Alignment Shifts and You

[Mayhem]

I disagree with all statements even mentioning the words "intent", "motivation" or "belief". D&D has a very clear and simple alignment system, based on moral absolutism and moral universalism. If killing a puppy is evil, it is evil under all circumstances and regardless of motive. Every creature, every object and every act has an innate alignment. If you stomp the puppy just because, it's evil. If you stomp the puppy because you're hungry, it's evil. If you stomp the puppy because it'll grow up to become a hell hound and murder an entire village, it's still evil. You can argue with a DM's interpretation of morals, but not with the morals themselves. They're ingrained in the game.

</rant>

Killing an animal for food is evil now?

[hollyfant]

If killing that animal is evil, then killing it for any reason is evil. I don't think it applies to puppies though. Nor humans.

[johnlewismcleod]

I too have a hard time imagining how goo/evil could be simply absolutes, but that's why we have DM's. They weigh the relativity of actions and we go with their decisions. As has become clear in this thread it is not an easy task for DM's to do, so I would hope that they would not be subjected to excessive contest over their decisions.

For me...one PM maximun to plead a case, then accept decision.

[HEEGZ]

Part of the problem is people view the mechanic of alignment differently. Some wish it didn't exist at all. There should always be some allowance for players and DMs to communicate about incidents that affect someone's PC, and I like your thoughts on that. I'll not bother to repeat my old comments, but they still apply as well.

[fluffmonster]

Sort out Anakin Skywalker's alignment shifts...that should keep folks busy, and is an example that would demand application of many points made here.

[Mayhem]

If killing that animal is evil, then killing it for any reason is evil. I don't think it applies to puppies though. Nor humans.

I can accept that certain actions are written down in a big sacred book as being always evil or always good, IF the writings include the motivational factors.

Sacred writing that says "Killing a person is evil" is ridiculous, especially in D&D's canon.

If, however, it says "Killing an person is evil under these circumstances, Neutral under these circumstances and Good under these circumstances" then it would be workable.

We would then have the black and white standard that people imagine is central to D&D. Killing a person for personal amusement would always be evil. Killing a person who is a direct lethal threat to the innocent, at risk to yourself, would always be good (if it was so written).

Unfortunately, The sacred Book of Black and White morality doesn't exist. It would also be thousands of pages long.

So, what we are left with is DMs having to make the decision. You can pretend that they are judging to an absolute standard if you like - guesstimating what the sacred book might say, but since that absolute standard hasn't been written down or agreed on, even for some very common straightforward actions, what you basically have if the DM making a judgement call every time, and that judgement call has to include the motivation for the action for it to make any sense.

[NickD]

Sacred writing that says "Killing a person is evil" is ridiculous, especially in D&D's canon.

If, however, it says "Killing an person is evil under these circumstances, Neutral under these circumstances and Good under these circumstances" then it would be workable.

We would then have the black and white standard that people imagine is central to D&D. Killing a person for personal amusement would always be evil. Killing a person who is a direct lethal threat to the innocent, at risk to yourself, would always be good (if it was so written).

I think it's less about the circumstances and more about the qualifiers. Killing an innocent person is evil. Killing an innocent person to save yourself or other innocent people is still evil. Sacrificing yourself so you don't have to kill an innocent person to save yourself is good. Stupid, but good. Killing a homocidal maniac person is not so evil.

[Mayhem]

Point still stands, though, whether it be "qualifiers" or "motivators".

The act performed under certain circumstances will always be of the same alignment under those circumstances. So in that respect, its black and white.

But since no comprehensive list of acts complete with circumstances has ever (or could ever) be made, we are left with DM judgement. And since the DM may not be aware of the motivations or even all of the circumstances behind a given act, some communication is necessary IMO.