PDA

View Full Version : Pitfalls of no alignment



Lord_Kimboat
2007-09-15, 05:55 PM
The alignment system, while fertile ground for a thousand arguments and debates in forums like this, still seems a clunky, restrictive and most of all, unnecessary system that the DM must impose on players.

So, for my next campaign I'm planning on doing away with it. Unfortunately it is a mechanic so here are the things I'm planning on changing.

Barbarians and Bards - No restriction that they must act in a chaotic fashion. I have to say I've never seen this enforced and am not even sure it can be.

Clerics - As long as the cleric roleplays in the spirit of their religion they will not be penalized. There are no spells with a descriptor of good or evil but these are replaced with enemies (detect enemies, protection from enemies, etc) and will work against anyone that has the intent of harming the cleric at the time. This will also work automatically against evil outsiders and infernals.

Monks - Same as barbarians and bards.

Paladins - Detect Evil is changed to detect enemies and will again detect anyone with the intent to harm the paladin or Infernal creatures and 'evil outsiders' as well as spells from them or "evil places", such as an old torture chamber that is no longer used would have a lingering aura; but people would not. Smiting however would work on anything.


Now, does anyone see any problems with this or know of anything that I've missed out on.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-15, 06:00 PM
Now, does anyone see any problems with this or know of anything that I've missed out on.
Yes, you used the words Alignment and Paladin in the same post. :smallamused:

Lord_Kimboat
2007-09-15, 06:06 PM
Yes, you used the words Alignment and Paladin in the same post. :smallamused:

Yeah, I thought it might get the people posting, although I'd hate to be accused of trolling. :smalltongue:

However, I think one of the reasons that there is so much . . . debate about paladins is over the alignment issue. To me, the whole thing is poorly conceived and it makes the game more difficult to play rather than easier.

But I really just want to know if anyone else foresees any problems I'll come across.

Kyle
2007-09-15, 06:12 PM
I think having Smiting work on anything is a bit of an issue. Granted, most encounters will feature opponents who are indeed in need of being Smit, but I still think Paladins should be risking their status for performing acts which would be deemed evil, or for attempting to Smite something which isn't deserving of it.

Unless, of course, in your campaign world, whatever it is that's providing the Paladins with their abilites doesn't particularly care how it is they use them, which is an interesting concept in and of itself.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-15, 06:14 PM
I'd dispute that it's actually either clunky or restrictive...but that's tangential.

I think 'Detect Enemies' may be substantially more powerful than Detect Evil, unless you otherwise permit paladins to butcher anything evil without repercussions. If that's intentional, it may not be a problem.

Also, smite anything...Especially combined with having less ability to recognize people you probably shouldn't be smiting...may result in smiting people who you definitely shouldn't have. It would bother me for a Paladin to use divine power to inflict more damage on a grossly inappropriate (unknown to them) target, and have it work. Matter of taste, though.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-15, 06:21 PM
Something worth looking into:

White Wolf characters have a nature, basically their motivation (praise seeker, architect, child, deviant...) which is somewhat more character-defining and less vaguely defined than alignment.

Barbs and bards don't need alignment restrictions. Frankly I see no reason why somebody couldn't be a "lawful" bard or barb if they have a nice backstory. It's not important for game balance either.

Clerics are easy. Their gods have an ethos, that you have to follow. God of battle? Don't run away, it's disgraceful. God of art? Don't destroy stuff. Et cetera. There really aren't all that many [good] or [evil] spells, so I'd say just remove them. Protection from evil can still work against mind control, that's what it's there for. Monks can have a honor code of some sort, I suppose.

The paladin is slightly trickier, because Detect and Smite Evil are their prime abilities. I wouldn't make it D/S Enemies, that's too easy. Rather, I would define "taint" that paladins can detect. Undead and demons are obviously tainted (and can be detected and smote). People who cast certain kinds of spells (like Animate Dead, or Summon Demon, or whatnot) too often are also "tainted". Some really nasty people like mass murderers or torturers can be tainted by their actions. Normal enemies are not. This ensures that anything that registers on Detect is nasty enough to deserve a Smiting.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-15, 06:27 PM
I think you are looking for Detect and smite Heretic. Basically enemies of your church.

headwarpage
2007-09-15, 06:38 PM
I'll second that "detect enemies" might be a bit much. Also, unless you run a hack-and-slash style of game, "enemies" might be a rather nebulous term at times. In the end, it comes down to "detect people I, as the DM, want you to detect". If your players are cool with that, it might not be a problem, but if you've got a rules lawyer in your group, you'll probably catch some grief.

