Alignment dilemma

[rufferv2k]

Hello everyone. It is quite a long story so grab a cup of tea.

I am travelling in a party for quite a long time and we happened to get ourselves in a story with a necromancer, which is trying to resurrect himself or something. To do so he needs his body parts and organs, and we are on a quest to get them before his minions are able to. So here starts the story.

In one of the fights our ranger was killed, and our barbarian tried to save him by shoving a necromancers heart into his chest. That somehow worked, but strange things started to happen with the ranger. Every time he was near death some strange force brought him back to life, but in expense took part of his life force (He got a permanent penalty to his Constitution score). Also every wound he got cured almost instantly.

Barbarian thought that it was some kind of a curse, and sooner or later the ranger will transform into a demon or something. So he decided to take a look at that heart, and detect if it is magic or not, and what properties it has. He did not find any better way than cutting into the rangers chest and taking a close look at his heart. He assured ranger that everything will be ok, he could not die anyway, so he proceeded with the operation. The rest of the characters told the barbarian that they do not want to participate in it and left. Because the ranger was not against, they did not reassure him otherwise.

The barbarian strangled the ranger into unconsciousness, and started the operation. During the operation the ranger awakened, just to get a hit right into his head. We thought it was over the top, but he reassured us that he was worrying for the ranger and the whole party, so he had to do this. In the end he determined that the heart is indeed cursed, and to survive the ranger needs to sacrifice good aligned characters.

So, not so easy question. The barbarian was Chaotic Good, so our GM was going to drastically shift his alignment because of that action. We all agreed that it was too extreme measures, but we could not agree on what alignment he should shift towards to. What's your opinion?

[Seto]

I'm confused. Are you talking about alignment-shifting the Ranger or the Barbarian ? The Ranger survives on evil power, but hasn't done anything yet. If he refuses to sacrifice Good characters and tries to find a cure for it, he's ok. As for the Barbarian, he's made rash and impulsive decisions (stuff a Necromancer's heart into his friend, been pretty brutal in his attempts to determine what's wrong), but honestly nothing that would warrant an alignment change to me. I don't see the dilemma.

[Strigon]

I don't see the issue; he's either drifting to be more Lawful or more Evil. That sure wasn't Lawful, so he's drifting down toward Evil.

[OldTrees1]

Wait are we talking about the Barbarian's alignment?

The Barbarian's actions are gory but it sounds like the Ranger consented to the operation before the Barbarian started anything. Operating on a consenting patient is not an alignment affecting action.

[Honest Tiefling]

Cup of tea in hand, righty-o. However, I, too am confused of which party member you speak of.

If its the barbarian...I'd honestly let him off with a warning. If its upsetting people out of character that he's ripping them open (not a phrase I think I would have typed in all seriousness...) then it needs to be handled out of character with a friendly chat with the player. I would warn him that ripping people open without proper preparations (as the situation warrants!) will cause an alignment change if he does so. I assume he does not have many ranks in heal or profession (surgeon). It seems like the barbarian is a rash, impulsive person, but one who genuinely wanted to help his friend. I would not give a complete alignment change, ESPECIALLY if he's trying to roleplay this archetype.

As for the ranger, he's essentially been cursed. He didn't ask for his dead body to have an evil heart shoved into it. If he does not give in, I wouldn't even change his alignment, any more then I'd make a paladin fall because of a curse. I'd wait and see what he does with this new found curse.

Also, if the DM doesn't want to punish the ranger for the barbarian's actions, might I suggest that the ranger becomes a Necropolitan?

[daremetoidareyo]

If you're talking about the barbarian, Maybe MAYBE there is behavioral shift towards evil, but he was simply doing an operation on willing participant. Surgeons can be chaotic good, so I wouldn't worry about it. A single debatably "evil" act isn't enough, unless he is exalted, in which case, all he has to do is atone via atonement spell.


If we're talking about the ranger, the alignment shift is associated with the cursed item. But there are choices to be made. Imprisonment until you get access to reincarnate is the easiest option, with the ranger sacrificing himself while others in the group cast dispel magic on the heart and remove it surgically, or with a sunder attempt. Cast reincarnate on the hapless ranger and have the resulting bugbear, rabbit, or whathaveyou join the party. If the stain of evil from the heart got into his soul, you will probably need remove curse/atonement to remedy it.


It's not a big dilemna. People who do things, anything, are more likely to slide towards evil than people who sit around eating cheetos. If class features are lost due to these examples of non-consentual evil intrusion, there should be plot relevant ways to regain them.

Ninja'ed by the post I didn't read clearly enough.

[MilkFox]

I am the barbarian from the story and i just wanted to clear up a few points of the story.

First of all, the GM wants to shift MY alignment for basically doing something so crazy that most of the party disapproves of.

Secondly When my Barbarian saw how the Ranger revived and regenerated (after I put the cursed heart into him) my Barbarian got an idea into his head (a paranoid one) that the necromancer will gain control of the Ranger's body through that cursed heart.

Thirdly the author of the story forgot to mention that i sensed magic change in Ranger's body the first two times he died (i myself had a magic eye in one of my eye sockets and i could see the magic aura around the cursed heart). And so my barbarian got even MORE worried.

And then i went into multiclassing and became a cleric as well, so it made perfect sense for me to check what the heart did/does to the ranger. He had to find out if it would still be the same trust worthy ranger the next time he awakens after death. So my barbarian decided to cut her up and take a look at that heart to make sure the ranger won't get possessed or anything.

(I did put points in my Heal and Spellcraft skills and my barbarian is wise and more or less intelligent).

[Honest Tiefling]

Ah, yes, that is my bad. I didn't realize about the heal ranks, which...Um. In my opinion, does indeed change things up a bit.

I take it from the tone of the post, you do not wish for this alignment change. From what I see, the barbarian made a desperate gamble to save a friend's life. If anything, putting evil hearts into people would be an evil action, except that the character had no idea this would happen. I would personally chalk this up to ignorance as I assume this happened a lower level, but try to find some RP way to discourage experimentation with potentially evil magics. If anything, THIS is the action that I could see tarnishing the character's alignment, but...Probably isn't enough as it was trying to save her.

Now, cutting into the ranger? That's surgery. As someone said, surgeons can be chaotic good. Your character operated on a willing target. You have heal ranks. What the heck would the party do if someone broke an arm, or had a barbed arrow, or heavens forbid, had a necrotic cyst or other unpleasant magic in them?

I think you guys need to have a chat with the DM. If the DM wants to shift your alignment for doing something 'so crazy' I wonder if it is a problem with the comfort levels of other people at the game with gore or tone. Secondly, perhaps you could come to a compromise. The barbacleric has realized that their action has cursed a friend. Rather then an outright shift to evil, the character tries their best to rectify the situation. Still has some RP punch to it, in that the character either needs to redeem themselves or to fix what they accidentally cursed, but not an outright alignment change.

Honestly, forcing an alignment change on someone rarely works, as most people hate it and it can even make others at the table uncomfortable. Usually it is a result of either an overbearing DM or a player who...Really shouldn't be there. It doesn't sound like either is the case here, so again, talk to the DM and present your case.

[OldTrees1]

I am the barbarian from the story and i just wanted to clear up a few points of the story.

First of all, the GM wants to shift MY alignment for basically doing something so crazy that most of the party disapproves of.

If the PCs are disgusted then that is represented by the PCs having worse attitudes towards your PC.
If the Players are disgusted then it is an OOC issue where you might want to be flexible on.
If the PCs disapprove of the action in the "it's immoral" sense of the term, then the PCs should react accordingly in game (since the moral beliefs of characters in game can be wrong about the moral reality of the game).
If the Players disapprove of the action in the "it's immoral" sense of the term, then it is reasonable to shift your PC's alignment (despite my personal disagreement over their judgement of the action).

In only 1 of those 4 cases (the 4th one) is an alignment shift warranted and even then I think a reasoned discussion of morality/ethics would sway their minds.

[Nibbens]

I am the barbarian from the story and i just wanted to clear up a few points of the story.

First of all, the GM wants to shift MY alignment for basically doing something so crazy that most of the party disapproves of.

Which is a Chaotic action at worse... Which is your alignment.


Secondly When my Barbarian saw how the Ranger revived and regenerated (after I put the cursed heart into him) my Barbarian got an idea into his head (a paranoid one) that the necromancer will gain control of the Ranger's body through that cursed heart.

