PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Alignment, what you think matters more: Intention or Consequences?



Blu
2018-04-30, 12:38 AM
I had the idea for this post while discussing with a friend of wether Rick from Rick and Morty show was an CE character or a very evil inclined CN and it eventually became a question of what mattered more, wether the results of a characters actions better determined their alignement or if the intentions behind those actions where the point.

And so i decided to bring this discussion to here: What do YOU consider more important? What a character means when he performs an action or rather the end result of said actions or even a mix of both?

To better ilustrate the questions i decided to also bring two examples:
Let's say that a foreign army is coming to invade a village, and character A hates that army's country and decides to take action. So just to spite that country's leader and generals, he stops said army from massacring the village by himself, saving that populace from being murdered and/or enslaved. This character is also not particularly brutal about this, only killing a handful of the invaders, most of the times to defend himself and taking prisoners when capable. So, this character action would be:

1) Good, since ultimately he saved the village from incoming doom, not mattering that his reasons where selfish;
2) Neutral/Evil, since he took action on selfish reasons and killed people, he probably wouldn't care about the village itself;
3) Neutral/Good, since even tough he had selfish reasons, he also saved a lot of people in the midst of it.

To the second example now. Let's consider character B is trying to help someone who begged him for protection, since an assassin is coming for him. Character B accepted to protect this person out of the goodness of his heart and plans on capturing the assassin to take him to the authorities. But, during a bad chain of events and an immense misunderstanding, he ends up striking down an innocent civilian and killing him by accident. So, for this character B, would his action be:

1) Evil, since ultimately he killed an innocent;
2) Good/Neutral, since his heart was in the right place and the circumstances where bad;
3) Neutral, since even tough his intentions where right, his actions led to a bad result.

Edit: The purpose of this post is to discuss what the playgrounders think about the subject since i feel it can make an interesting discussion. The examples given may be just one case scenarios but try to extrapolate on them. Would you consider a character that has good intentions but normally achieves bad results an evil character, a neutral or a good one?

Beneath
2018-04-30, 01:01 AM
To align with something means to be on that thing's side. So to be aligned with Law or Chaos (or Good or Evil for that matter) means that the relevant cosmic forces recognize you as being on their side (in most editions there are spells that can read this like Know Alignment and Detect Evil, spells that work differently depending on alignment).

Trying to define an "alignment" for an individual action is generally meaningless and is an artifact of bad writing in certain editions' paladin codes.

Selene Sparks
2018-04-30, 01:53 AM
I had the idea for this post while discussing with a friend of wether Rick from Rick and Morty show was an CE character or a very evil inclined CN and it eventually became a question of what mattered more, wether the results of a characters actions better determined their alignement or if the intentions behind those actions where the point.(Un)Fortunately, 3.5 gave us an answer to that question, which is that intent is entirely meaningless, and evil acts are evil acts regardless of context. So the answer to both of your scenarios is "evil."

Honestly, though, it doesn't matter much because D&D alignment has always been a self-contradictory mess of nonsense, so it's best to write whichever you like most on your character sheet and pretend the alignment system doesn't exist.

Blu
2018-04-30, 02:32 AM
Honestly, though, it doesn't matter much because D&D alignment has always been a self-contradictory mess of nonsense, so it's best to write whichever you like most on your character sheet and pretend the alignment system doesn't exist.

The idea of this post was more to bring forth this kind of discussion on morality than to bring forth the game terms of it. I can read what the 3.5 books and other edition dnd books say about it and I was more interested in knowing the views and opinions of the people here about the subject. I even put this on Roleplaying Games with the Roleplay tag for that matter, but i will clarify my intentions better and change the tittle.

icefractal
2018-04-30, 02:33 AM
So here we have to ask, what determines alignment? Is it what actions the character has taken, or what actions they will take?

On the one hand, we might say that the past actions should be the deciding factor. Much more fair to judge someone on things that factually happened than guesses about what they might do later.

