D&D General An Ontology of D&D Alignment

[Big J Money]

Over the years, I’ve continued to be surprised that neither TSR nor WotC made an effort to educate in any depth the ways one can play with alignment in D&D.

In an effort to understand it more deeply, I’ve written this tool to break down and identify the meaningful characteristics of a given implementation of alignment (“alignment system”). You could apply this to the alignment that you use in your own D&D campaigns, those used by other DMs, or one which a given player uses for their character. Usually we’re not aware of these characteristics; they are not often deliberately identified or chosen. But, by learning about them one may become more aware of the possible implications, interactions and even compare and contrast different perspectives on D&D alignment using (somewhat) measurable criteria. My hope is to inspire at least one person to consider engaging with D&D’s alignment when maybe before you thought it was a pointless exercise.

I don’t claim to be an expert. I’m just another DM or player like yourself. There is no TLDR for this article. If you don’t enjoy analysis, you may wish to skip.

Features of Alignment
These are ten properties which determine the form and behavior a given alignment system exhibits; I have broken them up, below. There is also a final section on actual interpretations of the alignments themselves.

I. Objectivity
Is there one true and Objective answer for every question about Alignment in your campaign, or is there Subjectivity? An objective alignment is a ground truth for your setting. Alignment is explicitly defined, and every situation can be adjudicated by the DM according to a ruling. A purely subjective alignment cannot be measured or judged. The individual character decides whether they are acting according to a stated alignment or not and there is no correct or incorrect interpretation.

To have a fully subjective alignment system is practically equivalent to not having an alignment system, and none of these other alignment features have any meaning when alignment is wholly subjective.

This feature can be binary, or it can have a scalar (partial) characteristic by way of a threshold. A DM might rate actions to be "inconsequential" and treat them subjectively until a threshold is crossed by “very strong” action, at which point the treatment becomes objective.

Example: A Lawful Good character steals food to avoid starvation.

• In a fully objective alignment system, the DM will delineate which alignment this action falls under (ex. he may declare it chaotic).
• In a fully subjective alignment system, the DM does not declare this to align to anything, allowing the player of the character doing the stealing to determine what alignment the action falls under.
• In a partially objective alignment system, the DM may not care about this action because it falls under the threshold of things that are to be treated subjectively; but if the same character kills an innocent, then the DM may declare that action to be evil and/or chaotic because it crosses an established threshold of “very” evil and/or chaotic.

N.B.1: In an objective alignment, one need not predetermine everything up front, but can adjudicate on demand, developing the alignment on the fly.

N.B.2: It could be interesting to have give the Good alignment a high threshold for objectively good actions, giving PCs a chance to measurably increase their goodness and attain sainthood, if they dare try. In such a world, it would be easy to fall from grace and hard to find redemption.

 

[Big J Money]

II. Mythicality
Is Alignment a Mythical, Cosmic Force or simply a Mundane description of a character's history of behavior? A wholly mythical alignment is circumscriptive -- the being in question doesn't have totally free will, and by their nature they are bound to act according their alignment. A wholly mundane alignment is simply a description of typical behavior as displayed by the being’s actions.

This feature can be binary or scalar. For example, you might imagine Evil or Chaos as a corrupting, cosmic or mythical force. Some creatures could be fully corrupted (binary) while others are only partially so, to a greater or lesser degree, and possessing a chance to act of free will, however unlikely.

In all editions, D&D publications to me do not suggest either direction along the mythical scale for monsters, leaving this distinction open to interpretation. For PCs, all editions strongly indicate a mundane alignment -- or at least a mostly mundane alignment for demi-humans -- giving PCs free will over their behavior, yet encouraged to take a particular allegiance and stick to it.

N.B.: It could be interesting to tie this mythicality to something, such as immortality, or simply years lived. As a creature ages, its alignment becomes more “solidifed” and unchangeable.

 

[Big J Money]

III. Exclusivity
Is every aspect of Alignment wholly Exclusive to one pole, or can certain elements Include more than one alignment? Exclusive alignment behaviors can only be good or evil, lawful or chaotic; while inclusive alignment behavior can be partially good and evil, partially lawful and chaotic.

In a mythical alignment system, an evil creature’s behavior (for example) can be inclusive, but it will always lean more heavily toward evil than good. A mundane and inclusive alignment system displays the most shades of gray because any behavior can be partially good and partially evil at the same time.

 

[Big J Money]

IV. Dynamism
Can a creature’s Alignment change Dynamically or is it Static? A fully mundane alignment system is also at least somewhat dynamic by virtue of its free will nature; the level of dynamism determining how rapidly and easily one may change their alignment.

A mythical alignment system can be set anywhere along a spectrum of fully static vs fully dynamic. In a dynamic and mythical alignment system, the cosmic influence of alignment changes periodically, according to some rationale as prescribed by the DM. Individual beings do not have the power to change their alignment nor act outside its boundary, but forces outside their control can change it for them.

N.B.: I have never heard of a campaign with a dynamic mythical alignment system, but it seems intriguing.

 

[Big J Money]

V. Reliability
Do beings act Reliably according to their Alignment or Unreliably? A strongly reliable alignment system means that creature behavior is dependable and predictable. A strongly unreliable alignment system still means that creatures act according to their alignment more than half of the time (else they would cease to be aligned), but not by much.