So he took matters into his own hands and assured his own survival, as well as everyone elses - again a Chaotic and even Chaotic Good action... Which is your alignment.


Thirdly the author of the story forgot to mention that i sensed magic change in Ranger's body the first two times he died (i myself had a magic eye in one of my eye sockets and i could see the magic aura around the cursed heart). And so my barbarian got even MORE worried.

And then i went into multiclassing and became a cleric as well, so it made perfect sense for me to check what the heart did/does to the ranger. He had to find out if it would still be the same trust worthy ranger the next time he awakens after death. So my barbarian decided to cut her up and take a look at that heart to make sure the ranger won't get possessed or anything.

(I did put points in my Heal and Spellcraft skills and my barbarian is wise and more or less intelligent).

Erm... okay? This isn't really needed.

So, as far as I can tell, you're playing CG quite well. Keep doing what you're doing.

And as far the notion that you need ranks in heal for it to be a non-evil action - I don't necessarily agree with that. If your barbarian believes he can perform the surgery, it doesn't matter if he has ranks in it or not. Your Barbarian believes he's being good and is actively doing something to help (which is the main crux of the matter) - then that's a good action, regardless of his skill level in his ability to help (or however misguided his help might be).

[Geddy2112]

The Barbarian's actions are gory but it sounds like the Ranger consented to the operation before the Barbarian started anything. Operating on a consenting patient is not an alignment affecting action.

Yeah, this is more or less what you did. Alignment should not really play into this.

The rest of the party finding your actions radical should not influence your alignment change. Based on your information, you have ranks in heal and spellcraft- using both combined to examine a magical item implanted in a humanoid seems...logical.

[Segev]

Yeah, "squicky" acts are not inherently aligned. It sounds like your barbarian/cleric took every precaution to be sensitive to the rights and sensibilities of others within the limits of what he felt would still be effective in determining what's going on. He did not force this surgery on the ranger, he did not revel in the (admittedly violent) anesthetic methods to which he felt forced, and I assume he didn't deliberately choose them for expediency when he had other, more merciful options available.

Nothing he did here would inherently change his alignment. Earlier acts might make him shift towards Chaotic, but he's already there, so he was acting in-alignment.

[Nifft]

Which is a Chaotic action at worse... Which is your alignment.

Yeah, at worst I think this Barbarian is in danger of becoming DOUBLE CHAOTIC.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I want to point out that the players/their characters not approving has no intrinsic bearing on the alignment of the act. There are things people don't approve of that definitely are not evil (by DND standards).

[daremetoidareyo]

It sounds like an OOC issue. Maybe a misunderstanding of the alignment axis. If the problem persists even after talking out the issue, simply roleplay however you want, change your god to something CN if you're not worshipping a concept (probably the best way to go here) and who cares what your alignment says.


Alignment shifts are like international law: there isn't a whole lot of teeth to them, so they only affect you as much as you give a darn. It is simply a way to sway behavior.

[Yahzi]

something so crazy that most of the party disapproves of
Which was... what? Where was the crazy part?

It's D&D. You have magical healing. Cutting open your friend to check on a cursed zombie heart is perfectly sane. Not doing it would be the crazy part.

Me, personally, I found the original insertion of the necromancer's heart to be squicky. That act - clearly a preservation of evil solely for personal gain - would have been problematic for a LG character. But other than that, there's no alignment change here - except for the Ranger, who I assume will gradually turn into an evil undead monster. I mean, what's the point of necromancer hearts if they don't make undead monsters? It's probably the ritual for making a Death Knight or something.

[Aletheides]

'Not evil' doesn't necessarily equal 'good'.

If I were the DM in this case, I don't know if I'd shift the barbarian's alignment out-of-hand, but I'd make a note that in:

a. Making use of an 'evil' item, especially if it might put another person at risk, and
b. Performing an unethical operation, even with consent, isn't a good thing--he might have killed his friend or damaged him permanently by deciding to play sawbones with 'choke him and smack him upside the head' as anaesthetic.

...in my eyes, he'd slipped down the Good-Evil axis towards Chaotic Neutral.

Setting aside my personal prejudices about a barbarian who seems A-OK with using sorcery as much as this one...I have to ask, where was the party cleric/paladin/oracle/divine healer? An issue like this would be perfectly suited to such a character, and if the party DID have one such, then standing aside and letting something like this happen might lead to deity problems there too.

Not to mention, even if the party had to seek out a higher-level priest they trusted to consult with, this could be a seed for some serious questing,or good RP: Does the ranger want to have the heart replaced, or does he choose to deal with the curse and keep the perks? Do you sacrifice power for good, or do you sacrifice the good for power?

[OldTrees1]

Setting aside my personal prejudices about a barbarian who seems A-OK with using sorcery as much as this one...I have to ask, where was the party cleric/paladin/oracle/divine healer? An issue like this would be perfectly suited to such a character, and if the party DID have one such, then standing aside and letting something like this happen might lead to deity problems there too.

The surgeon was a divine caster with ranks in Heal and Spellcraft.


I am the barbarian from the story and i just wanted to clear up a few points of the story.

And then i went into multiclassing and became a cleric as well, so it made perfect sense for me to check what the heart did/does to the ranger. He had to find out if it would still be the same trust worthy ranger the next time he awakens after death. So my barbarian decided to cut her up and take a look at that heart to make sure the ranger won't get possessed or anything.

(I did put points in my Heal and Spellcraft skills and my barbarian is wise and more or less intelligent).

[Segev]

Performing actions which are neither evil nor good (also known as "neutral") does not typically result in an alignment shift. There's no such thing as a "strongly neutral" action which would justify a consideration for potential shifting. A Good person who commits a bloody murder for selfish reasons is definitely at risk, from that one Evil act, of shifting alignments. An Evil person who commits a major act of self-sacrifice for totally unselfish reasons may "risk" an alignment shift towards redemption.

A Good or Evil person who performs a pragmatic action with the consent of all involved with reasons that are both self-interested and in the interests of others, in spite of the squickiness or discomfort of the pragmatic action...is at worst performing a Neutral act, and really, Neutral acts only ever risk an alignment shift if they not only become a pattern, but they choke out all other Aligned acts.

It would take not just performing a non-Good act, but performing NO Good acts, to slip towards Neutral from performing Neutral acts alone.

[Telonius]

Single actions very, very rarely shift alignments. When they do, the action should be something really significant and obviously the epitome of whatever alignment the change is supposed to represent. That scenario you're describing, at least from what I can see, seems to be Chaotic Neutral. The initial action - using the heart - would probably be the more likely to switch an alignment than the later surgery, but even that is kind of ambivalent. You were taking an extreme action to preserve the life of a friend (respect for life), but doing so in a way that used an obviously-evil item (using evil's tools, and possibly disrespecting dignity) and that was very much against social norms (clearly Chaotic). So, Chaotic Neutral. Is this action significant enough to merit an alignment change? ... Well, possibly, probably not.

Most alignments are based on habitual actions. Your guy did figure out that something was clearly wrong, and is taking some steps to investigate what happened. The surgery afterwards seems to me more of a Chaotic Good action. It's apparently against social norms (whether or not that makes any sense), and concerned with his capacity for free will, so Chaotic. But you're trying to respect both his life and his dignity, so pretty clearly Good. That seems to indicate that using the heart was more of a one-time desperation move than a habit or pattern of behavior.

So, if I were the DM? I'd have an OOC talk if people are seriously squicked out by the "surgery." I'd note the use of an evil item and pay attention to see if something like that happened again, but otherwise no alignment shift.

[Nibbens]

Single actions very, very rarely shift alignments.

I'd go as far as to say never.

Alignment is, as you say, habitual action. Not something someone does just once.

For the op, if your DM really wants to micromanage alignments, I'd suggest him taking a look at the Alignment Tracking System here (http://easydamus.com/alignmenttracking.html). They break the alignments down into 121 different alignments with a pretty codified way of determining shifts and such - which makes shifting alignments a much more sure thing, where everyone can agree upon the rules and its fair.

The above system is why I really don't care so much about alignments anymore. Who wants to look at that chart every darn session to figure out if one of my 6 players slipped from L(N)G+ to -CG+

Seriously... lol.