Also, consider the effect of "detect enemies" on the way your players are going to respond to encounters. A well-played paladin won't smite everything that pings as evil, but he might smite everything that pings as an enemy. And if you try to put him in a situation where that's not a good choice, you're opening yourself up to players arguing about the definition of "enemy", as I mentioned above.

You're better off dropping alignment-based spells and abilites entirely. Spellcasters get enough other toys that they won't miss those, so it's really just the paladin you're worried about. So give him Smite Anything. He can channel that divine power at anything he wants, but make sure he knows that if his god doesn't agree with his choice of targets, he's going to lose his powers. It's not such a powerful ability, and paladins get such a limited number of uses, that letting it affect anything isn't game-breaking. But it will make your player feel a little better about losing Detect Evil.

Xaros
2007-09-15, 06:41 PM
When it comes to alignment-based spells, the anti-evil ones make sense (except for the high level ones - see Holy Word). Evil tends to be sneaky and subversive in a non-evil society, and thus it should be perfectly reasonable that spells should be developed that unmask the hidden evil and defend against it.

Anti-good spells and class abilities, on the other hand, are strange to me. The BBEG doesn't worry only about the forces of justice and righteousness bashing down its door - other evil forces are out to get the BBEG as well. I would see evil groups or societies developing tools to undermine all of their opponents, regardless of alignment.

Evil individuals are typically (in my understanding) willing to use whatever methods are at their disposal to advance themselves, though some might possess friendships, a vestigial conscience, or a healthy sense of self-preservation that preclude certain acts. I could easily see a Baatezu using flasks of holy water in the Blood War, for example, or a vampire killing another vampire by exposing him/her to direct sunlight. So evil can use "good" magic or natural effects to kill.

Good individuals seem to dislike sinking to one's adversary's level. I wouldn't imagine an archon would use unholy water to attack an eladrin, for example, despite their opposing views on law/chaos. Likewise, a paladin isn't about to conjure a demon for any reason, even to attack an evil enemy. This makes the ability to detect and smite evil their primary means of promoting the cause of virtue. Note that good seldom clashes directly with good.

Thus we have the scenario in which evil attacks good while good attacks evil. So far, it's a reciprocal relationship. Then we see that evil attacks evil, but good does not attack good. So good focuses on eliminating evil, while evil focuses on eliminating all opposition.

To link this long-winded essay to the main topic, I would suggest keeping the Detect [X] and Smite [X] abilities for righteous paladins, and defining X, perhaps as follows (better written than I could have done):


The paladin is slightly trickier, because Detect and Smite Evil are their prime abilities. I wouldn't make it D/S Enemies, that's too easy. Rather, I would define "taint" that paladins can detect. Undead and demons are obviously tainted (and can be detected and smote). People who cast certain kinds of spells (like Animate Dead, or Summon Demon, or whatnot) too often are also "tainted". Some really nasty people like mass murderers or torturers can be tainted by their actions. Normal enemies are not. This ensures that anything that registers on Detect is nasty enough to deserve a Smiting.

Then I'd dump all the other alignment-based spells and abilities.

Drider
2007-09-15, 07:02 PM
I personally prefer Paladins (<- say that 3 times fast) as "Crusaders" who eliminate opposition to their church, whether its cultists trying to kill your god, or bandits raiding towns your church oversees. The paladin that is "exalted" (I hated reading the book of lofty, unrealistic(for the time period of most campaigns) deeds, so, so much. and does'nt ever deal lethal damage, and captures 100% of the opposition and does'nt even let them boo-boo themself while he escorts them to jail, or even worse, lets them go free and tell them to feel bad and not do their **** again. That paladin makes no sense AT ALL.

