Alignment - Action As Intent

[Brentos]

Correct...

Emphasis mine. The very next sentence says that to play to an alignment choice, you need to put attitude first. Attitude is mental, not physical (in this sense of the word).

But it terms of the game, it is expressed through actions a character takes. And by playing that new mental attitude would it be reflected in what the character does? But, I do see your point on this one.

Let me try another anecdotal example

MORALITY UNDONE
Enchantment [Evil, Mind-Affecting]
Level: Bard 5, cleric 5, Corruption 4
...
The caster turns one creature evil. The chaotic/neutral/lawful component of the subject’s alignment is unchanged. The subject retains whatever outlook, allegiances, and relationships it had before, as long as they do not conflict with the new alignment. Otherwise, it acts with its new selfish, bloodthirsty, and cruel outlook on all things. For example, a wizard might not immediately turn on her fighter companion for no apparent reason, particularly in the middle of a combat when they’re fighting on the same side. But she might allow her friend to be hurt or killed if her friend is carrying something valuable she could recover later, or she might use spells to control or deceive her friend to get what she wants. She might even eventually decide to betray or attack her friend if there is some potential gain involved. Arcane Material Component: A powdered holy symbol.

This one is a mind-affecting spell that changes a character's alignment to [Evil]. A character's outlook (intent? innerself?) does not change. The difference is it *acts* with a *new* outlook.

Thoughts on this one?

 

[Nifft]

It seems to me that it twice separates alignment from intent/outlook. Thoughts?

Seems like a bit of a stretch. I think that section is just there to help newbies pick which PrC to get excited about first, not to re-define central game mechanics.

- - -

I'd like to rekindle the thought that first led me to start this thread. That thought was in the context of Belkar's recent actions in saving Hinjo from an assassination attempt. His motivations were either selfish or cruel (depending on how you view killing fanged, orange humanoids vs. humans). But the facts of his actions were:

1/ He stopped an assassination attempt (which he would have been paid to merely overlook);

2/ In order to do so, he jumped off a high wall, into the heart of the enemy's army (personal risk);

3/ He has not asked for a reward (and he did have the opportunity just recently).

I'd argue that Belkar got a Light Side point, despite his best (evil) intentions.

- - -

Now, probably he's evil enough that the one act won't swing him to good (or even neutral), but my argument is that he has done good. He has unintentionally taken an action that (if such actions continue) will tend to change his alignment.

Thoughts? Thanks, -- N

 

[Brentos]

I agree with that.

If actions are the only thing that matters, you're going to need a qualifier. Actions are all that matters in determining alignment, unless something external has changed your alignment.

I agree with that. Magic can override the normal rules.

 

[Brentos]

I agree.

I'd like to rekindle the thought that first led me to start this thread....I'd argue that Belkar got a Light Side point, despite his best (evil) intentions.

- - -

Now, probably he's evil enough that the one act won't swing him to good (or even neutral), but my argument is that he has done good. He has unintentionally taken an action that (if such actions continue) will tend to change his alignment.

Thoughts? Thanks, -- N

I agree. Within the game he did good. Heck, if he does enough, maybe he'll change over time and like it! Although, I think he attempts (declared actions) a lot of evil, but just can't within the city, so that may affect things.

 

[Fifth Element]

Thoughts on this one?

The only way I can read that to jibe with what's in the PHB is that by "outlook" not changing they're only referring to the Law/Neutral/Chaos axis of alignment, and that only the Good/Neutral/Evil axis is affected.

Also note that it does not say outlook does not change; it says: "Otherwise, it acts with its new selfish, bloodthirsty, and cruel outlook on all things." This means that enough of the creature's outlook is changed such that it becomes evil. Note the use of "outlook" again after "cruel".

Also note the construction implies that it acts based on its new outlook, not without reference to its outlook.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Now, probably he's evil enough that the one act won't swing him to good (or even neutral), but my argument is that he has done good. He has unintentionally taken an action that (if such actions continue) will tend to change his alignment.