[Telonius]

It's extremely rare, and even rarer that it's done well, but it does happen. It's usually that "sold your soul" moment - either literally (with a classic Faustian deal) or otherwise. Killing a roomful of Jedi younglings, or the Kinslaying at Alqualonde, would probably be the best examples I can think of. Or it might be an extreme example of self-sacrifice and redemption.

[Segev]

It's extremely rare, and even rarer that it's done well, but it does happen. It's usually that "sold your soul" moment - either literally (with a classic Faustian deal) or otherwise. Killing a roomful of Jedi younglings, or the Kinslaying at Alqualonde, would probably be the best examples I can think of. Or it might be an extreme example of self-sacrifice and redemption.

Typically, as well, such things are a culmination of soul-searching or struggling with temptations. Even if it's the first active ACT to which you've given in (or which you've brought yourself to perform), the thoughts and decisions and bouts of conscience or selfishness which brought you to that point have likely been happening for a while. Usually, you've probably moved right up to the edge of it just from little things, whether how grudgingly you did what good you still were doing or how much you avoided doing the little evils you once would have thoughtlessly performed.

The one-act alignment shifts are confirmations that you've made, finally, a decision about who you are, and how that may have changed. Slaughtering that room full of children training for the title to which you also aspire probably isn't something you never would have considered before the scene started. You probably were in a decision-state, where you are not sure what your alignment is anymore...until you make that choice and settle the question.

[Frosty]

I'm pretty sure Anakin was evil even before killing the Younglings...

[Red Fel]

Part of the reason that single acts so rarely shift your alignment is that actions, on their own, shouldn't shift your alignment. Or, more accurately: It's not the action that changes your alignment, it's the fact that you're the type of person who finds that action appropriate that changes your alignment. That's why habitual actions trigger the shift - you're not shifting because you committed one act too many, but rather you've become the sort of person who finds such acts an acceptable choice, and therefore you have already shifted in your mind.

For a single action to trigger a shift, it would have to be so grossly, dramatically obscene by your current standards as to constitute an act which your previous alignment could never countenance. As a result, performing said outrageous act indicates that your mind has changed, in that you have become the sort of person who could countenance such an act.

In the instant case, even assuming that a single act could shift alignment, I fail to see how improvised open-heart surgery of a patient you knew would not die from it constitutes any kind of outrageous act. I can barely see any alignment charge at all. You're helping a friend, admittedly in a reckless way, but hardly in a deliberately cruel or incredibly selfless manner. At best, it's slightly tinged due to the use of an object of Evil, but even that isn't deliberate.

I'm with the crowd here; it may have been gross and graphic, but not remotely Evil.

[Telonius]

That is one of the big drawbacks of an action-based alignment scheme like D&D's: it completely ignores the thought processes leading up to the action. I'd agree that Anakin had been on an Evil-ward spiral for quite a while; killing all of the Sand People was definitely a big moment as well. Other than that, would there have been any other actions that were unambiguously Evil? Two major actions took him from CG (possibly NG) to LE. In terms of story and mindset, he'd been on that road a whole lot longer, but an action-based system wouldn't care about that.

[Nifft]

@Red Fel - You're skating a bit too close to Primary Attribution Error there. As soon as you say it's not a person's actions, but rather the type of person that they are, you're getting dangerously close to the reasoning which underlies a lot of bigotry.

Please only recommend such blatantly evil patterns of thought via purple evil text.


@Telonius - The issue with D&D is that the overall story narrator and referee is not the same person who determines the PC's motivation. The referee needs some metric which isn't subject to misinterpretation or weaseling, and the only objectively observable things in the game are in-game actions.

Not that I expect such misinterpretations or weaseling to be common -- but I also don't expect alignment changes to be common, so some push-back from players is not unreasonable. When that happens, both sides need to have some objective common ground for the discussion to happen. If the only determiner is the PC's inner thoughts, then the player is always right, and the referee is powerless. That's fine for some games! But it's not fine for all games.

[Segev]

That is one of the big drawbacks of an action-based alignment scheme like D&D's: it completely ignores the thought processes leading up to the action. I'd agree that Anakin had been on an Evil-ward spiral for quite a while; killing all of the Sand People was definitely a big moment as well. Other than that, would there have been any other actions that were unambiguously Evil? Two major actions took him from CG (possibly NG) to LE. In terms of story and mindset, he'd been on that road a whole lot longer, but an action-based system wouldn't care about that.

It works fine if the player is complicit with the GM; it is a little rough if the player is trying to "game the system" for some reason.

In general, unless Anakin was facing alignment-based effects, it probably doesn't matter that his sheet said "NG" when he was really slipping towards TN, NE, or LE.

If it DOES matter...well, if the player is gaming the system, he probably will not want to take the dive off the deep end, anyway. Or, if he does, he'll get the mechanical appearance of a sudden shift, with perhaps his conviction and determination that he's NOT evil, honest, protecting him from whatever alignment-based effects would have impacted his true alignment. Though yes, it's a dysfunction, because it should have been slipping in an absolute sense.

A player who is not trying to play this adversarially will cooperate in determining alignment drift, and this won't be a huge problem.

[OldTrees1]

@Red Fel - You're skating a bit too close to Primary Attribution Error there. As soon as you say it's not a person's actions, but rather the type of person that they are, you're getting dangerously close to the reasoning which underlies a lot of bigotry.

Please only recommend such blatantly evil patterns of thought via purple evil text.

It is not using "type of person" in the manner you are thinking. It is talking about the mutable character/personality aspects rather than the immutable aspects one is born with.

People have character/personality and can change that character/personality. This includes changing it to a character/personality that is fine with habitual evil actions (or a character/personality devoted to good actions).

You can look up Virtue Ethics for more on this kind of Moral Theory.

[Nifft]

It works fine if the player is complicit with the GM; it is a little rough if the player is trying to "game the system" for some reason.
(...)
Agree entirely.

The one thing I'd add is that the player may not be gaming the system on purpose -- he or she might have an honest disagreement or misunderstanding about something. In that case, the referee's role is to enforce the consistent behavior of the world upon the PCs.


It is not using "type of person" in the manner you are thinking. It is talking about the mutable character/personality aspects rather than the immutable aspects one is born with.

People have character/personality and can change that character/personality. This includes changing it to a character/personality that is fine with habitual evil actions (or a character/personality devoted to good actions).

You can look up Virtue Ethics for more on this kind of Moral Theory.
As above, the issue here is that the character's character is not up to the DM.

You can try to make a Virtue Morality RPG -- I bet it would be an interesting exercise, even if it's not fruitful -- but it's certainly not going to have much to do with D&D's alignment system, nor will it allow the referee to change your character's alignment based on your character's actions. (Which D&D explicitly does.)

Furthermore, you'll have to make effects like Atonement work differently -- as it is, it flatly contradicts the possibility of Virtue Morality.

[Frosty]

I think Anakin beheading Count Dooku when Dooku was already defeated and a helpless prisoner counts as Evil act as well.

[OldTrees1]

As above, the issue here is that the character's character is not up to the DM.

You can try to make a Virtue Morality RPG -- I bet it would be an interesting exercise, even if it's not fruitful -- but it's certainly not going to have much to do with D&D's alignment system, nor will it allow the referee to change your character's alignment based on your character's actions. (Which D&D explicitly does.)

Furthermore, you'll have to make effects like Atonement work differently -- as it is, it flatly contradicts the possibility of Virtue Morality.

Strange, and here I thought the "Alignment shifts result from habitual action" was a suitable mechanic for Virtue Ethics that fills all those criteria of yours. Even Atonement hints at prior groundwork as a prerequisite for the spell to work.

[Telonius]

I think Anakin beheading Count Dooku when Dooku was already defeated and a helpless prisoner counts as Evil act as well.

A few extenuating circumstances there (he'd been ordered to do so by a competent authority, so it's as much Lawful as it was Evil; and I'm not sure that a Sith ever counts as helpless as long as they're conscious); but point taken.

[Nifft]

Strange, and here I thought the "Alignment shifts result from habitual action" was a suitable mechanic for Virtue Ethics that fills all those criteria of yours. Even Atonement hints at prior groundwork as a prerequisite for the spell to work.

Atonement says that you can atone from the burden of evil which you committed while under mind-control.

That means your actions -- even those that happen without your intention or even consent -- are a sufficient vector for alignment change.