/Rant Over

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-15, 07:27 PM
If you want a TRUE alignment system, create new classes, or use a true no alignment system and prep yourself for a TON of arguments with any player worth his or her salt (I actually try this with real elite [who have infinte scores on INT and WIS, not crappy elite arrays] players, and it's usually incredible cool, since it becomes more like playing the perfect game and not D&D, but I digress). Me, for example, I always houserule that pally's and monks can be N, NE, or NG, since according to Gary Gygax, that's good or evil or balance in it's purest form (which shows incredible commitment to the world, the world good, or yourself), and I also houserule that the restrictions about leaving class and comin' back can suckit. It doesn't make sense that, because of a stupid mechanic, my pally can't become evil and go back to good (look at Neverwinter nights' Aribeth de Tylmarande, she goes Blackguard and back to Paladin.) even when you can use it for a good story.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-09-15, 07:55 PM
Detect enemies? Heck no. Can you imagine how abusable that could be (outside of a beer-and-pretzels game)?

I'd say that unless you want to get rid of the paladin entirely, you should find another mechanic to use with smite other than anything/enemy, or just let them be able to smite anything but watch their conduct closely. Enemies of the church isn't as bad, but it still isn't perfect and could lead to unjust smiting almost as easily as smite anything.

Dervag
2007-09-15, 08:05 PM
I think you are looking for Detect and smite Heretic. Basically enemies of your church.The problem is that it's not clear that there shouldn't be more to a paladin than that.

Sure, you can create a setting in which paladins are defined entirely by allegiance to their church, but that's a very different flavor from the general setting in which paladins are defined by their adherence to an abstract, interdenominational standard of virtue.

I'd define a sort of interfaith code for paladins, or a code that is defined and empowered by one deity but that other benevolent deities are OK with letting their worshippers follow and gain power from.

Beleriphon
2007-09-15, 08:30 PM
Sure, you can create a setting in which paladins are defined entirely by allegiance to their church, but that's a very different flavor from the general setting in which paladins are defined by their adherence to an abstract, interdenominational standard of virtue.

Very true. To use the FR example a paladin of Helm and a paladin of Tyr have more in common than two clerics of the same deities just by virtue of being paladins. Heck, a paladin of Sune and a paladin of Helm have more in common that their respective deities clerics do.

Golthur
2007-09-15, 08:55 PM
Usually when I lose alignment (and I always do, because I despise the mechanic), I'll change the smite/detect/etc. abilities to one of the following two options (depending on the mood I'm trying to create):

Heretics - that is, religious enemies, specifically. I use this if I plan on having several opposing religions in the world. This lets paladins of different religions smite each other, which is awesome. :amused:
Things Unnatural - that is, undead and fiends, and others of that ilk. Things that are beyond human morality, and are wholly unnatural.

John Campbell
2007-09-15, 09:10 PM
I briefly ran a d20-based homebrew where I ditched the whole alignment system almost completely. Nothing had alignments except for gods and strongly aligned outsiders. Clerics were expected to obey their god's dogma, which could be both more and less restrictive than an actual alignment, and, if their god was strongly aligned (not just "he's lawful", but "he has the Law domain"), they developed aligned auras. Most creatures, even most clerics, didn't ping on any alignment detection spell, and weren't affected by any alignment-specific effects. I left those in, but they weren't usually good for much. And protection from evil and its like basically became protection from summons.

Of course, I also ditched the paladin completely, though I left in some feats and class feature options that let The Guy Who Always Plays Paladins kitbash one from a fighter/cleric.

Tengu
2007-09-15, 09:28 PM
I think that alignment restrictions for classes is the smallest issue here - it's not that a barbarian/paladin multiclass character is completely overpowered...

Plus, if you watch as much anime as I do, you probably notice that monks oftenly are chaotic anyway.

Riffington
2007-09-15, 09:30 PM
Very true. To use the FR example a paladin of Helm and a paladin of Tyr have more in common than two clerics of the same deities just by virtue of being paladins. Heck, a paladin of Sune and a paladin of Helm have more in common that their respective deities clerics do.

