PDA

View Full Version : New alignment system (D&D any, PEACH)



TuggyNE
2013-03-04, 08:10 AM
I hope this settles all arguments and lack of clarity.


A creature’s general personal attitudes are represented by its alignment. Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character.

Existence: You are a creature, a thing that exists, and can tell that it exists.

All creatures gain the ability to make Smite Existence attacks at will; use the creature's normal attack bonus and damage figures, rather than the reduced damage for attacking objects.

Note: Any class variants, alternate class features, spells, special abilities, or similar based on differing alignments no longer exist, except in a single base form.

Any class features, feats, special abilities, spells, or effects based on alignment apply to all creatures equally. This includes qualifying for classes, being affected by attacks, and so forth.

Yes, this is a joke. I'm just a wee bit tired of reductionist alignment systems, can you tell?

Razanir
2013-03-04, 09:32 AM
Please be joking. This is far too specific broad

Devils_Advocate
2013-03-04, 11:37 AM
A bit vague for my tastes. What constitutes a "creature" for the purposes of this system, and what does it mean for something to "exist"? Do noncreatures and nonexistent things lack alignment altogether, or do they have a different alignment? Regardless, if existent noncreatures aren't classified under Existence in this system, then the Existence alignment seems misleadingly named at best! Unless you're arguing that only creatures exist, of course.

PEACH
2013-03-04, 12:23 PM
I'd like to put in a friendly request to not use PEACH on jokes.

Frathe
2013-03-04, 02:19 PM
"Cogito ergo sum"

(I am thinking, therefore I exist)

-René Descartes

Plato Play-Doh
2013-03-04, 02:30 PM
Well...it's the best alignment system I've seen.

Geordnet
2013-03-04, 03:03 PM
Well...it's the best alignment system I've seen.
A bit like saying it's "the best form of government I've ever seen", but it certainly ends the debate. :smalltongue:

Razanir
2013-03-04, 03:23 PM
A bit like saying it's "the best form of government I've ever seen", but it certainly ends the debate. :smalltongue:

Not really. Now we're going to have people debating on three things:
*What defines existence
*The alignment of non-existence
*If alignments, however arbitrarily defined, are actually necessary

Lord Vukodlak
2013-03-04, 03:30 PM
If one remembers that the *&*)&*)$@ rule book says alignments are guidelines and not straight jackets then goes on examples to how a lawful good character would do something that wasn't lawful good.

The already established system would work fine.

Durazno
2013-03-04, 03:54 PM
Also, a Gelatinous Cubes and Corpse Collectors don't know that they really exist. Would attacks against them be resolved as against objects?

Because that would honestly be an interesting way to handle fortification.

Xuldarinar
2013-03-04, 04:15 PM
Also, a Gelatinous Cubes and Corpse Collectors don't know that they really exist. Would attacks against them be resolved as against objects?

Because that would honestly be an interesting way to handle fortification.

Actually, this I like. Even just in a regular game I can see argument for this. Though, does an animal know it exists?

Plato Play-Doh
2013-03-04, 05:05 PM
Since you labeled this with PEACH. Let me be honest. If you disagree, fine. But IMHO:

Just having existence as an alignment makes absolutely no sense. Posting this as an alignment system just displays what seems to be a lack of understanding of the alignment system and why its in place. Your suggestion would do better if you posted it as simply removing the alignment system from the game.

You cannot state that a single point is anything more than that point. You have nothing to contrast with. There is no system here. Now if you had things that were marked as nonexistent, then we'd at least have something to work with. But as stated before, existence isn't an alignment. It has nothing to do with morality. You cannot choose to exist or not. You can die but your body still exists, and your consciousness might continue on anyways.

The ability to smite existence has no business being there. Giving everything the ability to smite makes the ability amount to nothing. Your just adding charisma to everyone's damage rolls, and how -anyone- could add their force of personality to the force of their blows is beyond me.

{{scrubbed}}

Ummm...this, at least to me, is obviously making the suggestion that there shouldn't be an alignment system. That's the idea he wants evaluated. He just presented it in a humorous way, and there's nothing wrong with that.

