Alignment - Action As Intent

[buzz]

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

Mine's got about nine paragraphs of preceding text. It is mostly identical from "Good vs. Evil" forward, though not100%.

But this passage is talking about things a player says out of game, not what a character does in-game.

It's talking precisely about what a character does in-game. That's the "prove it" part. I.e., what the player says about the PC's intent is outweighed by what actually happened in the game.

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.

P. 79 has a section on alignment that talks about changing it so that it's subjective instead of objective.

 

[buzz]

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....

SRD: "A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions."

 

[Nifft]

Anyway, Nifft, I'm sorry I so derailed your thread.

Hey, this is an alignment thread. If you ain't flamin', I ain't blamin'.

Behavior up to now has been exemplary. Thank you all for remaining on-topic and tolerant.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fifth Element]

Mine's got about nine paragraphs of preceding text. It is mostly identical from "Good vs. Evil" forward, though not100%.

Indeed, but it doesn't say anything different than what's in the SRD. Just more verbiage.

It's talking precisely about what a character does in-game. That's the "prove it" part. I.e., what the player says about the PC's intent is outweighed by what actually happened in the game.

No, it's not. It refers to a player saying "my character is CG" and the DM saying "prove it." How can a player prove it? By playing the character as CG. It's not on-point at all, because it does not address how in particular a player would prove it, just that it must be proven in-game.

Writing an alignment on a character sheet is not enough. You need to play that alignment to have that alignment.

This passage clearly refers to the player, not the character. Everything else in that paragraph refers to the player. Characters are not mentioned. Note that the other paragraphs in that section specifically refer to characters, not players.

P. 79 has a section on alignment that talks about changing it so that it's subjective instead of objective.

Indeed it does. But it discusses changing the standard alignment system, not interpreting the standard alignment system. (Other than referring to the rock-solid certainty of it, which of course contradicts the PHB, though it could be read as only referring to a player's interpretation of alignment.)

Since we're quoting the DMG:

...it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good.

(Emphasis mine).
No act needed, alignment changed due to intent.

 

[Fifth Element]

Hey, this is an alignment thread. If you ain't flamin', I ain't blamin'.

Behavior up to now has been exemplary. Thank you all for remaining on-topic and tolerant.

Yes, I didn't think it was possible to have an alignment thread that didn't quickly melt down.

 

[Hypersmurf]

SRD: "A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions."

Yes, but outside of either the BoVD or BoED (can't recall which), is it suggested anywhere that casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act, or a [Good] spell is a good act?

A good cleric cannot cast an [Evil] spell, but that by itself doesn't define the casting as an evil act.

I can't find a rule that suggests that, in a core-only (no BoED) game, a multiclassed Paladin/Sorcerer who summons a Fiendish Viper would fall.

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.

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.

So it's better for three to die than one?

Where's the honour in self-sacrifice if you sacrifice yourself for nothing?

Sure the intent was to kill the BBEG, but assuming you know that those buttons can kill innocents, there's no way that's worth the risk. You're misrepresenting my words. I'm saying an act cannot be judged based solely on the act, you must consider the intent. When judging the button-pushing, you would consider both the act (pushing the buttons with a very high chance of killing an innocent), and the intent (killing the BBEG, which in this case would mitigate the bad result of the act a slight amount). On the whole, an act that would require atonement if done by a good character who knew what he was doing.

But how is it different to the dragon example?

We know that:

a/ If the dragon eats the single sacrifice, it will leave.
b/ If the dragon is attacked (and not slain), it will become enraged and destroy the village and its inhabitants.
c/ The chance of the paladin defeating the dragon (well above his CR) is negligible.

There's a one-in-a-hundred chance of picking the button that kills the BBEG without killing any innocents. Let's call it a one-in-a-hundred chance that the paladin can beat the dragon.

If you pick the wrong button, one innocent dies. If you attack the dragon and fail, an entire village is slaughtered... and you're dead. That's not self-sacrifice - that's your actions precipitating a massacre.

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.

I agree that failure to prevent the BBEG shooting the single innocent should not be considered an evil act.

I think if it's obvious that there's no way through the glass, electing to refrain from pushing buttons is also not an evil act.

I think the only option which should be considered for evilness is pushing buttons.

Similarly, I don't think leaving the dragon to eat the sacrifice is evil. I think making a futile attack on the dragon, failing to save the sacrifice, and provoking the destruction of the villagers is far more likely to qualify.

Not necessarily automatically evil. If the character has reason to believe he is supremely lucky, or if he can't handle the mathematics required to know that his odds of picking the right button are lousy, I don't know that I'd call pressing a button evil. If the character really thinks he's got a chance of taking out the dragon, maybe a charge isn't evil.

But if he knows that the likely outcome of attacking the dragon is a hundred deaths instead of one, I'm inclined to call it an evil act. His own death doesn't absolve him of the responsibility of a hundred dead villagers.

-Hyp.

 

[Fifth Element]

So it's better for three to die than one?

Clearly I needed to be more detailed. Save the first, try to save the second if there's even a small chance, despite the danger to yourself.

 

[Brentos]

(Emphasis mine).
No act needed, alignment changed due to intent.

Yet the section was just quoted from the DMG that says the player needs to prove it. Writing it down on their sheet may be the character's epiphany, but their actions will prove it and then it will get DM consent.

 

[Brentos]

From the SRD

"The Nine Alignments
Nine distinct alignments define all the possible combinations of the lawful-chaotic axis with the good-evil axis. Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.

The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.

Lawful Good, "Crusader"
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion."

It seems to me it is all about the acts. Some fluff is combined to describe why, but the key is the act. Otherwise wouldn't this read:

A lawful good character intends to be a good person. She intends to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tries to tell the truth, wants to keep her word, intends to help those in need, and wishes to speak out against injustive. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Clearly I needed to be more detailed. Save the first, try to save the second if there's even a small chance, despite the danger to yourself.

But the original conditions precluded that chance - it was stated that there was only time to save one. One you've saved one, the chance of saving the other is zero.

-Hyp.