Ways to get rid of alignement?

[SolkaTruesilver]

I have been thinking (beware, people!!) after reading "4th edition is dumbed-down", of an efficient way to remove the alignement system in a game. I played WFRP, and one of the thing I love about it is the complete absence of alignment. You play your character as you like it, period.

Now, however, there are still class features/spells/magic items/plane who.. err.. require some sort of ethical judgement to them.

First, the clerics/paladin/druids. This one is quite easy. Just look at the Druid's restriction. Most of them comes from a VOW they took, which is some sort of moral obligation to respect rules imposed by your god. Warhammer uses the same kind of principle, where you don't have to be of a certain alignement to be the priest of a god, but you have to respect some.. religious rules.

So will end the eternal "paladin arguments", since the paladin doesn't have to be "Lawful Good" anymore, but follow, like, 15 rules given by their god to the letter. There rules would, off course, also contain the "Paladin Code", so let's make sure we don't leave out things about it. The paladin couln't associate with a "known thief" (for example), rather than an "evil person". Evil is simply WAY too subjective for a game mechanic to evaluate (IMHO).

Also, that would allow some definite difference between paladins of different code, since they would follow different moralities.

(also, you could restrict spell access to the clerics in themes more appropriate to the God's idea, rather than a mere "chaotic/lawful/evil/good")

Spells like "protection from evil" "detect evil" etc.. would change a lot, that's for sure. I am not really certain how we could integrate the "detect evil" class ability to the Paladin. I was thinking, maybe, he could detect peoples who have a morality who directly (and without remorse) conflict with their God's morality.

Since a paladin has to "respect the law" (well... all right, maybe not) , such "detection" shouldn't be considered "proof" for a crime. So a Paladin should use such ability merely to be wary, not to inflict retribution.

Off course, it would allow a rigid theocracy to exist. Imagine a pseudo-Azurite city with paladins patrolling the street to detect "deviant" psychologies, to arrest them?

Let's get rid of all that Good God/Evil God. Now, gods simply follow a certain ideology. There can be Paladin of Nerull (and yes, they still can heal). Their "good" morality would simply be.. in conflict with many other Gods'...


As for class requirement that says "cannot be good" (example: Mindbender). I think the creators meant that anyone who is willingly going into other people's mind, thralling them and bending their will cannot be a good person. Since to BE a Mindbender, you already admited you don't care to those things, I think we can get rid of such requirements.

Off course, every single spells/class should be re-evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Negative Energy/Positive Energy, off course, loose their good/evil descriptor (I always found this stupid, anyway. So, healing a bad guy is a good act? Hurting him is an evil act???)

[Draz74]

I like getting rid of alignment entirely, and replacing it with a Taint system. Detect Evil? No, now the Paladin has Detect Taint. And Smite Tainted One.

The UA Taint system isn't perfect, of course ... I'm working (eventually) on one of my own.

One thing that's great about this is that the DM can decide for his own world how morally ambiguous the system can be. In one world, everything Tainted is bad, and anyone ridiculously evil (repeated murderer) will be Tainted. In another world, Fey are Tainted whether they're evil or not, and the callous greedy serial killer warlord who murders his more annoying underlings isn't Tainted, as long as he has kept himself far away from fiends, necromancy, fey, and some other specific sources of evil.

[nagora]

I have been thinking (beware, people!!) after reading "4th edition is dumbed-down", of an efficient way to remove the alignement system in a game. I played WFRP, and one of the thing I love about it is the complete absence of alignment. You play your character as you like it, period.

Can you give an example of how the D&D alignment system stops you playing the character as you want to? I've never seen that happen in 30 years of play.

[Arioch]

The campaign world I'm using at the moment (and have two or three other campaign ideas within) doesn't use alignment at all. I just got rid of any spell or ability that is entirely dependant on alignment, axed paladins, put more focus on ToB classes (the country that had paladins before I made that decision now has crusaders instead), and made the whole thing war-torn. Oh, and I axed Common too. Each nation has their own language.

I'm enjoying DMing it far more than I did my other, more traditional world.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Basically, just replace all references to alignment with references to subtypes or the "aura of X" ability. Only Evil outsiders and Evil clerics register on detect evil, etc. This minimizes changes by removing the need to change the cosmology.

The Taint system option is also cool, and very appropriate for campaigns using Heroes of Horror (since alignment and alignment detection really screw up horror games).

