Alignment - Action As Intent

[Hypersmurf]

Beefy neutrality.

It was a celestial bison

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.

But where's the line between 'violates the code', and 'grossly violates the code'? It's the gross violations that require atonement in the class description.

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

It was a celestial bison

Ah, for Belkar's wings. Of course.

But where's the line between 'violates the code', and 'grossly violates the code'? It's the gross violations that require atonement in the class description.

That's DM-specific. Fortunately, my game's Paladin player is really good, and it hasn't come up.

A lie wouldn't cost him his class features, but I'd find some appropriate penalty to impose until he somehow atoned -- with or without the spell atonement. Penalty on Diplomacy checks, possibly some other checks related to the nature of the lie.

Many lies, or lies that supported Chaotic actions -- those might be gross violations.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

A lie wouldn't cost him his class features, but I'd find some appropriate penalty to impose until he somehow atoned -- with or without the spell atonement. Penalty on Diplomacy checks, possibly some other checks related to the nature of the lie.

Many lies, or lies that supported Chaotic actions -- those might be gross violations.

So a small lie to prevent a world-shattering catastrophe...?

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

So a small lie to prevent a world-shattering catastrophe...?

Same answer as for any other reason. A lie is a (non-gross) violation of the Paladin's code, and will incur a penalty. Probably to Diplomacy checks, and something else, depending on the specifics.

But IMC, the Paladin (and friends) have saved the world 3 times, and the Paladin hasn't lied once. So my answer is currently untested.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

The BoED does go into more detail than the basic PHB description of good, but it doesn't change anything.

I think you're separating deed and intent more sharply than can be reasonably done. Yes, here is a list of things that a good character typically does, and a character who does many of these things is most likely good. But no one acts without an intention - the ultimate desired result.

I think this discussion has started to go around in circles. Nifft's point that Declared Actions can be used to determine intent for game purposes is an interesting and valid one. Beyond that we're getting into splitting hairs and arguing over words which mean different things to different people.

 

[buzz]

He's not a cleric.

True, but the paladin "prepares and casts spells the way a cleric does." Ergo, I think it's reasonable to restrict the class in the same way. That's how I'm reading it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

True, but the paladin "prepares and casts spells the way a cleric does." Ergo, I think it's reasonable to restrict the class in the same way. That's how I'm reading it.

And the ranger and druid, too, who both prepare and cast spells the way a cleric does?

But, then - a druid prepares and casts spells the way a cleric does, and also has the feature:
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A druid can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity’s (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.

A ranger and a paladin prepare and cast spells the way a cleric does, but don't have that feature.

If preparing and casting spells the way a cleric does incorporates the feature, why does the druid have it as a separate entry?

-Hyp.

 

[buzz]

A ranger and a paladin prepare and cast spells the way a cleric does, but don't have that feature.

If preparing and casting spells the way a cleric does incorporates the feature, why does the druid have it as a separate entry?

A valid point. It seems a reasonable restriction for a paladin, though. Ranger, not so much.

That said, it may be moot, as a quick look at the paladin spell list doesn't show any summoning spells, much less any spells with [Evil] descriptors. Almost ditto rangers, though they can cast summon nature's ally, and only one available creature (salamanders) is NE.

Crazy! And we're really off-topic now.

 

[Nifft]

It's my opinion that casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act, but the only place I can find rules to back this up is in the BoVD. Anyone got a Core quote?

Thanks, -- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

That said, it may be moot, as a quick look at the paladin spell list doesn't show any summoning spells, much less any spells with [Evil] descriptors.

Any wonder that my example used a multiclassed Paladin/Sorcerer?

Almost ditto rangers, though they can cast summon nature's ally, and only one available creature (salamanders) is NE.

There are five creatures that would be affected if you restricted a ranger's alignment-descriptor spells:
Eagle, giant [NG]
Owl, giant [NG]
Satyr [CN]
Salamander, flamebrother [NE]
Unicorn [CG]

Remember, you can have evil (no birds or unicorns) or lawful (no satyrs or unicorns) rangers as well as good ones.

-Hyp.