Getting rid of aligments. What to do?

[Zombimode]

Preface

I dont like the aligment system. At best it does absolutely nothing to enhance the game. Every character that can be created using the aligment system can be created without. In fact at least for me its much easier to create characters when not having to worry about an aligment system.
At worst it spawns arguments between players, and between players and the DM. Unnecessary and unhealthy arguments. I dont want those in my games.

Now, to make myself clear here: I specificly dont like an universal aligment system where every booping entity under the sun has to be placed within. Especially one that used terms normaly reserved for moral judgements.
What I dont have a problem with (and actually do like) are strong opposing metaphysical concepts.
An example you can see in some fiction is "Chaos" (which can mean things like uncreation, nihilism or disharmony) opposed to "Order" (which can be something equally extreme, or just the normal natural order of things); or "Life" vs. "Death", and so on. Within such a setup I can see that entities that have strong ties to those cosmic forces getting treated differently mechanical. Like a priest of the Chaos gods getting the [Chaotic] subtype.

I do realize that other people have a different view on this. One thing I hear often from people who do like the aligment system is that it helps them creating and playing characters, using the basic frame of personality traits and philosophical outlooks provided by the aligments as a guideline. And yes, I can see where they are coming from. I never used aligments that way, but then again I was always good with characters and never felt the need for this paticular help.
The point is: even if an aligment is not a mechanical aspect of your characters nothing stops you from using the aligment system as a guideline for roleplaying. I just want to have this optional and not inbuild into the system.


The matter at hand

That being said I finaly come to the point of this thread:
If I want to remove the aligment system from D&D 3.5, what I have to do?
What parts of the game are affected? What are the pitfalls?
And how can I do this without removing options?

A very urgent matter I think are the spells that probably get used a lot: the "Detect X" spells and powers, and the "Protection from X" spells.
The eas way would be to just remove them. And if there is no other satisfactory solution I will do that. But I would prefer to keep them, albeit altered.

Options I came up with for the "Protection" line of spells:

1. Making the discriminatory effects of the spells universal. Protection just gives you a +2 deflection/resistance bonus on AC/saves.
2. Making the bonuses apply only against those targets, who directly oppose your current quest/higer goal. So that in most cases rabbid wildlife would not be affected (since they are not opposing you on your quest, they are just hungry), likewise with bar patrons in a bar fight or maybe even humanoid bandits.


So, what do you think, playground?

[Shpadoinkle]

What I'd do is make the "Protection from (alignment)" spells apply to everything, but make them a spell level higher.

As for "Detect (alignment...)" well hell, I'm stumped. I've never used them or seen them used, and have no idea what other people use them for, so I'm turning up blank.

There are a few other things to consider. Paladin's Smite Evil, for instance. I'd just let it work on anything, myself.

[Engine]

So, what do you think, playground?

Just a thought, nothing more.

You could try to partially eliminate alignments. I'll try to explain:
PCs do not start with an alignment, but they have a Lawful, Chaos, Good, Evil score (at zero). When you think they act lawfully, you give them a Lawful point and subtract one from Chaos score (and vice versa). So a PC with a Lawful score of 15 would have a negative Chaos score of -15 and so on. The same for the Good\Evil axis.

You could rule that spells referring to an alignment affect people with an alignment score of X or more and if you reach a certain score you gain a subtype.

As I said, it's just a thought, I mostly play with game with no alignment system so I have rarely that problem (but I have my share of alignment debates in my past, especially regarding Lawful characters).


As for "Detect (alignment...)" well hell, I'm stumped. I've never used them or seen them used, and have no idea what other people use them for, so I'm turning up blank.

Well, Paladins could Detect Evil at will, I saw it a lot in my games where Paladins were involved.
"I use Detect Evil on the cat!"
Funny thing: it was evil. Really.

[flumphy]

Just a thought, nothing more.

You could try to partially eliminate alignments. I'll try to explain:
PCs do not start with an alignment, but they have a Lawful, Chaos, Good, Evil score (at zero). When you think they act lawfully, you give them a Lawful point and subtract one from Chaos score (and vice versa). So a PC with a Lawful score of 15 would have a negative Chaos score of -15 and so on. The same for the Good\Evil axis.

You could rule that spells referring to an alignment affect people with an alignment score of X or more and if you reach a certain score you gain a subtype.


Neverwinter Nights had their alignment system work similarly to this. There were two issues with it.

First of all, it has the DM make assumptions about the alignment of an action that don't necessarily jive with the player's. A lot of actions could be justified in multiple ways, and sometimes even make sense for completely opposite alignments. If you're showing players the changes to their scores, your opening the door for frequent alignment debate, more so than under the standard system. And if you're not, then you may well be misinterpreting their actions and pegging them with the wrong alignment.

Secondly, the system really broke down when it came to neutrality. Since there was only a good/evil axis with no separate "neutral" scale, the only way to be neutral was to commit equal amounts of good and evil deeds. That's not really how neutrality works for most characters. Furthermore, if any alignment-based effects at all are still in place, it can lead to a ton of metagaming.

[deuxhero]

Use the color wheel!

[Coidzor]

You have to remove or alter every spell or feat that references alignment.

All class features that either reference alignment or are dependent upon it, you would either have to axe the class or alter those class features.

Mostly going to be class features/abilities, spells, and feats that are affected by this.

[tcrudisi]

I detest it when someone talks about how one system is better than another. So, please, realize that this is not what I'm doing.