On the other hand, the future actions are more often what people care about. If you were deciding between two people to house-sit (and you had this knowledge), would you want the one who'd always acted in an exemplary fashion, but was about to experience a mid-life crisis and trash the place? Or the one who'd previously been a complete *******, but just recently got his act together and was going to be very responsible?

Also, when you look at things that are generally perceived as good/evil, it becomes clear that the future-view is a significant factor - doing things for entirely selfish reasons being considered not as good as altruistic ones, repentance making a difference in criminal sentencing, attempted murder that failed completely still being bad, and so forth.

Blu
2018-04-30, 02:47 AM
So here we have to ask, what determines alignment? Is it what actions the character has taken, or what actions they will take?

On the one hand, we might say that the past actions should be the deciding factor. Much more fair to judge someone on things that factually happened than guesses about what they might do later.

On the other hand, the future actions are more often what people care about. If you were deciding between two people to house-sit (and you had this knowledge), would you want the one who'd always acted in an exemplary fashion, but was about to experience a mid-life crisis and trash the place? Or the one who'd previously been a complete *******, but just recently got his act together and was going to be very responsible?

Also, when you look at things that are generally perceived as good/evil, it becomes clear that the future-view is a significant factor - doing things for entirely selfish reasons being considered not as good as altruistic ones, repentance making a difference in criminal sentencing, attempted murder that failed completely still being bad, and so forth.

An interesting view. But I would argue that what actually people care about more is the past. Since the future is uncertain, we can only guide ourselves on what we already know, and in that context, even tough the past of a person is not necessarily 100% of how they will act in the future it is a guideline and most importantly it is a good way to tell where they draw the lines. A person who cheats probably is more comfortable in cheating again and that can be extended for other acts. That is the way i see how things work in practice.

Cespenar
2018-04-30, 03:25 AM
First of all, "consequences" is silly. No one can foresee the future. It should be intention vs. action instead.

Secondly, I think even that needs a third player in it. Method.

So it's what you do, why you do it, and how you do it.

So your first example would be a:

Good action,
Bad intentions,
Good method.
(And successful.)

While your second one would be:

Good action,
Good intentions,
Neutral method? (If he planned to take him alive, how does he strike a civilian dead?)
(Unsuccessful.)

This is all presupposing that alignments exist in this fairy-tale land, of course. I think it does a setting (and a game) a great service when alignments are ignored completely. 5e even takes a step in the right direction with the personality/bond/ideals/flaws method.

Selene Sparks
2018-04-30, 03:36 AM
The idea of this post was more to bring forth this kind of discussion on morality than to bring forth the game terms of it. I can read what the 3.5 books and other edition dnd books say about it and I was more interested in knowing the views and opinions of the people here about the subject. I even put this on Roleplaying Games with the Roleplay tag for that matter, but i will clarify my intentions better and change the tittle.If that's your question, terms must be defined. What even is "good" or "evil?" What is "law" and how is it distinguished from "chaos?" Without that, we can't have discussion because we have no established common ground upon which we can discuss.

hamishspence
2018-04-30, 06:21 AM
(Un)Fortunately, 3.5 gave us an answer to that question, which is that intent is entirely meaningless, and evil acts are evil acts regardless of context. So the answer to both of your scenarios is "evil."


actually, 3.5 does make a point of saying intent and context matter in both BoVD and BoED. Even if BoVD also lists some acts as "always evil" - like soul-destroying.

WOTC online articles also say intent is important.

Context can make the difference between "justifiable homicide" and "murder". Intent can make the difference between genuine altruism (Good) and self-aggrandizement (Neutral at best).



Let's say that a foreign army is coming to invade a village, and character A hates that army's country and decides to take action. So just to spite that country's leader and generals, he stops said army from massacring the village by himself, saving that populace from being murdered and/or enslaved. This character is also not particularly brutal about this, only killing a handful of the invaders, most of the times to defend himself and taking prisoners when capable. So, this character action would be:

1) Good, since ultimately he saved the village from incoming doom, not mattering that his reasons where selfish;
2) Neutral/Evil, since he took action on selfish reasons and killed people, he probably wouldn't care about the village itself;
3) Neutral/Good, since even tough he had selfish reasons, he also saved a lot of people in the midst of it.

