Alignment & Its Critics in Dungeons & Dragons
- Dungeoneers Guild Games
- Sep 20
- 5 min read
Updated: Oct 12
A look at some problems in D&D's moral and ethical system.
By R. Nelson Bailey
Editor’s Note: This article builds on the discussion from The Nine-Fold Path essays, shifting focus from alignment’s purpose and origins to its criticisms. If you have not read them, you can find the links below.
The Nine-Fold Path, Part 1: Alignment in Dungeons & Dragons explores what alignment is, its purpose, and how it shapes characters and monsters.
The Nine-Fold Path, Part 2: Alignment Origins in Dungeons & Dragons traces alignment’s roots in fantasy literature and its evolution into the game.
Alignment is a founding tradition of Dungeons & Dragons (D&D). Present since 1974, it defines the moral compass of player characters, non-player characters, and monsters. By indicating who aligns with Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos — or who chooses Neutrality — alignment distinguishes heroes from villains and permeates the game’s cosmology.
The Value of Alignments
From the start, however, players have debated its value. Much of the Dungeons & Dragons alignment criticism centers on whether the system is too vague, too rigid, or simply outdated. Critics argue that alignment is unrealistic, simplistic, overly complex, or outdated. They see it as a vestige of an earlier era that constrains freedom. More thoughtful critics add that its rigid categories can lead to stereotyping monsters or flattening the moral depth of stories. In their view, alignment risks becoming less a role-playing guide than a straitjacket that undermines creativity.
This critique, however, misunderstands alignment's purpose in Dungeons & Dragons. Restrictions are not unique to alignment — every class imposes them. A wizard cannot wear armor; a cleric must wield blunt weapons. Such limits balance the game and give each class a defining character. Far from stifling roleplay, they create it. A paladin’s code of conduct, rooted in Lawful Good, is not a burden but a challenge: how does one uphold ideals when iniquity is everywhere? Treated as guidance rather than dogma, alignment adds dramatic tension.
This strictness mattered more in early editions of D&D. In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, druids were bound to Neutrality and paladins to Lawful Good. Stray too far, and a character loses class abilities — paladins are reduced to fighters, druids forced into clerics. Alignment was reinforced through spells such as detect evil or protection from good. In contrast, modern editions largely sideline alignment, treating it as optional.
Some take this as proof that alignment was a mistake. But if it were truly obsolete, it would have vanished entirely. Instead, even Fifth Edition retains it — stripped of penalties but still offered as a role-playing tool. Its persistence across editions shows that many players value its mythic scaffolding. The change reflects not failure, but flexibility.
Problems With Definitions
The major controversy lies in the definition of alignment. While D&D provides broad outlines of each alignment, it never clearly explains what actions count as Good or Evil, assuming players already know. In truth, this is an impossible task: the sheer variety of possible situations defies easy codification. Dungeon Masters may offer guidance, but the rules themselves provide little detail. As a result, players often project their own moral codes onto the game, which can clash with both the rules’ intent and with one another.
Critics claim this vagueness proves alignment is inherently flawed. Yet other abstract mechanics function the same way. Hit points do not literally measure blood loss; saving throws never explain why one character resists magic and another fails. Still, these mechanics work in play. Alignment is a framework, not a philosophy. Expecting it to resolve every ethical dilemma asks it to do work it was never designed for.
(Note: For a detailed analysis of each alignment as defined in D&D, see The Nine-Fold Path, Part 1: Alignment in Dungeons & Dragons.)
All About Interpretation
The real problem with alignment is interpretation. Some players conflate their personal understanding of Good and Evil with the game’s framework and resist shifting perspective in play. It is this rigidity, not alignment itself, that generates most of the conflict.
A common example illustrates the issue. A paladin hears of goblins dwelling in nearby caves. Assuming them irredeemably Evil, he attacks and slays even the noncombatants. The player justifies this as righteous judgment: since goblins embody Evil, destroying them must serve Good. Yet nothing in the rules requires paladins — or any Good-aligned character — to exterminate Evil wholesale. Paladins oppose Evil, but their calling is not to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Such actions reflect the player’s personal beliefs projected onto the game, not a demand of the alignment system.
A different example shows the same tension from another angle. Suppose a player selects Chaotic Evil as their character’s alignment, even though their own personal outlook is closer to Neutral Good. Chaos and Evil are foreign concepts to them, but they decide to give it a try. When the character faces moral or ethical choices, however, the player often reverts to their natural Neutral Good instincts. They hesitate to kill in cold blood or behave cruelly, feeling uncomfortable acting as a true villain. In this situation, the player has two options:
Play according to their natural tendencies and allow their Neutral Good outlook to override the chosen alignment.
Adopt the character’s perspective and make decisions through the lens of Chaotic Evil, even if it feels unnatural.
As it is a role-playing game, Option 1 is not desirable, since it forces the character into an alignment that does not represent what Chaotic Evil entails. Option 2 is the preferred choice. If the player cannot follow Option 2, they should either abandon the character or change its alignment.
Some argue that such examples prove alignment itself is the problem. Yet the misuse of a rule does not prove the rule is broken. Players misapply many mechanics without calling for their abolition. Often, a player chooses a class for its power while disregarding its alignment requirements, or picks an alignment without understanding it, then bends it to fit their preferences. The flexibility of alignment was intentional: it was always meant to be interpreted at the table by the Dungeon Master.
Others contend that moral absolutes have no place in RPGs, that modern storytelling demands shades of gray. But D&D was never designed as a simulation of modern ethics — it is a heroic adventure game. Myths thrive on archetypes: Light versus Darkness, Good versus Evil. Alignment provides that scaffolding. Players may add nuance, but alignment preserves the game’s mythic roots.
Conclusion
Alignment elevates Dungeons & Dragons from the mundane to the heroic and mythic — the realm of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, St. George and the Dragon, and Hrothgar’s hall. It enriches play by defining the game’s moral landscape. Despite criticisms, the problem has never been alignment itself, but the unwillingness of some players and DMs to treat it as a flexible guide rather than a binding code. Alignment endures because it is the mythic compass that guides Dungeons & Dragons on its course.
Comments