Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3612969" data-attributes="member: 30001">There are all kinds of things that don't exist in the actual rules of the game but are presumed to exist for the sake of the campaign.&nbsp; I'm not sure what the use is of narrowing things to just the RAW.Rod of Enemy Detection.&nbsp; In fact the whole Diplomacy mechanic.&nbsp; I think it's really going out on a limb to suggest that intent doesn't show up in the RAW.I think that really is an overly creative use of the word &quot;is&quot;.&nbsp; The DM is not the universe/game world - the DM is an adjucator of the game.It's one thing to say, as the OP has said, that enforcing an alignment system is too hard for the DM if it's based on intent.&nbsp; It's entirely another thing to suggest that this is what the RAW had in mind the whole time.&nbsp; From the SRD &quot;People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent&quot; - a compunction is not an action.&nbsp; It's pretty clear in the alignment section that intent is a big part of it.I was under the impression that if I cast detect evil on an unintelligent evil sword that it would detect as evil.&nbsp; If a neutral henchman is raised as a vampire, he's instantly evil, even if he hasn't had a chance to do anything (say he is imprisoned or just far away from potential victims).&nbsp; You're suggesting that an imprisoned vampire would still be neutral?&nbsp; According to the rules suggested by the OP, this seems to be the logical conclusion.&nbsp; But I don't think there's any basis to assume that the RAW has it this way.So the vampire then finds a cleric and wants to attack him (intent - so he's still not evil).&nbsp; As he approaches the cleric, snarling (is snarling evil?) the cleric casts protection from evil.&nbsp; So far the vampire hasn't actual made a hit roll against the cleric, so I suppose that protection from evil would do nothing.Then the vampire takes an actual swing.&nbsp; Does making a single attack roll against a cleric change your alignment to evil?&nbsp; Would it in the case of a drunk fighter?IMO The results of an &quot;actions only&quot; alignment system would produced counter-intuitive results.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 3612969, member: 30001"] There are all kinds of things that don't exist in the actual rules of the game but are presumed to exist for the sake of the campaign. I'm not sure what the use is of narrowing things to just the RAW. Rod of Enemy Detection. In fact the whole Diplomacy mechanic. I think it's really going out on a limb to suggest that intent doesn't show up in the RAW. I think that really is an overly creative use of the word "is". The DM is not the universe/game world - the DM is an adjucator of the game. It's one thing to say, as the OP has said, that enforcing an alignment system is too hard for the DM if it's based on intent. It's entirely another thing to suggest that this is what the RAW had in mind the whole time. From the SRD "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent" - a compunction is not an action. It's pretty clear in the alignment section that intent is a big part of it. I was under the impression that if I cast detect evil on an unintelligent evil sword that it would detect as evil. If a neutral henchman is raised as a vampire, he's instantly evil, even if he hasn't had a chance to do anything (say he is imprisoned or just far away from potential victims). You're suggesting that an imprisoned vampire would still be neutral? According to the rules suggested by the OP, this seems to be the logical conclusion. But I don't think there's any basis to assume that the RAW has it this way. So the vampire then finds a cleric and wants to attack him (intent - so he's still not evil). As he approaches the cleric, snarling (is snarling evil?) the cleric casts protection from evil. So far the vampire hasn't actual made a hit roll against the cleric, so I suppose that protection from evil would do nothing. Then the vampire takes an actual swing. Does making a single attack roll against a cleric change your alignment to evil? Would it in the case of a drunk fighter? IMO The results of an "actions only" alignment system would produced counter-intuitive results. [/QUOTE]

Verification