The Nine-Fold Path, Part 1: Alignment in Dungeons & Dragons
- R. Nelson Bailey
- Jan 28, 2024
- 46 min read
Updated: Sep 21
This essay offers a comprehensive exploration of alignment in Dungeons & Dragons. It examines what alignment is, its purpose in the game, its meaning, and how it shapes both characters and monsters on individual and social levels.
If you’d like to continue the journey, read The Nine-Fold Path, Part 2: Alignment Origins in Dungeons & Dragons, where we explore the literary roots of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil — and how these ideas shaped the alignment system used in the game.
By R. Nelson Bailey
Introduction
Alignment is a cornerstone of Dungeons & Dragons (D&D). Its concepts of player morality and ethics are integral to many aspects of the game, including character class, monster motivation, and the structure of D&D’s fantasy cosmology. However, the application of these concepts within the game is not always clear. Many heated arguments have exploded around the game table as each side debates its own interpretation of the rules.
Since first appearing in Dungeons & Dragons, alignment has been misunderstood, misapplied, and misrepresented. Players readily grasp the intent behind Good and Evil, but often struggle to understand Law and Chaos.[1] Others find the meanings of the individual alignments ambiguous[2] or simply fail to comprehend them.[3] Some claim the concept is outdated,[4] [5] simplistic,[6] [7] undefinable,[8] and not relevant to “real life.”[9] Whether these criticisms have any merit is irrelevant to this discussion. Highlighting them serves to illustrate the extent of confusion surrounding the nature of alignment. A better understanding of its concepts helps dispel many of these issues.
This article seeks to clarify the concept of alignment for both Dungeon Masters and players. Part 1 examines the purpose and function of alignment, outlining the principles of Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, and Neutrality, as well as the nine individual alignments. It also addresses common problems and misconceptions and provides practical guidance for players. Finally, Part 2 traces the origins of alignment in Dungeons & Dragons, from its beginnings in fantasy literature to its adoption and evolution within the game.
This article draws upon primary sources from the Original Dungeons & Dragons (OD&D), the “Basic” Dungeons & Dragons, and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) (1st and 2nd edition) games. However, the principles concerning alignment apply to all versions of Dungeons & Dragons, including all later versions (i.e., post-2nd edition).
A Note to the Reader: While many elements of Dungeons & Dragons reflect the “real world,” keep in mind that this is a game, not a reality simulator. Values expressed in alignments might superficially apply to many areas of life, but they do not stand as an allegory for our modern conditions. The present world is exceedingly vast and complex. Attempting to explain it through the lens of fantasy game values and motivations is simplistic and futile.
PART 1: UNDERSTANDING DUNGEONS & DRAGONS ALIGNMENT
What is Alignment?
Alignment determines how a player character, non-player character, or monster should act and respond in moral and ethical situations.[10] It is the moral code that defines their underlying worldview, their role in society, and their ultimate purpose in life.[11] Alignment simultaneously encompasses multiple domains of life, including the personal, social, political, and transpersonal. Dungeons & Dragons divides this moral code into nine individual alignments. Two main axes comprise each alignment: the “Axis of Morality,” composed of the binary opposition of Good and Evil, and the “Axis of Ideology” of Lawful and Chaotic.[12] Both axes comprise eight alignment combinations that pivot on the ninth alignment — Neutrality, which is the abstention of the morality and ideology of the two axes.
Alignment is not a measure of temperament or a substitute for personality.[13] Alignment tells nothing of a character’s individual qualities, such as their avarice, bravery, honesty, piety, sanity, and so forth.[14] However, alignment sometimes modifies these traits. For instance, a Lawful Good character who possesses intense greed would have the worst tendencies of that trait blunted. However, alignment helps define a character’s persona to a degree in the role they adopt as adventurers and heroes.[15] It serves to indicate to other characters and creatures their moral and ideological orientation.
Alignment only applies to intelligent “thinking” beings.[16] [17] This refers to creatures with an Intelligence score of 5 or higher. Creatures with fewer Intelligence points are typically (True) Neutral in alignment,[18] [19] or, more accurately, “unaligned.” These types of creatures include “normal” animals, such as domestic cats and dogs, cattle, and even dinosaurs, along with their fantasy world “giant” versions, such as giant ants, boars, and toads. It also includes non-intelligent monsters such as oozes, slimes, golems, and zombies.[20] These creatures cannot comprehend, nor have any use for, the moral, ethical, and ideological implications of other types of alignments. These creatures exist in the moment, as the will to survive another day defines their existence. In short, they have no stake in the eternal game of alignment.
Rather than merely being a philosophical abstraction, alignment is a real thing, a “force” that permeates the Dungeons & Dragons multiverse. Alignment is eternal and immutable, not relative to time or place. Each of the nine alignments emanates from a corresponding Outer Plane, such as the Nine Hells or Nirvana.[21] [22] [23] The structure of each Outer Plane takes shape from the physical manifestation of the pure alignment “force,” i.e., the alignment “stuff” or “substance.”[24] Alignment as a force is even quantifiable. Characters and beings of higher levels and Hit Dice have a stronger connection to their ethos, which an alignment detection spell can quantify.[25] Unlike the Outer Planes, all others, such as the Prime Material Plane and the Inner Planes, are unaligned.[26] This suggests that alignment is not dispersed evenly amongst individuals in the multiverse.
“I believe that such notions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ do not exist for the Chaos Lords.” — The Knight of Swords, Michael Moorcock
It bears noting that the strictures of alignment do not apply to the gods and other divine powers. Deities needn’t strictly adhere to the tenets of their own alignment, as their motivations are above the morality of common mortal beings. Their actions may even contradict their alignment.[27] This form of alignment — referred to as “free will” — also applies to certain mortal beings, such as humans and demi-humans. That these beings are free to choose and can switch their alignment attests to a level of freedom from the absolute “force” of alignment.
While the gods may freely ignore the repercussions of violating alignment, mortals often pay a price when they do so. Character classes that serve deities, such as clerics and paladins, and magic-users who have received extraplanar familiars, are more harshly judged for violations of their alignment.[28] As a result, a cleric could have some or all their spells denied, or a paladin have their powers stripped. Even player characters who follow no god must adhere to the strictures of their ethos, as the gods of their alignment watch over and aid them.[29] Characters who frivolously change their alignment of their own volition must suffer the consequences. This includes loss of powers, experience levels, and their corresponding experience points.[30]
“I don’t know about sides. I go my own way; but your way may go along with mine for a while.” — Treebeard in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Two Towers
The Purpose of Alignment
Alignment is more than a role-playing device to help players navigate moral and ethical situations. It is the bedrock of many fantasy role-playing games whose foundations were built on mythology and fantasy literature. It emphasizes the central role of the "heroic" element within the genre of heroic fantasy. To function effectively, epic stories must have heroes and villains. The former strives to succeed against adversity, while the latter seeks to thwart the hero.[31] This is the ultimate purpose of alignment: it provides an easy method to determine who is a hero, who is a villain, and who has taken no side in the struggles of these two groups. Therefore, the villain’s nature is evil,[32] while, conversely, the hero is usually good. These heroic stories follow the pattern of the Epic Sagas and Chivalric Romances of mythology and folklore, such as Beowulf, Le Morte d'Arthur, Amadis de Gaul, and the Norse sagas. These stories, along with fairy tales, served as fuel that led authors, such as J.R.R. Tolkien, Poul Anderson, and Michael Moorcock, to write modern heroic fantasy stories.[33] Their stories then helped inspire the creation of Dungeons & Dragons[34] and its concept of alignment.
Tales of heroes and villains highlight the psychological underpinnings of humankind.[35] Thus, alignment represents the moral logic of the fairy tale and mythological story. Characters within these tales represent humanity’s light (Good) and shadow (Evil) aspects in varying degrees. Tolkien used this type of imagery to indicate a person or place’s moral valuation to the reader. In The Lord of the Rings, he often represents those associated with Good with brightness (e.g., elves) or by the color white (e.g., Gandalf’s transformation from Gray to White). Conversely, darkness, shadows, and the color black are often used to signify Evil — for example, through figures and symbols such as the Dark Tower, the Black Riders, the Shadow, and Sauron.[36]
“The first [Ormazd] created life, light, and truth, the second [Ahriman] death, darkness, and falsehood.” — New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology on Zoroastrianism.
