| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 08 Feb 2026 : 15:00:00
I know many people have dropped alignment altogether these days, and that's fine. There are many ways in which it falls apart or does not suit certain groups, I understand that.
However, I enjoy the concept of alignment for a few reasons. Firstly, as a reader of Anderson and Moorcock, the cosmic law vs. chaos struggle is one that is very evocative to me. D&D cosmology is built around this, pulled directly from the authors I mentioned, and it is very ingrained in the game. Second, I am interested in how limitations in the game can be used in interesting ways to promote gameplay. This should not be a thread about abandoning alignment altogether, even if I agree that there are good reasons to do so.
Of course, things become more hairy when good and evil came into the equation with AD&D. There are two main arguments against alignment in popular discourse:
1. The descriptive vs prescriptive argument. I know where I stand on this and am less concerned with this. For the record, it never was meant to be prescriptive and I have never played it that way, but I think most people undestand this today.
2. The second is the problems with the concepts of objective or subjective morality or ethics and, especially, the application of these concepts on an entire world of people as if they were or should be treated as a monoculture.
Of course, in the real world, I do not believe in an objective morality, and understand the concept of morality in general to be an artifically constructed one that has filtered through many religions, practices and cultures.
Why should a fantasy world develop a universal concept of good vs evil? Greenwood has always been strict about his insisttence that the Realms was not and should not be modeled after the real world in any way. Of course, you can see many holes in his argument, but the broad sentiment remains and is an important one to me. I am not a fan of transplanting real world earth concepts of morality or modern notions of "progress" into fantastic worlds that are ripe for alternative imagination and ways of thinking. As much as I enjoy a lot of Eberron, the idea that technology there developed to incorporate concepts and processes that mirror real world earth follows to closely to the idea that progress as it happened in our world was inevitable.
On the other hand, personally feeling that objective morality does not exist in real world almost makes it more interesting to me as something that would exist in a fantasy world, because it is entirely fantastical.
All that being said, it makes sense to me that a world full of various people, cultures and religions would develop there own value systems. The way to use alignment in this case that makes sense to me is to ensure that each culture's version of good/evil/neutral varies depending on their, well, culture.
From what I have read, Ed Greenwood has also come to use alignment this way.
Seems simple enough, but the game works against this interpretation. For starters, while the populace of Faerun may have developed a value system, I am unsure why the gods would be concerned with such nonsense as morality. Law vs Chaos? Sure. Good vs Evil? Hard to swallow.
Further, if your culture values human sacrifice (an extreme example to help make the point) and sees it in no way as "evil", then you might have a LG Paladin who condones human sacrfice and all that comes with this. Ok, all well and good. Until that Paladin runs into a Paladin from another part of the world who follows a more real world earth view of Lawful Good.
You can extrapolate the above to many circumstances, getting even more convoluted when it comes to things like drow society.
So, in short, I am curious how people who have decided to keep the 9-point alignment system have decided to incorporate it into their game in more nuanced and interesting ways than: "Good and evil for the entire world are modern, western real world interpretations of good and evil regardless of culture and environment, and the deities all agree with that sentiment."
Note: It is my understanding that 4e and 5e made various shifts in the alignment system and affects on gameplay, so I am leaving this in the 3e section as I am concerned alignment as it exists in 1e-3e D&D.
|
| 4 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Athreeren |
Posted - 09 Feb 2026 : 07:14:57
quote:
Originally posted by AthreerenAlso, the cosmology does not claim there is an objective morality, only that there are continua between morality systems, and that the people who recognise themselves the most in the corner named "lawful good" got to decide the labels (although the truly interesting question is what counts as neutral).
can you extrapolate a little on this?
[/quote]
The simplest way to see this is to ask yourself what the morality of Sigil is? Once you accept that there is a city where demons, angels, modrons and slaads are expected to live together, it's clear that this environment does not prescribe objectively right moral solutions. Then extrapolating to different planes, you may wonder whether bringing rules to Limbo or freedom to Mechanus is the right thing to do. Which must make us think about whether we are a right to judge what is going on in the Abyss. Are there moral philosophers there? What values would they argue for? |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 09 Feb 2026 : 05:08:44
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
However, I enjoy the concept of alignment for a few reasons. Firstly, as a reader of Anderson and Moorcock, the cosmic law vs. chaos struggle is one that is very evocative to me. D&D cosmology is built around this, pulled directly from the authors I mentioned, and it is very ingrained in the game. Second, I am interested in how limitations in the game can be used in interesting ways to promote gameplay. This should not be a thread about abandoning alignment altogether, even if I agree that there are good reasons to do so.
The only times alignment really comes into play in the Realms are 1) class-vs-alignment restrictions, 2) for certain spells (like protection from evil), 3) when clerics/priests/paladins/etc must adhere to alignments which meet their deity's approval, and 4) for adventure modules which arbitrarily state flat out that this-or-that thing happens to this-or-that character because (and only because) of the character's alignment.
In my experience, alignment is largely ignored at most gaming tables unless it involves one of those things above. But when it is addressed, it is almost always some sort sort of punitive DM-vs-player confrontation or antagonism. So I can understand why some people or groups might feel that alignment is a not a good thing to have in the game and thus choose to ignore alignment entirely.
