PDA

View Full Version : Intenions and Alignment



Frosty
2008-01-14, 05:57 PM
Supposedly, Alignment is completely objective in DnD. Good and Evil are concrete things. Acts have a certain value of goodness (which can be 0 for neutral or negative for evil) which is immutable regardless of what value system you or your church have.

Does this sound right to everyone?

I mean, it seems to me that intentions should alter how good an act is a lot of the time. Let's say you have a basically good person on the run from some hostiles. He needs to keep moving to stay ahead of his enemies. He finds someone else in need of help (for example...stuck in a ditch) and the person is asking for help.

It'd take a mdoerate amount of effort and time to rescue the woman in the ditch. The man decides to leave the woman there and move on. Is that good? neutral? evil? Can you tell just based on someones actions? Or do you need more context?

Context like...the man believes that if he stops to help the woman, the bad people will catch up. And, seeing her with him, will likely attack them both, therefore putting the woman in more danger than she already is in. Based on that rationale, he leaves her alone, possibly first tossing her some food and water.

Of course, if the man was neutral instead of good in outlook, he just might not care. If the man was evil, then he'd just leave her there perhaps because he savors the though of her dying of dehydration.

And hey, the man could be totally wrong. Perhaps the people that are chasing him aren't really bad people at all and won't harm him or the woman, but because he doesn't KNOW that, he decides to move on and not rescue the woman. In this situation, he could've achieved the a better outcome if he had helped. But he didn't, not because of evil moral outlook, but because he didn't know.

In all these cases, the action is the same. The man leaves the woman without helping her. According to DnD rules, the net effect on his good/evil scale would be the same. But...that really makes no sense.

So let me ask you all this: Should DnD take into account intent? Should it be possible for someone to go to the 9 hells after death...even if for his entire life, he thought he was doing good, but he wasn't just because his own value system differs than that of the "objective" universe?

Mando Knight
2008-01-14, 07:14 PM
If alignment is objective, then intent should not matter much. If someone thought he was doing the right thing, trying to aid his dying wife through adventuring to achieve some kind of arcane power that he was told could save her, while actually killing off her only true means of survival, then his actions are Evil. His intentions are not taken into consideration.

If he tries to save the world by destroying the Good society he had trusted in for the last decade because he was told by a man he trusted that it would be the only way to ensure peace, then his actions are doubly Evil: once for turning against the society and again for destroying it.

If you think that those examples are only from Darth Vader in SW episode III, then look at several other stories.
Kaname Tosen from Bleach has the outlook that joining the evil Sosuke Aizen and Gin Ichimaru, he can limit bloodshed and bring about peace.

Furthermore, if intent or belief is the root of alignment, then many LE evildoers would actually be good. Lawful Evil often drives its motives from the belief that their evil acts are actually right. An evil person could be defined as someone whose morals vary from those of the Objective Alignment Deciding Force.

NecroRebel
2008-01-14, 07:39 PM
Alignment is mostly objective. I say mostly because intent and circumstance can matter, though it also might not make a difference. Take a classic Evil act: killing a baby (human, if you think racial alignments matter). Normally, and in most cases, killing this baby would be Evil; however, if you have the choice between slaying the child and unleashing an archdemon/dark god on the world, not unleashing the great evil would be overwhelmingly Good compared to the death of the infant who likely would have perished anyway given the release of said great evil.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that each act has Good and Evil and Lawful and Chaotic pieces to it, and each act's alignment is what the balance of these opposing bits say it is. Killing a baby might be worth 1000 Evil points, for instance, while sealing the great evil from the prior example might be worth 1000000 Good points; so, sealing the great evil takes precedence over saving the child.

This view does get very dangerous, though... It's very easy to view one's own self as having a Good and Evil rating, where doing Good acts adds to the Good rating and doing Evil acts adds to the Evil rating on a point-for-point basis. This isn't very good, though, because it implies that the group who sealed the great evil could kill 1000 babies and have no reason for remorse, since their Good rating is still greater or equal to their Evil rating. This is despite the fact that they've done an overwhelming number of Evil acts... Which I myself would claim makes them Evil. It's complicated, to say the least, and fairly subjective how to apply the objective rules of Good and Evil:smallwink:

Oh, and please also realize that your ditch scenario is more than a little flawed. A Good person does not have to do only Good acts to stay Good; in fact, the vast majority of acts a person does, regardless of alignment, are going to be non-Good and non-Evil. This is because of the way the definitions of Good and Evil interact; they are largely mutually exclusive, but together they aren't entirely inclusive. So, in the ditch scenario the Good person will likely give a care to the lady, but not enough to risk death or imprisonment for themself. This is non-Good, as it doesn't involve altruism, but is also non-Evil, as it doesn't involve maliciousness.

Riffington
2008-01-14, 07:47 PM
Objective things can depend on intention. For example, it is wrong to murder babies. If you put Guinness into his bottle intending to help him grow up big and strong, you are not murdering the kid even if he dies. If you put Guinness into his bottle knowing he has Sprue and intending to kill him that way, you are murdering the kid.

So either way: murder is objectively evil. Intention matters to whether it was murder.

Similarly, it is objectively evil to throw someone off a ship if you think she can't swim. However, it is objectively hilarious if she's an Olympic swimmer who just stole your dress.

