GENERAL
Q. What is the purpose of alignment?
A. Alignment is used to set the moral and ethical backdrop of the setting. Depending on the system implemented, it can help players quickly define their character’s personality and outlook, promote common goals amongst team members, encourage consistent roleplaying of personality, and express the DM’s personal opinions on issues of philosophy. It can also pigeonhole players into acting out a stale role, cause endless debate if DM and player assumptions to do not match, and encourage players to use simple repetitive solutions rather than explore the personalities of their characters.
Q. Why is alignment such a controversial topic?
A. Anytime you attempt to codify morality and ethics, you will inevitably face criticism, disagreement, and conflict. Furthermore, many DMs and gaming groups differ in the style of game they run, resulting in different needs for the alignment system.
Q. If agreement on alignment is nearly impossible, then what is the goal of this FAQ?
A. The FAQ will hopefully give you new tools with which to decipher your own personal understanding of alignment, its possible role in D&D, how to implement it, and the ramifications thereof. To do so, we begin with some alignment history. We then segue into 3E D&D alignment. Next, we consider various alternative alignment systems.
Q. Where do I begin?
A. With a brief lesson I myself learned not too long ago.
ALIGNMENT HISTORY (Alignment is not a Straitjacket by Andy Collins)
Q. Did D&D alignment always use the two axis, nine possibility system?
A. In fact, no. The Men and Magic book of the original D&D, published around 1974, only allowed for Law, Neutrality, and Chaos. Law equated vaguely with Good and Chaos vaguely with Evil. Races and classes blended together and were strictly limited in their choice of alignment. The vision held more strongly to that put forth by Mr. Moorcock , author of the famous Elric novels, where the universal struggles of Law and Chaos held sway. Unfortunately, the rules did not provide an explanation of alignment’s purpose. It impacted nothing.
Q. When did Good and Evil get in the mix?
A. Late 1970’s publications of D&D began to include Good and Evil. Still, this only provided for five alignment possibilities Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Neutral, Lawful Good, and Lawful Evil. The greatest change, however, was that alignment was given function. Alignment was a definition of how a character would act. Quite clearly, alignment was the “chicken” and actions were the “egg”. The rules went on to suggest that creatures of different alignment would be hostile to each other and that the DM could punish players whose characters acted in a manner inconsistent with their alignment. Unfortunately, many of these outdated concepts still hold sway in the minds of gamers. As you will see, such ideas stifle creative freedom and overall roleplay.
Q. At what point did alignment expand to include the Neutral versions of Law and Chaos?
A. The publishing of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player’s Handbook, in 1978, introduced the nine option alignment system we all know so well. This allowed for greater shades of grey. Unfortunately, the AD&D PHB continued to support the negative aspects of alignment. To quote Andy Collins, “the rules continued to stress the dire ramifications of a voluntary alignment change—stringent sacrifices, strong proofs, and great penance—and, I think, cemented the role of alignment (in many players’ minds) as a ‘personality straitjacket’ that a character put on at first level and struggled against for the rest of his career. "More in-depth discussion of alignment could be found in the 1989 printing of the 2E AD&D PHB, but deviating from the initial alignment choice was still discouraged through XP penalties. There is no question that roleplaying choices were meant to be made within the confines of the chosen alignment, something we generally discourage in this FAQ. “If First Edition AD&D can be said to have introduced the ‘straitjacket’ concept, Second Edition undoubtedly tightened the straps." Mr. Collins is very quotable.
Q. Did alignment evolve at all in 3E?
A. 3E clarifies many WotC concepts. To begin, 3E makes the four cardinal alignments (Law/Chaos/Good/Evil) into tangible forces of the universe that can not only be detected, but also used as spells or to power weapons. Following this thought, many classes now include alignment restrictions, while others have them removed. Instead of threats of XP loss or other such punishment, the ramifications of alignment shift are built straight into the classes themselves. This solidifies the view that alignment is integral to the D&D universe. Thankfully, language enforcing consistent roleplaying of alignment is gone, allowing the player to make clear choices about the consequences he is willing to accept for behavioral changes.
Q. Why all the fuss if 3E clarified WotC’s view so well?
A. Honestly, because many roleplayers abhor 3E’s bias toward black and white high fantasy conflict. It is the core concept because it is founded in the early days of D&D, it offers a simple guideline for new players, and it sells well. Experienced roleplayers, though, tend to notice its restrictions more than its freedoms. Thus, they seek expanded alignment systems that better meet their needs. This FAQ is offered as a starting point for those who want some suggestion as to the options available. Before we jump into 3E D&D Alignment, we should clarify some language you will find used often in the FAQ.
