Alignment - Action As Intent

[Fifth Element]

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..."

This is really splitting hairs. Of course it's not written that way, because that way sounds ridiculous. It implies that the character tries to behave one way, but may or may not actually behave that way.

And besides, how is "in-game reasoning" any different from intent? We've been discussing intent, motivation, personal philosophy, etc, which all have to do with why a character acts the way he does. It's the same thing.

 

[Nifft]

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.

Of course, I categorically reject your perfect future knowledge, which negates this current argument entirely. However, let's let that slide for the moment... (But for your next point, please don't use this same assumption.)

All? If they'd all be alive, the Paladin has done the wrong thing.

If they'd mostly be alive, but also all the remaining ones would carry the stain of human sacrifice on their souls, perhaps he wasn't so wrong. Living under the thumb of an evil overlord is not necessarily superior to death. (Our world may differ. Let's not get into that.)

You prefer hundreds of years of "safe" corruption; I favor a chance at salvation.

Cheers, -- N

PS: Your scenario assumes a lot of Lawful Stupid. For example, the Paladin could challenge the Dragon somewhere other than right in the village. If he fails to kill the dragon back in its lair, how is the village implicated?

 

[green slime]

It is also feasible that the "dragon" is anything but... It could in the end be nothing more than a midget kobold sorcerer armed with a wand of minor illusions, that was living life in a rather comfortable manner by fooling a bunch of inbred backwater peasants. He just has a penchant for blondes, that's all. And who can blame him?

 

[buzz]

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.

Well, first off, a paladin can't summon a fiendish viper, as that would be an [Evil] spell, and his clerical aspects prohibit it.

That said, we need to keep in mind that while paladins are LG, not all PCs who are LG are paladins. Paladins are a subset of those characters who are LG, and they have a whole separate system of behaviors (the paladin's code) that make questions about them distinct from questions about alignment alone.

The other thing to keep in mind is that, just because an act doesn't fall under a given descriptor, does not mean that it therefore falls under that descriptor's polar opposite. E.g., failing to protect the innocent does not fall under the Evil descriptor. However, that act also does not fall under the Good descriptor.

Ergo, it's not an issue of "Poof! Your PC is now Evil!" It's about the DM suggesting (or even enforcing) an alignment change if a player repeatedly chooses to have their PC act at odds with its alignment stat.

Honestly, it's no different than a player who consistently has their wizard charge into melee. At some point, the DM should probably sit down with them and suggest having their PC take a few levels of fighter.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

If they'd mostly be alive, but also all the remaining ones would carry the stain of human sacrifice on their souls, perhaps he wasn't so wrong. Living under the thumb of an evil overlord is not necessarily superior to death. (Our world may differ. Let's not get into that.)

You prefer hundreds of years of "safe" corruption; I favor a chance at salvation.

So being good to you means making moral decisions for other people literally at the cost of their own lives? It doesn't to me. Nor does not foolishly attacking the dragon RIGHT THEN mean leaving the situation as it is.

[IMO] Some folks are conflating romantic heroism with good. While most romanticly heroic characters are also good, dying in the noble effort rather than living to accomplish something lesser (and living with regret at what you were not capable of) is firmly in the camp of romanticly heroic and not good. And it smacks far more of egoism than actual desire to improve the world or help others. It is a dramatic stance, not an allignment one. [/IMO]

It might be fun to start a campaign with a situation similar to this, though the PCs (what with being alive and all) would be folks who made their own moral choices to seek out the knowlege and power to effectively challange the dragon...

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

I'd say she's still Evil until she *acts* on her Good. Even the DMG says that alignment change is rarely sudden; most often it's a gradual transformation from one to the other (in this case, a struggle against the evil habits she had been holding).

For me, saying "I'm sorry," even if it's sincere, isn't really good enough. It points you in the right direction, but you still need to take the step and try to make it better.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Some folks are conflating romantic heroism with good. While most romanticly heroic characters are also good, dying in the noble effort rather than living to accomplish something lesser (and living with regret at what you were not capable of) is firmly in the camp of romanticly heroic and not good. And it smacks far more of egoism than actual desire to improve the world or help others. It is a dramatic stance, not an allignment one.

I'm inclined to agree with KB here. Martyrdom for a Good cause is undoubtedly Good, but living with the burden of fighting for that Good cause every day is arguably more so, because you are honoring one of the central tenets of a Good alignment: respect for life (including your own.)

IMC, zealots who loose themselves in their causes are ripe to fall, because they are forgetting the Good = Life equasion in D&D. They may die for a Good cause, or they may find themselves manipulated into dying for an evil cause, or dying pointlessly, by any clever villain.

 

[Nifft]

So being good to you means making moral decisions for other people literally at the cost of their own lives? It doesn't to me. Nor does not foolishly attacking the dragon RIGHT THEN mean leaving the situation as it is.

First off, in the situation presented (with 100 hostages and one sacrifice victim), there's no choice which does not imply risk to others. All I'm saying is that a Good action would be one that tends to reduce the risk on others while increasing the risk on yourself. Direct confrontation with the dragon is better than visible validation and approval of the sacrifice... but it's very likely not the best Good action available. It's just the only alternative Hyp presented.

Secondly, your analysis of the safety of the hostages relies entirely on trusting a dragon who eats people.

[IMO] Some folks are conflating romantic heroism with good.[/IMO]

Perhaps. But this is only D&D Good we're talking about. "Life of Quiet Service" isn't a character concept you see often, and I'm sure you know why.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

Martyrdom for a Good cause is undoubtedly Good, but living with the burden of fighting for that Good cause every day is arguably more so, because you are honoring one of the central tenets of a Good alignment: respect for life (including your own.)

No argument from me. Outside of a few contrived examples ( ), I can't see a Paladin dying all that happily.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fifth Element]

I'd say she's still Evil until she *acts* on her Good. Even the DMG says that alignment change is rarely sudden; most often it's a gradual transformation from one to the other (in this case, a struggle against the evil habits she had been holding).

Yes, but the example the DMG does give of a sudden alignment change meshes well with this example - a villain who has a revelatory change of heart.

It means that the situations which cause a sudden alignment shift are rare, not that sudden alignment shifts are rare even when there are sudden changes of heart. When one of these rare situations arises, a sudden alignment change should occur.