GOOD & EVIL — THE AXIS OF MORALITY
The opposition of Good and Evil forms an axis that governs the moral and ethical aspects of alignment. Both tenets seek to expand their own influence while diminishing that of the other. The world is the battleground where these opposing principles eternally war against each other. This cosmological rivalry plays out on all planes of the multiverse, which includes the Inner, Outer, and Prime Material Planes. Both principles pivot on Neutrality — the “Cosmic Balance” of Moorcock’s multiverse — which serves to keep them in check. The game’s good-bad/light-darkness dualities are closer to Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism than any modern interpretation of morality. These universal concrete laws govern the actions of all creatures in Dungeons & Dragons — humans, elves, orcs, demons, and even the gods.
Two types of morality function concurrently. First, “Relative Morality” comprises the cultural and religious rules of a society. Second, and most important to the concept of alignment, is “Universal Morality,” which governs the core principles of Good and Evil. Universal morality is mutually exclusive with relative morality, and the former always supersedes the latter when judging matters of alignment. If the rules of the latter contravene any dictates of the former, then that character, monster, or society has violated their alignment principles.
Relative Morality
Relative morality neither equates to nor determines alignment. Rather, it reflects the mores, values, and taboos that regulate individual behavior within a given society. These moral norms are culturally situated and mutable, and may be either secular or religious in origin. Each regulation carries an associated value judgment—such as “good,” “bad,” or “neutral”—as defined by the society in question. These judgments vary according to factors such as an individual’s age, gender, social class, or social status.[37] These rules either permit or prohibit specific actions. A few examples include the requirement to tithe,[38] the acceptability of associating with demi-humans,[39] and whether one should burp loudly after a meal.[40] Each society possesses its own unique set of penalties for violating these rules. The game typically eschews defining these types of rules, though some exist. Instead, each Dungeon Master must decide their exact nature as they see fit for their campaign.[41]
Example: A fighter follows a god who demands absolute bravery when battling giants. In an encounter with a raging frost giant, he flees rather than possibly perishing. Here, the character has violated the relative morality of his religion. He will probably incur the wrath of his god, depending on the degree of the violation. However, he suffers no penalties against his alignment.
“Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among men.” — The Two Towers, J.R.R. Tolkien
Universal Morality
This aspect of morality forms the bedrock of alignment, as its tenets apply to all intelligent beings. This is the “alignment force” that emanates from the Outer Planes and spreads throughout the multiverse. It is paramount to recognize the distinctive differences between universal and relative morality. The strictures of the former are ubiquitous, unchanging, and inviolate. Unlike relative morality, what is “good” for one group cannot differ from that of others.[42] These core tenets of Good, Evil, and Neutrality are explained in the subsequent sections that define the moral core of alignment. Keep in mind that these serve as guidelines rather than as a set of rigid rules. To construct such a list of inflexible strictures for the game would be as undesirable as it would be fruitless.
Example: A Lawful Good monarch implements the use of torture to extract information from captured enemies. Since torturing violates the tenets of Good, the monarch’s alignment drifts closer towards Lawful Neutral. If the leader continues to use torture semi-regularly, their alignment shifts to Lawful Neutral. If they institute torture as policy and make use of it routinely, it shifts to Lawful Evil.
Frodo: “What a pity that Bilbo did not stab [Gollum] when he had the chance!” Gandalf: “Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need.” — Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
Good Defined
Critics of alignment,[43] even some editions of Dungeons & Dragons,[44] insist that defining “good” and “bad” is impossible. They claim these concepts are relative to a specific time and place. Thus, one cannot create a clearly defined common moral code because of the myriad of divergent racial[45] and cultural attitudes and values found in the D&D universe. However, this argument ignores the distinction between relative and universal morality. The criticism holds for the former, but not for the latter.
The three basic tenets that comprise universal Good morality are: the right to exist, the right of self-determination, and freedom from suffering.[46] [47] Taken as a whole, these concepts define the essential core of Good alignment in the Dungeons & Dragons game. All Good-aligned creatures must follow these tenets; otherwise, they have violated their alignment. One must also avoid conflating relative with universal morality. The belief that one’s actions are “good” does not equate to Good in an alignment sense. An evil drow elf who slaughters innocents is doing “good” by the measure of his religion and society. However, his actions are far from the definition of Good, as it is really an evil act.
1. Right to Exist: Good posits that all intelligent beings have basic binding rights — “creature rights,”[48] if you will. Because every living being possesses existence, it ought to be accorded respect by others.[49] These rights apply to all regardless of morality, ideology, creed, religion, social class, or intellectual capability. No living being surrenders its right to exist — even those who oppose Good, the followers of Evil. Specifically, this entails extending mercy to all creatures when appropriate and refraining from depriving them of basic needs such as food, shelter, and property. Good types possess the qualities of empathy, benevolence, and trustworthiness.[50] They are especially concerned with protecting the weak and innocent. Ideally, Good judges others by their actions, not by their affiliation to a particular group or alignment.
While Good prefers to solve problems peacefully, this right does not equate to pacifism. Neither does it compel one to tolerate evil acts or behaviors. Good always defends itself against predations, especially from Evil. They seek to dampen or negate its harmful effects through conversion or containment, resorting to violence only when all else fails. However, some exceptions mitigate or nullify this right. A Good character needn’t extend mercy to creatures who present a clear and immediate danger to others, especially those with high Hit Dice.[51] [52] Examples include red dragons, wyverns, and fire giants. This includes all Evil-aligned beings native to the Outer Planes — such as demons and devils — who serve as powerful agents in opposition to Good. This right also does not apply to aligned undead or mindless creatures, such as constructs. (See “Measuring Alignment” below for additional details.)
2. Right of Self-Determination: Individuals should be free to make their own decisions and live their own lives. Forced servitude and slavery, along with exploitation and oppression in all forms, are undesirable. This includes unwarranted imprisonment, unjust restrictions, and laws that deprive one of shelter and sustenance. To have others unjustly impose their will on others denies them their freedom. Like the right to exist, this inalienable law applies to all, not just a select few. For example, a Good player character cannot enslave a non-Good creature, even if that creature has enslaved others, or belongs to a known Evil race.
However, the right to freedom is somewhat “relative.”[53] The boundaries of what denotes the oppression of others often lie in a gray area. Society can strip a criminal of their freedom if the imprisonment is morally justified. Hypothetically, many compulsory acts—such as paying taxes or mandatory military service—could be construed as violations of the right to self-determination. However, such philosophical arguments extend beyond the intended scope of this right.
3. Freedom from Suffering: Good creatures should avoid inflicting undue cruelty and suffering.[54] While both cruelty and suffering are undesirable, they are not entirely avoidable, as they form part of the natural order. What is ethically significant, however, is the intention behind the act, since deliberate actions of this nature are considered Evil. One's actions should always seek to minimize cruelty and suffering, not exacerbate them. Once again, this stricture applies to all living beings regardless of their moral leanings. For example, a Good-aligned society sentences an Evil criminal to death for their crimes. The criminal’s death should be swift and relatively painless to reduce suffering. In this way, their death does not violate this principle.
“It is against [our] principles…to use torture. Principles must never be abandoned. The end never justifies the means. Even if clinging to them means defeat, death, and remaining in ignorance.” — To Your Scattered Bodies Go, Philip Jose Farmer
Evil Defined
Evil is defined by its negative relation to Good. It reflects the Augustinian idea that Evil is the absence of Good. Evil seeks to “advance [itself] over others, by whatever means are possible, and always by the foulest of means possible.”[55] The three universal tenets of Evil are the inverse of those of Good: denial of existence, oppression of others, and desire for suffering. These principles simultaneously operate on an individual and collective level (i.e., the group, whether large or small).
1. Denial of Existence: Extreme selfishness marks the character of Evil types. They care nothing for the rights or welfare of others, and even deny the existence of such “rights.” The lives of others are expendable and meaningless. Only one possesses the right to exist. Their creed is: “I do not care how this affects others, so long as I get what I want.” Ideals, such as life, mercy, compassion, and charity, represent weaknesses that impede their own egocentric desires.[56] Evil always seeks to justify its heinous actions by distorting and obfuscating the truth of its nature.
