Let's say you have a Fighter who murders puppies in front of children for fun and/or profit; this guy is Evil because he is a d!@k.
What about a Fighter who thinks about murdering puppies in front of children but doesn't because that would land him in trouble; is he still Evil, or is he neutral because he doesn't ACTUALLY perform evil acts?
What about a Paladin who obeys the Code but doesn't believe in it? Does he fall for not believing in Goodness and Law, or is he fine because he only performs good acts (regardless of his inclinations)?
Partially I'm asking out of pure curiousness, but I've also been toying with the idea of a Paladin of Sarenrae who follows the letter of her Paladin Code because "redemption" is the only thing keeping him alive. He earnestly upholds the tenets of Sarenrae, but has the inward thoughts of a sociopath.
Thoughts?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is something to expect table variation on.
Some will say no, actions speak louder than words. If you do good things and only good things, you are a good person.
Others will say yes, if you do good things for selfish reasons, you are at best neutral on the Good/Evil scale.
I lean towards the latter. Alignment is a matter of intent combined with action. Very simplistically put:
Doing good things for good reasons = Good.
Doing good things for selfish reasons = Neutral
Doing bad things for good reasons = Evil, but sympathetic (and likely redeemable once shown the error of your ways)
Doing bad things for selfish reasons = Evil, and likely irredeemable.
Doing neutral things for any reason = Neutral
With "good things" defined as "Something that helps others, contributes to the overall betterment of all mankind, or something else." Good is like porn: Hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
"Evil things" is mainly defined as "Something that may or may not benefit you and yours, but directly or indirectly and purposefully harms someone else in some way".
And "Neutral things" is basically "Anything that benefits you but does not contribute to the suffering of others".
The GAME (as in the rules) sort of leans the other way, however.
Doing good things is good, doing evil things is evil, and there are no mitigating circumstances.
Casting Protection From Evil gets you "good karma" even if you're Snidely Whiplash, and drinking blood as a Dhampir from an enemy you're going to kill anyway is evil evil evil regardless of any mitigating circumstances or intent.
It's the classic scenario where a Paladin (who we'll say is out of Lay on Hands, Channel, and Cure spells, and has no other healing available) uses a Wand of Infernal Healing to save a small child from death...and falls because by the rules casting Infernal Healing is an evil act.
It is both motives and actions.
Just do not get too harsh with the impact of every notion or you lose your own sanity in the process.
A fairly large issue with "intent" is often, your character's actions are their intent. You have a human with their own biases, playing a character who could have a theoretically opposite outlook. What the player thinks or actions they may entertain or talk about, may have and should have no bearing on what their character does.
If the player is talking about killing puppies for fun, that doesn't mean their paladin is doing the same. Characters should only be judged by their actions for in game consequences. I know some tables have very strict distinctions for "in game" and "out of game" banter for this reason.