Alignment - Action As Intent

[irdeggman]

From the rulebook.

The section on alignment is entirely devoted to describing how characters act. It never addresses the imagined in-character intent behind those actions. This is a good thing, because imagined intent is a slippery slope that leads to the ability to justify any sort of action (usually using bogus real-world "what ifs" as comparison) under any alignment, with no way to effectively adjudicate anything. By focusing on action, we can look at the choices players make for their PCs and the context, and come to definitive answers.

And the Detect spells.

None of them detect "intent" anymore, even the paladin's ability is no longer detect evil intent.

The spells detect actual alignment and "type" which has nothing to do with intnent.

A very politie vampire lord (LE) will detect as evil regardless to whether or not he wishes to commit an evil act at the time. He can (and most likely is) extremely polite and engaging but will still detect as evil and is still subject to the paladin's smite ability accordingly.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

And the Detect spells.

None of them detect "intent" anymore, even the paladin's ability is no longer detect evil intent.

The spells detect actual alignment and "type" which has nothing to do with intnent.

A very politie vampire lord (LE) will detect as evil regardless to whether or not he wishes to commit an evil act at the time. He can (and most likely is) extremely polite and engaging but will still detect as evil and is still subject to the paladin's smite ability accordingly.

Saying that allignment is linked to intent (like say your "concern for the dignity of sentient beings") has nothing to do with claiming that your allignment changes at every moment depending on your exact "what I intend to do NOW". Allignment as an instantaneous snapshot can be argued just as well for an action based system. (He's not murdering anyone RIGHT NOW so he's neutral!)

What polite and engaging have to do with anything is another subject entirely....

 

[buzz]

That's just the good vs evil section, the law and order part practically has nothing except descriptions of internal feelings and attitudes.

Thing is, you're carefully omitting most of the text, which is almost entirely focused on describing how characters of the various alignment types behave. E.g., the "nothing" assertion you're making is contradicted by the first two sentences in the Law vs. Chaos section:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Following that, every single one of the nine alignment descriptions begins with and is composed of actions; "A [alignment] character acts/does..."

Most importantly, the word "intent" itself does not appear in the text. Now, while there are three references to belief ("He believes in goodness and right..."), nowhere does it say that a PC is of a given alignment because they believe they are. A Neutral PC, no matter what the player imagines the PC thinks of himself, is going to stay Neutral unless they start acting Good or Evil, e.g., protecting innocent life, or debasing and destroying it.

In-character intent leads to problematic play, and thus it's easy to see why it's not part of the alignment rule text.

 

[buzz]

Allignment as an instantaneous snapshot can be argued just as well for an action based system.

I don't really see support for this given the rules as they exist. The text is very obviously talking about patterns of behavior.

 

[buzz]

2/ The price of failure. If your declared actions are in accord with saving the girl, you get credit, even if you don't actually succeed in saving the girl.

Oh, heck yeah. As long as our paladin makes the effort to save the girl, it doesn't matter if he fails. I don't see the rules contradicting this at all.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Thing is, you're carefully omitting most of the text,

There is a bit of difference between omiting text and selecting the text that disproves your claim that the rules contain nothing about in character intetions and thoughts. Bye now.

 

[Elf Witch]

When I DM I use intent all the time to determine alignment. For example if I have a PC who lies, cheats, steals whenever he thinks he can get away (even when it is not necessary) with it then no way would I consider him ''good" on the other hand I am not going to strip a paladin of his power becuase he has to tell a necessary lie.

 

[buzz]

There is a bit of difference between omiting text and selecting the text that disproves your claim that the rules contain nothing about in character intetions and thoughts. Bye now.

There was nothing about intent in the section you quoted. The bits you edited out also obscured that the passage was about how Neutral characters don't do certain things, and how alignment traits are recognized by others.

Regardless, your tone is unhelpful.

EDIT: That said, if you don't want me to belabor the point with you, I'll do my best to resist.

 

[Nifft]

Kahuna Burger and buzz -- please appreciate the difficulty in assigning intention to others! (And the irony of doing so in this thread.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Kahuna Burger and buzz -- please appreciate the difficulty in assigning intention to others! (And the irony of doing so in this thread.)

Cheers, -- N

Nifft is running for Mod...