2. Oppression of Others: Only those strong enough to keep their freedom are entitled to it. One is either the exploited or the exploiter, and only the latter is truly free. The enslavement, oppression, exploitation, and domination of others are part of the inherent order of the universe.[57] Lesser beings are chattel meant to serve the more powerful ones.[58]
3. Desire for Suffering: Cruelty, suffering, and immorality in all forms are desirable.[59] [60] Ruthlessness of the strong over the weak is a valid expression of the will. Thus, Evil types revel in torture, violence, desolation, treachery, and animosity. They are callous and remorseless to the suffering of others.
“Themes and conflicts of Law and Chaos, Skepticism and Faith…those contradictions that exist in us all.” — Michael Moorcock
LAWFUL & CHAOTIC — THE AXIS OF IDEOLOGY
The opposing forces of Lawful and Chaotic form the second major axis of alignment. While Good and Evil concern themselves with matters of personal morality, Lawful and Chaotic focus on the transpersonal social order of aligned creatures. This axis of ideology[61] concerns itself with the organization of individuals and groups, along with personal and societal needs. Because of this, many players find these ideas more difficult to understand than the morality of Good and Evil. The ordered nature of the group (Lawful) is forever at odds with the opposing force of individual freedom (Chaotic). Unlike morality, neither Lawful nor Chaotic has a judgment value attached to it. Neither is superior to the other, as they only represent different modes of expression.
“You’ll encounter grief and woe by working for chaos. Regulation is the single frail barrier between savagery and welfare.” — Emphyrio, Jack Vance
Lawful Defined
Lawful represents collective order. The strength and wisdom of the individual are minuscule compared to that of the group. Powerful civilizations rise from societies that have clearly defined and stable frameworks. Each individual sacrifices some of their personal liberties to form a stronger union. Unchecked personal freedoms can erode the foundations of society, leaving it vulnerable to the destabilizing effects of Chaos. Individuals aligned with Law value tradition, precedent, and loyalty over innovation, novelty, and inconsistency. Structure, discipline, regimentation, and conformity are central to their worldview. Lawful individuals adhere to the rules and regulations established by their social group or governing body. In decision-making, they typically defer to those of higher rank or authority. Once they begin a task or project, they are strongly inclined to see it through to completion. Lawful does not imply absolute selflessness of the individual, as self-interest is common to all alignments.[62] Lawfuls keep their word when given, so long as they have the authority to do so, and it does not conflict with their ethos. As an ideology, Lawful is distinctly impersonal in nature.
Hierarchies characterize lawful societies. Each individual has a well-defined class, rank, and position in their collective group.[63] Authority descends from the leaders and institutions of power (e.g., clergy, guilds, nobility, etc.) to the lower ranks of society. Individuals regard those of a higher rank with respect and reverence. Leaders in Lawful societies are merely figureheads for the group’s collective goals. Removing one does nothing to displace the society, as the leader’s authority is only temporarily lent to them. Lawful societies always have a system to transfer power to a new leader. Few Lawful individuals challenge the legitimacy of their system by speaking out against it or acting contrary to its principles, so long as the society holds to its ethos. Lawful societies resist or react slowly to change.
“Independence of spirit naturally accompanies our independence of person. I am [their] leader…by virtue of the fact that I am older and stronger and wiser than the others.” — Lord of Light, Roger Zelazny
Chaotic Defined
As the inverse and antithesis of Lawful, Chaotic values personal freedom and mutability over hierarchies and order. Rigid rules only stifle liberty, independence, and innovation. A person’s worth depends on their personal merit and deeds, not their station in life. Chaotic types respect direct and spontaneous action by individuals over deliberation and deference to authority and tradition.
Immediacy of thought and action characterizes Chaotic types. They prefer to take matters into their own hands, reacting first and thinking about the consequences later. They organize quickly to tackle problems, but lack the discipline for extended engagements. Unsurprisingly, their alliances only last for a short time. Due to their shifting attitudes and interests, individuals aligned with Chaos are easily distracted and tend to move quickly from one task to another.
Being independent-minded, it seems natural that Chaotic types would reject any rule, law, or taboo imposed on them. While this is true to an extent, Chaotics willingly abide by those rules that match their personal ethos. All other rules are optional, at least in their minds. Chaotics keep their word so long as it benefits their goals and interests.
Chaotic societies have little organized government and few social distinctions. The will of ordinary citizens endows their leaders with authority, never by requirement or tradition.[64] Chaotics serve others out of fear, respect, necessity, or any combination thereof. Leaders are often the strongest or most charismatic individuals within the group; however, their authority typically extends only as far as their personal sphere of influence.[65] A leader’s power derives from their reputation, wealth, charisma, fighting ability, and other such factors. Removing a Chaotic leader causes the group to collapse or creates a power vacuum for another leader to step into. Once a new leader emerges, they often replace the societal rules set by the previous leader. Chaotic groups have decentralized political power with few bureaucrats to oversee the implementation of laws.
“[He] was not a man of high character. But though he had been responsible for a certain amount of death and destruction…he was not wantonly cruel.” — The Tower of Zanid, L. Sprague de Camp
NEUTRALITY — THE EQUALIZING FULCRUM
Neutrality asserts that all parts of the universe exist for a purpose.[66] It functions as the crux of the Good-Evil and Lawful-Chaotic binaries in the Cosmic Balance. While these opposing philosophies view the other side as an anathema, Neutrality, which incorporates aspects of all alignments,[67] balances these extremes. In this way, neither side fully dominates the other, as doing so would disrupt the natural equilibrium of the universe.[68]
Self-interest motivates Neutrality.[69] The morality of Good and Evil, and the ideology of Lawful and Chaotic, is mostly irrelevant to their motivations and goals.[70] They believe in morality and ideology when it suits their personal interests, discarding anything beyond what they need. In a conflict between two opposing groups, Neutrals refrain from choosing a side. If they must, they will ally themselves with the side they believe best represents their own interests. While Good and Evil both use Neutrals to achieve their aims, neither side fully trusts these “fence sitters.”[71]
Since Neutrality sees all alignments as valid, they can act in a Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic manner occasionally without violating their alignment. The addition of a moral or ideological bent (i.e., Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic) to their alignment modifies a Neutral’s basic nature. However, its Neutral essence always remains the same. For example, Neutral Good types see no value in joining either side of the Lawful-Chaotic conflict, but actively oppose Evil. Lawful Neutrals do the same, only with an emphasis on the Lawful-Chaotic axis.
With the exceptions of Lawful and Chaotic Neutral, Neutrals favor no single mode of organization. They adopt some order from Lawful and some independence from Chaotic, and some morality of Good and Evil, depending on their preference and situation.
Understanding Alignment Oppositions
To fully grasp the entirety of alignment, one must understand each one’s relation to the other. These relationships are usually harmonious or disharmonious. Harmonious combinations have one commonality, such as that Lawful Good and Neutral Good have the “Good” element in common. These two alignments share a unity of similar ethos and outlook on life. The binary oppositions of Good versus Evil and Law versus Chaos are inherently discordant. Two types of opposition exist: minor and major. When these two opposing alignments interact, friction occurs between them.
Minor oppositions possess one conflicting element. As an example, Lawful Good and Lawful Evil.[72] Here, both share the common element of Lawful. Each side understands the other’s ideological mode of expression (Lawful), while they disagree on matters of morality (Good-Evil). Even pairs such as Lawful Good and Chaotic Good can have quarrels over the best method to promote Good. Occasionally, minor opposition alignments will collaborate to defeat a common threat. Thus, Lawful Good and Lawful Evil armies might ally to put down a Chaotic Neutral horde that threatens their shared borders.
Major oppositions occur when both aspects of two alignments conflict. For example, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil. These two alignments actively repudiate each other, taking conflicting stances on both morality and ideology. Major opposition alignments view each other with contempt and mistrust. Eternally at odds, these groups never cooperate and actively work to thwart one another.
Keywords for Alignment
Words associated with each aspect of alignment give one a greater sense of their truths and ideals. This is not a list of traits that all beings of a particular alignment possess.
Good: Altruistic, beauty, beneficial, compassionate, forthright, freedom, friendly, happiness, helpful, honest, just, kind, life, prosperous, scrupulous, selfless, trustworthy, truthful, virtuous, weal.