A Crusader and a Jihadi might have a lot in common, but that doesn't mean they won't smite each other. Heck, smiting each other is one of the things they have in common.

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-15, 09:40 PM
It seems simple enough to me: make the Paladin an exercise in self-delusion. Give him the ability to smite anything, as long as he believes them to be evil. As long as he can convince himself that his enemies are beyond redemption, he can smite them all day long.

HidaTsuzua
2007-09-15, 09:47 PM
You can always go with a subjective alignment system. Here's a description on how that'll work written by a friend of mine:

Subjective Morality: In this system, a character’s alignment is not determined on an absolute scale, but is relative to the values of their own society. A character is good if they conform to their society/culture’s standard for good, and evil if they conform to their society/culture’s standard for evil. Law and chaos are defined by whether a character values order, planning, and organization or not – but note that in Subjective Morality it is possible for some societies to make it impossible to be a certain alignment because lawful/chaotic are subsumed in their standards of morality. For example, in a society where the highest value is faith in authority, a character belonging to that society could not be chaotic good.

Note that this system has huge repercussions for the rest of the world. In particular:

Since paladins must only remain Lawful Good based on the values of their society, they need not recognize paladins from other societies as their allies.

Creatures with predetermined alignment other than “Neutral” should, in general, not exist.

Outsiders representing alignment concepts would need to be drastically reworked, either to an authority distinct from mortal society (which could mean that good characters might have to fight celestials) or be tied to mortal societies, or simply not exist.

Abilities that refer to alignment always work based on the caster’s society’s morality system – thus, it is possible for two paladins to be able to smite evil each other, for example.

Starsinger
2007-09-15, 09:47 PM
Why can't paladins just smite anything? When they start running around acting like Miko, you know they've gone too far. This whole "No! Paladins have to smite evil!" thing is utter nonsense.

As for their detect, in an alignmentless game that I ran in the past, Paladins could detect Undead, Aberrations, demons and devils.

....
2007-09-15, 09:48 PM
Protection from X spells will be useless.

Dervag
2007-09-15, 11:20 PM
It seems simple enough to me: make the Paladin an exercise in self-delusion. Give him the ability to smite anything, as long as he believes them to be evil. As long as he can convince himself that his enemies are beyond redemption, he can smite them all day long.That seems to me like a really, really cynical take on the paladin. If I were that cynical about paladins, I wouldn't allow them in my games at all.


You can always go with a subjective alignment system. Here's a description on how that'll work written by a friend of mine:I, for one, believe that morality is objective though it is not even remotely clear that there is any society whose 'moral' code matches the objectively correct morality. I wouldn't do that, but if you're a moral relativist then you're welcome to do so.


Why can't paladins just smite anything? When they start running around acting like Miko, you know they've gone too far. This whole "No! Paladins have to smite evil!" thing is utter nonsense.Because they're supposed to lose their powers if they go too far, and there's no way to implement that mechanically except in terms of something like alignment or a predefined code that comes with the paladin.

Arbitrarity
2007-09-15, 11:30 PM
Protection from X spells will be useless.

Untrue. The best aspect of those spells is the protection from mind-affecting effects.

Starsinger
2007-09-15, 11:44 PM
Because they're supposed to lose their powers if they go too far, and there's no way to implement that mechanically except in terms of something like alignment or a predefined code that comes with the paladin.

Under the current system DMs are supposed to keep an eye on paladins to make sure they behave. Without alignment how does this change?

John Campbell
2007-09-16, 12:04 AM
Because they're supposed to lose their powers if they go too far, and there's no way to implement that mechanically except in terms of something like alignment or a predefined code that comes with the paladin.

But there's no reason that that code has to particularly resemble an alignment, or even be a moral code, per se. If you take a step back from the generic paladin mold, and look at them as holy warriors, warriors of a particular god, instead of using the generic paladin code with its heavy alignment reliance ("do good things, do lawful things, don't do chaotic things, evil is Right Out"), you can make their codes specific to the god they follow. And that code may not necessarily be lawful or good, in a D&D-alignment sense.

