D&D General An Ontology of D&D Alignment

[Big J Money]

Picking, Choosing, and Combining
In addition to the binary and scalar attributes of the features listed above, it's possible to combine opposite features within one alignment system. You can pick where such combinations are contrasted: between individual to individual, group to group, or even alignment to alignment.

For example, one might give monsters a mythical alignment while giving players a mundane one. One could treat Good and Law as mostly mundane and alignments, while treating Evil and Chaos as mythical ones. One could set the axis of Law / Chaos to be purely objective while making the axis of Good / Evil subjective.

Distributions Thereof
Finally, it’s necessary to indentify not just how the alignment system functions, but where it’s applied. How common is the existence of evil beings, and where are they found? Are most people good or neutral? Does it vary from location location? Group to group? After determining the distributions of actual alignment, remember to determine the distributions of facades, if there are any. Perhaps most peoples’ of the realm are neutral but believe themselves to be good. No wonder their benevolent gods grew silent.

 

[Big J Money]

Various Definitions of Alignment
In addition to how alignment behaves, every DM and player possesses their own definition of what each of the different points on the alignment diagram mean.

These interpretations need not be merely stances that we have about alignment. They can also be beliefs that characters have about alignment. In other words, in your setting there can be a “true” definition for each alignment, as well as multiple “working” definitions held by characters that match or contradict the truth. I’m really just rehashing facades, from above.

I list neutrality first because I believe this clearly and immediately shows how radically different an individual campaign’s definition of the Alignments can vary from another, since often people see neutrality as simply “the middle of an axis” and give it no further thought. It’s hardly that simple (but it can be if you want).

Again, I do not claim these to be exhaustive; merely many I have encountered. Add your own to the lists below.

Possible definitions of Neutrality

1. To be neutral is to not care whether one acts for good, evil, law or chaos; inevitably acting according to any of them for various personal reasons
2. To be neutral is to actively avoid being good, evil, lawful or chaotic
3. To be neutral is to work to balance out one’s own diametric* actions
4. To be neutral is to work to balance the consequences of the diametricality of others (perhaps sometimes joining one “side” or the other to maintain balance on a large scale)
5. To be neutral is to have no opinion or care for others, neither positive nor negative, unless it would impact oneself (self-centeredness)
6. To be neutral is to swear allegience to neutrality itself as its own “side”, and be equally aligned against the other 2 alignments (picture a ternary plot instead of a line axis; a 3-way conflict)
7. Neutrality is an illusion, or perhaps an untraversable void between the poles at the end of the axes
8. Neutrality is best represented by more than one of the definitions above, combined (see, Dimensionality, above)

* -- The opposing poles of Law vs Chaos or Good vs Evil

Possible definitions of Good versus Evil

1. Good vs Evil is going out of one’s way to aid others versus going out of one’s way to harm others
2. Good vs Evil is selflessness (helping others at cost to oneself) versus selfishness (helping oneself at cost to others)
3. Good vs Evil is improving society for all its members versus making it worse for some
4. Good vs Evil is determined by judging one’s actions against a set of qualifying moral and/or ethical criteria (actions are determined to be good or evil by said criteria; ex: accepted mores of a society)
5. Good vs Evil is doing what you believe to be right versus what you know to be wrong (conscience)
6. Good vs evil is acting according to the angel versus the devil on your shoulders, as role-played by other players at the table
7. Good vs Evil is best represented by more than one of the definitions above, combined

Possible definitions of Law versus Chaos

1. Law vs Chaos is obeying versus disobeying external authoritative stricture(s) placed upon one’s actions
2. Law vs Chaos is following any consistent stricture (even internal) versus following no strictures
3. Law vs Chaos is consistently ordered behavior versus random behavior
4. Law vs Chaos is servitude versus freedom
5. Law vs Chaos is conformity versus non-conformity
6. Law vs Chaos is society versus anarchy
7. Law vs Chaos is inhabited territory versus wild territory
8. Law vs Chaos is might versus magic
9. Law vs Chaos is (wo)man versus beast
10. Law vs Chaos is knowledge versus ignorance
11. Law vs Chaos is conviction vs apostasy / agnosticism
12. Law vs Chaos is best represented by more than one of the definitions above, combined

