as the campaign moves forward.