To the second example now. Let's consider character B is trying to help someone who begged him for protection, since an assassin is coming for him. Character B accepted to protect this person out of the goodness of his heart and plans on capturing the assassin to take him to the authorities. But, during a bad chain of events and an immense misunderstanding, he ends up striking down an innocent civilian and killing him by accident. So, for this character B, would his action be:

1) Evil, since ultimately he killed an innocent;
2) Good/Neutral, since his heart was in the right place and the circumstances where bad;
3) Neutral, since even tough his intentions where right, his actions led to a bad result.
For scenario 1:

"Defending the innocent from attack by an army you hate, using lethal force" is still defending the innocent - even if the motive is not good, the act is not Murder.

Dubious intent (spite) + normally-good act = Neutral, not Evil.

For scenario 2:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.


If you accidentally bring about a calamity (the death of an innocent) but your heart was in the right place and you took "reasonable precautions" (but it still happened) - then, it shouldn't make paladin fall, shouldn't qualify as an Evil act, shouldn't "count as Murder".

gkathellar
2018-04-30, 12:45 PM
To align with something means to be on that thing's side. So to be aligned with Law or Chaos (or Good or Evil for that matter) means that the relevant cosmic forces recognize you as being on their side (in most editions there are spells that can read this like Know Alignment and Detect Evil, spells that work differently depending on alignment).

Trying to define an "alignment" for an individual action is generally meaningless and is an artifact of bad writing in certain editions' paladin codes.

QFT. Alignment is contextual, and rarely works when you attempt to hammer it down.

Selene Sparks
2018-04-30, 03:05 PM
actually, 3.5 does make a point of saying intent and context matter in both BoVD and BoED. Even if BoVD also lists some acts as "always evil" - like soul-destroying.

WOTC online articles also say intent is important.

Context can make the difference between "justifiable homicide" and "murder". Intent can make the difference between genuine altruism (Good) and self-aggrandizement (Neutral at best).
In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve.
...
In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve.
...
Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need.So, no, intent doesn't matter. Context doesn't matter. Evil is evil is evil, according to BoED.

For scenario 1:

"Defending the innocent from attack by an army you hate, using lethal force" is still defending the innocent - even if the motive is not good, the act is not Murder.Why are you presupposing that defending the innocent and murder are mutually exclusive?

Dubious intent (spite) + normally-good act = Neutral, not Evil.So you're arguing that intent is more important than the action? And why does spite qualify as "dubious intent?" Why does not caring(not even malice, mind you, just apathy towards the village) actively harm the goodness of what you're putting forward as a good action?

RedMage125
2018-04-30, 06:01 PM
As someone who participated on that Rick Sanchez thread from a few months ago, I have some input.

First of all, overall alignment of an individual CANNOT be determined by one act. That's already been said, and it's true.

Also, while the alignment "weight" of a particular action CAN be determined, your question here is flawed because your founding premise is flawed. It's not "Intent and Consequences" that matter, but "intent and ACTION".

Case in point: A Neutral Good character has been captured by the Sadistic Villain. Said villain has an eldritch machine that is going to call down flaming death on a nearby village, killing all the inhabitants and using their souls to fuel his ritual to become an archdevil. Good character escapes, and before he confronts the villain, he goes to the machine and throws the red "Deactivate" lever. But this villain has read the "101 things I would do if I was a Supervillain" list, and the "deactivate" lever is no such thing. It's actually the Activate lever, and the village is wiped out. All this was a part of the Sadistic Villain's plan, because he needed to be in his Ritual Chamber, not at the machine when the souls were released. The hero's "escape" was all part of the villain's plan the whole time.

Why it's relevant: Because the hero did NOT, by the RAW, commit an Evil Act. Since he is Neutral Good, he feels ENORMOUSLY guilty for causing those deaths, but he was literally doing what was in his power to try and stop that exact thing from happening. He even prioritized saving the village over confronting the village, because that was his priority.

