PDA

View Full Version : Alignment-free D&D?



WarKitty
2010-08-14, 02:09 PM
Does anyone have or know of a good system for removing alignment from the D&D game? I've been wanting to try it after several long discussions over whether a certain behavior is apropriate to an alignment - the alignment system is starting to just feel too restrictive. (CG assassin anyone? that was fun)

Siosilvar
2010-08-14, 02:11 PM
Best system: Just do it.

Alignment-specific effects are either removed from the game or made alignment non-specific. Detect Evil detects people working against you. Smite Evil becomes the Crusader's smite ability. Holy Word hurts things that aren't your friend.

hamishspence
2010-08-14, 02:12 PM
Replace all Protection from X spells with one- Protection from Anyone.
Replace Smite X with Smite Anyone.
Remove Detect spells entirely.
Remove all alignment subtypes.
Remove spells like Word of Chaos.

Fairly simple.

The problem with allowing Detect spell to detect any "enemy" (even secret ones) or Word spells to damage only enemies (even secret enemies) is that it spoils mystery plots, where there is a bad guy but he's very good at covering it up.

DeltaEmil
2010-08-14, 02:14 PM
That should actually be very simple.

You could just eliminate all the spells that deal with alignment and say that they now only work against specific outsiders from such planes, remove alignment. For paladins, instead of smite (alignment), you could change it to a smite that works against demonic, undead and aberrations.

Or you could play 4th edition D&D, which doesn't give alignment any important effects per the rules. If you don't want to play 4th edition, just take a look at it at least to see how and where you can avoid alignment effects, and work it into older editions.

Evard
2010-08-14, 02:26 PM
Yeah anytime you see an alignment or reference to it... Shock yourself ... After a while you will condition yourself to not see the alignment or reference to it :)

WarKitty
2010-08-14, 02:43 PM
Yeah anytime you see an alignment or reference to it... Shock yourself ... After a while you will condition yourself to not see the alignment or reference to it :)

Would it be better to shock my players every time they argue about alignment? (As a DM I generally let them put whatever alignment they want on their sheet unless they blatantly violate it and can't come up with an explanation.)

potatocubed
2010-08-14, 02:48 PM
Nice and simple:

1. Remove alignments.

2. For abilities that interact with alignment, either:

2a. Remove the aligned part and leave the rest - protection from evil becomes protection and just gives +2 AC, protection from mind-influencing effects, etc., for example.

or

2b. Remove the ability completely. (Recommended for holy word, detect evil, etc.)

And you're done.

WarKitty
2010-08-14, 03:24 PM
Is there any major game-play effect that I'm missing? Other than that on paladins? I'm thinking of leaving in the [Good]/[Evil]/[Law]/[Chaos] tags, but only for the appropriate outsiders.

Siosilvar
2010-08-14, 03:28 PM
Is there any major game-play effect that I'm missing? Other than that on paladins? I'm thinking of leaving in the [Good]/[Evil]/[Law]/[Chaos] tags, but only for the appropriate outsiders.

No, not really. Incarnates, Soulborn, and Crusaders will get a little more variety, but not much else will change.

Tengu_temp
2010-08-14, 03:44 PM
For paladins, make the smite work on everything and detect evil now detects undead, demons and similar creatures. It's a buff, but this class is pretty weak on its own anyway.

FMArthur
2010-08-14, 04:16 PM
Experienced roleplay-heavy groups don't need alignments at all. But for more inexperienced roleplayers concrete, simplified systems like alignments and traits and such can aid them in roleplaying when they don't know how they should be acting.

CarpeGuitarrem
2010-08-14, 04:28 PM
That should actually be very simple.

You could just eliminate all the spells that deal with alignment and say that they now only work against specific outsiders from such planes, remove alignment. For paladins, instead of smite (alignment), you could change it to a smite that works against demonic, undead and aberrations.

Or you could play 4th edition D&D, which doesn't give alignment any important effects per the rules. If you don't want to play 4th edition, just take a look at it at least to see how and where you can avoid alignment effects, and work it into older editions.
I think that 4th Edition actually did this, with not only their Rebuke/Turn Undead, but also the Devilbane and Demonbane (am I misremembering these feats?) feats, which changed your Rebuke/Turn undead and other undead-affecting powers to affect also other types.

mjames
2010-08-14, 04:28 PM
w00t, lawful druids! Finally I can obey the Laws of the Jungle while crushing cities...

hamishspence
2010-08-14, 04:30 PM
There was nothing in 3.5 barring you from playing Lawful Neutral druids.

mjames
2010-08-14, 05:20 PM
There was nothing in 3.5 barring you from playing Lawful Neutral druids.

