PDA

View Full Version : Stupid Alignment



rialb
2007-07-27, 09:35 AM
There may already be a thread singing this tune. But I don't have the time to check.

I've been gaming and DMing with a group of friends who take turns in each roll. We have every type of gamer. We have a twink, the I-just-want-to-roll-dice guy, the F the party guy, the I R fighter guy, the "leader",the Rule Nazi (lawyer), and me (whines about dying guy?).

We get along pretty well and only carry our in character grudges into the real world sometimes.

But one thing the group does the most, that really takes all the fun out of the game, is turning the session into one big nerdy debate on alignment and how you are "supposed" to play a said alignment.

I hate it. Hate it!

We tried to implement a rule that says you can not tell any one your alignment. But the twinker made sure he had 'know alignment' in every campaign since. I tried forcing the party to create with a uniform good or evil alignments, but the debate took on the aspects of chaotic, lawful and neutral.

Everyone who has played D&D for a while has encountered this in some form. The paladin who detects evil that decides every single time that said evil needs smiting. The player who looks at the DM after every act a player makes and says; "aren't you going to shift him towards evil?" The player who has decided that if you don't play true neutral THIS EXACT WAY, then you need to change your alignment. Even on the OOTS forum people debate (endlessly) on Belkar's alignment (Selfish Evil, BTW).

Now days, when I'm DMing, I tell them that if I hear one peep about alignment then I'm calling it a night, and I have a standing rule (that some players don't like) that says spells or abilities that detect any part of an alignment, do not work on party members. Other spells that target alignment, in a non detection capacity, work as normal.

Really though, I would love to banish the alignments to their respective planes. Does anyone know of a guide or have any ideas for running an alignment-less campaign? I know this has all sorts of pitfalls, since D&D kinda made alignment an integral part of the game.

Now, I'm not here to debate the merits of having alignment, or how we SHOULD play alignments to solve the problem. All I'm asking for is ideas for removing alignment, as a tool, from the game, while keeping the game mechanics intact. For example: How would circle against <alignment> work? What about detections and smites?

I guess it is important to add, though it seems self evident, just because alignment as a game-mechanic is being removed does not mean there are not "good", "evil", etc. people in the world. It just means that characters will not be able to cast "moral justification for killing or not working with you".

-Rialb (KoX)

Fixer
2007-07-27, 09:37 AM
You don't play alignments. You play characters who happen to wear alignments similar to how people wear clothes. If your actions no longer allow you to wear a particular kind of alignment, your alignment shifts.

Beat those who say otherwise with Players Handbooks that have nails hammered through them.

Thinker
2007-07-27, 09:39 AM
Just don't play with alliances. Play with Allegiances if anything. http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/srd_modern_html/msrdallegiances.html

Change Detect Alignment to Detect Allegiance. Smite Evil becomes Smite Allegiance (which is any allegiance that is not your own). Magic Circle Against x becomes Magic Circle Against Allegiance, which allegiance is chosen at the time of preparation.

rialb
2007-07-27, 09:42 AM
Fixer-

Thanks.

Noted and previously debated (at length).

But not exactly what I'm looking for.

-Rialb (KoX)

rialb
2007-07-27, 09:44 AM
Thinker-

Wow, awesome resource.

I think I'll test it out.

Thanks

-Rialb (KoX)

horseboy
2007-07-27, 09:58 AM
If you don't like them, drop them. Circle spells would only work on outsiders. Smite would work at dramatically appropriate times. It would be up to you to abjugate when detect evil and the like would need to come into use for the story.

Oeryn
2007-07-27, 10:02 AM
I've been a gamer for almost 20 years, and if there's one major problem I've had with D&D, it's been alignment. I can't stand it, for pretty much all the reasons you state. In my opinion (which is in the minority, I know...) you shouldn't have to decide on a code of conduct at character creation, and then have most of your actions from that point on dictated by how you, the other players, and the DM decide how that alignment should be played.

I started a game on these boards about a year ago (the first time I'd DMed in a while), and I decided not to use alignment at all. The plot I had in mind was all about shades of gray, and I hate the system anyway.

It was really surprisingly easy, once I got down to it. There's obviously still good and evil in my world, but your average first level paladin can't walk down the street, and "ping" everybody he passes, checking for the smallest bit of malice before hauling out the greatsword and putting the smack down on anyone who's ever coveted his neighbor's wife. I basically took away all the spells that worked specifically against a certain alignment. Things like Detect Alignment are totally gone, because there's literally nothing to detect. Spells like Protection from Evil will still function, but they're used to repel demons and the like, and they don't work against low-level assassins or things like that.

When you get down to it, there are enough spells, offensive and defensive, for the loss to be minimal. Anybody that'd cast those spells has plenty of other options. For classes like Paladin, who suffered the most from the loss of Detect Alignment, I simply swapped out abilities, or bumped up ones that were already there (ie, doubling the effect of Lay on Hands). I let 'em keep Smite Evil for free, since it really only applies to beings of such evil that it's impossible to hide it. I reasoned that a demon would be so unequivocally evil, that a paladin should be able to strike it down with the power of his god. But it doesn't work on a petty thief, who'd be technically classified as "neutral evil" because he doesn't care who he hurts when he steals.

The bottom line is this. I took all that stuff out, and substituted a few things if I felt like I was taking away a major ability. The game's been going on for a year next month, and everyone seems to be having a good time, with no complaints. I'm starting a new game before too long, and I'm definitely using the same system with it, too.