Thoughts? Thanks,

The act was probably good. However, without a changed outlook, he will likely continue to (mostly) behave in an Evil way.

I mean, alignment isn't a straightjacket. A paladin is allowed to be a bit overzealous or selfish or greedy once in a while without being stripped of their powers. Belkar can do the occasional good deed without even really risking a transformation in alignment.

If he keeps finding "excuses" to do good things, I'd argue his heart isn't in it anymore, that he's just playing at evil, and that his stated intention isn't his *true* intention, despite what he wants to think about himself.

 

[Nifft]

Morality Undone

This one is a mind-affecting spell that changes a character's alignment to [Evil]. A character's outlook (intent? innerself?) does not change. The difference is it *acts* with a *new* outlook.

This is a spell I wouldn't allow in my game. It won't work on unwilling players!

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kahuna Burger]

This one is a mind-affecting spell that changes a character's alignment to [Evil]. A character's outlook (intent? innerself?) does not change. The difference is it *acts* with a *new* outlook.

Thoughts on this one?

I'd say you stopped bolding too soon. It retains its same outlooks and relationships only insofar as they don't conflict with its new evil allignment. In other words, the part of its outlook that reflect allignment do change.

Sara the Happy Gladiator likes beer, flashy fighting, doing nice things for people on a whim and shorter men. If this spell is cast on her, she retains all parts of her outlook that don't involve good vs evil. She still likes beer, she still likes flashy fighting, she still likes shorter men (though might express that interest differently) but she no longer likes doing nice things for people on a whim because that part of her personality related to the good/evil axis.

The point of the language you're looking at is that the target of the spell doesn't become a new person, per se, they aren't possessed - they are the same person except evil. So the parts of their outlook unrelated to respect for sentient dignity, avoiding suffering, compassion, etc remain the same.

 

[maddman75]

I love Nifft's idea and think I might expand on it. Or at least suggest such.

I've always been an alignment hater. Its not that I dislike social mechanics, its fuzzy ill-defined mechanics I don't like. I would make the definitions even more strict. Good actions are those that are out of compassion or protecting of life. Evil actions are those based in cruelty or murder. Lawful actions are those that promote order, tradition, and trustworthiness, while Chaotic actions are those that lead to freedom and independance. Any action not fitting one of those descriptors is not relevent to alignment.

Now, what happens when someone takes such an action. I would be tempted to steal from WoD and have a Morality Check to see if the character's alignment shifted. I would make this a Wisdom check for the good/evil axis and a Charisma check for the lawful/chaotic. I'm going with the assumption here that high Wisdom tends to be good, while high Charisma tends to be chaotic. If you disagree, decide on your own checks.

When a character makes an action opposed to his alignment, he makes a DC10 check.

For a character committing an evil act, his alignment shifts toward evil if he fails a wisdom check.
For a character committing a good act, his alignment shifts toward good if he passes a wisdom check.
For a character committing a lawful act, his alignment shifts toward lawful if he fails a charisma check.
For a character committing a chaotic act, his alignment shifts toward chaotic if he passes a charisma check.

By 'shift', I mean one step - from good to neutral, from neutral to evil. And a character never checks their own alignment - good characters committing good acts are nothing special.

The GM of course can modify the DC for the act in question.

 

[Brentos]

Best discussion...

For the best WOTC published definition of good, I just re-read the section on good in the Book of Yummy Goodness (Book of Exalted Deeds). It really reinforces, in my mind, actions are the important part of the alignment. It is a great several pages of all the things good characters should do. It provides wonderful examples of deeds and attitudes to play.

Also, to clarify: I'm not saying the thoughts/intents don't matter in the fictional world, but for game-rule reasons, the actions matter during roll-playing. And to the OP's point, they are all that are needed to make a ruling. The other stuff can be used with role-playing.