In this case, it seems you would prefer 4e's way of handling it. There, alignment is completely unimportant mechanically. Paladin's are not required to be lawful good (or even good) and a Monk can be CE if they so desire. There is no mechanical benefit or hindrance to being any particular alignment. Alignment is basically there for roleplaying purposes and as a throw-back to previous editions (note: speculation on my part).

As for how to handle spells like Protection from Law? Well, just call it "Protection from All" and have it do it's normal thing against everyone. Will it really make a big difference if it stays at its current level and just works against everyone? Admittedly, I don't remember 3.5 very well, but it seems like it would work. If you are afraid it will be too powerful then raise the level by 1 or something.

[WitchSlayer]

I detest it when someone talks about how one system is better than another. So, please, realize that this is not what I'm doing.

In this case, it seems you would prefer 4e's way of handling it. There, alignment is completely unimportant mechanically. Paladin's are not required to be lawful good (or even good) and a Monk can be CE if they so desire. There is no mechanical benefit or hindrance to being any particular alignment. Alignment is basically there for roleplaying purposes and as a throw-back to previous editions (note: speculation on my part).

As for how to handle spells like Protection from Law? Well, just call it "Protection from All" and have it do it's normal thing against everyone. Will it really make a big difference if it stays at its current level and just works against everyone? Admittedly, I don't remember 3.5 very well, but it seems like it would work. If you are afraid it will be too powerful then raise the level by 1 or something.

I agree, although then you have to think of what the paladin's "Detect Evil" does.

Maybe detect worshiper/servant of an opposing god?

[koscum]

Secondly, the system really broke down when it came to neutrality. Since there was only a good/evil axis with no separate "neutral" scale, the only way to be neutral was to commit equal amounts of good and evil deeds. That's not really how neutrality works for most characters. Furthermore, if any alignment-based effects at all are still in place, it can lead to a ton of metagaming.


An odd source for fixing this could be Mass Effect. It tracks Paragon/Renegade progress, but on seperate scales, rather than a common one. This can be adapted to Good/Neutral/Evil and Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic with ease. Of course, some interaction between scales might be necessary (eg. Evil act adds 5 points to Evil scale, but subtracts 3 points from Good and 2 points from Neutral)

[NOhara24]

I agree, although then you have to think of what the paladin's "Detect Evil" does.

Maybe detect worshiper/servant of an opposing god?

Either that or "Detect Ill Will". Have them roll a 20+CHA, depending on the result (Assuming that the target would pop positive)...

1-5: This person harbors no ill will.
6-10: This person harbors possibly malicious intent.
11-15:This person harbors ill will against someone in their proximity.
16-20:This person harbors ill will against someone in your party (if that were the case.)
21+: This person harbors ill will against a specific person. (Which would then of course be revealed upon making the roll.)

Just an idea.

[Darrin]

That being said I finaly come to the point of this thread:
If I want to remove the aligment system from D&D 3.5, what I have to do?
What parts of the game are affected? What are the pitfalls?
And how can I do this without removing options?


First, you have to tweak some of the classes:

Paladin: replace detect evil with detect undead. Replace Smite Evil with Smite Naughtiness. Then replace Aura of Good with something similar to Gaze of Truth (variant paladin, Dragon #349), where they can use detect lies a certain number of times per day. This gives them more of a "judicial/investigator" role for sorting out wrongdoing.

Barbarian: jot something down about losing the ability to rage if the number of monk/paladin levels you have exceeds your barbarian levels.

Monk: replace ki strike (lawful) with adamantine, silver, or cold iron. Replace the rest with whatever particular monk fix you prefer.

Clerics: the Good/Evil/Law/Chaos domains need to be reworked, but are still around. They represent an "ideal" or concept rather than an actual [descriptor] tag.

Second, the DR system needs an overhaul. Replace Good/Evil/Law/Chaos tags with various special materials: Silver or Solanian Truesteel = purity/good, Adamantine or Cold Iron = order/law, Baatorian Green Steel or Gehennan Morghuth-Iron = corruption/evil, Abyssal Bloodiron or Astral Driftmetal = disorder/chaos. You may need to tweak the costs so the PCs don't have to pay 10000 GP just to stab a lowly dretch.

Likewise, the alignment-based weapon properties need to be reworked: Anarchic = Vicious, Axiomatic = Domineering or Paralyzing, Holy = Disrupting or Merciful, Unholy = Vampiric or Consumptive.

Third, and the biggest headache... a large number of spells need to be reworked or just removed. As you've already noted, the protection from x spells are a bit of a puzzle... in my own campaign, I reworked them as protection from whatever is trying to attack me, called it a +2 deflection bonus, and left the mind-control protection as-is. This may have made it too powerful for a 1st level spell, but my players never really noticed or took advantage of it. If it got overused... I might nerf the mind-control thing to a +4 vs. mind-affecting/enchantment/charm effects.

The Good/Evil/Law/Chaos domains need to be reworked. I took out the blasphemy/dictum/holy word/word of chaos spells, and good riddance. The chaos hammer/holy smite/order's wrath/unholy blight were either gone as well or replaced with a generic my god hates you spell. I replaced the rest of the spells with things that sort of fit the "theme" of the alignment: Good became positive-energy-based spells, protection spells, and "calling on a higher power" type stuff. Evil became mostly energy-draining necromancy stuff. Lawful became command, hold person, dominate, force effects, "do what I say!" or imprison-type spells. Chaos became confusion, blurr, prismatic/random effects.