You'll probably get a ton of opinions, alignment being a hotly debated topic on the boards. But remember, you don't have to please everyone. As long as your group is willing to accept the loss of alignment, then you're fine. Not only does it make the players think more about what their characters would and wouldn't do (without the crutch of a pre-defined "code" that means something different to everyone), but it frees you up immensely as a DM. I highly recommend it.

rialb
2007-07-27, 10:08 AM
Horseboy-

So detect evil becomes sort of like a "spidey sense"? :smallsmile:

The circle thing is sort of a huge nerf. I mean, what if they never encounter extra planar beings?

I have tried dropping them all together, and just trowing out all alignment effectors. I didn't think my paladin would wine about the loss of his smites, since IMHO they pretty much suck, especially when any one can append Holy to a weapon.

Maybe I need to hit my players with nail-ridden PHB's, more often.

-Rialb (KoX)

Dausuul
2007-07-27, 10:17 AM
One solution is to say that only things with an "Always" alignment (as listed in the Monstrous Manual*) are considered to have an alignment. Thus demons and most undead count as evil, but the most vile human murderer who ever lived is considered True Neutral. Alignment detection becomes a tool for identifying such beings when they are disguised as humans.

Obviously, this means you have to waive all alignment restrictions on classes, but I hate those restrictions anyhow. For classes like paladins, replace the "no evil acts" restriction with a specific list of stuff they're not allowed to do... or just nix the class altogether.

*Yeah, I know it's called the "Monster Manual" now. I don't care. It will always be the Monstrous Manual to me.

rialb
2007-07-27, 10:20 AM
Oeryn-

A valuable response, thank you.

When I get a gripe about the removal or alteration of the alignment system, I'll tell them that: "A good friend of mine has been playing D&D for 20 years and He does it this way. Are you going to question twenty years of gaming experience?"

:smallsmile:

-Rialb (KoX)

rialb
2007-07-27, 10:27 AM
Dausuul-

Meh, I don't like the forced/conventional alignment descriptors myself. My worlds tend to have friendly red dragons, evil unicorns, good liches, mad hatters, and Hot Dark Elves.

-Rialb (KoX)

ranger89
2007-07-27, 10:28 AM
First, hello all. I've lurking for quite some time and figured it was time to start actively participating.

I am very lucky to play with a very reasonable group of people. We all had issues with the RAW alignment system that everyone seems to have. After several long conversations, my group decided to pretty much ignore alignments as much as possible. We found that if you de-emphasize the importance of alignment in your game, people lose interest in all things that are alignment related. For example, as a wizard in our game why would I waste a spell slot on Detect Whatever?

The only time alignment was relevant in our game was when someone ran a paladin for a few months. The DM at the time just built in opportunities for the paladin to use his Detect/Smite Evil into the campaign. For his part, the paladin only attempted to detect evil when we were attacked or if an NPC appeared shady.

Personally, I think the RAW alignment system is fine for players that are new to the game as it gives them an easy way to play their PCs. If and when a player starts getting into the role playing side of the game, that's when I think issues with the alignment system start coming up. Personally, I view a PC's given alignment as nothing more than a predisposition to certain behaviors. Those behaviors follow my own moral compass and are not subject to the views of my fellow players. My rogue's character sheet says "NE" just to remind that he's more likely to stab somebody that pisses him off than not. :smallsmile:

Dausuul
2007-07-27, 10:32 AM
Personally, I think the RAW alignment system is fine for players that are new to the game as it gives them an easy way to play their PCs.

Actually, I think it's especially bad for new players, because it leads them to define their characters' personalities by alignment rather than actually developing a personality.

Morty
2007-07-27, 10:33 AM
The alignments need to be kicked, thrown out a window and drowned. However, many classes and spells are dependent on them. The biggest problem would be with paladins, so the best way would be to just remove them- they mean nothing without alignment system, and restricting their abilities to just undead and evil outsiders would cripple them too much. So I'd just throw them away.
BTW, does anyone else find it utterly dumb that dragons are "always <alignment here>"? They're intellignet creatures, so they should be able to choose they own way of life. Even orcs, goblins and the like are "usually evil" and elves are "usually good". Which is stupid enough, but at least it leaves some freedom. But even if you leave alignment system, it's really better to scratch racial alignments. This way you at least won't have the "alrights, goblins are evil, we can kill them" situations".

rialb
2007-07-27, 10:36 AM
ranger89-

I don't disagree that alignment descriptors are handy. As a DM it lets me know what the books think a creature should be. Then I can let my meta-gaming twinker and rules lawyer kill a Lawful Good Balor. :smallbiggrin:

No. I'm Kidding. I'm not that evil. *holds up a led plate*

-Rialb (KoX)

P.S. Man, this thing is really taking off. Don't be offended if I don't get around to responding to your post.

Oeryn
2007-07-27, 10:37 AM
Meh, I don't like the forced/conventional alignment descriptors myself. My worlds tend to have friendly red dragons, evil unicorns, good liches, mad hatters, and Hot Dark Elves.

That's exactly what I mean about "freeing you up as a DM". Not having "automatic alignments" gives you a TON of freedom to make things more interesting.

For example, in my game, the party is in the middle of a conflict between bugbears and humans. Instead of just being a chance for combat, there's a ton of dramatic tension as well, because the party can't decide who's the "bad guys" in the situation.


The alignments need to be kicked, thrown out a window and drowned. However, many classes and spells are dependent on them. The biggest problem would be with paladins, so the best way would be to just remove them- they mean nothing without alignment system, and restricting their abilities to just undead and evil outsiders would cripple them too much. So I'd just throw them away.


