D&D Alignment Survey

A survey to determine how consistently people interpret D&D alignments - looking at a range of fictional and historical characters.

A survey to determine how consistently people interpret D&D alignments - looking at a range of fictional and historical characters.

Those who play the role-playing game D&D - and even some of those who don't - will be aware that it uses an 'Alignment' system to describe the moral and personal attitudes of players, non-player characters and other intelligent creatures. This is organised along two axes: one based on Good vs Evil and the other based on Law vs Chaos. As a character can also be neutral on each axes, this gives a total of nine possible alignments.

Like all such classification systems - Harry Potter houses, Myers-Briggs personality traits, etc. - this is both a finger-in-the-air system that doesn't bear too close examination and, simultaneously, a useful framework that can be a starting point for analysis and helpful discussion. Provided one doesn't take it too seriously(1) it can be a useful means of thinking of things.

Of course, role-players being role-players, heated debates about whether a particular character is really Chaotic Good or Neutral Evil occur with almost as much regularity as spontaneous quoting of Monty Python(2). This isn't helped by the fact that each of the editions have differing definitions of the alignments (of which more below) and the fact that most players(3) will be going off the 'common sense' definitions of what the alignments mean, rather than what might have been written in the rulebook.

So, to End the Debates For All Time, I've made a survey asking what people think is the alignment of various real-life and fictional characters. I'm particularly interested to find out which individuals people agree on, and which provoke very divergent answers. The survey consists of forty multiple choice questions and all questions are optional.

As always with surveys, I would particularly encourage you to share these posts - either generally or with those who might be interested - as the more responses, the more interesting.

Before you take the survey, you can ensure you receive the results from this survey - and other posts I make - by entering your email address into the subscription form below.

If you already feel you know all about alignments and want to jump straight to the survey, you can click the link and take the survey now. Those unfamiliar with the alignment system who would like a bit more information about how it works should first read on.

As discussed, a major challenge in defining this precisely is that each edition of D&D has defined it differently. The Third Edition rules(4) are perhaps the most descriptive, but the Second Edition and Fifth Edition are also presented here for comparison.

The Second Edition was perhaps the most idiosyncratic, with the two axes presented as equilateral triangles, rather than linear axes. This led to 'True Neutral' characters being described as being extremely rare, people who were fundamentally committed to balance, to the extent that they were 'compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner'. This has largely been abandoned in later editions, to be replaced as neutral being someone who has no particular commitment to good or evil (or, alternatively, law or chaos), and many people being neutral, so I suggest you ignore it.

A more substantive challenge - and where the interest comes in - is that each of the axes encompasses a whole range of behaviours, and most people are a mixture of all of these. If the chaotic good person also kills people through a cavalier attitude to the rules and safety, are they really good, or just neutral? How much do you have to follow the law to be lawful rather than just a neutral person who doesn't want to be arrested? Each is, in any case, surely a spectrum (i.e some 'Lawful' individuals will be more 'Lawful' than others who just barely scrape in). It is a system based on virtue ethics and vibes, in which what drives and motivates a character is typically more important than the end results.

Such creates the interest, and why these matters are a perpetual source of (largely) enjoyable debate.

A summary of the 3.5 Edition definition, taken from the System Reference Document, is here:

Good Vs. Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Law Vs. Chaos

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

You can research these further using the links above, if you really wish to; however, at this point I recommend you dive in and take the survey by clicking on the link here.

Onceyou've taken this survey, please do share it with friends or on social media - it's one where it would be great to have lots of people taking part.

And you can ensure you receive the results of this survey - and any other posts that I make - by entering your email address into the subscription form below.

P.S. I'm aware that this survey will not be statistically significant or of a form that would allow general conclusions about the population to be drawn - but it will nevertheless be interesting.

(1) Of course, the game does take it seriously, with various spells, weapons and other actions having radically different effects depending on whether someone is 'evil', 'lawful' and so forth.

(2) Which no-one expects.

(3) Except for the Lawful ones.

(4) Technically speaking, the 3.5 Edition is linked.