Further possible definitions for either, or both, of the axes

1. The axis poles are opposed ideals one aspires to
2. The axis poles are opposed “sides” in a greater conflict that one pledges allegience to; whatever side you are on is the “right” side
3. The axis poles are opposed magnets one is inexorably drawn to
4. The axis poles are inherent, innate and opposed properties of beings (see Mythicality, above)
5. The axis poles require each other (necessary paradox)
6. There is no axis; the poles are not in opposition, but rather different perspectives

 

[Big J Money]

Closing Notes
It’s futile to contemplate the question, “how do the D&D rules expect me to adjudicate or roleplay alignment?” -- and foolish to be convinced that one espouses “the correct” answer -- because, as it turns out, the rules fail to include but a slice of the complexity that players and DMs have mulled over throughout the decades of this hobby. Therefore, go with a system that is fun to you and your group and run with it. Hopefully this information will help you idenitfy one or more that make you happy, or serves to solidify your own reasons and justifications for interpreting alignment the way you already do (or perhaps cause you to question it).

My only piece of advice is for DMs: if you do clearly identify your position on the alignment system for your campaign, share that position with your players. If your system is transparent, be forthcoming about its features and definitions in a way they understand intuitively. I wouldn’t break it down like I have here, at least in some places, since this level of clinicism can ruin any sense of immersion. And I do recommend your system be transparent unless you know what you’re doing! I haven’t yet played with an opaque system, but I’m sure it could be fun if run properly.

 

[generic]

So, I read through your essay, and I must say that it is a well-written and fairly complete analysis of the ontological, and, in fact, tautological variance betwixt alignment philosophies and interpretation of alignment on a different basis depending on the point of the campaign or the story you wish to tell.

The incorporation of arguments for mythical versus mundane alignment variance for PCs and crisis is particularly intriguing.

It's a nice little article, not all of which I agree with, but it's fairly well reasoned and analytical.

The perspective is refreshing.

 

[Celebrim]

Ok, wow. You didn't go where I thought you were going to go, and that's really cool. Typically a person that posts tries to define what alignment is. What you've tried to do here is define a map for all possible alignment systems that could be in play, and that is refreshing and highly original. Someone give this man about 500 likes.

It's going to take me a few hours to even respond adequately to this post. The first thing I want to try to do is describe how alignment works in my game using your system, and see if your universal map can actually fit what I'm doing. But that's going to take a lot of thought in and of itself.

 

[generic]

I wish I had thought to say what @Celebrim said, because I agree completely. It is a refreshing position.

 

[Big J Money]

Thanks, I'm glad my intention is coming across here. Celebrim, yes, working out whether you are able to functionally paint up your alignment system using my colors is the kind if thing I'd love to see attempted. I wish you good luck.

Aebir, I agreee the mythical vs mundane feature in an alignment system is an interesting point to pivot upon. It is a property that has caused raging debates between people who cling to one side or other, and I find it interesting to step back and observe its possible implications in a setting, non-judgmentally.

Edit: Perhaps my own alignment is neutral.

 

[Charlaquin]

I adore this analysis and think it could make an extremely valuable tool for discussing alignment. It tends to be a very controversial subject, and I think this reveals a big part of the reason why: many of us are unknowingly working from different assumed parameters of alignment, yet we discuss it as if we are all using the same system. I might run my own way of handling alignment through this and see what I come up with.

 

[Enrico Poli1]

A great post!

My impression is that you wanted to help us to better understands what Alignment is, by building a system of categories that clarify a number of aspects. In that you were rather successful, for example I gained new insights thanks to you!

My first objection: your approach is purely hypothetical/essentialist/platonic, because the abstract categories try to absorb the concrete behaviour. In fact, you never mention concrete freedom.
That is the weekness of ethics in analytic philosophy (IMO): they want to clarify thought, but haven't any power to clarify and help practical ethics, concrete free choices...
In the game, that means that your (excellent) essay helps DMs and players to better classify/clarify Alignment, but it doesn't offer any help to put in action a better Alignment in concrete play.

Thank you for your effort. I tried my best to put together a strong objection, I hope it'll help.

 

[DammitVictor]

Rigorous application of this system, combined with effective communication of the results, would actually resolve most of my... pressing objections to the alignment system, reducing it to something I'd merely consider unnecessary and distracting.