Evil: Corrupt, cruel, deceitful, dishonest, domineering, exploitative, harmful, hateful, injurious, malefic, obscene, oppressive, pain, remorseless, selfish, spiteful, subjugation, suffering, torture, unpleasant, vicious, wicked, woe.
Neutrality: Balanced, equilibrium, indifferent, naturalistic, self-directed, self-interested, uncaring.
Lawful: Bureaucratic, collective, conformity, dependable, discipline, far-sighted, formal, hierarchical, impersonal, inflexible, methodical, obedience, order, organized, predictable, prescribed, principled, propriety, reactionary, regimented, regularity, regulation, reliable, righteous, rigid, structure, traditional, uniform.
Chaotic: Anarchic, capricious, choice, confusion, disobedient, disordered, foolhardy, freedom, glory-seeking, impulsive, independent, individual, informal, irregular, lawless, mutable, nonconformity, personal, randomness, short-sighted, spontaneous, tumultuous, unmethodical, unpredictable, unrestrained, unruly.
ALIGNMENT COMBINATIONS DEFINED
Lawful Good
The goodness that descends from the heavens forms a great chain of being. All persons and creatures on this chain have a place in the order of the universe. The collective will of Good expands and preserves its principles through structure and order. Only in this way does the greatest good reach the greatest number.[73]
Societies based on Lawful Good value order, authority, and tradition. An established social hierarchy preserves and venerates these values. Without such safeguards in place, anarchy and iniquity would erode the foundations of society. Institutions, such as the clergy, guilds, military, and government, work to maintain order. Citizens are expected to understand and uphold their societal roles, contributing actively to the common good. They willingly forgo certain personal liberties in the service of collective order and stability. Governmental bureaucracies are responsible for administering and enforcing the laws of the land. Leadership is acquired through established means, such as democratic election or hereditary succession. Leaders are expected to be just, altruistic, virtuous, and respectful of tradition.
Lawful Good types value charity, compassion, honesty, righteousness, and obedience. They have the utmost respect for established institutions, leaders, and laws, whether their own or those of others. However, they openly resist following unjust or evil laws and never compromise their morals. These types work well in groups and follow orders. When they give their word, they keep it unless their actions would benefit Evil.
Lawful Neutral
Much as nature and the cosmos must adhere to a set of laws, so do the earthly realms of mortals. Only through structure and order does life have meaning and purpose.[74] To live without regulation and law is to descend into barbarity. Disciplined and concerted collective resolve builds civilizations. Devaluing these qualities only invites chaos and strife. Good and Evil are recognized and accepted,[75] an excessive emphasis on individual morality can undermine the cohesion of the collective. Lawful Neutrals respect all forms of tradition, conformity, and structure.
Lawful Neutral societies achieve harmony through the systematic organization of the collective. All citizens are required to follow laws established by society, whether beneficial or harmful. Each individual occupies a designated place and role within the social order. The will of the individual is subordinated to that of the group. Citizens exist to uphold the system. Only through this structure can all members of the society reap the benefits of civilization. Lawful Neutral societies maintain clearly defined hierarchical class systems and place a high value on established institutions such as religion, commerce, the military, and the ruling class. Leaders attain authority through an ordered and transparent method of selection; if power is acquired through alternative means, the legitimacy of that authority is likely to be rejected by the populace. Rulers maintain bureaucracies composed of public officials responsible for administering and enforcing laws.
Individuals of Lawful Neutral alignment work well in groups. They respect the decisions of their leader and carry out any tasks ungrudgingly. Morality matters less to them than obeisance to regulation and tradition. Rarely do they disobey the laws of their own, or of any other group. They honor their word when given to the best of their ability, unless it is to their own detriment.
Lawful Evil
Hierarchy and order are imperative to the spread of Evil. The strongest few lead the weaker masses, imposing their will on others through the force of group structure. They believe that the cooperation of the group is essential to maintain collective power.[76] Only through ruthless regimentation can society remain intact.
A Lawful Evil society maintains a veneer of civility that hides the corruption at its core. Their society demands absolute order and regulation of its citizens. The lower classes possess few or no rights. Societal rules are well-defined, and offenders are punished with cold-blooded efficiency. Bureaucracy, institutions, tradition, and laws help leaders maintain complete control over society. These tyrannical despots often abide by a different set of rules than the underclass. The established power structure tolerates corruption, violence, and depravity amongst its leaders, as long as it remains discreet and does not threaten its control. Selecting new leaders follows a predetermined process. However, they consider deceit, manipulation, and viciousness as valid methods of campaigning for the position.
Characters of this alignment respect power, authority, and the strategic use of brutality. They show no regard for individuals weaker than themselves or those of lower status; weakness is seen as an invitation for exploitation and suffering. Dissent among subordinates is not tolerated under any circumstances. Lawful Evil individuals view dishonesty and deception as legitimate means to achieve their ends. They manipulate legal systems for personal gain, often targeting the vulnerable. Oaths and contracts are treated as tools to be twisted — adhering to the letter while undermining the spirit. Although they typically honor their word once given, they feel no obligation to do so if it conflicts with their goals or personal code.
Neutral Good
That the glory and harmony of Good reign throughout the world is the primary aim of Neutral Good. How it achieves this is not as important as the goal itself. Therefore, Neutral Good does not concern itself with arguments about which ideology is best. Law and Chaos are only tools for attaining this end.[77] They never tolerate the destructive selfishness of Evil.
Neutral Good societies strive to harmonize the interests of the collective with the autonomy of the individual. Both Law and Chaos serve a purpose, but neither is favored. Society tolerates the values of others as long as they do not disrupt its natural harmony. They prefer leaders who demonstrate their commitment to the advancement of Good. Neutral Good societies follow no prescribed system of rule, as each group has its own method of governance. However, they are egalitarian in most ways.
The primary goal of Neutral Good individuals is to protect, preserve, and promote Good. These individuals do not favor any single ideology. Neutral Good types are charitable and understanding. They respect others’ beliefs, so long as they are not evil or unbalanced.
“The Cosmic Balance requires equilibrium — something of Chaos, something of Law — so that each stabilizes the other. The difference is that Law acknowledges the authority of the Balance, while Chaos would deny it.” — The Queen of Swords, Michael Moorcock
True Neutral
Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos all have their place in the natural order. Each equally has its own usefulness and purpose. Maintaining the balance of nature and the self leads to the unity of matter, mind, and spirit. Following one’s own path and minding one’s own affairs is essential to self-actualization. Worrying about others and meddling in their affairs creates problems that threaten to unbalance the system as a whole.
Neutral societies always pursue self-interest. Rules and regulations are few, and those that exist help maintain the balance of the group or natural order. They favor no single mode of organization or governance, as each group possesses its own unique system. These societies keep cooperation and conflict with other groups to a minimum, preferring self-sufficiency. They form alliances with other groups only when forces threaten their self-interest and harmony.
Neutral individuals are self-reliant and detached. Only their own goals matter to them. They are mostly indifferent to the morality and ideology of others, but work well independently or in groups. They keep their word so long as it is in their interest to do so.
Neutral Evil
The cosmos moves inexorably towards entropy. Nothing can resist the pull of darkness, coldness, silence, and death. In the end, Evil devours all. Goodness is a sham that succors the weak and prevents the strongest from attaining their deserved rewards. Law and Chaos are distractions from the attainment of pure Evil. To sow unadulterated evil is to acknowledge and harness its irresistible power for one’s own ends. Nothing matters but the self and its desires.
Societies based on Neutral Evil principles seek to promote the philosophy of Evil. It matters not how they achieve this goal. They advocate for neither Law nor Chaos. However, both are tools used in moderation to ensure that Evil flourishes. Its social structure follows no single pattern. However, all have weak central governments. Instead, these societies form a loose confederacy of groups, each with its unique system of governance. As with all Evil types, the rights of others are irrelevant. The powerful dominate the weak, using any method that works best to control and subjugate their citizens.
Personal gain always motivates Neutral Evil characters. They willingly cooperate with others, so long as their goals align. They tolerate other points of view because they see no gain in opposing them. Callous, domineering, and unscrupulous, these types seek any opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of others. They resort to violence or deceit in equal measure, using whichever best suits their present situation. Only power and evil deserve respect.