I don't even see a problem with Paladins, in an alignment-free game. They'd still have a "code" they'd have to follow, and like I said, I swap out abilites to leave the basic power level the same. It's actually more attractive to play a Paladin, since you're judged on your overall contribution more, and not nitpicked to death about whether or not you are allowed to ignore a petty theft while in pursuit of a greater good.

Citizen Joe
2007-07-27, 10:43 AM
Actually, the paladin is just supposed to follow a 'code' that code is usually Lawful Good (or what most people consider lawful good, goblins were not included in the polls). So if you adopt the allegiance system, then they would simply pick another allegiance and stick to that.

Alignments were/are an attempt to simplify personalities and to help guide actions. Simply put, the world is not black and white. If you and your group can handle the added complexity of a full blown allegiance system, then you could scrap the alignment system and any time someone says "That was an evil act, should you shift evil." you can then reply with "My first allegiance is to the Church. You have insulted me and the Church by questioning their goals. Now you must pay for your insolence."

The way that allegiance system is set up, you can still pick alignments on the ethical (law/chaos) and moral (good/evil) axes.

rialb
2007-07-27, 10:45 AM
MOrt-

I like paladin. Sure, all they are is a crappy fighter mixed with a crappy cleric. But I love them. So shiny, they are, in plate and holy glow.

I'd say the Complete Warrior Paladin variant is a good choice for alignment-less worlds... but it kinda sucks.

-Rialb (KoX)

ranger89
2007-07-27, 10:48 AM
Actually, I think it's especially bad for new players, because it leads them to define their characters' personalities by alignment rather than actually developing a personality.

That's true. I was thinking of somebody playing the game for the very first time. The alignment descriptions in the PH take the burden of role playing off the newbie (which for some is the hardest part of the game) and allows them to focus on learning the mechanics. But you're right that it can lead them to a very bad place role playing-wise.

rialb
2007-07-27, 10:50 AM
Citizen Joe-

I do like the allegiance is very attractive. Since I am one of the few DMs of the group that like to deviate from the rules and *gasp* try new things, I think my players will at least try it out.

-Rialb (KoX)

Quietus
2007-07-27, 10:50 AM
I just use shades of gray - if, say, a Paladin were to walk into town square in the middle of the day and start using Detect Evil, at least 5% or more of the people present would ping as evil - not because they've broken laws, and not because they're some kind of horrid person, but because they don't care at all about the people around them if it means they can advance their own goals. Kinda like the random jerks you meet in real life.

Now, the Paladin who starts smiting those people will find himself very quickly as a Fighter-Without-Feats. Just because someone pings evil doesn't mean that they need smiting. In fact, if they did that, not only would they fall, but the city guard would take them in and lock them away. Sorry, rules lawyer boy, but unless your Paladin has spontaneously decided that the laws don't apply to him, he's unplayable now.

I also have a standing rule; Detect Alignment spells, when overused, constitute a breach of personal security. You're looking at a piece of their SOULS. As a Paladin, if you walk around pinging everything that moves, you'll eventually find that nothing pings for you any more, and that your smite evils don't work, even on demons.

Grey Watcher
2007-07-27, 10:51 AM
The circle thing is sort of a huge nerf. I mean, what if they never encounter extra planar beings?

Maybe if you substituted Protection From/Magic Circle Against [TYPE] for Protection From/Magic Circle Against [ALIGNMENT]. Thus, you still have a spell to protect you from that bloodthirsty vampire, but it's because said vampire is undead, not because he's evil.

And yeah, the only core class that really needs tweaking if you take out alignment is the Paladin. Discern Lies (or whatever the spell is called) I've heard makes a handy substitute for Detect Evil (fulfills a similar fluff role, helping the Paladin spot neer-do-wells, without quite as many pitfalls for abuse as Detect Evil). As for the smiting, it could, again, be keyed to type, not alignment.

Morty
2007-07-27, 10:51 AM
MOrt-

I like paladin. Sure, all they are is a crappy fighter mixed with a crappy cleric. But I love them. So shiny, they are, in plate and holy glow.

I'd say the Complete Warrior Paladin variant is a good choice for alignment-less worlds... but it kinda sucks.

Well, Oeryn's way of focusing on not alignment dependent abilities could indeed work if someone doesn't want to scratch paladins. And Oeryn, what have you done besides doubling Lay on Hands? Because if I ever run D&D campaign, it's probably going to be alignment-free as well, and keeping paladins would be nice.

rialb
2007-07-27, 11:03 AM
Quietus-

All good points, and they have been made by my friends at some point, I'm sure.

I love the detect house rule. If the allegiance thing doesn't take hold, that one is in for sure.

-Rialb(KoX)

Also, On the road traveling.

78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

Oeryn
2007-07-27, 11:08 AM
And Oeryn, what have you done besides doubling Lay on Hands? Because if I ever run D&D campaign, it's probably going to be alignment-free as well, and keeping paladins would be nice.

There are lots of opportunities to boost other abilities. You could boost turning (have them turn as a cleric only one level lower). Or use Grey Watcher's idea. Use Discern Lie instead of Detect Evil, and give them Smite Undead, instead of Smite Evil. You keep the same flavor, but just tweak the wording enough to get rid of any connection to alignment. My game (a homebrew) only has one god that would be considered "good", and so there's only one religion with Paladins. But there are several different "orders", so I varied it. One order loses Detect Evil completely, and gets extra class skills. Another gains a bonus feat from the Fighter list. Another one loses Detect Evil AND Lay on Hands, and gains a Rage-type ability, while they're singing hymns of valor. It's kind of a Holy Berserker, which I blatantly ripped off from the 2nd Edition Dwarven Vindicator.