TuggyNE
2013-03-04, 10:50 PM
Please be joking. This is far too specific broad

Heh. Always check for white text! :smalltongue:


I'd like to put in a friendly request to not use PEACH on jokes.

Sorry about that, PEACH! It's just part of the customary markers, and I wasn't sure what to replace it with. (It's certainly not WIP.)


If one remembers that the *&*)&*)$@ rule book says alignments are guidelines and not straight jackets then goes on examples to how a lawful good character would do something that wasn't lawful good.

The already established system would work fine.

Given that I actually quoted the intro text from the SRD (with minor adaptations), I think it should be obvious I'm aware of that. :smallwink:


Just having existence as an alignment makes absolutely no sense. Posting this as an alignment system just displays what seems to be a lack of understanding of the alignment system and why its in place.

Why thank you! I do in fact rather agree, and that's why I posted this; it's intended as satire. (Not, admittedly, very thoroughly developed, but I don't actually care about alignment as much as I do about some other things.) In short: yes, exactly, that's the joke.


But as stated before, existence isn't an alignment. It has nothing to do with morality.

Who said anything about morality? Alignment isn't necessarily about that; see my recent thread about all the different possibilities. Given that the intro pointedly doesn't mention morality, I think it's, well, workable.


The ability to smite existence has no business being there. Giving everything the ability to smite makes the ability amount to nothing. Your just adding charisma to everyone's damage rolls, and how -anyone- could add their force of personality to the force of their blows is beyond me.

Correction: there's no Cha bonus to damage, or character level to hit. Just a plain old ordinary attack and damage roll. In other words, yes, it's just a normal attack in all ways with a special name, and yes, it means nothing in practice, except for the interaction with objects, which could simplify some existing rules. (Imagining somebody charging a foe and shouting "SMIITTTEE EXISTENCE!" makes me giggle.)


Over all, the fact you labeled this as PEACH and had the tenacity to post this here, I feel to be a little insulting to those who legitimately develop content here. Your idea might have taken all of 10 seconds to come up with and post. Why I'm even responding to this is beyond me. This isn't a joke forum. This is a space for people to develop their ideas for use in game by themselves and others. If you want to post your jokes, I'm sure theres a forum for that.

Let's be fair, I think it took at least two minutes. :smalltongue: However, the satire only seemed useful in place, as it were; if I'd posted this in, say, Friendly Banter, no one would have cared. (Also, I believe the term you're looking for is "temerity".)


If you come up with an actual idea (good or bad) to be evaluated, by all means post it here. I look forward to seeing it.

Oh, I do. Or did you mean alignment-wise? Because no; I haven't yet come up with a generally-applicable system that's substantially better than the default. Nor have I yet found such a system. Perhaps at some point in the future inspiration will strike, but for now I'll keep plugging along with what I've got.


Ummm...this, at least to me, is obviously making the suggestion that there shouldn't be an alignment system. That's the idea he wants evaluated. He just presented it in a humorous way, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Basically, yes. Ah well, satire is dead, no? *insert commentary about the decline of Western civilization here*

Or, well, one of two things: either don't use alignment at all, or make it actually detailed enough to be useful. Reductionist systems are less useful; it's only classification that genuinely classifies that makes any sense. So I'd really prefer an alignment system that has at least two axes, perhaps three even, but barring a good one, using none at all is an acceptable substitute. A system that reduces to "Good, Bad, Ugly" — not so much.

Xuldarinar
2013-03-05, 12:11 AM
Hmm.. I guess I was just in a poor mood and the whole joke thing wasn't sitting well with me. I've been moody lately, IRL stuff. Anyways. as for my reference to cha, Im just assumed calling it smite would have it act as such, and If i recall correctly smite adds cha mod. Now, the core idea. I don't think the alignment system overall is vital, and to that point its not a bad idea to remove it. Personally I feel the alignment system is too simple for characters and people emphasize it too much. My solution (more or less) is to split up alignment into two sets, but i've posted that here and won't go into that under your suggestion.

