PDA

View Full Version : How do you create a Pathfinder/D&D setting with gray and gray morality?



MonkeySage
2015-08-17, 10:59 PM
I'm working on a pathfinder setting where standard alignments don't work, where a character can be seen as either a hero or a villain based entirely on perspective. This hasn't been easy, as one of my players from another campaign quickly judged the following character as evil:


The sorceress Vala grew up among people who feared and despised magic. They would throw rocks at her, branding her a monster. So she fled to live among the fey in a forest; she made a deal to provide them with services and protection, and in exchange they would protect her and give her eternal life.

To this end, she's vowed to use whatever force necessary to protect her realm. She warned the villagers to stay out of her realm, and put up illusions to make it seem more threatening. If any human being is caught within her borders, she'll either keep that person there for the rest of their life or kill them on the spot.

As for the fey; her services keep them contented, keep them contained. Were it not for her, they might prey on the villagers outside.

Mechalich
2015-08-17, 11:14 PM
I would place such a character as a fairly harsh neutral, but not evil (though vulnerable to drifting towards evil if she begins to kill outside of the service of her ideals).

The neutral alignments constitute a huge gray zone of morality in D&D, with many traditionally 'evil' actions according to real-world moral systems falling under that classification and you can expand them further if you wish by making the definitions of good and evil more stringent.

The real problem is that certain abilities, spells, and beings are keyed to alignment and force the GM to make snap judgments regarding alignment even if you want moral status to be somewhat more mutable. ie. even if you could be neutral yesterday and neutral tomorrow, if you're evil right now them Smite Evil works against you.

Removing alignment entirely may be necessary to make gray on gray morality the dominant paradigm. Such an action is a massive system overhaul, though I'm sure there are examples out there of how to do it.

goto124
2015-08-17, 11:25 PM
Eberron or some other setting has people who ping evil but are more 'just fighting for their survival'. Or something.

You could keep alignment there, and have it recognised that it's highly flawed. [Cue 1001 alignment jokes].

Ralanr
2015-08-17, 11:58 PM
That's lawful neutral if not lawful evil, but I'm thinking more lawful neutral.

Here's a suggestion, make no gods good or evil. All the gods fit into the neutral alignment. Or make it so the gods (both good and bad) don't care about mortals at all.

Draconium
2015-08-18, 12:19 AM
That's lawful neutral if not lawful evil, but I'm thinking more lawful neutral.

Here's a suggestion, make no gods good or evil. All the gods fit into the neutral alignment. Or make it so the gods (both good and bad) don't care about mortals at all.

Agreed with you on the alignment part, and I have an idea about the gods of that campaign: How about having no gods at all? At least, no gods that directly meddle in any sort of mortal affairs - perhaps the gods of this world have "died," and without their influence, the concepts of "Good" and "Evil," which were normally fasioned after them, have become more vague. Outside of a few concepts that are recognized as Good and Evil in most cultures, of course.

BeerMug Paladin
2015-08-18, 12:51 AM
I once ran a game in a world where alignments entirely depended upon a god's teachings. The particular gods had differing ideals that either mildly agreed, were indifferent or strongly conflicted with one another. Thus, alignment spells told you which people were following a god that was either yours or similar enough to be agreeable, which were more or less not harmful or helpful and which were outright diametrically opposed to your god.

For a few examples, there was a paladin-god and a knowledge-god, both generally agreed that an accomplished elite should rule the masses. They disagreed on who the correct elite were, but both valued having rigorous law and bureaucracy play a large part in society. Their followers both ping good to the other because they can generally work well together.

There was a feudalism-god and a money-god. They were not diametrically opposed, since there was a mercantile class in the feudal society that (theoretically) anyone could join to have independence and freedom the money-god endorsed. And the nepotism naturally arising in the money-god's endorsed government strongly resembled feudal society. Their promoted teachings for obligation (to family/community, to self) were different and their ideal forms of government were different, but their followers were not necessarily always in opposition or could work well together. They both pinged neutral to the other.

