Alignment – Good or Bad, Right or Wrong, Nice or Nasty?
Dated: 28 Nov, 2025
(sharp intake of breath as we indulge in such fierce navel-gazing that we vanish up our own arses…)
There seems to be two main schools of thought in D&D and OSR about Alignment:
- It’s an unnecessary anachronism, outdated, over complicated, restrictive and stereotyped. We don’t use it.
- It’s a simplistic system but it establishes a framework to rein-in outrageous behaviour. We use it but we don’t really pay much attention to it.
There isn’t much love out there for the Alignment system and it would be easy enough to bin it without impacting play, which is fine. If that’s you, that will work fine on Barnaynia, you can ignore this blog. We do still use Alignment on Barnaynia, however, but as a simple tool for the DM to manage NPC behaviour and motivations. We feel it makes the DM’s life easier as a simple two-word description that defines the NPC or Monster’s attitudes and values.
No, really!
The mantra is usually “How can all Orcs be evil? And what does Evil mean, anyway?” and the whole discussion gets drowned out by hand-wringing and name-calling.
The interpretation we use on Barnaynia is that the alignment given in the monster stat blocks is a profile of the organisation of the Society that the species exists within, not the built-in dispositions of every individual in that society. Non-intelligent creatures are neutral, so alignment is really about imagination and choice. So the “Neutral” of a deer or a polar bear is different from the Neutral of a Druid. “Neutral” in terms of animal intelligence or below just means the creature follows its instincts and/or evolved behaviours; there is no plan only a reaction.
While the behaviour expected of the society and the means by which one might be more successful in that society are easily defined (which I will do, shortly), the individual can express themselves in more than that one way. The Lawful Evil Orc is a good example to start with, given that is the example all the recent shenanigans on-line have been obsessed with.
So, Orcish society is Lawful Evil. What does that look like?
An extremely authoritarian regime where very specific rules are ruthlessly enforced. It is unlikely excuses and failures to conform would be tolerated, and it is almost guaranteed that a fundamental philosophy of “Might is Right” is followed unquestionably. All very unpleasant, really, although not unknown in Human Society. The classic example of a Lawful Evil Society is the Nazi Regime of the late 30s, when Hitler was ascendant and the fundamental flaws in his government hadn’t been laid bare by his military expeditions. Yes, I know that any mention of that psychotic Austrian Corporal is usually the death-nell of any Internet discussion, but bear with me.
Even within the Nazi Regime there were a number of factions and ideals demonstrated, all of them reprehensible and evil, of course, but a variety. For instance, not everyone toed the line on every rule and the truly ambitious characters made their own space to achieve their own selfish desires, which might be thought of as Chaotic tendencies. While others tolerated the new normal and kept their heads down, which is more a Neutral behaviour perhaps? And it is well documented that many of the leading policy makers in the Nazi hierarchy saw sacrificing their own morality as a burden they must bear for the benefit of future generations who would then not have to deal with the groups the regime viewed as being evil. A rabid desire to dress up their own genocidal manias as Altruism perhaps, but it was a widely professed motivation (or excuse).
If you think about the nature of some of the personalities that were embroiled in the politics you see a variety of attitudes, although all horribly flawed in some way could they all fallunder the general classification of "Lawful Evil"?
Heiss was a confused fanatic, Goebbels a shrewd operator and utterly lacking in any moral scruple; Rommel was a determined nationalist who excused the excesses of the regime as long as his personal ambitions were fulfilled; Goering was a sly and greedy egotist riding on a reputation earned many years before. Even Himmler was a sycophantic schemer and a fantasist. All Evil, absolutely, and all different in their attitudes, abilities and motivations.
So, any given Orc will be looking for a way to survive in their society, using their own talents to get ahead. Some might lack the ability to stand out from the crowd. Those that do will either attract favourable or unfavourable attention and be promoted or expelled (and probably killed). Could you have a colony of Lawful Good Orcs? Yes, absolutely, you could. But how would it have started? Where would it form and how would it manage to carve out a space for itself?
