Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)

In Dungeons & Dragons , alignment is a categorisation of the moral and ethical perspective of the player characters, non-player characters, monsters, and societies in the game.

The system in the original Dungeons & Dragons consists of three alignments: Law, Neutrality and Chaos. In Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, this became a two-dimensional grid, one axis of which measures a "moral" continuum between good and evil, and the other "ethical" between law and chaos. Those characters that fall on one of the extremes are "good" or "evil", "lawful" or "chaotic"; in addition, there is a middle ground of "neutrality" on both axes, describing characters that are indifferent, committed to balance, or conflicted about the struggle between good and evil (or law and chaos). By combining the two axes, any given character has one of nine possible alignments:

Lawful Good	Neutral Good	Chaotic Good
Lawful Neutral	Neutral	Chaotic Neutral
Lawful Evil	Neutral Evil	Chaotic Evil

For details of alignments in role-playing games in general, see Alignment (role-playing games).

History

Game creator Gary Gygax largely derived the alignment system from the cosmology imagined by science fiction writer Michael Moorcock. This is especially evident in the original Dungeons & Dragons game, in which "lawful", "neutral" and "chaotic" were the only three alignments available, with "lawful" including characteristics ascribed to "good" and "chaotic" those ascribed to "evil". The Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game revised the alignment system into the biaxial system that is currently used.

Gygax was also influenced by a novel by Poul Anderson, Three Hearts and Three Lions, in which the forces of law, the paladins of Charlemagne, were at war with the forces of Chaos, the faerie kingdom. Note that elves were of chaotic alignment in the original Dungeons & Dragons.

The first edition of Dungeons & Dragons suggested that Lawful Good was the "best" alignment and Chaotic Evil the "worst". Later editions moved away from this perspective, but continue to discourage player characters of the three evil alignments (Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil).

Certain character classes are restricted in the sorts of alignment they can take. A paladin traditionally must be of Lawful Good alignment; while a monk must be lawful, but not necessarily good. Bards and barbarians are never lawful in alignment, while rogues seldom are. Clerics and other priests must uphold the alignments favored by their deities, typically within a one-step margin. Druids must be neutral along at least one axis (although in prior editions of the game, they had to be neutral on both axises). Assassins are always evil. These restrictions are typically enforced by loss of powers; for example, if a paladin commits an evil act, he immediately loses all his special powers until he atones. Additionally, a Dungeon Master may penalize a player character who acts in marked variance from her declared alignment or may shift the character's alignment to match the actual behaviour.

Players are usually discouraged from playing outright evil characters, leaving these alignments only for non-player characters, as evil characters don't make for heroic fantasy.

The alignment system was originally designed as a tool for the Dungeon Master, and not something the player needed to be much concerned about. As the system became more detailed, many Dungeon Masters used alignments as an encouragement for role-playing, by making stricter judgments over whether player characters' actions matched their alignments.

Dungeon Masters sometimes allow characters to be of an alignment falling between two of the traditional nine alignments; for instance, a character could be neutral good / lawful good, meaning that he is primarily neutral good but has lawful tendencies. Indeed, this system was supported canonically in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons First Edition, particularly in alignments of the Outer Planes as depicted in the Manual of the Planes; for example, neutral good / lawful good is the alignment of the plane of Bytopia. These Dungeon Masters treat alignment as a two-dimensional plane rather than a grid, allowing for a much greater range of alignments. Dungeon Masters using nine strict alignments have often had conflicts with players over punishments for behaviour on the borderlines of one alignment and the next (earlier editions of the game included severe penalties for changing alignment, or for repeated or flagrant violations of one's current alignment).

Axes

Good vs. Evil

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to for a greater good than their personal convenience.

Evil implies a concern for one's own ambitions or desires without concern its consequences for others, or an intentional effort to cause pain and suffering for others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is necessary or convenient to their goals. Others are actively malicious, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Characters who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral characters are generally committed to others by personal relationships rather than by a general sense of moral obligation.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice, particularly in the case of characters or entities that recognize the objective existence of alignment in the default Dungeons & Dragons cosmology. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good/evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some (particularly druids) it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these people maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place — if not for all people, then at least for themselves.

Animals and non-sentient creatures are neither good nor evil. Even man-eating carnivores and animals trained to kill are neutral because they lack the capacity to distinguish between morally right or wrong behaviour.