[Morty]

Despite what may seem, it's not that hard to remove the alignment system from 3ed D&D, the only real obstacle being paladins, and you've already suggested a lot of ways to deal with them. The best way, in my opinion, would be to create few paladin codes of conduct that explain what this particular knightly order reveres and despises. Those codes of conduct would point out the main enemies of the order, whom paladin would be able to smite. A standard, goody-two-shoes paladin order would despise fiends, undead and those who prey on the weak and defenseless, which means they can smite either fiends, undead, or those who attempt to take advantage of others(i.e bandits, cultists of "evil" gods, and so on). Detect Evil could be replaced by bonuses to Sense Motive.

[Inhuman Bot]

The prot. from and detect spells could become "smite infidel" Or "protection from the faithless" or something.

[John Campbell]

Can you give an example of how the D&D alignment system stops you playing the character as you want to? I've never seen that happen in 30 years of play.

You've never had a DM tell you, "Your character wouldn't do that; he's [alignment]," or, "That's not an [alignment] act; if you keep doing it, your alignment will change"? (Or even "That's not an [alignment] act; you're now [new alignment]"?) Especially when playing a class with stupid alignment restrictions? Especially when the DM has a significantly different notion of what constitutes [alignment] behaviour than you do, or to what degree alignment dictates a character's specific actions?

You're luckier than I, then.

Spells like "protection from evil" "detect evil" etc.. would change a lot, that's for sure. I am not really certain how we could integrate the "detect evil" class ability to the Paladin. I was thinking, maybe, he could detect peoples who have a morality who directly (and without remorse) conflict with their God's morality.

I don't think it'd particularly unbalance things to make protection from whatever's basic protections (AC bonus, save bonus) apply regardless of the attacker's morality. The protection from mind control already does, anyway. Depending on how you handle other parts of the problem, you could just mash them all into one non-specific protection spell, or keep them as separate spells that differ only in how they affect aligned outsiders.

I think alignment detection - especially free, unlimited alignment detection - ought to go away entirely, or at least be restricted to only detecting strongly aligned outsiders and their works (demons, devils, clerics of evil deities, and the like). Applying it to the morality of individual mundane characters is one of the big problems with alignment, anyway. It's hostile to role-playing, to in-character decision-making and moral choices.

Smite evil is a trickier problem; it's a major paladin class feature, and just taking it away would significantly weaken the class. I'd lean towards making it work on anything, but make serious willful misuse of it (in the paladin's deity's judgment) rate falling.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Smite evil is a trickier problem; it's a major paladin class feature, and just taking it away would significantly weaken the class. I'd lean towards making it work on anything, but make serious willful misuse of it (in the paladin's deity's judgment) rate falling.

Oh, that's good! I remember playing a paladin in a totaly different game system, and my most powerful abilities were given to me to use at any time, but it should ALWAYS be used for something DIRECTLY linked to my God's purposes.

Like, a Paladin of Torm shouldn't smite a random orc encountered on the road, except if that orc was a peticulary dangerous foe of humanity (reknown to raid villages successfully). But on the other hand, he those same random orcs were attacking a village (and the orcs had the odds in their favor), then it would be allowed.

Such "Devoted Smite" ability would be cool, and give a touch of dramatic to the class, don'T you think?

[nagora]

You've never had a DM tell you, "Your character wouldn't do that; he's [alignment]," or, "That's not an [alignment] act; if you keep doing it, your alignment will change"? (Or even "That's not an [alignment] act; you're now [new alignment]"?)

No to the first one, and the second and third are merely information; if I want to play a character who's alignment is drifting then neither statement prevents me any more than telling me that the pit under the tightrope is 100' deep prevents me from trying to cross it. It's not preventing me from playing the character.

Especially when playing a class with stupid alignment restrictions?

Like?

Especially when the DM has a significantly different notion of what constitutes [alignment] behaviour than you do, or to what degree alignment dictates a character's specific actions?

No, again.

You're luckier than I, then.

Apparently.

[Morandir Nailo]

Personally, I agree with Arioch: just ditch paladins and AL-based stuff altogether (then again, I hate paladins). It's totally unnecessary, and you can describe people and things as "good" and "evil" without a mechanics system for it. Some gods are really good, some are really evil, and most are somewhere in between, like people. Just keep a more real-world idea of polytheistic religion in mind: people tend to favor one deity (their "patron"), but will pray to another god if what they're asking for falls under his/her portfolio. So a farmer may favor Kord, but that doesn't mean he doesn't make offerings to Ehlonna in hopes of a good harvest.

Crusaders make excellent paladin replacements, BTW. They fight, they lead, they heal, and all without some crappy "code" that encourages DM/Player antagonism. Much better, IMO.

Mor

[Jayabalard]

No to the first one, and the second and third are merely information; if I want to play a character who's alignment is drifting then neither statement prevents me any more than telling me that the pit under the tightrope is 100' deep prevents me from trying to cross it. It's not preventing me from playing the character.

