Alignment and Interferance

In our current DW game I am playing a bard with the alignment Neutral.  
"When you avoid a conflict or diffuse a tense situation, mark XP."
I used Parley to try to get my party to lower their weapons in a tense situation.  I rolled an 8.  Another character, who had a bond with me, then interfered to negate my roll (8-2=6).  Combat ensued.  Do I mark XP?  

On the one hand, I made a move to diffuse a tense situation and avoid a conflict.  It would be consistent with rolling highlighted stats that my attempt is what matters, not the success of the move (e.g. if DEX is highlighted I still mark XP if I fail my Defy Danger roll).  

On the other hand, in the fiction, I was not able to successfully diffuse the situation.  A literal interpretation of the rules would dictate that I did not, in fact, diffuse the situation.

Which is more important, the intent of your actions or the outcome?  I could see it going either way.

[edit] Furthermore, do I mark XP when I run away from a fight?

Fiction wins.

Sorry, you didn't defuse the situation, so no XP for that. All alignments are based on what you do, not what you attempt.

[edit] Furthermore, do I mark XP when I run away from a fight?

Sounds like avoiding conflict to me. :)

Well, yeah, running away could be avoiding conflict. We've had two camps on that alignment: some think its awesome, since they have to be creative about getting what they want without violence. Some think it's a prompt to run away. I'm not sure which is right, but the alignment probably needs to change.

Maybe something like "When you bypass a conflict/fight to get what you want", or something like that.  It suggests that there's a potential for conflict, but also demands some kind of action other than just taking your ball and going home.

 Alignments like "When you command, manipulate or control someone, mark XP" could be used on most  successful Parleys or "When you protect someone weaker than you mark XP" could be used on most successful Defends. These are things the rest of the party will often want and will push the plot forward. A significant challenge with the alignment in question is that in most cases the rest of the party will be pushing for conflict, if only to make moves or hit their alignment, and the GM will be making hard moves that lead to conflict.  So, not only do you have to be successful in your action but you also have to be successful in spite of both the GM and other players pushing for conflict through action (making moves), aid/interfere, and fiction. 

That's a good point about anti-conflict, which can sometimes be +boring.

I still really like the alignment keys!
Perhaps it requires the stipulation of solving a conflict through methods other than direct violence. Thus, characters have to resolve the conflict (not simply aviod it) but using means either fair or foul that aren't about caving folks head in with a sharp implement.