Alignment - Action As Intent

[Fifth Element]

Vampires are evil by RAW. An imprisoned being's alignment doesn't change because they are imprisoned, it remains what it was until future actions dictate otherwise. Vampires, though, since evil by RAW, won't do any good as a standard course. Remember, though, anyone of any alignment can do individual acts against alignment. Some, though, face consequences (Paladin).

How is this different from an alignment written on a PC's character sheet? RAW says that all vampires have evil written down as their alignment, regardless of whether a newly-created vampire has done any evil deeds yet.

Are you saying different rules apply to PCs and NPCs? PC alignment is based solely on actions while NPC alignment considers intent?

Much better to use Nifft's guidelines of inferring intent from Declared Actions, I think, if you want to go that way.

 

[Fifth Element]

Another possible thread title: "Possibly the world's first constructive alignment thread"?

 

[Brentos]

Ha!

Another possible thread title: "Possibly the world's first constructive alignment thread"?

True dat! Great discussion!

 

[Brentos]

Yes

How is this different from an alignment written on a PC's character sheet? RAW says that all vampires have evil written down as their alignment, regardless of whether a newly-created vampire has done any evil deeds yet.

Are you saying different rules apply to PCs and NPCs? PC alignment is based solely on actions while NPC alignment considers intent?

Much better to use Nifft's guidelines of inferring intent from Declared Actions, I think, if you want to go that way.

Yes, I am saying that PCs and NPCs have different rules by RAW. A PC can be any alignment (RAW) a vampire can't (RAW). The rules plain state that. A vampire is infused with the [Evil] descriptor and becomes a force of actual evil. A character can act Evil, but is not infused with [Evil] through normal means.

 

[WayneLigon]

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

If I know a character is a particular alignment, and they start to do something that's obviously contrary to that I'll stop them and ask what's the rationale, motivation or thinking behind that action. I'll let them know what the consequenses of that action are.

Bob: OK, then. I come back later that night and torch the orphanage.
Me: Hmm. Bob's alignment is Neutral Good. Um, why are you burning an orphangage, now?
Bob: We know the gargoyle is hiding in there; it's the only way to flush him out.
Me: You know there are a dozen kids sleeping in in a locked dorm because of the killer stalking the grounds; they'll all die.
Bob: Yeah, well, sometimes you have to break some eggs to...
Me: You know that's going to mean your alignment shifts to Evil, right? Condemming some innocent kids to die because... what?
Bob: No way am I staying up all night waiting for this thing to come out. We know it's in there and this will mean it dies.

We'll fast forward past the part where Bob insists he burns the orphanage and I show Bob the door.

Me: You all wake up the next morning. You find Bob's horribly mutilated body outside; the garogoyle has claimed another victim!

A less extreme example:

Bob: Once his back is turned, I'm stealing that book. We need it badly, and he's holding us up. If we don't use that info by morning, all those kids die. Yes, I know I'm a paladin.
Me: OK, you steal the book, y'all go read the ritual, the gate closes. Bob, you're sure no evil taint remains in the area.
Bob: I may not be a paladin anymore since I stole that book, but it was worth it.
Me: Excuse me? I'm not frickin' insane. You may feel you have to make restitution to the man for the book you destroyed, but your status is fine. You have no dreams, you see no omens; the god seems fine with how things have gone.

Bob: You know what, I'm tired of listening to this guy. I steal his horse and leave. I need to get to town, quickly, to save the orphanage.
Me: Mmm. You're neutral good, yet you're going to leave him to walk back to town; you remember that werewolves stalk the woods after dark? He'll might get halfway to town before night falls. You don't want to throw him across the back of the horse?
Bob: His tough luck. He's got a better chance than all those kids.
Me: OK. (Bob has made a significant slide from Neutral Good towards Neutral; he's not outright comdemming the man to death, but certainly putting him in significant jeapordy, but he's also doing it for a good cause. Bob's still neutral good but if there was a scale where previously Bob was Good 7, he's now Good 4 or so. I keep this in mind and make note of what Bob does later).

 

[Brentos]

I don't see it as a circular argument - it's simply a matter of establishing what features you need in your campaign in order to produce the results that you (or the OP in this case) wants. IME it turns into a circular argument only when one or both parties refuse to concede that the other's opinion is dependant on a certain basis of facts.

I claim circular in that we probably will never agree on how we want to run our own games based on house-rules. And we agree on that fact that player intent is unknowable. So, the only other solution is to rule based on action (if you want to avoid headaches! )

And, yes, I'm interpreting the RAW and defending my position as a reasonable reading of the RAW. Yes, I do see how other interpretations exist, but I think my position is more supportable. (Or, I guess, I'd be debating a different position, I'd imagine! )

Also, saying that by "apple" you really mean "hobgoblin" can be called semantics. I'm not sure how useful that is though. A DM is not his campaign universe - if he was then he could hardly call up the players on the telephone and schedule the game. My campaign universe in theory is a place where zillions of NPCs can all entertain various thoughts simultaneously. I, as a DM, am not capable of that. My campaign universe cannot call players on the telephone.