EvilElitest
2008-01-14, 09:10 PM
Wait, where did my post go? I mean the OP responded to it? What?
from
EE
Edit- Oh wait, another really similar thread

Felius
2008-01-14, 09:19 PM
That's one of the reasons I hate the alignment system of D&D. Any system where a person can call him or her actions evil as matter of fact is not very believable. Most persons that do things we can call evil, call their acts good, call them a necessarily evil, or are amoral and simply don't care. This don't work when any cleric can cast the spell detect evil (even the evil clerics themselves) and see that they indeed are evil.

Drakron
2008-01-14, 10:42 PM
Sorry but the alignment system of D&D is not about what the player calls his characters intentions to be, "good" and "evil" are relative concepts after all and the game is not what players say things are or a lot of sessions would be "I rush the dragon, cut his head off and he dies" ... the players have no saying outside declaring their characters actions.

A paladin cannot destroy a entire town and just call it a accident, if he does so then he better show regret, also he better be expecting to be strip out of paladinhood and undergo a quest to regain it.

There are times were they could be a lot of variables around, if a character act in a way because he is under a magical effect that have to be considered ... a dominated person is hardly responsible for their actions, similar a character may be under the impression he is doing something but in fact doing the opposite.

In the end there is a DM to judge things, if a character does unwilling or unknowing a evil act we cannot say that character is "evil" but if the player is trying to make his character commit evil acts and covering then up with excuses ... well his character is evil, a player can NEVER excuse his characters actual actions and his character intent on committing such actions, the DM have to consider the circumstances under what those acts were committed to see if a evil/good/neutral act have a impact in the characters alignment or not.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-01-15, 12:04 AM
First, why a new thread? I put time and energy into my previous response. I could repost it but I suspect there's a reason you started a new thread...I hope.


Supposedly, Alignment is completely objective in DnD. Good and Evil are concrete things. Acts have a certain value of goodness (which can be 0 for neutral or negative for evil) which is immutable regardless of what value system you or your church have.
That is correct.


In all these cases, the action is the same. The man leaves the woman without helping her. According to DnD rules, the net effect on his good/evil scale would be the same. But...that really makes no sense.
And what net effect would that be? Evil? Maybe so according to a literal reading of d&d's alignment system, but DMs are expected to use common sense and judgment when adjucating alignment just like in every other part of the game. So if something in the alignment rules just doesn't make sense, use your best judgment. Not everyone will agree with you, but using your gods-given free will to evaluate a situation and its impact is better than trying to be a computer reading a bunch of code, right? Gamers have an unfortunate habit of getting lost in the minutae and technicalities of our games, but we forget that the games were designed by mortals just like us. They do their best to create a framework of guidelines, but they are just that: guidelines. Even if all the designers could agree with each other about what alignments mean exactly and how they interact with characters and the game, they wouldn't be able to anticipate all the theoretical scenarios that we like to come up with to 'break' their guidelines, and they wouldn't be able to word their guidelines in such a way as to convey their intentions to us with crystal clarity.


So let me ask you all this: Should DnD take into account intent? Should it be possible for someone to go to the 9 hells after death...even if for his entire life, he thought he was doing good, but he wasn't just because his own value system differs than that of the "objective" universe?
This is the way it is in d&d and that's the way I like it. If intent played any large part in determining alignment, all the lower planes put together wouldn't be able to field an army large enough to assault a single mortal kingdom. That said, I use my own personal judgment when adjucating alignment because when situations like your hypothetical one comes up in the game, the designers' guidelines simply don't cut it. If it's broke, fix it!

Frosty
2008-01-15, 02:58 AM
wtf...I was not even aware that I double-posted the entire thread. I must've missed it due to my computer at work being so laggy and slow. I apologize.

And I agree in your other post in the duplicate thread that over the course of a lifetime, a few of these grey areas isn't as important, but we still can't overlook them, because sometimes one or two such decisions can be momentous enough to warrant considering changing someone's alignment, especially going from good to evil (becuase it's easier). A sensible DM will populate a world with that in mind, and not have complete objective morality with complete rigidity.

I think I know why there are so few philosophers in DnD. There's not really that much to argue about :smallbiggrin:

Drakron
2008-01-15, 09:10 AM
I am sorry but "one of two moments" are hardly enough to make a character change alignment.

Alignment changes requires systematic or constant change of behavior from the listed alignment by the character part, also the DM have to interpret the rules as written and the those are rigid, morality within the world is subjective.

Frosty
2008-01-15, 11:40 AM
I remember either in the PHB or the BoED saying that it's much easier to go from good to evil than vice versa. One humongously vile deed can drop you from paladin-hood to neutral-city or worse.

Fiery Diamond
2008-01-15, 01:38 PM
Does the D&D DMG or PHB actually say that actions and alignment should be determined on a point-based system? Not anywhere that I remember. Likewise, does it explicitly say that your moral alignment is determined only by the quantity and quality of the actions you make? Just because you commit an action that objectively is Evil, or even several of these actions, does not mean that your alignment is Evil. For example, the case of destroying an entire town mentioned above. Certainly, that is an Evil act. Suppose, however, that it went like this.

Paladin is playing with matches. (He's being stupid, not evil.) He tosses one of them over his shoulder. (Careless, not evil.) He forgets he has done so and then proceeds to leave the area to do something else. The match starts a fire, which catches the whole town on fire, destroying it. Paladin is unable to save the town (for whatever reason). The town was destroyed as a direct result of his actions; so it could be said that he destroyed the town, an Evil act. Paladin is horrified that such a thing has happened. Paladin has not changed alignment, and wouldn't even if situations of action vs. intent happened frequently. It would, however, cause him to lose Paladinhood, because of the Evil act, but not affect his alignment.