Chaotic Good
The gods and the universe might have some grand scheme for the world — or maybe they don’t. Either way, waiting for them to correct the wrongs of the world is folly. Mortals possess free will and must use it to promote Good. Individuals must follow their own conscience to combat injustice and evil.[78] Lawful acts too slowly to help those at the mercy of Evil. Rigid order robs individuals of their independence and the freedom to accomplish this goal. Only then can Good for all flourish.
Chaotic Good societies let individuals make their own choices. Each citizen abides by their own personal rules and codes. Overwrought creeds and established institutions only constrain one’s free will. This does not mean that Chaotic Good societies possess no rules and regulations. However, they exist to promote and preserve the ideals of Good and personal liberty. Citizens select the leaders who exemplify and respect these ideals. Only the most powerful, charismatic, just, wise, and honorable individuals are chosen. Leaders derive their authority not by laws or traditions, but by their personal relationships with their citizens and comrades. The administration and enforcement of laws are inconsistent and often arbitrary.
Individuals of Chaotic Good alignment equate liberty with goodness. To safeguard one is to safeguard the other. They value friendliness, charity, independence, and action over lengthy deliberation. However, they suffer from inconsistency, recklessness, and impulsiveness. Chaotic Good types work best in small, democratic groups. Others earn their respect through their abilities and deeds, not their station in life. They often keep their word, but have no qualms about not honoring it if the situation changes.
Chaotic Neutral
Any semblance of order in the universe is a mere illusion imposed on it by the foolish. The workings of nature are unknowable and inestimable. The placement of stars, patterns of the wind, and lives of mortals are all but random occurrences. All that matters is the absolute freedom of the self. A mortal’s spirit and self-determination are all they really own. When one embraces disorder, one no longer fears it. The morality of Good and Evil is inconsequential,[79] and Lawful is a binding chain of oppression.
Chaotic Neutral societies value independence, freedom, and spontaneity. The only rules needed are those made between the individual and their comrades, family, and leaders. Each individual adheres to their own personal moral code. These societies possess few class distinctions. Name or tradition never bequeaths authority to its leaders. Only individuals with the greatest influence, prowess, or charisma are chosen to lead. A Chaotic Neutral chieftain must be willing to sit amongst the common folk, not lord over them. His authority stems from the respect of his people. He loses their respect if he fails to uphold the group’s ethos. Not personally leading his warriors into battle is a prime example. People in these societies have their own customs and traditions. However, they easily abandon those that lose their value or significance, replacing them with new or borrowed ones.
Chaotic Neutral individuals live in the moment. They find planning for the future and completing prolonged tasks difficult for this reason. Adaptable, impetuous, and unruly, they seek constant stimulation. Novelty and innovation fill this need. The pursuit of new sensations and experiences frequently distracts such individuals, causing their actions to appear erratic or purposeless. Chaotic Neutrals respect the personal talents, skills, bravery, and reputation of others, not those qualities dictated by tradition and authority. They resent any form of compulsory restriction on their freedom, especially from those outside their own group.
“[The berserkers] were restless. For them was nothing in life but fighting, guzzling, swilling, and swiving.” — Hrolf Kraki’s Saga, Poul Anderson
Chaotic Evil
These types believe the universe has no meaning beyond the spontaneous desires of the self. All that matters is cruelty, mayhem, and self-gratification. The lives and welfare of others have no value or merit. Unrestricted and impulsive selfish Evil is the ultimate expression of free will. Only those ruthless and strong enough to take what the world offers succeed. All others are weak fools waiting to be trampled under the iron heel of reality.
Discord and brutishness exemplify the Chaotic Evil society. These groups have few social distinctions: only leaders, commoners, and slaves, with the latter two often being the same thing. Leaders are usually merciless warlords or criminals, such as brigands or pirates. They control their underlings and populace through wit, guile, threat, fear, and bloodshed. However, unpredictable violence and terror are their greatest tool. Showing any form of weakness invites challenges to their authority. The lack of rules concerning the succession of rulers means that challengers constantly vie for power. Their petty rivalries commonly erupt into overt violence. This results in the near constant overthrow and replacement of all but the strongest leaders. Commoners only have those rights and privileges a leader deigns to grant them, which are few or none. Chaotic Evil leaders care nothing for the welfare of their citizens, using them to bolster their power or exploit them. Periodically, a leader will offer charity to their ordinary citizens. However, this cynical gesture serves only to curry their favor.
Honor and duty mean nothing to Chaotic Evil individuals.[80] They scorn any rules and prohibitions that hamper their freedom. They live to indulge their own desires, preferably at the expense of others. Lying, cheating, and stealing are tools to achieve this end. They bully anyone weaker than themselves, and those who resist become targets for their brutality. A powerful leader can keep them grudgingly obedient. Once outside of the leader’s sphere of power, however, they do as they please. Chaotic Evil-types rarely keep their word. When they do, it is out of self-interest or whim.
Alignment in Action
While it is impossible to make a list of “dos & don’ts” for alignment, we can look at a specific scenario to see how adventurers of different alignments would act in a moral situation. In this scenario, a party of adventurers traveling through the countryside encounters a group of orcs escorting a half-dozen human captives back to their lair.
A party composed mostly of Good-aligned characters would immediately note that nothing good can come of orcs with captives. The evil humanoids likely captured the humans during a raid, thereby violating their Right of Self-Determination. The orcs may have or will abuse them, thus violating the Freedom From Suffering clause. Since they are Good, the party must take action to thwart Evil. If they are certain the orcs raided a village, they could attack them to free the captives. Alternatively, they could try to bargain with the orcs for their freedom. If outnumbered by the orcs, the party could seek assistance elsewhere or inform any local authorities of the situation. The party need not act immediately if pressed for time, or if they lack the power to do so. However, ignoring the plight of the captives counts as a violation of their alignment. Ignoring too many situations like this one could cause their alignment to shift towards Neutral.
A mostly Neutral party has a few options with this scenario, depending on their goals. They could attack the orcs or ignore them. If they free the captives, they could let them go, seek a reward for their effort, or make the captives work for them until they repay the debt.
An Evil party could attack the orcs, attempt to join up with them, or ignore them. They could even bargain with them to purchase the captives. If the Evil characters gain possession of the captives, they could slaughter them, seek a reward for their release, or enslave them.
Measuring Alignment
The intensity of alignment emanations by creatures of the same ethos is not always equal. Powerful beings exude a measurably stronger amount of Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos (depending on their alignment) than lesser creatures.[81] For example, a detect evil spell notes the “degree of evil” which flows from an Evil creature or object.[82] Only characters of 8th-level or above actually radiate evil that can be detected.[83] Undead, extraplanar beings, and monsters of higher Hit Dice (approximately five or greater) do as well. These types of creatures strongly embody their alignment, acting as exemplary agents of their ethos and actively working towards its advancement and preservation. Thus, higher-level characters rarely deviate from their alignment. The three types of monsters listed above never deviate, and never have another alignment than what the rulebooks list (see “Monster Alignment” below).
PROBLEMS & MISCONCEPTIONS
Chaotic Fallacies
A common misconception about Chaotics is that they are unstable, insane, or commit random acts just for the sake of doing so. Alignment is not a measure of one’s mental health, so most are not insane. Chaotics are independent, freedom-loving, and capricious. Many of their motivations and actions might seem random, but they are not altogether irrational. Playing a Chaotic character like a cackling madman who does and says frivolous things is a gross oversimplification of their alignment.
Lawful Fallacies
Lawful types like order and regulation. However, this does not imply that all Lawful characters are mindless rule-followers or overly uptight and fussy. Of course, some will fall into these categories. However, most are not that extreme. Keep in mind that alignment is not the same as temperament. Stereotyping an entire alignment group as having identical personality traits is not accurate. Furthermore, it quickly devolves into a tedious cliché when overused.
These types strongly favor keeping oaths. However, Lawfuls must not always strictly adhere to their word when given. They have agency and free will to act otherwise. Their alignment does not compel them to honor oaths in all cases. They needn’t keep their word when it compromises their values, endangers themselves or others, or if they do not have the authority to do so.
Good Fallacies
A false notion about Good-aligned characters or monsters is that they never strike the first blow in a fight. Nothing in the rulebooks even hints at this notion. Good absolutely will strike the first blow in a fight when they deem it necessary and have no other recourse.