Sorry... I meant... LG or LE. I've always been a fan of either helping or crushing the weak. Lawful Neutral seems a little weak and flippant to me. "I respect and follow the law, but only to the point it serves me"? or something to that effect...

EDIT: Or the whole "I follow the laws but keep my non-biased opinion. (otherwise called the "Judge".) Not a big fan of that either.

Yora
2010-08-14, 05:22 PM
That'd be Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. Following the rules when it's convenient, but not having respect for the order of society.

Experienced roleplay-heavy groups don't need alignments at all. But for more inexperienced roleplayers concrete, simplified systems like alignments and traits and such can aid them in roleplaying when they don't know how they should be acting.
I like alignment as a super short summary for NPCs. When I read the description of an NPC, knowing if he's CN or NE makes it a lot easier to get into his mindset. But for PCs, it doesn't have any meaning once spells with alignment descriptors are removed.

Amazon warrior
2010-08-14, 05:33 PM
One of the ways I've seen alignment-free D&D done is that only creatures of extremes show up as good/evil/chaotic/lawful. Thus, the average guy in the street doesn't show any alignment but a paladin or a fiend would show up as good or evil, respectively.

CarpeGuitarrem
2010-08-14, 05:44 PM
One of the ways I've seen alignment-free D&D done is that only creatures of extremes show up as good/evil/chaotic/lawful. Thus, the average guy in the street doesn't show any alignment but a paladin or a fiend would show up as good or evil, respectively.
I like that. So you have to do something to deserve your alignment. A Good character works hard to keep up that alignment, and an Evil character does heinous things to earn that alignment.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-14, 05:50 PM
Does anyone have or know of a good system for removing alignment from the D&D game?
Sure. I've been doing this for over a decade, and it works perfectly fine.

The Protection From spells simply protect against charm, compulsion, and extraplanar creatures. The paladin's Detect and Smite ability functions against undead, demons, and people strongly opposed to the ethos of his deity. Classes with alignment restrictions simply have to roleplay it, and "falling" simply never comes up except maybe rarely for paladins.

Any other alignment effect rarely comes into play anyway and won't be missed.

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-14, 05:52 PM
More often these days that's how I start my player characters. I just say 'Neutral' and let the DM decide if he feels my actions have changed my alignment. It also helps that I very rarely play characters with alignment restrictions.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-14, 06:41 PM
Is there any major game-play effect that I'm missing?

Clerics and channeling positive/negative energy
Alignment domains and domain feats (Law Devotion & c.)
The whole exalted and vile system
A lot of aligned spells will need individual attention

Tetrasodium
2010-08-14, 06:56 PM
For what it's worth, alignment is more of a grey area in eberron than the black and white normally found in D&D. The church of the silver flame has done some terrible evil's in the past, but tries to be a force for good even though it acknowledges privately that good people can do bad things with the intention of serving the greater good for example. I can't remember which book it was in, but somewhere it mentions something along the lines of 3 in 10 or so random people are probably going to detect as evil with detect evil... not that they are necessarily doing anything wrong, they might just be a bit more selfish and less caring than others or something. You could probably snag the alignment bits from eberron if you want an in between with less potential "erm... it does what?!/how does this work now" type consequences.

hamishspence
2010-08-15, 06:41 AM
The 3rd party splatbook Quintessenial Paladin 2 does list "3/10 of humans are evil" as one of its options.

In core, it's harder to find evidence supporting it, aside from "humans tend toward no alignment, not even neutral" in the PHB, and the suggesting that in typical D&D nations, being evil is not a crime, nor proof that the person has committed crimes, in DMG.

Mike_G
2010-08-15, 07:32 AM
Clerics and channeling positive/negative energy
Alignment domains and domain feats (Law Devotion & c.)
The whole exalted and vile system
A lot of aligned spells will need individual attention


You mean, you get to ignore all this too?

I'm gonna say win-win.

To paraphrase Roy, using Alignment is like adventuring with a social disease. Sure, you can do it, but it's not pretty.

And the addition of the Exalted/Vile stuff just rubbed salt on the festering sore that is the Alignment system. It made it more intrusive, more hypocritical, more "shirts vs skins" morality.

Playing without Alignment is easy. A half hour of houserules for the aligned effects will solve all your problems, and you can have campaigns with more nuance than the average Stallone movie without it dissolving into pointless
debate every time something comes up.

hamishspence
2010-08-15, 07:59 AM
To paraphrase Roy, using Alignment is like adventuring with a social disease. Sure, you can do it, but it's not pretty.

