Quick alignment question. Is intent the same as action?

[alsih2o]

to wit, evidently many amonster, freshly born, and with no actions to his credit is evil....remember,t his ain't the real world.

if a p.c. in my campaign planned and readied an assasination, but someone else bumped the target off first, i think he has still commited evil, not as bad as if he had done the deed, but still, evil.

respectfully of course, while many things in d+d aren't left to us, alignment will almost always be arguable

 

[Balsamic Dragon]

Is intent just as damning as action? Lets say I have a CN fighter who is only concerned with improving his own skills and abilities. Lets say he respects dragons and views them as the ultimate target. Lets say he would be more than willing to kill a Gold dragon just to prove he could do it. There is no anger towards the dragon, he never crossed it in the path and actually respects its views on morality even though he does not share them, but he would want to fight and kill it as a way of testing his mettle. Evil?

Question: this guy wants to prove that he can kill a dragon, right? Why? Is it because he wants other people to fear how strong he is? That would be evil. Is it because he wants to know for himself whether he can do it? Probably more neutral. It sounds more like the latter to me.

Ok, example the second; lets say this guy is hired to kill this other guy – he has no levels of assassin and is therefore not already damned as “evil” (I disagree with this ruling, but that was a whole different thread) – whom he knows nothing about. He is ok with this, but a week before the deadline – get it? “dead”line? Ha ha ha – the man falls ill and dies on his own. The first man never committed an evil act. Does his alignment change?

How does the character feel about the fact that the man died on his own? Relieved? Frustrated? I think motivation is the key thing here. So you are close when you say that there is a difference between intent and action, but I would say that motivation, the drive that causes one to have an intent or take an action is the most important thing.

I agree that the assassins rule is frustrating, but it is easily solved by breaking the prestige class into several more campaign specific groups. The one in the DMG might be evil, but I could easily see a neutral group of assassins.

Balsamic Dragon

 

[Umbran]

I think, in discussing that CN fighter, it might be more instructive to break things down a bit more.

There is the action - what actually is done.
There is intent - what the character planned to do.
There is motive - why the character made the plan.

The intent indicates how responsible the character is for the action that happens. The motive tells us if the intended action was justified.

In the case of the CN fighter, he intends to kill a gold dragon.

Stop right there, and look at it for a moment - he intends to kill a gold dragon. With forethought, he plans to kill a creature that probably does not deserve death - that's murder. He plans to remove a major force of good from the area, with all the consequences that entails (probably evil critters having a field day).

His motive is to test himself. That does little to justify the cold-blooded murder of an innocent and very good creature. It does not insulate the fighter from the easily seen consequences of his actions. In fact, he's specifically putting his test above those consequences. He can easily see that his actions will hurt many people in the long run, but he takes them anyway. I'm sorry, but that's evil.

Let's cast it in a different genre - say he's a modern day hit man. He wants to kill Mother Teresa just to see if he's up to the challenge of dealing with her bodyguards. Evil? You betcha!

In order to avoid evil, this fighter must change either his motive, or his intent. The simplest would be to change the intent - fight the dragon until it's fairly clear he would win if the fight continued, then teleport away, leaving behind some means for the dragon to heal itself quickly.

 

[sircaren]

*tries to think of Mother Teresa as a Gold Dragon*

/boggle


[edit] spelling [/edit]

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I agree with Canis (about 75% of the way - you had me up until the very last about the assassin)

Re-reading my post, I think I should clarify. The murder is not secondary in degree of evil, but the fact that he didn't carry out the murder doesn't mitigate the fact that he contracted to do it. The murder is secondary in a cause-effect sense. Does that fit better?

Also, I think a fighter idly wondering if he could take a gold dragon is pretty standard, harmless stuff. It's idle speculation in the vein of "I'm a reasonably good martial artist. I wonder if I could take Steven Seagall." If he actively seeks a gold dragon to engage in combat, that's when he starts moving into evil.

btw- Methinkus, have you noticed that there's really no such thing as a "quick alignment question"?

