Alignment - Action As Intent

[gizmo33]

That doesn't apply to rules of a game

There are all kinds of things that don't exist in the actual rules of the game but are presumed to exist for the sake of the campaign. I'm not sure what the use is of narrowing things to just the RAW.

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.

Rod of Enemy Detection. In fact the whole Diplomacy mechanic. I think it's really going out on a limb to suggest that intent doesn't show up in the RAW.

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 that really is an overly creative use of the word "is". The DM is not the universe/game world - the DM is an adjucator of the game.

The what-ifs are endless, which is why as far a rules of a game go, they can't be supported. Actions can.

It's one thing to say, as the OP has said, that enforcing an alignment system is too hard for the DM if it's based on intent. It's entirely another thing to suggest that this is what the RAW had in mind the whole time. From the SRD "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent" - a compunction is not an action. It's pretty clear in the alignment section that intent is a big part of it.

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.

I was under the impression that if I cast detect evil on an unintelligent evil sword that it would detect as evil.

If a neutral henchman is raised as a vampire, he's instantly evil, even if he hasn't had a chance to do anything (say he is imprisoned or just far away from potential victims). You're suggesting that an imprisoned vampire would still be neutral? According to the rules suggested by the OP, this seems to be the logical conclusion. But I don't think there's any basis to assume that the RAW has it this way.

So the vampire then finds a cleric and wants to attack him (intent - so he's still not evil). As he approaches the cleric, snarling (is snarling evil?) the cleric casts protection from evil. So far the vampire hasn't actual made a hit roll against the cleric, so I suppose that protection from evil would do nothing.

Then the vampire takes an actual swing. Does making a single attack roll against a cleric change your alignment to evil? Would it in the case of a drunk fighter?

IMO The results of an "actions only" alignment system would produced counter-intuitive results.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

From this, and subsequent statements, it seems that you're quite comfortable with quiet, corrosive evil, as long as everyone gets to live.

Nope. Bye now.

 

[Brentos]

Yikes!

Too many questions!

There are all kinds of things that don't exist in the actual rules of the game but are presumed to exist for the sake of the campaign. I'm not sure what the use is of narrowing things to just the RAW.

I kind of thought that was the point of the thread. Otherwise it is a circular argument with no end. We can't debate what each of us wants to do, only what the rules as written support. My apologies if I had this wrong.

Rod of Enemy Detection. In fact the whole Diplomacy mechanic. I think it's really going out on a limb to suggest that intent doesn't show up in the RAW.

Intent for the sake of alignment. I'm not discussing other mechanics. The only real issue occur on the player side when dealing with intent, as the DM can't rule with knowledge. For enemies and diplomat NPC's and such, the DM can adjucate those instances, so intent can be part of the rules.

I think that really is an overly creative use of the word "is". The DM is not the universe/game world - the DM is an adjucator of the game.

The player *is* the character. The DM *is* everything else. this is semantics.

It's one thing to say, as the OP has said, that enforcing an alignment system is too hard for the DM if it's based on intent. It's entirely another thing to suggest that this is what the RAW had in mind the whole time.

From the SRD "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent" - a compunction is not an action. It's pretty clear in the alignment section that intent is a big part of it.

But, it is the killing or not killing that defines their alignment. If you claim that your character wants to kill everyone but protects everyone instead, as a DM I can only assume your character's actions reflect your character's alignment.

There has to be some fluff text so that players know how to play a character based on their alignment, since as a game mechanic it is picked before play, not earned. The assumption built in is that the character up until the age of adventuring has *acted* a certain way in life.

I was under the impression that if I cast detect evil on an unintelligent evil sword that it would detect as evil.

Yes, because inanimate objects can be infused with the descriptor of Evil, which means using it is an Evil act.

If a neutral henchman is raised as a vampire, he's instantly evil, even if he hasn't had a chance to do anything (say he is imprisoned or just far away from potential victims). You're suggesting that an imprisoned vampire would still be neutral? According to the rules suggested by the OP, this seems to be the logical conclusion. But I don't think there's any basis to assume that the RAW has it this way.

Vampires are evil by RAW. An imprisoned being's alignment doesn't change because they are imprisoned, it remains what it was until future actions dictate otherwise. Vampires, though, since evil by RAW, won't do any good as a standard course. Remember, though, anyone of any alignment can do individual acts against alignment. Some, though, face consequences (Paladin).

 

[Nifft]

The unfortunate choice of thread title invites debate on a different subject.

