Alignment and Morality in TTRPGs

Moral grayness sucks and it needs to go. This post is about the rejection of moral grayness in fantasy and fiction by instructing you on the meanings of the associated ideas. I'm going to reference Avatar the Last Air Bender (AtLAB) because that's where the idea for this post began, then I retrofitted it to D&D and TTRPGs.

Spirits in AtLAB are humanized characters because they're nuanced and complex, but they do not have a mystery morality or some exotic morality. Somehow, audiences think they have some complex, otherworldly morality. This is a mistake; you simply don't fully understand the individual spirits because their thinking isn't fully explained; They have not been demystified. Similarly, there is no alignment to neutrality or evil as these are nonsensical ideas. TL;DR, you're either moral or you're lacking morality. Let me break it down.

Objective morality describes beliefs and values that are either more beneficial (or helpful) than they are detrimental (or harmful) to us, or more detrimental then beneficial, and we call these morally good (moral) or morally bad (immoral). We call morality righteous and we call immorality evil.

Amorality means without morality or lacking morality. Babies and puppies, and people and creatures who don't understand the difference between right and wrong, are amoral because they are not moral agents. A moral agent is someone who understands the difference between right and wrong and can make choices to act in ways that are right and wrong. Amorality does not necessarily mean, imply or suggest moral relativism or that one is a moral relavitist.

Immorality and amorality are not their own ideas separate and apart from objective morality. What they mean is a lack of morality.

Moral variety describes different moral values held by different people in different times and places that are still either more beneficial than detrimental or vice versa. Perspectives can change and vary, but the morality of actions can still be measured. You can argue moral relavitism, but the problem is anything can be justified if there is no objective right and wrong.

There is no category of morality that is separate from this (i.e. human morality vs spirit morality or some exotic mystery morality). You either recognize actions as being more beneficial than they are detrimental, or you don't.

Just so we're clear, I'm not arguing that one belief is true in real life and the other is false. I'm also not arguing that one belief is superior to live by in real life. I'm arguing that the belief of moral relativism sucks in fiction.

As an intentionally very simple argument, I would argue that unaliving innocent puppies is morally bad (immoral), but saving puppies is morally good (moral). Being indifferent to the unaliving of puppies could be amoral, but it's also lacking morality.

The spirits in AtLAB are depicted as being somewhere on the spectrum of good and bad, moral and immoral. Wan Shi Tong the owl library spirit for instance, demonstrates an indifference to the suffering of mankind due to a lack of interest or understanding in the human world. In our previous puppies example, this makes him lacking morality. It doesn't matter how you explain his reasoning or justify his point of view, he is lacking morality and his choice of actions and inactions would lead to outcomes that are more detrimental than beneficial. Screw Wan Shi Tong. He's a git and a prat. If Wan Shi Tong chose to unalive puppies by buring then in sand and refused to allow you to save them, you should not sit in awe of his exotic otherworldly morality. You should rightly think he's a git and a prat.

Morally gray characters are genrally (but not always) unlikable. Don't sit there and argue that your neutrally aligned D&D character is morally grey or amoral, and that somehow means he's not immoral. The moral complexity of every situation is not like the Trolly Cart Dilemma. Sometimes you're playing a character who is making choices that we would describe as more harmful than helpful (bad choices), and the reasoning for your choice may be sympathetic, but we can still say your character is lacking morality. Another neutral character who is concerned with the balance of good and bad (which is nonsensical but a valid alignment in D&D - bleh) is someone who sometimes helps evil triumph over good, and that means they occasionally make choices that are more detrimental than beneficial. Evil is not a force you're aligned to, that's also nonsensical. Evil people are moral agents who actively make choices that are more harmful than helpful (such as murder) and are significantly lacking morality. People like this should be opposed by anyone, not just those who are moral.

Moral grayness makes for unsatisfying character arcs. How does a morally gray a-hole change and still be morally gray? What do they change into, a slightly more likeable morally gray a-hole? That suggests traits or qualities that are consistent with universally likeable characteristics which would support an argument for moral objectivity. What are they going to defeat, a less likeable morally gray a-hole? You realize that if morality is relative, then its equally valid for the audience to root for the antagonist if the audience agrees with the antagonist more, right? What themes are there for morally gray a-holes? Always be yourself? I guess you could have a morally gray a-hole learn the value of being an A type morally gray a-hole after struggling with pretending to be a B type morally gray a-hole. Do I need to explain why that's linear and not growth, and also not fulfilling to sit through? It could work in a comedy. Even mean old bad old Dr. Greggory House of the series House has a heart of gold and a standard of trying to save lives.

For some supplemental material, please see this amusing 5 minute video "From my point of view the Jedi are Evil! [Legends] [Remastered]" by Seals are Good.