Alignment - Action As Intent

[Hypersmurf]

You are familiar with probability, yes?

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

Probability is exactly the point.

There's a small chance you'll save one sacrifice. It's far, far more probable that you'll get a hundred otherwise-safe villagers killed.

I'm not assuming the outcome is a hundred villagers die. But I'm saying the likely outcome is that a hundred villagers die.

Or is your stance utterly defeatist? Since eventually all men will die, why bother trying to save them?

Risking oneself is heroic. Volunteering to risk everyone else as well, without their consent, not so much.

I see it a bit like Take 20. If there's no penalty for failure (apart from your own death, naturally), hero away. But if attempt-and-fail will result in a worse situation than doing nothing, a hero needs to make some risk vs reward calculations.

For the hero, his own life can be excluded from the calculations, since he's happy to sacrifice himself. So if the only parties involved are the hero, the sacrifice, and the dragon, the calculation is simple. The risk is only the hero's life, which is excluded; the reward is saving the sacrifice. Something for nothing.

But once the village is on the table, the equation changes. The risk is the hero's life (excluded), plus the lives of a hundred villagers. The reward is unchanged - saving the sacrifice. And once the odds of beating the dragon (poor) are applied as a weighting, the risk significantly - unacceptably - outweighs the reward.

Now, perhaps the hero can justify it. Either the villagers are willing to take the risk, in which case it's acceptable. Or else they are unwilling, which means they're not happy to sacrifice themselves for a chance of saving the victim, which means they're evil, which means they deserve to die anyway. But I don't really see that justification flying.

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?)

I've always liked the idea of a paladin in a culture that has a Ragnarokesque concept - a great battle at the end of time, with the armies of evil and the armies of good pitted against each other.

The paladin travels the world seeking out evil... but he does not destroy it (that would just strengthen evil's forces at the end of time!). No, rather, he redeems it. He teaches evil men the errors of their ways, and convinces them to repent, and sets them on the path of Good.

Then he kills them. Before they can lapse.

He's not a crusader... he's a recruiter!

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

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?

Situation for whom? It's mostly very simple:

a/ If I move risk FROM others TO myself, it's a Good action.

b/ If I move risk FROM myself TO others, it's an Evil action.

In your example, it's hard to say which case holds more -- you judge actions based on perfect knowledge of these future outcomes, which I assert is not possible in a game involving humans and dice.

- - -

Regarding the dragon, you make the same mistake about perfect knowledge of the future.

All we know is that the dragon:
a/ has eaten people in the past; and
b/ wants someone who he asserts he will eat.

This smacks of evil. Do not allow it.

Who says he will stop at one THIS time? And who says that the very act of choosing one villager won't precipitate evil throughout the whole village?

Seriously, consider that no parent wants her my kid(s) to be the sacrifice. Thus, by forcing them to choose one, you have turned the villagers hearts towards evil, because they will each conspire against one another to not be chosen. Your moral failure pollutes the whole community.

On the other hand, if you lead by example, you may turn the whole community to good -- sure, you can't defeat the dragon yourself, but if you stand and lead you may not remain alone. Perhaps you won't survive the encounter, but the dragon will lose an easy food source (at worst), or will be defeated by the concerted efforts of you and the villagers (at best).

- - -

Finally, you're a god-rotting Paladin. If you can't get a miracle when fighting a virgin-munching, sacrifice-demanding, village-terrorizing Dragon, then you should give your deity a stern talking-to when you reach his side in the afterlife.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Warbringer]

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.

But the overall intent is that the character does it because it is the morally right think to do, without any reward. If an act is performed with personal gain vs. the same act with no personal gain, are they equal?

A good act should have both the intent and the act.

The LG does the above because they are acts are morally motivated; the LN may do the above because he financially rewarded; while the LE will probably require the threat of death, or other such punishment

 

[Nifft]

Probability is exactly the point.

There's a small chance you'll save one sacrifice. It's far, far more probable that you'll get a hundred otherwise-safe villagers killed.

I'm not assuming the outcome is a hundred villagers die. But I'm saying the likely outcome is that a hundred villagers die.

I'd argue that any analysis which values the word of a man-eating, detects-as-evil monster over the precepts of the Paladin's Code is inherently wrong.

Past behavior is not a guarantee of future results. Do not trust Evil. Placing the lives of the 100-assumed-save (for now) villagers in the care of this monster is not a morally correct choice!

Cheers, -- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

Past behavior is not a guarantee of future results. Do not trust Evil. Placing the lives of the 100-assumed-save (for now) villagers in the care of this monster is not a morally correct choice!

I see a village going about its business as it has for a hundred years.

And then a paladin comes through, and does the Right Thing, and the village is a smoking ruin full of charred corpses.

If the paladin hadn't decided to fight above his weight class, they'd all still be alive.

The actions of the paladin - hoping for the one-in-a-hundred chance of setting things right - had the anticipated outcome of getting everyone killed. Not guaranteed outcome, true, but 99% is pretty close.

On the bright side, he provided a shining example to all those villagers. Shame he got them all killed soon after.

I'd argue that any analysis which values the word of a man-eating, detects-as-evil monster over the precepts of the Paladin's Code is inherently wrong.

Hey, it's a Green dragon. Everyone knows they're Lawful Evil.

-Hyp.

 

[Roger]

I sorta missed this post earlier on; hopefully nobody minds too much if I drag it back out now.

This is where I bring out the Xena example.

We have a person who has rampaged across continents, leading an army that pillages and slaughters all in its path, and who glories in violence and misery. She is evil.

And then, one day, she has a revelation - whether it be through a conversation that strikes a chord, or an orphaned child who sparks a memory, or a divinely-inspired dream... it doesn't matter. What's important is that she's decided to turn it all around, and serve as a protector of the innocent, and fight evil wherever she finds it, etc, etc. And she's sincere about it.

Right now - after her revelation, but before she's changed out of her spikey black armour - what is her alignment?

Hmmm. In my opinion, this situation is exactly the same as what happens if we replace "she has a revelation" with "she puts on a Helm of Opposite Alignment and fails her saving throw."

The rules are clear about what happens in the latter case. Her alignment changes instantly. Poof. No change of clothing required.

Is a Helm of Opposite Alignment really the same as a revelation? It could be argued one way or the other.

Regardless, I think the Helm provides strong evidence that contradicts this thesis that "deities must judge actions" to determine alignment. Once you put on that Helm and fail your saving throw, your alignment is changed, even if you don't or can't take any actions for a while.


Cheers,
Roger

 

[green slime]

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.

Hooray!

Someone agrees with me!

The path of good is not as easily trod as the evil motorway.

 

[green slime]

I see a village going about its business as it has for a hundred years.

And then a paladin comes through, and does the Right Thing, and the village is a smoking ruin full of charred corpses.

If the paladin hadn't decided to fight above his weight class, they'd all still be alive.

The actions of the paladin - hoping for the one-in-a-hundred chance of setting things right - had the anticipated outcome of getting everyone killed. Not guaranteed outcome, true, but 99% is pretty close.

Now you make a lot of assumptions here.

Firstly, that the only right thing for the paladin to do is to attempt to slay it.
Secondly, that the dragon would willingly slaughter its entire people-herd in revenge.
Thirdly, the villagers just mill around and get slaughtered.

All assume rather stupid actions-reactions (although sadly probably not atypical).

Considering this situation there is a multitude of alternative scenarios. There is always another choice other than the obvious.

1) The paladin can spend time scouting out the dragon and its habits, inform the authorities, recruit more help, organise a retreat to some safer place for the commoners, hatch a cunning plan (strap on a necklace of fireballs, helm of brilliance, and a staff of retribution, and get swallowed?). Not just charge straight in to the "Maws of Doom (TM)"
2) The villagers are capable of being organised, acting lookouts, abandoning houses & fields, (happens every war anyway), moving further afield, and starting anew.

This is not to say you can't create an even more contrived situation, but there are always more the two ways to achieve something (rescue the villagers from the dragon).

 

[Hypersmurf]

1) The paladin can spend time scouting out the dragon and its habits, inform the authorities, recruit more help, organise a retreat to some safer place for the commoners, hatch a cunning plan (strap on a necklace of fireballs, helm of brilliance, and a staff of retribution, and get swallowed?). Not just charge straight in to the "Maws of Doom (TM)"

Absolutely. While he's doing that, the current sacrifice will get eaten, but he's got much better odds of taking the dragon down when it comes to the fight.

And this is where "Don't fight the dragon" is a better option than "Fight the dragon, die, and lose the sacrifice anyway".

He doesn't save the sacrifice, but he saves the village from the future threat the dragon represents.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hmmm. In my opinion, this situation is exactly the same as what happens if we replace "she has a revelation" with "she puts on a Helm of Opposite Alignment and fails her saving throw."

I agree - it's why I consider her alignment at this point to be Good.

In the past, I've always seen support for all three answers - I'm interested to know if anyone reading the thread at the moment sees alignment as a 'record of past deeds'.

-Hyp.