TuggyNE
2013-03-05, 12:14 AM
Anyways. as for my reference to cha, Im just assumed calling it smite would have it act as such, and If i recall correctly smite adds cha mod.

Sure, most existing Smites I'm aware of do that, but there's no general rule; it's easy to infer such a thing, but not technically correct. (All of them simply explicitly state what to add to attack and what to add to damage, which is generally Cha and class level or hit dice respectively, but sometimes adds Con to attack instead.)

Network
2013-03-16, 09:28 PM
That's broken. With this system, a PrC or two and a couple of feats, you can make a character invincible. Why would any sane player want to allow such a thing to happen in their game?

Xuldarinar
2013-03-16, 10:09 PM
That's broken. With this system, a PrC or two and a couple of feats, you can make a character invincible. Why would any sane player want to allow such a thing to happen in their game?


Level 10
Paladin of Honor 2/Paladin of Freedom 2/Paladin of Slaughter 2/Paladin of Tyranny 2/Blackguard 2

Fort: +15 +(cha mod x5)
Ref: +0 +(cha mod x5)
Will: +0 +(cha mod x5)
[Cha 12-13 = +5, Cha 14-15 = +10, Cha 16-17 = +15, Cha 18-19 = +20, Cha 20-21 = +25, Cha 22-23 = +30, so on]
Base Attack Bonus: +10
Poison use
Lay on Hands equal to a 4th level paladin (total healing, Paladin levels x Cha mod/ or Paladin levels x [Cha mod x 2], pending on if you allow them to stack)
Deadly touch equal to a 4th level paladin (Same as lay on hands)

Access to 1st level Blackguard spells.

Normally i'd need to divide up stats to qualify for boneknight to get this sort of thing.

Logic for stacking: Corrupt Avenger's Grim Resolve; "Starting at 3rd level, you gain a bonus equal to your Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws. This benefit does not stack with other effects that allow you to add your Charsima bonus to saves (such as divine grace)." The exception proves the rule.

If there were variants of paladin for all alignments. at 20th level, without an alignment system, you could have x10 your charisma modifier to your saves. So, lets say you start out as a race that starts with +2 cha. You rolled an 18 for cha. Though your carrier you only added to cha, thats +5. So... Charisma 25, before item bonuses. Throw in a cloak of charisma (+6), thats 31. Add a Tome of Leadership and Influence (+5). We are at 36 Charisma. Under the x5 situation, we are looking at +65 to all saves. If you have a variant for every alignment, we are looking at a x10 situation, or... +130 to all saves.

137ben
2013-03-16, 11:13 PM
A bit vague for my tastes. What constitutes a "creature" for the purposes of this system, and what does it mean for something to "exist"? Do noncreatures and nonexistent things lack alignment altogether, or do they have a different alignment? Regardless, if existent noncreatures aren't classified under Existence in this system, then the Existence alignment seems misleadingly named at best! Unless you're arguing that only creatures exist, of course.

The defining feature which distinguishes creatures from objects is that they have a Wisdom score. In other words, a creature Exists if and only if its Wisdom Score Exists. An object without a Wisdom score can exist, but it cannot Exist. So if you use Smite existence on a door, you deal extra damage, but if you use Smite Existence on a door, you deal no damage.


I'd like to put in a friendly request to not use PEACH on jokes.
I'm curious as to why:smallconfused:
In any case, SMITE EXISTENCE!

Actually, I think this alignment system needs a second axis. In addition to Existence v.s Nonexistence, how about you can be either Pretzel or NonPancake. However, NonPretzel and Pancake are forbidden.

TuggyNE
2013-03-17, 03:35 AM
That's broken. With this system, a PrC or two and a couple of feats, you can make a character invincible. Why would any sane player want to allow such a thing to happen in their game?

