Using Alignment in TTRPGs: System Savvy
In recent years, the popular discourse has trended toward alignment as an outdated system that's needlessly restrictive to players and GMs alike. Wizards of the Coast seems to agree, at least in part - recent releases for D&D 5e haven't included alignment in creature statblocks.
Here's the thing. I like alignment. Jeremy Crawford, who I disagree with on a lot of topics, actually had a great definition for alignment about a year ago, stating “Your character's alignment in D&D doesn't prescribe their behavior. Alignment describes inclinations. It's a roleplaying tool, like flaws, bonds, and ideals.”
I'd argue that a lot of tables would benefit from emphasizing alignment as a character building tool, and that doing so would lead to more fleshed-out characters in many cases. Let's discuss.
Yeah, the Way 5e Categorizes Alignment Kinda Blows
Before continuing, I think it's important to jab at 5e a little, and say that the way WotC describes alignments in the Player’s Handbook is very reductive and not all that compelling. Let's look at the alignment definitions:
Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.
Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.
Unfortunately, these interpretations of alignment have poisoned the waters surrounding the discussion of alignment as a concept or game design element. This excerpt commits the cardinal sin in today's TTRPG environment: It tells players how to play their character (it’s also, of course, a direct contradiction of Crawford’s tweet about alignment’s intended use as a tool). Lawful good characters do this. Neutral good characters do that. It forces players who take the 5e alignment system at face value to feel boxed-in concerning what they can or can't do, and in a genre that promises players almost limitless creativity and options, that's bound to translate poorly.
Most of this, I think, comes as a hold-over from previous editions, where you had to play to a certain alignment to access certain game features. This, of course, led to many favorite tropes, such as the lawful stupid paladin or chaotic stupid rogue who compromise the enjoyment of everyone else at the table, justify it with "but it's my alignment/what my character would do," and move on with their day (obviously awful tabletop etiquette, but that's for another blog).
As mentioned earlier, Wizards of the Coast have responded to the backlash surrounding environments by axing alignment from monster statblocks completely, instead of trying to develop a nuanced way to tackle the concept. And, well, I just think that's silly.
Hold on - Why Do We Need Alignments Anyway?
One of the more popular arguments against alignment that I've heard is that it's simply not necessary. You can create a nuanced, interesting character that works well the party and instigates compelling stories without ever describing them as "lawful good" or "neutral evil." And that's true! You certainly can.
Alignment doesn't have to (and shouldn't) be the end-all-be-all of what defines your character. However, it is a helpful way to create a shorthand for your character's view of the world. I would argue that alignment becomes a moot point as you get further on into a campaign, but I think a lot of people undervalue it as a tool during character building and the first few sessions of a campaign.
If you're anything like me, you've had a moment where, after starting to play a new character, you find yourself flummoxed by a moral quandry of some sort. Does my character take money from the poor farmer to help find their missing pig, or do it for free? Does the answer change if my character is down on their luck and could really use the money? How do they approach the farmer in the first place? Do they scorn them? Think their work is an invaluable part of what makes society tick? Not care at all?
Unless you have a lot of time to build a character, it can be challenging to improvise these sorts of decisions at the start of a campaign when the party is still getting to know each other. Giving your character an alignment gives you some restrictions that help define how your character may approach different situations. While you may not need those guidelines after twenty sessions, they sure are useful for the first five.
Nobody "needs" to give an alignment to their character. But, doing so can prove very helpful. Even more so, if you have an alignment system that's a bit more nuanced than what 5e gives you. Bringing me to my next point...
Conceptualizing Alignment in a New Way
Funnily enough, a different Wizards of the Coast franchise - Magic: The Gathering (MtG) - has given people a great way to have a more nuanced take on alignments. In MtG, various colors represent different values, concepts, or ideals. Recently, people have taken to using those colors to create alignment charts like this one:
If you're interested in a great article on this topic, look no further.
Approaching alignment using the above system, things start to look a lot more nuanced and compelling. Using this color wheel and picking two of the colors (or principles associated with them) to define how a character may think about the world or their moral code gives you a great starting point when character-building.
But perhaps the best thing about this way of handling alignment is that it lifts the shackles of prescriptive language imposed by the traditional alignment definitions. For example, a character that chooses a White/Blue alignment could be a benevolent peacekeeper, dedicated to using knowledge to implement fair laws, or a brutal dictator who uses a font of knowledge to oppress their people. There is no "White/Blue aligned characters do this but not that" structure, which makes it a lot more fun to play around with.
This, to me, is the essence of what alignment should be. It gives players and GMs a frame for what sorts of values a character or creature may hold, and what sort of boundaries they may have, while still allowing those values and concepts to be interpreted differently by different characters.