Honestly, losing alignment makes the Paladin playable again. You can actually go forth and try to do good, instead of getting bogged down in the semantics of what "Lawful Good" means.

rialb
2007-07-27, 11:20 AM
A bit off subject, here.

I have a crit table form an old Dragon mag.

Er... does anyone have a table that doesn't result in an instant death 75% of the time?

-Rialb (KoX)

Citizen Joe
2007-07-27, 11:24 AM
If you go with allegiances (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/srd_modern_html/msrdallegiances.html) Detect evil could become Detect [Specific allegiance] or Detect Antithetical [Specific allegiance]

Hmm... I was just looking... did Know Alignment get stripped from the 3.5 spell lists?

CasESenSITItiVE
2007-07-27, 11:29 AM
a good problem with alignment, is people choose it first, and build thiercharacter around that. it should be the other way around

Morty
2007-07-27, 11:30 AM
Honestly, losing alignment makes the Paladin playable again. You can actually go forth and try to do good, instead of getting bogged down in the semantics of what "Lawful Good" means.

Precisely, plus you can have paladins that are wrong and/or are misjudging their duty. With current alignment restrictions, non-fallen paladin is automatically more or less right, because if he wasn't he'd fall.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-07-27, 11:37 AM
Precisely, plus you can have paladins that are wrong and/or are misjudging their duty. With current alignment restrictions, non-fallen paladin is automatically more or less right, because if he wasn't he'd fall.

Alignment isn't the problem; the problem is players and DMs who confuse stereotypes of alignment with the actuality of it.

If you want paladins to have to be "automatically more or less right" or fall, than make them fall if they aren't.

Or, just loosen up alignment.

Oeryn
2007-07-27, 11:37 AM
Precisely, plus you can have paladins that are wrong and/or are misjudging their duty. With current alignment restrictions, non-fallen paladin is automatically more or less right, because if he wasn't he'd fall.

That's just another way that it frees you up, as a DM. A Paladin could be misjudging his duty, but he'd still have the power of the church behind him. Whether he's right or not is between him and his god. Which is also nice, because it takes the debate out of the hands of the players, and lets the Paladin's player focus on his faith, and not his strictures.

valadil
2007-07-27, 11:39 AM
a good problem with alignment, is people choose it first, and build thiercharacter around that. it should be the other way around

Thank you. All my most interesting characters have been the ones where I come up with something so well defined that he doesn't fit into any of the 9 alignments. In all those cases the GM has let alignment slide. If you roleplay consistent to your character you can forgo branding that character with an inaccurate label.

I'd just go with DM fiat when players use effects that affect alignment. Yes, smite evil is gonna work on those devils. Is detect evil gonna work on that peasant? Depends on what he's done lately. I'm of the opinion that making the paladin do some actual work to see whose evil instead of turning on the radar is gonna open up a lot of fun RP situations for the paladin.

Morty
2007-07-27, 11:41 AM
Alignment isn't the problem; the problem is players and DMs who confuse stereotypes of alignment with the actuality of it.

If you want paladins to have to be "automatically more or less right" or fall, than make them fall if they aren't.

Yes, but I want to have paladins who may be wrong but still non-fallen. Otherwise, we have the situation where paladins are always in the right, because if they weren't they wouldn't be paladins.


Or, just loosen up alignment.

It works to a certain degree, but not for everything.

Oeryn
2007-07-27, 11:43 AM
All my most interesting characters have been the ones where I come up with something so well defined that he doesn't fit into any of the 9 alignments.

That's exactly the point, and the reason I don't like alignment. Coming up with a good, deep character is cheapened by the fact that you have to shoehorn it into an alignment system with only 9 choices. Especially since anyone who's played D&D for more than two weeks has got their own idea of what each alignment is.

Getting rid of a few spells, and swapping out some abilities is a SMALL price to pay for all the things that open up when you ditch alignment.

Saph
2007-07-27, 11:47 AM
Threads like this always make me shake my head in disbelief. Honestly, if you find you're getting into this much trouble over alignment, it says a lot more about you than it does the D&D system.

Your alignment is a feature of your character, like your eye colour, your patron deity, or your weight. It has exactly as much impact in the game as the DM decides it will. Your alignment is also determined by the way you play your character, NOT vice versa. If you can't be bothered to deal with alignment as a player, just write 'Neutral' in the alignment category and ignore it. If you can't be bothered to deal with alignment as a DM, just don't bring it up. It's really not as hard as people think it is.

Example: I've just finished DMing a campaign. The players all had alignments. I think their alignments became an issue exactly once in the whole eight-week campaign, just because a certain barrier wouldn't open except for a Good-aligned character. A Good-aligned character happened to be the one who went for it; it opened. That was it. The campaign was not spent in recriminations over who should be what alignment, or what alignment anyone should be, etc, etc. Really, there is nothing forcing you to play like this.

If a player keeps telling everyone else at the table that they should be playing their characters a different way, then the problem is that he is a bad player. If a player is trying to play a paladin by killing everything that detects as evil, then the problem is that he is playing stupid. Removing alignment from the game is not going to solve either of these problems, trust me. Dumb and obnoxious players will still be dumb and obnoxious no matter what system you play with.