I assume this is supposed to be sarcas—oh wait:
Level 10
Paladin of Honor 2/Paladin of Freedom 2/Paladin of Slaughter 2/Paladin of Tyranny 2/Blackguard 2

Fort: +15 +(cha mod x5)
Ref: +0 +(cha mod x5)
Will: +0 +(cha mod x5)
[Cha 12-13 = +5, Cha 14-15 = +10, Cha 16-17 = +15, Cha 18-19 = +20, Cha 20-21 = +25, Cha 22-23 = +30, so on]
Base Attack Bonus: +10
Poison use
Lay on Hands equal to a 4th level paladin (total healing, Paladin levels x Cha mod/ or Paladin levels x [Cha mod x 2], pending on if you allow them to stack)
Deadly touch equal to a 4th level paladin (Same as lay on hands)

Access to 1st level Blackguard spells.

Normally i'd need to divide up stats to qualify for boneknight to get this sort of thing.

Logic for stacking: Corrupt Avenger's Grim Resolve; "Starting at 3rd level, you gain a bonus equal to your Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws. This benefit does not stack with other effects that allow you to add your Charsima bonus to saves (such as divine grace)." The exception proves the rule.

If there were variants of paladin for all alignments. at 20th level, without an alignment system, you could have x10 your charisma modifier to your saves. So, lets say you start out as a race that starts with +2 cha. You rolled an 18 for cha. Though your carrier you only added to cha, thats +5. So... Charisma 25, before item bonuses. Throw in a cloak of charisma (+6), thats 31. Add a Tome of Leadership and Influence (+5). We are at 36 Charisma. Under the x5 situation, we are looking at +65 to all saves. If you have a variant for every alignment, we are looking at a x10 situation, or... +130 to all saves.

So, let me see if I've got this right. You're using the existence of variant classes and even hypothetical additional homebrew to straight-facedly say "this joke, which was not fully fleshed out to ban alignment-based classes and variants, is clearly way too easy to break"?

Also. The Corrupt Avenger's class feature that explicitly doesn't stack is given a different name; if it was named Divine Grace it wouldn't stack by default, because bonuses from the same source don't stack. (Long off-topic rant about Ninja and Monk and so on can go here, if you like.)

Finally, +yes to saves, while horribly cheesy, is only one side of a well-rounded character, and definitely not the most important.


In any case, SMITE EXISTENCE!

Yes! The rallying cry of our times! :smallbiggrin:


Actually, I think this alignment system needs a second axis. In addition to Existence v.s Nonexistence, how about you can be either Pretzel or NonPancake. However, NonPretzel and Pancake are forbidden.

I'll… think about it. :smalltongue:

Razanir
2013-03-17, 08:52 AM
Actually, I think this alignment system needs a second axis. In addition to Existence v.s Nonexistence, how about you can be either Pretzel or NonPancake. However, NonPretzel and Pancake are forbidden.

No, the second axis should be Bacon v Necktie (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality)

Network
2013-03-17, 01:33 PM
Level 10
Paladin of Honor 2/Paladin of Freedom 2/Paladin of Slaughter 2/Paladin of Tyranny 2/Blackguard 2

Fort: +15 +(cha mod x5)
Ref: +0 +(cha mod x5)
Will: +0 +(cha mod x5)
[Cha 12-13 = +5, Cha 14-15 = +10, Cha 16-17 = +15, Cha 18-19 = +20, Cha 20-21 = +25, Cha 22-23 = +30, so on]
Base Attack Bonus: +10
Poison use
Lay on Hands equal to a 4th level paladin (total healing, Paladin levels x Cha mod/ or Paladin levels x [Cha mod x 2], pending on if you allow them to stack)
Deadly touch equal to a 4th level paladin (Same as lay on hands)

Access to 1st level Blackguard spells.

Normally i'd need to divide up stats to qualify for boneknight to get this sort of thing.

Logic for stacking: Corrupt Avenger's Grim Resolve; "Starting at 3rd level, you gain a bonus equal to your Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws. This benefit does not stack with other effects that allow you to add your Charsima bonus to saves (such as divine grace)." The exception proves the rule.