That strictly precludes intention or "inner virtue" from being a mitigating factor which can prevent alignment change.

- - -

You must be repentant in order for Atonement to work, and that's a place where intention does play a role. But that's a separate issue from whatever caused your alignment to change in the first place.

[Nibbens]

I think there is something that we're all forgetting here...


THE RED FEL HAS SPOKEN!

...

That is all.

[OldTrees1]

Atonement says that you can atone from the burden of evil which you committed while under mind-control.

That means your actions -- even those that happen without your intention or even consent -- are a sufficient vector for alignment change.

That strictly precludes intention or "inner virtue" from being a mitigating factor which can prevent alignment change.

- - -

You must be repentant in order for Atonement to work, and that's a place where intention does play a role. But that's a separate issue from whatever caused your alignment to change in the first place.

Did you know that only the 1st(reversing Helm of Opposite Alignment) and 4th(Alignment change) options deal with alignment change? Options 2 and 3 could happen without a prior alignment change. So unless you are referring to and only to the Helm of Opposite Alignment(and its ilk) then Atonement does not support your conclusion. (This does not disprove your conclusion, merely your argument)

[Honest Tiefling]

I think there is something that we're all forgetting here...


THE RED FEL HAS SPOKEN!

...

That is all.

...OH S***, he's taken Leadership! Run for the hills!

[Kantaki]

A few extenuating circumstances there (he'd been ordered to do so by a competent authority, so it's as much Lawful as it was Evil; and I'm not sure that a Sith ever counts as helpless as long as they're conscious); but point taken.

I think even a Sith Master would have trouble to keep fighting after being disarmed. Dooku was a apprentice at best.
And I'm not sure I would call Anakin's action lawful. Sure, Palpatine allowed ordered to do it, but it went clearly against the Jedi traditions.:smalltongue:

On topic: How is trying to heal someone else evil? Sure, the method used is a bit messy and crazy, but if that is qualifier for evil every adventurer is evil.

I'm a bit more concerned about the necromancers heart that was used (We have rights too!:smallwink:) but even there I think that unknowingly using a evil object a single time and with good intentions makes someone evil.

[Nibbens]

On topic: How is trying to heal someone else evil? Sure, the method used is a bit messy and crazy, but if that is qualifier for evil every adventurer is evil.

Let's not forget the staple: "Kill things, take its loot." While this is a staple in D&D and one of the first commandments: DMs shall not deny the players of loot - the very act of looting a dead body is widely considered evil by most people in and out of the game world. But we turn our heads as DMs, this act is the Players reward for doing well, regardless how degrading and morally uncouth it is.

Nevertheless, we don't make players slowly become evil because they loot dead bodies - so surgery with an axe should be no exception.

[Inevitability]

Cutting open your friend to check on a cursed zombie heart is perfectly sane. Not doing it would be the crazy part.

Can I sig this?

[Red Fel]

...OH S***, he's taken Leadership! Run for the hills!

Oh, now aren't you the sweetest thing?

Seriously, that's not rhetorical. I have cannibals coming over for supper and I need to prepare a dessert platter.

[Nifft]

Did you know that only the 1st(reversing Helm of Opposite Alignment) and 4th(Alignment change) options deal with alignment change? Options 2 and 3 could happen without a prior alignment change. So unless you are referring to and only to the Helm of Opposite Alignment(and its ilk) then Atonement does not support your conclusion. (This does not disprove your conclusion, merely your argument) It does support my argument, because the weight of Evil is imposed by the actions, not the attitude.

Use (2) or (3) ignores attitude entirely.

Use (4) allows the recipient a free choice -- which also ignores the attitude, or rather, assumes that the choice and the attitude which underlies the choice are identical.

All of these are refutations of Virtue Ethics, because the moral value of the actions is never derived from the virtue of the actor, only by the virtue of the actions themselves.

[Segev]

The one thing I'd add is that the player may not be gaming the system on purpose -- he or she might have an honest disagreement or misunderstanding about something. In that case, the referee's role is to enforce the consistent behavior of the world upon the PCs.If he's not gaming it on purpose, then it is highly unlikely he's angling his character towards any sort of "big Evil" actions (or "big Good," "big Law," or "big Chaos" actions, either, which contradict his current reported alignment), either.

This is a tricky one to discuss in hypotheticals. The key is that actions determine alignment in a game because, unless the player is cooperatively saying, "My character's motive for Y is X," all you have to go on is his actions.

Let's construct a hypothetical specifically to try to create the "one act fall to Evil." It's a classic, so hopefully we'll have plenty of genre convention to work with.

Let's take a hero who is friends with almost everyone. He's got flaws, and enemies, but he doesn't even really want to see his enemies suffer (at least, not beyond being hoist by their own petard). He also has a girlfriend. She's a really, honestly good person, and she is often his conscience when his rash actions might otherwise be a little on the vengeful side. Not that she has to work overly hard at it; she's just reminding him to stop and think a little longer-term, and realize that his flash-in-the-pan anger isn't worth the pain he'll cause others and his own conscience.

Then, tragedy! A bad guy of indifferent character kills the girlfriend! The girlfriend with whom our hero was completely in love. The girlfriend he'd built his life around. The girlfriend he had planned to ask to marry him after this mission was over.

And the bad guy's LAUGHING about it. As are his minions.

Pity they didn't realize the roaring rampage of revenge of which the hero was capable.

Except...to do it, he will have to break every moral he has built up. To make them suffer as he wants them to is to go beyond all thoughts of justice. But he's determined to do it. Because he's that angry. And when it's done, when he's had the bad guy quivering at his feet, begging for mercy, and finally, finally let the bad guy die... he takes a look at what he's done, realizes that, by his old code, there's almost no making up for it...and he doesn't want to deal with the remorse. So he wraps the choice around himself, refuses to be held responsible for it, and descends into his anger to avoid the hurt. He willfully embraces the evil he once shunned because he doesn't want to face the pain of repentance.

One act - that roaring rampage of revenge - plunged him from NG to CE. Prior to that, he didn't harbor thoughts that that was acceptable. Even in his anger, before, he'd merely have performed some minorly evil harmful acts, not out-and-out murder. Things most Neutral characters could get away with if they repented later, and which they'd forgive in others (particularly if they weren't the victims).

But note the key, crucial element here: this character made a choice to embrace this alignment. To OWN his fall. It is rare, but possible, for somebody to have a sudden moral reversal and become the kind of person who would (or would not) do certain things.

The villainous Knight Templar who has the "What have I done?" moment may similarly suffer an alignment shift, particularly if he immediately takes an action to atone. Even if it's not enough, yet, the fact that he's now changed to the point he'll devote all he is to repairing the harm he's done and then some is enough for the alignment change (arguably; we could get into mechanics of the Atonement spell if we wanted to, here).

But normally...no. A change in alignment is heralded by increasing discomfort with the tenets of the old one. Even if none are acted on, thoughts and temptations and justifications to violate the old strictures and embrace the new ones are constantly plaguing the mind.



Oh, now aren't you the sweetest thing?

Seriously, that's not rhetorical. I have cannibals coming over for supper and I need to prepare a dessert platter.
Aren't you going to be a bit full for dessert after eating all those cannibals?

[Nifft]

If he's not gaming it on purpose, then it is highly unlikely he's angling his character towards any sort of "big Evil" actions (or "big Good," "big Law," or "big Chaos" actions, either, which contradict his current reported alignment), either.

This is a tricky one to discuss in hypotheticals. The key is that actions determine alignment in a game because, unless the player is cooperatively saying, "My character's motive for Y is X," all you have to go on is his actions. Yeah, exactly. The in-game actions are the only objective criteria for discussion. Everything else is subject to interpretation, which might differ even in good faith -- and if bad faith is a concern, interpretation can be toxic.


Let's construct a hypothetical specifically to try to create the "one act fall to Evil." It's a classic, so hopefully we'll have plenty of genre convention to work with. Woah there.

My argument has nothing to do with "one singular act" vs. "an accumulation of sin". I have no dog in that race. All I'm saying is that attitude can't trump actions in D&D -- I don't really care how many actions, that's going to depend on your setting and DM -- and honestly, I suspect the "one mistake" thing is a conflation of the specific Paladin falling mechanics with more general alignment change issues. I think a Paladin can fall for one act, but that is NOT an indication of anything in particular about alignment change.