And the addition of the Exalted/Vile stuff just rubbed salt on the festering sore that is the Alignment system. It made it more intrusive, more hypocritical, more "shirts vs skins" morality.


There's plenty of people who think otherwise- who have no problem using the alignment system, with or without the later books.

It's one of those things where the people who complain about it get the most attention, and you never hear about the people who play the alignment system as normal and have no problems with it.

Tetrasodium
2010-08-15, 08:12 AM
The 3rd party splatbook Quintessenial Paladin 2 does list "3/10 of humans are evil" as one of its options.

That might have been what I was remembering, although the eberron stuff still has a lot of alignment blur text. I quickly found this in eberron campaign setting

A cleric’s status within her church is usually more important than her relationship to her deity, who is—at best—a distant patron. Therefore, a cleric’s alignment need not remain within one step of her deity’s alignment.
A cleric can cast spells with any alignment descriptor. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, and a good cleric’s alignment may begin to change if she repeatedly casts such spells, but the deities of Eberron do not prevent their clerics from casting spells opposed to their alignments. This rule supersedes the information in Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells on page 33 of the Player’s Handbook.
A cleric who violates the tenets of her church or deity might risk punishment at the hands of the church (though not necessarily, particularly in regions where the church is very corrupt), but risks no loss of spells or class features and need not atone. This rule supersedes the information under Ex-Clerics on page 33 of the Player’s Handbook.
and

A cleric of the Church of the Silver Flame can fall into heresy or even adopt an evil alignment and still retain all his abilities, but a paladin must rise above the corruption that plagues almost every church and cling to the highest ideals of her faith. In a place such as Sharn, in particular, where the churches are so rife with corruption, paladins arise to bring justice to the people.
There was mmore, but I didn't want to copy the book. This bit below is from Faiths of Eberron

That one pantheon cannot exist without the other is reflected in the worst-kept secret concerning Vassal worship. A blacksmith offers the bulk of his prayers to Onatar and does so openly. More discreetly, he refuses to ignore the Fury, whom he believes will ensure that any weapon emerging from his forge is both inspired in design and efficient in execution.
This is not to say that the blacksmith fears his work will be insufficient without the Fury’s blessing, but by keeping her in his silent prayers, he hopes to forestall misfortune. A blacksmith who accidentally burns himself, or whose forge explodes in a moment of fiery rage, could be said to have displeased or dishonored the Fury in some way.
Indeed, as most are well aware, many Vassals choose to honor deities of both pantheons with regular prayer, regardless of which god sees the bulk of their day-to-day worship. A noble-souled warrior who worships Dol Arrah and despises the Mockery might still see the wisdom in offering the occasional prayer to the outcast brother, if for no other reason than to ward off treachery in combat.
Dark six is pretty much a generic grouping of evil gods that got kicked out of the sovereign host (generic grouping of gods that are now mostly goodish). Fury & Mockery are two gods in dark six.


At the dawn of the Last War, priests of three of the Six—the Fury, the Mockery, and the Shadow—met in secret for the first time. They had maintained little to no contact with one another before the war (even those of the same deity), but now convened with one aim: to increase the power of their gods through the war of fi ve nations. Each priest pledged a congregation to serve this goal as best befit its capabilities. What began as a wartime practice developed into a bold new campaign to advance the hegemony of the Six and their priesthoods.
This movement translated to a two-tiered approach; both tiers, as might be expected, involved deception to a greater or lesser degree. The fi rst step was to insinuate devout members of each priesthood into every corner of the confl ict, from the front lines to the war rooms. The priests found plenty of volunteers among their congregations. Since all of the Five Nations were hungry for new blood, such volunteers integrated with little scrutiny.
Most had only one assignment: spreading fear and worship of their gods. (Reporting the activities of the infiltrated groups would surely have resulted in discovery before long.) Soldiers prayed to the Fury in combat, and those who survived thanked her for heeding their call; assassins and spies called on the Mockery before dangerous missions, and then credited any subsequent success to their faith. Likewise, spellcasters invoked the Shadow to aid them in their time of arcane need. It wasn’t long before people associating with these agents began to follow suit, if for no other reason than “better safe than sorry”—a popular sentiment in desperate times.
The second step involved the priests themselves, who were in the best position to administer the effort from the safety of their homes and temples. They took responsibility for seeing to the needs of the families of war dead, and not just those of their own congregations.
For the first time, temple funds and resources went to assisting those outside the congregation, even to those who worshiped only the Sovereign Host, in the interest of long-term benefit. The priesthoods of the three gods spent a great deal of money during the war, in effect buying the faith—or at least the allegiance—of many new converts. Ironically, this subtle integration earned great success—just like the tradition of the Sovereign Host.
Thanks to these efforts, the names of the Dark Six were on the lips of just about everyone in those grim days, even trusted figures such as ship captains and battalion commanders. This greatly reduced the social stress of letting slip a forbidden name, thereby spreading the one thing the priests desired above all else: acceptance. By the time the war ended, the cabal of priests had managed to make offering prayers to the Fury, the Mockery, and the Shadow a common practice.
The silver flame likewise has some incredibly dark stuff in it's entry despite being a good church. Sovereign host is fairly benign and more of the equivalent of saying you are agnostic. Most of the other gods are fairly minor cults and/or regional things. I didn't want to pull any big sections from the silver flame entry, but this seemed appropriate :)