A wholly mythical and wholly exclusive alignment system guarantees 100% reliability, but this is of course not how most alignment systems go, and probably would not be very interesting or perhaps would even be too high of a bar for perfection.

A wholly unreliable system is similar to having a wholly subjective system, it is a system with no meaning; however, one could have only some creatures acting completely unreliably.

 

[Big J Money]

VI. Categoricity
Is the Alignment of a being wholly determined by a Category it belongs to, or are the traits of the Individual the only factor? A wholly categorical alignment means that the being has an alignment because it is part of a group. A wholly individual alignment means that no group informs any being's alignment.

This feature can be binary or scalar. A strongly categorical alignment system means most member creatures in a group can be expected to share an expected alignment, but a few may not.

Most editions of D&D monsters by default present a strongly, or even perhaps wholly, categorical alignment system for monsters. Some older editions include categorical alignments for PC demi-human races, as well.

 

[Big J Money]

VII. Consequence
Is Alignment deeply Consequential and connected to the rest of the campaign world and cosmology, or is it Inconsequential and isolated? A very consequential alignment means that player character action carries a moral and ethical weight that creates ripples of reactions from the environment and its inhabitants as a result. A wholly inconsequential alignment system serves the purpose of guiding a player’s role-play, but it never prompts any kind of reaction from the DM.

This feature is scalar, from an alignment system with 0 consequence up to ones with deep, frequent and/or immediate consequences.

Older editions of D&D implemented rules to enable consequence in specific scenarios. A Paladin can lose their holy powers granted by their deity by not upholding their alignment values, for example. Certainly there is fertile ground for interesting ideas here, if handled well.

 

[Big J Money]

VIII. Dimensionality
Is there one, single Dimension that represents the Alignment, or are there myriad possibilities? A one-dimensional alignment is upheld and portrayed only by the one, true way. A multi-dimensional alignment can be represented by any one of a list of various possible guiding principles.

This feature is scalar, from 1 up to a potentially unlimited number of dimensions.

Examples of one-dimensional alignments are: the idea that Law always means obeying the law of the land, that Chaos always means acting randomly, and that true neutrality always means to be perfectly balanced between Good, Evil, Law and Chaos.

 

[Big J Money]

IX. Transparency
This is a two-parter:

Firstly, are the overall features of an Alignment (that we’ve discussed here) known by the players or kept secret?

Secondly, are the Alignment ramifications of individual actions, as carried out by the PCs, known by the players or kept secret?

In a fully transparent alignment, players would be told how alignment works in the setting; and every time one of their characters takes an action, they would be aware of which alignment that action corresponds to. A wholly opaque system is left completely mysterious to the players at all times. Note that we are referring to out of character DM to player communication. An opaque system precludes neither in-fiction consequences of PC action from arising, nor players drawing conclusions from said consequences.

This feature can be binary or scalar. A partially transparent system may reveal the overall rules of alignment, but not the results of individual actions, or some actions but not all. Or it may always reveal the results of any given action but keep the overall underlying system a mystery.

N.B.: If you are to have any opaque aspects to your alignment, I recommend communicating to the players specifically which pieces you are revealing openly and which pieces they do not know for sure, and what the implications will be in your campaign. Even in a wholly opaque system I recommend the nature and procedure of alignment consequence to be transparent.

 

[Big J Money]

X. Facades
Characters also needn’t be aware of how alignment works in the setting. If we say that a given Alignment System is a description of how alignment works in a DM’s campaign setting, then a Facade is how any given character thinks alignment works in the world around them.

Characters may be unaware of alignment and unaware that they are so. They may know alignment is significant, but realize they are unaware of exactly what is good vs bad, or lawful vs neutral sometimes. Or they may possess their own moral code; one that is untrue, or only partially true, but be convinced they are right. An NPC could be an omniscient deity that knows all these secrets; or, is posing as one and has convinced a PC of its lies.

“Facades” is plural because a DM can place different facades upon various individuals or groups in the setting. She may use an opaque alignment system and place a facade on the PCs (this may warrant two alignments -- revealed/believed and hidden/actual). Or make the alignment system fully transparent and allow the players to make up their own facades for their PCs, if they wish.

A facade is also in two parts:

Firstly, it is the meta-knowledge a character has about the nature of alignment. This ranges from 100% ignorance about the ways of the cosmos, to holding strong personal views about the nature of morality and order; whether correct or incorrect. A character may believe that evil is absolute (and be right or wrong about that), that law is subjective, be undecided on what they believe about anything, or choose not to have any opinion at all.

Secondly, a facade is the actual moral or ethical principles that the character espouses. A creature belives that X is the way they wish to live. X may be good, evil, lawful, chaotic or neutral. A creature may also mis-identify. They may believe X is the way they wish to live, and that X is good; while in actuality, X is neutral or evil.

Facades are optional. If there are none, it generally is because your objective alignment system is known and understood by the general populace. If alignment is fully subjective, in a sense everything is a facade; but nothing matters.

N.B.1: The most immediately significant facade for the DM to create is the status quo. This is what the PCs will rub up against on a regular basis, and perhaps will determine their own outlook.

N.B.2: Imagine a mythically chaotic evil creature with the facade that it is lawful good. Or that it believes it knows the nature of the cosmos, but incorrectly believes that nature to be pure subjectivity.