Alignment myths?

Needless to say, some of the most contentious discussions tend to center around alignments. In fact, I think that many that want to get rid of alignments all together just want to avoid the arguments.What I'd like to discuss is what you feel are the biggest and most common alignment myths.

My vote is the myth that your actions cannot stray far from your alignment. I see this a lot in discussions about fictional character's alignment.

For example, there might be a discussion about the BBEG on a TV show. Maybe the discussion is focusing on whether he is CE, NE or LE. Someone will point out that in an episode he burst into a burning building and rescued a baby.

"He can't be evil, he tried to rescue that baby for no good reason. Then he waited until the fire was out to kill all the firemen and put them nailed to the burnt walls. He must be Chaotic Neutral!"

Just because a character is chaotic evil, for example, doesn't mean he can't act in an altruistic way. At the same time, a lawful good character can perform an action that is chaotic in nature. It's a character's overall actions and philosophy that determines their alignment, not each individual action.

It comes up more often in paladin discussions, but there are so many side issues that it"s far from the best example.

What do you feel are the biggest alignment myths?

There's definitely a prevalent (if not stated) idea that alignment is something one must adhere to from character creation to the end of the character's life. It's certainly a trap I've fallen into. But basically, DMs and players should be willing to adjust a character's alignment based on repeated, consistent action.

For instance, if a CG character is repeatedly greedy, selfish, avoids sticking his neck out for others, but is generally averse to truly wicked acts, I'd be inclined to discuss a CN alignment shift with the player.

GoodKingJayIII said:

There's definitely a prevalent (if not stated) idea that alignment is something one must adhere to from character creation to the end of the character's life.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of that is baggage from earlier editions. Remember that in AD&D an alignment shift cost you a level.

One of the biggest myths that I see in alignment discussions is that intention has any bearing on the determination of alignment. In another thread I see that a poster is talking about Sawyer from Lost and questioning his alignment as NE because he seems to be self destructive and tormented.

The universe doesn't care. The only thing that determines your alignment in D&D is your actions. Alignment is simply a way of keeping score. Single acts will almost never shift alignment (although they can cause all sorts of mental anguish for the actor) and the character's reasons for those acts don't matter.

Glyfair said:

some of the most contentious discussions tend to center around alignments

Click to expand...

I think that's your biggest alignment myth right there.



Cheers,
Roger

I have found two bits about alignment in third edition that I particularly find ridiculous.
(Note: Reasoning is 'sblock'ed; It is not my intention to start another alignment arguement; I am simply stating my opinion and personal experiences with alignment)

One I never liked: Chaotic Neutral is an excuse to do anything you want.
[sblock] - 3rd edition describes chaotic neutral as purely selfish but not completely random. My 2E players handbook describes Chaotic Neutral as insane and completely unpredictable. I personally go with the 2E description: Compulsive, and somewhat crazy. (only because anything else I see as falling under another alignment) Players also seem to want to play this alignment because it "justifies" anything they do as "in character." Don't like that Bob got better loot this time around? Kill him, and say it was because you are chaotic neutral! (Bad example, but I have seen this pulled more than a few times)
[/sblock]

Another: True Neutral characters can do anything.
[sblock] - Again, another situation where 3rd edition just begs for players to try something impossible to play by wording it's description poorly. (And by poorly, I mean impossible to actually do) Previous Editions said True Neutral is impossible to play as a player, but possible to describe a group as a whole. The moment a character takes an action, they have chosen a side of the fence. If they want to try to play the "maintain balance" description of true neutral, they are playing Lawful neutral; If they simply are undecided, then they aren't actually doing anything.
[/sblock]

Ltheb Silverfrond said:

I have found two bits about alignment in third edition that I particularly find ridiculous.
(Note: Reasoning is 'sblock'ed; It is not my intention to start another alignment arguement; I am simply stating my opinion and personal experiences with alignment)

One I never liked: Chaotic Neutral is an excuse to do anything you want.
[sblock] - 3rd edition describes chaotic neutral as purely selfish but not completely random. My 2E players handbook describes Chaotic Neutral as insane and completely unpredictable. I personally go with the 2E description: Compulsive, and somewhat crazy. (only because anything else I see as falling under another alignment) Players also seem to want to play this alignment because it "justifies" anything they do as "in character." Don't like that Bob got better loot this time around? Kill him, and say it was because you are chaotic neutral! (Bad example, but I have seen this pulled more than a few times)
[/sblock]

Another: True Neutral characters can do anything.
[sblock] - Again, another situation where 3rd edition just begs for players to try something impossible to play by wording it's description poorly. (And by poorly, I mean impossible to actually do) Previous Editions said True Neutral is impossible to play as a player, but possible to describe a group as a whole. The moment a character takes an action, they have chosen a side of the fence. If they want to try to play the "maintain balance" description of true neutral, they are playing Lawful neutral; If they simply are undecided, then they aren't actually doing anything.
[/sblock]

Click to expand...