Clerics do this already (or should... it's part of the counterbalance for them being Better At Everything Than You)... why not paladins? What's a paladin but a cleric with a sword?


Untrue. The best aspect of those spells is the protection from mind-affecting effects.
Aye. I've got items that overlap and exceed the AC/save bonuses it provides, and at my level most of the stuff it wards against has hefty SR and can laugh at its save DC, but I still keep it prepped just for the suppression of mind control effects. Being able to shrug off half the enchantment school and practically anything a bard can do to you, no save required, for minutes per level, with a first level spell, is well worth the price of admission.

Thinker
2007-09-16, 12:29 AM
You could always switch to an allegiance system as defined by d20 Modern. Basically instead of having good and evil people do things to further the goals of their allegiances. The way I ran smite with this was that you could smite those of a different allegiance.

CthulhuM
2007-09-16, 01:32 AM
The only real "pitfall" with most of these ideas is that you have to come up with something to do about alignment issues that are heavily integrated into the rules - specifically exalted/vile classes and alignment-based DR and regeneration.

I plan on running an alignment-less campaign soon, and my approach has been to reduce any effect determined by alignment to an effect determined by the opinions of one god or another. So if a cleric of god X casts a harmful spell that effects creatures of a given alignment, it instead effects creatures god X has a low opinion of. "Detect Evil" becomes "Detect Deity's Enemies," and paladins of more vicious or whimsical gods might use the variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny) classes to maintain consistency among their abilities. Classes with supernaturally enforced codes of conduct are always associated with one god or another, and must act according to whatever code of conduct that particular god enforces.

I also replaced holy/unholy/anarchic/axiomatic weapons with "godpledged" weapons (weapons devoted to a specific god), and replaced good/evil/lawful/chaotic DR and regeneration with "divine" DR and regeneration. A godpledged weapon then deals 2d6 extra damage and overcomes the divine DR of any creature the weapon's god doesn't like.

Oh, and, while some people will obviously disagree, I say that if a player wants to create a character with an "evil" class (assassin, blackguard, etc.) but play them as well-meaning individuals... let them, so long as they follow the rules set down by any relevant deities.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-16, 02:15 AM
But isn't blackguard about being evil for evil's sake? I find that hard to be 'well-meaning'. Just a nit-pick, really.

Dervag
2007-09-16, 03:55 AM
Under the current system DMs are supposed to keep an eye on paladins to make sure they behave. Without alignment how does this change?I believe that DMs should, as far as possible, have predefined rules they can follow to justify their actions. This improves the fun by avoiding situations where the player resents what they see as an idiosyncratic DM decision ("What do you mean my paladin loses his powers for spending a week with an enemy spy of the opposite alignment! He was using anti-detection spells! I didn't even know he was an evil enemy!")

Moreover, the paladins themselves, being mortal, need some kind of guidelines to tell them what to do. The guidelines may be broad principles or narrow laws, but they should be there.


Clerics do this already (or should... it's part of the counterbalance for them being Better At Everything Than You)... why not paladins? What's a paladin but a cleric with a sword?Paladins are derived from the 'Christian knight' archetype that you see in Western European myths about the Knights of the Round Table and the Peers of Charlemagne. In Western European culture, there was a real difference between such a 'Christian knight' and a priest. Of course, Western Europe was a monotheist society, but I think the principle should remain.

A cleric, even a militant one, is a servant of the god (or the cause) who wages war. A paladin is a warrior who serves the god (or the cause).


So if a cleric of god X casts a harmful spell that effects creatures of a given alignment, it instead effects creatures god X has a low opinion of. "Detect Evil" becomes "Detect Deity's Enemies," and paladins of more vicious or whimsical gods might use the variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny) classes to maintain consistency among their abilities. Classes with supernaturally enforced codes of conduct are always associated with one god or another, and must act according to whatever code of conduct that particular god enforces.That makes sense.