I really should have gone through the entire spell section and revamped it, but that looked like way too much work and wound up just handwaving it with something like: "If anything alignment-based comes up, we'll just deal with it as it happens and move on." In actual play, I don't recall that we ran into any major headaches.

[Ernir]

Here are some things in Core that would need to be addressed...

Classes: The Cleric class and the Paladin class need to be rewritten. Monk requires a tweak due to its Ki strike. The other classes do, IIRC, not use alignment as part of their actual mechanics.
Spells: Protection from [Alignment], Magic Circle against [Alignment], Detect [Alignment], Dispel [Alignment], Align Weapon, Holy/Unholy/stuff Aura, Righteous Might, Holy Smite and company, Forbiddance, Holy Word/Blasphemy and company, Hallow/Unhallow, Consecrate/Desecrate, Bless Weapon, Atonement (probably not needed, though), Spiritual Weapon, Bless Water.
Spellcasting: The list of spell descriptors includes the alignment descriptors, which have a mechanical meaning.
Items: Holy/Unholy/stuff weapon enhancements, the Holy Avenger, Nine Lives Stealer, Sun Blade, Horn of Goodness/Evil, Mantle of Faith, Phylactery of Faithfulness (probably not needed), Robe of the Archmagi, Candle of Invocation, Obsidian Steed, Demon Armor, Viper Rod, Python Rod.
Artifacts: Talisman of Pure Good/Ultimate Evil, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, The Shield of the Sun.
Monsters: The alignment subtypes have a mechanical meaning, which would require alteration. Multiple creatures have alignment or a connection to the outer planes as part of their definition, like Celestial creatures.
Cosmology: Alignment traits are a part of planar descriptions.



I considered this at one point. I decided that it was A) Not worth the trouble. B) Part of the game Dungeons and Dragons, even if it's all kinds of wonky for more general fantasy.

[Redrat2k6]

It makes more sense to me when it is put this way as this is how people really are instead of some abstract concept forced upon fictional characters.

Evil = Selfish

Neutral = Justice

Good = Merciful

-----------------------------------------------

Chaotic = Emotion

Neutral = Balance

Lawful = Logic

-----------------------------------------------

Evil in RL comes from people putting themselves and their needs over that of others. Surely an evil character can love things, it just loves itself more.

Justice doesn't mean lawful. It is more of an eye for an eye tooth for a tooth. More commonly these people will make a minimal effort to help people and do not actively try to hurt people, but may do so because of imperfection and flaws of perception.

Mercy is recognizing that a world of pure justice is a horrible place to be because everyone has flaws. Merciful people sacrifice their own comfort in order to make up for wrongs done in the world.

-----------------------------------------------

Emotional people are why those ads on TV of starving children, and homeless puppies are so effective. Or why the fast talking salesman or politician may convince the masses. These people make choices on how situations make them feel. Most uneducated people are this.

Logical people make choices based on what they perceive as the most efficient and effective. Ignoring feelings in favor of facts. Most educated people are this.

Balanced people take both Emotion and Logic and try to filter out the cons of each system and keep the pro's. Wise people are this.

[hamishspence]

Evil in RL comes from people putting themselves and their needs over that of others. Surely an evil character can love things, it just loves itself more.

While selfishness can play a part, "lack of respect for people's lives" and "lack of respect for people's rights" may be of greater importance.

A person who "loves themselves most" doesn't have to be evil, if they respect others.

Conversely, a person who places their own needs last, can still be evil, if their actions indicate a severe lack of respect for life/rights.

"murder the few to help the many" may be the credo of this kind of Evil.

[Eldan]

An alternate suggestion: keep the alignment system, but make it supernatural.

Basically: only strongly aligned creatures are still aligned. Throw all mortals into "neutral". Keep Outsiders, and maybe undead and fey aligned.

[Lord_Gareth]

Use the color wheel!

I love you.

[Zombimode]

There are a few other things to consider. Paladin's Smite Evil, for instance. I'd just let it work on anything, myself.

Yeah, thats what I'm thinking. Its usage becomes a matter of the smiters (not only paladins) judgement. Like with his other powers he can make good and bad judgments. Just like a cleric of the god of civilisation using Fire Storm for incinerating a peaceful village will get a snarky comment from his patron god.




You could try to partially eliminate alignments. I'll try to explain:
PCs do not start with an alignment, but they have a Lawful, Chaos, Good, Evil score (at zero). When you think they act lawfully, you give them a Lawful point and subtract one from Chaos score (and vice versa). So a PC with a Lawful score of 15 would have a negative Chaos score of -15 and so on. The same for the Good\Evil axis.


While an interessting alternative, it goes pretty much in the exact opposit direction that what I am aiming for. Your variant would require MORE use of the aligment system because I would have constanly judge the players actions.
My whish is not to use the aligment system at all.


Use the color wheel!

I like MTGs color pie better then D&Ds aligment system and if I were in a position where I absolutely had to use an aligment system of some sort I would prefer the color pie.
But I dont wont to use such a system at all. (Again, if a player wants to use the color pie as a guideline for roleplaying, he is free to do so.)


You have to remove or alter every spell or feat that references alignment.

All class features that either reference alignment or are dependent upon it, you would either have to axe the class or alter those class features.

Mostly going to be class features/abilities, spells, and feats that are affected by this.

Yes, of course. One point of this thread is to identify those spells/class features/abilities.


good stuff

Thanks for the detailed answer :)
I think your last statement is a good way to do this: covering the basics (like the protection spells) and handle the rest when it comes up in the game.