In any case, that's how I see it, because I believe that there is objective good and evil in real life, and that's how I reconcile it.

-Fiery Diamond

Frosty
2008-01-15, 02:00 PM
Would you say it's occasionally ok or even necessary to perform acts that you objectively classify as "Evil" then? Are you ok performing a lesser evil to avert a greater evil?

I.E, would "doing the right thing" sometimes mean doing something that may be "Evil"?

Riffington
2008-01-15, 03:22 PM
Sorry but the alignment system of D&D is not about what the player calls his characters intentions to be... the players have no saying outside declaring their characters actions.

I hope you don't mean this. The players are also allowed to explain (dialogue or inner monologue) WHY they do what they do. Example: a character of mine was once arresting a master spellthief. He decided to fight, and I acted like my wounds were very serious.

If I had later explained that I was pretending to be hurt so the spellthief would become cocky, my action would have been neutral. But I explained to the DM that I was actually pretending to be hurt so my friends would fight more vigorously, and be more likely to kill him rather than knock him out as we'd planned. My action given this intention was evil.

[/QUOTE]

Riffington
2008-01-15, 03:29 PM
Paladin is playing with matches. (He's being stupid, not evil.) He tosses one of them over his shoulder. (Careless, not evil.) He forgets he has done so and then proceeds to leave the area to do something else. The match starts a fire, which catches the whole town on fire, destroying it.

The Paladin recklessly endangered life and property by carelessly and stupidly playing with matches. Unless his Wisdom is 4, he has a duty to know better. Therefore, his actions were mildly evil. Not nearly as evil as deliberately burning down a town, of course. If he keeps doing it and feeling bad, but doesn't take active steps to make sure it doesn't happen again, he becomes evil. Along the way, he loses his Paladinhood. This has nothing to do with whether the town is destroyed, it has to do with failing to be a responsible person. If his friends keep putting out the fires before they cause any harm and warning him to stop being a dumbass, and he doesn't stop, he still loses his Paladinhood (and eventually becomes evil). He'll never get to be a Blackguard this way though.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-01-15, 03:39 PM
Would you say it's occasionally ok or even necessary to perform acts that you objectively classify as "Evil" then? Are you ok performing a lesser evil to avert a greater evil?

Most definately. Sometimes the universe just catches you in a 'catch 22' and there is no clearly Good course of action. It is in these situations that intent becomes most important. If you find yourself in a catch 22 of morality and are horrified at the whichever evil action you are taking, the objective Good force of the d&d world will regard it as a Good act despite your Evil actions. Other people might think differently, that the objective moral forces of d&d are like computers and don't care why or how one commits an evil act, but I play under the assumption that Good and Evil are intelligent and capable of making judment calls. Anyway, if you find yourself in a catch 22 and think "both these options look like so much fun! which one to choose?" the objective moral forces will regard that as an Evil act.

And PS, there are plenty of philosophers in D&D, they just don't debate Good and Evil. And most of them live in Sigil. :smallwink:

Tren
2008-01-15, 03:40 PM
I think we need to draw a clear distinction between morality and alignment for the purpose of this discussion. A CE Orcish society has a moral ethos. So does a LG human society. Orcs might think it "immoral" or "undesirable" to leave defeated enemies alive. There was an anecdote about a Viking leader who's name escapes me that was considered weak and cowardly for refusing to spit babies upon his sword. These are clearly different from the standards most modern societies hold, but they are morals none the less.

There's a much stronger case for the objectivity of alignment, however. D&D is a universe where physical (perhaps metaphysical?) embodiments of Evil, Good, Law, and Chaos literally exist. In the broadest strokes we can attribute certain actions to one of these metaphysical entities; rape is evil, breaking laws is chaotic, willfully conforming to laws is lawful, helping another person is Good. (Is it just me or are the Law/Chaos actions a lot more bland?)

But there is also an immense amount of grey area in the shadow of these metaphysical entities. Is murder evil? One person taking another person's life in a premeditated act? What if that "person" is a group of adventurers and the "victim" is an evil dragon? Does the act of taking another person's life magically become Good because you add modifiers "LG" to one side of the equation and "CE" to the other?

What about robbing from the rich to give to the poor? What is the alignment value of an act like this? On the one hand you're taking the rightful property of someone, on the other you're hand you're enriching someone elses quality of life. Assuming theft is illegal in the state we're discussing, it's obviously chaotic. But then I suppose even that is up for grabs. What if a Lawful person believes in a strict code that the wealthy should use their means to help the less fortnate? Isn't he lawful for consistently applying his code of conduct?

While Devils and Angels may exist in D&D, and metaphysical entities have an actual physical existence, that doesn't mean everything is clearly codified. Without even including intent, the general context of an action, and it's potential outcomes can vary wildly. What if an assassin is payed to murder a man. Pretty evil right? What if that man would start a war that would kill millions? Isn't preventing war and loss of life good? How do we guage that? Do we view the act of killing and the act of preventing the war as seperate entities? Is it even possible to divorce an action from it's consequences?

Okay, my rant is done. I hope we can keep this thread going and civil, because I think the topic is wholly fascinating!

EDIT:

If he keeps doing it and feeling bad, but doesn't take active steps to make sure it doesn't happen again, he becomes evil. Along the way, he loses his Paladinhood.

