Alignment and Morality

Originally published on March 24, 2012

I’ll admit on onset that I am not a big fan of Alignment, particularly as it is presented in D&D. Part of this comes from my experiences as Alignment as a straitjacket and part of it is from a simplification of the complexity that goes into a character.

For those unfamiliar with Alignment, the idea is that a character will belong to one of several moral groups. Typically these are some combination of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil. Lawful characters enjoy order and rules. Chaotic characters like more freedom and dislike overly ordered societies. They like to make their own decisions separate from the rules of society. Good and Evil in this scale are real choices. Good characters want to help others while Evil characters are in it for themselves and will do whatever they can to get on top.

Now to some extent this division makes sense. D&D is supposed to be a game of epic fantasy where good fights evil in a starkly black and white setting. It is okay to kill goblins because they are evil. But as I get older, I prefer more nuanced stories and characters. It is not enough that one side is evil and the other is good, I need reasons for their actions. I expect justifications from my villains and perhaps be able to sympathize with them. Moreover I roleplay partly as escapism and given our current political system, I’d like less of the “us verses them” mentality.

But separate from that Alignment is presented as a roleplaying tool, a way for a player to present his character consistently. In this I think it fails badly. In D&D, particularly older versions, there is a tendency to over emphasize aspects of Alignment. The 2nd edition of AD&D characterized Chaotic Neutral, characters devoted to individual action but not actively seeking to help or harm people, as madmen with no thought to their actions. Lawful Good, the paladin ideal of honor and justice, has long been the pain of more “flexible” characters, becoming something of a joke.

The worst aspect of the system is that is pigeon holes a character. In older versions you would suffer experience penalties for switching Alignment. For certain classes they lose their abilities if they fail to uphold their Alignment. Most times I’ve seen it used, if there isn’t a class restriction requiring a certain Alignment, characters tend to slide to neutral and chaotic alignments, diminishing the importance of the system as a whole.

That is not to say there isn’t a place for moral codes in roleplaying games, but rather that alignment is a poor man’s crutch. It is good for people who need the barest sketch of a character (Neutral Good Dwarven Thief for instance) to jump into play. But in a longer game with more roleplaying than rolling, it would be better for the player to invest the time to think about who the character is and what their past was. From there they can place themselves in their character's shoes and make decisions from their point of view. This I believe is the best way to handle morality and consistency of character.

There are other methods that can work in specific circumstances however. For example in the World of Darkness, characters possess a morality trait which typically shows how human they are. Since in that setting, the characters are typically monsters such as vampires and werewolves, this serves to track their descent into an inhuman monster. It works because it fits the feel of the game where a character is already damned and where the darkness usually triumphs over the light. Even this system however becomes something of a straitjacket as a character’s abilities to deal with humans weaken as they descend into darkness. For example low humanity vampires are limited in how good their social rolls can be, how easily they can stay awake during the day, and how long it takes them to reawaken after being knocked into death-like torpor.

A thought I have been having recently is the idea of positive bonuses from a character’s actions. Perhaps in the above example, it would be better to give bonuses to a mortal’s rolls to resist a low morality vampire rather than to penalize the inhuman monster directly. Thus a socially adept vampire would still be potent despite his inhumanity. One can go further with this idea though. Perhaps low morality might give bonuses to certain actions, actions that hasten their descent into evil. Examples might be hurting people, betraying friends, and invoking fear. A character could always ignore the bonuses, focusing on actions that are more positive, but then they would be roleplaying their way to higher place on the morality scale.

Alignment and morality are not needed for a roleplaying game or to play a consistent character. But they can have their place in a game if crafted to promote certain behaviors and themes. The important point however is they should enable a character and not limit their actions.