I suggest (though this is only a suggestion) that not all deities should have paladins, or that the 'paladins' of certain types of gods bear effectively no resemblance to the 'divinely powered armored knight' that forms the basic archetype of the paladin class. An evil god's champions might well have the stats of blackguards, or some kind of warrior-type (Ravager? Homebrew class? I dunno).

There may be fundamental asymmetries between different deities.

Also, even if there are no good and evil alignments, there are still the broad categories of 'benevolent gods' and 'malevolent gods,' and those categories will likely be used in the setting.


Oh, and, while some people will obviously disagree, I say that if a player wants to create a character with an "evil" class (assassin, blackguard, etc.) but play them as well-meaning individuals... let them, so long as they follow the rules set down by any relevant deities.Well, the problem is that the flavor of those classes strongly implies that they are doing what they do for bad reasons (killing random people for no reason other than pay, for instance). So it's really hard for me to see how you can justify combining one of those classes with good intentions.

Though I guess it could be done with an assassin, using only some minor tweaks; the main thing would be that your well intentioned assassin wouldn't fit well in a traditional 'assassin guild' of murderers-for-hire.

Morty
2007-09-16, 04:14 AM
There was a thread about it about a month ago; the ideas there were:
1) Remove Smite Evil, but strenghten other paladin abilites, like Lay on Hands
2) Make Smite Evil work in "righteous" cause. Definition of righteousness would vary, depending on church/order paladin belongs to.
I personally like both of those.

Kyle
2007-09-16, 04:56 AM
Regarding Detect Evil, you could return to the pre-3.5 version which, instead of detecting a creature's evil alignment, was used to detect evil intent.

So a paladin could sit down at the bar and have a drink with a chaotic evil character and not be phased, but as soon as the chaotic good character is thinking about troturing information out of a kobold, a paladin attempting to detect evil would immeaditely be aware of evil intent in the area.

It also works for items and places associated with large amounts of evil.

Personally I've always prefered that version, as it's somewhat more flavourful.

Kiero
2007-09-16, 05:11 AM
I've got an easy fix for you: none of the detect/protection from/whatever with Alignment spells work on mortals from the Prime Material Plane. Instead "evil" is defined as outsiders (demons, devils, elementals, spirits, etc) and undead, stuff not naturally from the mortal world.

So detect evil won't pick up the serial killer at the end of the bar, but it will show up the person possessed by a malevolent spirit.

Spacefrog
2007-09-16, 06:36 AM
I like detect evil intent, but you've still got to define how to judge whether an intent is evil.

'Detect enemies' introduces the problem that it won't detect people who aren't hostile to you, even if they are clearly people who deserve to be smote. The BBEG might be planning to enslave an entire kingdom but if he has never met the party before then he won't register as evil.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-09-16, 08:47 AM
Under the current system DMs are supposed to keep an eye on paladins to make sure they behave. Without alignment how does this change?

No, it should not. I personally would use smite anything (no detect) if I ditched alignments in my game, but a paladin can and will still fall if he misuses his smite. He'd just have to think even harder about what he uses his smite on.

Kyle
2007-09-16, 09:00 AM
I like detect evil intent, but you've still got to define how to judge whether an intent is evil.
Granted, though other than the occasional argument based upon the individual philosiphies of the players, really what it comes down to is the Game Master is the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not evil.

Thus it really becomes a tool for the GM to provide the players with information as opposed to a rather pointless device for poorly played paladins to cast judgement upon all those around them.

CthulhuM
2007-09-16, 01:19 PM
But isn't blackguard about being evil for evil's sake? I find that hard to be 'well-meaning'. Just a nit-pick, really.


Well, the problem is that the flavor of those classes strongly implies that they are doing what they do for bad reasons (killing random people for no reason other than pay, for instance). So it's really hard for me to see how you can justify combining one of those classes with good intentions.

Though I guess it could be done with an assassin, using only some minor tweaks; the main thing would be that your well intentioned assassin wouldn't fit well in a traditional 'assassin guild' of murderers-for-hire.

Well, it's easy enough with the assassin, as you say. They're abilities are basically just designed to help them kill people (or monsters) a bit better than the average rogue. Whether they're doing harm or good really just comes down to who they're killing.

