Alignment - Action As Intent

[Nifft]

Perhaps it would be clearer if I said in the first post that I'm interested in looking at actions which change alignment, or which tend to cause alignment change.

Stuff like this is why i like classes without alignment restrictions
my fav is the wizard

Even if your actions aren't restricted by your alignment, you still have one, and Bob the Solar is going to detect it when you go ask him for the Holy McGuffin.

You can summon demons all day long if you wish. It should have consequences -- casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act.

In order to be good, I only need to declare actions that are in accord with an attempt to save the girl, no matter how feeble the attempt, nor whether or not I choose a circuitious route over a direct route?

Putting yourself in harm's way to protect an innocent is a good act.

Putting yourself at minimal risk to obtain a good result is a shrewd act.

It should be possible to be both good and shrewd. Balancing the risks is just good judgment.

If you take risk upon yourself, even if it's minimal, you are doing good IMHO. If you put others at risk for your own benefit, even if it's minimal, you are doing ill IMHO.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fifth Element]

In my experience, people's answers fall into three categories:

1. She's still evil. Alignment is a record of your actions, and so far she's taken lots of evil actions, but no good actions. In time, perhaps she can climb back up through neutral towards good, redeeming her soul through good works.

2. She's neutral. She can't be considered evil any more, because she's repented - faced with a moral choice, she'd choose the good one. But a good alignment has to be earned through action, so she has some distance to go.

3. She's good. Alignment indicates someone's inclination - it serves as a guide to how they would act in a given situation. Given a moral choice, she'd choose the good one... therefore her alignment is good.

If you have two people who give two different answers to the question, it's very difficult to come to a consensus on a question of alignment, because to them alignment represents two completely different things.

I'd have to go with 3.

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment...

The very definition of alignment in RAW refers to a character's attitudes, not actions. It then goes on to mention indentity, personality types and personal philosophies.

It then gets a bit confusing because the nine alignment descriptions are framed in terms of actions. However, these are descriptions of the typical character of that alignment, and represent the application of that alignment in a practical sense, based on the attitudes represented by the alignment. And if you read the descriptions, you'll see that motivation is always mentioned. It's clearly the thought that counts.

I suppose this may only apply to 3E, since it's been years since I've looked at the alignment section of earlier editions. That's probably the source of a lot of differing opinions, if the description of what alignment actually is has changed over time.

As the rules are currently written, intent is paramount to alignment. Options 1 and 2 above are not supported by RAW.

 

[Fifth Element]

It should be possible to be both good and shrewd. Balancing the risks is just good judgment.

True, and it should also be possible to be both good and stupid. Say the paladin who has the chance to face the dragon isn't that bright (maybe not a good example for a paladin, but hey, we're all dealing with hyperbole here). He intends to save the damsel and the village, and is just too dumb to realize his actions will have serious repercussions, leading to the death of them all.

Does this make him evil? How can it possibly make him evil?

 

[Fifth Element]

You can summon demons all day long if you wish. It should have consequences -- casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act.

This is true, because the spell is specifically marked as being Evil by the rules. Consorting with ultimate evil must generally be seen as evil itself.

But what if you're summoning demons to slay them? Is that evil? It's probably stupid, but I don't think it's evil.

 

[Nifft]

True, and it should also be possible to be both good and stupid.

Possible?! Isn't that the default?

Say the paladin who has the chance to face the dragon isn't that bright (maybe not a good example for a paladin, but hey, we're all dealing with hyperbole here). He intends to save the damsel and the village, and is just too dumb to realize his actions will have serious repercussions, leading to the death of them all.

Does this make him evil? How can it possibly make him evil?

Pride is a sin for just this reason.

If you are limited in your abilities, you should have the wisdom to find external guidance. Paladins have a deity to whom they can pray; there's also a nifty magic item which could help him out in some situations.

If humble, earnest prayer yields no clues, you can consider yourself screwed with your patron's blessing, and charge away. Next character, make a Druid and eat the damn dragon's face.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

This is true, because the spell is specifically marked as being Evil by the rules. Consorting with ultimate evil must generally be seen as evil itself.

But what if you're summoning demons to slay them? Is that evil? It's probably stupid, but I don't think it's evil.

This isn't even a question, is it? It's spelled out in the rules. Summoning [Evil] outsiders is an evil act.

Remember, this is D&D world we're talking about. You're not summoning a morally neutral howitzer, guided only by your skill and will. You're calling a mote of evil incarnate into existence on the prime material plane, a malign intelligence with an agenda all its own.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fifth Element]

Pride is a sin for just this reason.

I mentioned nothing of pride. My hypothetical paladin isn's overconfident, he's just stupid. He doesn't realize that he has little chance against the dragon, and is too dumb to realize the possible repercussions of his actions. He is doing what he thinks is right, which is how D&D characters are supposed to act, according to RAW.

If you are limited in your abilities, you should have the wisdom to find external guidance.

My example specifically stated that this paladin was lacking in Wisdom. There's no minimum Wis needed to become a paladin. Is an unwise paladin an evil one?

 

[Fifth Element]

This isn't even a question, is it? It's spelled out in the rules. Summoning [Evil] outsiders is an evil act.

Remember, this is D&D world we're talking about. You're not summoning a morally neutral howitzer, guided only by your skill and will. You're calling a mote of evil incarnate into existence on the prime material plane, a malign intelligence with an agenda all its own.

Cheers, -- N

I'll have to agree with you here, since this is spelled out in the rules. The act of summoning a demon is just so dangerous, regardless of your intent, that the gods or fate or whatever will look upon you badly for it.

But the things that have [Evil] descriptors are pretty rare, if you consider the range of possible acts a character can do.

 

[Nifft]

My example specifically stated that this paladin was lacking in Wisdom. There's no minimum Wis needed to become a paladin. Is an unwise paladin an evil one?

Nope, if he's to dumb to live, he will die. He will die doing something stupid.

But this is a seriously contrived example. How did e make it through Paladin School without learning that he needs to leave the planning stuff to others -- others in whom his deity has trust?

- - -

Actually, stupid Paladins dying young makes a lot of sense in the D&D universe. Why do you think Lantern Archons have an Int of 6?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fifth Element]

Paladins have a deity to whom they can pray; there's also a nifty magic item which could help him out in some situations.

Okay, how about a stupid but LG fighter. He's got no one to pray to. He knows that LG fighters are supposed to kill evil beasties, especially when there's a distressed damsel involved. Being too stupid to realize he'll get everyone killed, he charges in, and eventually gets everyone killed.

He's evil, is he?