An alternate suggestion: keep the alignment system, but make it supernatural.

Basically: only strongly aligned creatures are still aligned. Throw all mortals into "neutral". Keep Outsiders, and maybe undead and fey aligned.

Its a good suggestion and I thought about that, too. But would you leave the other mechanics, like smite abilities and protections spells the same? Or if not, how would you change them?

I dont wont to hurt the Paladin more then he already is.

[Lord_Gareth]

Well, if you decide to use the Wheel, it's right here for ya. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174163)

[Fouredged Sword]

I think a good combination of effects would make the game more interesting.

Use the exalted and vile system of alignments, and add in pure Axiomatic and Anacromatic.

Now only outsiders and true devoted of an alignment ping as it for spells and magic. Everyone else is more nuteral than anything else.

Remove all the alignment restrictions or loosen them a step or two and make the whole system work so alignment is a powerful force outside all but the most devote human powers. To harm a dretch would require true devotion to good in some way. Make this power need non mortal intervention (divine magic).

This way you can have the epic struggle between Good and Evil, without getting caught up in the minute of good and evil.

[Eldan]

Its a good suggestion and I thought about that, too. But would you leave the other mechanics, like smite abilities and protections spells the same? Or if not, how would you change them?

I dont wont to hurt the Paladin more then he already is.

I wouldn't change much. The cleric is alignment dependent with a lot of spells, but he can stand it, he's Tier 1. Paladins, though... yeah, they have a problem.

You could consider using Prestige Paladins, instead. Or make Smite a feat or something, instead of a full class.

[Fouredged Sword]

I would just let the paladin smite anything and say the effect is an internal one rather than an external one. The paladin is blessed with strength and aim rather than the attack being super effective vs evil.

[Xtomjames]

Well getting rid of alignment is going to be very difficult considering a good 30% of all spells, abilities, and general game mechanics rely on them. Rather than get rid of alignments, I'd just say flub them.

What I mean is, let them exist and apply as need be. The fact is alignments really don't do much except for the spells designed to detect them, and the usual issues of gods and their cohort (followers).

For example, removing alignment would allow a Paladin of Salune to kill innocent people without any loss of powers, or allow a Cleric to be any alignment regardless of their deity.

This sort of confounds certain aspects, and completely ruins spells like protection from evil/law/good/chaos which do more than just grant a deflection bonus. There are also issues of DR where the DR is based on alignment.

This all said, removing alignment is a difficult and rather intricate process considering all the pieces of the game it's incorporated into.

From metamagic feats to magic types, supernatural abilities, extraordinary abilities, class ability functions, and so on. There are too many things in D&D reliant on alignment to remove it. You're talking about reworking the entire system essentially.

What I'd suggest is just deal with it, it's more trouble than its worth to remove it. However there are alternatives to alignments that could be used that might suit you better than the nine alignment choices in D&D which meshup rather well otherwise.

Instead of there being this hyper arrangement of alignments (Chaotic: Good, Evil Neutral. Lawful: Good Evil Neutral) Simply.

Good: Principled or Scrupulous.
Selfish: Unprincipled or Anarchist
Evil: Miscreant, Aberrant, or Diabolic.

This gives you more to work with and isn't as generic as the D&D alignments. The concepts of Detect Chaos/Good/Evil/Lawful and all other alignment based functions would still work, but the generalism that you're against wouldn't be there.

Then just remove alignment restrictions for most classes (except those that really heavily depend on it).

Really it seems to me you're looking at this as to the connotation of the D&D alignments. How does one define a lawful character, why can't a Chaotic character be lawful at the same time. Lawful doesn't carry the same connotation as principled or disciplined. Good and Evil is arguable as well, one might do something that is evil to one person while good to another.

By changing the way you use alignment and creating a different connotation it might help you work with it better rather than removing it altogether (which as I explained above is a difficult process.)

What I'd suggest is to read this thread first http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60965

[Yora]

In my game, I replaced the alignment descriptors and subtypes with "outsider" and "spirit". There's detect outsider, protection from outsiders, and smite outsiders.
Alignment prerequsites for prestige classes are simply dropped.

That solves the vast majority of problems. It leaves a couple of spells like forbiddance and holy word, that don't really work so well, but that's about it.

An alternate suggestion: keep the alignment system, but make it supernatural.

Basically: only strongly aligned creatures are still aligned. Throw all mortals into "neutral". Keep Outsiders, and maybe undead and fey aligned.
Pretty much this, except that my outsiders all have the same alignment.

[Andorax]

An alternate suggestion: keep the alignment system, but make it supernatural.

Basically: only strongly aligned creatures are still aligned. Throw all mortals into "neutral". Keep Outsiders, and maybe undead and fey aligned.

Something along these lines. Bascially, go back to your "detect" spells, and anything that qualifies for extra bonus levels of evil remains evil. Classes that have "aura" as part of their features are aligned (clerics, paladins, blackguards, etc.).

Anything else gets shunted into the "neutral" category.

This is somewhat along the lines of what 4E's "unaligned" alignment does, though keeping law/chaos and good/evil as their own separate axis.



Another source to draw on is the 3.x Ravenloft material. I can't quote where it is, but I vaguely recall a section where it talks about the Paladin not getting "detect evil" because the setting really distorts it, but that there are alternate versions that can be provided to the Paladin as options. "Detect Guilt" and "Detect Hostility" were both on the list, IIRC.

