Alignment - Action As Intent

[buzz]

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.

Exactamundo.

See, this is why I think alignment is cool (and why I've always liked playing paladins). It's a great tool for characterization and story. Extreme alignments, like LG, complicate things, and complications create conflict, and conflict is where story comes from.

 

[Hjorimir]

Disclaimer: I didn't read the entire thread; I'm just replying to the OP.

As far as D&D goes, I switch it up. It isn't a question of the deity knowing the PC's intentions. It is the PC's responsibility to know the deity's intentions or desires. The idea is that the PC is trying to stay in alignment with her god from which she draws inspiration (or power as the case may be).

This is one of the reasons I love True20's Conviction system with each character having both a virtue and a vice. Instead of having an alignment, which I think is intended to generally say how one's character acts, it rewards players for staying in character. Much more elegant and effective, IMHO.

 

[gizmo33]

IMO the problem with using actions instead of intent to judge alignment is that it produces results that aren't what most people would expect. The "dumb paladin" example is an example of this. So I think the alignment concept works best when it's based on the character's intent and personality.

However, one of the problems with the alignment system in the game is that the DM has to try to guess the player's true intent. And players sometimes have a motivation to be misleading about their intentions - especially when a particular character class has an alignment requirement and the character faces a reduction in power for alignment violations. And it might not even be the player's intent to intentionally deceive the DM, but it's bound to be a controversial ruling for a DM to penalize a player as a result of speculation regarding what a player was intending or what they thought.

 

[Fifth Element]

Fixed that for you.

Um, yeah. You did see the actual quote from the actual rules that I posted, right?

Thanks for playing.

 

[Fifth Element]

Irrelevant. Remember, this is alignment without intent.

My point being, you cannot have alignment without considering intent. According to RAW. Alignment without intent is therefore nonsensical, because without intent you cannot determine alignment. According to RAW.

How do you deal with intent in your game?

Intent is paramount to alignment; attitudes, personality and personal philosophy are represented by alignment. That's how intent is dealt with in my game, simply based on RAW.

 

[Nifft]

However, one of the problems with the alignment system in the game is that the DM has to try to guess the player's true intent. And players sometimes have a motivation to be misleading about their intentions - especially when a particular character class has an alignment requirement and the character faces a reduction in power for alignment violations. And it might not even be the player's intent to intentionally deceive the DM, but it's bound to be a controversial ruling for a DM to penalize a player as a result of speculation regarding what a player was intending or what they thought.

Bingo. That's exactly what I'm trying to "fix" by divorcing invisible (to the DM) intention from alignment.

Allowing the PC to be judged based on only what is visible to the DM (and thus more than is visible inside the game world, but less than would be visible to an omniscient deity).

Does that make sense? Thanks, -- N

 

[Nifft]

My point being, you cannot have alignment without considering intent. According to RAW.

If so, that's what needs fixing.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

That's right, because the PC did not *intend* to kill the princess.

If you want alignment without intent, how can killing an innocent princess, regardless of intent, not be evil?

Deity: "You killed the princess! No more paladin powers for you!"
Paladin: "But I was trying to kill the necromancer."
Deity: "Intent is irrelevant! You better go get some atonement."

An act by itself cannot be called good or evil. Acts don't have morals, people performing the acts have morals. Casting a spell with an [Evil] descriptor can't really be called an evil act, rather it's something only an evil person would do.

 

[Fifth Element]

Bingo. That's exactly what I'm trying to "fix" by divorcing invisible (to the DM) intention from alignment.

Allowing the PC to be judged based on only what is visible to the DM (and thus more than is visible inside the game world, but less than would be visible to an omniscient deity).

"Fixing" that leads to a whole host of other problems, as has been illustrated in many posts here. Without considering intent, many good people will be seen to be committing "evil" acts, despite the fact that not committing some of those acts could be seen as less good than committing them, *at the time just before the act is committed*, because the end result is not known.

You say that killing the princess by accident is not evil, because the shot was meant for the necromancer. You make that determination based on the in-game declared action. Killing the princess was not the intended result of the declared action.

But what is the declared action has an unintended, unforeseen result. To dredge up an older thread, what if you cut down a tree (your intended act), and it falls and kills an innocent bystander who's hiding in the woods, and you have no idea is there? Is that an evil act? The declared action resulted in the death of an innocent.

 

[Nifft]

If you want alignment without intent, how can killing an innocent princess, regardless of intent, not be evil?

For the non-evil version, see above. Here's an example of how killing someone might seem equally accidental, but the declared action is different.

NPC Necromancer: "If you don't fire your crossbow at the princess, I'll kill the other princess!"
PC: "Hmm, she's two range increments out, I'll probably miss... okay, I fire at the princess."
DM: "Attack roll?"
PC: "Natural 20! Damn it. Confirm critical... another 20. Damn it!"
DM: "She's dead. You have gained a Dark Side point."

Cheers, -- N