VOCABULARY
Universal Alignment (Alignment): Universal alignment, which we call Alignment in the FAQ, assumes that Law/Chaos/Good/Evil are concrete forces of the universe. As such, these forces are not subject to frame of reference or viewpoint. They do not change based on social norms. For example, concepts of right and wrong can vary from one home to the next, but in the 3E D&D universe, Law/Chaos/Good/Evil do not change throughout all planes of existence. PCs align themselves with one or more of these planar factions, choosing sides, some consciously others by default, in the eternal struggles between Law/Chaos and Good/Evil. This system focuses on the grand dramatic conflicts between these polar opposites. It eliminates moral ambiguity and requires little effort on the part of either the player or the DM. Angels vs. Demons typifies this type of scheme.
Philosophical Alignment (Attitude): Philosophical alignment, which we call Attitude in the FAQ, is a categorization of the character's philosophy for interacting with society. The 3E PHB definitions do an excellent job of describing attitude. It emphasizes moral ambiguity and how different people and civilizations interact. Alignment itself becomes less important as a universal force on the campaign. Political intrigue, interpersonal drama, and in-depth roleplaying are better suited to this type of scheme.
Definitive Alignment (Personality): Definitive alignment, which we refer to as Personality in the FAQ, uses the alignment guidelines of the 3E PHB as a code of conduct by which to run the character. It stabilizes player interaction by providing some guarantees as to character behavior. This can be a useful tool to help a DM run an NPC, a new player learn how to roleplay, or an experienced gamer model some well defined character of fiction. Simple adventure-style campaigns or ones with high player/character turnover can benefit from this type of alignment scheme.
Tendencies: In order to further clarify a character's alignment position, some people say "my character is Lawful Good with Neutral Good tendencies" or something similar. It means that the character often leans in the direction of Neutral Good, even though the final judgment is usually Lawful Good. It is like saying "my car is blue, with greenish tones". This term can be used in relation to both Alignment and Attitude for descriptive purposes. It cannot be used with Alignment when a determination is necessary for game mechanics purposes.
Moral Ambiguity: This phrase is much the opposite of Alignment. It stands for the idea that good and evil are relative to the circumstances under which an action occurs. For instance, in some societies, killing a sentient being is evil, regardless of cause. In other societies, killing a sentient being evil unless in self-defense. In yet another society, killing a sentient being might very well be applauded. In a typical universal alignment system, all of these actions would have a predetermined affiliation with Law/Chaos/Good/Evil. In a system that allows for moral ambiguity, these actions might or might not have any relation to Law/Chaos/Good/Evil; but, if they do, then it would be determined based on the setting, national, regional, local, legal, cultural context and specific events leading to the killing.
Ethical Axis: This phrase refers the theoretical slide rule capped at one end by Law (Axoim) and at the other end by Chaos(Anarchy). Somewhere in the middle lies ethical Neutrality.
Moral Axis: This phrase refers the theoretical slide rule capped at one end by Good(Saintly) and at the other end by Evil(Vile). Somewhere in the middle lies moral Neutrality.
Definitions of the Four Cardinal Alignment Forces
Law: The force of Law works to set order, rhythm, and geometry to the universe by limiting, confining, and focusing. Nothing is beyond its reach, not matter, not energy, not belief. As such, it is not focused on Law strictly regarding life forms, but rather with all aspects of the universe. In the extreme, Law seeks pure stability, clockwork harmony, featureless motionless homogeneity, and ordered perfection. Should it ever win the universal struggle against Chaos, lifeless stagnation might be the result.
Chaos: The force of Chaos works to promote randomness and freedom by disrupting rhythm, breaking down patterns, and promoting choice. Nothing is beyond its reach, not matter, not energy, not belief. As such, it is not focused on Chaos strictly regarding life forms, but rather with all aspects of the universe. In the extreme, Chaos seeks never-ending change, infinite possibilities, unchecked forces of creation and destruction, and total instability. Should it ever win the eternal struggle against Law, jaded stagnation might be the result.
Good: The force of Good works to promote peaceful life, happiness, and harmonious existence for all, through compassion, respect, and concern. Unlike Law and Chaos, the force of Good is focused on life and the interaction of life forms. Though Good may well infuse itself into matter and energy, its universal impact is in relation to life forms.
Evil: The force of Evil works to promote violent life, suffering, and selfish empowerment through destruction and deceit. Unlike Law and Chaos, the force of Evil is focused on life and the interaction of life forms. Though Evil may well infuse itself into matter and energy, its universal impact is in relation to life forms.