 

[Quickbeam]

As a DM I'd simply rule that a character who frequently expressed evil intentions, but is of a good alignment, is on the path towards moderately shifting their alignment. This character may have poor impulse control or be the product of a particularly cruel upbringing and environment, yet still manages to ignore their evil thoughts. A character such as this is not yet evil IMO, but certainly has evil tendencies. If this character accepted a contract to assassinate another person, I'd argue that this action warranted another nudge towards evil. Certainly their failure to carry out the act is relevant (especially if they have a change of heart vs. loss of opportunity), but it doesn't completely mitigate agreeing (and intending) to fulfill such a task.
Similarly, a character/creature who is evil, may occasionally have good thoughts or intentions and still be evil. If these thoughts and intentions become too frequent, I'd say the character is moving towards neutrality. A career assassin (an evil fellow to be sure) may decide to volunteer time helping victims of a plague because the same disease killed his family. That's a pretty noble and righteous (good) intention IMO. But two days before he's to begin this charitable work, the church housing plague victims burns to the ground in a freak accident, and he nevers pursues the idea again. Does this initial good intention make him less evil?

Bottom line for me -- intentions can (and should) be considered when assessing alignment, but ultimately actions are the measure of a character.

 

[Tonguez]

I like Umbrans schematic of Motive and Intent it makes sense. Also a great moral philosopher once said something about "But those things which proceed from the mouth come from the heart and they defile a man. For out of the heart comes evil thoughts, murders, adulteries ..., these are the things that defile a man

(NB not intended as a religious preach just an illustrative point)

In the case of the CN fighter, he intends to kill a gold dragon.

Stop right there, and look at it for a moment - he intends to kill a gold dragon. With forethought, he plans to kill a creature that probably does not deserve death - that's murder. He plans to remove a major force of good from the area, with all the consequences that entails (probably evil critters having a field day).

His motive is to test himself. That does little to justify the cold-blooded murder of an innocent and very good creature. It does not insulate the fighter from the easily seen consequences of his actions. In fact, he's specifically putting his test above those consequences. He can easily see that his actions will hurt many people in the long run, but he takes them anyway. I'm sorry, but that's evil.

I disagree that this is Murder OR (neccesarily) Evil. We are talking about a person desiring to kill a frightful beasts. The fact that it is both intelligent and good doesn't stop it being a monster and a object of local dread.
For instance if he desired to kill a Great Red would he still be thinking evil?

Mother T doesn't compare as thats Human vs Human not Human v Terrible Monster

 

[Umbran]

I disagree that this is Murder OR (neccesarily) Evil. We are talking about a person desiring to kill a frightful beasts. The fact that it is both intelligent and good doesn't stop it being a monster and a object of local dread.
For instance if he desired to kill a Great Red would he still be thinking evil?

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. Methinkus specifically stated that this fighter respects the dragon's view of morality. Thus, the fighter knows it isn't just a frightful beast. He knows it is a thinking being of high moral position. The fact that the locals don't know the truth is of no consequense. The fighter knows that the dragon is no threat to the locals. Heck, he knows that by killing the dragon, he's probably putting locals in danger by removing their protector.

If the fighter was ignorant, he would be in less trouble. His intent would then to be to kill a beast. Of course, if he knew so little about the gold dragon that he doesn't know it's moral behavior, he's probably short on a lot of other data, and is going to get chewed up and spit out by the dragon

Mind you, the fact that none of the fearful locals could actually document a case where the gold dragon hurt anyone who didn't deserve it (because it hasn't), should make said fighter wonder.

If he desired to kill a Great Red - knowing the moral position of the beast - then he's not contemplating evil. Your standard Great Red is not innocent. It's a nasty, destructive, vile thing, and he's doing the locals a favor by getting rid of it.

 

[jgbrowning]

evil vrs good

Why is a single evil act by a CN character more "damming" than a single good act?

I think most have a double standard.. once you cross that line you're EVIL, but it doesnt work the other way. hrm...

I'd say an evil act does not an evil character make. If a person believes in doing both good and evil acts to promote chaos, let him be. Or if he thinks good or evil acts immaterial to his desires..... anyway

joe b.

 

[Umbran]

Re: evil vrs good

Why is a single evil act by a CN character more "damming" than a single good act?

It isn't.

I have been referring to the moral quality of the act. What that does to the overall balance of the character is a separate issue, and cannot really be discussed without a context.

Killing off such a potent minion of good is no small shakes, though. We aren't talking about whether he sneers at beggars in the street, or cheats at dice. We're talking about killing one of the more powerful forces for good on the planet. Extraordinary acts have extraordinary consequences.