I agree but I don't think he'd go all the way to evil, just neutral. He's either failing in, or choosing to ignore an obligation that is causing him to unwittingly (and likely unwillingly) harm others. Considering that he's ignoring obligations placed on him by society, I'd say it's more a chaotic act than evil. So maybe he ends up at true neutral or chaotic neutral.

EDIT EDIT:

If you find yourself in a catch 22 of morality and are horrified at the whichever evil action you are taking, the objective Good force of the d&d world will regard it as a Good act despite your Evil actions.

I'd agree that if you do something evil for the sake of the greater good (as a lesser of two evils), that it's not necessarily an evil act. I don't agree that it'd be a good act though. Maybe you have to kill the demon-possessed child to prevent them from initiating the magical apocalypse. You have no time to exorcise the demon, and if you don't act soon the world will end. No matter how you slice it, killing a child is a non-good act, but done in the face of imminent harm to yourself and others, it becomes a neutral act of self-preservation.

Drakron
2008-01-15, 04:20 PM
I hope you don't mean this. The players are also allowed to explain (dialogue or inner monologue) WHY they do what they do. Example: a character of mine was once arresting a master spellthief. He decided to fight, and I acted like my wounds were very serious.


You know, you did declared a action ... a Bluff that the NPC could make a check for, it is covered within the rules.



If I had later explained that I was pretending to be hurt so the spellthief would become cocky, my action would have been neutral. But I explained to the DM that I was actually pretending to be hurt so my friends would fight more vigorously, and be more likely to kill him rather than knock him out as we'd planned. My action given this intention was evil.



You did try a Bluff, note how said NPC is in no way forced to act in the way you desired, the DM is running the NPC after all and Bluff checks have mechanics.

The reasoning within your action to be "evil" is in fact within playing a evil character but as I pointed out its the DM that makes such decision ... providing the "inner thoughts" of your character is not different that declaring a action.

The point that I seen to failed to made is that outside your character actions (and that includes the character thoughts) the player have no control over the world, if the player says "my character is CG" and then makes the character acting as described on the rules as LE then said character is not CG because the player said so, also even if the player describes the characters thoughts they have to reasonable match the characters actions.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-01-15, 04:33 PM
I'd agree that if you do something evil for the sake of the greater good (as a lesser of two evils), that it's not necessarily an evil act. I don't agree that it'd be a good act though. Maybe you have to kill the demon-possessed child to prevent them from initiating the magical apocalypse. You have no time to exorcise the demon, and if you don't act soon the world will end. No matter how you slice it, killing a child is a non-good act, but done in the face of imminent harm to yourself and others, it becomes a neutral act of self-preservation.

Yeah that's true. Maybe I should have said that committing an evil act while in a catch 22 won't slide you toward Evil on the cosmic Align-O-Meter. Killing the baby is an Evil act, but the Good objective force won't comdemn you for being stuck in a bad situation.

Riffington
2008-01-15, 04:47 PM
The point that I seen to failed to made is that outside your character actions (and that includes the character thoughts) the player have no control over the world, if the player says "my character is CG" and then makes the character acting as described on the rules as LE then said character is not CG because the player said so, also even if the player describes the characters thoughts they have to reasonable match the characters actions.

Ok, in that case I agree with you :)

RukiTanuki
2008-01-15, 05:15 PM
I think there has to be SOME degree of intent (or at least objective) in alignment considerations.

Paladins aside, most characters can't Detect Evil at will, and few campaign settings treat killing Evil characters, just for registering Evil, as a Good act. Characters are generally going to put the sword (or spell) to somebody; short of the Hand of Gawd (or pure DM fiat) telling them whom to run through, their choice of somebody is going to be based on that person's actions.

However, the soon-to-be-killed person's intent can't help but enter the picture. Does the person whose herd accidentally stampeded the village and trampled someone get the blade as readily as someone who voluntarily unleashed a small demon? (What about the guy who accidentally unleashes a small demon?)

Unless your PCs are draconic and punish everyone who causes bad things to happen (regardless of intent), their system of justice (i.e. who they're entitled to stab) is going to be based on intent... just like the real world. In much the same manner, unless your PCs are tried and/or killed for each bad consequence to their actions, deliberate or not, their intent matters as well. In a world where their intent doesn't matter... well, I pity them the first time they trust someone who turns on them, and they're not only turned away from their hometown village for bringing doom to their people (RPG cliche ahoy!), but also beat down with the Fist from Above for their clearly Evil act.

I mentioned it in the prior thread, but my own interpretation of alignment is based on PCs recognizing the consequences of their actions, and making those choices anyway:
Good characters regularly put themselves at great (even disproportionate) risk or pay great cost for the benefit of others.
Neutral characters (morally speaking) sometimes help others if the cost /risk for them isn't severe, and may do things that harm or set back others if it provides them with a far greater benefit.
Evil characters regularly harm or threaten others for their own benefit.

Note that this system pays no mind to whether the character thinks they're doing the right thing. A Lawful Evil character may think he's doing the right thing, but his actions (which may include torture, kidnapping, etc.) are still Evil. The key element, as I've interpreted it, is whether you know the costs/risks to yourself and others, and the choice you make as a result.

This does lead to characters who are misguided, well-meaning bumblers who occasionally make decisions that have bad, unintended consequences for all, without those people immediately switching their wardrobe to black leather and eyeshadow. That seems like a better story to me than a righteous race-slayer. :smallbiggrin:

I guess the question is "In a world such as ours, where people's actions are one of several reasons why bad or good things happen to others, how can one codify a strict list of Good and Evil actions and not take intent into account?" Would such a system (i.e. where manslaughter and murder are no different) make for for an enjoyable game?

Dervag
2008-01-15, 05:18 PM
That's one of the reasons I hate the alignment system of D&D. Any system where a person can call him or her actions evil as matter of fact is not very believable. Most persons that do things we can call evil, call their acts good, call them a necessarily evil, or are amoral and simply don't care. This don't work when any cleric can cast the spell detect evil (even the evil clerics themselves) and see that they indeed are evil.There are two ways to cope with this.

One is the Ilwrath way:

Ha! Evil! Of Course We're Evil!
Dogar And Kazon* Would Never Reward A Less-Than-Hideously Evil Species With Their Baleful Grace.
Why We Are The Very Definition Of Evil!
Everything About Us, Within And Without, Reeks Of Heinous Deeds, Deceit And Treachery!
Even Our House Pets Are Rather Evil.

*their gods. And yes, the capitalization is authentic, and they pronounce the capitalization.

The other way is to point out that for an evil-aligned D&D person, "evil" may not mean "bad." They may, for example, think that alignment is a purely arbitrary thing. That it is not actually better and more choiceworthy to be good-aligned than to be evil-aligned.


I am sorry but "one of two moments" are hardly enough to make a character change alignment.

Alignment changes requires systematic or constant change of behavior from the listed alignment by the character part, also the DM have to interpret the rules as written and the those are rigid, morality within the world is subjective.Depends on the moments in question.

If your character suddenly wigs out and does this massive necromantic spell that rips the life force out of an entire town and turns them into tortured zombie slaves, then yeah, I could see that "one moment" changing your alignment by one or even two increments on the good/evil scale.


The Paladin recklessly endangered life and property by carelessly and stupidly playing with matches. Unless his Wisdom is 4, he has a duty to know better. Therefore, his actions were mildly evil. Not nearly as evil as deliberately burning down a town, of course. If he keeps doing it and feeling bad, but doesn't take active steps to make sure it doesn't happen again, he becomes evil. Along the way, he loses his Paladinhood. This has nothing to do with whether the town is destroyed, it has to do with failing to be a responsible person. If his friends keep putting out the fires before they cause any harm and warning him to stop being a dumbass, and he doesn't stop, he still loses his Paladinhood (and eventually becomes evil). He'll never get to be a Blackguard this way though.I think that if a paladin does something with good or neutral intentions and causes a bad result purely by accident that they could not reasonably have foreseen (as in, their campfire was suddenly blown around by a high wind and the sparks burn down a town), then the paladin will not lose paladin status because they cannot be held responsible for nonforeseeable actions.

However, when the paladin does something with neutral intentions that does have reasonably forseeable consequences (tossing around flaming objects in town), then they might well lose their paladin abilities. In a case that was clearly unintentional and in character, I would allow the paladin to atone, with the caveat that they will not be able to atone for a similar incident in the future.

This is because I believe that the morality of actions is related to intent, in that someone who has no intent cannot have actions with moral content. A being so stupid or foolish that they cannot grasp the correlation between playing with fire and things burning down is unable to have morally meaningful actions and is not a moral agent. They are more like a natural disaster such as an avalanche or a plague, which causes damage mindlessly.

Mindless beings are neutral. In my opinion, mindless beings are not qualified for paladinhood.

Frosty
2008-01-15, 05:25 PM
This is because I believe that the morality of actions is related to intent, in that someone who has no intent cannot have actions with moral content. A being so stupid or foolish that they cannot grasp the correlation between playing with fire and things burning down is unable to have morally meaningful actions and is not a moral agent. They are more like a natural disaster such as an avalanche or a plague, which causes damage mindlessly.

Mindless beings are neutral. In my opinion, mindless beings are not qualified for paladinhood.

hmm...so mindless undead are true neutral?

And RukiTanuki's question is dead on. What kind of alignment system and definition would you say models real life better, is internally consistent, doesn't mess with fluff *too* much, and is still decently fun to play?

RyanM
2008-01-15, 05:42 PM
I've pretty much always been of the opinion that the only way an alignment system could ever work is if there is a single, overriding, judging authority, and if judgement on your alignment is passed only at the time of death. There really is no way to judge someone's actions at the time they do whatever. Both the consequences and a person's intent have to be taken into account.

A multi-deity system with set alignment (like D&D) is basically the same as a monotheistic one, since you've got a single moral code. But then logical holes start to develop. Why do opposing deities all agree perfectly on what is "good" and what is "evil?" If they manage to agree perfectly on that, is it not logical that they're all actually in cahoots? Is religion just a game of "good cop, bad cop," to toy with the mortals for some unknown purpose?

Really not a direction I want to go with my games. The campaign I'm making, there is officially no concrete proof of any religions, just like real life. Instead of alignment, each character has some morals (chosen from a list, instead of getting stuck with a particular set of them) that they're expected to stick to. Or not, for chaotic-equivalents.

Frosty
2008-01-15, 05:55 PM
Which is why I don't really like the whole alignment system. How I see it is that when you die, your soul goes to the plane of the deity whose philosophy and outlook on life most closely resembles yours. If you actually lived your life as a chaotic bloodthirsty killing machine (and you did it of your own free will and not under duress) then you would go to the Abyss, where demons dwell, because the creatures of that plane most closely resemble you in thinking. If you lived within the law but exploited and harmed others as much as you can within the law (if you're a lawyer or an a bad king, for example), you might go to the 9 hells of Baator, where everyone basically is doing whatever the hell they can to claw their way to the top..all the while still obeying the rules.

You go to the plane that shares your *true* beliefs. If you actually believe that Lawful Evil is the best way to live, then in the afterlife you get an eternity of Lawful Evil. In some ways, everyone gets to go to their own alignment's version of paradise. It's just some paradises have a more dog-eat-dog mentality than others.

terrant
2008-01-15, 06:21 PM
Well back to the start...

Good!
Leaving the women to suffer at the hands of the mob would be evil. If he is truely good, he should reassure the women stuck in the ditch, and then coupe de grace her. It will be a quick clean merciful death and if she is good her soul will be accepted into the afterlife. He is then free to continue his flight and she will not suffer a painful death at the hands of the hostile mob.

Maybe a strange moral code but his intentions were totally 100% good. Natural Paladin heh. :smallamused:


Evil!
Help the women out of the ditch. Give her your bright red highly uncamouflage winter blanket as she is probably cold. Tell her about the approaching hostile mob that she can no doubt hear now. Tell her to run. She's alive and well and now has a better chance of surviving than previously.

Odd but who could say its evil to save the women even if your intention is to try and split or distract the pursuers? :smallyuk:

Frosty
2008-01-15, 07:28 PM
Terrant, the first scenario may very well happen, depending on the circumstances. Sometimes a mercy killing is better than the alternative. the important thing is to ask the person in question for permission first. If the person is sound of mind and gives clear permission, then it is not evil at all. I have no problem with euthanasia.

In the 2nd, the woman may or may not have a better chance of survival. See, you don't *know* which course of action would give the woman a better chance of survival. the important part is what motivates you to act. If you have selfish/evil intent (use the woman as a decoy) but the action you took happens to also have a positive effect (because the woman was rescued and survived) then at best it is neutral on the alignment scale.

I personally believe that as long as you are using the available information to the best of your abilities to determine which coure of action to follow (the course being the one that does the most good. Usually means the most selfless one), then at WORSE the decision was a neutral, even if the results were disastrous. Because you *tried* to do the right thing.

Yes, there will be times when someone's moral code is very, very strange, and he thinks is good is pretty repugnant in the eyes of others. Well guess what, because he genuinely believes that he was being selfless and making the world better, he shouldn't go to the abyss or the nine hells. Because at his core he wouldn't agree with hurting others for personal gain, for example.

Now in most cases it wouldn't work like that people people communicate, and if the person learns that he is hurting others by his actions, then he would most likely stop since he is good at heart. But, it could happen.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-01-15, 07:44 PM
A multi-deity system with set alignment (like D&D) is basically the same as a monotheistic one, since you've got a single moral code. But then logical holes start to develop. Why do opposing deities all agree perfectly on what is "good" and what is "evil?" If they manage to agree perfectly on that, is it not logical that they're all actually in cahoots? Is religion just a game of "good cop, bad cop," to toy with the mortals for some unknown purpose?

I think the default assumption in d&d is not that the gods arbitrate alignment, but that some sort of force/entity arbitrates alignment for everyone, even the gods. Like you say how can a group of human-like non-omnipresent beings such as the gods, albeit of immense power, ever hope to pass such complex judgments on every living thing in the multiverse?

terrant
2008-01-16, 08:24 AM
Rubbish Frosty.

Scenario 1: Clearly evil you fool. You've given her 100% certain death as being better than only possible pain and/or death. As you yourself said in answer to the second part, we don't know what the mob will do even though described as hostile. Killing her would be evil, leaving her neutral and helping her good.

Scenario 2: And whilst we don't know eactly what the reaction of the hostile mob would be to the women, not being stuck in the ditch is a much better situation for probable survival, even if she now has a hostile mob chasing her. So for the second you failed to answer whether though the intent in helping her being entirely self-serving reduces the action from being good or not.

2xSlick
2008-01-16, 05:15 PM
Alignment is mostly objective. I say mostly because intent and circumstance can matter, though it also might not make a difference. Take a classic Evil act: killing a baby (human, if you think racial alignments matter). Normally, and in most cases, killing this baby would be Evil; however, if you have the choice between slaying the child and unleashing an archdemon/dark god on the world, not unleashing the great evil would be overwhelmingly Good compared to the death of the infant who likely would have perished anyway given the release of said great evil.


I will assume once the child reaches a certain age, a portal to hell opens instead of the child being a victim of ritual sacrifice. This removes the choice of disrupting the ritual, slaying the henchmen, and booking it out of there with the kid. My problem with your scenario is that it assumes there are only two choices, kill or be killed.

In my opinion, no matter how much good would come from it, killing a child is an evil act. Killing a child to prevent world chaos? About as lawful evil as it gets.

A chaotic evil character could see unleashing great evil as an improvement. I wouldn't be suprised if once he learned of these events, he would immediate start worshipping the all powerful, vengeful being. He may even take steps to protect the child from assassination. Now THAT'S evil.

Killing the child is not GOOD in the sense that it saves everyone, it's evil because it's self-serving; it's the EASIEST way to prevent a worldwide threat. A good person must protect the child and defeat whatever evil comes about as a result of this. When I say defeat, I don't mean stab a god to death or something (although that's the best strategy if your lvl 40), but stop the evil by other means. The most basic act of good is sacrifice. Find a way through magic or plot hook to "switch" with the child and kill yourself in the child's place. Martyrdom.