Law vs. Chaos

Law implies self-discipline, obedience to authority, and a favour of logic and reasoning over emotions. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentality, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Chaos implies personal freedom, self-reliance, and impulsiveness. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, and arbitrary actions,. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

A person who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and is neither driven by emotions nor a strict code of conduct.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the law/chaos axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding law and chaos each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Animals and other creatures incapable of ethical action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the ethical capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

Alignments

This section contains material from the d20 System Reference Document which is licensed under the Open Gaming License.

Nine distinct alignments define all the possible combinations of the lawful-chaotic axis with the good-evil axis. Each alignment description below depicts how characters of that alignment typically act. Individuals, however, may vary from this norm. Any given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day.

Lawful Good

"Crusader"

Lawful good characters act as good people are expected or required to act. They combine a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. They tell the truth, keep their words, helps those in need and will speak out against injustices. A lawful good character hates seeing the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good characters believe that an ideal society is one with a well-organized government and law-abiding citizens.

Neutral Good

"Benefactor"

Neutral good characters do the best that a good person can do. These characters are devoted to helping others, and believe that the forces of law and chaos should not moderate the need for people to do good. These characters will support social structures only when they are for the good of the community. If overthrowing an existing social order is what needs to be done to foster good, then they will not be afraid to do so.

Chaotic Good

"Rebel"

Chaotic good characters act where their conscience directs them, with little regard for the expectations of others. They believe firmly in making their own way in life, and dislike others who try to intimidate or use their authority on them.

Chaotic good characters always follow their own moral compass, believing that goodness and righteousness have little use for laws and authority. Although they are always kind and benevolent, their views often do not agree with that of society.

Lawful Neutral

"Judge"

Lawful neutral characters act as law, tradition, or a personal code directs them. Order and organization are paramount to them, and believe that order and organization come about moral righteousness.

These characters may believe in a personal order and live by a code or standard, or believe in order for all and support strong, organized governments.

Neutral

"Undecided"

Neutral characters do whatever seems to be a 'good idea'. They don't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or order vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction, or bias rather than a commitment to true neutrality. Such characters think of good as being better than evil (after all, they would rather have good neighbours and kind kings than evil ones), but are not personally committed to upholding good in any way.

True Neutral

"Balancer"

Some neutral characters commit themselves to a philosophy of neutrality. These people are extremely rare in a world where most people make value judgements, and are said to be "true neutral."

True Neutral characters see good, evil, law and chaos as simply prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate that the middle way of neutrality is the best and most balanced road in the long run.

Some true neutral characters will actively support neutrality and balance in the world. They will avoid having to support any one side, whether that be good or evil, order or chaos; and will work to see that all of these forces remain in balance.

Other true neutrals are simply characters who are tired of this concept of 'morality', and find that they draw no meaning from it. These characters are not neutral out of choice, but simply that they care not either way - they are passively neutral, but still falls under the banner of true neutral.

Druidic True Neutral

In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, all druids were true neutral. The true neutral alignment is central to the philosophy of neutral druids.

This is because a druid's main charges — plants, animals, and the health of the planetary ecology — essentially lack alignment or ethos. Therefore, druids can feel free to use almost any means necessary to protect them.

The druidic order works to maintain the natural balance among the alignments. However, druids do realize that the actions of others — including their own — will prove significant to the cosmic balance. The druid sees the friction between alignments as the driving force in the world.

When faced with a tough decision, a druid usually stands behind the solution that best serves nature in the long run.

Chaotic Neutral

"Free Spirit"

Chaotic neutral characters follow their own whims. They are an individualist first and last, and values their own liberty (but will not strive to protect the freedom of others). They avoid authority, resent restrictions, and challenge traditions. However, they would not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. This is because to do so, they would have to be motivated either by good (a desire to liberate others) or evil (a desire to make those different from himself suffer).

Chaotic neutral characters may be unpredictable, but their behavior is not totally random - they are not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. However, they do act on momentary whims, and are known to be unreliable. As some would say, "the only reliable thing about them is that they cannot be relied upon!"

Strongly Chaotic Neutral

There are some Chaotic Neutral characters, such as the Xaositects, who choose to act in a manner that is as random as possible. Such people will regularly change their appearance, their attitudes, even the way they speak . These characters see chaos as the most important force in the universe (similar to how Lawful Neutral characters may see Law as a force upheld regardless of consequences). As a result, these characters might intentionally disrupt organisations on the simple basis that organizations are lawful entities which oppose the chaos. Such characters may appear insane to those not similarly inclined towards chaos.

