Alignment - Action As Intent

[Brentos]

Good point...

Here is a good quote from the Book of Yummy Goodness that is relevant to some of the threads above:

When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of
thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree
that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?

In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no,

an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may
achieve.

A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, first off, a paladin can't summon a fiendish viper, as that would be an [Evil] spell, and his clerical aspects prohibit it.

He's not a cleric.

The cleric has a class feature prohibiting him casting a spell with an alignment descriptor opposed to his alignment or his deity's. The druid has a class feature prohibiting him casting a spell with an alignment descriptor opposed to his alignment or his deity's. The paladin does not have a class feature prohibiting him casting a spell with an alignment descriptor opposed to his alignment or his deity's.

The paladin has a class feature which means there are consequences for an evil act... but in the core rules, there's nothing that says casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is an evil act.

(It's also up for interpretation as to whether a good Cleric/Wizard could summon a fiendish viper with a wizard spell, since it depends on whether the restriction applies to cleric spells, or to any spell the character casts; bear in mind that the same answer should apply to spontaneous curing, for example. If the Cleric/Wizard cannot use a wizard spell to summon a fiendish viper, he should by the same logic be able to substitute that wizard spell for a spontaneous Cure Light Wounds.)

The other thing to keep in mind is that, just because an act doesn't fall under a given descriptor, does not mean that it therefore falls under that descriptor's polar opposite. E.g., failing to protect the innocent does not fall under the Evil descriptor. However, that act also does not fall under the Good descriptor.

I agree completely.

The example I used in the past - and it's a Paladin in the example because there are concrete and tangible results if an act is evil, so it's an experiment with an observable outcome - is the Paladin sitting down in an inn and reading the menu.

"Steak, 5 silver. Chicken, 5 silver... and 1 silver goes to the Widows and Orphans fund."

"Hmm," the Paladin says. "I think I'll have the steak."

Of the options available, was steak the most-good? Perhaps not - if he'd eaten the chicken, it would support a charity. But choosing the option that is not the most-good is not the same as committing an evil act. The Paladin's powers are intact as he munches his beefy goodness.

Honestly, it's no different than a player who consistently has their wizard charge into melee. At some point, the DM should probably sit down with them and suggest having their PC take a few levels of fighter.

Tell that to Tenser

-Hyp.

 

[Brentos]

Another Example:

THE REDEEMED VILLAIN
The redeemed villain, as the phrase suggests, was once evil or at least a self-interested neutral. Somehow— through the direct action of an exalted character working for her conversion, or as a result of circumstances and events—she turned from her old ways
and adopted a good alignment.

Perhaps she started off doing good deeds for selfish reasons.

Even done for the wrong reasons, good deeds improve the person doing them, and eventually she began doing them for their own sake, finally becoming among the most virtuous of
heroes.

The redeemed villain seems to imply that good acts are good acts, regardless of character intent. Yes, anecdotal again, but still seems to add to the case.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here is a good quote from the Book of Yummy Goodness that is relevant to some of the threads above:

And that's one reason I hate the BoED's take on alignment.

Is it acceptable to tell a small lie to prevent a world-shattering catastrophe? Damned straight it's acceptable!

-Hyp.

 

[Brentos]

For the other side...

Now against my argument (in all fairness) the Book of Yummy Goodness also provides a mechanic for converting and captured [Evil] bad-guy and making them neutral.

I would argue, though, that this is there because it is outside the standard rules. It is pretty cool though. I totally recommend this book to everyone!

 

[Brentos]

Heh!

And that's one reason I hate the BoED's take on alignment.

Is it acceptable to tell a small lie to prevent a world-shattering catastrophe? Damned straight it's acceptable!

-Hyp.

That is why I love it. It is very black & white. Very concrete for a game. Sure, most characters could do the lie, it just may have in-game consequences if you are a paladin or exalted.

 

[Brentos]

Another...

If a creature fails seven saving throws after the initial saving throw against the calling, the alignment change is permanent. At this point, the creature can change alignment again, either
through another conversion effect, or voluntarily

(in a gradual manner, as alignment change normally works—the creature cannot simply decide to be evil again).

This states that deciding to change alignment doesn't actually do it (at least in context of this PrC's conversion ability).

 

[Kahuna Burger]

This states that deciding to change alignment doesn't actually do it (at least in context of this PrC's conversion ability).

That's not really what that says to me.... it's more that the conversion is a real change of heart and changing back will not be done on a whim - it would take another conversion or a long process. Once you have gone to the trouble of using this conversion ability, your DM can't have the guy murder you in your sleep and go "Yeah, it worked, but then he decided it wasn't as much fun and went back to evil."

 

[Hypersmurf]

That is why I love it. It is very black & white. Very concrete for a game. Sure, most characters could do the lie, it just may have in-game consequences if you are a paladin or exalted.

But lying isn't described as an evil act in the Paladin text; it's separated out as an example of not acting with honour.

Any evil act? Zap, tan cloak. Violating the code? Only if it's a gross violation. And a small lie to prevent a world-shattering catastrophe strikes me as a technical and minor violation, not a gross one.

This states that deciding to change alignment doesn't actually do it (at least in context of this PrC's conversion ability).

That makes sense to me.

There's a game we play occasionally, with the players divided into three kingdoms. A 'kill' results in the defeated player joining the victor's kingdom. The expectation is that a player will always be fervently loyal to the kingdom whose uniform he is wearing at this moment - when he is in service to Koguryo, he wants nothing more than a glorious Koguryo victory. If he is converted to Silla, then he will fight those vile Koguryo dogs with all of his strength. (It's considered in extremely poor taste for him to go to the nearest Koguryo warrior and say "Quick, kill me so I can come back!")

If someone has a good alignment, their attitude and outlook are those of a good person. They find evil distasteful.

If someone has an evil alignment, their attitude and outlook are those of a good person. They see good as weak and pathetic.

If I take an evil person, and convert their alignment to good... they will find evil distasteful. They won't want to change back. It may be that they'll gradually make their way back there via the slippery slope, but in the absence of some vast horizon-altering upheaval (like the initial conversion, for example!), it won't be immediate.

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

Of the options available, was steak the most-good? Perhaps not - if he'd eaten the chicken, it would support a charity. But choosing the option that is not the most-good is not the same as committing an evil act. The Paladin's powers are intact as he munches his beefy goodness.

Beefy neutrality. Totally agree that you are not required to optimize locally for "most good" -- doing that would enable Evil to make nice slippery slopes of local optima.

That is why I love it. It is very black & white.

Agree. I'm not going to get into Exalted status -- it has no place in my game. But I do prohibit Paladins from lying. It's a Code violation. They can atone for it if it's not a big deal, but they can't lie with impunity. The Paladin player in my game is not stupid, and he finds ways to tell the truth which do not get the party into (more) trouble. He hasn't required an atonement yet.

Cheers, -- N