The fact that the CONSEQUENCE was a mass killing is on the villain, who was the one who set up the scenario that way to begin with. He used the Neutral Good Hero to do this simply because he is a sadist who WANTED to make the hero feel responsible for all those deaths. but morally, by RAW, the Evil weight of those deaths is on him. It's the Trolley Problem. The REAL weight of Evil is on the person who tied the innocents to the tracks in the first place.

Does that help?

RazorChain
2018-04-30, 06:15 PM
In D&D world intentions have nothing to do with anything. It's objective morality. Killing evil is good, doesn't matter the intention behind it.

Become a genocidal maniac and become a saint

Luccan
2018-04-30, 06:27 PM
Alignment on specific actions is hard to assign. Generally, I'd say alignment is effected by Intention and Awareness. An LE tyrant who believes that the world is a better place under his rule, despite terrible things he has done/does might have good Intentions, but he lacks the Awareness to see his actions are more harmful than helpful (or that he could take actions that are less harmful to maintain peace and prosperity). A CG thief robbing corrupt nobles to feed starving villagers both Intends to do good and is Aware of the potential consequences of his actions, so takes steps to minimize damages to his loved ones, allies, and said peasants. His CN copycat might have good Intent, but lacks the Awareness of how it could come down on others, not taking precautions to further protect them. Or his Intent is simply to gather riches and while he is Aware of the consequences for others, takes no steps to help them.

This is why many people might fall into TN territory: rarely do they Intend to cause harm to others, but they usually don't go out of their way to help those that aren't friends or family. They are Aware of the difference between right and wrong; however, they simply don't fight to right injustices when they see them (they might at times, but usually it will be for injustices that resonate with them specifically).

A single action will not shift a characters alignment unless undertaken with particularly strong Intent and Awareness (or a lack thereof in regards to Awareness).

Mechalich
2018-04-30, 06:57 PM
In D&D world intentions have nothing to do with anything. It's objective morality. Killing evil is good, doesn't matter the intention behind it.

Objective morality is more complex than that. Intent absolutely can matter in a system with objective morality, in fact it tends to matter more because the nature of most frameworks utilizing objective morality imply that the system can judge your intent. Objective morality simply means that morality is defined by something by a force outside of the lived experience and society and the moral framework if therefore imposed upon people rather than developing from within societal structures. This generally, but not always, implies that the moral system is static and unchanging because it usually is drawn from divine fiat or some other eternal cosmic force.

A useful example of an objective moral system that both measures intent and changes with time is found in the anime Psycho-Pass, in which the Sybil system makes more judgments via continual queries of the mental health of all persons and the system continually incorporates new viewpoints into its judgment matrix.

The thing about alignment in D&D is that it is an objective moral system whose framework does not match the moral system of mixed Judeo-Christian/Western Enlightenment values espoused by the overwhelming majority of players and as a result tends to throw out results that a huge number of people playing the game consider perverse. This is the case with pretty much any system of objective morality that varies from one's own learned experience. For example, the same problem is the subject of endless debates within the Star Wars fandom.

5a Violista
2018-04-30, 07:44 PM
In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve.
...
In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve.
...
Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need.So, no, intent doesn't matter. Context doesn't matter. Evil is evil is evil, according to BoED.
Why are you presupposing that defending the innocent and murder are mutually exclusive?
So you're arguing that intent is more important than the action? And why does spite qualify as "dubious intent?" Why does not caring(not even malice, mind you, just apathy towards the village) actively harm the goodness of what you're putting forward as a good action?
From the part of the BoED you quoted, it appears it's saying "Consequences don't affect whether it's an evil act", not "Intent doesn't affect whether it's evil".

Selene Sparks
2018-04-30, 08:07 PM
From the part of the BoED you quoted, it appears it's saying "Consequences don't affect whether it's an evil act", not "Intent doesn't affect whether it's evil".No, it's saying that an evil act is always an evil act. It gives no outs for intent or for consequences. You're trying to add text that's not there.

Now obviously, this is dumb, and is the result of the writer's baggage that they couldn't separate from how alignment works in D&D by prior lore with the Great Wheel and all, but it's what was written.