Not only does the Church prioritize evil, it accepts the notion that sometimes a lesser evil can serve to fight a greater. Sometimes, good people might be forced to commit questionable acts in the battle against darkness, or sometimes even be sacrificed for a yet greater good.
The Silver Flame does not encourage such decisions, nor does the Church always approve extreme measures, but sometimes no other choice exists.

Yora
2010-08-15, 08:14 AM
It's one of those things where the people who complain about it get the most attention, and you never hear about the people who play the alignment system as normal and have no problems with it.

Like about every other problem with D&D? :smallbiggrin:

Shpadoinkle
2010-08-15, 08:57 AM
Aside from the aforementioned smite thing and some of the Crusader's maneuvers, very little changes.

I'd change the Protection from G/E/L/C and their 10' Radius version spells to work against everything, and make them one level higher. Alternately you could make them one level lower, but work against specific types of creatures (Protection from Humanoids, Protection from Magical Beasts, Protection from Giants, etc.). Or you could do both.

WarKitty
2010-08-15, 09:11 AM
Clerics and channeling positive/negative energy
Alignment domains and domain feats (Law Devotion & c.)
The whole exalted and vile system
A lot of aligned spells will need individual attention


Cleric effects could simply be refluffed as tied to the deity. Or simply all clerics channel positive energy (would be nice for some of my party; they like evil characters but want to retain the party healer ability).

Alignment domains: Law/chaos/good/evil still exist as ideals that a character can devote themselves to.

Exalted and Vile system: never used it anyways.

Aligned spells: how many of them need their alignment? I'd remove the evil tag from necromancy right off the bat, as well as from positive and negative energy spells.

Greenish
2010-08-15, 09:17 AM
Dark six is pretty much a generic grouping of evil gods that got kicked out of the sovereign host (generic grouping of gods that are now mostly goodish).And in the typical "we won't say it, but lawful is actually gooder than chaotic", they made The Traveler (CN) a member of the Dark Six, while Aureon (LN), Balinor (N) and Kol Korran (N) are all part of the Host. For godssakes, the latter of those is the God of Greed!

WarKitty
2010-08-15, 09:20 AM
And in the typical "we won't say it, but lawful is actually gooder than chaotic", they made The Traveler (CN) a member of the Dark Six, while Aureon (LN), Balinor (N) and Kol Korran (N) are all part of the Host. For godssakes, the latter of those is the God of Greed!

LOL that's part of my problem. The thought process started with me wishing to introduce a good assassin into the game. It seems to me an assassin would be chaotic but not necessarily evil. Then again one could argue that an assassin working openly for a legitimate governmeny might be lawful. *headspin*

Tetrasodium
2010-08-15, 09:51 AM
LOL that's part of my problem. The thought process started with me wishing to introduce a good assassin into the game. It seems to me an assassin would be chaotic but not necessarily evil. Then again one could argue that an assassin working openly for a legitimate governmeny might be lawful. *headspin*

It's not too hard to make a good assassin, just have him be some kind of devoted zealot towards a given cause (i.e.a church, a country, the king/queen, etc). Booth in bones (tv show) was a sniper at some point in the past, hitman (movie/game) supposedly was an arm of the catholic church, the bourne trilogy was essentially about an assassin, the movie WANTED was essentially a group of hitmen with some good and bad people, Spike in buffy the vampireslayer was eventually a good person who wanted everyone to think otherwise, probably lots lots more.