A True Neutral character is "disinterested," or "noncommittal". He doesn't go out of his way to be good, nor does he go out of his way to be evil. He doesn't care much about structure or freedom. He mostly wants to do what he needs to, without ethics muddying the picture. He'll shrug off a good character's admonitions for lacking altruism just as he'll shrug off an evil character's admonitions for being a soft-hearted fool.

Saying that one action means that the character has chosen a side of the fence implies that one step off the path of your alignment means your alignment changes. A True Neutral character sometimes does good, and sometimes does evil, sometimes upholds law, and sometimes chaos, but he doesn't do these on the basis of principle, but because he feels that the actions are demanded by the current situation.

A True Neutral fighter might kill an innocent person to protect himself if he thinks that the person will report him to the enemy, and later on protect a group of innocents from his town from the depredations of a group of bandits. He's not particularly cruel or merciful, but in order to be Neutral he doesn't need to refrain from being cruel or merciful either. He might join a militia and follow orders like a good soldier, and then later desert when he figures out that his commander is an idiot. He's not particularly lawful or chaotic, but doesn't need to refrain from acting in either way. Eventually, it will balance out somewhere in the middle.

Hussar said:

One of the biggest myths that I see in alignment discussions is that intention has any bearing on the determination of alignment.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think intention has some baring... just not as much as actions.

For me, alignment is made up of three parts: before the act, the act itself, and after the act.

The intention: what did the person intend the act to acomplish? (Of all, this is holds the least importance, say give it 1 point.)

The act: What did the person do? (This is the most important, 3 points)

The aftermath: What did the person learn? (This is almost as important as the act itself, 2 points.)

As I see it (and others certainly can disagree), a good person can have good intentions yet commit an evil act (1 point of good, 3 points of evil). That makes their behaviour slightly evil. What makes or breaks them is what they do afterwards.

If they say, "Meh. The ends justify the means," then they've shown they've made a decision to be evil, and begin the alignment slide. (1 point of good, 5 points of evil.) If they say, "I didn't mean for that to happen, I'll learn from this and not do it again," then they can hold on to their good alignment... depending on what they do from then on. (3 points to good, 3 points to evil.)

Doing evil with the best of intentions doesn't make you evil (in my books)... but if you don't learn the right lessons from it, you're on the way down.

Myth: Alignments are like the peak of a mountain, and straying in any direction, even by one action, causes you to fall from the mountain, landing--strangely enough--on another mountain peak.

The notion that a Lawful Good character can't perform some acts that edge him toward Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good without actually changing alignment is bizarre. A lawful good character might decide that, in this situation, goodness is more important than Law and that today he's going to fight for freedom and liberate some slaves from a country in which slavery is legal. He might decide that, in this situation, law is more important than goodness and today he's going to help prevent a slave uprising because of the damage it will do to society. He might change his mind. He might in a fit of rage kill an innocent slave--an evil act--and feel really rotten about it afterward, remaining Lawful Good. If he makes a habit out of it, he'll slide down the good/evil axis toward evil, but if he's sincerely regretful and tries to avoid doing such things in the future, and especially if he seeks penitance (an act, rather than an intention), he won't.

He can do these things while remaining Lawful Good, so long as the tendency toward favouring one alignment axis over the other does not become a more profound trend than the tendency toward balancing these axes.

The reason that this is even an issue is the Paladin. The paladin falls if he steps off the path. For some reason, this has been transmogrified into "everyone falls if they act in a manner not exactly befitting their alignment." Also, people are really touchy about the good/evil axis. Many times I've seen the sentiment expressed on these boards that if you commit one evil act, you become evil, or if not evil then neutral. But I never see the same thing expressed concerning the law/chaos axis, or even that one good act makes an evil person neutral. So it's psychological.

Edit: this ties into my commentary on the True Neutral alignment, above. Just as one Lawful-Neutral-esque act doesn't make a LG character suddenly turn LN, one good act doesn't mean that a Neutral character has "chosen a side". Heck, he could be good most of the time, but also have a hidden cruel streak that comes out once in a while that balances it out.