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.
My heartfelt thanks for your message! I'd not call it comment, it could be a stand-alone post given the depth and the thoughts you left in it!
Let me say that following your approach it's not my cup of tea. However I fully understand you point and, let me add, it is not far from mine at the end of the day: consistency is granted by external events decided by GM as a 'reaction' to PCs actions... you simply shift the concept of consistency within the setting/game rather than placing it into the game mechanics side. It works for sure even this way! Thanks for sharing your view: I respect it as much as I respect mine since it gives the proper importance to smtg the mainstream games are totally lacking and I find it terrible for it is absolutely noneducational!
This leads to another call: please read "The abolition of man", CS Lewis' masterpiece! It'll open your mind about this great danger!
Heheheh, I do tend to be long-winded! lol. Appreciate the kind words—your post just sparked a lot of reflection, and that’s always the mark of something worth engaging with.
I really liked how you framed it too—consistency as a reaction to PC actions is such a great way to put it. It’s good to see different approaches that still share a common respect for meaningful consequence in storytelling.
And thanks for the C.S. Lewis recommendation—“The Abolition of Man” is going on my list!
May your worlds stay wild and your dice roll true!
…and please: if you find CS Lewis reading worth as I believe, share it as much as possible! We need to turn on our brains from this web-narcolessia! (I am sure you won't be disappointed)
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.
This is a fantastic writeup and some background I wasn't aware of (been playing since the late 80s). Thanks for doing the hard work of bringing this all together.
I agree with you that it's always tough to talk about alignment. Much of this difficulty has to do with different understandings of what alignment is to do in the game. This is in part, as I note here, because it has evolved over time: https://dungeonchatter.substack.com/p/why-no-one-understands-alignment
You make it clear where you're coming from, and that's great. For what it's worth, I do think that people could be motivated by balancing things, especially law and chaos. I confess it's much harder to see how a human could want to balance good and evil, but that's a psychological question I leave up to the relevant experts.
In the text, including what you've highlighted and the link to the Wan Wrinkle article, I don't think there's support for the social role vs. the innermost nature distinction. By 1978, these are innermost nature questions, for sure.
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
My heartfelt thanks for your message! I'd not call it comment, it could be a stand-alone post given the depth and the thoughts you left in it!
Let me say that following your approach it's not my cup of tea. However I fully understand you point and, let me add, it is not far from mine at the end of the day: consistency is granted by external events decided by GM as a 'reaction' to PCs actions... you simply shift the concept of consistency within the setting/game rather than placing it into the game mechanics side. It works for sure even this way! Thanks for sharing your view: I respect it as much as I respect mine since it gives the proper importance to smtg the mainstream games are totally lacking and I find it terrible for it is absolutely noneducational!
This leads to another call: please read "The abolition of man", CS Lewis' masterpiece! It'll open your mind about this great danger!
May the fun be always at your table!
Heheheh, I do tend to be long-winded! lol. Appreciate the kind words—your post just sparked a lot of reflection, and that’s always the mark of something worth engaging with.
I really liked how you framed it too—consistency as a reaction to PC actions is such a great way to put it. It’s good to see different approaches that still share a common respect for meaningful consequence in storytelling.
And thanks for the C.S. Lewis recommendation—“The Abolition of Man” is going on my list!
May your worlds stay wild and your dice roll true!
~Caithe
…and please: if you find CS Lewis reading worth as I believe, share it as much as possible! We need to turn on our brains from this web-narcolessia! (I am sure you won't be disappointed)
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!
The next post OPR (old post revisited) will drill even more down the topic of the alignment! Stay tuned!
May the fun be always at your table!
Yesterday I posted the first half of an old musing about morality... I hope you'll appreciate it!
This is a fantastic writeup and some background I wasn't aware of (been playing since the late 80s). Thanks for doing the hard work of bringing this all together.
I agree with you that it's always tough to talk about alignment. Much of this difficulty has to do with different understandings of what alignment is to do in the game. This is in part, as I note here, because it has evolved over time: https://dungeonchatter.substack.com/p/why-no-one-understands-alignment
You make it clear where you're coming from, and that's great. For what it's worth, I do think that people could be motivated by balancing things, especially law and chaos. I confess it's much harder to see how a human could want to balance good and evil, but that's a psychological question I leave up to the relevant experts.
In the text, including what you've highlighted and the link to the Wan Wrinkle article, I don't think there's support for the social role vs. the innermost nature distinction. By 1978, these are innermost nature questions, for sure.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best,
Travis