There was also a nature-god. Essentially teaching that man is a part of nature and should not place themselves as superior to it. This includes taking excessively from natural resources, owning land and so forth. They pinged evil to the money-god's followers and vice-versa.

And lastly, there was also a corruption-god. Essentially promoted the philosophy of might-makes-right. Essentially teaching that any moral codes are delusional affairs not worthy of consideration. The only thing worth consideration is what lets you accrue power in the long run. They are commanded to do whatever it takes to get maximal power and wipe out all competitors at any cost. That god's followers ping evil to everyone and everyone else pings evil to them.

People who followed no particular god would mostly be neutral, as they are not following a correct moral code or haven't had their thinking corrupted by a bad moral philosophy. There's still problems with this sort of alignment system, but that's more because morality defies simple categorization.

This wasn't really actually used in the game when I ran it because the players didn't really explore alignment much. Although they did seem to enjoy the reveal at the end where they found out they had been working for an anti-villain and decided to support her in her cause to seize power. (Which included murdering lots of innocent bystanders.)

Since then, I've decided that the overall setting probably works better as a separate written world than a game world.

goto124
2015-08-18, 12:54 AM
I guess we're moving along the lines of 'remove cosmic influence on good/evil'? Gods have their domains, and work based on such domains. Clerics and paladins serve specific gods, and their powers (e.g. Holy Smite) work based on the beliefs of their opponents.

Coidzor
2015-08-18, 01:52 AM
I'm working on a pathfinder setting where standard alignments don't work, where a character can be seen as either a hero or a villain based entirely on perspective. This hasn't been easy, as one of my players from another campaign quickly judged the following character as evil:


The sorceress Vala grew up among people who feared and despised magic. They would throw rocks at her, branding her a monster. So she fled to live among the fey in a forest; she made a deal to provide them with services and protection, and in exchange they would protect her and give her eternal life.

To this end, she's vowed to use whatever force necessary to protect her realm. She warned the villagers to stay out of her realm, and put up illusions to make it seem more threatening. If any human being is caught within her borders, she'll either keep that person there for the rest of their life or kill them on the spot.

As for the fey; her services keep them contented, keep them contained. Were it not for her, they might prey on the villagers outside.

What reason does she have for killing people, other than that she's a maladjusted bitch? If she has to because any living people who go there become a conduit for unsavory fey to use to get out into the world, then you might have some more territory to work with.

One thing though, is that unless the players are on board with being scoundrels, there's really no way to force the characters to be grey in an enjoyable manner. So make sure your players understand what you want to do and have bought in.

Milo v3
2015-08-18, 02:43 AM
How do you create a Pathfinder/D&D setting with gray and gray morality?

Open Pathfinder:Unchained, go to page 100, read, done.

Yora
2015-08-18, 04:54 AM
To get any kind of ambiguity, good and evil must not exist as part of the rules. If you really, really have to use alignment at all, make it so that only outsiders can have any alignment other than neutral. Any other creatures count as neutral. But it would be a lot better to not have alignment at all. Because if you have it, it is already stated by the game that good and evil are actual things and not a matter of opinion.

GungHo
2015-08-18, 11:02 AM
I generally do Pathfinder, but suppress Big E Evil and Big G Good (and big L Law and Big C Chaos, for that matter) for planar beings or other things that qualify as exceptional cases (e.g. possession, "chosen-status", clerics temporarily channeling large amounts of aligned divine energy). It's not so much that everyone else is neutral or necessarily "gray" (though they can be), but they're not "of Good" or "of Evil" so Protection from Good/Evil, etc, isn't going to really do anything, nor are alignment-targeted weapons.

mephnick
2015-08-18, 11:11 AM
Don't use alignment rules. I'm not sure why alignment still exists outside of tradition. It's archaic and unwieldy.

- Make actions have consequences and the PCs and NPCs will draw their "own" conclusions based on their perspective. You can still make enemies and friends without alignment. The fey see the sorceress as good. The outsiders see her as evil. Done.

- Don't have gods with alignments, have gods with goals who favour beings that further those goals.

Ralanr
2015-08-18, 11:29 AM
Don't use alignment rules. I'm not sure why alignment still exists outside of tradition. It's archaic and unwieldy.

- Make actions have consequences and the PCs and NPCs will draw their "own" conclusions based on their perspective. You can still make enemies and friends without alignment. The fey see the sorceress as good. The outsiders see her as evil. Done.

- Don't have gods with alignments, have gods with goals who favour beings that further those goals.

+1.

Have everything with an alignment space write "ambiguous" there instead.

VoxRationis
2015-08-18, 01:53 PM
My past two campaigns have been essentially alignment-free (though most PCs and NPCs seem to be in the "deep end of the alignment pool"). We sort of have an unspoken agreement to avoid mechanical effects that affect alignment, and most clerics are assumed to channel positive energy by default. Truth be told, it wasn't that hard or require that much adjustment in the way we play.

dream
2015-08-18, 04:05 PM
I'm working on a pathfinder setting where standard alignments don't work, where a character can be seen as either a hero or a villain based entirely on perspective. This hasn't been easy, as one of my players from another campaign quickly judged the following character as evil:


The sorceress Vala grew up among people who feared and despised magic. They would throw rocks at her, branding her a monster. So she fled to live among the fey in a forest; she made a deal to provide them with services and protection, and in exchange they would protect her and give her eternal life.

To this end, she's vowed to use whatever force necessary to protect her realm. She warned the villagers to stay out of her realm, and put up illusions to make it seem more threatening. If any human being is caught within her borders, she'll either keep that person there for the rest of their life or kill them on the spot.

As for the fey; her services keep them contented, keep them contained. Were it not for her, they might prey on the villagers outside.
The bold stuff = yeah, she's evil :smalltongue:

Running without alignment might work, as long as the group agrees there's no alignment. But now, there's no markers: no "these are clearly heroes" and "these are clearly the bad guys". Everyone is whatever. I'd love to see a campaign journal of your adventures.

SkipSandwich
2015-08-18, 07:42 PM
If you want grey and grey morality, you need a system that rewards players for both acts of exceptional heroism as well as exceptional villainy.

In True20, instead of alignment, characters are assigned both a Virtue and a Vice, which tie into the Conviction (Action Point) recharge mechanic. Characters normally get a limited number of Conviction points to spend each day, but by performing acts strongly aligned with either their Virtue OR Vice they are awarded bonus points over and above their normal allotment which last until spent.

What makes an act sufficiently Virtuous or Vile is up to DM interpretation, but I use the following guideline;

Whenever the character is choosing to fulfill their virtue or vice at the expense of their greater self-interest or otherwise chooses to do so at great personal risk, award conviction, also award conviction when they have otherwise spent a large amount of time, effort, or personal resources in order to fulfill the virtue/vice.

bulbaquil
2015-08-18, 08:03 PM
Pathfinder Unchained has ideas for removing alignment from the game - even if you're not playing Pathfinder, they could fairly easily be adapted to 3.5e or 5e (I don't know enough about the other editions to make judgments on adaptability).

For (anti-)paladins, Smite Evil (Good) simply becomes Smite Heretic.

For clerics, get rid of the alignment domains. Clerics with the healing, protection, or community domains channel positive energy; clerics with the death, destruction, or void domains channel negative; clerics with none of those domains (or with one domain from each of the lists) choose whether to channel positive or negative in the same way neutral clerics of neutral gods do in a RAW game.

For outsiders, things get a little more world-buildy. Easiest thing to do is to redefine all the relevant teams to have qualities/goals our society would consider both desirable and undesirable: e.g., perhaps in your setting angels are all about protecting children, the downtrodden, and the defenseless... but they're extreme male chauvinists and actively enforce and promulgate a "stay in the kitchen" philosophy. Perhaps your devils are only seeking world peace... but under an "enlightened" despot who stifles personal freedom and societal/technological innovation.

Ralanr
2015-08-18, 08:05 PM
Pathfinder Unchained has ideas for removing alignment from the game - even if you're not playing Pathfinder, they could fairly easily be adapted to 3.5e or 5e (I don't know enough about the other editions to make judgments on adaptability).

For (anti-)paladins, Smite Evil (Good) simply becomes Smite Heretic.

For clerics, get rid of the alignment domains. Clerics with the healing, protection, or community domains channel positive energy; clerics with the death, destruction, or void domains channel negative; clerics with none of those domains (or with one domain from each of the lists) choose whether to channel positive or negative in the same way neutral clerics of neutral gods do in a RAW game.

For outsiders, things get a little more world-buildy. Easiest thing to do is to redefine all the relevant teams to have qualities/goals our society would consider both desirable and undesirable: e.g., perhaps in your setting angels are all about protecting children, the downtrodden, and the defenseless... but they're extreme male chauvinists and actively enforce and promulgate a "stay in the kitchen" philosophy. Perhaps your devils are only seeking world peace... but under an "enlightened" despot who stifles personal freedom and societal/technological innovation.

So barbarians don't have alignment restriction anymore?

How is the class balance now?

Milo v3
2015-08-18, 08:11 PM
So barbarians don't have alignment restriction anymore?

How is the class balance now?

No class have alignment restriction if you use the option, since alignment doesn't exist.

Class balance is 99% the same, 100% depending on what you choose to smite if your a paladin. Since paladins using the subjective morality option can have things like Smite Terrorist, Smite Demon Supporter, Smite Heretic, Smite Government, or Smite Murderer.

goto124
2015-08-18, 08:13 PM
... why do alignment restrictions promote class balance anyway?

The balance is perfectly fine.

Ralanr
2015-08-18, 08:55 PM
... why do alignment restrictions promote class balance anyway?

The balance is perfectly fine.

Was an off topic question. I probably should have said that

Milo v3
2015-08-18, 09:18 PM
Was an off topic question. I probably should have said that

We realize that, we just don't see how alignment restrictions could have anything to do with balance.

Swami Monsoon
2015-08-18, 10:24 PM
The D&D alignment system has always struck me as an oddly modern construction for a depiction of a pre-modern world.

The idea of somebody being "Lawful Good" (or any other alignment) and behaving in that fashion towards everybody, no matter their race/religion/nationality/gender/etc. is a very recent development. In the pre-modern world laws, ethics and religious doctrine were constrained by tribalism. The rules didn't always apply to outsiders, to members of different identity groups. That didn't mean there was constant violence. If the outsiders were strong enough to defend themselves, it was only smart to negotiate and trade instead of loot and plunder. But if the perceived threat or perceived opportunity was great enough, few people had reservations about doing "evil" things to others who were not like them.

Just a couple of examples from the relatively recent past... Thomas Jefferson would likely have been considered Neutral Good in his behavior towards other white people. But towards blacks (i.e. slaves) he was Lawful Evil. Then a few decades later on the frontier... most Comanches when dealing with other Comanches would be Good and/or Neutral (maybe with more of a Chaotic bent because they're nomads). As in any society, there are only a handful of true sociopaths who are Evil 24/7/365. But when dealing with Texans (or Mexicans/other Natives/anyone not Comanche) they were Chaotic Evil. Likewise the Texans, absent a minority of criminals and psychos, were mostly Good and/or Neutral with each other. But to the Comanches (and other people of color) they were Lawful Evil. There were times when the two sides decided to cut deals rather than cut each other's throats, but those choices were determined by practical concerns, not any greater understanding of Right and Wrong. And this is the very recent past where people (the white ones at least, in theory) had the benefit of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The further back you go, the uglier things tend to get.

In most pre-modern settings, otherwise well-adjusted, law-abiding and caring people had few reservations about doing absolutely vile things to people who were the wrong color, worshiped the wrong god(s) or spoke the wrong language. Things that in modern society we associate with the very worst criminals and deviants. The prevalence of slavery in the pre-modern world is only the most obvious example. You think Ariel Castro was a sick, sick f**k? Back in the day there was an Ariel Castro around every corner...

dream
2015-08-18, 10:47 PM
The D&D alignment system has always struck me as an oddly modern construction for a depiction of a pre-modern world .....snip
D&D .... is a game. Alignment .... is a rule in that game. It's really not that serious.

It's like posting "The D&D Magic system has always struck me as an oddly modern construction for a depiction of a pre-modern world."

It's a game with elves and dragons and goofy dice:smalltongue: Real world comparisons bounce off like Skittles.

Alignment is a sign GMs can hang on PCs for easy reference: "Okay so the Orcs are invading Smallville; Mike's LG Paladin and Chris' NG Dwarf wont like that at all. But Jen's LE Necromancer probably wont give a s***. Secondary plot hook time!"

It's just a GM tool ... that's used in a game with elves and dragons and goofy dice.

Ralanr
2015-08-18, 11:49 PM
We realize that, we just don't see how alignment restrictions could have anything to do with balance.

It was targeted at the unchained version classes. I believe magic users were much more powerful than martials in pathfinder and was wondering if the new unchained versions were a better balance.

Milo v3
2015-08-18, 11:53 PM
It was targeted at the unchained version classes. I believe magic users were much more powerful than martials in pathfinder and was wondering if the new unchained versions were a better balance.

The unchained classes still have alignment restrictions, unless your using the removed alignment rules, but Barbarian weaker when it comes to THW fighting but simpler to manage and rage powers are stronger, monk is a better beatstick but isn't really any better than a monk with the right archetypes, rogue is more balanced becoming tier 4 or 3 (depending on who you ask), summoner is more balanced because of the spell list changes but many dislike how they put more regulation on what types of eidolons can be created (though personally I like it).

KnightOfV
2015-08-19, 08:55 AM
Fun little quirk I did once, where Tieflings and drow would always ping "evil" because of their demonic blood, and cursed history respectively. Gods allowed the killing of these races in any circumstance, even if they were 'exceptions' or 'neutral'. Aasimars on the other hand could not 'fall' and always pinged as good no matter what horrible actions they took. It was just a little thing, but showing players the alignment system forced upon the world could be 'wrong' made for some pretty interesting gaming. Especially for the Tiefling PC and her Paladin companion.

Likewise, forcing players to side between two 'evils' (say an evil cult or a thieve's guild) is a good way to make the game a bit grittier.

goto124
2015-08-19, 09:21 AM
Does that flawed alignment system cause a lot of unnecessary trouble? Do NPCs recognise the flaws and adjust accordingly? Or does it work out because NPCs don't cast Detect Evil and other alignment-based spells most of the time anyway?

To be honest, even looking like a tiefling can cause trouble when entering cities and talking to NPCs, since they'll see a monster and react as such. I'm not sure how it's dealed with in game so far. Does the party spend a good amount of time in dungeons and wilderness?

Watch out for players who choose the third option: Loot everyone.

Hawkstar
2015-08-19, 09:50 AM
I say jettison the alignment system entirely. If people say "BUT SHE'S EVIL!", the response is "She is what she is. Deal with it."

Something to keep in mind: "We judge ourselves by our intentions, and others by their actions". If the party goes around trying to destroy all the power figures 'because they're EVIL!", then:
1. Show them the effects of the loss of that power... and if they put someone else in place, have them fall victim to their own vices.
And/Or
2. As the party grows in power, have them pursued by people whom they've wronged before (Even if/especially if they don't see themselves as having wronged these people.)

Or, for cliched injunction of Grey+Grey morality... add Vikings. They are trying to spare the people of the world from tedious lives of mediocrity and drudgery, a slow death of disease, infirmity, and indignities of age, and the eternal doldrums of Hel, to instead give them fast lives of excitement and adventure, give them a quick and honorable death in battle, followed by the glory o Valhalla.

Meanwhile, everyone else is trying to live long, productive lives, die peacefully, and go to the tranquility o Nirvana, while the Vikings are trying to subject them to short, horrific lives of warfare, painful deaths, and the chaos of Acheron.

MrConsideration
2015-08-19, 12:07 PM
In my games, NPCs aren't working on notions of 'good', 'evil' or 'chaos'; they are fighting for economic, national or cultural causes. The major human empires are probably 'lawful' and their rival powers are more 'chaotic' but they don't think in those terms - they are competing for resources and ideological ideals. Even crusading orders - 'paladins' - champion one religion or one nation.

Even knightly orders, built on ideals of honour, chastity, largesse - will massacre enemy combatants and act as violent thugs when necessary. Two 'good' factions can easily come to blows.

Just ensure anything mechanical like Detect or Protection spells only trigger on Outsiders or Undead.

Vercingex
2015-08-19, 01:07 PM
Well, mechanically the only classes that really care are Clerics and Paladins. Paladins don't really exist in a world of gray-and-gray morality (DnD 4e and 5e notwithstanding); they represent an ideal that doesn't exist in this world. And clerics are probably okay losing Holy Smite and some other spells, as well as aligned weapons. Without alignment-specific magic, you don't need alignment in your world.

Another thought- don't treat alignment as absolute. A character might be overall Lawful and Good- that doesn't mean he acts in strict accordance with Law and Good 24/7. Instead, he usually tends to act in ways that are lawful and good.

The big question-- do alignment-based outsiders exist in your world? Fiends and celestials represent absolutes of Evil and Good respectively. Think about what the existence of these beings means in your world.

Arbane
2015-08-19, 08:21 PM
The big question-- do alignment-based outsiders exist in your world? Fiends and celestials represent absolutes of Evil and Good respectively. Think about what the existence of these beings means in your world.

They don't _have_ to. Celestials are servants of the gods - some gods are total bastards at times. Fiends oppose them - some could do so for righteous reasons...

(In Pathfinder, it annoys me that some spells that usually provide a sacred bonus give a profane bonus instead if the caster worships an evil god - evil gods are STILL GODS.)

Milo v3
2015-08-19, 08:27 PM
Well, mechanically the only classes that really care are Clerics and Paladins. Paladins don't really exist in a world of gray-and-gray morality (DnD 4e and 5e notwithstanding); they represent an ideal that doesn't exist in this world.
I don't know, I like the idea that you can get power from holding an ideal amazingly strongly, despite the fact there is no concrete existence of morality.


The big question-- do alignment-based outsiders exist in your world? Fiends and celestials represent absolutes of Evil and Good respectively. Think about what the existence of these beings means in your world.
In my alignment-free setting outsiders like demons and angel and inevitables are still around, they're just now got cosmological roles rather than just being "we are trying to make the multiverse more [insert alignment here]".

goto124
2015-08-19, 08:36 PM
In such a setting, paladins are closer to war-clerics?

Milo v3
2015-08-19, 08:53 PM
In such a setting, paladins are closer to war-clerics?

I'd say no. More.... Amazingly idealistic soldiers. They don't act like clerics, they do not aim to preach (though would always see hope for people to change their ways), merely make the world a better place, minimize sorrow, be "a hero of justice". There religion does not come into it.

Kriton
2015-08-20, 03:22 PM
I would advise you to eschew the alignment grid and mechanics completely. Also don't reward PC's for actions judged as heroic or villainous, if grey is what you are going for; maybe reward characters for achieving their goals(preferably that the players set).

Let the resulting narrative, be the reward for the characters' morality, in its self.