Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3607649" data-attributes="member: 6777"><a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm" target="_blank">From the rulebook</a>.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> The section on alignment is entirely devoted to describing how characters act. It never addresses the imagined in-character intent behind those actions. This is a good thing, because imagined intent is a slippery slope that leads to the ability to justify any sort of action (usually using bogus real-world "what ifs" as comparison) under any alignment, with no way to effectively adjudicate anything. By focusing on action, we can look at the choices players make for their PCs and the context, and come to definitive answers.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.See, what's much cooler is that, without that silly intent-bargaining stuff, our hypothetical paladin would be practically forced to take on the dragon, risking his life to save not only the girl, but the whole town. That's awesome, and that's what paladins are supposed to do.See, my contention is that RAW already accomplishes this. That's why I'm not seeing what's different here.I've had this discussion about how alignment works before. All I will say here is (in a helpful sense, not a dismissive one): read the rules. Previous editions and decades of interpretation have, I think, ingrained the idea that there's this fuzzy element to alignment that involves rationalization and philosophical/psychological debate. This just isn't the case in the current ruleset, as I read it. Jonathan Tweet (who wrote that section, FYI) did a fantastic job  of cleaning up alignment into something very concrete and usable as-is.</blockquote>

Verification