- Saph

Morty
2007-07-27, 11:52 AM
Threads like this always make me shake my head in disbelief. Honestly, if you find you're getting into this much trouble over alignment, it says a lot more about you than it does the D&D system.

Your alignment is a feature of your character, like your eye colour, your patron deity, or your weight. It has exactly as much impact in the game as the DM decides it will. Your alignment is also determined by the way you play your character, NOT vice versa. If you can't be bothered to deal with alignment as a player, just write 'Neutral' in the alignment category and ignore it. If you can't be bothered to deal with alignment as a DM, just don't bring it up. It's really not as hard as people think it is.

Example: I've just finished DMing a campaign. The players all had alignments. I think their alignments became an issue exactly once in the whole eight-week campaign, just because a certain barrier wouldn't open except for a Good-aligned character. A Good-aligned character happened to be the one who went for it; it opened. That was it. The campaign was not spent in recriminations over who should be what alignment, or what alignment anyone should be, etc, etc. Really, there is nothing forcing you to play like this.

If a player keeps telling everyone else at the table that they should be playing their characters a different way, then the problem is that he is a bad player. If a player is trying to play a paladin by killing everything that detects as evil, then the problem is that he is playing stupid. Removing alignment from the game is not going to solve either of these problems, trust me. Dumb and obnoxious players will still be dumb and obnoxious no matter what system you play with.

- Saph

Think about it that way: what positive does the alignmnent system contribute to any game? Nothing. And negative? It introduces objective moralty, causes endless discussions about what it means to be LG or CN, attempts to put the variety of people's intents and actions into nine archetypes and much more. So the system as a whole would be much better off without it. If you have to ignore something in order to not have troubles with it -it shouldn't exist.

Joltz
2007-07-27, 11:54 AM
Actually, I think it's especially bad for new players, because it leads them to define their characters' personalities by alignment rather than actually developing a personality.


a good problem with alignment, is people choose it first, and build thier character around that. it should be the other way around
QFT

I've told my players that "I'm doing it because that's my alignment." is never a valid excuse for anything. You develop a character's personality, then determine their alignment for mechanical purposes.

I've considered removing alignment, but I'm slightly fond of the system. I also think that shredding another basic system like that would send my players into a frenzy. I already use so many variants that the PHB is almost useless.

What I've decided on is to have characters develop a personality like I said, and I also use the behavioral alignment variant from heroes of horror. It just says that a character's alignment can temporarily fluctuate based on his current actions and thoughts. Even the world's most depraved serial killer might register as good while he's visiting his mother.

ooh, someone posted something good while I was typing. Go read Saph's post above this again.

Saph
2007-07-27, 12:00 PM
Think about it that way: what positive does the alignmnent system contribute to any game? Nothing. And negative? It introduces objective moralty,

I like objective morality.


causes endless discussions about what it means to be LG or CN,

I find them interesting. But you don't have to participate if you don't want to.


attempts to put the variety of people's intents and actions into nine archetypes and much more. So the system as a whole would be much better off without it.

'I don't like X' is not proof for 'X should not exist.' For someone who claims to dislike objective morality, you have a pretty non-subjective attitude to how things should be. ;)


If you have to ignore something in order to not have troubles with it -it shouldn't exist.

I don't ignore alignment, and don't have troubles with it. Remember, the way you play the game isn't the only one.

- Saph

ArmorArmadillo
2007-07-27, 12:05 PM
Think about it that way: what positive does the alignmnent system contribute to any game? Nothing. And negative? It introduces objective moralty, causes endless discussions about what it means to be LG or CN, attempts to put the variety of people's intents and actions into nine archetypes and much more. So the system as a whole would be much better off without it. If you have to ignore something in order to not have troubles with it -it shouldn't exist.

If players choose alignment first, and then characters second that's not alignment's problem. People do the same thing with classes and races (Of course I stole his gold, I'm a rogue! Of course I killed him, I'm a barbarian!) It's bad character design, and nothing more.

What does alignment contribute? Objective Morality is important to a game because it allows players and DMs to organize characters in the game, and organize affiliations and groups. Just because people often make excessive and poorly planned generalizations (Orcs are always evil because MM says so; Drow are always CG because MM says otherwise) doesn't mean that any systems are wrong. Also, if you are playing the standard "heroic" style game, it's important to be able to have real sides of "good" and "evil" in a clear and present sense.

It's also good to have a very expansive, and overarching "conflict" to the game that isn't directly tied to some in-game plot like "the blood war" or the "cult of Nerull." Good Vs. Evil and Law Vs. Chaos are useful ways of ordering things that aren't reliant on MacGuffins and plot devices, but rather a very real conflict that resonates with players.

Morty
2007-07-27, 12:09 PM
I like objective morality.

Alright, but you can have objective moralty without having system that enforces it and binds your hands whenever you want to have non-objective moralty.


I find them interesting. But you don't have to participate if you don't want to.

Interesting? I always found them pointless and impossible to end in satisfying way, as everyone has their own vision of how certain alignment should look like. Guess it's a matter of taste.


'I don't like X' is not proof for 'X should not exist.' For someone who claims to dislike objective morality, you have a pretty non-subjective attitude to how things should be.
I don't ignore alignment, and don't have troubles with it. Remember, the way you play the game isn't the only one.


I'm fully aware of that. However, you can still have objective, black-and-white moralty without having a system that enforces it.


Also, if you are playing the standard "heroic" style game, it's important to be able to have real sides of "good" and "evil" in a clear and present sense.

