Alignment myths?

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

To those who disagree with my alignment reasoning: I don't mean to say that my statements are the definitive correct answer. (far from it)
I just don't like players who seem to think Chaotic Neutral and True Neutral let them do anything a Chaotic Evil person would do and 'justify' it under the description of the alignment.

I have no problem with people playing characters of those alignments if their reasoning makes sense and their character's actions and motives best fall under that alignment.

I just have seen far too many games where everyone is chaotic neutral. Everyone. 4-6 characters. And they all go with the arch typical 'selfish jerk' personality. Try DMing for that. I preferred the 2E descriptions because they put an end to that.

Heck, I even had to institute a house-rule of sorts: Limit one Anti-hero per party. This means sorry, the party cannot consist of four people playing Hannibal Lecter. (I have seen it happen, though only one was actually played well)

I didn't mean to offend anyone with my statements about alignment; Merely I wanted to share some of the problems I have seen with it.

In light of all of this, I have another (hopefully less disliked) myth: "Alignment is absolute"
- I am referring to alignment in an out of game cultural context. An Action one group deems "evil" another culture may not have an opinion or even may endorse said behavior. Example: Human Sacrifice. Most would immediately peg it as evil. To modern cultures, that is the norm. But to the culture it took place in, it would be "good".
How does this relate to D&D: The culture and morals of the players, as well as the DM, determine the ultimate views of alignment.
This pretty much means no two people will ever agree on alignment issues.

 

[Sejs]

What do you feel are the biggest alignment myths?

That lawful has any relation to adherance to laws.

The mafia is a classic example of Lawful Evil and they exist for the sole purpose of breaking laws.

 

[Felix]

I am referring to alignment in an out of game cultural context. An Action one group deems "evil" another culture may not have an opinion or even may endorse said behavior. Example: Human Sacrifice. Most would immediately peg it as evil. To modern cultures, that is the norm. But to the culture it took place in, it would be "good".
How does this relate to D&D: The culture and morals of the players, as well as the DM, determine the ultimate views of alignment.
This pretty much means no two people will ever agree on alignment issues.

This seems to translate to: "Alignment is absolute within the game, but will vary between games". A Truth for every game, so to speak. I agree wholeheartedly.

If you meant to say that Alignment is Morally Relative, then you may as well just go ahead and play without alignment, since it has stopped describing objective Truth, which is what Alignment sets out to do. Not that it can't be used for some other purpose, but it wouldn't be doing what it was designed to do.

 

[Celebrim]

In light of all of this, I have another (hopefully less disliked) myth: "Alignment is absolute"

Alignment is absolute. It's the cultures and morals that are relative. See my myth #2.

The culture and morals of the players, as well as the DM, determine the ultimate views of alignment. This pretty much means no two people will ever agree on alignment issues.

That I can agree with. This is the reason that there is no definitive answer on what a particular alignment means. The different writers were, put in games terms, of different alignments. So naturally thier views of one or more corners of the alignment map were in the least very different from one another. That's how you can get a writer, for example, describing 'Neutral Evil' as ultimate selfishness and 'Nuetral Good' as ultimate selflessness, and another writer describing 'Chaotic Neutral' as ultimate selfishness and 'Lawful Neutral' as ultimate selflessness. But the confusing descriptions and the fact that objectivity is difficult or impossible doesn't mean that there isn't something absolute out there, even if we are insufficiently persceptive to say what it is.

 

[Celebrim]

That lawful has any relation to adherance to laws.

The mafia is a classic example of Lawful Evil and they exist for the sole purpose of breaking laws.

I don't think that is entirely true. I think lawful does have a relation to adherance to a set of laws, its just not necessarily a particular set of civil or social laws and mores. But for the mafia to qualify as lawful evil in the first place, they must have some understood code of conduct that they adhere to. In the mafia's case, we could talk about the importance of family, loyalty to ones elders, respecting matrons, paying ones debts, dealing honestly with ones family, maintaining ones personal dignity, avenging insults, and so forth. The important point is that it is not merely a personal code, but a social one with standards by which others - rather than just oneself - can judge one by.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, perhaps I stated my point too strongly, but, OTOH, I've seen far too many characters getting a free pass because they meant to do good.

Take the example above of the doctor killing a patient he was trying to cure. Now, assuming that the doctor didn't actually do something like cut the patient's head off, and that the death was the result of the injury/disease, then there's nothing to implicate the doctor in evil. His action was to heal the patient. That he failed to do so doesn't make it an evil act. At worst, it was accidental. In the same way that the tree killing the child is not an evil act. The tree didn't actually do anything. Something made that tree fall over. If a woodsman cut the tree down, but didn't know the child was there, he still commited an evil act.