Alignments As the Axis of Reality: Alignment for Worldbuilding
Having covered the flaws with 5e's take on alignment, given some context as to why it may be a helpful tool during character building, and provided a potential alternative, I'd like to discuss how alignment can be a useful worldbuilding device for GMs.
Some systems, such as Pathfinder 2e, take alignment a step further by making it a fundamental part of reality. The universe is constructed along the Lawful -> Chaotic and Good -> Evil axes. Deities choose a place on this spectrum to exist.
If you play a Cleric or Champion in PF2e, your alignment must follow that of your deity. The cool part about this is that different deities can be associated with different alignments, depending on how their worshippers perceive them.
For example, a cleric of Pharasma could be neutral evil, viewing worldly pleasures as sacrilege and actively hunting down individuals who use auxiliary means or magic to make their lives easier, such as wizards and inventors. Conversely, a neutral good cleric of Pharasma may actively seek out undead and restless spirits with the hope of ending their suffering, helping communities and maintaining the order of the afterlife with no ambitions toward wealth or fame.
This system, wherein alignment is an immutable truth of the world, creates interesting conflicts for characters who choose to engage in worship and may receive boons for following a deity well, or be penalized for acting against their chosen deity's values. It also does a nice job of mixing the subjective/interpretive nature of the MtG approach to alignments with a system TTRPG players are more familiar with by utilizing the Good -> Evil and Law -> Chaos approach to alignment.
As a GM, having alignments for various creatures and NPCs is incredibly useful. It gives you an easy way to understand how a creature may play off of the party. As such, folding the alignment axes into your worldbuilding system in a nuanced way can help you create interesting, three-dimensional interactions for the party by giving you a simple frame to understand the likes and dislikes of characters and societies throughout your world.
Of course, it's important to caveat this by emphasizing the importance of nuance and care when handling alignments. Covering how various fantasy tropes or races intersect with harmful racist stereotypes is a discussion far too complex for this blog to handle. I'd highly suggest literature such as Middle-earth, the Middle Ages, and the Aryan nation: myth and history in World War II or Alliterative Revivals by Christine Chism if you're interested in learning more about the topic. The series of essays Tolkien the Medievalist is also a great anthology to pick up.
Needless to say, using alignment as a worldbuilding tool to say things like "all orcs are chaotic evil" doesn't just play into potentially problematic stereotypes, it's also boring. You can do better.
Instead, go for a more comprehensive take, such as "Many members of this tiefling clan ascribe to chaotic evil practices such as sacrificing an innocent on the solstice or enslaving members of rival clans, as a manifestation of their worship to (insert deity here)." You've successfully given your party a humanoid enemy they can happily kill without moral quandary (which, yes, is generally important - having every encounter with a humanoid turn into an ethical debate isn't a type of game many people enjoy) without placing a prescriptive alignment on tieflings as a whole.
How to GM Alignment, or: Taking Away a Cleric’s Powers when They Make a God Sad
I want to cap this off with a quick word on handling alignment at the table.
First, just to cover it - parties should be made up of characters who can generally enjoy one another's presence and share moral boundaries, unless you're going for a Suicide Squad-esque campaign. If one character is out of alignment (haHAH) with the rest of the party, that's fine - character growth should always be a goal during campaigns - but there should be a way to get them on the same general page as the rest of the party.
Having one character who constantly disagrees with the party or takes actions that should reasonably see them exiled - the lawful "good" paladin killing an orphan for stealing, the chaotic "neutral" rogue who steals from the party at every given opportunity, etc. - isn't just bad form, it's also tedious. Generally speaking, the purpose of TTRPGs is to have fun with your friends and create memorable moments. Tables shouldn't allow a player to use alignment as a poor justification for being an ass.
Now, onto the meat of the matter - how do you handle alignments as a GM? What happens if the paladin or cleric commits an action that's anathema to their god or chosen alignment?
The answer to that question depends on the table. At one table, a player may love a storyline that involves them losing the powers granted by one deity and having to suffer through a few sessions without powers before rectifying the situation (whether that means changing class or choosing a different god to follow). At another table, a player may abhor that idea because it simply sounds unfun for them.
The real advice is this: Communicate with your players. Tell them during your Session 0 how you'll be handling alignment. If they're approaching a story beat where their alignment could change, or they may fall out of favor with a deity or benefactor's alignment, ask them how they'd like to handle that situation. You can - and should - put your own spin on it as the GM, but always make the party's enjoyment your priority. Tales of loss and betrayal where gods forsake their heroes and vice versa may be compelling, but not every table wants that kind of story - and that's okay.
If you've enjoyed this blog, keep an eye out! I'll be posting here several times a week (all things permitting), and plan to start turning these posts into videos soon as well. Cheers!