Greenish
2010-08-15, 10:03 AM
It's not too hard to make a good assassinUnless, of course, you want to take the Assassin PrC, which requires Evil alignment. (The Avenger requires Lawful.)

Tetrasodium
2010-08-15, 10:20 AM
Unless, of course, you want to take the Assassin PrC, which requires Evil alignment. (The Avenger requires Lawful.)

Races of Stone has some 3 level PrC's (stoneblessed) that grant the ability to take racially restricted classes to nonmembers of that race. Making one to grant alignment restricted ones probably wouldnt be too tough as long as it forced a paladin/crusader/knight/samurai type code & devotion to something in order to keep being able to take levels/use the evil abilities from evil required classes.

Greenish
2010-08-15, 10:35 AM
Races of Stone has some 3 level PrC's (stoneblessed) that grant the ability to take racially restricted classes to nonmembers of that race. Making one to grant alignment restricted ones probably wouldnt be too tough as long as it forced a paladin/crusader/knight/samurai type code & devotion to something in order to keep being able to take levels/use the evil abilities from evil required classes.Or, I don't know, one might simply remove the alignments?

Besides, a PrC to become, say, Evil would be pretty silly, since in wanting to be evil you'd pretty much be evil anyhow.

Tetrasodium
2010-08-15, 10:42 AM
Or, I don't know, one might simply remove the alignments?

Besides, a PrC to become, say, Evil would be pretty silly, since in wanting to be evil you'd pretty much be evil anyhow.

The thing about removing alignment entirely is that it causes a bunch of unintended side effects. The stoneblessed PrC I mentioned doesn't make you become a dwarf or whatever you pick, it lets you qualify as a dwarf for various purposes. Likewise, a PrC that let you qualify for evil PrC's could handwave away the evil aspect with some devotion to a cause and an entry requirement that you be ordered by a commanding officer or similar to look into using the tools of the enemy against them without sinking to their level (i.e. DM Decree). It would keep things like the good assassin or misunderstood but really not evil dual wielding dark elf rare.

Galdor
2010-08-15, 11:01 AM
The taint variant in Unearthed Arcana replaces the traditional alignment system with a taint score; the higher the score, the more "evil" you are, and performing certain acts can increase your score. I've never tried it myself, but it looks like a pretty usable alternative to alignment.

Greenish
2010-08-15, 11:02 AM
The thing about removing alignment entirely is that it causes a bunch of unintended side effects.The discussion pertaining to which is the very point of this thread.

Emmerask
2010-08-15, 11:11 AM
There's plenty of people who think otherwise- who have no problem using the alignment system, with or without the later books.

It's one of those things where the people who complain about it get the most attention, and you never hear about the people who play the alignment system as normal and have no problems with it.


Like about every other problem with D&D? :smallbiggrin:

Both very true indeed :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2010-08-15, 11:14 AM
The point I was trying to make was that some people do exaggerate the flaws of D&D in eneral, and the alignment system in particular, comparing it to "a social disease" and "a festering sore".

Erom
2010-08-15, 11:34 AM
I like giving the paladin a class bonus to sense motive and dropping the Detect Evil ability entirely, rather than turning it into Detect Enemy.

Has a nice inquisitorial feel to it.

Mike_G
2010-08-15, 12:01 PM
I like giving the paladin a class bonus to sense motive and dropping the Detect Evil ability entirely, rather than turning it into Detect Enemy.

Has a nice inquisitorial feel to it.

That's exactly what we do. I hate the at will Detect Evil ability with the white hot fury of a thousand suns.

Why think when you can just shank all the black-hats? And have special "God Told Me It's Ok" powers or even that stupid anti-fall compass thingie.

I don't object to people playing Dirty Harry or Dudley Dooright. I just hate the BS simplistic mechanics of "faux modern morality plastered on a faux medieval game, but leave us enough wiggle rooms so we can still slay monsters" philosophy. Heck the "poison is EVIL, but this thing that works exactly the same way is GOOD, because it knows to only hurt Evil beings," rules in BOED is enough to make me nauseous.

WarKitty
2010-08-15, 12:03 PM
I like giving the paladin a class bonus to sense motive and dropping the Detect Evil ability entirely, rather than turning it into Detect Enemy.

Has a nice inquisitorial feel to it.

For a bit more interest, maybe turn it into something that detects the presence or absence of enemies in a certain range? Fluff it as a request to the deity "Is there anyone in this room that intends harm to me or to my deity's goals?" with a simple yes/no answer.