See above. You can run heroic campaign where good and evil are obvious without a system that will make it difficult to play a campaign with less than obvious good guys and bad guys.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-07-27, 12:21 PM
Alright, but you can have objective moralty without having system that enforces it and binds your hands whenever you want to have non-objective moralty.



Interesting? I always found them pointless and impossible to end in satisfying way, as everyone has their own vision of how certain alignment should look like. Guess it's a matter of taste.



I'm fully aware of that. However, you can still have objective, black-and-white moralty without having a system that enforces it.



See above. You can run heroic campaign where good and evil are obvious without a system that will make it difficult to play a campaign less than obvious good guys and bad guys.

I actually do agree that strict morality is a mistake. I run an Eberron game, where Alignment is very loose (you can have an Evil cleric of a Good Diety who still gets powers) and the use of alignment is meant to be a tool rather than a restriction, and also to allow for "elemental" good and evil in the form of Outsiders.

Still, the best example I've seen is "behavioral alignment" as presented in Heroes of Horror: You're evil if you're DOING something evil. A lich buying pants registers Neutral, a paladin trying to close down a bar because he disagrees with liquor registers CN. A paladin rounding up lycanthropes, regardless of their actions, for "cleansing" registers as LE.

Wolfbite
2007-07-27, 12:22 PM
My group and I have been fortunate enough to work through any alignment problems over the many years we've been gaming together. The system is definitely not perfect. But it's not overly difficult to work with the concepts of the alignment spectrum.

The greatest challenge I've seen is how well players can run their characters much like actors in a play, as opposed to making their characters extensions of themselves and their own personal views. Both styles are fine, but they do not mix well at all. Most disagreements I found stem from the latter.

And of course, the Paladin is the biggest trouble class. And that usually comes from not understanding how a Paladin is played. In truth, most people aren't up to playing a Paladin, and most parties that like to be colorful, don't find they are a good fit. Whereas it is possible for other types of good characters to party with more selfish and evil characters, and still be able to justify it.
A good example of that is within OOTS. There is difference between Roy's Lawful Good, and Hinjo's Paladin Lawful Good, this of course is based on my thinking Roy is lawful good (I think it came up in a comic somewhere).

As for alignment alternatives, that allegiance alternative is superb. I just checked out that link myself and it seems a viable solution, for those looking to escape the standards, but not wanting to rearrange it themselves.

Also, if anyone has ever played Palladium Games system, they have a different way of doing alignments. I don't have a link or anything, but it is tailored to good and evil themes, with a lot of grey areas inbetween, and no neutral...because, that just does not exist.

Oeryn
2007-07-27, 12:24 PM
Read the original post.


Now, I'm not here to debate the merits of having alignment, or how we SHOULD play alignments to solve the problem. All I'm asking for is ideas for removing alignment, as a tool, from the game, while keeping the game mechanics intact. For example: How would circle against <alignment> work? What about detections and smites?

If you wanna talk about how great the alignment system is, there are a ton of other threads about it. Rialb asked about ways to remove it, and that's what we're talkin' about here. Not "if we should", but "how we can".

stainboy
2007-07-27, 12:25 PM
If you don't want to nerf paladins' Smite Evil, replace it with something like the following:

Smite (su): As part of a normal attack, a paladin can add his Charisma bonus to his attack roll and his class level to his damage roll.

Smite can be used against undead, evil outsiders, evil aberrations, and characters with one or more levels in divine spellcasting classes dedicated to evil deities or causes. Smite can be used against any target while in pursuit of a righteous cause, as determined by the DM.

(As a guideline, defending yourself or those under your protection from attackers who apparently intend to kill them constitutes a righteous cause. Clearing out the goblins raiding farms on the frontier constitutes a righteous cause, even if you are accepting payment for doing so. Breaking into a crypt for the sake of looting it does not.)

Quietus
2007-07-27, 12:58 PM
If you don't want to nerf paladins' Smite Evil, replace it with something like the following:

Smite (su): As part of a normal attack, a paladin can add his Charisma bonus to his attack roll and his class level to his damage roll.

Smite can be used against undead, evil outsiders, evil aberrations, and characters with one or more levels in divine spellcasting classes dedicated to evil deities or causes. Smite can be used against any target while in pursuit of a righteous cause, as determined by the DM.

(As a guideline, defending yourself or those under your protection from attackers who apparently intend to kill them constitutes a righteous cause. Clearing out the goblins raiding farms on the frontier constitutes a righteous cause, even if you are accepting payment for doing so. Breaking into a crypt for the sake of looting it does not.)

You know, I actually really like this idea.

Oeryn
2007-07-27, 01:08 PM
I second that.

Nicely done, Stainboy.

Morty
2007-07-27, 01:11 PM
Thirded. Unlike most of the "let DM decide" abilities, wording of this one is preety clear and munchkin-proof. Good work. Although instead of just plain "righteous" I'd say "righteous for paladin's church", as the definition of righteousness can differ.

rialb
2007-07-27, 01:29 PM
:smallamused:

I leave the thread for lunch, and look what I get.

But It looks like Oeryn activated his star power and hit the whammy bar, to get us trough a tough spot.

The input many have offered here have given me many great ideas already.

I really thank you guys for the input.

But lets try to stay on target.

Saph-

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best player or DM, that may be why I can't handle alignment.

However, since "...there is nothing forcing me to play like this." I have decided not to, so that I might spend more time playing/running the game than debating the same arguments over and over. Fun for you, not for me.

