Characters make moral decisions throughout the life of a campaign. Each story is, to some degree, as much a challenge of ethics as it is a test of ability and skill.
The character’s Alignment outlines the ethical stance they hold and guides the player’s decision-making throughout the story.
Recently, I’ve been toying with alternatives to the D&D choices that have dominated gaming for 40 years or more. I’ve delved into Palladium’s excellent options, considered dropping alignment altogether, and read a lot of different takes on the usual Good-Evil Law-Chaos tropes of gamers.
As a teacher of Ethics, I’ve decided to share the prototype of my own Alignment system based on real-life ethical stances. For the purposes of this article, here are three initial ideas from my own experimentation.
3 Alignment Choices
There are a range of choices for Alignment, based on broad ethical theories that rational beings might choose to live by. Non-rational beings, such as animals or automata, do not have alignment.
Pious
Pious characters follow the guidance of their deity. In most religious practice, the Pious follow the laws or rules of their order. They view Good as that which conforms to the will or purpose of their deity. Typically, Pious characters:
- Always keep their word. Their yes means yes, and no means no.
- Avoid lies.
- Never kill or attack an unarmed foe.
- Never harm the innocent.
- Never torture for any reason.
- Never kill for pleasure, including hunting for sport.
- Always help those in need.
- Seek to work well with others.
- Respect authority, law, and honour.
- Are self-disciplined and controlled.
- Never betray friends.
- Never break the law unless conditions are desperate, or the law itself goes against the principles of their deity.
Duty-bound
Duty-bound characters follow the laws of their society and uphold their agreements. These characters have a loyalty to either an ideal or an organisation, and often both. The Duty-bound define Good as that which can be universally applied to society as absolute principles. Typically, Duty-bound characters:
- Always keep their word and oath.
- Avoid lies, even small ones.
- Never kill or attack except in self-defence.
- Never harm the innocent or vulnerable.
- Never torture for any reason.
- Never kill for pleasure, including hunting for sport.
- Always help those in need, regardless of emotional concerns.
- Seek to work well with others in order to foster social harmony.
- Respect authority, law, tradition, and honour.
- Are self-disciplined and controlled, being resistant to emotional displays.
- Never betray an associate.
- Never break the law unless conditions are desperate.
Hedonist
Hedonist characters follow the principle that the Good is that which brings the most pleasure to the greatest number of people. Typically, Hedonist characters:
- Keep their word until it no longer brings pleasure to do so.
- Lie only to protect the feelings of others, or to protect the majority from misery.
- Only kill or attack foes who would threaten the pleasure of the majority.
- Only harm those innocents who might be sacrificed in the protection of the majority.
- Only torture individuals in order to protect the majority.
- Only kill for pleasure, including hunting for sport, for as long as it does not displease the majority.
- Help others when it brings pleasure to do so.
- Work with others for as long as it brings pleasure to do so.
- Respect authority and law, as long as it brings pleasure to the majority.
- Enjoy that which brings personal pleasure, as long as it doesn’t harm the majority.
- Only betray someone in the interests of the majority.
- Only break the law when conditions mean that it is more pleasurable to do so, or when the law threatens the pleasure of the majority.
More Options Exist
There are several more options to follow. One obvious example would be the diametric opposite of the Pious: the follower of the cruel deity who might be termed Fanatical.
While I’ve based the Hedonist on Act Utilitarianism, we could also introduce those characters following variants such as Rule or Preference Utilitarianism. Then there are Situation Ethics and Virtue Ethics. The list is extensive.
My point, however, is that Alignment conceived on real ethical systems is both more satisfying and more believable than the old 9-Point approach. Good and Evil are conceived of on different assumptions, giving the players rich opportunities for roleplaying and decision-making. Surely the Duty-bound (Kantian) Paladin is intriguing?
Feel free to let me know what you think. Meanwhile, I’m off to draft a few more options for my gaming.
