Vengeance, Revenge, Retribution

Getting back at someone or something is a powerful driving force behind a character. In games with alignment systems, how does this play out across the board?

Also, general stories about times characters were motivated by such things.

Actions matter, not your goal.

Sure, but what about the context of those actions?

Actions.
Matter.
This is where most "hurp derp alignment" faggots who don't know how they work fuck up.

Check out this lazy post.
Alignments are a part of games that regularly come up on the board. Deal with it. Like it or not, it is in use (sometimes rather poorly), and has particulars.

You say actions matter, not the goal, right?
So if someone captures someone to get back at them, it's the same every time, right? Then the goal of getting someone arrested and the goal of selling someone into slavery to punish their actions aren't relevant?

>I'm going to push ignorant alignment arguments
This is the part where you define what alignments are and how they are applied in your hypothetical situation.
If you are using D&D, then we can go from there.

>In games with alignment systems, how does this play out across the board?
The paladin falls. The rest is just handwaved.

>Then the goal of getting someone arrested and the goal of selling someone into slavery to punish their actions aren't relevant?
Why do you think getting someone arrested or selling someone into slavery aren't actions?

What actions, though? Who and what defines what actions are what alignment? If gods decide what actions are what alignments, aren't they completely arbitrary distinctions?

Most people would say that killing monsters which would kill innocent people is A-okay (Read: Not evil). What if you have a character who honestly enjoys torturing living, sapient creatures to death, but knows that doing so to random civilians would likely get them executed, so instead captures sapient monsters and tortures THEM to death, relishing in their dying screams. Is that... okay? Is that "Good"?

Conversely, imagine a character who's been informed by an infallible being that if the distant progeny of an ancient evil should be allowed to reach their 15th birthday that they'll end the world. This character, seeking to save the world, embarks on a quest to hunt down these descendants and kill them before they turn 15. These individuals aren't presently malicious or have any knowledge of what's up, but it is known for a fact that they'll end the world. Is the hunter evil, because they're hunting and killing innocent people, even if it's the only way to save literally every other person in the world?

>Who and what defines what actions are what alignment?
The game you are playing usually tells you what alignments, if any, mean, and offer broad examples. Meanwhile, you are making an argument based on edge cases that never actually happen and arbitrarily have only the solutions you put out, which is the opposite of what rpgs offer, like every alignment troll.
No more (you)s, user.

>games with alignment systems
I'm not actually familiar with games outside of D&D/PF that use alignment. It's not that popular of an idea, due to all the issues it creates.

As for the hypothetical alignment of vengeance/revenge/retribution, it depends on how you go about it, and exact definitions being used.

Pathfinder defines Evil as "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." So if you're going to hurt or kill someone, that's evil. On the flipside, Good is "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." I suppose you could see retribution as a way to set straight "the dignity of sentient beings"? On Good-Evil, I see it leaning Evil if you're harming or killing them.

Law vs Chaos is much clearer. There's a bias towards Law due to you acting out of a moral code (You feel something is wrong or unjust, you're trying to set it right). However, there is then the matter of execution. If you exact retribution through legitimate, legal channels, then the action is fully Lawful. If you go all vigilante and handle it outside of the law, that aspect of the act would be Chaotic.

Yes, the game broadly defines alignments. It however does not list specific actions in most cases. Pathfinder Good just says that it "implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Helping someone because you want to see them succeed is altruistic, helping someone because you want them to owe you a favor is not altruistic, even if the action might be identical. The definitions in the book seem to imply intent, not action is what matters.

The examples I gave were indeed a bit extreme, but they were intended to render clear the divide between intent and action as far as morality goes.

My character from a now dead game had been preparing to kill another pc for threatening him about 30 minutes into session 1

>Helping someone because you want to see them succeed is altruistic, helping someone because you want them to owe you a favor is not altruistic, even if the action might be identical.
It is not identical, as altruism comes with the caveat of "not looking for a reward for your action".
If you help someone, then later call on them for a favor, saying "they owe you one", that isn't altruism.
>The examples I gave were indeed a bit extreme
They were nonsense that never happens outside of thought experiments.