Thank you for your input, but as Oeryn pointed out: this is not the the advice I'm looking for.



... Did I just make three Star Wars references?

No, only two. Still.... some one should shoot me.

rialb
2007-07-27, 01:32 PM
Stainboy-

Wicked cool.

I have already added it to my DM notes.

Thanks a bunch.

LoopyZebra
2007-07-27, 01:32 PM
Taint (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/taint.htm) or a system like it might be a good replacement for alignment and solve some of the Paladin issues. I've never used it though, so I'm not sure how it would actually work off-paper.

rialb
2007-07-27, 01:45 PM
LoopyZebra-

Taint is certainly an interesting concept.

I'm thinking now that I might run a series "one shots" (I always have trouble finishing in four hours) that play around with Oeryn's no alignment, allegiance, taint, and some combination of the notes I've gathered (stolen?) here.

Then we can have a Supersized, mind numbing, alignment debate, and vote on wich system seems to be most workable to the group.

this signature thing is handy. :smallsmile:

Quietus
2007-07-27, 01:47 PM
LoopyZebra-

Taint is certainly an interesting concept.

I'm thinking now that I might run a series "one shots" (I always have trouble finishing in four hours) that play around with Oeryn's no alignment, allegiance, taint, and some combination of the notes I've gathered (stolen?) here.

Then we can have a Supersized, mind numbing, alignment debate, and vote on wich system seems to be most workable to the group.

this signature thing is handy. :smallsmile:

"Aquired" is better than "Stolen". Also, gathered works, as does picked up and "borrowed on a potentially permanent basis".

rialb
2007-07-27, 01:55 PM
"Aquired" is better than "Stolen". Also, gathered works, as does picked up and "borrowed on a potentially permanent basis".

*raise eyebrow*
*smite Quietus*
*alignment shift 1 Evil*

....

*hug corpse*
*alignment shift 1 good, 1 chaotic*

Dang!

Quietus
2007-07-27, 02:01 PM
*raise eyebrow*
*smite Quietus*
*alignment shift 1 Evil*

....

*hug corpse*
*alignment shift 1 good, 1 chaotic*

Dang!

It's a good thing I'm a DM, too, or that might've hurt more than it did. :smallbiggrin:

It's alright, I forgive you.

*Ding!*

Oh! Saint template? Why thank you!

Oeryn
2007-07-27, 02:14 PM
I'd definitely be interested in hearing how those one-shots play out.

I'll be the first to admit mine isn't a perfect system. I'm using it in a homebrew, so I get to make ALL the calls. I don't have to adapt a bunch of existing organizations or pantheons.

I can't look at the SRD at work (it's blocked), but I'll definitely take a look at the Taint thing, as well as the alliegances.

rialb
2007-07-27, 02:22 PM
Oeryn-

I'll do a write up of each one, and hand over to you my player's thoughts on each one I ran (funny how extra XP can get a group of adults to do "homework").

I added you to my "buddies" list so I won't forget who you are.

The group won't be in full swing untill fall, so you may be in for a wait.

Oeryn
2007-07-27, 02:29 PM
Wow, that was certainly more "feedback" than I was expecting, but I'll be real interested to get it, once you get a chance to play with the mechanics a little.

One last thing I'd recommend, make sure you bring it up, right at the beginning. it folded into my game pretty smoothly, and no one's had a problem with it, but it took some explaining, so we were all on the same page when we started. Just be ready to spend a little extra time on it.

Wolfbite
2007-07-27, 03:04 PM
If you don't want to nerf paladins' Smite Evil, replace it with something like the following:

Smite (su): As part of a normal attack, a paladin can add his Charisma bonus to his attack roll and his class level to his damage roll.

Smite can be used against undead, evil outsiders, evil aberrations, and characters with one or more levels in divine spellcasting classes dedicated to evil deities or causes. Smite can be used against any target while in pursuit of a righteous cause, as determined by the DM.

(As a guideline, defending yourself or those under your protection from attackers who apparently intend to kill them constitutes a righteous cause. Clearing out the goblins raiding farms on the frontier constitutes a righteous cause, even if you are accepting payment for doing so. Breaking into a crypt for the sake of looting it does not.)


Interesting proposition...however a Paladin would not break into a crypt for the sake of looting it, anyway. Which does not neccessarily mean they couldn't adventure into a crypt to destroy a perceived threatening artifact to the Paladin's cause. Or they couldn't go into a crypt after one of their party members to save them...or fighting the evil undead foes that inhabit a crypt. Regardless of the Paladin's reason for being there... the creatures are still "evil".
This is just modification to the class that causes the most problems with alignment like was said. It doesn't really do much in my eyes.

Taint is decent. If anyone ever played in Ravenloft any of your actions can almost always be twisted to dark, it's always a constant battle of you vs the realm that relies more on maintaing your sanity, than losing oneself to well, taint.

Replacing alignments with an elemental spectrum is another thing we've tried in a couple homebrew campaigns back when.
Kind of mundane but similar to allegiance. Your typical friends and foes are based off the cross color spectrum, with light and dark directly opposing each other. (I suppose you could spin it by adding either light or dark element to either earth, fire, water, air, plant...to make it more versatile.)

That way each Paladin's power was element specific, and had greatest effect against the opposing element. It was ages ago...wish I remembered more about the setup, I'll see if we still have the notes.