While Good values honesty and forthrightness, their alignment does not require them to be truthful in all cases. Lying may be acceptable in situations where truthfulness endangers the welfare of the individual or others. For Good, lying must be a selfless act, not one that serves to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Similarly, the rules say nothing about Good-aligned clerics and paladins being prohibited from swearing, drinking alcohol, or staying celibate. Of course, a Dungeon Master can enact these rules in their game if they so desire.
“I’m Just Playing My Alignment”
You might have heard this once or twice around the game table. An exasperated player usually utters this expression after his fellow players question his character’s actions. Most often, the expression utterer’s character has committed some reckless act without conferring with the other players. Maybe his paladin attacked a hill giant in the middle of parleying for vital information; his thief stole from the party; or his barbarian punched out the town watch. Dungeons & Dragons is a game of cooperation; players must work together to overcome adversity. The player saying this expression usually has done a poor job of playing their character. Blaming one’s alignment for a character’s actions is lazy and disingenuous. Alignment does not compel anyone to act rashly or stupidly.
“The Most…”
Sometimes you hear players say superlatives like, “Nothing is as evil as Chaotic Evil,” or, “Lawful Good is the most good.” Although this may sound convincing, it is flatly incorrect. Each alignment has a distinct mode of expression that sets it apart (e.g., Good or Chaotic). However, no alignment is superior to another, and none are more “good,” “evil,” “lawful,” or “chaotic” than any other.
Consequences
The Dungeon Master must keep in mind that player character actions always affect alignment. It is the DM’s responsibility to record each violation, noting both its frequency and severity. When repeated violations tip the balance, a character’s alignment changes. As noted previously, such changes can impact class abilities: clerics and paladins may incur divine displeasure and lose their powers. Naturally, players may try to justify their choices, claiming they acted in accordance with their alignment. The DM should clarify what constitutes a violation after it occurs, but should never discourage a player from taking an action beforehand.
Infighting
The alignment system might give one the impression that allied alignments always get along. This is especially true with Good types. However, this is not at all accurate. Persons of the same alignment can have serious disagreements and disputes about needs, attitudes, or agendas. Sometimes, this stems from mistrust and miscommunication. At other times, each group pursues its own priorities, which may not align with those of the others. Rarely do two groups — even those of the same alignment — completely avoid disagreement. The difference is that Good-aligned factions seldom come to blows; their disputes are far less violent than those among Evil factions.
Irrationality
Alignment does not demand that a character or monster endanger themselves for its sake. All but the stupidest beings seek to preserve their own lives. Those who find themselves in an environment or situation where their alignment is a liability can suppress acting on its principles. For example, it would be suicidal for a Lawful Good character in a drow city to help the weak and abused souls they encounter there. Likewise, a Chaotic character visiting a Lawful city would (probably) be wise enough to curb their unruly instincts lest they end up in the city’s dungeons.
Justifying the Ends
One sticky issue in Dungeons & Dragons concerns the eternal conflict between opposing alignments. Is it the duty of each alignment (Good-Evil, Law-Chaos) to eliminate the other side with no quarter? Specifically, does this mean that one’s actions are always justifiable if it is part of the Cosmic Struggle? Some examples include the slaying of non-combatants (e.g., the young, the old, the infirm, etc.), depriving someone of food and shelter to protect others, torturing to get vital information, or killing another to save their soul. While not an issue for Evil types (after all, that is everything they stand for), this is a problem for Good-aligned characters and, sometimes, Neutrals. Can Good ever be justified in committing genocide to thwart Evil? Each group that acts in this manner considers its behavior morally justified. They might even say that these actions are the essence of Good. If killing a hobgoblin youth means one less future agent of Evil who can inflict pain and suffering on others, so much the better.
The first problem with this mode of thinking is the belief in the extermination of opposite alignments. While they have conflict, the utter destruction of the other is not an alignment’s ultimate goal. Second, one of the chief maxims of Good is recognizing another’s right to exist. These actions clearly violate that tenet. The principles of Good require more work to uphold than Evil does. The easy road is to butcher every hobgoblin — even non-combatants — so they cannot menace others. However, Good cannot do this without compromising its values and goodness. They must be ever vigilant to prevent the depredations of Evil. To battle evil in the world, Good must offer mercy to those who deserve it, convert non-Goods to their cause, and work to impede the spread of Evil. The keyword here is “impede,” which suggests there are alternatives to wholesale slaughter. Anything else simply causes Good to repudiate their own principles and become the Evil which they oppose. The ends never justify the means.
Leadership & Alignment
In Dungeons & Dragons, Charisma is the measure of a character’s leadership abilities. Alignment has nothing to do with it. Being Lawful alignment does not mean that one is innately a better leader than Chaotic, and vice versa. The only difference is how each alignment approaches leadership.
Monster Alignment
Pre-3rd edition versions of Dungeons & Dragons do not address whether monsters can change their alignment. The game is clear that humans and demi-human characters can be of any alignment. But what about other monsters? Can orcs be non-Lawful Evil? What about Evil unicorns? The rulebooks are silent on this matter; they say nothing either way. While there are examples of creatures with other alignments in the rulebooks, these are rare.[84] Ultimately, it is up to the Dungeon Master to decide whether to have monsters of non-standard alignments in their own campaign. A few things you should keep in mind about this issue, however. First, these types of monsters should be the exception. It would not be a stretch for a few Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral trolls to exist. However, a Chaotic Good troll would be a tremendously rare encounter. Second, extraplanar creatures and undead must always have the same alignment as listed in the rulebooks.[85] Finally, since higher Hit Dice creatures are paragons of their alignment (e.g., dragons, nagas, shedim). As such, they should never deviate from their listed alignment (see “Measuring Alignment” above).
Player Bias
Players often confuse their own personal sense of morality and cultural biases with alignment. This causes problems in the game. Different people have different ideas of what is “good” and “evil.” This misunderstanding can lead to confusion and in-game arguments. Players must recognize that, while a fantasy world reflects many aspects of the real world, they are not the same thing. A character must follow their alignment as defined by the game, not by their own personal definition. When in doubt, the DM is the final arbiter in all matters concerning alignment.
Player Alignment
A good portion of Dungeons & Dragons players — more than half, in my estimation — usually assign the same alignment to all their characters. This favored alignment is often the one that closely resembles their own personal morals and ethics. There is nothing wrong with a player having a preferred alignment. However, problems arise when they play a less familiar alignment. Players may choose to borrow a character, play a henchman, have their character’s alignment magically altered, or simply experiment with a different alignment. In many cases, however, the player ends up portraying the new character much as before. Instead of adopting a distinct role, the player merely plays themself. For example, a player whose personal morals most resemble Lawful Good may still portray a Chaotic Good character in the same manner. That player then ends up playing it as Lawful Good (e.g., very respectful of laws, builds group consensus before acting, delivers criminals to the authorities, etc.). The problem here is that playing this way causes all alignments to feel the same, as they no longer have solid demarcations that differentiate each one. Players should beware when they unconsciously do this. They should always try to understand the alignment of their character and play it accordingly.
Poison
In Dungeons & Dragons, character classes can use poisons without it being considered an explicitly evil act. However, the game prohibits paladins, along with Non-Evil clerics, cavaliers, and bards, from using poison.[86] For all other classes, the Dungeon Master must decide who can use them. While not expressly evil, the use of poison has a strong moral component. Most view poison as a distasteful and cruel way of slaying another living being. In most cases, it is distinctly not a Good act.
Relative Alignment
Remember, alignment in Dungeons & Dragons is not culturally or morally relevant. Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic all have defined meanings in the game. The Dungeon Master and players must know the difference between what is relative and universal in matters concerning alignment.
Willful Ignorance
Sometimes, Good-aligned characters willingly ignore the bad actions of fellow party members who are non-Good. Usually, this is because it benefits themselves or the party. The character might step out of the room while the others torture a captive for information or kill them. This action does nothing to absolve the Good characters from complicity in the non-Good action. The Dungeon Master should consider this a violation of their alignment.
ALIGNMENT OF PERSONALITIES
Below is a list of the likely alignments of many characters from fiction and popular culture. I have placed them in the alignment category that best reflects their overall nature. Note that Dungeons & Dragons’ alignment system does not always perfectly capture complex characters, and one can often make a reasonable case for a different alignment.
