Alignment myths?

[Hussar]

Wow. So cutting down a tree is evil, but doing nothing at all to save a child whom you could have easily saved has no alignment? By this definition I could stand by impassively, watching some poor child get crushed slowly and that act of non-action won't have any alignment consequences.

That moral framework is so repulsive I have no desire to continue with this thread.

Something I want to point out here is that I haven't actually worked through all the kinks in this idea. I'm not sure if I'm not painting myself into a corner. It was something that occured to me, and I ran with it. I would also say that this in no way actually reflects any personal moral view.

However, the way I see it, by removing, or limiting as much as possible, the effect of intent upon the alignment of a particular action, it becomes much simpler to judge the alignment of that action. Because intent is so subjective, it simply muddies the water. By ignoring intent and focusing solely upon the direct effect of the action, alignment becomes a better tool to use.

In the woodcutter's case, I would expect a good character to pay restitution willingly and a paladin would likely have to atone for his actions. That he can atone is a sign that intention cannot entirely be removed from the picture. But if you allow intent back into the picture, I can see the gaming table getting entirely paralyzed as the player and DM argue back and forth what the character intended and whatnot. Having been on the wrong end of more than a few alignment arguements, both as a DM and as a player, I would prefer to keep alignment absolute and simple.

 

[prosfilaes]

The direct result (note the direct part there) of the woodcutter cutting down the tree was the death of the child. [...] That's another actor taking actions and doesn't somehow retcon the original action of killing the dragon into an evil act any more than the assassin using the bow made from the tree the woodcutter cut retcons his action into evil.

In other words, alignment doesn't time travel. Actions have a particular alignment at the time they occur. That doesn't get changed later because of the actions of other actors.

I don't see the clear distinctions here that you do. The child didn't die when the woodchopper struck the tree the last time; he died after, when the tree fell down, after the action was completed. Furthermore, after the woodchopper completed his action, the child could have jumped free to safety; the fact the child didn't realize that he should jump in time shouldn't retcon the action.

Furthermore, your rules would protect the actor from the foreseeable results of his actions. If the evil orcs hire that woodchopper to sell them bow-quality wood so their next attack on the good elvish kingdom beside them will be successful, isn't that an evil act?

 

[RigaMortus2]

One of the biggest myths that I see in alignment discussions is that intention has any bearing on the determination of alignment.

Of course it has a bearing on the determination of alignment. Before ANY action (good/evil/lawful/chaotic) takes place, the person about to perform the action has some sort of intention behind it.

And those who do not act on intentions can still be opposite of what they seem. Here is an example I always use to demonstrate this:

Let's say we have a shoe maker in a village. Every minute of every day the shoe maker fantasizes about kidnapping, torturing and killing his customers for his own pleasure. He fantasizes about how he would do it, where he would hide the bodies, and what his alibi would be. He never actually commits the act because he fears the law, and fears getting caught. Are you suggesting that this shoe maker is not evil?

 

[FEADIN]

I don't see the clear distinctions here that you do. The child didn't die when the woodchopper struck the tree the last time; he died after, when the tree fell down, after the action was completed. Furthermore, after the woodchopper completed his action, the child could have jumped free to safety; the fact the child didn't realize that he should jump in time shouldn't retcon the action.

Furthermore, your rules would protect the actor from the foreseeable results of his actions. If the evil orcs hire that woodchopper to sell them bow-quality wood so their next attack on the good elvish kingdom beside them will be successful, isn't that an evil act?

I think it's not Evil to hire the woodchopper to have a good bow, buying something is not inherently Evil, even prohibited things, it's what you do, the act, that can be Evil.

But by my friends' sayings I'm Lawful Evil, you can trust me

PS: I agree with them!

 

[prosfilaes]

Let's say we have a shoe maker in a village. Every minute of every day the shoe maker fantasizes about kidnapping, torturing and killing his customers for his own pleasure. He fantasizes about how he would do it, where he would hide the bodies, and what his alibi would be. He never actually commits the act because he fears the law, and fears getting caught. Are you suggesting that this shoe maker is not evil?

Yes. Good and evil is all about choosing the right thing, not your private fantasies which have no effect on the world.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think it's not Evil to hire the woodchopper to have a good bow, buying something is not inherently Evil, even prohibited things, it's what you do, the act, that can be Evil.

The question, is selling something to someone, when you know that person is going to use it to more effectively do evil with, evil? Assuming that IBM knew that the Nazis were going to use their computing equipment to tabulate the Holocaust, was not their selling that equipment to the Nazis wrong?

 

[Merkuri]

Regarding the shoemaker who fantasizes about evil acts but does not actually commit them, there are a lot of real-world philosophies that wouldn't peg this person as evil. Many systems of karma take only your actions into account, not your thoughts. A lot of modern Western religions, though, take thoughts into account as well, and this shoemaker would be evil by that definition.

You could go either way, based on how you want to handle alignment. As Hussar said earlier, by taking intention and private thoughts out of the picture it makes it much much easier to resolve alignment arguments, but if you decide to take thoughts into account then that's your (or your DM's) decision.

 

[Celebrim]

The question, is selling something to someone, when you know that person is going to use it to more effectively do evil with, evil? Assuming that IBM knew that the Nazis were going to use their computing equipment to tabulate the Holocaust, was not their selling that equipment to the Nazis wrong?

Don't make this conversation jump a shark, prosfilaes.

 

[Celebrim]

Regarding the shoemaker who fantasizes about evil acts but does not actually commit them, there are a lot of real-world philosophies that wouldn't peg this person as evil. Many systems of karma take only your actions into account, not your thoughts. A lot of modern Western religions, though, take thoughts into account as well, and this shoemaker would be evil by that definition.

Being Western, my inclination is to say that ones thoughts are every bit as 'aligned' as ones actions.

You could go either way, based on how you want to handle alignment. As Hussar said earlier, by taking intention and private thoughts out of the picture it makes it much much easier to resolve alignment arguments, but if you decide to take thoughts into account then that's your (or your DM's) decision.

Fortunately, the DM doesn't have to resolve the private mental life of any character - PC or NPC. If I may suggest, that's precisely why we have alignment. It is a short hand way of writing what the private mental life of the character is so that we have some idea of what to expect of the character when it comes time for him to make a choice regarding an action with moral consequences (which as should be clear by now, I think are most of them.) Instead of writing, "Fantasizes about killing puppies", on the character sheet, we write, "Nuetral Evil". This shorthand tells us alot about how we should run the character without ever having to know exactly what they are thinking when they are off stage or worrying about such questions as, "Do his thoughts make him evil, or does his evil make his thoughts" unless we really really want to.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Yes. Good and evil is all about choosing the right thing, not your private fantasies which have no effect on the world.

According to whom? D&D or some other source?

I am speaking purely from a D&D RAW standpoint.

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment.

I would say his moral attitude is a bit on the evil side personally. Doesn't say anything about their actions, just their attitude.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

So if he is fantasizing about hurting and killing people, seems pretty evil to me.