Intent vs. Action

                              Guess what makes up the paving to this place?  Yeah, you've heard it before 

                                               

            Right, I realize that I was always known for alignment articles, and I really should expand upon it.  So lets talk about yet another most controversial D&D issues, especially when it comes to the paladin, so lets talk about Intention vs. Action.  Right, so in D&D, you can become evil by committing evil actions, and as per normal, I think it is important to reiterate some basic concepts.  Now a good person who commits an evil action doesn’t instantly become evil (not even a paladin, they just become mechanically useless…I mean more useless), but a single evil action won’t make you smite worthy, because everyone can occasionally slip up (other than paladins of course).  It is when you make a habit of it that you start getting in trouble.  For example, while this is an evil action, and I in no way justify or propagate it, if a good character seeing a child murdering drop his weapons and put his hands in the air kills him anyways, he won’t instantly become evil (through he would lost his paladin powers if a paladin), but he would if he did it to the next guy as if he hadn’t learned a lesson. The tricky issue can come up with paladins when it comes to weather they should fall or not for a single action, specifically actions vs. intentions.  Is an action ok under certain with the intentions behind it are good, or is the action itself evil regardless. 

            Now, in the world of D&D absolute, the concept of evil actions justified by good intentions doesn’t pull it, the utilitarian idea of murdering one innocent man to save five doesn’t work because the very of murder is inherently unjust.  Torturing a man for information, no matter whom it might save does not justify the brutality and cruelty of the action itself (not to mention useless, as torture is an ineffective information gathering method).  So a character with the best of intentions can get himself turned evil if he commits evil actions.  Which makes sense, I mean very few people consider themselves evil, or commit deeds just for its own sake, and those that do within the D&D world are mostly non humans (like demons or devils).  I mean, look at real life, there have been people who are unarguably evil (I will not evoke godwin, I will not evoke Godwin), but none of them really did their evil actions just for the eviluz.  Stalin killed something like 23 million people with his purges, and while he was a corrupt sociopath, I am pretty sure he thought he was doing what was best for the Soviet Union…kinda.  Andrew Jackson was a great hero and a brave man, but also a genocidal racist when it came to Native Americans (being of Cherokee decent, I am still embittered by the Trail of Tears), and even Napoleon, who was more decent than most of the people he was fighting against (I’m looking at you Austria and Russia), was still an evil bastard, but had a legitimate point about fighting for his country (or his ego, but you see what I mean).  The Khan was infamously ruthless, but he also went for the “ends justifies the means”.  So by the standards of the D&D ideal of morality, most evil people are those who use the idea of ends justifies the means, the importance of good is that you don’t allow the temptation for evil methods to sully there dedication to good.  So to be a good guy, you not only must have good intentions but also not commit evil.  But then we get a double standard, one that is deliberate. 

            While good guys can’t resort to evil actions, regardless of there intentions, evil people can commit as many good actions as they want without losing there evil powers as long as they have evil intention.  This makes sense actually; you could have a politician who does good things for his people entirely for his own personal profit, or maybe a person who just gets high off the esteem and attention of being a good community helper.  Or you could have a good helpful person who just happens to a sociopath, but doesn’t have the opportunity or motivation to do evil actions.  Also, while a good person can do 100 good things and be brought down by a single evil action (like rape), an evil person can commit as many good actions as he wants and will not suddenly turn good.  The captain of the guard of the fantastical town of Higurashi (no references to the disturbing but awesome show…. nope) is a loyal dedicated man who spends his own free time helping around town and reporting the local schoolhouse. However, he has occasionally abused prisoners in order to gain information.  He doesn’t regret this, so he is Lawful Evil, despite his dedication to the community.  This also applies to old evil actions never repented for.  An old veteran in this town works volunteer as an assistant for a charity, and occasionally helps work at the schoolhouse.  He has never committed a single evil action for the last twenty years. However, during the war, there were a few incidents where he murdered prisoners of war, in vengeance for his fallen comrades, as well as standing idle when the legions mage burn down an enemy town that included civilians.  He became evil during the war, and while he has done much good since then, he has never repented for his actions, nor felt that he had truly done wrong (through he does still feel guilty).  Compare the local town’s doctor, who was also involved in the same war, but realized the bad things he did and choose instead to try to do good works to make up for his prior evil actions.   For evil people committing good acts, it’s all about intentions, while it is the opposite for good people committing evil actions.  Also this goes for committing good actions for evil purposes, like rescuing some children so you can use them as hostages later. 