Lawful Good
Aragorn (The Lord of the Rings), Caramon Majere (Dragonlance Chronicles), Carson Napier (Burroughs’ Venus series), Corum Jhaelen Irsei (Moorcock’s Corum series), Eddard Stark (Game of Thrones), Edward Bond (Kuttner’s The Dark World), Holger Carlson (Anderson’s Three Hearts & Three Lions), James Bond (007 series), John Carter (Barsoom), Jon Snow (Game of Thrones), Superman (DC Comics), Tenser (Greyhawk), Thorin Oakenshield (The Lord of the Rings).
Neutral Good
Bilbo Baggins (The Hobbit), Bruenor Battlehammer (Forgotten Realms), Captain Kirk (Star Trek), Corwin (Zelazny’s Amber series), Fafhrd (Leiber’s Lankhmar series), Frodo Baggins (The Lord of the Rings), Gandalf the Grey (The Lord of the Rings), Harold Shea (de Camp’s Harold Shea series), Indiana Jones (Indiana Jones), Princess Leia Organa (Star Wars), Tanis Half-Elven (Dragonlance), Tyrion Lannister (Game of Thrones).
Chaotic Good
Batman (DC Comics), Boromir (The Lord of the Rings), Brock Samson (The Venture Bros.), Daenerys Targaryen (Game of Thrones, with Neutral tendencies), Drizzt Do’Urden (Forgotten Realms), Elminster (Forgotten Realms), Elrond (The Lord of the Rings), Dorian Hawkmoon (Moorcock’s Hawkmoon series), Kothar (Carter’s Kothar series), the Lone Ranger (The Lone Ranger), Luke Skywalker (Star Wars), Skafloc (Anderson’s The Broken Sword), Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms).
Lawful Neutral
Aunty Enmity (Mad Max), The Faceless Man (Vance’s Anome), Judge Dredd (Judge Dredd), Spock (Star Trek), Stannis Baratheon (GoT), Varys (GoT), lawyers, bankers, mercenaries.
True Neutral
Bigby (Greyhawk), Cugel the Clever (Vance’s Dying Earth series), Dr. Thaddeus Venture (The Venture Bros.), Elric of Melniboné (Moorcock’s Elric series), the Gray Mouser (Lankhmar), Han Solo (Star Wars, with Good tendencies), Jaime Lannister (Game of Thrones), Lando Calrissian (Star Wars), Max Rockatansky (Mad Max, with Good tendencies), Moonglum (Elric), Mordenkainen (Greyhawk), Ningauble of the Seven Eyes (Lankhmar), Petyr “Littlefinger” Baelish (Game of Thrones, with Evil tendencies), Sheelba of the Eyeless Face (Lankhmar), Tasslehoff Burrfoot (Dragonlance), Tom Bombadil (The Lord of the Rings).
Chaotic Neutral
Arya Stark (Game of Thrones), Conan (Howard’s Conan series), Esau Cairn (Howard’s Almuric), Rick (Rick and Morty).
Lawful Evil
Darth Vader (Star Wars), Emperor Palpatine (Star Wars), Eric of Amber (Zelazny’s Amber series), John Ominor (Saberhagen’s Empire of the East series), Kitiara (Dragonlance), Saruman the White (The Lord of the Rings), Theleb K’aarna (Elric), Tywin Lannister (Game of Thrones), organized criminals (e.g., the Mafia).
Neutral Evil
Cersei Lannister (Game of Thrones), Cthulhu (Lovecraft’s Mythos), Gollum (The Lord of the Rings), Iucounu the Laughing Magician (Vance’s Dying Earth series), Ramsay Bolton (Game of Thrones), Sauron (The Lord of the Rings), serial killers.
Chaotic Evil
Barney (Barney & Friends), Ganelon (Kuttner’s The Dark World), Joffrey Lannister (Game of Thrones), the Joker (DC Comics), Khal Drogo (Game of Thrones), the Kurgan (Highlander), Lord Humongous (Mad Max), the Monarch (The Venture Bros.), Raistlin Majere (Dragonlance), Smaug (The Hobbit), Yrkoon (Elric), criminal gangs.
Works Referenced
AD&D Core & TSR Materials
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Masters Guide, Revised Second Edition. TSR, 1995.
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook, Revised Second Edition. TSR, 1995.
Grubb, Jeff. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Manual of the Planes. TSR, 1987.
Ward, James M., & Robert J. Kuntz. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Deities & Demigods. TSR, 1980.
Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Masters Guide. TSR, 1979.
Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook. TSR, 1978.
Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual. TSR, 1977.
Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual II. TSR, 1983.
Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Unearthed Arcana. TSR, 1985.
Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Oriental Adventures. TSR, 1985.
OD&D and Supplements
Gygax, Gary, & Dave Arneson. Dungeons & Dragons, Three Volume Set. Tactical Studies Rules, 1974. Includes Volume I: Men & Magic; Volume II: Monsters & Treasure; Volume III: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures.
Gygax, Gary, & Rob Kuntz. Dungeons & Dragons, Supplement I: Greyhawk. TSR, 1976.
Arneson, Dave, & Tim Kask (ed.). Dungeons & Dragons, Supplement II: Blackmoor. TSR, 1975.
Gygax, Gary, & Brian Blume. Dungeons & Dragons, Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry. TSR, 1976.
Kuntz, Robert, & James Ward. Dungeons & Dragons, Supplement IV: Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes. TSR, 1976.
Gygax, Gary, Dave Arneson, & J. Eric Holmes (ed.). Dungeons & Dragons. TSR, 1977.
Gygax, Gary, Dave Arneson, & Tom Moldvay (ed.). Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rulebook. TSR, 1981.
Gygax, Gary, & Jeff Perren. Chainmail, 2nd ed. Guidon Games, 1972.
Articles in Dragon & Polyhedron
DesJardins, Robert B. “Alignment Theory: Defining Those Notorious Double Adjectives.” Polyhedron, no. 27, Dec. 1986.
Gygax, Gary. “From the Sorcerer’s Scroll: D&D Relationships, The Parts and the Whole.” Dragon, no. 14, May 1978.
Gygax, Gary. “From the Sorcerer’s Scroll: Evil: Law vs. Chaos.” Dragon, no. 28, Aug. 1979.
Gygax, Gary. “From the Sorcerer’s Scroll: Playing on the Other Planes of Existence.” Dragon, no. 32, Dec. 1979.
Gygax, Gary. “From the Sorcerer’s Scroll: Good Isn’t Stupid, Paladins & Rangers, and Female Dwarves Do Have Beards!” Dragon, no. 38, June 1980.
Holmes, J. Eric. “Basic D&D Points of View…” Dragon, no. 52, Aug. 1981.
Suttie, Paul. “For King and Country: An Alignment System Based on Cause and Effect.” Dragon, no. 101, Sept. 1985.
Gygax, Gary. “The Meaning of Law and Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons and Their Relationships to Good and Evil.” The Strategic Review, vol. 2, no. 1, Feb. 1976.
Fantasy & Mythological Sources
Anderson, Poul. “Awakening the Elves.” In Meditations on Middle-Earth, St. Martin’s Press, 2001.
Anderson, Poul. “Fantasy in the Age of Science.” In Fantasy. Tor, 1981.
Anderson, Poul. Operation Otherworld. SFBC, 1999.
Anderson, Poul. The Broken Sword. Ballantine, 1971.
Anderson, Poul. Three Hearts and Three Lions. Doubleday & Co., 1961.
Carter, Lin. “The Magic of Atlantis.” Introduction to Poseidonis. Ballantine Books, 1973.
Curry, Patrick. Defending Middle-Earth: Tolkien, Myth and Modernity. Floris Books, 1997.
De Camp, L. Sprague & Fletcher Pratt. The Land of Unreason. Ballantine, 1970.
De Camp, L. Sprague. H. P. Lovecraft: A Biography. Barnes & Noble, 1996.
Fannon, Sean Patrick. The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer’s Bible, 2nd ed. Obsidian Studios, 1999.
Guirand, Felix (ed.). New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology. Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1968.
Joshi, S. T., & David E. Schultz. An H. P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia. Hippocampus Press, 2001.