Anyway, here's my hypothetical:

A Lawful Neutral Wizard.

He's in a party with a Lawful Good Cleric. Both the Wizard and the Cleric enjoy Conjurations: the Cleric is limited to summoning [Good] creatures, and enemies are usually Evil, so the Wizard tries to summon creatures which can't be hedged out by Magic Circle Against Good. Thus, he summons and binds devils. He's usually casting [Evil] spells, each of which is an evil act.

Let's say everyone is naive and acts in good faith. The player directs his devils in clear enough terms that the DM can't often subvert the orders. The player justifies summoning devils with several valid reasons: tactical ("mix of [Good] and [Evil] summons means less vulnerability"), and ethical ("if one of my Planar Binding creatures dies, it dies for real -- better a dead devil than an angel").

But still, by the rules, he's committing a long chain of Evil acts.

Let's say that, other than this summoning, he's being a model Lawful Neutral character.

Should he ~ever~ become Lawful Evil?

IMHO the rules say that he should eventually become Lawful Evil -- but they say nothing about when.

[Keltest]

While I am somewhat horrified that anyone would think open heart surgery by a barbarian is a good idea, I see nothing in the actions of either character that warrants an alignment shift. An intelligence penalty, maybe, but not an alignment shift.

[Strigon]

On topic: How is trying to heal someone else evil? Sure, the method used is a bit messy and crazy, but if that is qualifier for evil every adventurer is evil.


Trying to heal someone else isn't evil.
The way you go about it can be, though. Because D&D alignment is primarily concerned with the immediate causes of what you're doing, and not your overall intentions in doing so, trying to heal somebody can be evil. Unethical practices are still unethical, even if the patient consents.
For a more general example of how healing can be evil,
The way S.H.I.E.L.D. brought Coulson back to life was far, far out of line with Good actions, especially since he was begging to die.

[Honest Tiefling]

Oh, now aren't you the sweetest thing?

Nah. High dexterity means I'm all stringy.


Seriously, that's not rhetorical. I have cannibals coming over for supper and I need to prepare a dessert platter.

Well, unless you commonly throw dinners for demons, then it's not really cannibalism, is it? I'm not even the right creature type! Such a lack of care to the finesse and pizzazz of the event. I'm mildly disappointed. From all the way over here.


While I am somewhat horrified that anyone would think open heart surgery by a barbarian is a good idea, I see nothing in the actions of either character that warrants an alignment shift. An intelligence penalty, maybe, but not an alignment shift.

The player who plays the barbarian has revealed heal ranks and cleric levels, so really, whose going to be more qualified then that? Raging might not help, but he probably had as much as one could possibly expect a normal PC to have on hand. If anything, survival ranks and a strong hand is probably better for breaking ribs cleanly and then putting them back in, not to mention rapidly moving the patient should that be an issue. With a necromantic heart, that's a genuine concern.

[Meepo_]

Technically, evil does NOT mean killing people and kicking puppies and torturing orphans and all the stuff that people think it does. Otherwise only about 1% of people would be evil. All evil means is that you value yourself over everyone and everything else. Unless the barbarian had some vendetta, or received personal pleasure from playing operation with the group ranger, this was not really and evil act. Raising and undead, for example, is evil because you don't care that you're reanimating the corpse of someone against their will, using an imprint of their consciousness to guide their body now that their soul has been completely severed. If the barbarian really thought he was helping, that would actually be a good act. Nasty, and distasteful, but good.

[Deophaun]

Barbarian's alignment shifts one step towards "Chaotic Stupid" for thinking anything good would come out of stuffing a necromancer's heart into his buddy's chest cavity.


All evil means is that you value yourself over everyone and everything else.

Most animals would qualify as "evil," then.

[Nifft]

Technically, evil does NOT mean killing people and kicking puppies and torturing orphans and all the stuff that people think it does. Otherwise only about 1% of people would be evil. I think that's pretty much how it is.


All evil means is that you value yourself over everyone and everything else. I think that's what Neutral means, and it's why most people are Neutral.

[hamishspence]

The 3.5e PHB says that "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral". That's not really consistent with the idea "most people are Neutral".

[Nifft]

The 3.5e PHB says that "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral". That's not really consistent with the idea "most people are Neutral". 1 - That's the section for players who are creating a new PC. It talks about how to build a human PC, not necessarily what the rest of the world is like.

2 - Going by a strict reading, it's consistent with LITERALLY ANYTHING, since it explicitly doesn't contradict anything.

What you might be trying to say is that the PHB section on character creation doesn't support "most people are Neutral", but that's not really what the PC creation rules are required to do. You also seem to be conflating "people" and "humans", but I'm going to assume that's just an innocent human bias rather than an attempt at disingenuous rhetoric.

3 - The correct place to look for NPC alignment statistics would be the DMG. Surprisingly, the random NPC alignment table has 50% Evil, 30% Neutral, and 20% Good -- or maybe it's not a surprise, since it might be intended as an encounter table rather than a demographics cross-section.

The community power center chart, though, is less likely to be used as a random encounter. That has power center alignments broken down as 41% Good, 35% Evil, and only 24% Neutral.

I can't find a specific citation about generic average citizen alignment. Perhaps that's setting-specific.

[hamishspence]

I thought it was, in the DMG,

41% Good, 23% Neutral, 36% Evil

but maybe I miscounted slightly.

There's a source for Urban center (small city or larger) community alignment (this is the overall outlook of the community taken as a whole).

Cityscape (p8)
36% Good, 33% Neutral, 31% Evil

[Yahzi]

Can I sig this?
My first sig request! :smallredface: Of course, of course. :smallsmile:

[Yahzi]

Most animals would qualify as "evil," then.
Animals are amoral; that is, they are outside of alignment considerations. Not being capable of morality, they are not bound by it.

Constructs ought to be the same, but in the D&D world they will the alignment of the magic used to make them. So Undead are evil because they support the powers of darkness. Golems, however, are... well, scratch that argument.

[Segev]

Technically, the LN wizard partying with the LG cleric and opposing [Evil] creatures on a regular basis is going to have a hard time being "a model LN character," if only because his affiliation with the party and its anti-Evil actions will tend to tilt him towards "with Good tendencies" if nothing else. He is performing Good acts every time he helps thwart the Evil foes of the party; by casting [evil] spells, he counterbalances the Good use towards which he puts them.

[Nifft]

Technically, the LN wizard partying with the LG cleric and opposing [Evil] creatures on a regular basis is going to have a hard time being "a model LN character," He's not having a hard time.

In the example, he's being a model LN character, just like it says.


if only because his affiliation with the party and its anti-Evil actions will tend to tilt him towards "with Good tendencies" if nothing else. He is performing Good acts every time he helps thwart the Evil foes of the party; by casting [evil] spells, he counterbalances the Good use towards which he puts them. You've got some incorrect assumptions about this scenario.

For example, nobody said the LG Cleric is a model LG character. Perhaps she's marginal, barely scraping by, because the party is mostly performing deeds which balance out to LN rather than Good.

The set-up is exactly what I said. If you don't like the conclusions, well, that's a separate issue. There's no internal inconsistency, nor any technical problem, with my set-up.

[Segev]

He's not having a hard time.

In the example, he's being a model LN character, just like it says.

You've got some incorrect assumptions about this scenario.

For example, nobody said the LG Cleric is a model LG character. Perhaps she's marginal, barely scraping by, because the party is mostly performing deeds which balance out to LN rather than Good.

The set-up is exactly what I said. If you don't like the conclusions, well, that's a separate issue. There's no internal inconsistency, nor any technical problem, with my set-up.

Then by your assumptions, yes, he's slipping towards evil. I mean, if you are going to say, "assume he's slipping towards evil; is he slipping towards evil?" then...tautaulogies are, in fact, trivially true.


I suspect - but don't want to get tangled in word games proving I'm wrong if this is not the case - that you're trying to illustrate a problem with the actions-determine-alignment system of D&D 3.5/PF based on the logic that the LN wizard "should" be staying firmly LN. If that's the case, the only thing you've really even potentially illustrated is that the idea that casting a spell to summon an [evil]-subtyped creature should not inherently be an evil act. This is not a flaw in the "actions-determine-alignment" system, but in the definition of such spells being inherently aligned acts to cast.