If there were variants of paladin for all alignments. at 20th level, without an alignment system, you could have x10 your charisma modifier to your saves. So, lets say you start out as a race that starts with +2 cha. You rolled an 18 for cha. Though your carrier you only added to cha, thats +5. So... Charisma 25, before item bonuses. Throw in a cloak of charisma (+6), thats 31. Add a Tome of Leadership and Influence (+5). We are at 36 Charisma. Under the x5 situation, we are looking at +65 to all saves. If you have a variant for every alignment, we are looking at a x10 situation, or... +130 to all saves.
First, you can't take levels in multiple variant classes. Second, if you no longer qualify as a paladin, you loose Divine Grace. Third, Divine Grace doesn't stack with itself.

I was rather semi-seriously postuling the use of feats and abilities that spend uses of smite to improve the character, or that give extra bonuses when using smite. I didn't find anything for the first one (yet), but there's the Awesome Smite feat for the second one (Complete Champion). I expected to find more than one, but it can still be abused.

Xuldarinar
2013-03-17, 04:36 PM
First, you can't take levels in multiple variant classes. Second, if you no longer qualify as a paladin, you loose Divine Grace. Third, Divine Grace doesn't stack with itself.
.

Ok. I looked back over the books and you are wrong. I understand why you'd think that but... allow me to show you.


Unearthed Arcana; Pg 48

"Multiclassing and Variant Classes
Multiclassing between variants of the same class is a tricky subject, and the DM has to make rulings based on what is appropriate for his campaign. In cases where a single class offers a variety of paths (such as the totem barbarian or the monk fighting styles), the easiest solution is simply to bar multiclassing between different versions of the same class (just as a character can't multi class between different versions of specialist wizard). For variants that are wholly separate from the character class -such as the bardic sage or the urban ranger- multiclassing, even into multiple variants of the same class, is probably okay. Identical class features should stack if gained from multiple versions of the same class (except for spell casting, which is always separate)"


While divine grace normally wouldn't stack with itself, the 4 versions of paladin would stack with themselves if permitted. If you remove alignments from the game you can in theory qualify for all. It however is a DM decision, not a RAW decision. RAW states you can mix them and RAW states in this situation the abilities should stack.

Xuldarinar
2013-03-17, 05:55 PM
So, let me see if I've got this right. You're using the existence of variant classes and even hypothetical additional homebrew to straight-facedly say "this joke, which was not fully fleshed out to ban alignment-based classes and variants, is clearly way too easy to break"?

Also. The Corrupt Avenger's class feature that explicitly doesn't stack is given a different name; if it was named Divine Grace it wouldn't stack by default, because bonuses from the same source don't stack. (Long off-topic rant about Ninja and Monk and so on can go here, if you like.)

Finally, +yes to saves, while horribly cheesy, is only one side of a well-rounded character, and definitely not the most important.



Unearthed Arcana says your wrong, and that I put in my previous post.

As for hypothetical homebrew. No. Im talking about dragon magazine. I should have been more clear but I hadn't finished researching their existence. I wasn't going to swear on something I wasn't sure of. Anyways, Dragon 310 contains paladins of the remaining alignments. With no alignment system, they are all fair game. In dragon magazine they have the following variants; Sentinel, Avenger, Enforcer, Incarnate, Anarch. They are all variant paladins and are thus subject to the same rules as all D&D class variants. They however are only legal if you allow Dragon Magazine content in your games.

Edit: oh, and in Dragon 312 we have the Despot, Corrupter and Anti-paladin.

TuggyNE
2013-03-17, 07:45 PM
If you remove alignments from the game you can in theory qualify for all.

The funny thing, of course, is that I didn't actually state that you can now qualify for any class, feat, variant, or whatever that previously required a particular alignment; Paladin of Justice requires LG, and if you happen to only be Existing, well, that's not LG, now is it? (Bard or Barbarian, which merely require that you not be Lawful, are obviously unaffected.)

In other words, you're making up one part of the rules you'd (probably) need to have, were you to actually use this atrocity in a game, but leaving out an even more obvious and equally necessary part, in order to say "this is teh borkens!" That's invalid.

