So ... a man who premeditates a murder and kills in cold blood is no different to a guy who accidentally kills someone in a drunken brawl is effectively what you are saying here. There is a big difference between the two, a fact most courts recognise.
In the eyes of the court it may make a difference. But in the 'good/evil' scale I really don't think it does. Besides, we're not talking about a drunken brawl... per the OP
Oh wow. Farmer Bob (6th-level commoner) who my inquisitor detected as good yesterday, now detects evil today because he is intent on murdering his neighbor who slept with his daughter.
Doesn't say anything about a drunken accident. It says 'he is intent on murdering'
That would register as Evil. If he felt justified enough, it PROBABLY wouldn't change his overall alignment... but at that moment, He is in fact having 'Evil intent'
I see where you are coming from, but again like RD you are making assumptions about the circumstances, and the circumstances make all the difference. You are also making assumptions about intent - as your own example highlights below:
I'm not making assumptions at all... I'm just going off the original scenario. What background they have, how much he drinks, his opinion of 'honor'... Are really all just excuses to justify 'Intent to Murder' as was originally stated.
So ... you would be prepared to commit murder over a $70 iPod ... OK, now don't take this the wrong way, but if you genuinely feel that you would have killed him dead, there and then, you need therapy, and you need it badly in order to control your psychotic outbursts.
Actually, I'm a very laid back person. Too laid back most of the time. Haven't been in any kind of physical confrontation since high school a good 15 years ago. Psychotic outbursts aren't an issue with me :)
If someone did that to me, sure I would be annoyed. I might even say "I'm gonna kill him!" but ... I wouldn't. I probably wouldn't even get violent unless I caught him red-handed, and then only to restrain him. I'd WANT to kill him, but I wouldn't act on that intention and I think about 99.9% of the population of the Western World would be the same. We'd grab him, call the police, take back what was ours, but actually murder the kid? No.This is where the examples just don't cut it: Fred might want to kill Ned, but will he actually go through with it? If he's good enough to register as 'good' then I seriously doubt it. Being angry is not the same as being evil.
And perhaps that's what "I" would have done too... but again, I've thanked God many, many times that we didn't find out!!
My bad, yes there is the damage to the roof to consider, but then that should be covered by insurance.
Oh Yeah... and if I'd been able to afford the full insurance, it may have. However i can't, and it wasn't. I don't even care about the ipod, that's stupid.. it was the damage to my 2000 mustang, bright blue... low miles... the first NICE thing I ever owned... Parked in a good neighborhood... Needlessly vandalized that pushed me to the edge.
I was literally trembling on my way into work that day... and whether it would fall into 'premediated' or 'drunken brawl/crime of passion'. The thoughts going through my mind was Evil.
Now I'm back to my good old CG, but yeah... wouldn't have wanted to be near a paladin that day.
After some reflection, I mostly agree with you. I disagree that a person is always Good if they commit such a Good act, but they realistically would be much of the time, and if they are Good the majority of the time then it's fallacious to say that 'they aren't' compared to 'they aren't always'.
Yay! agreement on the internet.
*keels over in shock*
...point is, is that he is registering as evil long before he actually follows through. Why? Because he has intent to commit murder.
I fail to see any problem here.
Regarding good versus evil, intent is that is "real" and "true". Most faiths have a lesson equivalent to what is taught in the Sermon on the Mount.
If someone registered as chaotic before he or she had actually broken the law, that would be premature. For legal issues guilt happens only after the illegal deed.
But goodness and law are quite different in that respect.
(There is a slightly different problem about how pure a "good heart" needs to be. Farmer Bob clearly fails having a "good heart" because murder is such an extreme and irrevocable deed. But what about his wife, Farmer Barbara, who is quite saintly except for a bad habit of gossiping? Does she detect as always good or always evil, or does her status fluctuate wildly during the time she spends at a social gathering?)
In the eyes of the court it may make a difference. But in the 'good/evil' scale I really don't think it does. Besides, we're not talking about a drunken brawl... per the OP
So ... a man who premeditates a murder and kills in cold blood is no different to a guy who accidentally kills someone in a drunken brawl is effectively what you are saying here. There is a big difference between the two, a fact most courts recognise.
You stated that the circumstances do not matter, I say they do and gave a clearer example than RD's conjecture. The courts agree because the circumstances and intentions DO matter. Very often court cases are as much about proving exactly what happened in order to detirmin this as about who did it.
Oh wow. Farmer Bob (6th-level commoner) who my inquisitor detected as good yesterday, now detects evil today because he is intent on murdering his neighbor who slept with his daughter.Doesn't say anything about a drunken accident. It says 'he is intent on murdering'
That would register as Evil. If he felt justified enough, it PROBABLY wouldn't change his overall alignment... but at that moment, He is in fact having 'Evil intent'
Indeed RD has clarified that Bob means murder, ruthless, deliberate murder he will follow through with - and in this case I would agree with him, that's evil, no doubt about it. What I now question is whether someone capable of feeling like this one day can register as a good person the day before. Maybe they were doing intensely good deeds at the time and are actually neutral? That makes sense to me, but the idea someone who is Good aligned could flip so much over a minor thing is stretching credibility.
I'm not making assumptions at all... I'm just going off the original scenario. What background they have, how much he drinks, his opinion of 'honor'... Are really all just excuses to justify 'Intent to Murder' as was originally stated.I see where you are coming from, but again like RD you are making assumptions about the circumstances, and the circumstances make all the difference. You are also making assumptions about intent - as your own example highlights below:
Actually, RD's original post has made assumptions, and you are making the same ones: that someone who is strongly aligned enough to register on a spell can flip to the other extreme effectively on a whim. In fact, RD has conceded that in the case of Sir Slaughter, he hasn't really done that. I now question that in farmer Bob's case he may not have been 'good' in the first place.
Actually, I'm a very laid back person. Too laid back most of the time. Haven't been in any kind of physical confrontation since high school a good 15 years ago. Psychotic outbursts aren't an issue with me :)
So ... you would be prepared to commit murder over a $70 iPod ... OK, now don't take this the wrong way, but if you genuinely feel that you would have killed him dead, there and then, you need therapy, and you need it badly in order to control your psychotic outbursts.
I never seriously though they were, unless you were posting from a prison cell! But my point is there is a huge gulf between feeling angry at somebody, and wanting to seriously kill someone. People don't change that much, unless in cases of extreme stress which stray into the realm of mental illness, and even then such changes in this extent are extremely rare.