By your same logic, if the party, having only a potentially "barely hanging on" LG cleric, is fighting a lot of [good] outsiders, and that (perhaps) is why the LG cleric is "barely hanging on," the LN wizard summoning [good]-subtyped creatures to combat them would be sliding towards GOOD alignment. Again, because you've defined the problem to be such that the only act which could possibly shift his alignment is choosing to cast aligned spells.

This, again, only, at best, illustrates that it's silly to say "summoning an alignment-subtyped creature is an aligned act of that creature's alignment."

[Nifft]

Then by your assumptions, yes, he's slipping towards evil. I mean, if you are going to say, "assume he's slipping towards evil; is he slipping towards evil?" then...tautaulogies are, in fact, trivially true. Great. If you think it's a tautology, then you accept that the actions are not ameliorated by the intent.

That's what I set out to demonstrate -- that Virtue Ethics do not apply to D&D if you use the D&D rules in the obvious way.


I suspect - but don't want to get tangled in word games proving I'm wrong if this is not the case - that you're trying to illustrate a problem with the actions-determine-alignment system of D&D 3.5/PF based on the logic that the LN wizard "should" be staying firmly LN. If that's the case, the only thing you've really even potentially illustrated is that the idea that casting a spell to summon an [evil]-subtyped creature should not inherently be an evil act. This is not a flaw in the "actions-determine-alignment" system, but in the definition of such spells being inherently aligned acts to cast. Ah, you must have skipped some of the preceding discussion.

That's not at all what I'm trying to do.


By your same logic, if the party, having only a potentially "barely hanging on" LG cleric, is fighting a lot of [good] outsiders, and that (perhaps) is why the LG cleric is "barely hanging on," the LN wizard summoning [good]-subtyped creatures to combat them would be sliding towards GOOD alignment. Possible, but not specified, and not really relevant to the example.


This, again, only, at best, illustrates that it's silly to say "summoning an alignment-subtyped creature is an aligned act of that creature's alignment." If you say that the D&D rules contain some silly consequences, I suspect you'll find broad agreement.

If you say that the alignment system has some silly implications, I also suspect you'll find broad agreement.

But those are separate topics. I'm talking about what the rules say, not how silly the rules might be.

[Segev]

Intent matters, actually, but generally only if you're looking at "does this Evil character become Neutral or Good?"

Eve Lynn McGoodpeearr may give generously to orphanages (to make the little imps grateful to her), help out small towns against threats (to get them to willingly invite her and her minions into town), and cooperate with good adventuring parties (because the loot they get is better due to not having to fight off OTHER heroes to KEEP it)... but she does all of this out of enlightened self-interest, and she's got big plans to turn those little orphans into an army of thieves and spies (which she'll start out by using for "good" goals she can slowly corrupt to her own ends, the better to deflect suspicion and weed out those with too strong of a conscience from her ranks), to make those towns dependent on her and her forces rather than their own defenses so she can slowly turn their grateful gifts into expected...tithes..., and all the while keep the heroic party on her side so they'll defend her reputation against any who would besmirch it (not to mention her property against anybody who decides to turn on her for the few overtly evil acts she secretly performs).

You could claim that her actions start good and she eventually performs evil ones to slip...but in truth, her intentions are such that she's likely to remain evil-aligned (unless she starts working a little too hard to justify her charitable acts as "selfish," to the point that the villain doth protest too much).


Intentions do matter...in that bad intentions do not really move you up the moral axis towards good. But good intentions only matter if you maintain the humility to analyze your mistaken actions that led to harm and seek to atone for the harm done. Which, again, shows up in action (you seek to recompense and atone).


Part of the reason actions-determine-alignment works in spite of the intentions thing is because alignment is also what you are in the dark. Unless you're always observed, never finding opportunities when it can't hurt your reputation or long-term goals, etc., there will be times when you have the ability to get away with something selfish. It's what you choose then, when only you would know, that makes the difference.


Usually, this isn't a problem. Far more mechanics require you to maintain a non-evil alignment than require you to maintain a non-good one. (The only thing I can think of is the Evil Incarnate, who has the best selection of Incarnate powers in my opinion and thus would be an interestingly tempting thing to play and then ignore his alignment requirement in action; at what point does he "fall" from being Evil and lose his powers?) This is why so much more attention is paid to what it takes to remain Good, while Evil can largely get away with anything with the right justification. Who cares if Lex Luthor's long string of PR-improving actions might justify an alignment shift?


Red Fel's point and mine (at least, if I understand Red Fel correctly) is that the sudden betrayal, where Eve Lynn McGoodpeearr has all her pieces in place and gets what she wants by betraying a small city to its doom (which she'll blame on something else after making sure no witnesses survive)? That isn't "one act that plunges her to Evil from her former Good alignment." She's been Evil all along; she's the kind of person who WOULD do that. She was just biding her time for the opportune moment.


A certain amount of analysis of actions CAN reveal this, but if Eve's player was trying to break the alignment system, she could have by claiming her motives were pure (i.e. lying to the DM and the players OOC in the meta-game). It would take very close examination of which "good" actions she chose, and how they were all carefully calculated to bring her advantage, to raise the question. But really, the alignment system doesn't work if it's adversarial on a metagame level.

It works well enough, however, because it's not MEANT to be adversarial. It's meant to be a tool to help players qualify their actions and characterizations and interact meaningfully with the mechanics of certain spells and protections and other magical effects. It's meant to help players have a meta-language to discuss moral questions. If there's disagreement, it should be honestly discussed, not an adversarial "gotcha."

Played cooperatively, it would come as no surprise to the DM when Eve's player announces her vile betrayal. If Eve really was a sweetness-and-light person, and the player was intending her to be such, the PLAYER wouldn't choose to have Eve perform that betrayal, even for that great personal advantage with no personal downside. So, again, the system works if the metagame isn't being corrupted.


Actions are the primary determinant. But they're not the SOLE determinant. You can almost always tell the alignment by actions, if you look closely enough. Intentions translate to specific choices, in the aggregate.

[OldTrees1]

Great. If you think it's a tautology, then you accept that the actions are not ameliorated by the intent.

That's what I set out to demonstrate -- that Virtue Ethics do not apply to D&D if you use the D&D rules in the obvious way.

Your understanding of Virtue Ethics is flawed. You have been arguing that actions are not ameliorated by intent. That(actions not being ameliorated by intentions) is what you set out to demonstrate.

A linguistic shorthand for Virtue Ethics would be:
"What does frequent summoning of [Evil] outsiders say about the mage's alignment/moral character?"

This (method of investigating ethical questions) is in contrast to
Consequentialism: "Are the net outcomes of this particular singular summoning good, zero, mixed, or evil?"
Deontological: "Is the summoning good, neutral, or evil in all cases regardless of context?"

As you can see, you have not intended to argue for/against Virtue Ethics.

[Telonius]

A certain amount of analysis of actions CAN reveal this, but if Eve's player was trying to break the alignment system, she could have by claiming her motives were pure (i.e. lying to the DM and the players OOC in the meta-game). It would take very close examination of which "good" actions she chose, and how they were all carefully calculated to bring her advantage, to raise the question. But really, the alignment system doesn't work if it's adversarial on a metagame level.

There's a Philosophy term paper in there somewhere.

[Segev]

There's a Philosophy term paper in there somewhere.

The most awesome philosophy course ever would be one wherein you were expected to do homework every weeknight, but the homework is done in teams of 5, and every night a different team member is running a D&D session in his own campaign with the intent to explore, evaluate, and discuss philosophical questions through the expression of RP.

Of course, nobody would have TIME for it if they had other classes...

[Nifft]

It's not the action that changes your alignment, it's the fact that you're the type of person who finds that action appropriate that changes your alignment.

Your understanding of Virtue Ethics is flawed. You have been arguing that actions are not ameliorated by intent. That(actions not being ameliorated by intentions) is what you set out to demonstrate.

A linguistic shorthand for Virtue Ethics would be:
"What does frequent summoning of [Evil] outsiders say about the mage's alignment/moral character?"

This (method of investigating ethical questions) is in contrast to
Consequentialism: "Are the net outcomes of this particular singular summoning good, zero, mixed, or evil?"
Deontological: "Is the summoning good, neutral, or evil in all cases regardless of context?"