Tanarii
2018-04-30, 08:29 PM
What game? What edition?

In some games, including one way to use 5e alignment, the answer is: neither. It's used (or can be used) as a tool by the player to decide what to do in ethical and moral situation. Not determined by individual actions, regardless of intent or result of the action. Player chooses alignment and character personality, player takes those into account / considers those when deciding what to do. A roleplaying tool, not a measuring stick.

In some early D&D editions it was primarily a way to indicate which Team you were on.

ZamielVanWeber
2018-04-30, 08:32 PM
No, it's saying that an evil act is always an evil act. It gives no outs for intent or for consequences. You're trying to add text that's not there.

Now obviously, this is dumb, and is the result of the writer's baggage that they couldn't separate from how alignment works in D&D by prior lore with the Great Wheel and all, but it's what was written.

I always read that to apply to Exalted characters specifically. They have worked to reach a level of good that is crippling and being that type of good has for more cosmic significance than a dude who cooks free meals for the poor once a week out of generosity.

The statement stands that on alignment rarely does the right hand know what the left guild is doing.

Mr Beer
2018-04-30, 08:37 PM
Generally intentions matter more but it's contextual.

Humans are extremely adept at retconning their intentions to be pure as the driven snow, which is why a legal defence based on intentions is less likely to fly in the real world than one based on consequences.

RazorChain
2018-04-30, 08:43 PM
Objective morality is more complex than that. Intent absolutely can matter in a system with objective morality, in fact it tends to matter more because the nature of most frameworks utilizing objective morality imply that the system can judge your intent. Objective morality simply means that morality is defined by something by a force outside of the lived experience and society and the moral framework if therefore imposed upon people rather than developing from within societal structures. This generally, but not always, implies that the moral system is static and unchanging because it usually is drawn from divine fiat or some other eternal cosmic force.

A useful example of an objective moral system that both measures intent and changes with time is found in the anime Psycho-Pass, in which the Sybil system makes more judgments via continual queries of the mental health of all persons and the system continually incorporates new viewpoints into its judgment matrix.

The thing about alignment in D&D is that it is an objective moral system whose framework does not match the moral system of mixed Judeo-Christian/Western Enlightenment values espoused by the overwhelming majority of players and as a result tends to throw out results that a huge number of people playing the game consider perverse. This is the case with pretty much any system of objective morality that varies from one's own learned experience. For example, the same problem is the subject of endless debates within the Star Wars fandom.


The problem with Alignment is that it is absolute objective morality under the subjective whim of the DM and the players.

As an absolute objective moral system, Alignment is never clearly defined in the rulebooks. How many good deeds do you need to become good? How much of an ******* do you need to be to count as chaotic?

hamishspence
2018-05-01, 01:31 AM
So, no, intent doesn't matter. Context doesn't matter. Evil is evil is evil, according to BoED.

But Good can turn into Neutral through intent - again, according to BoED.

And according to BoVD, intent can make the difference between "justifiable homicide" and murder.

And BoED again says that, to qualify as good, violence "in the name of good" needs to have good intentions. If the intent behind the violence is not good, then the act is not good.

Nifft
2018-05-01, 02:40 AM
There's a simple way to evaluate "intention" vs. "consequences".

Intent = foreseeable consequences.

Of course, there are other kinds of consequences -- unforeseeable consequences, for example, which are also called unintended consequences.

Are you responsible for unforeseeable consequences? Probably not.

Are you responsible for consequences which you could have foreseen, but didn't for some reason? Depends on the reason. This is a sliding scale with required judgment calls, because Divination effects can be expensive, and just looking around the wrong corner can get you dominated or petrified.

Uncertainties exist, and that means some actions are inherently risky. To the extent that you take the risks onto yourself, your actions will tend towards Good. To the extent that you push the risks onto others -- particularly innocent or uninvolved others -- your actions will tend to be more Evil.

But that uncertainty aside, the foreseeable consequence of an action is the intent behind that action. There's usually not an either-or.