Definitions of the Four Cardinal Character Attitudes
lawful: Characters with a lawful attitude believe in authority, the rule of law, discipline, and the submission of emotion to logic. They will work within accepted systems to affect change and seek to impose systems and laws where none exist. They may or may not be disciplined, organized, or emotionally controlled, but they believe these to be admirable qualities.
chaotic: Characters with a chaotic attitude seek independence, freedom, emotional openness, and change. They prefer to live and work without the burden of organizations or systems, sometimes actively working to disrupt or destroy systems impeding their freedom. They may or may not be free from systems, emotionally open, impulsive, or independent, but they believe these to be admirable qualities.
good: Characters with a good attitude respect the sanctity of life, seek to promote health and happiness over disease and suffering, promote peace over violence, and seek conversion over destruction. This is often exemplified through good's treatment of the helpless and innocent (infants, children, the elderly, and animals) and its criminals/enemies (imprisonment/labor/conversion versus death).
evil: Characters with an evil attitude do not respect the sanctity of life and act only to benefit themselves. They care only about the health and happiness of their own existence and the existence of those critical to the success of their goals. Use of violence, destruction, deceit, is acceptable, if not preferable.
Samples of the Nine Derived Character Attitudes
lawful good: A character with a lawful good attitude believes in the use of authority and rule of law to bring good to the greatest number of people. His actions support the status quo and he uses systems and organizations to achieve good goals.
lawful neutral: Respects the laws and customs of the group, but does not necessarily consider creature rights to be the highest priority. Because the lawful neutral character is not too concerned with questions of morality, he or she will be a more faithful group member and a more loyal follower of his or her alignment than any differently aligned character. The lawful neutral character is an advocate of law and order.
lawful evil: Respects the laws of the group, as long as those laws do not clash with his or her evil moral alignment. The lawful evil PC follows the letter of the law and seeks to pervert the spirit of it.
neutral good: Often goes along with the laws and desires of the group as being the easiest course of action, but ethical considerations clearly have top priority. May pursue quite abstract goals. Often aloof and difficult to understand.
neutral neutral: Not actively for or against anything. Has his or her own reasons for doing everything. Usually difficult to understand.
neutral evil: Puts self-interest before all else. Will only cooperate when material rewards are high. Untrustworthy; has contempt or fear for all others. The ultimate motive is self-preservation and promotion of their schemes. There are no barriers to their actions. Amoral.
chaotic good: Unwilling to be governed by the laws and desires of any group. Interacts with other characters on a one-to-one basis and, within such bounds, follows the good ethic of upholding creature rights. The stereotypical chaotic good character is the white knight who refuses to join any group and goes about on his own, doing good.
chaotic neutral: The almost totally unpredictable non-conformist loner. Will stand by and watch the white knight battle the black knight without feeling compelled to take sides.
chaotic evil: Actively opposes law, order, good, and all other sissy constraints on doing whatever he or she feels like doing. The stereotypical chaotic evil character is the black knight, roaming around on his own, looking for something nasty to do.
3E D&D ALIGNMENT (ALIGNMENT = ATTITUDE)
Q. How do you define the 3E alignment system?
A. WotC chose to use a Universal Alignment system that incorporates Philosophical Alignment within its scope. In 3E D&D, all Lawful Good beings, regardless of species, culture, race, or upbringing, will view the universe in a like manner and hold a similar place in the struggle between the forces of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil. This system strongly supports the Black & White gaming style, effectively removes moral ambiguity, and provides both the players and DM a strong benchmark for every NPCs role in the game.
Q. Why did WotC choose to implement this system?
A. The poster who inspired this question, chonjurer, answered it in his own post. Why not read chonjurer's own words?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most people do not want to immerse themselves in the nitty-gritty details of relative moral debates when sitting down with friends for an evening of escapist enjoyment, and universal alignment is perfect for allowing most people to go about their ways ... Providing an ethical and moral system that is absolute in its scope is a good way to create a consistent system for a game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. What more do we need to know about the standard alignment from the PHB and DMG?
A. Well, why don't we clarify some common misunderstandings about the core alignment system.
3E alignment is not a moral/ethical code by which your character must abide.
3E alignment is not a character attribute, innate to your PC, like strength or hit points.
3E alignment is a categorization of your character's place in the moral/ethical universe, relative to Law/Chaos/Good/Evil.
More accurately, you should not say "my character is lawful good". Instead, you should say, "my character is aligned with lawful good".
Your PC's alignment is determined by your DM, based on the sum total of your PC's actions and motivations.
Your character is aware of the universal forces of Law/Chaos/Good/Evil and, quite possibly, his standing with these forces.
In the 3E alignment system, actions and motivation are the "chicken" and alignment is the "egg".
3E alignment is also intended to be universal. Evil in Waterdeep is Evil in the Free City of Greyhawk, is Evil on Olympus, is Evil in Hades, etc.
In its universal approach, 3E alignment does not allow much room for moral relativism and other more complex concepts.