You might think this is harsh, but I would never spring the above scenario on a palladin.

As for the idea of a point-based good/evil ideal. I think it's a copout. Doing the occasional good act so that you aren't completely evil is not enough. In fact, the character is doing good specifically to mask their evil actions. I'd say a murderer that opened a shelter for lost kittens would still detect as evil.

The best example of itent being the deciding factor really only comes up with quest rewards. Save a village from zombies? Good. Make em pay upfront? Evil.

I think it's hardest to play a neutral character because it's such a foreign concept to me. Good= how can I help you? Evil= How can you help me? Where does that leave netural? Not my problem?

The way I see it, neutral characters have the philosophy "Walk softly and carry a +5 stick."

Frosty
2008-01-16, 05:54 PM
Except opening a shelter for kittens would be worth so much less good points and the evil points you'd get for murder.

RyanM
2008-01-16, 05:56 PM
Uggggg, I absolutely hate Immanuel Kant and his "categorical imperetives." The man has totally screwed up Western society, but that's a rant for elsewhere.

Anyways, I am absolutely, 100%, a "greater good" objective moralist. If an action serves the greater good, it is moral. If the ends justify the means, an action is moral. If sacrificing an infant is the only way to close a portal to Hell, sacrificing that infant is moral. If torturing someone for information to prevent a million deaths is the only way to get that information (or at least the most expedient, in a situation where time is of the essense), that torture is moral.

Kant's crap basically boils down to "do everything the bible tells you just because." And really, that's what Western morals now amount to. Don't lie just because. Don't kill just because. Don't steal just because. Obey authority just because.

Moral imperatives must be based on logic, and that logic must be based on what serves the greater good. Otherwise, you do not have a system of morals.

VanBuren
2008-01-16, 06:38 PM
Even more so, a murderer that opens a kitten shelter may not even be trying to mask anything. He just may have a soft spot in his heart for kittens. Evil doesn't make you completely cold-heart in every way.

Drakron
2008-01-16, 06:45 PM
...
Depends on the moments in question.

If your character suddenly wigs out and does this massive necromantic spell that rips the life force out of an entire town and turns them into tortured zombie slaves, then yeah, I could see that "one moment" changing your alignment by one or even two increments on the good/evil scale.


Biggest issue with that is we have a DM that would ask me how exactly why that happen because my character is no longer being roleplayed in a consistent way.

The DM is also allowed to judge how a character is roleplayed, any player that is inconsistent with roleplaying his character moving from one alignment description from another is doing nothing more as roleplaying a insane character ... how many DMs would allow it?

Things do not happen in a void, there must be consistence even in madness.

Talya
2008-01-16, 06:55 PM
Intention matters. but only to the extent of whether you intended for the act to have the outcome it does.

If by trying to save a child, you accidentally kill an entire town, the result was evil, but the act you were attempting was not. You are not responsible, alignment-wise, for unintended consequences. Likewise, a Paladin who accidentally kills an innocent despite being careful and dilligent in the execution of his good and lawful duties (for instance, the enemy he's fighting had a contingent spell that would kill the maiden upon his death, that the paladin knew nothing about), would be wracked with emo-ish guilt, but would not lose their class abilities.

However, intent does not matter if you intentionally commit an evil act for a greater good. For instance, the above-mentioned "killing a baby to save the universe" might be necessary, but it's still an evil act. A paladin would lose their abilities over it (though they very well might do it anyway, as an act of self sacrifice, knowing that it had to be done.)

In real life I'm a moral relativist -- i do not believe in objective right or wrong, or objective good or evil. But D&D does not represent real life, it's a fantasy world, and Good and Evil (and even Law & Chaos) are objective and fairly well defined. I see a lot of people arguing over it, and sure, there are always moral dillemmas, but the alignment system, as maligned as it is, works for the settings it is designed for.

PaladinBoy
2008-01-16, 08:41 PM
I think intent is a fundamental part of action. There are just way too many possible situations where the intent makes a lot of difference. Take the "kill the baby to prevent ths summoning of the great evil god/demon/what have you" scenario. I do regard killing the baby as Evil, but that situation would be less evil than a psychopath who randomly kills babies because he's bored, or something. I think even the people who disagree with the idea that the ends justify the means can agree that a paladin who kills the baby to stop the summoning is better than the psychopath.

And there are other, less extreme examples, some of which have already been mentioned. Starting a fire that destroys a town by accident is better than arson, even if the two have the same result. I think this does hold true in D&D, too. Some things are completely and unequivocally Evil, but many other depend on the circumstances. The BoED, in fact, lists certain conditions that must be met for violence to be justified and therefore Good. Otherwise, violence can be neutral or evil.


Uggggg, I absolutely hate Immanuel Kant and his "categorical imperetives." The man has totally screwed up Western society, but that's a rant for elsewhere.

Anyways, I am absolutely, 100%, a "greater good" objective moralist. If an action serves the greater good, it is moral. If the ends justify the means, an action is moral. If sacrificing an infant is the only way to close a portal to Hell, sacrificing that infant is moral. If torturing someone for information to prevent a million deaths is the only way to get that information (or at least the most expedient, in a situation where time is of the essense), that torture is moral.
*snip*

Moral imperatives must be based on logic, and that logic must be based on what serves the greater good. Otherwise, you do not have a system of morals.

