Alignment - Action As Intent

[buzz]

I think the bigger question becomes - what are some good techniques to find out from the player (sans major bias from a player just coming up with stuff out of his rear) what the reasoning and motivation is behind their actions?

Talk to them?

 

[Halivar]

Talk to them?

Whoah! That's crazy talk!

 

[green slime]

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.

Consider the following, rather standard, situation:

A damsel is in distress, kidnapped by an organisation "The do-bad-ers".
This group is thoroughly evil. They plan to execute the princess if their demands are not met (standard fare: release political prisoners, free province Y, concede Z) before a certain date.

A "hero" could appear and declare his intent to rescue the princess. A declaration of an intended action.

It is my contention, that mere declaration of intent is not enough.

There must be adequate, sufficient action connected to the declaration, to give it any moral meaning. Otherwise the "hero" is guilty of the cardinal sin of Sloth.

The declaration in connection with inadequate action can, in itself, be considered no more than mere neutral behaviour at best. Whether the action itself is "adequate" or not, is up to the DM to gauge.

Action, without intent, is likewise suspect. If some action should accidently procure the premature release of the princess, this act could not be presumed to be automatically "good". The persuer of this action, would've been persuing a completely different agenda. That agenda could be for a very much greater evil or good.

So, in my example in my previous post, while the "hero" may well be perceived as such ("hero"/"good") by the population at large, he is nontheless an evil-scheming custard, with plans to usurp the throne. The fact that his intent, and his actions temporarily malalign, do not mitigate his evilness.

IMC, I have produced a guideline, a table of what is considered "Evil/Chaotic/Good/Lawful." It provides players with a rough guideline as to where the moral lines are drawn in campaigns I run. They may (and do) disagree with the practical implications, and argue from various metaphysical standpoints.


When discussing alignment, I find it impossible to detach intent. Mere action is not enough of a measure, IMO. Action is only the easier of the two to determine.

Interestingly, Swedish law also makes this distinction in many cases. It is possible to break the law, and yet have a mitigating circumstance that the intention of crime was not there. Murder (Mord) and Manslaughter (Dråp) I believe exist in many societies.

 

[buzz]

FWIW, I don't really see this as similar to the dragon example, as nowhere in this scenario do I see the PC's life put at risk. I.e., you've eliminated sacrifice and heroism as an option.

Hmm.

Hypothetical situation.

We have a hundred innocent people, and a BBEG, behind bulletproof glass.

Ninety-nine of the innocents, and the BBEG, are wearing explosive collars. You're in a booth with a hundred buttons.

The BBEG explains through the glass that in a few minutes, he's going to shoot the uncollared innocent, and then set the other ninety-nine free.

Each button is hooked up to a collar, but you don't know which. One of the hundred buttons will kill the BBEG before he can shoot anyone.

Do you consider it 'heroic and good' to start pressing buttons in the hope that you'll get the BBEG before you kill too many of the collared innocents?

Is this much different to the dragon scenario - long odds against actually saving the sacrifice, with a certainty of more innocents dying if you fail in the attempt?

-Hyp.

I'm assuming "bulletproof" also means, "Can't teleport through and just attack the BBEG".

I'm also assuming that "you" means, "your PC."

If a DM presented me with this situation, and I was running a Good PC, randomly pressing buttons would not be a Good option by the RAW. Doing nothing under the assumption that sacrificing one innocent is an acceptable loss is also not Good. Ergo, my chosen action for my Good PC would be to find a way to get through that glass and stop the BBEG from killing anyone. Even if I fail, I would assume that the DM would not penalize my PC.

If he did penalize my PC, I'd likely have to consider not playing with them anymore. He's presenting me with a no-win situation, and then dinging my PC for being stuck in that no-win situation. I.e., he's a cheating bastard.

 

[Nifft]

A "hero" could appear and declare his intent to rescue the princess. A declaration of an intended action.

It is my contention, that mere declaration of intent is not enough.

Ah, I see the confusion.

By declared action I mean the D&D jargon. As in, what you declare your action to be for a particular round. Stuff that is declared in the player-and-DM world, not stuff "declared" by your PC in the game world.


For example:

PC: "I waste the necromancer with my crossbow!"
DM: "Attack roll?"
PC: "And I get a ... 1. Damn it."
DM: "Critical fumble table... you miss, and instead hit the princess! Crit! She's dead!"
PC: "Damn it!"

In this contrived example, the result of the PC's action is that he shot and killed the princess. But his declared action was to shoot the necromancer.

IMHO: the PC's action was not evil.

Cheers, -- N

 

[buzz]

The very definition of alignment in RAW refers to a character's actions, not attitudes.

Fixed that for you.

 

[buzz]

IMHO: the PC's action was not evil.

100% correct, though I'd say "Evil" and not "evil."

 

[Halivar]

Ergo, my chosen action for my Good PC would be to find a way to get through that glass and stop the BBEG from killing anyone.

Hah! That's my idea of a paladin. No surrender, and no giving up. The solution must end in kicking the BBEG in the teeth.

If he did penalize my PC, I'd likely have to consider not playing with them anymore. He's presenting me with a no-win situation, and then dinging my PC for being stuck in that no-win situation. I.e., he's a cheating bastard.

Nobody likes a kobiyashi maru. Agree that the DM who puts a player in this position... well... sucks.

 

[buzz]

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.

Very good guidelines, Mark!

 

[Nifft]

Ergo, my chosen action for my Good PC would be to find a way to get through that glass and stop the BBEG from killing anyone.

We must find this evil wizard! All that is goodness cries out for this! Even little Boo, although he cannot cry out quite so loudly.

Yep. You've got some agreement from me, too.

Cheers, -- N