Some modern astrological works describe a peregrine planet as one which lacks any kind of essential dignity or debility, and so imply that peregrine status acts as a kind of neutral state, being the default value between the benefits of dignity and the afflictions of debility. This incorrectly defines a term which is traditionally intended to express rootlessness and weakness through a lack of essential dignity. Older sources are clear that whilst a peregrine planet can never be dignified, it can suffer additional levels of essential debilitation when placed in its sign of detriment or fall. Even without any extra debility, a peregrine planet is far from neutral, with a symbolic significance which is expected to range 'from bad to worse'. The current confusion presents an opportunity to sharpen our understanding of the linguistic roots and traditional use of this symbolically-loaded and highly descriptive term.