Example – there was a colony of Lawful Good Orcs on Barnaynia mentioned in some of the publications. It exists/existed (depending how you want to use it) in the Borderlands west of the southwest Baronies, beyond Troll Bridge. Their leader, a Prince of a powerful Orc tribe, had been converted by a female half-orc he fell in love with, who was a Cleric of Athena. They managed to gather a band of followers, who were also converts, thrill-seekers, fanatics or profiteers looking for an opportunity. They established a community in the near Borderlands and even managed to build a trading relationship with the bordering Human communities. Great stuff! Then the Dwarves of the Blue Mountains found out and invaded, putting them all to the sword.
The Dwarves weren’t evil, but their societal norms held that ALL Orcs were and wouldn’t believe that things could be otherwise. So it is possible for an Orc to be Lawful Good, but would that Orc actually survive? That’s a rather trite example, perhaps.
So, to summarise:
The Alignment listed for any given species is the Societal Norm; the average attitude, and individuals might vary a little around that standard but not so much that they can’t then be tolerated in that society. Any that vary a LOT might find themselves excluded, persecuted and treated with suspicion in that society. Such an individual might thrive in another society, or might find themselves in even worse straits.
For such examples, think about the reverse argument as well. Humans are generally listed as being Lawful Good. The society is supposed to be, and perhaps endeavours to be, but we know how so many Human societies have not managed this. We know there are Evil Humans, whatever that means, and they probably could succeed in an Evil, Orcish for example, society, if given a chance, but they are far more likely to be rejected (killed or enslaved) out of hand. Likewise, a Goblin, Orc or Hill Giant trying to make it in a Human society.
Likewise, there are plenty of Chaotic Humans; anarchists, free spirits and rebels, who are generally treated with suspicion and prejudice by the majority.
Conclusion: Individuals can have any alignment, but their society’s norm is as described in the various Monster tomes and individuals who vary too much from that are unlikely to be tolerated.
NEXT! What do we MEAN when we say “Evil”, or even “Good”?
I am thinking out loud here, I’m not looking for a fight or telling people how to think.
It is pretty obvious that the initial definitions of Good and Evil in the game of D&D are very much based around Christian values of belief and behaviour. For some, that can make the definitions divisive, given that most religions actually promote values and morality that are pretty similar, even if individuals and even branches of the religion seem not to practice that morality. Many factions can’t believe that other factions even have the same morality, even though treating them that way goes against their own concepts of morality. Many even claim that you can’t be a moral person if you don’t follow their religion or have no religion, which is utterly hypercritical.
On Barnaynia we instead use the more pragmatic descriptors of Kind (or Nice) and Nasty. It’s an over-simplification but we are looking for a framework for a fantasy world here, not a Theology Degree, with the aim of making the DM’s job easier without losing any verisimilitude.
So, here are our frames of reference:
Lawful – Likes structure and rules, wants hierarchical organisations where roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. Established patterns of behaviour and value systems must be respected; there is a right and a wrong way of doing things. Being unpredictable, testing boundaries and ignoring rules and guidelines make the person nervous or angry. Change is not impossible, but it will come slowly and will probably be driven from the top. The system and the process is more important than the individual’s wants or preferences. Patience is a virtue, in the individual but not the organisation, and working hard should bring rewards. Lawful persons will fight to preserve their way of life and may act against bodies who seek to live differently.
Chaotic – Impulsive, inspirational, disordered or at least able to change quickly. Delayed satisfaction is a non-starter, very much here and now. Curious and “what if we do it this way” or just living their best life and wanting to be left alone. Not necessarily disorganised but changing organisations and routines whenever they see fit. Chaotic people will resist the imposition of behavioural norms and fight for individual freedom to act in their own interest.