Lovecraft, H. P. At the Mountains of Madness. Arkham House, 1964.
Merritt, A. Dwellers in the Mirage. Paperback Library, 1960.
Miesel, Sandra. “Afterword: An Invitation to Elfland.” In Anderson, Poul. Fantasy. Tor, 1981.
Miesel, Sandra. Against Time’s Arrow: The High Crusade of Poul Anderson. Borgo Press, 1978.
Moorcock, Michael. Corum: The Coming Chaos. Eternal Champion, vol. 7. White Wolf, 1997.
Moorcock, Michael. Elric: Stealer of Souls. Ballantine, 2008.
Moorcock, Michael. Elric: The Sleeping Sorceress. Ballantine, 2008.
Moorcock, Michael. Elric: To Rescue Tanelorn. Ballantine, 2008.
Moorcock, Michael. The Eternal Champion. Eternal Champion, vol. 1. White Wolf, 1994.
Moorcock, Michael. The Road Between the Worlds. Eternal Champion, vol. 6. White Wolf, 1996.
Price, Robert M. “The Khut-N’hah Mythos.” Introduction to The Book of Iod. Chaosium, 1995.
Von Franz, Marie-Louise. Shadow and Evil in Fairy Tales, Rev. Ed. Shambhala, 1995.
Footnotes
[1] Gary Gygax, “From the Sorcerer’s Scroll: Evil: Law vs. Chaos” (Dragon, Issue 28, Aug. 1979), p. 11.
[2] J. Eric Holmes, “Basic D&D Points of View…” (Dragon, Issue 52, Aug. 1981), p. 16.
[3] Sean Patrick Fannon, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer’s Bible, Second Edition (Obsidian Studios, 1999), p. 210.
[4] Fannon, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer’s Bible, p. 210.
[5] Paul Suttie, “For King and Country: An Alignment System Based on Cause and Effect” (Dragon, Issue 101, Sept. 1985), p. 21.
[6] Fannon, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer’s Bible, p. 210.
[7] Suttie, “For King and Country,” p. 18.
[8] Suttie, “For King and Country,” p. 18.
[9] Suttie, “For King and Country,” p. 18.
[10] Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Masters Guide (TSR, 1979), p. 23.
[11] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23.
[12] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 24.
[13] Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Masters Guide, Revised Second Edition (TSR, 1995), p. 36.
[14] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23.
[15] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23.
[16] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23.
[17] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23. The game never defines exactly what constitutes a “thinking” creature. However, very few monsters of an Intelligence of less than 5 are something other than (True) Neutral. However, there are exceptions, though these are uncommon. The “normal” animal examples are all creatures typically thought of as cunningly evil; thus, they have a moral tendency towards Evil. These are the giant octopus, giant rat, dire wolf, and wolverine.
[18] Gary Gygax, “The Meaning of Law and Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons and Their Relationships to Good and Evil,” The Strategic Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 3. Strictly Neutral alignment is also known as “True Neutral.”
[19] Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Oriental Adventures (TSR, 1985), p. 29.
[20] There are some examples of “unintelligent” monstrous creatures with a non-True Neutral alignment, nearly all of whom fall on the side of Evil. Examples include the doombat, death dog, forlarren, giant strider, gryph, mantari, manes demon, and lemure devil. A few outliers, such as the blindheim, eye killer, and gorbel, are Chaotic in nature.
[21] James M. Ward & Robert J. Kuntz, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Deities & Demigods (TSR, 1980), p. 114.
[22] Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook (TSR, 1978), p. 120. This work notes that the deities who inhabit the Outer Planes are the source of alignment. However, the wording was altered in Deities & Demigods so that alignment emanates from the plane itself, rather than the deities.
[23] Gygax, Players Handbook, p. 120. The PHB states that the Positive Material Plane is the source of Good, and the Negative Material Plane is Evil. This concept was later dropped and revised in later published books.
[24] Jeff Grubb, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Manual of the Planes (TSR, 1987), p. 80.
[25] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, pp. 41 & 60.
[26] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 24.
[27] Ward & Kuntz, Deities & Demigods, p. 6.
[28] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 24.
[29] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 25.
[30] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 25.
[31] Michael Moorcock, Elric: Stealer of Souls (Ballantine, 2008), pp. 6-7.
[32] Fannon, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer’s Bible, p. 77.
[33] Moorcock, Elric: Stealer of Souls, pp. 6-7.
[34] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 224.
[35] Von Franz, Marie-Louise, Shadow and Evil in Fairy Tales, Revised Edition (Shambala, 1995), p. 12.
[36] Patrick Curry, Defending Middle-Earth: Tolkien, Myth and Modernity (Floris Books, 1997), p. 42.
[37] Gary Gygax, “Good Isn’t Stupid, Paladins & Rangers, and Female Dwarves do Have Beards!” (Dragon, Issue 38, June 1980), p. 22.
[38] Gygax, Players Handbook, p. 24.
[39] Ward & Kuntz, Deities & Demigods, p. 22.
[40] Gygax, “Good Isn’t Stupid,” p. 23.
[41] Gygax, “Good Isn’t Stupid,” p. 23.
[42] Gygax, “Good Isn’t Stupid,” p. 22.
[43] Suttie, “For King and Country,” p. 18.
[44] Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook, Revised Second Edition (TSR, 1995), p. 65.
[45] In this context, “race” means a group from a differing species or ethnicity.
[46] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23. The DMG states that, “Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and prospect of happiness.” If these three concepts sound familiar to you, it’s because they are nearly identical to the iconic “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” statement found in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence of the United States (1776).
[47] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23. The DMG notes that, “Cruelty and suffering are undesirable.”
[48] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23.
[49] Gygax, Arneson, & Moldvay, D&D Basic Rulebook, p. B11.
[50] Players Handbook, Second Edition, p. 65.
[51] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 60.
[52] Gygax, “Good Isn’t Stupid,” p. 22.
[53] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23.
[54] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23.
[55] Gygax, “Law vs. Chaos,” p. 10.
[56] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23.
[57] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23.
[58] Gygax, “Law vs. Chaos,” p. 10.
[59] Gary Gygax, “From the Sorcerer’s Scroll: D&D Relationships, The Parts and the Whole” (Dragon, Issue 14, May 1978), p. 10.
[60] Gygax, “Law vs. Chaos,” p. 10.
[61] Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Unearthed Arcana (TSR, 1985), p. 40. The game calls the Law/Chaos axis “ethics.” Since the terms “ethics” and “morality” are often used interchangeably and not entirely accurate, “ideology” is a better descriptor for social organization.
[62] Gygax, “The Meaning of Law and Chaos,” pp. 5.
[63] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 24.
[64] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 24.
[65] Gygax, “Law vs. Chaos,” p. 10.
[66] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23.
[67] Grubb, Manual of the Planes, p. 114.
[68] Grubb, Manual of the Planes, p. 114.
[69] In this case, “self-interest” is concerned with one’s own well-being and affairs, and not a synonym for “selfishness.”
[70] Grubb, Manual of the Planes, p. 115.
[71] Gygax, “Law vs. Chaos,” p. 10.
[72] Harmonious and disharmonious can exist simultaneously in the same pair of alignments.
[73] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23.
[74] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 23.
[75] Gygax, Oriental Adventures, p. 29.
[76] Gygax, “Law vs. Chaos,” p. 10.
[77] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 24.
[78] Gygax, Oriental Adventures, p. 29.
[79] Gygax, Oriental Adventures, p. 29.
[80] Gygax, Oriental Adventures, p. 29.
[81] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 60.
[82] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 40.
[83] Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 60.
[84] Specific mentions include: banshees originate from evil elves; the Greyhawk Adventures book mentions Neutral-leaning halflings and Lawful Good-leaning stone giants; the ondonti are Lawful Good orcs from the Forgotten Realms; FOR2 Drow of the Underdark notes that 15% of drow are of another alignment than Evil; the drow goddess of Good, Eilistraee, worshipped by non-Evil dark elves; REF5 Lords of Darkness includes a Lawful Good vampire NPC and notes about non-Evil undead; and the Complete Book of Humanoids details monsters of other alignments as player characters.
[85] They could have a different alignment if it was changed by magical means, such as donning a helm of opposite alignment.
[86] Gygax, Unearthed Arcana, p. 13.
Comments