Of course, there are gradations between alignments. Few characters are likely to be pure: A character of predominantly neutral moral alignment may lean toward good, for instance. There will be lapses in behavior that might be more proper of a different alignment, ill-considered actions in the heat of emotion, actions influenced by some very charismatic character of a different alignment, etc. Only if such lapses occur frequently from actions appropriate to a character’s stated alignment, might the DM properly decide that the character’s alignment has shifted. It is an unstated assumption that most characters act in their own self-interest to some degree (ie are not suicidal). A lawful good character may sacrifice himself for the greater good, but will not do so lightly. A chaotic character will cooperate enough to further his individual goals and protect his or her own hide.
Q. What is the biggest mistake most DMs and players make when using this system?
A. Most likely, trying to "roleplay alignment". By this I mean point 1 in the list above. Alignment is not meant to be a code of conduct for PCs. Even those classes closely bound to certain beliefs (paladins, clerics, etc.) are not cookie cutter personalities. The mentality that one must roleplay alignment tends to straightjacket people and result in boring two dimensional characters.
Q. Do all characters of the same alignment act the same?
A. Goodness no! Think of all the other children with whom you were a classmate in 3rd grade. Most of them would align with LG (I hope), but all of them had entirely different personalities, interests, tempers, patience, etc. This falls squarely under misconception 1 and is strongly related to the error of "roleplaying alignment". Players should start with their character's personality and work outward, toward their alignment.
Q. If players shouldn't roleplay alignment, then many DMs are making a big deal out of "consistent alignment" and "shifting alignment", for no reason. Right?
A. Well, every group has its own Common Ground. Every DM has his own preferences. Personally, I believe that only alignment driven classes must concern themselves at all about alignment. Any energy spent on alignment other than at critical moment or for these classes, is wasted. Who cares if the thief waffles from Good to Neutral to Evil? I don't. Let the character's personality play out.
Q. Isn't roleplaying all about the accurate portrayal of another being? Doesn't that require consistent alignment or roleplaying alignment?
A. No, but every group is free to choose its own roleplaying style. In my opinion, asking a player to roleplay consistent alignment, implies that the character is a fully developed concept, without room for growth or inconsistency. This makes the player an actor and limits his possibility for creativity. If your group sets such an expectation, then yes, consistent alignment and roleplaying alignment are legitimate ideas. It may be a system to use for new or young players, who need a well lit path to travel while learning the ropes. It may be a system to use for in-depth roleplayers, who want to run the Dragonlance adventures like historical recreations of the novels. However, I do not recommend it for generic games, as it stifles player creativity and reinforces alignment misconceptions.
Q. How SHOULD we implement the traditional system?
A. The key is to set guidelines for Law/Chaos/Good/Evil before the campaign. Then develop any critical codes (paladins, clerics, etc.) Outside of these limits, the character should just play a personality. Loud, obnoxious, drunkard, quiet, shy, sober, sarcastic, short tempered, compassionate, ruthless, vain, etc.
Q. Do you have any other advice for running the standard 3E alignment system?
A. For characters whose alignment is not class critical, encourage them not even to choose one. Let them just play the personality and allow their alignment to develop from the character's actions. This approach often leads to less restrictive play, giving the player a deeper sense for personality without the artificial shackles of alignment.
---------------
Note: I use a five step alignment system: Exalted/Good/Neutral/Evil/Vile and Axiomatic/Orderly/Neutral/Chaotic/Anarchic.
Axiomatic takes great personal risks to eradicate disorder, and does so whenever it finds it. Orderly prefers order to disorder, and will attempt to stop massive disorder at personal risk, and introduce order where possible when the risk is not great in other situations. Neutral either is unconcerned by the difference between order and disorder, or actively tries to keep either from gaining an upper hand. Chaotic prefers disorder to order, and will attempt to break up large-scale conformity, especially enforced, at great personal risk, and will otherwise lend disorder to an orderly system if it doesn't involve great risk. Anarchic takes great personal risks to disorder any system it comes across, and destroy any enforcement of order.
Exalted takes great personal risks to defend the lives, purposes, and interests of others, and seeks its own interests only when they coincide with those of others or the serving of those interests will allow it to better further the interests of others. Good will usually consider others' interests in addition to its own, and will sometimes defer its own interests to others, especially if the sacrifice is small; the bigger the threat to others' welfare, the larger the sacrifice Good is willing to make. Neutral either is oblivious to or unable to comprehend the needs of others, or it usually sees to its own interests before considering the interests of others; it will generally consider the interests of others only if those interest affect its own in some way. Evil maliciously ignores the interests of others until its own desires are met and generally does not consider how its own interests are affected by the interests of others. Vile only considers the interests of others in order to deliberately thwart their purposes; it seeks its own interests at all times and will sometimes take personal risks in order to prevent others from meeting their own interests (including personal comfort and even survival).
Most people never reach any extreme of any axis. You can not be at the extreme for both axis, due to the unwavering nature of the extreme positions.
Last updated: 2/6/2004