Alignment myths?

[Umbran]

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

No, the biggest myth is that what bears on alignment is the same for all campaigns. Some GMs take intention into account, others do not.

 

[Dykstrav]

The single biggest myth I've seen is the idea that alignment = personality. The famous DM caveat of, "You can't do that because it's against your alignment."

The 2E Player's Handbook and DMG have some very good examples of alignment considerations. For example, a lawful good merchant has no problem with price gouging for nonessential items: there's nothing inherently 'evil' about letting someone pay what they're willing to pay for a luxury item. That merchant can decide to not barter, let the character pay the asking price, and still be lawful good in every sense of the word. Paladins must be lawful good, but not every lawful good soul must act like a paladin.

There's also a chaotic evil magician mentioned. A chaotic evil magician can sit around in a tavern and enjoy a mug of ale and a game of darts like everyone else, he doesn't have to only come to the village to lob fireballs into the nearest huts. The example cites how even a chaotic evil character can be a peaceful, productive member of society (although he'd be known as mean, churlish, and certainly wouldn't be popular with the villagers).

Alignment is a concrete force in the D&D sense, in that it's measurable with detect evil and affected by spells like holy smite and the like. Like gravity or magnetism, it's another force of the universe that's somewhat impersonal. The trick lies in that each individual DM must decide what constitutes good an evil in his own setting. As far as the players are concerned, it's more descriptive than anything else (like saying that the character's eyes are blue). It's a statement that a character intends to play a character a certain way.

 

[billd91]

...that Lawful Good types (particularly paladins) can't or won't use ruthless methods to accomplish the goals of law and good - that they're basically "lawful stupid".

A discussion came up - and I want to say it was one of the Dragonsfoot threads - when Gary mentioned that a paladin who honestly believed that killing his prisoners in a "state of grace" (e.g., sprinkle them with holy water, have them recite a prayer to whatever lawful good deity) would spirit them to a better place was still acting in accordance with the strictures of paladinhood. And lawful good.

And that paladin would be woefully deluded and not a paladin long in most games I've seen and run. Ruthless methods are one thing, lawful execution another, and delusional beliefs a third entirely.

 

[sckeener]

Here's a myth that I only recently put to the test.

that swapping out D&D's alignment system with D20 Modern's Allegiances is hard (or breaks the game.)

Since I recently tried switching it...I just want to say - talk about no effort at all! Law/Chaos Good/Evil...all are still there. I hope that system is used in the future.

 

[Stalker0]

A big myth I've seen is that the paladin's code = lawful good.

Lawful good is an alignment, the paladin's code is a class restriction, they are NOT the same thing. A LG paladin is held to certain standards that another LG character is not.

 

[Grymar]

"Alignment controls your actions."

No, alignment describes in general your past which can be a good predictor of future actions. Nothing more.

This guys is LG because in most cases of his life he has sided with law and life. It is reasonable to assume that he will do so in the future. He isn't forced to though.

 

[tzor]

I think one of the biggest myths of alignment is in the way the four alignment points are described. Often they are described in terms of their effects and not in their causes. This is best seen in the direction of evil. It’s not that evil people hurt others because of their alignment, but because of the self centered view of the universe they simply don’t care if they hurt others to get what they want. (The person who hurts others at the expense of their own selves is not evil but stupid.)

This can also be seen in the law/chaos axis where law is often mistaken for legal and chaos for random. As an alignment, law is more related to discipline. One who is disciplined tends to maintain respect for the law, but the effect should not be confused with the cause. Likewise, as an alignment, chaos tends to be more free form or undisciplined. While he is free to change he is also free not to change, which means that the actions of the chaotic person are not completely random; after all it if worked yesterday, why not try it today?

Finally the next biggest myth is that a paladin is “Lawful Good” as though he or she is lawful first and good second. Paladins are actually good first of all and lawful second. The reason for this is clear when you realize that one deliberate act of evil results in loss of status, but it takes a major violation of the code or an alignment shift to have a loss in status and not one deliberate act of chaos.

 

[Shemeska]

The idea that Lawful Good is the "goodest good", and that Chaotic Evil is the "evilist evil".

Secondary to that, there's a bizarre notion that Archons / LG celestials and Eladrin / CG celestials are first and foremost Good, with Law and Chaos being entirely secondary. Completely wrong of course, but the idea frequently rises from its shallow grave to haunt us.

 

[Raloc]

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.

See, personally I agree with you in regards to neutrality. In a campaign I play in, I started as a neutral good fighter. My DM decided my alignment should be neutral when I decided to brand an assassin that attempted to kill us with a mark that would identify him as such (and essentially put an end to his assassination career). The DM immediately said that I would immediately shift to neutral evil if I were to do so. Personally, I think that's absurd, since in "harming" (hardly, a brand is not killing) the assassin, my character was committing an evil act (regardless of the fact that it would have abruptly ended this assassin's further killing of people). I view neutral as a balance of law/chaos and good/evil, where as the DM in the story above seems to view it as some sort of pseudo-good but with a total absence of evil (no idea what he's thinking). I also don't agree that chaotic neutral is just "insane/stupid/selfish with disregard for everything". Nor evil as merely "kill everything always". I've come to accept that the DM in that campaign specifically wants to stick to black/white interpretations of what is and is not lawful/chaotic or good/evil. I, however, have no such contention for my own games and take every opportunity to show just how gray things can be.

 

[frankthedm]

Since I recently tried switching it...I just want to say - talk about no effort at all! Law/Chaos Good/Evil...all are still there. I hope that system is used in the future.

I like that system, but I also feel one should have to have an allegiance to use alignment descriptor spells and receive benefit of Holy / Unholy weapons. I like the idea of the Allegiance system, but I also am big on the idea of one must “Stand Up and be Counted”. If one wants to be uninvolved between the battle of Good and Evil, so be it. But not getting involved should also mean losing out on some things.