Ask yourself this: if the woodsman who cuts down the tree and accidentally kills the child didn't commit an evil act, then why does he feel remorse? Assuming the woodsman is good aligned, then he knows that his actions were wrong. If the woodsman is evil, then he doesn't care and gets back to chopping wood. However, in both cases, the woodsman still commited an evil act.

So what? Good characters can commit evil acts, they just feel bad about it afterwards. In the case of a paladin, he would have to atone for that action. In the case of a cleric, he would also likely have to do some sort of atonement (assuming he was good of course). Everyone else just feels bad.

If it was a morally neutral act, then why would anyone care?

 

[Celebrim]

...If it was a morally neutral act, then why would anyone care?

Very well said.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Ok, perhaps I stated my point too strongly, but, OTOH, I've seen far too many characters getting a free pass because they meant to do good.

Take the example above of the doctor killing a patient he was trying to cure. Now, assuming that the doctor didn't actually do something like cut the patient's head off, and that the death was the result of the injury/disease, then there's nothing to implicate the doctor in evil. His action was to heal the patient. That he failed to do so doesn't make it an evil act. At worst, it was accidental. In the same way that the tree killing the child is not an evil act. The tree didn't actually do anything. Something made that tree fall over. If a woodsman cut the tree down, but didn't know the child was there, he still commited an evil act.

Ask yourself this: if the woodsman who cuts down the tree and accidentally kills the child didn't commit an evil act, then why does he feel remorse? Assuming the woodsman is good aligned, then he knows that his actions were wrong. If the woodsman is evil, then he doesn't care and gets back to chopping wood. However, in both cases, the woodsman still commited an evil act.

So what? Good characters can commit evil acts, they just feel bad about it afterwards. In the case of a paladin, he would have to atone for that action. In the case of a cleric, he would also likely have to do some sort of atonement (assuming he was good of course). Everyone else just feels bad.

If it was a morally neutral act, then why would anyone care?

No, I disagree. The woodsman chooping down the tree in your example has not performed an evil act. He is negligent for not checking the child was there (for simple safety reasons), but him indirectly killing the child is not evil. If, as in the example you gave, the woodsman did not care, then the woodsman is reprehensible.

The reason the woodsman, or anyone would feel bad is that, per D&D alignment rules : good implies altruism, and respect for life. That the child has died is a sad event. The death could have been prevented through greater action on the part of the woodsman. He feels guilty about because he feels responsible for the early termination of a life. That's important to good people (and maybe even neutral people). IMO, of course.

edit: left out a word....

 

[TheEvil]

*snip*
Take the example above of the doctor killing a patient he was trying to cure. Now, assuming that the doctor didn't actually do something like cut the patient's head off, and that the death was the result of the injury/disease, then there's nothing to implicate the doctor in evil. His action was to heal the patient. That he failed to do so doesn't make it an evil act. At worst, it was accidental. In the same way that the tree killing the child is not an evil act. The tree didn't actually do anything. Something made that tree fall over. If a woodsman cut the tree down, but didn't know the child was there, he still commited an evil act.
*snip*
QUOTE]

*Begin Rant*
This is where I most disagree with the idea that is what is done is more important then the intent with which it was done. The idea that the woodsman accidentally killing a child in the course of cutting down a tree has committed an evil act doesn't make any sense to me. You cannot have good or evil without intent! This is why animals and golems are neutral, they don't have any intent. A wolf pack could kill and eat a half-dozen children on a nature walk and they still would not have committed an evil act since they don't have the capacity to have intent beyond food, shelter and procreation. I golem would kill an innocent without hesitation if directed to do so, but that doesn't make it evil. Likewise, a character can be dominated and kill an innocent and they still have not committed an evil act. The part I do agree with is that how you act afterwards does show what alignment you are playing.

Back to the woodsman, he was cutting down a tree and accidently killed a child. His alignment is immaterial, it was not an evil act. He could have been the sort of man who would have tortured the child to death if he had seen him, but that doesn't mean the child's death was an evil act. His reaction when he discovers what has happened will likely give you a good idea what his alignment is. If he is good, he will likely feel bad about it because it is tragic and 'If only I had known...', not because he neccessarily did anything wrong. Good wants the world to be a better place.
*End Rant*

 

[Illirion]

- Everything you do is supposed to be correspondent to your alignment
- Lawfull people don't have a sense of humor
- Chaotic evil/neutral people can't be subject to reason

Just some of the alignment myths I see people consciously or subconsciously playing out that bug me.

Cheers,
Illirion.