[Coidzor]

The Incarnate class (to a lesser extent the Soulborn as well) from Magic of Incarnum is basically 4 class variants based around being either NG, NE, LN, or CN, or the four "pure" poles of the alignment grid. You'd have to come up with some other system of allowing access to the soulmelds & determine the class features from there, even if it was just renaming the Good/Evil/Law/Chaos Incarnates to something else.

I believe the Soulborn has some Smite Opposition ability where it does a smite to people of opposing alignments.

Most of the classes in Complete Divine, Complete Champion, Champions of Ruin, and Champions of Valor would have to have at least their pre-reqs examined & tweaked and at least a few classes changed, such as classes that grant the alignment domains unless you wanna just remain those.

[SlashRunner]

Chaotic = Emotion

Emotional people are why those ads on TV of starving children, and homeless puppies are so effective. Or why the fast talking salesman or politician may convince the masses. These people make choices on how situations make them feel. Most uneducated people are this.


I'd consider myself chaotic. I hate people telling me what to do, I think in an abstract and unpredictable way, etc...
To me, ads on TV or salesmen and politicians trying to convince me that their way is "right" is the same thing in spirit as them telling me what to do. And I hate people telling me what to do.

[SowZ]

I don't like the alignment system and players won't even have 'alignments' in my next game. BUT spells like protection from evil, detect evil, etc. will still exist. If a Paladin has a god, that god has views on good and evil. A Paladin's detect evil does not represent an objective morality of the target but just if that person is evil in the eyes of the paladins god.

In the same way, a wizard casts a protection from evil spell. Whatever he views as evil would be hampered.

[Rogue Shadows]

I like the alignment system. Then again I have never once run into a problem with it, at all, except when reading about other people's problems on the Internets.

So that might be part of it.

I have a pretty easy-going view on it, though. Alignment is the sum total of your methods and reasoning, rather than any one given action you take making you "good" or "evil" or what have you. So even the most Chaotic Evil person might put a few coins in a beggar's palm sometime, for no other reason than to help the beggar out, and even the most Lawful Good person might sometimes think the speed limit is just too God-damned slow, or that this so-and-so person needs to just die.

The only beings that are black and white are the physical incarnations of alignments as concepts, like the gods and their servants, and even then they can often break from their alignments. Even Primus gambles on occasion, basically.

[McSmack]

I don't think the issue is necessarily with the fact that there are alignments. I don't have an issue claiming undead as evil, or devils or demons. Angels are good, so are unicorns and whatnot. Law/chaos is where my big issue lies. Law/chaos just doesn't seem relevent enough to really matter. LG and CG characters typically have less of a problem working together than say a CG and CE.

The problem to me stems from the fact that we try to fit humans (and by extention other player races) into these molds when in fact we are all varying shades of neutral.

I think a simpler solution would be to ditch the Law/Chaos axis and have alignment only applicable in extreme cases, such as creatures that are actually from planes with a certain alignment - so things like devils and demons. PC's can declare themselves as good, neutral or evil, but that doesn't effect anything in the game. Detect Evil will reveal the presence of truely evil things like zombies and the like, but won't work on regular folks no matter how villanous they are.

As a natural consequence, things that revolve around alignment will just be less useful than the were before. They don't need to be changed, they'll just naturally fall by the wayside because there are more helpful options available.

If you'd like to give the paladin more umph you could give him a bonus on social checks against people trying to harm or mislead him. Have his smite work on everything, it's not like paladins couldn't use the boost. And now we don't have all the silly alignment restrictions.

[Tetrasodium]

Preface

I dont like the aligment system. At best it does absolutely nothing to enhance the game. Every character that can be created using the aligment system can be created without. In fact at least for me its much easier to create characters when not having to worry about an aligment system.
At worst it spawns arguments between players, and between players and the DM. Unnecessary and unhealthy arguments. I dont want those in my games.

Now, to make myself clear here: I specificly dont like an universal aligment system where every booping entity under the sun has to be placed within. Especially one that used terms normaly reserved for moral judgements.
What I dont have a problem with (and actually do like) are strong opposing metaphysical concepts.
An example you can see in some fiction is "Chaos" (which can mean things like uncreation, nihilism or disharmony) opposed to "Order" (which can be something equally extreme, or just the normal natural order of things); or "Life" vs. "Death", and so on. Within such a setup I can see that entities that have strong ties to those cosmic forces getting treated differently mechanical. Like a priest of the Chaos gods getting the [Chaotic] subtype.

I do realize that other people have a different view on this. One thing I hear often from people who do like the aligment system is that it helps them creating and playing characters, using the basic frame of personality traits and philosophical outlooks provided by the aligments as a guideline. And yes, I can see where they are coming from. I never used aligments that way, but then again I was always good with characters and never felt the need for this paticular help.
The point is: even if an aligment is not a mechanical aspect of your characters nothing stops you from using the aligment system as a guideline for roleplaying. I just want to have this optional and not inbuild into the system.


The matter at hand

That being said I finaly come to the point of this thread:
If I want to remove the aligment system from D&D 3.5, what I have to do?
What parts of the game are affected? What are the pitfalls?
And how can I do this without removing options?

A very urgent matter I think are the spells that probably get used a lot: the "Detect X" spells and powers, and the "Protection from X" spells.
The eas way would be to just remove them. And if there is no other satisfactory solution I will do that. But I would prefer to keep them, albeit altered.

