Alignment - Action As Intent

[Kahuna Burger]

I agree with everything you say. I also think there are matters of such urgency that these smart options are not available. The given example was a dragon about to eat a girl. In this case, the decision to go get help is a decision to allow (I know "allow" is a strong word to use with an ancient red dragon) the girl to be eaten without resistance.

The question is whether resistance will be meaningful. Maybe the villagers actually have the power to stop this and by stepping forward and taking a stand (and dying) they will be inspired to do what needs to be done as well and all will be well. Then the heroic thing to do is to try. 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.

 

[PallidPatience]

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

And I would consider that evil through arrogance, unless you actually have some kind of hope of defeating the dragon under your own power (and not having to rely on long odds or divine intervention).

 

[Halivar]

The question is whether resistance will be meaningful.

And I would consider that evil through arrogance, unless you actually have some kind of hope of defeating the dragon under your own power (and not having to rely on long odds or divine intervention).

I disagree with both of these views, though I do understand where you're coming from. I would submit that the overriding determining factor at play here are the personal beliefs of the people at the table, and would require a metaphysical discussion that may tangentially touch certain subjects outside the scope of this forum. This is almost inevitable when a discussion turns to questions about good versus evil. The players at the table (and the DM) must agree on what constitutes "good" and what constitutes "evil," and I can almost guarantee that's going to be slightly different (or drastically, as the case may be) from table-to-table.

I do know that I would certainly not be comfortable playing at a table where the aforementioned paladin's "arrogance" was considered evil, because I disagree on a personal, idealogical level, and the characters I play are defined by my definition of what a "hero" is (it is me playing them, after all). But it's something that has to be hammered out by each gaming group individually.

 

[buzz]

And I would consider that evil through arrogance, unless you actually have some kind of hope of defeating the dragon under your own power (and not having to rely on long odds or divine intervention).

No offense Pallid, but the above veers pretty far outside the realm of D&D alignment.

If the player had a reasonable expectation that the dragon encounter (and an encounter is basically what we're talking about) was do-able, I think it would be pretty unfair to pile alignment violation on top of their PC's death. Fighting monsters and saving the innocent is what paladins do in D&D.

Likewise, if it was very obvious that the point of the encounter was that the player had to get creative and find another way to solve the problem, I don't see it as reasonable to penalize the character because the player chose a course of action other than combat, and that choice didn't pan out. And if they did just decide to have the paladin charge ahead into certain doom, well, that's heroic and Good, too. Turning that around on them ("Arrogance is evil, too!") is just being a jerk, honestly.

 

[buzz]

The players at the table (and the DM) must agree on what constitutes "good" and what constitutes "evil," and I can almost guarantee that's going to be slightly different (or drastically, as the case may be) from table-to-table.

As you can guess, I'd argue that discussion of real-world good and evil in place of D&D Good and Evil alignment descriptors is the source of most alignment confusion. The rules give examples and guidelines for the alignments precisely so that each group doesn't have to hammer out it's own alignment definitions; the rules serve as their metric.

IMO, what's more important is making sure that, as a group, you're all on the same page as to how the rules are going to be implemented.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I do know that I would certainly not be comfortable playing at a table where the aforementioned paladin's "arrogance" was considered evil, because I disagree on a personal, idealogical level, and the characters I play are defined by my definition of what a "hero" is (it is me playing them, after all). But it's something that has to be hammered out by each gaming group individually.

Hey, I wouldn't be particularly comfortable with a DM who put a character in a situation of "watch evil done and do nothing or die without changing it". It doesn't sound like any fun unless (MAYBE) if I know its basicly a cut scene to start a quest. (cut scenes aren't a lot of fun either, imo). Someone else put the situation out there, I just responded to the allignment implications.

As for the afformentioned paladin's heroism or not.... again with the Reasonable Humanoid. If the paladin says "I do (a) and I have to live with some guilt, or I do (b) and I don't live, nor does the girl, nor do any of the children she grew up with... ah, who cares, I wanna be a HERO!" .... no hero there I can see. Whether a player who has stated a clear desire for a heroic game has a legitamate beef against the DM who sticks this little scene in to begin with is another question, but the CHARACTER of Sir Chuhead Smitesalot is not acting out of Good at that point, IMO.

 

[Delta]

The DM plays the deities, and the DM does the assigning of alignment changes, even if the deities aren't the ones explicitly in charge of alignment. So it's a gloss, but both interpretations are functionally identical.

I completely disagree. If you'd wanted to start a thread on "how does the DM adjudicate alignment changes?", that would be an entirely different discussion. But, in most campaigns, alignments are predominantly whatever the players initially write down.

 

[Nifft]

I completely disagree. If you'd wanted to start a thread on "how does the DM adjudicate alignment changes?", that would be an entirely different discussion. But, in most campaigns, alignments are predominantly whatever the players initially write down.

Feel free to discuss here, if you think it makes sense.

But you aren't disagreeing that the DM has to be the final arbiter of alignment-change, are you? (I mean, even if you say that you trust your players to do the right thing, you are still the one doing the trusting -- you aren't handing over authority, only management rights.)

Also, I'm of the opinion that NPCs should play by the same rules as PCs. If the PCs see a Paladin fall, they should understand why -- what was the cause, what she could have done differently.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Sejs]

Implication: Alignment largely becomes superficial because of the inherrent neutrality of most actions in the absence of intent.

Example: Killing, the basic act of taking another life, in the absence of intent. A lion killing a gazelle for a meal, a paladin striking down an evil tyrant before they can enact their wicked scheme, and a selfish prince murdering his father so he can grab power ... without intent they're all the same neutral action.

Conclusion: Without intent, all shades of alignment quickly fall to gray by virtue of the various ways in which most base actions can be used in different circumstances making the broad majority of actions neutral by default.

 

[Halivar]

Hey, I wouldn't be particularly comfortable with a DM who put a character in a situation of "watch evil done and do nothing or die without changing it".

Agreed. It's an extreme hypothetical (though not one I'm unfamiliar with; I've had good DM's and bad ones).

no hero there I can see

Again, I think it all goes back to the people playing and what they expect from a LG person. As for me, my early childhood idea of a hero was shaped largely by Matthew Broderick's portrayal of Robert Gould Shaw in the movie "Glory." He accepted a suicide mission on which he and almost every man under his command died. Ultimately, the mission was a failure, and it had no strategic effect on the American civil war. I take it as heroic, however, in the sense that his death inspired people to his cause (abolition early on, but R.G. Shaw would be invoked a hundred years later in the civil rights movement).

As for the paladin; likely he'll fail, and the girl will be eaten, and the dragon will go on a village-burning spree. But what about next time? Up until now, the villagers have lived in a world where no one defies the dragon. Now they live in a world where people do defy the dragon. A psychological barrier has been breached. And now they have a martyr for their new cause.

Historically speaking, even if the paladin's well-intentioned actions precipitated violence on the masses, they will more likely lionize than vilify him. An example is the Warsaw Uprising of 1944. Even thought the Polish Home Army failed to liberate Warsaw, and the Germans retaliated by burning down the city, they are still hailed as heroes in Warsaw. There are plenty more examples in history. The villagers, for the most part, will regard the paladin as a hero no matter the outcome.