Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="green slime" data-source="post: 3609923" data-attributes="member: 1325">Consider the following, rather standard, situation:A damsel is in distress, kidnapped by an organisation "The do-bad-ers".This group is thoroughly evil. They plan to execute the princess if their demands are not met (standard fare: release political prisoners, free province Y, concede Z) before a certain date.A "hero" could appear and declare his intent to rescue the princess. A declaration of an intended action.It is my contention, that mere declaration of intent is not enough. There must be adequate, sufficient action connected to the declaration, to give it any moral meaning. Otherwise the "hero" is guilty of the cardinal sin of Sloth.The declaration in connection with inadequate action can, in itself, be considered no more than mere neutral behaviour at best. Whether the action itself is "adequate" or not, is up to the DM to gauge.Action, without intent, is likewise suspect. If some action should accidently procure the premature release of the princess, this act could not be presumed to be automatically "good". The persuer of this action, would've been persuing a completely different agenda. That agenda could be for a very much greater evil or good.So, in my example in my previous post, while the "hero" may well be perceived as such ("hero"/"good") by the population at large, he is nontheless an evil-scheming custard, with plans to usurp the throne. The fact that his intent, and his actions temporarily malalign, do not mitigate his evilness.IMC, I have produced a guideline, a table of what is considered "Evil/Chaotic/Good/Lawful." It provides players with a rough guideline as to where the moral lines are drawn in campaigns I run. They may (and do) disagree with the practical implications, and argue from various metaphysical standpoints.When discussing alignment, I find it impossible to detach intent. Mere action is not enough of a measure, IMO. Action is only the easier of the two to determine. Interestingly, Swedish law also makes this distinction in many cases. It is possible to break the law, and yet have a mitigating circumstance that the intention of crime was not there. Murder (Mord) and Manslaughter (Dråp) I believe exist in many societies.</blockquote>

Verification