Razinoth
2007-07-27, 03:29 PM
sir the answer to all your problems lies in the Dungeons and Dragons supplemental guide Heros of Horror, in which they discuss the behavioral allignment system versus the classic relative allignment. the behavioral allignment system is based on personal codes of conduct and the specific acts of the character. for example, who is to say that a lawful evil assassin wouldnt go back on his contract if the target was a small child? i think it would help, adn it also frees up some previously unplayable personalities.:smallsmile:

rialb
2007-07-27, 04:22 PM
Razinoth-

Thanks.

I'll acquire said materials.

I think something like that my have already been mentioned, but I'll take a look.

Matthew
2007-07-28, 12:04 AM
I don't really know how people end up with these problems. For the record, I agree with Saph. This stuff isn't up to the Players, it's in the hands of the DM. The Player's definition of Alignment just isn't relevant. The DM should determine the Alignment of any and all Characters.

Vuzzmop
2007-07-28, 12:23 AM
Sounds like these players are really quite crap at role playing. An alignment is a guideline, and shouldn't be that prevelant in your games anyway. I hate players that can't get over their defintions of alignment and play their fricking characters. My advice? Tell them all to grow up and start playing characters rather than race/class/alignment combos. All my characters are hard to define as an alignment, and that is how it should be. The idiot's who kill anything that reads as "evil", rather than actual criminals need to suffer for it. An evil person can live his/her life without committing an evil act, just thinking evil thoughts and seeing with an evil outlook. Alignment is meant to make a characters personality more easy to describe and evaluate, but it is not concrete, and there can be outlying factors in a characters personality.

For example, I once played a chaotic good valley elf bardic sage, who's family were killed by elven slave traders. After this experience, he still acted with the same alignment, but with a deep seated and racist hatred of high elves. If a player has the maturity to play a character this deep, alignment matters a whole lot less. It's really just a way of keepling PCs from breaking character.

Beleriphon
2007-07-28, 01:37 AM
Thirded. Unlike most of the "let DM decide" abilities, wording of this one is preety clear and munchkin-proof. Good work. Although instead of just plain "righteous" I'd say "righteous for paladin's deity/belief structure", as the definition of righteousness can differ.

Important edit there since paladins don't technically need to belong to a church hierarchy to be paladins.

Stephen_E
2007-07-28, 02:10 AM
If you just say alignment detect spells only detect alignments pf Moderate+ strength you get rid of a lot of the hassle.

Example - Detect Evil - Moderate
Evil Creature HD 11-25
Undead HD 3-8
Evil Outsider HD 2-4
Cleric of Evil God, class levels 2-4

So no non-cleric type of <11 will detect at all.
Cleric types you generally have a good idea what God they worship anyway, although it's worth noting that casting alignment spells on cleric types generally tells you what god they worship rather than what alignment they are - thus the NE PC who's a cleric of a Neutral god will detect as "Neutral".

Stephen

Dervag
2007-07-28, 02:20 AM
That's more in line with the way that earlier versions of the spell worked.

I would say that it was better balanced then, because it wasn't a first level spell that you could substitute for exercising judgement about whether or not someone was a threat.

So, for instance, it would be great at picking out a vampire from a crowd of people, but it would not be a good way of picking out an evil wizard from a crowd of people.

tannish2
2007-07-28, 03:09 AM
You don't play alignments. You play characters who happen to wear alignments similar to how people wear clothes. If your actions no longer allow you to wear a particular kind of alignment, your alignment shifts.

Beat those who say otherwise with Players Handbooks that have nails hammered through them.

exactly my thoughts, except the part about defiling players handbooks and nails by touching them to an alignment hugger, to threadstarter: play your characters, if the DM says that your paladin in now CE, then your a blackgaurd, which really works better for everyone, and if players obsess over it and detect alignment on party members constantly when they dont have reason to think that that person has been replaced with a doppleganger/spy/vampirized then penalize them, or say that detect alignment drains 1d4 con points (non cumulative, from both targets and caster) and that people really take offense at having it cast at them, and might react negatively no matter what alignment, though that should only be nessicary in an extreme case of someone not letting it go

beeblebear
2007-07-28, 06:44 AM
Personally, if I have a player who is trying to tell me what to do as the ref, I tell him that his character can see a shadow centred on himself which is growing larger. If he looks up, he will see the cause.
If he stops telling me what to do, then the shadow disappears.

Generally I either do not use DND or I only bother with alignment for clerics and paladins.

ranger89
2007-07-28, 08:40 AM
Wow. Nothing like the topic of alignment to get people really fired up. While I'm definitely in the "f*** alignment, the world's not b&w, just play your damn character" camp, I respect that others view and play the game differently.

To the rialb the OP: If your group can't get past the alignment issue, I would suggest that you bring up the alternative ideas others have posted and also bring up the player behavior issues in your group if they're detracting from your enjoyment of the game. Some of the table behavior you mentioned in your first post is ridiculous :smallyuk: . Best of luck.

rialb
2007-07-31, 04:30 PM
Okie-doke,

I left the tread, but it went on with out me.

First, Yes the examples I gave are a bit crazy.... if taken literally. I made some very general examples, that were a bit off kilter.

At the time it seemed like the thing to do.

Secondly, I guess I should have known that it would be impossible to get a clean answer for removing alignment (or substitute it), while avoiding a carnival of you-are-so-stupid-you-suck-at-life-and-so-does-everyone-you-know.

Thanks to those people who could resist the urge, and just give me some cool ideas.

As to the lecturing few: Thank you for your insight, and ever-so-helpful rants. But, that isn't what I came here looking for.