Alignment - Action As Intent

[Umbran]

Well, for most of my games, the deities don't enter into it at all. Alignment is a (meta)physical attribute of a sentient creature, that arises from the creature's interactions with the Universe and the other creatures in it. Deities may make decisions based on that property. But alignment is not determined by a sentient mind within the game.

This, of course, shifts the burden of "judgement" to the universe rather than the deities, of course. But it matters a bit when we talk about repercussions.

What I reject is your assertion that the DM cannot know intent. Last time I checked, the game implicitly assumed that both of them were capable of some form of communication. So, the DM can simply ask about the player's intent. And if the player is going to lie about that, I probably don't want him in my game anyway.

 

[Janx]

Nifft, what's the end-goal of this? What are you trying to have happen in your game by means of this?

I see where the OP is going with this. He's actually trying to lock in alignment determination to discrete, non-disputable characteristics, rather than fuzzy things known only to the player.

Consider the differences:
If alignment is determined by the private thoughts of the player, it is possible that a PC is evil, because the player thinks evil thoughts (presumably evil thoughts on the PC's behalf, not just evil thoughts in general because the player is a sociopath).

If alignment is determined by the actions of the PC (big actions like burning things down, small actions like expressing regret at the action), then the DM can judge alignment solely on what he sees the PC do. This is important for spells that detect alignment, and or affect alignment (like Protection From Evil).

If you want to bring intent into it, the DM can determine intent from the actions of the PC. It should be obvious as to why the PC burnt down the orphanage. If he did it to kill little children...

 

[Nifft]

Nifft, what's the end-goal of this? What are you trying to have happen in your game by means of this?

I'd like my players to understand intuitively what kind of alignment movement (if any) would be implied by their actions. I'd like to not surprise them with unexpected alignment changes, while still preserving all the implications of alignment (and alignment changes) in the core D&D rules.

I'd like to find a middle ground between complete player trust ("declared intent") and DM fiat ("post-hoc justification").

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

I see where the OP is going with this. He's actually trying to lock in alignment determination to discrete, non-disputable characteristics, rather than fuzzy things known only to the player.

Exactly!

But not just actions as observed in-game (because then it starts to look like we're only considering consequences). Rather, actions as declared, since they are what DMs and players can see.

- - -

Motivation: desire to not fight with players about alignment.

Motivation: ability to play a comedic character who does the right thing (for all the wrong reasons, without turning evil).

Does that make sense?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Halivar]

It seems the real solution is for players to communicate their intentions and justifications to the DM. The DM and player also need to agree, beforehand, what the proper implications of their alignment are.

Nifft, I think your plan would work fine in a system where players are a "black-box" to the DM. But I agree with Umbran; the player needs to trust the DM and be transparent to them. Player's shouldn't try to keep hidden personality traits from the DM.

 

[adwyn]

I've gone this route. Inspired by the Oedipus play and Greek myth I created a series of furies like entities who watched all mortals and reported back to the god of judgement.

In hindsight it worked well, the biggest problem proved to be it implies a milieu in which gods are powerful, not omnipotent and some of the players couldn't get their heads around that without simply seeing the gods as big monsters to be killed.

 

[buzz]

Where do you get this?

From the rulebook.

The section on alignment is entirely devoted to describing how characters act. It never addresses the imagined in-character intent behind those actions. This is a good thing, because imagined intent is a slippery slope that leads to the ability to justify any sort of action (usually using bogus real-world "what ifs" as comparison) under any alignment, with no way to effectively adjudicate anything. By focusing on action, we can look at the choices players make for their PCs and the context, and come to definitive answers.

E.g., if a Good PC allows an innocent girl to be devoured by a dragon, it doesn't matter if the player can come up with some in-character justification. ("Well, the dragon would have burned down the whole village otherwise, so her life was a necessary sacrifice.") The simple fact is that, by RAW, "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life." By not protecting that girl's life, the PC has earned a tick away from Good. If that PC was a paladin, they'd have some serious atonement to do.

See, what's much cooler is that, without that silly intent-bargaining stuff, our hypothetical paladin would be practically forced to take on the dragon, risking his life to save not only the girl, but the whole town. That's awesome, and that's what paladins are supposed to do.

He's actually trying to lock in alignment determination to discrete, non-disputable characteristics, rather than fuzzy things known only to the player.

See, my contention is that RAW already accomplishes this. That's why I'm not seeing what's different here.

I've had this discussion about how alignment works before. All I will say here is (in a helpful sense, not a dismissive one): read the rules. Previous editions and decades of interpretation have, I think, ingrained the idea that there's this fuzzy element to alignment that involves rationalization and philosophical/psychological debate. This just isn't the case in the current ruleset, as I read it. Jonathan Tweet (who wrote that section, FYI) did a fantastic job of cleaning up alignment into something very concrete and usable as-is.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I might even go so far in the other direction as to say that intent (or more to the point, thoughts and feelings) are what truely makes up allignment and actions merely demonstrate allignment. (which is why I put little faith in the "It's just an unusual event that I tourtured that prisoner and shouldn't reflect on my 'real' allignment which is demonstrated by my many good deeds" argument. Unusual circumstances merely give you a chance to demonstrate what is inside of you.)

Of course this veiw depends somewhat on the "Reasonable Humanoid" standard in how the intent translates into action....

 

[Nifft]

E.g., if a Good PC allows an innocent girl to be devoured by a dragon, it doesn't matter if the player can come up with some in-character justification.
[...]
See, my contention is that RAW already accomplishes this. That's why I'm not seeing what's different here.

There are two differences:

1/ As you say, you can't get away with an intent-based justification. If this is already the RAW, than great, but it's not how some groups play.

2/ The price of failure. If your declared actions are in accord with saving the girl, you get credit, even if you don't actually succeed in saving the girl.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kahuna Burger]

From the rulebook.

The section on alignment is entirely devoted to describing how characters act. It never addresses the imagined in-character intent behind those actions.

respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. ... have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment .... are committed to others by personal relationships. .... an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. .... for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view.

That's just the good vs evil section, the law and order part practically has nothing except descriptions of internal feelings and attitudes.