However, since I am actually in favor of being able to use jokes without everything coming crashing down, I've made the necessary changes; you can now in fact qualify for Monk, Paladin, etc, but there are no variants anymore.

Whee, my satirical homebrew is now less broken than the actual game. :smalltongue: This is probably not actually true.

Xuldarinar
2013-03-17, 07:57 PM
The funny thing, of course, is that I didn't actually state that you can now qualify for any class, feat, variant, or whatever that previously required a particular alignment; Paladin of Justice requires LG, and if you happen to only be Existing, well, that's not LG, now is it? (Bard or Barbarian, which merely require that you not be Lawful, are obviously unaffected.)

In other words, you're making up one part of the rules you'd (probably) need to have, were you to actually use this atrocity in a game, but leaving out an even more obvious and equally necessary part, in order to say "this is teh borkens!" That's invalid.

However, since I am actually in favor of being able to use jokes without everything coming crashing down, I've made the necessary changes; you can now in fact qualify for Monk, Paladin, etc, but there are no variants anymore.

Whee, my satirical homebrew is now less broken than the actual game. :smalltongue: This is probably not actually true.

Ah, that is true. You didn't specify, so I simply made an assumption on that, mostly going off of the mention that alignment is not meant to restrict. Now, my point isn't that it was broken, though it was a response to someone's statement that it was. The combo is something I can pull off regardless. I just need Boneknight 1 in the mix for it for paladin conversion. In which case I can only get up to x9 Cha mod to saves, oh woe is me. Anyways, now that you've removed variants, thats one less type of abuse that can be used.

Gnorman
2013-03-17, 08:00 PM
Unearthed Arcana says your wrong, and that I put in my previous post

I'm afraid that your interpretation of the rules is the incorrect one. If you continue to read on in the very same section of the SRD, you'll find the following quote (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny):

"These paladin variants aren't meant to be unique classes in and of themselves, but rather alignment-based variations of the paladin. They have the same Hit Die, skill points per level, weapon and armor proficiencies, and spells per day as the standard paladin. Their class skill lists are nearly identical, with exceptions noted below. Their spellcasting functions identically to that of the standard paladin (though their spell lists are somewhat different). When a class feature has the same name as a paladin class feature, it functions the same as the one described for the standard paladin." (emphasis added).

This strongly suggests that the paladin variants fall under the "variety of paths" category rather than the "wholly separate class" category. Ergo, multiclassing between them is barred.

Xuldarinar
2013-03-17, 08:15 PM
I'm afraid that your interpretation of the rules is the incorrect one. If you continue to read on in the very same section of the SRD, you'll find the following quote (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny):

"These paladin variants aren't meant to be unique classes in and of themselves, but rather alignment-based variations of the paladin. They have the same Hit Die, skill points per level, weapon and armor proficiencies, and spells per day as the standard paladin. Their class skill lists are nearly identical, with exceptions noted below. Their spellcasting functions identically to that of the standard paladin (though their spell lists are somewhat different). When a class feature has the same name as a paladin class feature, it functions the same as the one described for the standard paladin." (emphasis added).

This strongly suggests that the paladin variants fall under the "variety of paths" category rather than the "wholly separate class" category. Ergo, multiclassing between them is barred.

"...In cases where a single class offers a variety of paths (such as the totem barbarian or the monk fighting styles), the easiest solution is simply to bar multiclassing between different versions of the same class (just as a character can't multi class between different versions of specialist wizard)..."

In this case it still doesn't say they are barred. It says the easiest solution for handling them is barring them. By RAW its to the DM's discretion.

You do however make a good case, and if a DM followed what they suggested would be the easiest thing to do then it would likely be barred.

TuggyNE
2013-03-18, 03:32 AM
You do however make a good case, and if a DM followed what they suggested would be the easiest thing to do then it would likely be barred.

Or, in short, the RAW reading of the original would have prevented the abuse, and a common sense reading would have too. What, precisely, is the problem there? :smallsigh: