Alignment - Action As Intent

[green slime]

Why do you care about alignment? - It's because certain rules (spells, character classes) force the DM to. If you remove/modify those rules, you can actually just let people play.

Because I find it enriches play, and forces PCs to actually consider the consequences of their actions rather than just doing what is expedient at the time.

Sure, you can torture the ship's captain for information, and kill all the prisoners in cold blood, sail into town, and have no-one the wiser. Except, there is now a stain on your soul. What you choose to do about that stain is called "Roleplaying". Those that just shrug it off are on a well-oiled downhill slope to evil.

 

[green slime]

This, unfortunately, IMO, is the position that the rules easily put you in by using terms like "good" and "evil" which have a real-world moral basis - and subject to seeminly unending debates. Real-world people have debated issues for thousands of years regarding "what is good" - take any typical alignment thread and it's usually just a rehash of these classic conundrums ("is it good to kill one innocent person in order to save two others").

Interestingly, I find it actually easier to start with a description of "what is Evil?"

Secondly I consider those extremely contrived examples of "Kill one to save two" to be utterly reprehensible to the idea of "good" in the first place. Good would strive for the utmost to save all. Beyond that, no, it wouldn't be considered good to sacrifice one. Good would be self-sacrifice.

 

[Fifth Element]

The actual PHB entry (as opposed to the SRD) and DMG2 also corroborate this.

Hmm. My PHB reflects the SRD exactly, plus a little flavour text at the beginning.

And now, some context to your quote.

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

I agree that player statements of intent do not dictate alignment. Until the player acts (i.e. plays his character) in such a way to support his stated intent (i.e. that his character will be CG), there is no reason to believe the character is CG. But this passage is talking about things a player says out of game, not what a character does in-game. It means that you can't just say your character is an alignment, you have to play him CG if you want to say he's CG.

I had a quick browse through DMG2 and can't find anything about alignment, besides a bit about alignment-based encounters on p.62, which doesn't seem relevant.

 

[Fifth Element]

Secondly I consider those extremely contrived examples of "Kill one to save two" to be utterly reprehensible to the idea of "good" in the first place. Good would strive for the utmost to save all. Beyond that, no, it wouldn't be considered good to sacrifice one. Good would be self-sacrifice.

QFT.

Q: Both your spouse and child are drowning, and you only have time to save one. What do you do?

A: Die trying to save both.

 

[Clueless]

This is true, because the spell is specifically marked as being Evil by the rules. Consorting with ultimate evil must generally be seen as evil itself.

But what if you're summoning demons to slay them? Is that evil? It's probably stupid, but I don't think it's evil.

And here I thought the evil tag: [Evil] on those spells merely indicated that they were part of the Evil domain set, much like [Fire], [Travel] or other tags do....

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Why do you care about alignment? - It's because certain rules (spells, character classes) force the DM to. If you remove/modify those rules, you can actually just let people play.

To sidetrack the sidetrack, this is assigning a bit of a strawman to allignment using games, I'd say. In every game I've been in that used allignment, player can and do "just play". They take actions in character and then expereince the consequences of those actions. In a game with allignment those consequences include possible metaphysical effects. Saying that you need to remove those effects so you can "just play" is to my expereince as silly as saying we should remove hit points and damage being dealt to PCs so that we can actually just let people play without them worrying that their tactics might put them in danger.

D&D in its standard form is played in a universe with certain very real properties based on allignment. The allignment related rules ALLOW the DM to use that part of the setting, not force him to. If you want to play in a different universe where those metaphysical effects don't exist, you have no need for the allignment rules, just like if you want to play in a universe with no godless clerics you have no need for the rules which allow them to be used.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

QFT.

Q: Both your spouse and child are drowning, and you only have time to save one. What do you do?

A: Die trying to save both.

A: go for the child as my spouse would never forgive me if I saved him instead. Once child is saved I can then try for the spouse. (who is also more likely to survive longer.)

 

[rowport]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nifft
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

Wow, now *that's* a contrived example.

But again, what about an act that cannot be reasonably foreseen to cause the death of an innocent, but which does? Fire a crossbow at a princess, regardless of whether you're taking a -4 penalty to hit, can certainly be foreseen to endanger the life of the innocent.

It might not be all that contrived-- in our Age of Worms game our party planned an ambush attack (don't worry-- no paladins among us this time) on the BBEG's henchman goons. In the surprise round my archer scout scored a critical hit and took out his opponent in one shot. Buzz (yes, the Buzz from this thread) actually reacted like, "you didn't have to kill him-- we wanted to question him!" I kind a cringed, and felt bad for a second, until I remembered that I was playing a Neutral Evil guy. Then I just acted like I *meant* to kill him that fast.

My point is this: sometimes the dice make unexpected results happen. If that affects Alignment, roll with it. Heh.

 

[Fifth Element]

A: go for the child as my spouse would never forgive me if I saved him instead. Once child is saved I can then try for the spouse. (who is also more likely to survive longer.)

Yes, that's the long answer. Save the child and die trying to save the spouse, to be precise.

 

[Fifth Element]

My point is this: sometimes the dice make unexpected results happen. If that affects Alignment, roll with it. Heh.

The contrived part is the "kill this princess or I kill the other princess." Why doesn't the necromancer just kill both of them? Even BBEGs need to make sense every once in a while.