As you can see, you have not intended to argue for/against Virtue Ethics. My argument is that it is in fact the accumulation of actions that shifts alignment.

The DMG backs this up explicitly:



If a player says, "My neutral good character becomes chaotic good", the appropriate response from you is "Prove it". Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent from players.
(emphasis added)

If you want to use Virtue Ethics to support something other than Red Fel's post -- which I've quoted above -- then you may or may not be interacting with my rebuttal of that post.

I have no particular deep claim of understanding or not understanding Virtue Ethics -- I wasn't the one who brought up that label. I'm just rebutting the post which I quoted above yours.

[Deophaun]

Animals are amoral; that is, they are outside of alignment considerations. Not being capable of morality, they are not bound by it.
Except, by that definition, they aren't. If evil is defined as self-interest, which is the singular motivator of most animals, then animals are evil incarnate. There is literally no other redeeming aspect to their existence.

In reality, they're amoral because evil isn't defined that way.

[OldTrees1]

My argument is that it is in fact the accumulation of actions that shifts alignment.

The DMG backs this up explicitly:

(emphasis added)

If you want to use Virtue Ethics to support something other than Red Fel's post -- which I've quoted above -- then you may or may not be interacting with my rebuttal of that post.

I have no particular deep claim of understanding or not understanding Virtue Ethics -- I wasn't the one who brought up that label. I'm just rebutting the post which I quoted above yours.

I do not believe you understood what Red Fel said.

Ignore the case of compelled action for now(since they are the exception rather than the rule), if one does an action then one already was the kind of person that found that action acceptable. Aka if one does an action, that action informs us about the character/alignment the character already had.

Red Fel, Virtue Ethics, My Post that you initial responded to, and my more Recent Post returning to clarify for you all deal with "what action generally tells us about the alignment prior to the action" and not "intent trumps action".


Except, by that definition, they aren't. If evil is defined as self-interest, which is the singular motivator of most animals, then animals are evil incarnate. There is literally no other redeeming aspect to their existence.

In reality, they're amoral because evil isn't defined that way.
The more sophisticated argument for animals being amoral is:
P1) A necessary condition for having moral character(alignment) is having moral agency
P2) A necessary condition for having moral agency is being able to conceptualize good and evil
P3) Animals are not able to conceptualize good and evil
4) From P2 and P3) Animals do not have moral agency
5) From P1 and 4) Animals do not have moral character(alignment)

[Nifft]

I do not believe you understood what Red Fel said.

Ignore the case of compelled action for now(since they are the exception rather than the rule), if one does an action then one already was the kind of person that found that action acceptable. Aka if one does an action, that action informs us about the character/alignment the character already had.

Red Fel, Virtue Ethics, My Post that you initial responded to, and my more Recent Post returning to clarify for you all deal with "what action generally tells us about the alignment prior to the action" and not "intent trumps action".

I don't think you've earned the right to judge my understanding of Red's post.

If you want to engage with my points, please do so on a basis other than your psychic ability to read my mind and tell me what I do and don't understand. (This is in part because you have no such ability.)

- - -

The DMG explicitly prohibits declaring an alignment change prior to action.

I quoted that bit, so you can't pretend to not know that.

There is no alignment change prior to action.

You are not "the type of person" who does evil -- you are a person who has done evil, or you are not.

[OldTrees1]

I don't think you've earned the right to judge my understanding of Red's post.

If you want to engage with my points, please do so on a basis other than your psychic ability to read my mind and tell me what I do and don't understand. (This is in part because you have no such ability.)

When 2 people discuss a text by a 3rd person, there is a reasonable expectation that they both try to understand how well/poorly the other person is understanding the text in question. This does not rely on psychic ability(of which I have none) but rather on estimation, empathy, and judgement.

Now, if such a conversation offends you, then I recommend not engaging in it further. As such I will not continue the conversation unless you signal a desire to continue.

[Red Fel]

I don't think you've earned the right to judge my understanding of Red's post.

But do I have that right? You know, because it was my post, and all?

Here's what I was communicating.

1. In order to perform an action, you must be the sort of person who would find such conduct acceptable. This is obvious; if you didn't find it acceptable to do X, you wouldn't do X.

2. The sort of person you are can change, even in a moment, although it often takes longer for a change to take root. Thus, what was once unacceptable to you may become acceptable given experience and a change in circumstances; what was once acceptable may become unacceptable, as well. Again, this is obvious.

I'm going to assume you agree with these two premises. Please let me know if you don't.

It's my understanding of your understanding of my post that - well, let's let you say it.


The DMG explicitly prohibits declaring an alignment change prior to action.

Right. But here's the thing. The DMG doesn't base alignment on your intent, nor on your statements of what your character is. With this point, which you previously made, I agree. The DMG says that the DM bases his discretionary calls on your alignment upon your conduct, which is the visible manifestation of alignment that the DM is able to judge. I think we both agree with this point.

Here's where we disagree, and I don't think we really do, either. You say that, because the DM judges alignment based on conduct, and because the DM cannot declare an alignment change prior to engaging in conduct, alignment is defined by conduct.

I say that a person who commits an action is the sort of person who would commit an action, as confirmed by the commission of said action. To put it another way, a person who really wants to commit a murder but never goes through with it, or even attempts it, is not a murderer. His commission of the murder, however, confirms him to be a murderer.

What I'm saying, or have been trying to say, is that although the alignment change is based upon being the sort of person who would commit an action, the DM cannot make a judgment on that point until he has seen the action committed. I don't think that disagrees with what you've been saying. The only difference is that you attribute the alignment change to the action itself, while I attribute it to the intent behind the action. In either event, the action is a necessary component; the distinction is basically academic.

Does that make more sense? Are you, in fact, hip to my jive?

[Nifft]

Now, if such a conversation offends you, then I recommend not engaging in it further. As such I will not continue the conversation unless you signal a desire to continue.
I'd be delighted to continue conversing with the person to whom I actually responded -- in this case, that's Red Fel -- and not someone else claiming that I don't understand what I do seem to understand.

You may post as you like, such as the board's rules permit, and of course so can I.

You may not tell me to stop posting.

Thanks for your understanding.

[Nifft]

But do I have that right? You know, because it was my post, and all? Saying things about other posters is generally not okay.

You are welcome to say things about my arguments -- just as I'm saying things about your arguments, and not about you personally.

See the difference there?



Here's what I was communicating.

1. In order to perform an action, you must be the sort of person who would find such conduct acceptable. This is obvious; if you didn't find it acceptable to do X, you wouldn't do X.

2. The sort of person you are can change, even in a moment, although it often takes longer for a change to take root. Thus, what was once unacceptable to you may become acceptable given experience and a change in circumstances; what was once acceptable may become unacceptable, as well. Again, this is obvious.

I'm going to assume you agree with these two premises. Please let me know if you don't.

It's my understanding of your understanding of my post that - well, let's let you say it.

(...)

Right. But here's the thing. The DMG doesn't base alignment on your intent, nor on your statements of what your character is. With this point, which you previously made, I agree. The DMG says that the DM bases his discretionary calls on your alignment upon your conduct, which is the visible manifestation of alignment that the DM is able to judge. I think we both agree with this point. Cool, that's what I was demonstrating before with my example LN character, and I'm glad we're in agreement.


Here's where we disagree, and I don't think we really do, either. You say that, because the DM judges alignment based on conduct, and because the DM cannot declare an alignment change prior to engaging in conduct, alignment is defined by conduct.

I say that a person who commits an action is the sort of person who would commit an action, as confirmed by the commission of said action. To put it another way, a person who really wants to commit a murder but never goes through with it, or even attempts it, is not a murderer. His commission of the murder, however, confirms him to be a murderer.

What I'm saying, or have been trying to say, is that although the alignment change is based upon being the sort of person who would commit an action, the DM cannot make a judgment on that point until he has seen the action committed. I don't think that disagrees with what you've been saying. The only difference is that you attribute the alignment change to the action itself, while I attribute it to the intent behind the action. In either event, the action is a necessary component; the distinction is basically academic.

Does that make more sense? Are you, in fact, hip to my jive? Well, here's what I think underlies Virtue Ethics, and after I lay down that bass-line, I'll drop the groove on why it can't scratch D&D's alignment tracks.

