Alignment - Action As Intent

[Kahuna Burger]

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

I'd find their conversion to good to be a highly unlikely outcome of such a situation. Nor do I judge people evil for being trapped in a bad situation. But I'm not asking you to agree with me only to not make inaccurate claims about my statements.

 

[Halivar]

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.

First, you have to save the children. In a village of 100 people, there may be up to 30 or more children (given how many children families had back then). These children, whether you cause the dragon to destroy the village or not, are living in constant mortal danger, either to the dragon coming and eating them, or their own parents serving them up as a sacrifice. The children must be rescued from this village.

Now that I think about it, this sounds like an excellent adventure idea.

Nor do I judge people evil for being trapped in a bad situation.

Neither do I. I judge them for killing their own children to save themselves.

 

[Nifft]

I'd find their conversion to good to be a highly unlikely outcome of such a situation. Nor do I judge people evil for being trapped in a bad situation.

*shrug* Looks like a classic slippery slope scenario to me: it's reasonable to do a little evil now, because the risk of doing good is just too high.

And even in this (highly constrained) scenario, there's still a way for the Paladin to challenge the dragon: just do it outside the context of the village. Or are you saying any time some rogues fail to loot the dragon's hoard, the dragon burns a village, because the rogues might have been there to interfere with the sacrifice?

But I'm not asking you to agree with me only to not make inaccurate claims about my statements.

So, did we clear this up?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

Neither do I. I judge them for killing their own children to save themselves.

Well put!

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fifth Element]

That doesn't apply to rules of a game

Why are a character's in-game thoughts any less real than a character's in-game acts? They're both fictional. And as per previous discussion on this thread, thoughts and beliefs are integrated into the alignment rules, so if you consider alignment a rule, thoughts do apply.

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.

I think you're conflating DM as person with DM as world-creator. The DM knows everything about the universe that he could know, but assuming the universe itself can know things omnisciently, there are things the universe could know that the DM could not (the true motivation of a character, for example).

After all, the DM controls 99.999% of the universe, but there's one thing he doesn't control: the PCs.

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.

But for the 20 years in prison, that character has performed no evil acts. Not killing is at least neutral, I would think. If you're saying he's still evil, that can only be based on motivation and intent, because he would be killing if he could, but he can't. His actions are neutral while in prison.

If actions are all that matters, this guy is neutral. He hasn't killed a halfling (or anyone else, presumably) in 20 years. If motivations matter, he's still evil, because he intends to kill halflings as soon as he gets the chance.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

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

From this, and subsequent statements, it seems that you're quite comfortable with quiet, corrosive evil, as long as everyone gets to live. That's a very weak position to take, vis a vis D&D alignment. That's Neutral at best, probably Evil. 100 souls slowly damning themselves for the sake of living a little bit longer isn't a defensible position, especially in a world where we KNOW heavens and hells exist. It's not even a SELF-SERVING position in the long run in a world where heavens and hells are SURE to exist.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

I think people would be less confused if the thread title were more appropriate. "Alignment Without Intent" implies just that. You're not arguing intent is irrelevant, you're arguing that in-game, Declared Actions are all that are necessary to determine intent, so you don't have to read a player's mind to know the character's intent.

It's an interesting point, and it seems valid to me. The unfortunate choice of thread title invites debate on a different subject.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

+5 Post of Clearing up a Muddled Hypothetical

Well done.

 

[Nifft]

It's an interesting point, and it seems valid to me. The unfortunate choice of thread title invites debate on a different subject.

I wasn't sufficiently clear on the concept myself when I started the thread.

I'll re-write the first post (saving the old one in a spoiler so no-one looks stupid for having responded to it).

Thanks, -- N

 

[Brentos]

Because...

Why are a character's in-game thoughts any less real than a character's in-game acts? They're both fictional. And as per previous discussion on this thread, thoughts and beliefs are integrated into the alignment rules, so if you consider alignment a rule, thoughts do apply.

One can be arbitrated, one can be argued. You have a choice.

I think you're conflating DM as person with DM as world-creator. The DM knows everything about the universe that he could know, but assuming the universe itself can know things omnisciently, there are things the universe could know that the DM could not (the true motivation of a character, for example).
After all, the DM controls 99.999% of the universe, but there's one thing he doesn't control: the PCs.

Hence, the DM controls everything applicable in the universe that is not the players. That was what I stated. This is *exactly* why intent doesn't matter, as the nigh-omniscient DM-Universe can only arbitrate based on actions, he can never know for 100% certainty a player's or player-character's thoughts, but he can observe his actions.

But for the 20 years in prison, that character has performed no evil acts. Not killing is at least neutral, I would think. If you're saying he's still evil, that can only be based on motivation and intent, because he would be killing if he could, but he can't. His actions are neutral while in prison.

No, it is based on his past behavior. Otherwise are all people always neutral except in those moments of killing? How long does alignment last before flipping back to neutral?

Again, actions dictate any change in alignment. If the character was evil going in, he is evil going out (based on the rules). Again, a DM and player can roll-play differently, but that is outside of the rules.

If actions are all that matters, this guy is neutral. He hasn't killed a halfling (or anyone else, presumably) in 20 years. If motivations matter, he's still evil, because he intends to kill halflings as soon as he gets the chance.

See above. He is still evil, he never changed. The character's alignment doesn't change because the player can't do anything. It only changes if he *does* do certain things, by the rules.