Alternately just remove the paladin altogether, there are other classes that fulfill the devoted warrior feel.

hamishspence
2010-08-15, 12:05 PM
Heck the "poison is EVIL, but this thing that works exactly the same way is GOOD, because it knows to only hurt Evil beings," rules in BOED is enough to make me nauseous.

You could say exactly the same about Holy Word compared to Blasphemy- Blasphemy is [Evil] but Holy Word is [Good], despite them working exactly the same way- only Holy Word can't harm Good characters and Blasphemy can't harm Evil characters.

Ravages, unlike Holy Word, can't harm Neutral characters though.

Or, for that matter, you could bring up Turn/Rebuke attempts- they work exactly the same way, both channelling the energy of a Neutral-aligned plane- only one is, according to the PHB, a Good act and one and Evil act.

The PHB is just as bad as BoED for "things that work the same way, being of opposite alignment".

Mike_G
2010-08-15, 12:36 PM
You could say exactly the same about Holy Word compared to Blasphemy- Blasphemy is [Evil] but Holy Word is [Good], despite them working exactly the same way- only Holy Word can't harm Good characters and Blasphemy can't harm Evil characters.


No, they're not even a little the same. In a fantasy world, the idea that Holy stuff hurts evil creatures, and Unholy stuff can hurt good creatures is consistent. Dracula flinches from the cross.

Freaking arsenic is just some molecules. It's not evil. It'll kill you, but so will a big rock on your bean.

But, in some twisted "took a class on morality at Community College" logic, poisoning people, even evil people, is Evil, since it hurts. Unlike big rocks. Oh, wait...

But, we invented "Nicenic," just like Arsenic, but Nice, since it knows to only hurt bad guys. It's exalted.




Ravages, unlike Holy Word, can't harm Neutral characters though.

Or, for that matter, you could bring up Turn/Rebuke attempts- they work exactly the same way, both channelling the energy of a Neutral-aligned plane- only one is, according to the PHB, a Good act and one and Evil act.

The PHB is just as bad as BoED for "things that work the same way, being of opposite alignment".


Which reduces deep complex philosophical questions, ripe for nice, meaty roleplaying, into shirts vs skins.

If your idea of a man making hard moral choices is a Segal flick, by all means, by all means, buy the box of nine different colored hats and pass 'em out to everybody.

Set
2010-08-15, 12:45 PM
It's one of those things where the people who complain about it get the most attention, and you never hear about the people who play the alignment system as normal and have no problems with it.

The existence of your post disproves your assertion.

hamishspence
2010-08-15, 12:48 PM
Yes- the "poison is evil because it causes undue suffering" (whereas other methods of incapacitating or killing people are assumed to not do so unless specified otherwise) is a little illogical. Since real poisons aren't necessarily as painful as this would imply.

But that doesn't mean that the "respect for life" concept for Good, makes no sense.

BoED and BoVD at least try to differentiate Good from Evil in D&D.

The way it did so- by having a list of things that are evil even when done to evil victims (enslaving them, torturing them, or harming their souls) may not be very well handled, but it's not "shirts vs skins"

Because, if it was, then anything would be OK as long as the victim is evil- torturing them, destroying their soul, etc.

Some writers do have a "Torture is OK if the victim deserves it"- Terry Goodkind was one.

But the writers of BoED didn't think that way.


The existence of your post disproves your assertion.

Well- almost never. I see dozens of posts and threads about "the alignment system is terrible" and "BoED is terrible" and very few "actually, the alignment system is not all that bad" and "BoED is Ok in general with only a few bad bits".

I've seen "All adventurers are rich violent hobos anyway, alignment just determines what the colour of you lightsaber is"-
but books like BoED at least try and counter that a bit- with the characters being expected to show at least some respect for life- even for the lives of the evil.

The alignment system has grown quite a bit in complexity since Gygax created it.

The Easydamus site:
http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

goes into a bit more depth than the PHB does.

Mike_G
2010-08-15, 01:09 PM
Yes- the "poison is evil because it causes undue suffering" (whereas other methods of incapacitating or killing people are assumed to not do so unless specified otherwise) is a little illogical. Since real poisons aren't necessarily as painful as this would imply.

But that doesn't mean that the "respect for life" concept for Good, makes no sense.

BoED and BoVD at least try to differentiate Good from Evil in D&D.

The way it did so- by having a list of things that are evil even when done to evil victims (enslaving them, torturing them, or harming their souls) may not be very well handled, but it's not "shirts vs skins"


But then they cheated with the unforgivable Ravages and Afflictions and the Philactery of Double Checking My Actions So I Never Need to Think For Myself



Because, if it was, then anything would be OK as long as the victim is evil- torturing them, destroying their soul, etc.