Options I came up with for the "Protection" line of spells:

1. Making the discriminatory effects of the spells universal. Protection just gives you a +2 deflection/resistance bonus on AC/saves.
2. Making the bonuses apply only against those targets, who directly oppose your current quest/higer goal. So that in most cases rabbid wildlife would not be affected (since they are not opposing you on your quest, they are just hungry), likewise with bar patrons in a bar fight or maybe even humanoid bandits.


So, what do you think, playground?


I don't have the book/pdf handy right now to give a full quote, steal the rifts alignment system

It's based more on the sort of things the character would consider doing rather than the extreme Good/Evil concepts like d&d's. Basically it breaks down into good/selfish/evil with subcategories under them I went looking on google quick & found a thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60965) that explains the subgroupings, it leaves out the full descriptions though :(.

Also the ebberon campaign setting book explains how eberron handles alignment in a much less strict & improved way that may be helpful as well

[Rogue Shadows]

Just a question. Why is D&D's alignment system seen as strict?

Obviously we're making an exception for Paladins and manifestations of alignments (e.g. Solars). I'm talking about for people.

1. Firstly, the very concept of alignment shifts shows that creatures who choose an alignment are not stuck with it. If you can move around the alignment system, it means it isn't strict. It's just that it doesn't bother to measure things to an exacting degree, which arguably makes it less strict. Rather than starting Chaotic Good and turning Neutral Good when your Chaos drops below a certain score, you just "shift" when it seems appropriate.

2. Right in the PHB, page 103: "Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has even if that’s not lawful or good behavior. People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on."

This doesn't seem like anything resembling a strict system to me.

[Coidzor]

The OP's principle objection seemed to be that the alignment system was forced onto all characters so they had to fit into one of the 9 boxes.

[Rogue Shadows]

The OP's principle objection seemed to be that the alignment system was forced onto all characters so they had to fit into one of the 9 boxes.

I ge that. But there seems to be a general idea that the alignment system is "strict." I'm trying to understand why.

It certainly seems less strict than, say, Vampire: The Masquerade's Humanity system, which is set up so that falling to Humanity 2-3 or lower is essentially inevitable unless your vampire chooses to go sunbathing.

[Tetrasodium]

Just a question. Why is D&D's alignment system seen as strict?

Obviously we're making an exception for Paladins and manifestations of alignments (e.g. Solars). I'm talking about for people.

1. Firstly, the very concept of alignment shifts shows that creatures who choose an alignment are not stuck with it. If you can move around the alignment system, it means it isn't strict. It's just that it doesn't bother to measure things to an exacting degree, which arguably makes it less strict. Rather than starting Chaotic Good and turning Neutral Good when your Chaos drops below a certain score, you just "shift" when it seems appropriate.

2. Right in the PHB, page 103: "Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has even if that’s not lawful or good behavior. People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on."

This doesn't seem like anything resembling a strict system to me.

Probably because the good/evil component is in the realm of cartoon extreme black & white with neutral being something written to be mainly applicable to animals with ~3int or so

[Coidzor]

Probably because the good/evil component is in the realm of cartoon extreme black & white with neutral being something written to be mainly applicable to animals with ~3int or so

Or to describe people who aren't particularly one thing or another. :smalltongue:

[Rogue Shadows]

Probably because the good/evil component is in the realm of cartoon extreme black & white with neutral being something written to be mainly applicable to animals with ~3int or so

I've never actually seen it like that...and like I typed, the book itself goes on to point out that a good person can still do evil things and vice-versa. It is necessarily speaking in broad, general terms when describing things. And, it even allows that characters are fully capable of changing alignment over time.

Again, far from being strict, the system seems incredibly flexible to me.

[hamishspence]

Pretty much. Some books describe certain deeds as "always evil" or "always lawful" but there's a lot of room within the alignment system itself.

It's possible to subvert the selfish=evil expectation by having characters who, while they fairly regularly do pretty serious evil deeds, only do them for unselfish reasons.

Or the idea that Neutrals are always somewhat selfish- by having them do minor evil deeds for unselfish reasons.

[TOZ]

All creatures are treated as Neutral for mechanical purposes, unless they possess an alignment aura or subtype. Paladins can Smite anything.

Done.

[SowZ]

I've never actually seen it like that...and like I typed, the book itself goes on to point out that a good person can still do evil things and vice-versa. It is necessarily speaking in broad, general terms when describing things. And, it even allows that characters are fully capable of changing alignment over time.

Again, far from being strict, the system seems incredibly flexible to me.

Creatures arbitrarily being labeled evil for no other reason then they don't follow a human social construct, (ethics,) take away from my suspension of disbelief, seeing as a moral system has to be consistent to be logical and a concrete moral system that I can't make sense of is something I can't help but reject, no matter what the DM says.

This leads to me saying, 'Okay. I will make a character and play them how I want to play them. You can apply an alignment label, but it will in no way affect how I play them. As far as the evil/good thing, I just don't buy it.' Some DMs can deal with this, but often it creates an obstacle. That is not my intent. That's why rather then argue it, I'd rather just give the DM the power to slap a label on my person that won't have any impact on him at all and I'll soon forget about it. Sometimes I will pick an alignment like Chaotic Neutral just so I can play how I want and not bug the DM.

My point is, I fully support the OP in getting rid of the system for his games and would appreciate playing under any DM who did so.

[hamishspence]

One way of looking at it- Life tends to be Good, death tends to be Evil- acts indicative of respect for life are, as a general rule, Good, those indicative of contempt for life, Evil.