Agree completely. There's nothing about those latter statements that restrict your actions.

[Newtkeeper]

Can you give an example of how the D&D alignment system stops you playing the character as you want to? I've never seen that happen in 30 years of play.

I've never been hurt by it, but been rarely helped by it. That which doesn't help and takes effort should be eliminated.





Anyway, I am not an alignment, I am a free man.

[Quellian-dyrae]

The prot. from and detect spells could become "smite infidel" Or "protection from the faithless" or something.

This is probably the simplest way to go. To expand on it some: give clerics and the like "Detect Heretic" and "Detect Faithful", the former detecting anyone who is a follower of an opposed religion, the latter of the same (and perhaps also an allied) religion. Clerics and paladins have auras of devotion. Smite works on heretics, protection from heretics, etc.

Then, add a creature type that counts as a heretic. A cleric or paladin of Pelor might count undead as heretics for purposes of these abilities. A cleric or paladin of Moradin might count orcs and giants as heretics. A cleric or paladin of Hextor might count feys, Heironius demons, Kord devils, Erythnul angels, and so on.

Any spell that has greater effects on members of the same alignment work on members of the same or allied religions, greater effect on members of opposite alignments on opposed religion. The effect on neutral characters works on characters who don't have a patron deity or who have one that is neither allied nor opposed (Pelor and Boccob, for example).

Wizards, instead of getting Pro vs. {Alignment} and Magic Circle vs. {Alignment} get Pro/Magic Circle vs. {Angel/Devil/Demon/Elemental/etc}.

[Devils_Advocate]

The simplest option is just to remove alignment restrictions, and have everything that worked based on alignment work on everything or disappear entirely.

You can replace the standard system with the tracking of, for example, religious devotion, true, but then you're replacing one set of vague criteria with another. Instead of

"If Ted follows all of his orders to the letter, but only does it so he can collect a paycheck, is he really Lawful?"

you get stuff like

"Well, if Bob thinks that Pelor has a lot of good ideas and abides by his general philosophy, but doesn't really worship him or devote himself to Pelor per se, is he one of Pelor's followers?"

Now, if you do that because you want your campaign to focus on religion instead of moral struggles or the structure of society, that's fine, but recognize that you're not really simplifying things all that much by replacing one alignment system with another. You may be able to come up with something that will be less cumbersome for your group, but nothing is less cumbersome than forgoing categorizing characters' values at all.

[nagora]

Anyway, I am not an alignment, I am a free man.

Ah, Chaotic, eh? We Chaotics hate being labelled with alignments!

[Roderick_BR]

The campaign world I'm using at the moment (and have two or three other campaign ideas within) doesn't use alignment at all. I just got rid of any spell or ability that is entirely dependant on alignment, axed paladins, put more focus on ToB classes (the country that had paladins before I made that decision now has crusaders instead), and made the whole thing war-torn. Oh, and I axed Common too. Each nation has their own language.

I'm enjoying DMing it far more than I did my other, more traditional world.

That's an actually effective way of making alignment-less games. Spells and the paladin class are often the big problem.

[elliott20]

I just remove the alignment entirely and play on the belief/instinct system I built around the 3.5E mechanics.

[Jorkens]

Oh, that's good! I remember playing a paladin in a totaly different game system, and my most powerful abilities were given to me to use at any time, but it should ALWAYS be used for something DIRECTLY linked to my God's purposes.

Like, a Paladin of Torm shouldn't smite a random orc encountered on the road, except if that orc was a peticulary dangerous foe of humanity (reknown to raid villages successfully). But on the other hand, he those same random orcs were attacking a village (and the orcs had the odds in their favor), then it would be allowed.

Such "Devoted Smite" ability would be cool, and give a touch of dramatic to the class, don'T you think?

Yeah, I think maybe my ideal 'alignment' system[1] would give each god a list of things they approve or disapprove of, and then for evil read 'frequently or currently seeking to harm things I approve of or support things I disapprove of' and for good read 'frequently or currently seeking to defend things I approve of or prevent things I disapprove of'.

This'd be harder to balance and require a lot more homework than 'good gods smite evil and protect good, evil gods smite good and protect evil', but it'd give religious effects a lot more flavour and maybe make clerics actually think about what their god stands for as well as what they do...

[1] the same one that replaces good and evil with altruistic and selfish and then maybe lets the players state where they stand on killing, protecting social order, respecting truth and honour and so forth. So an altruist with no qualms about killing can be as 'evil' as a selfish character and you don't end up with long philosophical debates about the nature of good and evil when people don't bother reading the SRD but go with their personal philosophical interpretations of the words...