Some writers do have a "Torture is OK if the victim deserves it"- Terry Goodkind was one.

But the writers of BoED didn't think that way.


But a lot of that is modern day morality, which just doesn't work. Slavery, for example, is a fixture of many ancient and medieval settings. So the governments are capital-E Evil, which means Paladins have to be rebels.

The editors tried to have it both ways. Modern morals, but allow the wandering, combat unit feel of adventure stories.

I think the whole system needs to die in a fire. The BOED and VD hurt far more than they helped.

hamishspence
2010-08-15, 01:12 PM
and the Philactery of Double Checking My Actions So I Never Need to Think For Myself

That was in DMG, not BoED.

Afflictions probably were an attempt to harmonize "good deities" with "deities that inflict plagues on the deserving"- not a very good attempt.


But a lot of that is modern day morality, which just doesn't work. Slavery, for example, is a fixture of many ancient and medieval settings. So the governments are capital-E Evil, which means Paladins have to be rebels.

DMG2 mentions that D&D is not a simulation of "ancient and medieval settings" but fudges a lot of this. Much more equality between the sexes, for example.


The editors tried to have it both ways. Modern morals, but allow the wandering, combat unit feel of adventure stories.

And why is this a bad thing?


I think the whole system needs to die in a fire. The BOED and VD hurt far more than they helped.

One of the things I liked about that later alignment-centric books is that they moved away from "It's evil so you can kill it wihout any qualms"- BoED, Heroes of Horror, Eberron, etc.

Which might not be as good as "killing off the whole alignment system" for some people- but I thought it was a reasonable method.

Mike_G
2010-08-15, 01:25 PM
That was in DMG, not BoED.

Afflictions probably were an attempt to harmonize "good deities" with "deities that inflict plagues on the deserving"- not a very good attempt.


Agreed. The problem is most Old Time Religion was big on Smiting. If you want to keep this feel, you need to throw some plagues of locusts and boils and so on, but it contradicts the rest of the "Good Doesn't Do That" spiel.




DMG2 mentions that D&D is not a simulation of "ancient and medieval settings" but fudges a lot of this. Much more equality between the sexes, for example.



And why is this a bad thing?

Because it led them to write a bunch of very inconsistent rules.

The rules require this hybridized mess of the Teutonic knights meets the Peace Corps. If you, as DM want to create a world where the almost but not quite Egyptian Empire has huge numbers of slaves, you are forced to deal with the fact that the law of the land are Evil, even though the king is a god, and has the support of the clearly labeled Good gods of his pantheon.

Morality is changing. Only the broadest concepts are universal. I say, leave it that way so the DM can create a world that works and is internally consistent, whether that world looks like Berkley with dragons or like the Rhineland during the Thirty years War.

D&D tries to be both, and fails hard at either.

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-15, 03:34 PM
Even official settings don't blanket assume that slavery is automatically Evil. Mulhorand, for instance, is not considered Evil to my knowledge (unless there's been a major rewrite) but the nation is quite possibly the biggest single known user of slaves in Faerun. Slaves in Mulhorand are protected and well-treated by the law.

Thay, on the other hand, is basically Evil as a nation, not because it uses slaves.

hamishspence
2010-08-15, 03:50 PM
It's probably oppression, more than slavery per se, that qualifies- since the PHB does call it out as one of the things "Evil implies" doing.

Slavery without oppression tends to only crop up in fantasy. Mulhorand being one example (since its ruler is officially a Paladin, it has to be not evil enough for the ruler to Fall for ruling over a nation that practices it) and the Atans in David Eddings's The Tamuli series being another.

WarKitty
2010-08-15, 05:38 PM
There's plenty of people who think otherwise- who have no problem using the alignment system, with or without the later books.

It's one of those things where the people who complain about it get the most attention, and you never hear about the people who play the alignment system as normal and have no problems with it.

People who are happy with it don't need help changing it. :smalltongue:

Yora
2010-08-15, 05:50 PM
People who are happy with it don't need help changing it. :smalltongue:
This is not how this forum works! :smallyuk: Stop having fun!!! :smallamused:

Kurald Galain
2010-08-15, 05:52 PM
Clerics and channeling positive/negative energy
Alignment domains and domain feats (Law Devotion & c.)
The whole exalted and vile system
A lot of aligned spells will need individual attention


Channeling is easy, it depends on your deity. If you worship the goddess of kittens and puppy dogs, you channel positive; if you worship the god of vile swamp stench, you channel negative. Easy as pi.

Alignment domains I've never actually seen in gameplay, nor any aligned spells other than Protection From, Detect, and Smite.

As for the vile exalted system, well, I wouldn't miss it :smallcool:

WarKitty
2010-08-15, 08:42 PM
Channeling is easy, it depends on your deity. If you worship the goddess of kittens and puppy dogs, you channel positive; if you worship the god of vile swamp stench, you channel negative. Easy as pi.

Alignment domains I've never actually seen in gameplay, nor any aligned spells other than Protection From, Detect, and Smite.

As for the vile exalted system, well, I wouldn't miss it :smallcool:

Do people even make clerics for a reason other than because the party needs a healer? I'd just let them all channel positive energy, evil deities need healers too!

Tequila Sunrise
2010-08-15, 09:27 PM
Try 4e if you really don't want to deal with alignments.

*ducks* :smallsmile:


The point I was trying to make was that some people do exaggerate the flaws of D&D in general, and the alignment system in particular, comparing it to "a social disease" and "a festering sore".
QFT.

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-16, 01:02 AM
Do people even make clerics for a reason other than because the party needs a healer? I'd just let them all channel positive energy, evil deities need healers too!
To melee if Tome of Battle isn't allowed. Or if they want to melee but have other options too? Cleric is versatile enough to do all sorts of things. Especially if the player doesn't want wildshaping to be a major component of their character. Not to mention the obvious RP reasons for y'know...being a cleric of a god if that's your character concept.

And if all clerics channeled positive energy then you just got rid of one of the really interesting parts of playing an evil cleric: rebuke undead. Now, if you let them do spontaneous cures but turn or rebuke as they choose, then...yeah, I'd probably say that's fine for blanket, considering Inflict spells aren't exactly all that great, from my understanding.

Considering healing is typically better achieved by using things like wands of lesser vigor than spontaneously converting Cure spells, it's kind of a wash either way, though. Spontaneous cures seem slightly more useful than inflict, but neither is all that great.

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 07:23 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if a big part of the dislike of the portrayals of D&D Good and Evil, is that they differ from the person's own personal views.

If a person thinks it's a Good act to torture people who "deserve it":

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8282017&postcount=76

but the DM doesn't- citing BoED and FC2 as evidence that it is an evil act,

then the player, if they are told it was an Evil act, may get angry- because they see their own morals as being criticized by the alignment system and the DM.

WarKitty
2010-08-16, 07:48 AM
:smalltongue:
I wouldn't be surprised if a big part of the dislike of the portrayals of D&D Good and Evil, is that they differ from the person's own personal views.

If a person thinks it's a Good act to torture people who "deserve it":

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8282017&postcount=76

but the DM doesn't- citing BoED and FC2 as evidence that it is an evil act,

then the player, if they are told it was an Evil act, may get angry- because they see their own morals as being criticized by the alignment system and the DM.

That or the players and DM disagree on what constitutes good and evil acts, or on what should be the alignment restrictions on classes. Which is a good part of the case here. Although I admit to being caught a few times where the D&D system paints something as evil that I would be ok with in certain circumstances (the afore-mentioned assassin being the best example). My own brain functions rather on what D&D would consider chaotic, so I run afoul of the "lawful is really gooder than chaos" a lot of times. Too hard to DM that way.

And none of us like 4e. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 08:01 AM
4E Dragon Annual did say there was nothing wrong with the concept of Lawful Good assassins- its only assassination done purely for money that's a reliable sign of an Evil or CE character.

I think of the 4E alignment system as a clone of the old 5 alignment Eric Holmes Basic alignment system- only with CG and LE being relabeled Good and Evil- since LE types aren't always perfectly honest- even an archdevil like Baalzebul is the "lord of lies".

Conversely, CG's are quite capable of tolerating orderly societies- it's only when order becomes outright oppressive- hence Evil, that they get aggressive towards it.

Greenish
2010-08-16, 08:13 AM
Do people even make clerics for a reason other than because the party needs a healer?Often for skillmonkeys or for undead armies!

WarKitty
2010-08-16, 08:15 AM
Often for skillmonkeys or for undead armies!

Hmmm...never had a skillmonkey cleric. I wouldn't have a problem with separating the ability to cast spontaneous heal spells and the ability to rebuke undead though. This actually came up for us recently...we have a Tiefling that wanted to be both evil and the party healer, so he ended up changing aligment to neutral jus for the spontaneous cure spells.