Take a look now, if you would be so kind?

Thanks, -- N

 

[Brentos]

Heh!

Take a look now, if you would be so kind?

Thanks, -- N

I'd go with:

Alignment - Actions Trump Intent

 

[Nifft]

Alignment - Actions Trump Intent

Hmm... I'd still find that misleading... how about Actions As Intent?

Thanks, -- N

 

[Brentos]

Perfect!

Hmm... I'd still find that misleading... how about Actions As Intent?

Thanks, -- N

I love that one!

 

[Brentos]

Awesome!

I love the new starter thread! Great job!

 

[Fifth Element]

Hmm... I'd still find that misleading... how about Actions As Intent?

Declared Actions as Intent, to be more precise?

At any rate, any of these (except action trumps intent) are better than the original.

 

[gizmo33]

I kind of thought that was the point of the thread. Otherwise it is a circular argument with no end. We can't debate what each of us wants to do, only what the rules as written support. My apologies if I had this wrong.

I don't see it as a circular argument - it's simply a matter of establishing what features you need in your campaign in order to produce the results that you (or the OP in this case) wants. IME it turns into a circular argument only when one or both parties refuse to concede that the other's opinion is dependant on a certain basis of facts.

Also, saying that by "apple" you really mean "hobgoblin" can be called semantics. I'm not sure how useful that is though. A DM is not his campaign universe - if he was then he could hardly call up the players on the telephone and schedule the game. My campaign universe in theory is a place where zillions of NPCs can all entertain various thoughts simultaneously. I, as a DM, am not capable of that. My campaign universe cannot call players on the telephone.

Intent for the sake of alignment. I'm not discussing other mechanics.

You were discussing the "universe" before, so I think we're looking at this in different contexts. All I was saying was that the RAW recognizes the existence of intent as a game mechanic (the issue of alignment aside for the moment). Therefore, in these other instances the DM is expected to judge intent - especially in the case where a Rod of Enemy Detection is used against a PC.

The only real issue occur on the player side when dealing with intent, as the DM can't rule with knowledge. For enemies and diplomat NPC's and such, the DM can adjucate those instances, so intent can be part of the rules.

The DM can rule with knowledge, it just may not be accurate. People can form opinions based on another's intent, and those opinions can be based on evidence. The problem, that we agree on, is that it's not a reliable way to judge a game. The thing I think we disagree on mainly is that you seem to be saying that the RAW says this.

But, it is the killing or not killing that defines their alignment.

Yes, based on the OP. But not based on the RAW. I don't see that spelled out. In fact, in pretty much every paragraph of the SRD regarding alignment, intent, disposition, opinions and ideas, and actions are all mixed together. What a character does is not given any sort of priority (explict or implicit AFAICT) over what he thinks.

There has to be some fluff text so that players know how to play a character based on their alignment, since as a game mechanic it is picked before play, not earned. The assumption built in is that the character up until the age of adventuring has *acted* a certain way in life.

And what evidence is there for that assumption at all? The only thing that I can see is that it makes sense to you (and the OP) as a way to run the game, and I don't object to that. But I disagree that this is based on a sensible reading of the RAW.

Yes, because inanimate objects can be infused with the descriptor of Evil, which means using it is an Evil act.

That's overly selective IMO. Your taking one attribute of the [evil] descriptor and broadening it to suggest that it only relates to how someone uses the object. The thing glows evil if detected for, whether or not anyone ever uses it. The RAW on Detect Evil says "you sense the presence of evil".

Vampires are evil by RAW. An imprisoned being's alignment doesn't change because they are imprisoned, it remains what it was until future actions dictate otherwise. Vampires, though, since evil by RAW, won't do any good as a standard course. Remember, though, anyone of any alignment can do individual acts against alignment. Some, though, face consequences (Paladin).

Ok, we agree on the obvious fact that vampires are evil by RAw, but clearly then a creature's alignment is not dependant on their actions - because a vampire theoretically could form in outer space somewhere with no one around, and it would be expected to have an evil alignment. This doesn't apply to PCs, of course, who don't have mandatory alignments by the RAw. But both PCs and vampires are sentient creatures with alignment, so you'd have to suggest that the rules for how they gain those alignments are entirely different.

There's nothing obvious in the RAW that suggests that a prison cannot change his alignment. I don't see why a prisoner who has a change of heart wouldn't become Lawful Good. The SRD says "Being good or evil can be a conscious choice." If they mean't "doing good or evil things" instead of "being", I'm pretty sure they would have just said so.