You bluntly implied that the action, sans details, is what matters. Amend your statement to be more particular.

And both of those are actions.
Going to someone and saying "Hey, remember when I helped you out? I need you to pay me back" is an action that is not in like with "Good" alignment descriptors.

>It is not identical, as altruism comes with the caveat of "not looking for a reward for your action".
How is it not identical? The fact that "not looking for a reward" is part of altruism was my point, that the case with the person wanting to be owed a debt is not being altruistic, and thus not Good in this circumstance. In my example, the actual action performed is identical across both cases (Say, taking time out of your schedule to run a very important errand for the person). The "looking for a reward" or not is only the intent behind the action, not the action itself.

Further, the intent to be compensated for an action later does not affect the action currently being taken. If you go up later and ask for compensation, that's a separate action at a later date- You still helped the person. You could also be acting in a non-altruistic manner with no intent of a later overt act of asking for compensation, simply knowing that if you do this favor for them, they're more likely to help you later regardless of whether you ask or not (Say, more likely to put in a good word for you with the person you're trying to impress). So there's possibly no second action at all.

>They were nonsense
Except these are exactly the sort of characters and situations which crop up in tabletop roleplaying games. Here, have a few less-extreme cases.
1. Person who wants to tag along with the party to stop the resurrecting of the ancient lich because he wants to steal all of the treasure.
2. Person who gives info about seeing a wanted criminal to guards, not because they care about seeing the criminal brought to justice, but because they want the reward money to go party with.
3. Person who works for the bad guy because their daughter is being held hostage.
4. Person who decides not to donate to a relief fund because they need the money to buy food for their family, even if the money being sent to the relief fund could save multiple lives.

"I did X because Y"
An action and a goal.

In the example you went over in the previous post, the example of X is "helping someone," while the goal of Y is either "for altruistic reasons" or "because you want them to owe you one." The reason Y extremely changes the meaning of the action X, maybe not literally but entirely in how it is to be perceived.

Half of those are motivations, not acts, the other half are solidly neutral acts.
You are making more arguments for alignments that characters have, not what they are.
Or you take both actions at face value separately.

You can't just utterly disconnect all things that way though. Not even in the real world, where intent can modify how the law views an action.

Good thing the DM exists as a neutral part to arbitrate situations.

>Half of those are motivations, not acts
Risking your life to fight monsters and stop an ancient evil from arising is an action (or a series of them). Informing a guard is an action. Performing tasks for a bad guy is an action (or a series of them). Refusing to donate to a relief fund is an action.

The first two are clearly actions which involve opposing forces which would threaten normal citizens, the latter two involve harming others or through inaction allowing others to continue suffering.

But is the DM making decisions solely based on the actions the characters takes, or is the DM also factoring in the intent behind those actions?

>Risking your life to fight monsters and stop an ancient evil from arising is an action (or a series of them). Performing tasks for a bad guy is an action (or a series of them)
No, those are motivations that belie acts. Despite what you think, going to fight monsters isn't inherently good unless you are fighting certain creatures, and being told what to do by someone evil doesn't make you evil unless you do evil things.
The others are neither good or evil actions, as neutral is defined by personal benefit that doesn't impinge on others.
It sounds like you don't play the game, user, but talk about it online. I've never had to explain the role and duties of the DM to someone remotely familiar in practice.

Acting "selflessly" is part of the definition of being Good. If you are risking your life to help other people, that is acting selflessly, and thus Good. If you are risking your life for the treasure, then that is not selfless, and thus not Good. The informing guards example is definitely a milder version of this, but the argument could be made that there is some risk in snarking on a known criminal who might have associates get back at you.

Helping a villain (say, comic-book villain who kicks puppies, tortures babies, etc.) means you are complicit in their deeds. For the sake of argument, let's say you also do some nasty things for them, such as beating up civilians to impose the villain's tyranny.

>Role and duties of the DM
The entire point of this debate is by what metric do individuals, DM and players alike, judge the alignment of actions? Saying "The DM will figure it out" doesn't help solve this conundrum. Intent either does or does not factor into the assessed alignment of actions.