Alignment - Action As Intent

[Brentos]

Saving...

As to who to save, in D&D, the act of trying to save one (since the player has been told it is impossible to save both) is a good act. Trying to save neither would be Evil. Now if the player was told that there was a small chance that both could be saved and the player's character did not attempt, well, that would not be Good.

 

[fenixdown]

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

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

See, that's a Neutral point of view.

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.

But then, if he's facing a hundred deaths including his own, and he believes that there's no chance he can possibly win, he's got no reason to fight. (If he does fight, he's either blindingly stupid or actively trying to do Evil.) One death is regrettable, yes, but if paladins could solve all the world's problems there wouldn't be much left to kill for XP. And he can always go back and take revenge on the dragon.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

But that's only a certainty in a hypothetical situation. Chances are you don't know the end result before you attempt the action.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

Indeed, the immediate alignment change would have to be provisional. If the character has not in fact changed his attitude, his alignment should change back.

Writing down the new alignment is the result of the character's epiphany, not the cause.

Of course, in the case of a villain, the DM knows the character's motivations, so an immediate alignment change could be made permanent.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

You can read that to mean that a character's alignment is determined by his intent, and his specific actions reflect this, on average, with room for day-to-day variation.

It doesn't say a character's alignment can vary somewhat on a daily basis, but his actions might.

 

[Fifth Element]

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 does seem to have the most prescribed acts, probably for the benefit of those wanting to play a paladin. Take another one:

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

That one's framed mostly be the character's beliefs, with little comment on specific actions.

 

[Nifft]

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

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

This is exactly why I'm proposing declared actions rather than "intent" or "outcome".

You have just shown why judging action based on outcome is insane: you don't know the outcome until after you try to do the action. It is a moral failure to decide that the right thing is impossible, and therefore all that's left is to choose between two evils (or two neutrals). The Good action is Good even if success is unlikely.

To answer the first question: YES. It's better to die on your feet, trying to do the right thing, than to live on you knees, scrabbling for the lesser of many, many evils.

To answer the second question: MU. You do not sacrifice yourself for nothing. You risk yourself to reduce the risk for others. If you fail utterly, if everyone dies horribly, you have still done Good.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

It is a moral failure to decide that the right thing is impossible, and therefore all that's left is to choose between two evils (or two neutrals).

Even if you're correct?

The Good action is Good even if success is unlikely.

If your outcomes are a/ situation is improved (unlikely) vs b/ situation is not improved (likely), sure. But if your outcomes are a/ situation is improved (unlikely) vs b/ situation is vastly worsened (likely), is making the attempt still Good?

You risk yourself to reduce the risk for others. If you fail utterly, if everyone dies horribly, you have still done Good.

In the dragon example, risking yourself greatly increases the risk for many, while reducing the risk slightly for one.

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

Even if you're correct?

You are familiar with probability, yes?

Look at what I'm saying about "risks" (possible outcomes) vs. what you're saying (assumed outcomes).

Or is your stance utterly defeatist? Since eventually all men will die, why bother trying to save them? You are correct in assuming they'll die anyway, so why not let them die now? (We agree that's a non-Good attitude, yes?)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Brentos]

Lawful good does seem to have the most prescribed acts, probably for the benefit of those wanting to play a paladin. Take another one:

Originally Posted by SRD
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

That one's framed mostly be the character's beliefs, with little comment on specific actions.

I'll disagree, as the first sentence is about the whole sum of the acts. Then, he *makes*.... He *is* kind... he *is* benevolent. The next part internalizes some reasoning, then he *follows* implying actions. Everything about that paragraph is either discussing the actions, or giving some in-game reasoning for the actions. Never does it say:

"A chaotic good character intends to do as his conscience directs him.... He intends to do it his own way, and he intends to be kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations (no change needed there). He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do (again, no change at is is giving reasoning). He intends to follow his own moral compass..."