1 - Virtue Ethics might be purely descriptive with no predictive power ("He's the sort of person who does what he did! But we can't say anything about what he will do in the future."), and that makes it honest but impotent. I suspect this is NOT accurate, but it would be consistent and impossible to contradict... because it makes no claims, thus it makes no falsifiable claims.

2 - Virtue Ethics might be predictive ("He's the sort of person who does what he did! Thus, we can use past performance as an indication of future results.") That's problematic because confirmation bias exists, and because of the role it plays in prejudice & bigotry. As soon as you say that all people who did X are inherently the same in some way (other than "have done X"), you're setting up the foundation of anti-rational justifications. ("He killed her, thus he's a murderer. Murderers always have motive: they are the type of people who like to commit murder.") That's circular reasoning -- it might be a historically appropriate fallacy, but it's still a fallacy.

Those are the two options I see. One is useless, and the other is useful but deeply flawed -- and those are the flaws which I was pointing out initially.


The times when the distinction between "you are the sum of your actions" and "you are the type of person who would take the actions in your history" is when you try to use one or the other as a predictive tool, and that's exactly the time when thinking about people as "types" rather than individuals is problematic.

It's also easy. We're hard-wired in some ways to very quickly find patterns, and that includes finding patterns about people. Prejudice can be difficult to overcome for reasons which tie into our neuroanatomy; I suspect Virtue Ethics seems appealing because it uses those same pathways for what claims to be a productive purpose.


Finally, the rules are totally clear on valuing past actions vs. promises of future action: the promises are worthless. If you acted in an evil way, that's a burden of sin for which you must Atone. If you were the "type of person" who doesn't want to Atone, you don't retroactively turn evil, even though you haven't changed your intentions nor your outlook: but still, you are only evil going forward. If you want to be chaotic instead of neutral, you must go out and prove it with actions.


A game about Virtue Ethics could be really cool. You could have several Virtues, like Exalted does, and try to justify every major action as for (or against) one of the Virtues. That might be a cool game... but it's not D&D.

[FocusWolf413]

Oh, now aren't you the sweetest thing?

Seriously, that's not rhetorical. I have cannibals coming over for supper and I need to prepare a dessert platter.

I'm going to propose the theory that Red Fel is Hannibal Lecter.

[Red Fel]

1 - Virtue Ethics might be purely descriptive with no predictive power ("He's the sort of person who does what he did! But we can't say anything about what he will do in the future."), and that makes it honest but impotent. I suspect this is NOT accurate, but it would be consistent and impossible to contradict... because it makes no claims, thus it makes no falsifiable claims.

2 - Virtue Ethics might be predictive ("He's the sort of person who does what he did! Thus, we can use past performance as an indication of future results.") That's problematic because confirmation bias exists, and because of the role it plays in prejudice & bigotry. As soon as you say that all people who did X are inherently the same in some way (other than "have done X"), you're setting up the foundation of anti-rational justifications. ("He killed her, thus he's a murderer. Murderers always have motive: they are the type of people who like to commit murder.") That's circular reasoning -- it might be a historically appropriate fallacy, but it's still a fallacy.

. . .

The times when the distinction between "you are the sum of your actions" and "you are the type of person who would take the actions in your history" is when you try to use one or the other as a predictive tool, and that's exactly the time when thinking about people as "types" rather than individuals is problematic.

. . .

Finally, the rules are totally clear on valuing past actions vs. promises of future action: the promises are worthless. If you acted in an evil way, that's a burden of sin for which you must Atone. If you were the "type of person" who doesn't want to Atone, you don't retroactively turn evil, even though you haven't changed your intentions nor your outlook: but still, you are only evil going forward. If you want to be chaotic instead of neutral, you must go out and prove it with actions.

I think I see the problem now. You're looking at alignment through a predictive lens - that is, how your actions can be used to explain your alignment, which in turn can predict your future actions.

Allow me to clarify my position once more. I believe that alignment is descriptive, not predictive. It explains how a person thinks and why he does what he does presently, and perhaps illustrates certain tendencies; it does not show what he must or will necessarily do in the future. This is particularly so given that the mechanics for alignment change exist in RAW. A predictive system must necessarily fail when the system itself acknowledges that its key predictive variable is subject to change. As such, I do not treat alignment as a predictive signature that indicates likely future conduct, but as a label that explains past and present conduct in a simple two-letter fashion.

It's also a broken system for which I have little appreciation, but we have to set such things aside when debating its merits.


I'm going to propose the theory that Red Fel is Hannibal Lecter.

See, it's things like this that just brighten up my day.

[Deophaun]

P1) A necessary condition for having moral character(alignment) is having moral agency

Demons, devils, and angels are now Neutral.

[Red Fel]

Demons, devils, and angels are now Neutral.

http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7xqt9rB7D1r56lqu.gif

You watch your mouth.

[Segev]

Demons, devils, and angels are now Neutral.I would argue that they have moral agency, but that something in their makeup - their nature as Outsiders, their alignment subtype - makes them physiologically, psychologically, and sociologically different from mortal creatures (particularly humans) in such a way that what is, for humans, optimal social and moral behavior is not at all such for them.

In some fashion, the biological and emotional needs and the resource-utilization physics of their beings and home planes are such that it is actively optimal to be Evil (and Lawful or Chaotic, as appropriate to the creature subtype) to advance oneself.


http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7xqt9rB7D1r56lqu.gif

You watch your mouth.

I really should finish watching the second season of that anime at some point.

[Nifft]

I think I see the problem now. You're looking at alignment through a predictive lens - that is, how your actions can be used to explain your alignment, which in turn can predict your future actions.

Allow me to clarify my position once more. I believe that alignment is descriptive, not predictive. It explains how a person thinks and why he does what he does presently, and perhaps illustrates certain tendencies; it does not show what he must or will necessarily do in the future. This is particularly so given that the mechanics for alignment change exist in RAW. A predictive system must necessarily fail when the system itself acknowledges that its key predictive variable is subject to change. As such, I do not treat alignment as a predictive signature that indicates likely future conduct, but as a label that explains past and present conduct in a simple two-letter fashion. Gotcha.

What you're proposing then might be better framed as a way of thinking about the accumulation of actions, rather than a substitute for thinking about actions.

In other words, saying things like:
actions, on their own, shouldn't shift your alignment. Or, more accurately: It's not the action that changes your alignment ... seems somewhat misleading, since you are literally speaking of nothing except the accumulation of actions, seen through the lens of being the type of person who would have done those actions at the time when you did them. Which is a tautology, but perhaps also a useful framing mechanism.

- - -

As an aside, and just for correctness, I'd like to mention that I'm not looking at alignment as exclusively predictive. My whole stance is that it's an accumulation of actions rather than your present intent, so yeah. That ought to be obvious.

But I do think Alignment is also partially predictive, in at least some specific circumstances. For example, a Paladin's alignment is a promise. It's not merely the accumulation of actions, it's also a path from which the Paladin must never deviate, or risk grave consequences.

That situation also arises in one of the uses of the Atonement spell: if the PC can get someone to pay the XP cost, then the player can declare an intention to be a different alignment, and the universe listens to that declaration, and believes the player's promise -- until and unless the character violates that promise significantly enough to merit a change.


It's also a broken system for which I have little appreciation, but we have to set such things aside when debating its merits. It's a blunt tool, but it can be used for some things.

Knowing how it works -- and where it fails -- is important if we are to improve upon it.

[OldTrees1]

Demons, devils, and angels are now Neutral.

Depends on how you are running Outsiders and what the necessary conditions for Moral Agency are.

The only necessary condition I listed in that post was " able to conceptualize good and evil" which Outsiders definitely can do. So far Outsiders can have alignment.

Another commonly listed necessary condition for Moral Agency is Free Will(in as much as humans have Free Will). In as far as humans have Free Will, the Monster Manuel Outsiders are not necessarily exempt (although some DMs might decide to have Deterministic Outsiders).

So Devils under some DMs probably ought not have an alignment, while Devils under other DMs probably ought to have an alignment.

[Telonius]

Human-centric moral systems aren't particularly well-suited to creatures that are literally made of Good and Evil, like Angels, Devils, and the like. You'd have to kind of cobble it onto the system as a special case. Even then you have fallen angels like Asmodeus and the Erinyes, and "risen demons" like Eludecia, so choice does have something to do with it.