However the issue gets a little trickier with neutral actions. Some actions are good or evil in themselves.  Rape for example, is always evil, as is torture and murder, while protecting mortal life is always good (note mortal life, things like demons don’t count) or easing others’ hardships is always good.  But some actions are more variable, and relies entirely upon the details.  For example, killing is technically neutral if it is used for a just cause, like killing bandits trying to destroy a village, but becomes evil is used incorrectly, like killing somebody who surrendered.  A more appropriate example is stealing.  Now I’m not quite sure how it is defined in the Book of Exalted deeds, but generally speaking it is considered evil unless justified.  For example, stealing for personal profit, or just interest is evil, as it doesn’t belong to you (the concept of ownership might vary a bit, ought to double check that).  But taking something from somebody to serve a greater cause can be justified it seems, like stealing the keys from a guard to save the slaves below, or taking an artifact from the evil overlord.  Things get a little dangerous through when it gets to people who aren’t activity committing evil, like stealing the book needed to translate the villains plans from an otherwise neutral collectors private library, or taking back a cultural artifact that has been in a museum for the public for 150 years.  So stealing is one of those actions that is generally neutral itself, (as long as you don’t do it for personal profit alone, and even that is justified if you doing good things in the area, like looking evil people’s bodies), but its intention and what you do while stealing that matter. 

Finally, we have the last thorny issue with intention, ignorance.  Can a paladin truly fall for an action that he didn’t know would be evil? For example, if the paladin used poison (yes I know that rule is silly, just go with it) but didn’t know that was evil, does he fall?  I’d say yes, that he isn’t excused entirely by ignorance, the action I still evil.  If he had tortured somebody and didn’t know that torture was evil, it would still be an evil deed.  So that is an easy one, but what about insanity?  Can you hold a man who is paranoid responsible when he kills the ones who are “out to get him” if he honestly things he is justified?  Or a schizophrenic for resorting to brutality based upon the evidence he sees (delusions).  I still say that is evil, because there insanity just obscures there ideals, they are still doing evil things.  So while the legal definition of insanity is “can’t understand the consequences of there actions” or something to that effect, I think in terms of weather the serial killer who just can’t help himself, and or the mentally sick man who kills his friends to make the voices stop are still evil, just in need of help.  The exception exist for insane people who are so mad they are essentially animalistic, basically humans with an intelligence below three, like actual animals, who can’t understand morality in its basic form.  Finally, there is the question of intention towards the action itself, IE accidents.  A paladin sees a group of monsters coming towards him and kills them, only to discover that through some illusions he killed innocents.  Or a paladin walks into a room and opens the door, unknowingly causing a trap to go off killing the slaves below.  Does he fall?  I say no, because he wasn’t aware of the consequences of his actions, its like if they are mind controlled and forced to do evil.  The paladin, once finding out the truth, will obviously feel bad and should try to make up for it, (otherwise he might fall simply for being apathetic), but shouldn’t be held responsible for a mistake.  Same goes for something like a combat mistake, if a paladin shoots an arrow at an enemy and kills a comrade by mistake (if it really was a mistake), he shouldn’t fall.  This is a bit of a fine line, because what if he uses a weapon he knows causes massive damage in an area where innocents are?  But you get the idea. 

In short, intention matters, but is ultimately inferior to action. 

From
EE