Alignment myths?

[buzz]

What I'd like to discuss is what you feel are the biggest and most common alignment myths.

1. In all but very rare cases: That people actually read the alignment rules.
2. That citing real-world and popular fictional characters is at all useful in an alignment discussion.
3. That intent matters (as many have mentioned).
4. That it restricts a PC's actions (as many have mentioned).
5. That it makes running mystery scenarios impossible.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I freely admit that this is a reductionist view of alignment. I does not cover all things. It ONLY looks at the action and the immediete result of that action. The DMG specifically states that intent does not equate with alignment. Under the section on changing alignment it states that intent is not enough. You must act in order to change your alignment. Right there, it seems pretty clear that alignment is meant to be divorced from intent as much as possible.

It seems to me more that they wanted to ensure that action was the key aspect of alignment, not to remove all intent from it.

 

[Hussar]

And thus the "as much as possible" caveat I added in.

According to Pros, if I kill an evil target (killing the troll), I have done a good act even if I didn't mean to. But, apparently, killing a good target is not a conversely evil act if I didn't mean to.

I have stated this a number of times, but I will repeat it again. I don't consider the woodsman to have committed an incredibly evil act. As evil goes, it's pretty vanilla and more in the realm of tragic rather than terribly evil. But, if you start with the premise that killing children is evil, then, yes, the woodsman has done an evil act. He is repentant because he is a good aligned character and recognises his action for what it is.

The problem with alignment that I see most of the time is that people try to come from the position that intent is primary. That if I intended something good, or didn't intend any evil, that excuses my actions. I don't buy into that. Not when alignment in D&D is absolute. An evil act is evil regardless of who does it or why, according to D&D.

I also notice that Pros is still mulling over my 2 knights question. Perhaps we could get his view on it?

/edit - A further thought occurs to me.

I just recently saw Pirates of the Carribean Dead Man's Chest. Good movie and not a bad one for giving illustrations for D&D alignment. Take the last (ish) scene where Captain Jack has returned to the Black Pearl to stand with his comrades against the Kraken only to be shackled to the ship by Elizabeth and left to be eaten by the Kraken.

Now, Jack's return is a pretty solidly good act. Coming back to help those in need at great personal risk is generally agreed to be a good act. However, if we let intent come into the picture, we come up with two versions. One, Jack's return heralds a reformation of the character and a rise to goodness through a selfless act. The other says that Jack came back to get into the pants of a woman betrothed to his friend and that selflessness had very little to do with it.

We could go either way in our interpretations. That's not the point. The point is, by allowing intention to cloud the issue, we can take the exact same act and paint it as either good or evil (or at least certainly not good). And, depending on which interpretation you follow, you cannot really reconcile the differences.

However, if we simply ignore intent, then the act is selfless and good. Elizabeth's action is evil, despite the fact that she was doing it to save everyone else. Her intentions are good - save as many as we can - but her action is pretty squarely evil. Her reaction to her action is in keeping with a good aligned character.

 

[prosfilaes]

According to Pros, if I kill an evil target (killing the troll), I have done a good act even if I didn't mean to. But, apparently, killing a good target is not a conversely evil act if I didn't mean to.

That's not at all what I meant. What I meant was that if he kills a troll, presumably that won't be an evil act. Then we call tell the difference between a mob boss and a king as to whether he's having people kill innocents or trolls.

 

[prosfilaes]

Suppose this situation. A nasty, bad evil dragon snatches the princess and takes her back to his lair for a leisurely snack. Just before chowing down, a knight complete with white horse rushes in, slays the dragon and saves the princess.

A good act right?

First place, we know that it was a good act because the horse was white. If it had been a black horse, or he had a black hat, then it would have been an evil act.

But honestly, for me, it comes down to intent. If he killed the dragon to take the dragon's treasure, it's at best a neutral act. If he killed the dragon to prevent the princess from having a quick death, so he can do unspeakable things to her before killing her, then it was an evil act.

What if, on the other hand, he intends to sell her into slavery when he rescues her, but, changes his mind and takes her home again? Does that make the act of slaying the dragon go from good to evil and then back to good?

Then the act was never good. Killing someone to take their stuff isn't a good act, no matter what the end results are.

I can't find your 2 knights question, so I can't answer it.