If you had to adjucate something like this, the DM would do it, not the player. Hence, for all intents and purposes the DM *is* the game universe. He controls everything non-player. So, if the DM = (essentially) the game universe (my assertation), then the game universe can call the players.

You were discussing the "universe" before, so I think we're looking at this in different contexts. All I was saying was that the RAW recognizes the existence of intent as a game mechanic (the issue of alignment aside for the moment). Therefore, in these other instances the DM is expected to judge intent - especially in the case where a Rod of Enemy Detection is used against a PC.

That is not an alignment issue. But I do agree the DM has to judge intent from the perspective of NPC's all the time, that is his job, otherwise orcs would just stand there like a badly programmed AI in Neverwinter Nights or somesuch game.

The DM can rule with knowledge, it just may not be accurate. People can form opinions based on another's intent, and those opinions can be based on evidence. The problem, that we agree on, is that it's not a reliable way to judge a game. The thing I think we disagree on mainly is that you seem to be saying that the RAW says this.

Yep, we basically agree. I just assert that the RAW implies this position more then it implies the other. Yes, it is written poorly, but that my position that I am supporting.

That's overly selective IMO. Your taking one attribute of the [evil] descriptor and broadening it to suggest that it only relates to how someone uses the object. The thing glows evil if detected for, whether or not anyone ever uses it. The RAW on Detect Evil says "you sense the presence of evil".

No, I'm saying that some ojbects/creatures can be imbued with the actual essence of [Evil]. A character using said device automatically is doing [Evil].

 

[Brentos]

If I know a character is a particular alignment, and they start to do something that's obviously contrary to that I'll stop them and ask what's the rationale, motivation or thinking behind that action. I'll let them know what the consequenses of that action are.

Bob: OK, then. I come back later that night and torch the orphanage.
Me: Hmm. Bob's alignment is Neutral Good. Um, why are you burning an orphangage, now?
Bob: We know the gargoyle is hiding in there; it's the only way to flush him out.
Me: You know there are a dozen kids sleeping in in a locked dorm because of the killer stalking the grounds; they'll all die.
Bob: Yeah, well, sometimes you have to break some eggs to...
Me: You know that's going to mean your alignment shifts to Evil, right? Condemming some innocent kids to die because... what?
Bob: No way am I staying up all night waiting for this thing to come out. We know it's in there and this will mean it dies.

We'll fast forward past the part where Bob insists he burns the orphanage and I show Bob the door.

For rules judging, though, there really is no need to ask him his intention in this scenario. It is plainly an [Evil] act. It is nice as DM to do so, though, so as to guide him, but I see no rules reason to ask the player his intent here.

 

[Nifft]

Yes, I am saying that PCs and NPCs have different rules by RAW. A PC can be any alignment (RAW) a vampire can't (RAW). The rules plain state that. A vampire is infused with the [Evil] descriptor and becomes a force of actual evil. A character can act Evil, but is not infused with [Evil] through normal means.

I'd have to agree with this.

NPCs can be different, though they should be as similar as possible. Just like a PC could start play being Neutral Good just by writing "NG" on his character sheet, an NPC Vampire could start play being Neutral Evil.

If an NPC Vampire does good deeds consistently (with no corresponding evil deeds to compensate), he may shift alignment. Or such behavior may be impossible. That's up to the DM.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

If I know a character is a particular alignment, and they start to do something that's obviously contrary to that I'll stop them and ask what's the rationale, motivation or thinking behind that action. I'll let them know what the consequenses of that action are.

I totally agree with this. Intent is a good tool for discussion about what action to take.

It's the action itself that matters (for alignment purposes), of course.

Cheers, -- N

 

[I'm A Banana]

Are you saying different rules apply to PCs and NPCs? PC alignment is based solely on actions while NPC alignment considers intent?

For me, the vampire issue is part of the "magically forced alignment change." In effect, the vampirism *forces* you to see the world in a fundamentally new way: one that leads you to actions that attract Evil to you. In this way, the undead condition propigates something like a virus or infection: it causes you to seek out what would propigate it. A Good vampire wouldn't be that interested in killing and drinking the blood and draining the levels of many people, if any. An Evil one, however, would spread that around as much as it could, resulting in more vampirism in the world.

It's like that fungus that feeds on ants: it infects them, makes them addled, causes them to wander up to a high place so that when it spores, it gets as wide a distribution as possible. Vampirism wants to be spread to as many people as possible, so it gives you a mindset that inspires action that causes it to spread more (and it makes it extra creepy to give the condition an agenda of it's own -- you're not just fighting a vampire, you're battling an malevolent force that wants to consume the souls of everything it can!)