Kind or Nice (“Good”) – Caring and generous, treats others with respect, not judgemental. Might be spurred to action if they see things that are unfair or cruel and is certainly uncompromising. Will do good deeds without an expectation of recognition or reward and will be shocked that others do not. Will expect the “best” from people. Encourages generosity, appreciates constructive criticism but will also challenge anything that seems to ignore the needs of the individual or exploits some weakness or other. These people will fight against cruelty and selfishness.
Nasty (Evil) – Selfish, self-centred. Lacking in some or any moral restraint and very much of the attitude that the end justifies the means. Sees themse;lves as better and/or more deserving than others and will use whatever manipulation or force is necessary to get what they want. They also expect everyone else to be doing the same and will be confused by anything approaching altruistic behaviour. Will always seek the easiest path regardless of the damage done to others, perhaps even if this hasn’t worked before. A Nasty person does not view anyone or anything else with any value except as a curiosity or a means to an end. Nasty people will fight anyone who gets in their way or any system that forces them to give up what they think is theirs.
Neutral – The hardest to define but the most common attitude in most individuals about most issues. Aware of balance and unwilling to interfere where things seem to be doing OK. Happy to work hard if things are such that the effort is rewarded. If things conflict with balance, perhaps fairness, then the Neutral is willing to work or fight to balance things back out again. Nervous of extremes and seeing every extreme view or opinion as being as bad as every other. Challenges and even fights absolutism and interference, but also supports rules where they are needed for balance to be maintained. Not necessarily hands-off but not interfering either. Will probably seek the route of least resistance over sudden or dramatic change.
From these paradigms there is a whole spectrum of values, as is Human nature. Other species will vary one way or the other, in general, but any blend is, theoretically possible in any individual. Nature will provide a framework and Nurture will pull that framework in one way or another.
This may sound like Woke Nonsense to some, but will also sound like domineering inflexibility to others. I think we generally don’t realise how much our own value system influences our perception of what is Good and what is Evil. What we are trying to do here is move away from the Alignment as defining Right and Wrong, and more allowing each philosophy merely to be Different, and Different isn’t necessarily Wrong.
For instance, when reading these descriptors, one might think that they define the Capitalist system as Chaotic, Socialism as Lawful. You might even think that Communism or Capitalism are being described in the Kind or Nasty above, probably depending on your own values.
But that’s up to you. These are our thoughts about the way we run the Barnaynia we adventure in. Perhaps we just think of it as a kind of thought experiment. Perhaps that’s all it should be…
Addendums:
It’s just a Game, right? Of course, this is all in the framework of a Tabletop Role-Playing Game, but there’s stuff in D&D and OSR that relies on Alignment to work so you can’t completely get rid of it without nerfing some game-balance.
Detect Evil spells and the like will still reveal if the individual’s philosophy is opposed to or in-line with the caster’s, and that’s probably enough grounds for subsequent actions, just as it has always been.
Class limitations – Paladins have to be Lawful Good, Rangers have to be Good, Druids have to be Neutral, etc. As always, this is not so much that the training instils these values but that individuals born with these values would be selected for training.
Changing Alignment – The above discussions suggests that Alignment is a choice and not something that bonds one’s souls to a specific path (and possibly Afterlife). That seems reasonable. In Barnaynia there is no penalty for changing alignments, although it is not encouraged as the Alignment is defined by the character and changing alignment indicates a change in character. While people do change their character, this doesn’t happen often and is usually triggered by some momentous event or decision.
For instance, I have been reading about the events in Europe at the end of the Second World War. The attitude of most the GIs posted to that theatre was simply to get the job done; to defeat Nazism and go home. Individual Germans, soldiers or even the SS were generally treated with Humanity; very much a Neutral or Nice attitude. But after the discovery of the Concentration Camps and individuals visiting them, this attitude turned to anger and many subsequent actions towards the Germans were Nasty. How does one explain this change in attitude of the Gis in question in terms of Alignment?
This is a rhetorical question of course, and I definitely DO NOT wish to demote such terrifying and horrible experiences to a curiosity in a game by any of my comments in this blog.