Alignment - Action As Intent

[Nifft]

This is an update. The original post is hidden in a block at the bottom of this post.

Thesis: In D&D, there is enough information in declared actions to interpret intention, and thus to determine the moral value of the action. (I'm using declared action as jargon. It means, what you declare your character's action to be. Not the result, not the reasoning; just the action declared by the player.)

Motivation: A DM must act as the final arbiter of morality. However, he can't see into the hearts of his players, who are the true intentional agents behind the actions of the PCs. Moreover, players should not be incentivised to deceive the DM -- even if it won't come up in most games, I worry such incentives could be very divisive when they do come up.

Implications:

• Easier to adjudicate and easier to explain, which means less unpleasant surprises.
• Puts the focus on the concrete layer where DMs and players interact rather than on something abstract (which may or may not have an analogue in the real world).
• Moral defense against accidental outcome becomes easier, and using the ends to justify the means becomes harder.
• It becomes possible to do the right thing for all the wrong reasons, yet have it count as the right thing. Conversely, it also becomes possible to do the wrong thing for all the right reasons, yet have it remain unambiguously wrong. These issues are usually murky, but they can make for great story-telling.

Examples: (are coming in a future edit)

More implications? How do you deal with intent in your game?

Cheers, -- N

[sblock=original post]Title: Alignment Without Intent

Thesis: In D&D, Deities must judge actions without knowing intent. All they can know is what action you declare.

Reasoning: Your PC's actual intent is secret, because it is hidden inside the heart of a player. The deity (or deities) who judge a PC's action are played by the DM, who cannot know a player's true intent.

Implications: it's harder to "game" the alignment system via spin. It's also possible to do the right thing (and have it count as the right thing) for all the wrong reasons; likewise, it's possible to do the wrong thing for all the right reasons (and end up on the road to Hell).[/sblock]

 

[green slime]

Thesis: In D&D, Deities must judge actions without knowing intent. All they can know is what action you declare.

Reasoning: Your PC's actual intent is secret, because it is hidden inside the heart of a player. The deity (or deities) who judge a PC's action are played by the DM, who cannot know a player's true intent.

Implications: it's harder to "game" the alignment system via spin. It's also possible to do the right thing (and have it count as the right thing) for all the wrong reasons; likewise, it's possible to do the wrong thing for all the right reasons (and end up on the road to Hell).

- - -

More implications? How do you deal with intent in your game?

Cheers, -- N

Nah. While I see your reasoning, I find it metagaming to a degree I'm uncomfortable with.

 

[Vascant]

I think because I would find myself using real life religion to qualify certain parts of my discussion, I best not answer..


Quick version:

I don't agree, they do know intent and your actions as a general rule.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Interesting. I'm not really comfortable with rewarding cruel motives by time in paradise, or by punishing good motives due to simple ignorance.


IMC, intent is meaningless without action, but then action doesn't happen without intent. Specifically, you have to WANT to cause something, then cause it.

Sort of, why you want it points you in a direction, and actually causing it makes you take a step in that direction.

"Burning down an orphanage" is an action. By itself, it's just an event, just like a fireball is just a magic spell.

"Burning down an orphanage to prevent the rise of the lost king, because you heard the kid might be staying there" is Evil, as anyone can see.

"Burning down an orphanage because the children there are enslaved to a devil who causes them endless suffering and is training them to be soulless killing machines" might actually be Good, for all the mercy and compassion showed by such an act.

If you're affraid that the lost king might rise or if you are sad for the orphans who are devil-slaves, but you take no action, you're still Neutral, despite having either bad thoughts or good thoughts.

Deities can't see into your heart, but they can tell if you're laughing maniacally or saying prayers for the children's soul or just treating it like a daily task, too, which is why, IMC, all the little character trappings surrounding an event are important. If your paladin doesn't actually show remorse at having to burn down that orphanage, he could be on the short list for a quick fall.

 

[Delta]

Alignment Without Intent -- Thesis: In D&D, Deities must judge actions without knowing intent.

One assumption here is that deities assign ("judge") alignment, and that's not supported by the rules. An alternative thesis is that alignment is a universal and natural metric that deities evaluate much like anyone else.

 

[Nifft]

One assumption here is that deities assign ("judge") alignment, and that's not supported by the rules. An alternative thesis is that alignment is a universal and natural metric that deities evaluate much like anyone else.

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.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

D&D deities judge people? Really? And people care about it? IME players run their character without much regard for the afterlife and when they die, they just roll up another, rather than worrying about how the dead PC will be judged.

Of course what you say is probably one of the reasons for the problems with Paladins and DMs taking their powers.

This has made me think about judgement and its implications in resurrection. PC is killed. His surviving compatriots try to have him resurrected and the PC finds himself being judged by his god to determine whether he should be returned to the living. If the PC was really faithful the deity might give the PC the choice. If the PC was somewhat faithful, the deity might send him back with a reminder to do better this time. If the PC was not at all faithful, he might find himself being sent for severe punishment and not be allowed to return.

 

[buzz]

By RAW, intent has nothing to do with Alignment in 3.x. What I see being added here is the idea that the deities are determining a PC's Alignment rather than the universe itself (i.e., RAW).

I'm also not sure if you're talking about player intent or character intent. A DM can easily know the former, as the player usually has some meta-intent that's expressed in the course of directing their PC. "I want to Power Attack the giant." As for the character itself, it has whatever intent the player imagines it does, assuming they are imagining anything at all. The DM can ask them what this intent might be, assuming it's relevant.

Nifft, what's the end-goal of this? What are you trying to have happen in your game by means of this?

 

[buzz]

D&D deities judge people? Really? And people care about it?

I'd care if, because a deity is making the call, it means that Alignment is being determined by an in-character decision rather than the rules. I'm assuming that a given deity will have a personality, and that will impact their decisions. E.g., petty, flighty god X will switch my PC's alignment on a whim, while stalwart, reserved god Y will rarely choose to act unless some really egregious trespass occurs.

If that's not the case, then, yeah, I don't see how it really changes anything.

 

[Halivar]

By RAW, intent has nothing to do with Alignment in 3.x.

Where do you get this?