Alignment - Action As Intent

[Kahuna Burger]

But, wasn't Zoe wrong? Didn't the hero actually free a people from a lie? Sure, some died, but that was death through rebellion like the US revolutionary war. Had they not done anything, more would have died in the evil oppressive sort of way. "Live free or die"

That is a personal credo - try to impose it on others and you are as evil as the oppression you rant about.

 

[Brentos]

?

Your thoughts are real things as far as I know (or at least I know mine are).

That doesn't apply to rules of a game

Also there's a detect thoughts spell, which suggests that the DnD game thinks they are real as well (and observable by others).

Excellent point. But, it only detects surface thoughts, not intent. There is no assumption of intent being a "real" thing in the game rules. You can mask intent with surface thoughts to fool an inquisitor, for example.

The DM doesn't know your thoughts, and that's the problem. He's not really the universe though.

As far as the game rules go, the DM *is* the universe, or at least all relevant aspects of it that act in the game.

You can change your heart and not act on it without being insane. One example I can think of is an evil character thrown in jail that converts to good. But he can't really do that if alignment is based on actions, because all he's doing is sitting on a dirt floor waiting to be let go.

As far as the game goes, he is still evil. Now, if the DM and player want to skip the game ahead for 30 years for the sake of drama and change alignment, that is cool! The player still needs to prove it, though.

In fact, if alignment is based only on actions, then what alignment is someone who has sat in jail for 20 years and thought about killing halflings the whole time but has done nothing? What about someone who spent 20 years thinking about all the good
things he wanted to do when he got out.

Whetever they were before they went in unless they've acted on it. Did the guy in jail suddenly hate halflings? Is there a history? Is the player just pissed because his friend who is playing a halfing always gets the better treasure? The what-ifs are endless, which is why as far a rules of a game go, they can't be supported. Actions can.

(Edit: related question - why is summoning a fiendish ape to kill orcs considered evil if only the action matters?

Because using Evil spell descriptors is always an act of evil. Simple game mechanic.

How can a magic sword detect as evil if it actually can't do anything? If you cast detect evil on a part of the Nine Hells, would it glow evil if it weren't sentient?)

Because items can be imbued with the Evil descriptor which means that using them is Evil. An intelligent sword, though, can be Evil on its own.

 

[Nifft]

This is a strawman... My initial insertion of the consequences aspect was based not on the dragon saying what it would do but on the history...

I emphatically agree with your first statement -- the whole setup stinks of highly flammable strawmen.

We don't know the history, we don't know the environment, we don't even know the timeframe -- is this sacrifice going to happen in a year, a month, an hour, or right after the surprise round? There ought to be a lot more options than just "condone" and "mass suicide".

Personally, I wouldn't fault a PC Paladin for walking away. It would count against him if he didn't go back and kill the dragon later, though.

- - -

Um, dude, its the fricking UNIVERSE, I don't think divination of the soul is out of the question....

In the context of this thread, which is about a human DM playing the Universe, it is out of the question.

The whole point of this thread is my assertion that you (the players & DM) can find enough intent in the declared actions of the PCs & NPCs (which may be misread in-game) to handle alignment and alignment change without resorting to "divination of the soul" or any other intentionality.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Brentos]

Huh?

That is a personal credo - try to impose it on others and you are as evil as the oppression you rant about.

Huh? I'm talking game rules and the Serenity side-track. The people in the Serenity universe were being fooled and oppressed. The characters heroic actions changed that. Zoe's credo wasn't always that and her actions did not match, hence the alignment issue. What she does says more then what she says.

 

[Nifft]

That is a personal credo - try to impose it on others and you are as evil as the oppression you rant about.

IMHO, imposing your values on others is more Lawful than Evil. Imposing a value system on others for your own benefit and for their detriment would be both Lawful and Evil.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I emphatically agree with your first statement -- the whole setup stinks of highly flammable strawmen.

We don't know the history, we don't know the environment, we don't even know the timeframe -- is this sacrifice going to happen in a year, a month, an hour, or right after the surprise round? There ought to be a lot more options than just "condone" and "mass suicide".

Nifft, I made a conditional statement of "what if we know". You later claimed I made a completely different statement. If you wanted to do that, thats fine, can't stop you on a messageboard. But I can only judge your internet allignment on your actions, not being the DM or universe.

 

[Nifft]

Nifft, I made a conditional statement of "what if we know". You later claimed I made a completely different statement. If you wanted to do that, thats fine, can't stop you on a messageboard. But I can only judge your internet allignment on your actions, not being the DM or universe.

Did I really? I'm not clear on your point, then.

Could you re-state, please?

Sorry, -- N

 

[Halivar]

You know what? This whole argument, with respect to the dragon example, it moot. A hundred villagers offered up a virgin for sacrifice to an evil dragon. My paladin says, "Screw 'em. I'm saving the girl."

By the definition of "evil" that everyone seems to agree with, the villagers are evil. They're willing to kill an innocent to better themselves. They're lucky if my paladin doesn't burn the village down himself.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Did I really? I'm not clear on your point, then.

Could you re-state, please?

Sorry, -- N

Sure, its been a long thread...

Or maybe you know for a fact that every time this dragon's sacrifice has been interfered with it has responded by burning the village to the ground and eating every child under 12... in which case by stepping forward and taking a stand (and dying) you will have made matters worse for no purpose except to feel heroic.... Not my cuppa.

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

My suggestion for a complicating factor involved no communication with the dragon whatsoever, but a known pattern of cause and effect. Dismissing such a complication by changing the source of the info is not, imo, going to get you internet Light Side points. :\

 

[Nifft]

Sure, its been a long thread...

Ah, right, I was responding to Hyp's original scenario.

My suggestion for a complicating factor involved no communication with the dragon whatsoever, but a known pattern of cause and effect.

I'd argue that if this dragon were so well known, the smart Paladin would stay away until he felt he could defeat it.

You know what? This whole argument, with respect to the dragon example, it moot. A hundred villagers offered up a virgin for sacrifice to an evil dragon. My paladin says, "Screw 'em. I'm saving the girl."

And this is an excellent explanation of something I was trying to say earlier: the actions of the villagers are becoming evil. At best, they are merely growing blind to evil. At worst, they are becoming evil themselves.

This is why the mass death option starts to look good: 50 living Good people with respect for life (etc.) may be a better outcome than 100 living Evil people who value only their own skin.

Cheers, -- N