[OPR] Concepts of D&D Alignment vs VI·VIII·X Morality
Foreword
I am on Substack from March 2023 however I officially kicked off my VI·VIII·X project in March 2022: I ran for one year an “ordinary” blog with “ordinary” posts and then I moved here… Since some old posts are worth to be read to fully understand my work and purpose, I decided to re-post the most relevant ones in a new series entitled OPR (Old Post Revisited) where I simply resume these old texts, rephrase them (an ideally keep within the 4-minute length threshold I set as a golden rule) and present again since I consider them “worth to be read”.
May the fun be always at your table!
The starting point is a comparison of two “morality maps”, the D&D one on the left, and the VI·VIII·X one on the right:
The framework is similar (a 4-quadrant graph) except for Neutrality; in VI·VIII·X, neutrality is absent because I don’t support positions where an impossible balance is the main driver for any decision. I dislike the idea that a neutral character’s decisions wouldn’t be guided by their nature or motivations but rather by a forced pursuit of “balance.”
I apologize if I’m touching on a sensitive topic that goes beyond RPGs, but this is crucial: one of my game’s goals is to emphasize the importance of moral choices and consistency with a character’s inner nature. The game mechanics related to Morality are designed to discourage behavior dictated by circumstances and instead reward actions driven by what the (fictional) character genuinely feels inside.
Returning to the four remaining alignments, the D&D definitions have different origins. Interestingly, both Gygax and Arneson developed their prototypes with an alignment concept: while Gygax was influenced by Tolkien, Arneson’s ideas came from wargames and Diplomacy. In both cases, they arrived at a two-axis system: good (or law) versus evil (or chaos). For a broad and in-depth perspective, I highly recommend this reading by the excellent Tom Van Winkle. What stands out in both cases is that Gygax and Arneson were wargamers accustomed to thinking in terms of two factions. Since alignment was a nascent concept, they equated good with law (and evil with chaos). The key takeaways from this analysis:
Every character had to pick an alignment; avoiding a “faction” was not an option, as every player had to choose a side in the war between Good and Evil (or Law and Chaos).
These alignments were meant to represent a social role rather than a character’s innermost nature. This reflects D&D’s design, where characters form groups that interact with other groups—mainly NPCs—to achieve victory.
The conflict between Good (or Law) and Evil (or Chaos) was systemic, not based on the unique nature of individual characters. However, as the game evolved from broad campaign settings (Greyhawk, Blackmoor) to dungeon-crawling experiences, the Good vs. Evil dichotomy lost relevance.
Gygax realized that adjustments were needed and addressed this in his article The Meaning of Law and Chaos in D&D and Their Relationship to Good and Evil (The Strategic Review #6, Feb. 1976). While the core ideas remained, the article hinted at a shift beyond his wargamer mindset. Later, Gygax refined the model into the 9-alignment system seen in the AD&D Player’s Handbook (1978) and provided clear definitions in the AD&D Dungeon Master’s Guide (1979), moving beyond vague associations (e.g., “chaos = confusion”).
The most important section of the article is highlighted here:
This leads to a key principle: the DM must (secretly) track alignment shifts based on a character’s actions within a “morality map.” VI·VIII·X shares significant similarities with this approach, particularly in how alignment evolution is handled. My system formalizes this guideline into a structured rule affecting key aspects like character growth and divine spellcasting. However, the biggest departure from D&D is the definition of alignment itself: in VI·VIII·X, the Path represents a character’s deepest behavioral drive. Ethics and subconscious feelings originate from the Path—for instance, if a character instinctively perceives murder as wrong, it’s because of their Path. This fundamentally opposes D&D’s “social role” concept of alignment. Neither approach is inherently better or worse; my choice prioritizes serious role-playing that stays true to a character’s core nature. This is why I based the Paths on Carlo Cipolla’s model, which offers a clear (albeit less intricate) ethical structure that is easy to apply in-game.
To conclude, I know I’ve written about Morality before, and I apologize for revisiting the topic again. However, this should illustrate just how crucial I believe this element is in RPGs and why I gave it such prominence in my game. I truly hope you appreciate both this journey into RPG history—going back to 1976—and the experience VI·VIII·X offers in this regard.
Just a comment from a GM who set aside “Alignment” a long time ago…
Really appreciated this piece—especially your breakdown of alignment’s origins through the lens of wargaming. That context helps explain a lot about why the system often feels more structural than personal.
As someone who’s been GMing since the early ’70s, I stopped using alignments back in ’84 or ‘85. Even then, the notion of locking a character into a rigid moral quadrant—whether Law vs. Chaos or Good vs. Evil—felt unnatural. People (and characters) are more complicated than that. We aren’t machines built to fit cleanly into boxes, and I never felt comfortable forcing players into those shackles.
Instead, I’ve long favored what I call a “Reap the Rewards and Pay the Consequences” approach.
You want to burn down a temple? Fine. But the gods are watching, and their faithful will respond. Steal from a noble’s vault? Sure—but don’t act surprised when you’re hunted across the countryside by mercenaries with a vendetta and a bounty list. Show mercy when no one else would? That might earn you allies down the line… or enemies who see you as weak.
In my home system, I’ve replaced alignment with a living world. The GM isn’t a rules referee—they’re the eyes and ears of the gods, the judges of oaths broken, and the witness to what power demands. Morality is situational, shaped by faith, law, and consequence—not by categories like “Chaotic Neutral.”
That said, I respect what you’re doing with VI-VIII-X. It’s a thoughtful evolution of the concept that prioritizes internal consistency over external factionalism. The emphasis on a character’s Path—their instinctive moral compass—resonates with how I’ve always encouraged players to roleplay: not by what a label says they are, but by the choices they make and the prices they’re willing to pay.
Thanks for the thoughtful write-up. It’s good to see others still wrestling with the deep stuff beneath the dice.
May you always roll Natural 20’s!
~Caithe
You’ve really uncovered something for me here. I mean, it’s been a long time since I have used (or referred to… or needed) “alignment” during a game of D&D. And I think here you explain why.
Nice post!