Alignment - Action As Intent

[Thornir Alekeg]

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.

But lying, cheating and stealing do not seem to be actions on the good/evil axis, but rather the law/chaos axis.

As an example, Tasslehoff from the Dragonlance books was about as good as a character can get, but with no respect for personal property, his "borrowing" clearly drops him into the chaotic realm.

 

[buzz]

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

Cheers, -- N

Hoisted by my own petard!

 

[Flynn]

For what it's worth, I think the only version of D&D that did not base alignment on actions, but rather based it on intent, was 2nd Edition. For the most part, D&D appears to promote character actions that are "larger than life" through creating archetype personality types, and basing alignment on action lends itself very well to that concept.

In my game, it's all about choices and actions. (I'm a big consequences kind of guy.) If you want to be considered a Good character by the world at large, you should act like one. I also do not require my PCs to follow alignment, as they have free choice to act as they wish. In my game, alignment becomes a "descriptor" of your actions, not a "restrictor" of them. Of course, if you can't act in accordance with alignments that are required for your character class, you might run into some problems when certain abilities stop acting correctly, or an atonement becomes required... that kind of thing.

Essentially, actions are the player's choice, and by their actions shall they be judged.

As you might be able to tell, I don't get a lot of Good characters in my game as they increase in levels, and when I do, they are truely Heroes in the heroic sense of the word. (If you haven't noticed yet, the more power a character gets, the less likely they feel compelled to follow the tenets of a Good alignment.)

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Umbran]

I think that there are far to many potential actions that characters can take with too many possible moral implications for there to be a clear-cut, easily remembered, and easy to follow codification of alignment such that the DM won't be involved in making judgments.

 

[Flynn]

I think that there are far to many potential actions that characters can take with too many possible moral implications for there to be a clear-cut, easily remembered, and easy to follow codification of alignment such that the DM won't be involved in making judgments.

It does make sense that the DM would be involved, though, as he is portraying the reaction of every NPC to the actions of the PCs. Seems NPCs would have some basis for determining their reactions, and thus the DM is making judgement calls on the spot, either consciously or subconsciously. Given that it is already happening independent of the "easy to follow codification" issue, it would seem that this might be left to the realm of the DM to define in his game, either formally, informally or subconsciously.

Two More Coppers,
Flynn

 

[buzz]

I think that there are far to many potential actions that characters can take with too many possible moral implications for there to be a clear-cut, easily remembered, and easy to follow codification of alignment such that the DM won't be involved in making judgments.

Oh, the DM is definitely going to be involved, intent-based or not. She's the one setting up the circumstances 99% of the time. Not to mention, the rules are silent (iirc) on how exactly alignment changes happen, i.e., how much deviation has to happen before there are consequences (though it's a little clearer with classes that have alignment restrictions).

 

[Felix]

The deity (or deities) who judge a PC's action are played by the DM, who cannot know a player's true intent.

That's why my DM occasionally does this:



DM: Huh. That's an interesting thing you just said you'd do. Why are you doing it?

Player: Oh, I'm killing this baby so the devourer doesn't suck his soul down to Avernus and I can have him Ressurected when we get topside.

DM: Ah. Very good. No alignment consequences for you.

 

[Elf Witch]

But lying, cheating and stealing do not seem to be actions on the good/evil axis, but rather the law/chaos axis.

As an example, Tasslehoff from the Dragonlance books was about as good as a character can get, but with no respect for personal property, his "borrowing" clearly drops him into the chaotic realm.

I disagree with this lying stealing cheating for the sake of lying stealing cheating is something that good people do not do. I buy that thief who steals to survive or a spy who lies to gain information can be good. Because of the intent the reason they are going what they do.

I also don't think a person who is chaotic good lies and cheats and steals for no reason if they do I don't consider them good chaotic is not a get out of jail free card that allows you to be good yet do anything you want without regard of how it effects other people.


Kender are not exactly thieves they find things there intent is not to to deprive someone else of an item and sell it for profit. And if the item is needed or commented on they will pull it out and glady give it back saying they found it and where holdong onto it for safe keeping.

Like I said I judge intent. In order of the stick I judge Belkar to be evil he doesn't just defend himeslf he glorifies in making other creatures suffer that is not the same as someone who kills to defend himself or his people.

 

[Halivar]

E.g., if a Good PC allows an innocent girl to be devoured by a dragon, it doesn't matter if the player can come up with some in-character justification. ("Well, the dragon would have burned down the whole village otherwise, so her life was a necessary sacrifice.") The simple fact is that, by RAW, "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life." By not protecting that girl's life, the PC has earned a tick away from Good. If that PC was a paladin, they'd have some serious atonement to do.

In this case, I agree with you 100% percent. There are plenty of historical kooks who have committed unbelievable atrocities, believing the whole time that they were in the moral right.

Knowing the intentions is most useful when you're in a gray area, such as an area where unintended consequences happen. In the aforementioned paladin, he is aware of the evil that will result from his actions, and proceeds anyways. He ought to properly unsheathe his sword and die trying to stop the dragon from eating her. But let's say that a paladin saves a man's life from highwaymen, only to find out later that the highwaymen were really soldiers of a holy order in disguise, trying to dispatch a glammered lich-lord? To some degree, the paladin is now partly responsible for the subsequent zombie outbreak; but has he betrayed his principles?

I know you are talking strictly about his actions (i.e. he saved someone); but others in this thread have discussed using the outcome alongside the action (someone mentioned a bumbling villain whose evil plans always turn out for good) to determine the alignment. I don't agree with this.

 

[PallidPatience]

He ought to properly unsheathe his sword and die trying to stop the dragon from eating her.

Some might argue that wasting two lives is more evil than wasting one.