:smallamused: I remember this debate. I'm glad it's back, because I have a few new arguments to try.

To put it bluntly, I think you're horribly misguided. No, it's not good to murder an innocent, no matter what the reason. Same goes for torture. You can try to explain your reasoning for such acts, but that does not make them Good.

A paladin using any of those justifications in my games would fall right through the pavement into the Nine Hells. The only way I would excuse it is if the paladin in question truly could see no other choice and felt remorseful about the whole thing. Not the "Well, there was no other choice, so it was right, and I'd do it again if I had to..." which seems common. True remorse and atonement requires guilt for doing something wrong, which requires admitting that you did something wrong. On top of that, you have to commit to avoiding that situation in the future.

By committing these Evil - sometimes horribly Evil - acts in the name of the greater good, you are saying many other things besides professing a belief that the ends justify the means. For one, I agree with 2xSlick that you're taking the easy way out of a hard situation. You're also admitting that you believe evil is useful and sometimes necessary - hardly a Good perspective. If the ultimate goal of Good is to eliminate Evil (and I think it is), then you're actually working against that goal. Think about the type of world that this creates - if it starts with "I can do a little evil for a big good" how long does that take to become "I can do a big evil for a little good"? Strictly working by the numbers, committing genocide is good if done to appease an evil sorcerer that threatens to open portals that will allow devils to take over and/or destroy the world. I don't agree with that.

One final problem I have with these ideas is that so many of the catch-22's presented really don't work at all. It is possible, with a little foresight and planning, to avoid being caught in any of these situations by accident. The torture scenarios are notable because their evil solution, torture, really doesn't even work all that well. In a large number of these situations, the Good solutions aren't all that bad anyway. Of course, if someone is intentionally working to trap you like this, say a devil, then you're in a little more trouble. Those situations are also notable for the fact that they frequently involve doing something evil before the devil or whatever will, say, release a hostage. In this case, trusting the devil or demon or whatever to actually release the hostage or whatever is a rather bad idea.

Of course, my argument is geared towards some of the people who said things more like, "It's Evil, but it's still better than what will happen if you don't do it." If I read your post correctly, you are more inclined to say, "It's better than the other alternatives, therefore it's Good." I disagree - I say that morals are a set of rules governing what is right and wrong as well as exceptions to the rules - but I don't see how we can have any meaningful debate on that. I do think that logic actually knocks down the "greater good" mentality more than it supports it, though.

Rant's over now. The whole point of it, I guess, is really that intent to do good cannot justify knowing, willful evil.

RyanM
2008-01-16, 09:24 PM
PaladinBoy,

My response depends entirely on if you're talking about inside the D&D system or outside it. Within that system, obviously WotC define "good" and "evil," so they get to decide whether the greater good justifies "evil" actions.

In the real world, there is no objective proof of any overriding moral code or judging entity. There are two general systems of trying to justify categorical imperatives. There's religion, mostly used by, obviously, the religious. Then there's the concept of "human rights," usually used by atheist liberals. Both concepts are fundamentally flawed in exactly the same way, and fall apart under logical examination. But that's all horribly off-topic. If you actually want to debate that, shoot me a PM. Definitely doesn't fit in a thread about in-game morals.

John Campbell
2008-01-16, 11:41 PM
Alignment is the single worst concept ever to be introduced to role-playing.

Forget alignment. Play your character.

Frosty
2008-01-17, 02:01 AM
Of course, my argument is geared towards some of the people who said things more like, "It's Evil, but it's still better than what will happen if you don't do it." If I read your post correctly, you are more inclined to say, "It's better than the other alternatives, therefore it's Good."

My point is more that, if you chose the choice that is better than *all* possible altneratives, and your intent was to not selfish to the point of harming others, then at the very least, the action should not count as Evil against the person.

The man weighed his options. He did the best he could under the options to affect an outcome within his powers that does the least damage. What jury in their right minds would condemn a man for that?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-17, 02:15 AM
Alignment is the single worst concept ever to be introduced to role-playing.

Forget alignment. Play your character.QFT. Build a personality, try to figure out where it falls on a scale, then ignore the scale and play the personality. Alignment only matters for certain classes prereqs (which generally are ignored) and the effects of certain spells (which are rare). Just because WotC made a broken system doesn't mean we have to use it. That's what DM fiat is for.

Frosty
2008-01-18, 01:14 AM
So you think alignment rstrictions on classes is dumb too? :)

Yami
2008-01-18, 02:03 AM
I too beleive intent plays a large part in alignment.

I think my favorite example would be the druid who set fire to a forest and watched it burn.

Now, some might claim with was an evil act, despite the occurance of natural forest fires. Others would argue nuetral, and yet others good. But wait...

Let us look at the bigger picture. If you learn why the druid felt the need to burn what should be most sacred to him, it might help you decide. So, let us do just that.

A day prior to the event the druid and his friends were skipping merrily through the forest when an enemy of thiers decided to unlesh a vicious outsider know as the chaos beast upon them. This creature can turn every living thing it touches into another beast like itself.

Now, with new insight into the picture do you still think the action has the same consequences alignment wise? Would you consider things differently if the party had managed to slay the beast rather than having to flee from it?

Some figure it's the intentions that matter, not the act. The problem is, we as DMs don't always get to know the players thoughts, and merely assume thier intentions based on thier actions and situations.