Blackguards are a bit trickier. I maintain that a blackguard could have a positive impact on the world, simply by using their powers against people who would do it harm, but it's true that the blackguard's abilities wouldn't fit well with many gods. They would probably just act as paladin alternatives for gods with more of an emphasis on trickery, and a willingness to be merciless towards their enemies.

Oh, and, that said, I don't think an alignment-less system really has to have malevolent gods. Yes, in normal DnD Nerull's status as the god of death just means he wants to see everyone dead, but why exactly does that have to be the case? In what real world polytheistic religion is the god of death considered "evil?" Did priests of Hades go around murdering people because they thought Hades would like it?

While you certainly can have gods that wish nothing but harm on the hapless mortals of the world, I'd think it much more interesting to have the gods be a bit more ambiguous than that. They're gods, after all, creatures that have been around for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, with mental stats far beyond what most people could ever hope to attain. Their motivations and desires should be less straightforward than your average person's, not more.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-16, 02:28 PM
In a world were clerics are basically warrior priests (see armor/HD/weapons), how do you justify the existence of paladins without an alignment system?

headwarpage
2007-09-16, 02:39 PM
It's important to remember that the absence of an alignment mechanic doesn't mean good and evil don't exist. Just as in the real world, there are people who certainly qualify as good and evil. It's just that there aren't any spells to tell you the difference. The fluff of a paladin as a bastion of righteousness makes just as much sense with or without alignment as a mechanic.

Clementx
2007-09-25, 08:16 PM
A touch of a necro and threadjack (since no one has brought up Law/Chaos), but I think that is better than another thread.

Everyone points out the difficulties in removing all alignment. It is, after all, deeply entrenched in the game. But at the same time, the most contradictory axis- Law vs Chaos - is also the weaker shackle. I'm considering ignoring it completely for the sake of clarity and minimizing the available alignment argue-space to just Good vs Evil.

So these are the changes I see happening...
-All alignments and subtypes get the ethical axis factored out, so everything that was Lawful Good is just Good, LN is just Neutral, etc. Honor, individuality, control, and, liberation become quirks of personality or race. It becomes a bit harder to layer on the +2/+2d6 bonuses for custom outsider-bashing. Does DR become too easy to defeat? Now, I was never too keen on Inevitables or Slaadi, but does suddenly creating all these neutral outsiders take anything significant away from gameplay? Would you personally care that demons and devils fought because they didn't like other outsider races horning in on their Evil?

-Alignment restrictions on classes get simplified/vanish. Seems like a good thing to me, since I don't use tons of noncore classes or any PrCs.

-All [Law/Chaos] spells are gone. Boo hoo, since almost every one has a Good/Evil version. Some Domain shuffling required, as well as a focus on religious practices to distinguish between Olidammahra and Wee Jas, since they have the same alignment.

So am I missing some serious factors here?

Person_Man
2007-09-26, 09:21 AM
Re: Paladins of any Alignment

Detect Thoughts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectThoughts.htm) (Sp): As a full round action, the Paladin may use this ability at will. However, using Detect Thoughts takes a great deal of concentration in order to maintain. The duration of this ability only lasts as long as the Paladin concentrates and takes no strenuous action. He may Move at a walking pace, but may not run, attack, cast a spell, use an item, use any Skills, or take any other action that requires strenuous effort of mental focus.

If you don't like that, you might want to try Detect Hostile Intent (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/psionicPowersDtoF.html#detect-hostile-intent), with a similar concentration/duration caveat.

Smite Enemy (Su): Once per day as a Move action the Paladin may add their class level to the damage rolls on all attacks they make until the start of their next turn. At 5th level, and at every five levels thereafter, the paladin may smite enemy one additional time per day, as indicated on Table: The Paladin, to a maximum of five times per day at 20th level.

BardicDuelist
2007-09-26, 10:36 AM
It seems simple enough to me: make the Paladin an exercise in self-delusion. Give him the ability to smite anything, as long as he believes them to be evil. As long as he can convince himself that his enemies are beyond redemption, he can smite them all day long.

Don't they do that allready? :smallbiggrin: