Removing alignment from the game.

[frogglesmash]

How troublesome would it be to remove alignment from the game? More specifically, what would have to be changed to accommodate its absence?
Alternatively, what if alignment subtypes we're left in but alignment was removed?

[Venger]

How troublesome would it be to remove alignment from the game? More specifically, what would have to be changed to accommodate its absence?
Alternatively, what if alignment subtypes we're left in but alignment was removed?

not troublesome at all.

remove detects
remove auras
remove alignment reqs
allow blasphemy, holy word, etc to affect all hostiles or remove them.

you're done.

not really sure what the point of leaving alignment subtypes would be under such a schema. if there's no alignment, then it's not like succubi would have to be always evil or what have you, and DR wouldn't be affected, since alignment doesn't have any effect on weapons.

[Uncle Pine]

Not troublesome.

Remove alignments from the characters' sheets and statblocks and adjudicate whether "Detect Evil" and similar effects work like a sensible DM. Alignment subtypes and weapons can probably be left as they are now, as even under normal rules an Outsider (Chaotic, Evil) can be both Lawful and Good regardless of its subtypes.

[frogglesmash]

not troublesome at all.

remove detects
remove auras
remove alignment reqs
allow blasphemy, holy word, etc to affect all hostiles or remove them.

you're done.

not really sure what the point of leaving alignment subtypes would be under such a schema. if there's no alignment, then it's not like succubi would have to be always evil or what have you, and DR wouldn't be affected, since alignment doesn't have any effect on weapons.

If I remove alignment it's to mitigate the"black and white" way of looking at things that it encourages. However I do think that in campaigns where demons are paragons of evil it would be appropriate to let them keep their subtypes while the more nuanced mortals loose their alignment labels.

[TheIronGolem]

Paladins would need Smite Evil modified a bit (probably just "any enemy" would suffice). Detect Evil would either need to be heavily modified (an example might be Detect Loyalty where you can tell what's most important to the target: self, faith, family, etc) or replaced with some other small utility power.

[Doctor Awkward]

How troublesome would it be to remove alignment from the game? More specifically, what would have to be changed to accommodate its absence?
Alternatively, what if alignment subtypes we're left in but alignment was removed?

A fair amount of trouble.

All alignment dependent effects would need to be removed or addressed in some way:

-spells such as detect evil would be gone
-spells with alignment based triggers, like Forbiddance, Blasphemy, chaos hammer, Maws of Chaos, etc., and the like would need to be tweaked
-Magic items (holy, unholy, axiomatic) would need to be removed
-clerics would require a rewrite with regards to turning, rebuking, spontaneous casting of heal vs inflict, and deity selection
-other classes with alignment based abilities would need to be addressed (Paladin and its variants, crusaders, monks, barbarians, bards, druids, incarnates)
-prestige classes with alignment prerequisites would need to be changed to something else (or just ignored).

How much work this ends up being depends on how you handle the changes.

If you just fiat alignment away as not existing, and ignore it when the game tells you that it matters, then you hardly have to do any work.

But it also probably won't change the game that much for you.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You've probably just about done it already if you're considering this. Think back to the last time it actually came up as a mechanical issue. Been a while, right?

The simplest way to do it is to say that it only applies to creatures with alignment subtypes, everything else lacks alignment altogether. You don't have to change anything at all if you go that way.



I actually -like- alignment but if you can't get out of the mindset that "if a thing is not good it must be evil" and vice-versa then you're probably better off just scrapping it.

[Telok]

For my games I cut them into Light, Dark, Order, and Chaos and make them magical auras. Only some undead, some extraplanar creatures, divine spells casters, and people who have dedicated their souls to a deity have these auras. In addition the auras are exclusive, if you have one you cannot have a different one and cannot cast spells with alignment descriptors that are not the one that you have.

Works just fine.

I also run a piety mechanic that rewards for following the tenants of the god that you're dedicated to. But being dedicated aligns you and makes you vulnerable to alignment effects (since unaligned people are essentially transparent to stuff like Holy Word/Blasphemy).

[Naez]

First think if what the problem is is your own perception of good and evil. In dnd these things are very clearly defined and often do not actually fit what we would think of as good and evil.

For instance a character willing to do anything for the greater good would probably wind up being LE, even though he is working for good.

Or conversely a character who sets up charitable organizations and gives to the poor to as fronts for his underground human trafficking ring, while in the normal world we would see this as being even MORE evil, RAW DnD would place such a character as CN or N.

This is due to RAW alignment being entirely defined by Action not Intent. Now if that's not how you run things that's just because of how you do things as a DM and anything regarding alignment is already out the window anyway.

[jmax]

My preference is to have the DM adjudicate the detect <alignment> spells and blasphemy et al based on how a character has behaved rather than write the alignment in stone. And then throw out alignment-based restrictions on spellcasting - but using evil spells to do evil things will of course influence the DM's perception of your alignment. (Using evil spells to do good things is trickier.)

[Milo v3]

Official rules for removing alignment can be found for Pathfinder here (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/gameplay/removingAlignment.html). Should work with 3.5e, and they work well (I've been using it's subjective morality rules since it was released).

[ryu]

One method would be to directly remove alignment tags from most people and only have them on actual outsiders and people with strong ties to those groups. Evil isn't some grand force of the universe. It's a seal evil outsiders and clerics put on themselves and their allies so effects like blasphemy and similar don't hurt them. The same is true of other alignments and their similar effects. Bam. You're done.

[Mendicant]

One method would be to directly remove alignment tags from most people and only have them on actual outsiders and people with strong ties to those groups. Evil isn't some grand force of the universe. It's a seal evil outsiders and clerics put on themselves and their allies so effects like blasphemy and similar don't hurt them. The same is true of other alignments and their similar effects. Bam. You're done.

Ditto, though I also roll undead into the evil category. Honestly, being able to delineate what specifically counts as "evil" solves about 95% of the substantive, rules-related alignment questions I've ever seen at my table. The only questions I ever see about chaos and law are "why does Bob's definition of 'chaotic' always mean 'fun ruining?'"

[rel]

super easy.

For complete removal of alignment apply the following rules:

1 - remove the aligned qualities from magic weapons (weapons that exist without those qualities like the nine lives stealer are now a bit more broadly usable. weapons that are nothing but an aligned quality like an unholy avenger just get removed).

2 - All alignment components are removed from spells, SU's EX's and so forth. Abilities with no other effects like detect evil are gone. Abilities with an alignment based effect like holy word function at their mid level (the way they normally function when they hit true neutral) or at their lower level if they have no mid level (so protection from evil no longer provides AC and saves. Wizard can deal. Alternatively they can function at strongest level all the time.

3 - clerics all function as neutral and can pick any god they like. As per normal for neutral clerics they can cast any spell and decide at lvl 1 if they are planning on rebuking / inflicting or turning / healing. This changes nothing since all clerics are neutral and powered by unshakable faith in their own awesome anyway.

4 - paladin no longer has a vow or alignment requirement and loses detect evil and smite evil. Instead he gets 4 bonus feats taken at levels 1,4,7,and 10. He counts as a fighter of his level for the purposes of those bonus feats prerequisites.

5 - all the other alignment restricted classes and PRC's are no longer restricted. monk / barbarian is now a thing and still much worse than wizard.

6 - creatures with alignment based DR lose said protection, they tend to be strong enough without it anyway. Alternatively make it DR/magic or DR/<silver or cold iron or some other hard to find thing> if you really like golf-bag fighters.

Alignment subtypes Kept in is a bit trickier:

1 - Aligned qualities on weapons are still in the game. they only work on creatures with alignment subtypes and have no effect on those without such a subtype.

2 - All alignment components on spells, SU's EX's and so forth. Work as normal against those with alignment subtypes. Against others abilities with no other effects like detect evil do nothing. While abilities with an alignment based effect like holy word function at their mid level (the way they normally function when they hit true neutral) or at their lower level if they have no mid level (so protection from evil provides no AC and saves except against [evil] subtyped opponents. Alternatively they can function at strongest level all the time.

3 - clerics all function as neutral and can pick any god they like. As per normal for neutral clerics they can cast any spell and decide at lvl 1 if they are planning on rebuking / inflicting or turning / healing. This changes nothing since all clerics are neutral and powered by unshakable faith in their own awesome anyway.

4 - paladin no longer has a vow or alignment requirement and loses detect evil and smite evil. Instead he gets 4 bonus feats taken at levels 1,4,7,and 10. He counts as a fighter of his level for the purposes of those bonus feats prerequisites.

5 - all the other alignment restricted classes and PRC's are no longer restricted. monk / barbarian is now a thing and still much worse than wizard.

6 - Alignment based DR no longer functions. Those that have it are strong enough without it anyway. Alternatively make it DR/magic or DR/<silver or cold iron or some other hard to find thing> if you really like golf-bag fighters.

7 - Monsters with an alignment subtype keep that subtype. It now does nothing except bypass the appropriate alignment based DR (if that still exists) and function as a keyword for other effects.

[bekeleven]

You've probably just about done it already if you're considering this. Think back to the last time it actually came up as a mechanical issue. Been a while, right?

The simplest way to do it is to say that it only applies to creatures with alignment subtypes, everything else lacks alignment altogether. You don't have to change anything at all if you go that way.
This is basically me.

According to the DMG, the majority of communities are aligned with good or evil.

In my world(s), I tend to make 95%-ish of sentient beings neutral, and an additional 4.5% neutral on one axis.

[ryu]

Ditto, though I also roll undead into the evil category. Honestly, being able to delineate what specifically counts as "evil" solves about 95% of the substantive, rules-related alignment questions I've ever seen at my table. The only questions I ever see about chaos and law are "why does Bob's definition of 'chaotic' always mean 'fun ruining?'"

Nah man, nah. Undead are neutral just like the plane of negative energy is. This is what happens when you don't align things based on them being icky looking. Good neutral and evil people are all equally capable of using undead.

[bekeleven]

Ooh, ooh, pick me, I know this one!


Undead are like constructs, except that instead of being held together by plain jane generic magic, they're held together by negative energy specifically. I'll start with what we know and move from there.


An undead is a perpetual motion machine. You don't have to feed a zombie, or let it rest, or even water it and leave it out in the sun.
You know how a chicken is how an egg makes more eggs? An undead is how negative energy makes more negative energy. A suitably calibrated undead, like most zombies or skeletons, will run at constant negative output. They can't underflow or tick down - they're immune to sleep, fatigue, etc, because their internal dynamos keep pumping out energy at the same rate. By the same token, they can't overclock or flame out: These undead can't charge or run, even when you cast Inflict or leave them somewhere Unhallowed.
The reason Undead can't spike their power is that their body can't store excess negative energy. A vampire can sleep. A vampire can charge and run. It's not calibrated like a zombie, and this is one clue how that difference works.
This means that an undead on the negative energy plane wouldn't be able to retain more energy than it requires to run it. Put simply, excess negative energy can seep into the area near where such an undead will spend its time.
This is also why undead creation is an evil act. It's basically impossible to perfectly calibrate a self-sustaining dynamo to generate the exact energy output you need, based on undead type, race, advancement and other factors. All necromancers will err on the side of leakage; if you don't give it enough seed energy it will consume more than it generates, run out of power, and "die." Therefore, every undead that still exists necessarily seeps evil into the world merely by existing.

[ryu]

Ooh, ooh, pick me, I know this one!

Mostly accurate with one exception. Negative energy, as evidence by untagged spells using it like enervation, the negative energy plane, and the statblock of those weird obscure negative energy elements that you can create with an untagged spell is neutral. The only argument you can make is that it's commonly harmful to many forms of life. So too is acid and that isn't auto evil.

[Slipperychicken]

WotC went a long way toward de-emphasizing alignment for 5e. I strongly recommend looking at that game's treatment of "detect evil and good" as well as the way paladins work in that game.

[frogglesmash]

Ooh, ooh, pick me, I know this one!

As far as d&d "Canon" is concerned, undead don't produce energy, but instead are powered by negative energy that comes directly from the negative energy plane via a direct connection all undead have with said plane. This is explicitly stated in the evolved undead template, but I'm not sure if it's mentioned anywhere else.

[Milo v3]

Ooh, ooh, pick me, I know this one!
Negative energy isn't evil, and if perpetual motion machine = evil should make deathless and constructs evil.

[rrwoods]

My two cents:

* Remove alignment restrictions from all character build options.
* Decide on a character's alignment after getting to know the character. (For player characters, probably in cooperation with the player.)

Requires minimal rules change, but also removes what is (in my opinion) the biggest gripe about alignments: players who choose their actions based on alignment rather than the other way around.

[Slipperychicken]

Negative energy isn't evil, and if perpetual motion machine = evil should make deathless and constructs evil.
I was under the impression that negative energy is literally anti-life and if left unchecked would flow into the world and eventually turn all living things into shambling soulless mockeries of their former selves.

Then again, this is D&D's definition of evil we're talking about here.

[Mendicant]

Nah man, nah. Undead are neutral just like the plane of negative energy is. This is what happens when you don't align things based on them being icky looking. Good neutral and evil people are all equally capable of using undead.

This is a perfectly reasonable set of lore that I do not use.

That said, you can still quite happily have your version and have negative energy be morally and ethically neutral from whatever standpoint you want , and still have it tag someone as [evil] using whatever weird magi-physics you want. Negative energy is explicitly tied to neutral-to-bad clerics via their channelling. It's not hard to imagine that the process whereby fiends and other evil outsiders tag themselves and their followers as evil is somehow tied to negative energy.

[Milo v3]

I was under the impression that negative energy is literally anti-life and if left unchecked would flow into the world and eventually turn all living things into shambling soulless mockeries of their former selves.

Then again, this is D&D's definition of evil we're talking about here.

You could just as easily assume that deathless left unchecked would lead to positive energy flowing into the world, turning everything animate, enlarging microorganisms into oozes, and giving people cancer. You could assume animated objects cause those things if you craft a permanent one (too much positive energy causes objects to animate as seen with ravids).

[ideasmith]

I'm working on a method of removing alignment, here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516023-Alignment-Without-Alignment)

[Milo v3]

I'm working on a method of removing alignment, here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516023-Alignment-Without-Alignment)

That looks more complex than alignment... not exactly what most people want when they want to remove alignment.

[Mordaedil]

Remove Paladin, keep the rest. Otherwise, I think rel got the rest of it right.

[Darrin]

In most cases, you can remove alignment and not even notice it's gone. However, the two biggest headaches, when they crop up, will probably be Paladins and Clerics.

For Paladin: Consider using the "Gaze of Truth" variant from Dragon #349. This replaces detect evil with discern lies (usable 1 + Cha bonus times per day). Swapping in detect undead at will is also a good replacement for losing detect evil. Replace "Smite Evil" with "Smite Naughtiness" with Naughtiness being defined by your faith or just a generic "Whoever I Darned Well Feel Like Needs a Good Smiting". Add Sense Motive as a class skill. This turns most Paladins into basically Judge Dredd: walking judge, jury, and executioner.

For Clerics: The alignment domains need to be reworked. Alignment-based spells are either ignored or reworked to work on "opponents" (i.e., anyone trying to harm/kill you). Clerics still get alignment-based domains from their deity's portfolio, but instead of being explicitly [good] or [evil] spells, they are just spells that promote a certain ethos or belief system. Here's some examples of what reworked domain spells might look like:

Chaos Doman
1 Confusion, Lesser
2 Alter Self
3 Blink
4 Freedom of Movement
5 Break Enchantment
6 Disintegrate
7 Insanity
8 Scintillating Pattern
9 Freedom

Evil Domain
1 Bane
2 Desecrate
3 Bestow Curse
4 Enervation
5 Unhallow
6 Eyebite
7 Control Undead
8 Create Greater Undead
9 Energy Drain

Good Domain
1 Bless
2 Consecrate
3 Remove Curse
4 Death Ward
5 Hallow
6 Undeath to Death
7 Restoration, Greater
8 Planar Ally, Greater
9 Miracle

Law Domain
1 Command
2 Hold Person
3 Discern Lies
4 Command, Greater
5 Mark of Justice
6 Hold Monster
7 Forcecage
8 Temporal Stasis
9 Hold Monster, Mass

[Darth Ultron]

No alignment will have a huge, very negative impact.

You would need to remove all alignment based spells, effects and prestige classes. You can't even really alter them as they are built around the idea that they will only effect some foes, so you'd need some type of way to select foes that was not just ''anyone who opposes me''.

Worst of all though is that is it has a very negative effect on game play when anyone can just do anything any time and nothing matters. Alignment keeps the game on the track of right/wrong and good/evil the way everyone who is not trying to make a problem understands. D&D characters are designed with the idea of being hero's, but you can only be a hero in an alignment system. A hero is someone that does ''action x, for reason x'' but without the frame work of alignment it is meaningless. It slides into ''someone is a hero if I say they are'', and that is pointless.

Without alignment, everyone in the game world would just ''do'' things. And things would not matter. If person x ''did'' something you did not like you could oppose them, but it would not matter(other then to the two of you, of course).

Maybe worst of all characters in a world with no alignment can just be the worst murderhobos ever...after all why not. Other then the pointless ''breaking the law'' or ''someone might oppose you'', there is nothing to stop a person from just doing ''anything they want''. And this is very bad in a primitive D&D time frame as characters can just slaughter whole towns and no one would even know, so there would be no consequences.

Without alignment there is even little motivation to do things. Even if someone does a crime, like killing someone, it is ''just an action'' with no alignment. So walk across a road and murder someone are the same thing. Sure you can say ''oh, you broke law number six'' but there would be no motivation to enforce such a law without alignment.

And it does turn D&D into some horrible lawyer roundtable where you don't ever play D&D. With nothing being good or bad, what does a character do. I sounds great that you can do anything, but in reality it just paralyzes the game. Without alignment, the game goes nowhere.

Now sure if your an anything goes type of person, you can just randomly do stuff in the game and call it an adventure...so it does work for some people.

[Darrin]

D&D characters are designed with the idea of being hero's, but you can only be a hero in an alignment system.


This statement is false to such a breathtaking extent that it undermines your entire argument.

[frogglesmash]

No alignment will have a huge, very negative impact. ~snip~

I'm not removing the concept of morality from the game, I'm removing the mechanical aspects of alignment. Good and evil would still exist, just in a more flexible and subjective form. Besides, if the players wanted to play murder hobos, an alignment system isn't going to stop that

[ryu]

This statement is false to such a breathtaking extent that it undermines your entire argument.

There were a lot of those. Some of the best examples of all time to involve moral choice, ethics, and the struggle to do good didn't involve any alignment meter. Good old Tyranny didn't need an alignment system to make me feel like actually a horrible person no less than three separate times before finally managing to make a not crapsack world on the fourth playthrough. Seriously, give the game a look if you haven't guys. Game will make you deeply uncomfortable about a lot of things just by taking a much more realistic look at how evil actually works.

[Mystral]

How troublesome would it be to remove alignment from the game? More specifically, what would have to be changed to accommodate its absence?
Alternatively, what if alignment subtypes we're left in but alignment was removed?

I once ran a game like this, with a few other changes.

Basically, all the spells that target alignment were out. Instead, there were spells that target creature types. Instead of holy or chaotic weapons, bane weapons abounded. Paladins could smite undead or demons or dragons or fey (their choice on character generation, with additional creature types unlocked every few levels). Damage Reduction against certain alignments was changed into damage reduction against certain materials.

Basically, for every instance of alignment playing a role, a different thing was swapped in. It worked pretty well.

Also, since there was no real Evil or Good, the creatures of the higher and lower planes had different motivations.

[ArcanaGuy]

For the OP, what nuance are you looking to achieve that the neutral alignment does not address? There are many ways to go about this, but it depends on your goal.


For my games I cut them into Light, Dark, Order, and Chaos and make them magical auras. Only some undead, some extraplanar creatures, divine spells casters, and people who have dedicated their souls to a deity have these auras.


In what way is that different from the standard rules, aside from the names?

[Telok]

In what way is that different from the standard rules, aside from the names?

Subtle but important ways.
Not a moral code but a magical aura. Cuts down on whining and debates, makes changing it make sense, opens up more character options (mostly rp but some mechanical). Being attached to divine power (casting, prestige classes, etc.) made it clear why and how it worked. Allowed religious factions and reasons not to auto-kill people with dark aligned holy symbols.

So one of the Light gods has two paladin orders. One is big on chilvary and protecting people, the other runs an inquisition that tortures to get confessions and purifies with flame. There is occasional conflict, it makes things more interesting.

The god of the afterlife is dark aligned and has temples in the cities. They offer funeral services, communication beyond for last wills, laying of the restless dead, and perpetual motion machines. Skeletons, being as mindless and order controlled as golems, are unaligned (like golems).

Under traditional alignment the only rational response by most societies to followers of an evil god is to kill the followers. Simply because you can't trust them not to screw you over or outright murder you. Under mine there are no paladins spamming detect and smiting everyone who pings, you can have corrupt and greedy priests in a light temple, dragons are not color coded to be murdered.

[ryu]

Subtle but important ways.
Not a moral code but a magical aura. Cuts down on whining and debates, makes changing it make sense, opens up more character options (mostly rp but some mechanical). Being attached to divine power (casting, prestige classes, etc.) made it clear why and how it worked. Allowed religious factions and reasons not to auto-kill people with dark aligned holy symbols.

So one of the Light gods has two paladin orders. One is big on chilvary and protecting people, the other runs an inquisition that tortures to get confessions and purifies with flame. There is occasional conflict, it makes things more interesting.

The god of the afterlife is dark aligned and has temples in the cities. They offer funeral services, communication beyond for last wills, laying of the restless dead, and perpetual motion machines. Skeletons, being as mindless and order controlled as golems, are unaligned (like golems).

Under traditional alignment the only rational response by most societies to followers of an evil god is to kill the followers. Simply because you can't trust them not to screw you over or outright murder you. Under mine there are no paladins spamming detect and smiting everyone who pings, you can have corrupt and greedy priests in a light temple, dragons are not color coded to be murdered.

To be fair, considering the violent mentality of many parties, I'd say the color coding is more about what you aren't allowed to kill than what you are.

[Tectorman]

Alignment keeps the game on the track of right/wrong and good/evil the way everyone who is not trying to make a problem understands. D&D characters are designed with the idea of being hero's, but you can only be a hero in an alignment system. A hero is someone that does ''action x, for reason x'' but without the frame work of alignment it is meaningless. It slides into ''someone is a hero if I say they are'', and that is pointless.

I was playing a former Jedi Padawan in a Star Wars game (it was set after Episode III; she had escaped the Temple during the Purge while she was still young, so although she was an adult during the game, she'd never actually become a full-fledged Knight). At one point, we were on Bespin observing a high-stakes card game when violence broke out and our contact, who had ended up being the winner of the tournament, was fatally wounded.

We got the data chip we were supposed to get from her, and she also had the secured money chip that had the tournament's winnings. I was the one talking to her, so I asked what she wanted done with the winnings (she had won them, and even though she was never going to live long enough to do anything with them, I still figured that she should have some say in her final moments and should decide what happened to the winnings). She said to give them to the runner-up. I did so right at that moment.

(At the time, I already had no Dark Side Points. I was also not thinking about my character's Dark Side Score at all.) Then the GM reminded me of all that when he said that I could remove a Dark Side Point if I wanted. And note that in Saga Edition, you're normally allowed to do so through meditation and spending a Force Point anyway, but as we were playing as though that option wasn't allowed, this was a major boon.

Major boon or not, this very much soured the game for me. Prior, I was playing the character as a good person not to avoid Dark Side Points but simply for the sake of the character being a good person. And I was trying to ignore the adpects of the game that gave mechanical weight to that sort of thing. This, however, reminded me in a manner I couldn't ignore that in SWSE, you weren't supposed to be a good person for its own sake. No, good deeds are currency. To be hoarded and bartered. A resource to be spent. Indeed, later I got a DSP and since it was that character's first DSP, I saw nothing wrong with ignoring it as though the free removal I'd gotten in the card game had been used on it, despite having happened way before.

So I vehemently disagree. I think the existence of alignment in a game is what drags down the potential for heroes to actually be heroic. After all, who's the more heroic? The Paladin who does a good deed because, if he doesn't, he loses his shiny class features? Or the Rogue who doesn't have his class features at stake, so if he does a good deed, it's because he does good for its own sake?

Or to put it another way, if I'm walking down the street and I give a random passerby some money, I'm probably a generous person, right? But if I'm walking doen the street and someone, threatening me with a gun, forces me to give money to a random passerby, that doesn't make me generous. I might still be generous, but this isn't an example of that. It would simply be me acting out of self-preservation under duress.

Aka "knuckling under", which IMO makes the D&D Paladin (at least, Paladins in editions that have alignment restrictions and/or codes of conduct) the worst example of a hero imaginable.

...

On-topic: what I would do is just rename the two axes (Blue-Gray-Red and Shiny-Dull-Splotchy) and then completely ignore all correlations between where a creature lies on the axes and how they behave.

This keeps all the perceived game balance issues intact. It might not be unbalanced to let Monks and Barbarians multiclass, but just in case it is, Barbarians still have to be non-Shiny and Monks still have to be Shiny. The Paladin's Smite Red still has the same targets it used to. Etc.

But now, while a Paladin must still be Shiny Blue to keep his Paladin abilities (and in-universe, this is considered an aspect of the creature's soul that otherwise has no known connection to anything and can't really be changed short of something like a Helm of Opposite Alignment), it's completely independent of how he acts. And so, he can be heroic for the right reasons, as opposed to needing to just to game the system.

TLDR: Good deeds should never be a resource.

[Mordaedil]

This statement is false to such a breathtaking extent that it undermines your entire argument.

It is worryingly close to a religious statement, I wonder if it was made with that intent or not.

Generally it is a statement used by Christian religious to dismiss atheism as functional and moral.

It's funny if accidental, but I wouldn't get into it as it might offend.

[Stealth Marmot]

As far as d&d "Canon" is concerned, undead don't produce energy, but instead are powered by negative energy that comes directly from the negative energy plane via a direct connection all undead have with said plane. This is explicitly stated in the evolved undead template, but I'm not sure if it's mentioned anywhere else.

While this is by no means canon, I have a justification for how negative energy actually works. Negative energy is not actually energy in itself, but a created system that sucks energy from around itself. basically, negative energy leeches life, the very vital essence, and turns it into the power necessary to move the zombie/skeleton/etc. Because of this, the mere existence and proximity of an undead will cause crops to wilt, air to go stale, soil become barren, water to go hypoxic and eventually anoxic, etc. This isn't immediate, but instead over time. Days or weeks at least. This is one reason you aren't likely to want skeletons and zombies tilling your crops.

This is how you prevent negative energy from being some sort of perpetual energy machine.

The amount of effect an undead creature has on the environment is based on their power as well as their ability to feed on other sources. Ghouls that eat regularly won't have too large an effect for example. Vampires who regularly feed will have little to no effect as well, but as they go longer without feeding they increasingly affect their environment. Vampires who regularly feed may actually keep and tend gardens, after all they have centuries to grow them so long as they have regular feeding. Gardens are a source of pride among vampires, as tending one indicates their success in constant feeding.

[Mendicant]

While this is by no means canon, I have a justification for how negative energy actually works. Negative energy is not actually energy in itself, but a created system that sucks energy from around itself. basically, negative energy leeches life, the very vital essence, and turns it into the power necessary to move the zombie/skeleton/etc. Because of this, the mere existence and proximity of an undead will cause crops to wilt, air to go stale, soil become barren, water to go hypoxic and eventually anoxic, etc. This isn't immediate, but instead over time. Days or weeks at least. This is one reason you aren't likely to want skeletons and zombies tilling your crops.

This is how you prevent negative energy from being some sort of perpetual energy machine.

The amount of effect an undead creature has on the environment is based on their power as well as their ability to feed on other sources. Ghouls that eat regularly won't have too large an effect for example. Vampires who regularly feed will have little to no effect as well, but as they go longer without feeding they increasingly affect their environment. Vampires who regularly feed may actually keep and tend gardens, after all they have centuries to grow them so long as they have regular feeding. Gardens are a source of pride among vampires, as tending one indicates their success in constant feeding.

I really like this reading. In this context, a handful of skeletal guardians who rarely stir are almost totally neutral to their environment, but an army of them is a marching ecological disaster.

[tedcahill2]

This may have already been covered, I didn't read every post.

Alignment will exist whether or not you remove it. Whether or not a character writes down that they are x alignment, they will likely act/react in a way that fits their character, which will fit a particular alignment. I also think you lose a lot from the game when you remove alignment.

Most D&D games are a fight between good and evil, if you remove alignment you remove good and evil, and everyone just is. But there would still be good and evil, because the lich king that's devouring the souls of virgin children with autism is you just are choosing to exclude the mechanics of good and evil (by mechanics I refer to things that affect one alignment or another, detection, magic circles, (un)holy weapons, etc).

[Mendicant]

Alignment will exist whether or not you remove it. Whether or not a character writes down that they are x alignment, they will likely act/react in a way that fits their character, which will fit a particular alignment. I also think you lose a lot from the game when you remove alignment.

Most D&D games are a fight between good and evil, if you remove alignment you remove good and evil, and everyone just is. But there would still be good and evil, because the lich king that's devouring the souls of virgin children with autism is you just are choosing to exclude the mechanics of good and evil (by mechanics I refer to things that affect one alignment or another, detection, magic circles, (un)holy weapons, etc).


Right and wrong will still exist, but "lawful neutral" really wont, and nothing will be lost. The mechanics of magic circles, detect evil and such can pretty comfortably port to a system without explicit alignments. Many of those ports aren't going to let you use "smite evil" on a peasant who beats his kids, but in all honestly very little is lost there.

[Mordaedil]

It would be interesting though, if the removal of alignments caused the outer planes to merge into one single plane; a bigger version of the outlands.