Lawful Evil

"Dominator"

Lawful evil characters use a society's structure and laws to their own advantage. They will play by the rules without mercy or compassion, to take what they want without regard for whom it hurts. They care about tradition, loyalty and order; but not of freedom, dignity or life. They are comfortable in a hierarchy and enjoy ruling, but are willing to serve out of fear of punishment. They will condemn others not according to their actions, but according to their race, religion, homeland or social rank.

However, because they depend on order and law to protect themselves against those who oppose them on moral grounds, they will almost always honour a lawful oath or contract that they have made, even if it turns out to be unfavourable for them. Because of this, Lawful Evil characters tend to be very careful when giving out their word.

Lawful evil characters may have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood or not letting children come to harm; and like to imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains. Other Lawful evil characters will commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good.

Neutral Evil

"Malefactor"

Neutral evil characters will do whatever they can get away with. They are out for themselves, and will shed no tears for those they kill or harm, whether it was for profit, sport, or convenience. They have no love of order and hold no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make them any better or any more noble. On the other hand, they do not have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil individual has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake like the way a neutral good character believes in good for its own sake. Such characters are also often devoted to some dark deity or society.

Chaotic Evil

"Destroyer"

Chaotic evil characters do whatever their greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drives them to do. They are hot-tempered, vicious and arbitrarily violent. They are simply out for whatever they can get, and are ruthless and brutal in their ways. Typically, the plans of a chaotic evil character are haphazard, and any groups they form are poorly organised. Chaotic evil characters can be made to work together only by force, with leaders lasting only as long as they can thwart uprisings and assassinations against them.

Criticism

The law-versus-chaos axis has generated some controversy and confusion. Different books, and even different parts in the same book, have interpreted law and chaos to mean different things. Among its different interpretations are a person's feelings on government and laws, a person's sense of honour, how orderly and logical a person's mind works, how flexible a person's mind is, whether a person prefers cities or countryside, and even how orderly a person likes to keep his or her house.

Gygax portrayed in his original Advanced Dungeons and Dragons that the purest good was neutral good because it is goodness for its own sake, but most players consider lawful good as the epitome of goodness. Later versions of Dungeons & Dragons reference material, minus the direct contribution of Gary Gygax, support the latter view occasionally, but recent editions have varied in their portrayal of alignment. Some prefer Gygax's complex description of alignment in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide, first edition. Others prefer the descriptions from the recent 3.5 edition of Dungeons and Dragons, cited above from the System Reference Document.

The system has also been criticized for ethical reasons. Some critics within and outside the role-playing comunity argue that calling labelling a person (as opposed to an act) as good or evil is not only a gross oversimplification -even psychopaths do good deeds - but inherently, ethically wrong. It should not be practiced even in a game.

Others critics say that it might be acceptable to label individuals as good or evil. These people have criticized not so much this system when used to classify and describe individuals morality as the fact that entire races and species are classified as belonging to one category. This can make genocide (speciecide?) of sentient races and species classified as evil morally justifiable. Classifying their victims as evil is precisely what perpetrators of genocide did historically. Of course, defenders argue that the system does not have to be interpreted that way and that there is a great difference between genocide of fictional races in a game and the real thing against real humans. Some role-players, however, find the idea of justifiable genocide inherent in the D&D alignment system and repugnant even as a game. James Desborough and Steve Mortimer ; describes and ridicules the process:

"'It is lawful to defend goodness. Goodness is defended by destroying Evil. These Orcs are Evil' HACK! MAIM! KILL! 'Oh, look, a goblin baby -it'll grow up Evil. SKEWER!' Paladins, the quintessence of Lawful Good, sometimes end up compared to Hitler Youth."

Greg Costikyan has also heavily satirized the ethics of traditional D&D Dungeons crawling.

The comic "Order of the Stick" has also ridiculed that ethical dilemmas are ridiculously simple when you can easily see who is evil and who is not -such as by looking at the color of a dragon [[1]].

Critics of role-playing use it as an argument against role-playing in general, despite the fact that only a minority of role-playing games have an alignment system and not all of these classify entire races and species according to an alignment system.

See also

• Book of Exalted Deeds
• Book of Vile Darkness

References

• Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition Player's Handbook. TSR, Inc. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help)
• The Complete Druid's Handbook. TSR, Inc. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help)
• d20 System Reference Document (used under the Open Gaming License).
• "Gary Gygax Q&A, Part IX". EN World Forums. Retrieved January 27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

External links

• Alignment test - Wizards of the Coast
• What D&D Character are you? Version 4.10