A person might have respect for some life, contempt for other life- and depending how strong that contempt is- they might approach the Evil range.

"Respect for others' rights" is a derivative of "respect for life".

It's crude- but it seems like the general principle for D&D.

"respect for life" is after all, the first thing mentioned, when the PHB says "Good implies...."

[ideasmith]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183256

[SowZ]

One way of looking at it- Life tends to be Good, death tends to be Evil- acts indicative of respect for life are, as a general rule, Good, those indicative of contempt for life, Evil.

A person might have respect for some life, contempt for other life- and depending how strong that contempt is- they might approach the Evil range.

"Respect for others' rights" is a derivative of "respect for life".

It's crude- but it seems like the general principle for D&D.

"respect for life" is after all, the first thing mentioned, when the PHB says "Good implies...."

But it often seems to work the other way. Esspecially when the way of life for an entire species, what is natural and ethical for them, is condemned as evil. An entire race of life is labelled wrong. And then acts like using Deathwatch to be a healer are called evil even if they are being used to keep things alive. And even then, at some point, life becomes evil and death becomes good. Not just in applying death as justice, but many good gods have contempt for creatures that extend their lifespans indefinitely.

[hamishspence]

Given that at least one Exalted PRC has Deathwatch on its list, and it wasn't evil in 3.0, I wonder if that was an error in 3.5.

"good characters respect even the lives of their enemies" is a BoED theme- hence they try not to kill them unless they have no other choice.

"Extending one's life indefinitely" without being undead- while Maruts (LN) might frown on it, I'm not sure if good deities do.


But it often seems to work the other way. Esspecially when the way of life for an entire species, what is natural and ethical for them, is condemned as evil.

Wouldn't this only occur, when that way of life involves active contempt for the lives of at least some other intelligent beings?

[SowZ]

Given that at least one Exalted PRC has Deathwatch on its list, and it wasn't evil in 3.0, I wonder if that was an error in 3.5.

"good characters respect even the lives of their enemies" is a BoED theme- hence they try not to kill them unless they have no other choice.

"Extending one's life indefinitely" without being undead- while Maruts (LN) might frown on it, I'm not sure if good deities do.



Wouldn't this only occur, when that way of life involves active contempt for the lives of at least some other intelligent beings?

If Bronze Dragons are mortal enemies of Black Dragons, for example, and both want each other dead, who is to say which side is justified in this hatred or if anyone is?

I'll allow the Deathwatch thing is a mistake, but even then it shows that the alignment system as written is certainly flawed and there are other examples of 'evil' spells being used to preserve life. And even evil magic being used to preserve massive amounts of life is considered evil, so obviously there are things other than just respect of life is good.

I am not too sure if there are good gods that condemn living forever outside of undead... (Though unless it involves killing others as most undead do, I fail to see a moral difference in choosing to make oneself undead or reincarnating indefinitely.) Someone like the Raven Queen would frown on putting of death. In that case, she isn't good, neither are Maruts, but doesn't that just show death as neutral?

[Rogue Shadows]

If Bronze Dragons are mortal enemies of Black Dragons, for example, and both want each other dead, who is to say which side is justified in this hatred or if anyone is?

See, this is why we have time travel. To figure these kinds of questions out.

[SowZ]

See, this is why we have time travel. To figure these kinds of questions out.

Hehe. While amusing, I don't think it helps to solve the problem. A circle of violence is wrong whoever started it. Just because my dad killed Jons dad doesn't mean Jon is justified in killing me. The same goes for nations or people at war. Besides, wanting an individual dead is one thing. Wanting a species gone is another entirely and is blatant disrespect for life. The onyl way I can interpret this, it is incompatible with the definition of 'good' being proposed.

[Redrat2k6]

@hamishspence (spoilerified because it is long and not really relevant)



I see your point and agree that "lack of respect for people's lives" and "lack of respect for people's rights" are ideologies of evil. However I was exploring the deepest part of the spectrum of morality, which would explore why they lack that respect you were referring too.

Motives -> Thoughts/Ideologies -> Actions -> Consequences

That is the spectrum sane people use. Lack of respect for people's lives is perspective or Ideology people come to view life and then justify based upon their motive.

You're right, a person who "loves themselves most" doesn't have to be evil. But that is the source of evil that does exist.

I do disagree with "a person who places their own needs last, can still be evil".

I reason this sort of person put others needs ahead of their own. Needs being those things that brings the other person true happiness (which is harmonious relationships with others aka. love, and is not relative to individual preference) and that helps them achieve their greatest personal potential (which is relative to the individual).

I agree that murdering a few to help the many, with the information you gave in that scenario sounds like an evil act, especially with the word murder which is a planned act of killing. I would reason that this scenario would have to be explored further however, as those dying and their motives and future actions would have to be explored as well as those motives and actions of those who were being saved by the same standards presented in my previous post (Selfishness, Justice, and Love/Mercy).

The best case scenario would be the paladin that killed a few evil creatures in order to save many good creatures. This would not be considered evil, and I'm sure you agree. If I was to take what I interpreted as your meaning, which is of killing innocents to save more innocents, I would try to explore exactly how innocent those people were as stated earlier using the same standards.

Generally it would go like this.

Evil people would not care, which shows a lack of respect for life as you suggested, as it does not involve them but would more likely try to increase suffering for whatever motive they have justified for causing suffering against people as a whole.

Neutral people might or might not care as they would not want to make the effort to determine which groups are evil, or would just try to save the largest group with the assumption that they are all good. In their minds their non action is justified because they are not actively seeking to cause harm to others and their ignorance of not yet determining if their action would be beneficial to all involved or cause them harm.

Good people would take the extra time and sacrifice needed to make a decision that promotes the true happiness and personal growth to all involved including themselves. If that information could not be obtained for whatever reason a good person would try to save as many people as possible giving all creatures involved the benefit of the doubt of being good.

Good Evil and Neutral are not actions or even preferences and ideology it is who you are, and what defines you, or in other words, your motive behind everything you do. Selfishness or Pride being the root of all evil and an obstacle for those who are neutral, and Selfless Love aka. Mercy being the source of all goodness.

So in the end I mostly agree with you in the circumstances that you presented. I was just looking at it from the source, and tried to define the actual moral for what it is and it's cause. While attempting to stay away from examples that themselves attempt to define the moral viewpoints.



More relevant to the OP. The system I presented earlier makes more sense in general and can still be used with the rules. Selfishness, Justice, and Love can be easily replaced in spell descriptors and other mechanics in place of Evil, Neutral, and Good respectively.

Same with Chaos (Emotion/Arts/Freedom) and Law (Logic/Order/Facts) are easily replaced and make more sense.

[Zale]

Don't think to hard about it, and you'll be fine.

I never understand why people want to be so pedantic about what an alignment means.

Just enjoy the game and move on.


Darn I lost the game again.

[Rising Phoenix]

First, you have to tweak some of the classes:

Paladin: replace detect evil with detect undead. Replace Smite Evil with Smite Naughtiness. Then replace Aura of Good with something similar to Gaze of Truth (variant paladin, Dragon #349), where they can use detect lies a certain number of times per day. This gives them more of a "judicial/investigator" role for sorting out wrongdoing.

Barbarian: jot something down about losing the ability to rage if the number of monk/paladin levels you have exceeds your barbarian levels.

Monk: replace ki strike (lawful) with adamantine, silver, or cold iron. Replace the rest with whatever particular monk fix you prefer.

Clerics: the Good/Evil/Law/Chaos domains need to be reworked, but are still around. They represent an "ideal" or concept rather than an actual [descriptor] tag.

Second, the DR system needs an overhaul. Replace Good/Evil/Law/Chaos tags with various special materials: Silver or Solanian Truesteel = purity/good, Adamantine or Cold Iron = order/law, Baatorian Green Steel or Gehennan Morghuth-Iron = corruption/evil, Abyssal Bloodiron or Astral Driftmetal = disorder/chaos. You may need to tweak the costs so the PCs don't have to pay 10000 GP just to stab a lowly dretch.

Likewise, the alignment-based weapon properties need to be reworked: Anarchic = Vicious, Axiomatic = Domineering or Paralyzing, Holy = Disrupting or Merciful, Unholy = Vampiric or Consumptive.

Third, and the biggest headache... a large number of spells need to be reworked or just removed. As you've already noted, the protection from x spells are a bit of a puzzle... in my own campaign, I reworked them as protection from whatever is trying to attack me, called it a +2 deflection bonus, and left the mind-control protection as-is. This may have made it too powerful for a 1st level spell, but my players never really noticed or took advantage of it. If it got overused... I might nerf the mind-control thing to a +4 vs. mind-affecting/enchantment/charm effects.

The Good/Evil/Law/Chaos domains need to be reworked. I took out the blasphemy/dictum/holy word/word of chaos spells, and good riddance. The chaos hammer/holy smite/order's wrath/unholy blight were either gone as well or replaced with a generic my god hates you spell. I replaced the rest of the spells with things that sort of fit the "theme" of the alignment: Good became positive-energy-based spells, protection spells, and "calling on a higher power" type stuff. Evil became mostly energy-draining necromancy stuff. Lawful became command, hold person, dominate, force effects, "do what I say!" or imprison-type spells. Chaos became confusion, blurr, prismatic/random effects.

I really should have gone through the entire spell section and revamped it, but that looked like way too much work and wound up just handwaving it with something like: "If anything alignment-based comes up, we'll just deal with it as it happens and move on." In actual play, I don't recall that we ran into any major headaches.

A nice summary and I agree with what you've done.

In my games I simply ban anything alignment based sans classes which I tweak.

[Tusalu]

You know, there's a variant in Heroes of Horror that removes character alignment but keeps alignment-related spells and abilities. For the purpose of these abilities you count as the alignment matching your current actions/intentions. One of the examples is a villain wouldn't show up on Detect Evil, if he's just doing his shopping.

I used this in a horror adventure, on the basis that people tend to play their characters more morally ambigious, when they don't have a fixed moral code on their character sheet.

[Icestorm245]

Perhaps you could make the Detect line into something like "Detect malevolence" where malevolence is basically anything that would harm a living creature other than themselves. On the other hand, "Detect Benevolence" would detect the target's willingness to selflessly help a living creature other than itself. For example, if a noble takes you in and arms you with magic items among other things, you could use "Detec Benevolence" to see if he's doing it out of the kindness of his heart or if he has an ulterior motive. If he's doing it out of kindness, then the spell rings true, but if he has an ulterior motive, then the spell doesn't work.

Depending on the ulterior motive, the "Detect Malevolence" spell may or may not work. If he wants you to slay an opposing noble, then it rings true, but if he simply wants you to escort his messenger to the King, then it will not. It probably has a few bugs, as I just thought of it now, but there's the base if you want to use it.