Earlier game editions (notably the AD&D editions) placed much emphasis on the importance of alignment and even attempted to incentivize "accurate" alignment roleplaying with rewards and punishments. You get 50XP because you did a "Good" thing, you lost 100XP for failing to do the "Lawful" thing, etc. Many FR authors (particularly the early authors who were influenced by the early game editions) also tried to contrive ways for alignment to be significant as a motivator and a means in their narratives. And players who've been influenced by those sources will tend to weigh their preferences with the way alignment was preferred in them.
But D&D's cosmology is built on different planes of existence and in many of those places alignment is a fundamental substrate that everything else is built from. In such places, alignment is literally the building blocks of the universe.
If you go to Hades then you are surrounded by pure Evil, every speck of dirt in the ground you stand on is made from dried blood that was spilled in suffering, every breath of air you breathe came from screams of anguish, ever spark of flame burning the landscape also sparked malice and hatred into somebody's soul.
If you go to Limbo then you are surrounded by pure Chaos, simple particles spontaneously form into complex constructs and patterns, almost like a sort of reverse entropy, atoms just create (and destroy) random things in random ways.
If you visit Alignment-based planes and powers and deities in your campaign - in a setting like Planescape instead of in a setting like Forgotten Realms - then your character's alignment is more than simple class compatibility and permission to access divine spells, and it's more than a "guide" to define roleplaying motivations, it's absolutely vital to continued existence and survival. Your example of Law-vs-Chaos in Moorcock's books is an example of a setting where alignment is meaningful, but it doesn't really apply to the Realms where alignment is somewhat variable and meaningless. |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 08 Feb 2026 : 18:50:06
quote:
Originally posted by Athreeren
a character should not systematically do the thing that best match their alignment because there are other things beyond good/evil/law/chaos, and their temperament may change as their values get challenged.
Agreed, and this is the prescriptive vs descriptive argument, the main one that was done to death in the early 2000s around alignment. The AD&D DMG describes alignment as descriptive and fluid. A character should act as they will and alignment may shift based on that.
quote:
Originally posted by AthreerenRegarding how alignment should manifest in the game:
- planes rearrange themselves in the Astral Plane based of the sum of the values of the people who live there.
- gods are more powerful on the planes that reflect their values, so they build their seat of power there.
But why would the gods have values? Especially values as created by humans in our real world? But really, at all?
quote:
Originally posted by AthreerenThis system is most interesting where it yields unexpected results. I think the idea that morality can be a physical law of the universe is so absurd it makes it an interesting tool to understand our relation to morality.
I agree. People will often mention that Moorcock and the Elric stories are unique in that he eschews popular notions of good and evil and, yes, Elric was written as a rebute to popular fantasy at the time. But Elric works as a contrast to stereotypical morality because the people around him appear to be pretty black and white examples of morality. So, in a way, D&D can be most interesting when this black and white structure is in place and characters need to navigate it.
quote:
Originally posted by AthreerenAlso, the cosmology does not claim there is an objective morality, only that there are continua between morality systems, and that the people who recognise themselves the most in the corner named "lawful good" got to decide the labels (although the truly interesting question is what counts as neutral).
can you extrapolate a little on this? |
| Athreeren |
Posted - 08 Feb 2026 : 16:59:23
I think alignment can be an interesting tool if it is used to explore the interaction of individuals' and society's values. Most importantly, it should describe stable trends, but not be rigid: a character should not systematically do the thing that best match their alignment because there are other things beyond good/evil/law/chaos, and their temperament may change as their values get challenged. I do find it interesting that in some planes, people may feel more the need to act in a certain way, and as more people act in that way, it establishes norms that are going to influence how individuals behave. And above all, individuals of a given species should not always have the same alignment; at most it should describe a higher distribution of said alignment compared to a norm.
Regarding how alignment should manifest in the game:
- planes rearrange themselves in the Astral Plane based of the sum of the values of the people who live there.
- gods are more powerful on the planes that reflect their values, so they build their seat of power there.
- gods reward people who behave according to the god's values, and would thus draw worship from people who agree with those values.
- if a religion is more present in a population, this is going to be reflected in the population's values.
- when someone dies, their soul is untethered from their body and drawn to their god. In practice, they normally go to the Fugue Plane, but this interaction makes it easier to the god to find them.
- some species by default belong to a god because of ancient pact, so their soul have the same gravitational pull, even if this is not reflected in values or worship.
- the detect alignment spell detects the moral plane toward which a soul will be drawn upon death, and says nothing about their actual morality. Those information are correlated, but one cannot be certain of the result.
- paladins are generally trained to trust in their god rather than ask questions, and usually believe that detect alignment does what it says on the tin.
This system is most interesting where it yields unexpected results. I think the idea that morality can be a physical law of the universe is so absurd it makes it an interesting tool to understand our relation to morality.
Also, the cosmology does not claim there is an objective morality, only that there are continua between morality systems, and that the people who recognise themselves the most in the corner named "lawful good" got to decide the labels (although the truly interesting question is what counts as neutral). |
|
|
