Removing alignment - what's the worst that can happen?

[Returnip]

I did some searching and didn't find anything here on this so I hope I'm not regurgitating something previously discussed.

I was considering reworking alignment for my games to something less clunky, and just thought "what if I just drop it completely?"

So, what would be the consequences? I'm specifically thinking about any consequence that may cause problems in the gameplay.

Two things off the top of my head:

- spells checking for alignment
- classes checking for alignment

Anything else? And assuming something would in fact cause serious problems with game balance, what would be a reasonable solution?

[Gnaeus]

No serious problems.

The half way measure is to make the only things with alignment, the things with extreme alignment. Outsiders and priests essentially. Maybe undead. If you aren't an angel, a devil, or a high level cleric, you are metaphysically neutral.

Classes with alignment restrictions are generally just RP headaches for the weakest classes in the game. Dumping them only helps. At worst throw in a mild code of conduct. Who cares if Kung Fu guy is chaotic?

[Kurald Galain]

You'd have to think of what Smite Evil does, but it's probably fine as smite-undead-or-demon-or-devil-or-aberration-type-creature, or something like that.

[GeoffWatson]

Many years ago, when we switched from D&D to other games, due to the lack of alignment rules in some games, some players thought they could play horrible evil scumbags with no consequences.

[Zanos]

Your entire cosmology falls apart, depending on which one you use. Most have the outer planes be functionally composed out of alignment particles of the alignment they're associated with, including the creatures that make them up. It's hard to have metaphysical representations of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos when you remove those from the system. Also difficult to determine who goes to Hell if there's no objective Evil.

[Ramza00]

Your entire cosmology falls apart, depending on which one you use. Most have the outer planes be functionally composed out of alignment particles of the alignment they're associated with, including the creatures that make them up. It's hard to have metaphysical representations of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos when you remove those from the system. Also difficult to determine who goes to Hell if there's no objective Evil.

Does it? In the Middle Ages and prior that Greeks, Egyptians, and other cultures it was often seen that Humanoids are the cosmos in micro, we are a mixture of good and evil, chaos and law, but also we have planetary spheres and stars inside of us. This in turn explained weird things about humans for they are in fluxseasonal, but also different humanoids may have different ratios of various factors.

So why not have humans as Alingment indeterminate even if one keeps cosmological evil and good planes, some evil and good monsters, etc, etc?

[icefractal]

No problems IME, but I'm using a homebrew setting anyway so the cosmology's not a factor.

While there are a number of spells / feats / etc that mention alignment, you only need to convert the ones the players actually need. And for many the answer can just be "don't use that spell, prepare something else".

[Zanos]

Does it? In the Middle Ages and prior that Greeks, Egyptians, and other cultures it was often seen that Humanoids are the cosmos in micro, we are a mixture of good and evil, chaos and law, but also we have planetary spheres and stars inside of us. This in turn explained weird things about humans for they are in fluxseasonal, but also different humanoids may have different ratios of various factors.

So why not have humans as Alingment indeterminate even if one keeps cosmological evil and good planes, some evil and good monsters, etc, etc?
As far as I know, no real life culture was physically aware of the existence of outer planes that objectively judge the content of your character when you die, and assign your soul to the correct plane or afterlife.

[Ramza00]

As far as I know, no real life culture was physically aware of the existence of outer planes that objectively judge the content of your character when you die, and assign your soul to the correct plane or afterlife.

Define “knowledge”…they often had stories, stories attested of the meaning of the cosmos due to revelation. [stuff like Maat weighing your heart to determine your afterlife.]

Now you can argue empiricism with experiments is not revelation, but hey only clerics and so on can cast divine magic, wizards and so on arcane magic, it works or it does not, this is not empiricism but instead revelation where you can justify why or why not things happen and how one can know things.

[Zanos]

Define “knowledge”…they often had stories, stories attested of the meaning of the cosmos due to revelation. [stuff like Maat weighing your heart to determine your afterlife.]

Now you can argue empiricism with experiments is not revelation, but hey only clerics and so on can cast divine magic, wizards and so on arcane magic, it works or it does not, this is not empiricism but instead revelation where you can justify why or why not things happen and how one can know things.
If you want to argue that you can have the outer planes not provably exist in such a setting that's fine; but that's my point. It's a change you have to take into account if you remove objective alignment.

[Condé]

Funny enough, Pathfinder 2 is going to get rid of the alignment system in a near future.
Maybe if you are not in a hurry you can take inspiration from what they are going to do to pf2e to jour game.

[icefractal]

Regarding the outer planes - I've always thought of them as built on souls/concepts more-so than alignment itself.

So if there's the Abyss, it's still going to be a terrible place. And the souls that are drawn there will be terrible people. They just won't specifically be going there because they have CE written on them.

[redking]

Nothing much. You'll lose anything that targets alignments like smiting. You can easily change the smiting to "smite wrongdoer", which makes the smiting a more subjective choice by the smiting character.

[Returnip]

No serious problems.

The half way measure is to make the only things with alignment, the things with extreme alignment. Outsiders and priests essentially. Maybe undead. If you aren't an angel, a devil, or a high level cleric, you are metaphysically neutral.

Classes with alignment restrictions are generally just RP headaches for the weakest classes in the game. Dumping them only helps. At worst throw in a mild code of conduct. Who cares if Kung Fu guy is chaotic?

I love this idea.


Your entire cosmology falls apart, depending on which one you use. Most have the outer planes be functionally composed out of alignment particles of the alignment they're associated with, including the creatures that make them up. It's hard to have metaphysical representations of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos when you remove those from the system. Also difficult to determine who goes to Hell if there's no objective Evil.

I'm not so sure it does. I run my games in Forgotten Realms, and you don't go to hell for being bad. You go to hell for pledging your soul to hell. This is also why devils will court you in the fugue plane and try to get to you before the planar representatives of your chosen patron deity (if any) does. So they'll try and basically recruit you to join hell, and might offer you an instant upgrade to something better than a lemure as an incentive.

Thanks for all the good points guys. I will probably just drop it, but at least now I know what to look out for. So basically:
- Keep alignment for angels and devils.
- Mindless undead can stay evil as well, while intelligent undead can be not evil in rare cases.
- Spells can stay as they are.
- Clerics and paladins will not lose abilities if they're shifting alignment but rather if their actions go against the dogma of their god (the same will count for smite, ie it only works on creatures opposed to the god's dogma).

Does that look reasonable?

[lylsyly]

Let me answer your question with some questions.

1. Counting the SRD variants you can only be a paladin of four different Alignments! What ... Gods of the other 5 alignments can'r have paladins. Doesn't make sense to us.

2. You have to be evil and not believe in gods to be an Ur-Priest? Why can't I be good and not beleive in the gods? Doesn't make sense to us.

3. A Rogue can be of any alignment but a Bard cannot be lawful? I'd bet they are even historical antecedents for this one.

4.Barbarians cannot be lawful? There are historical barbarian tribes that were in fact very honorable and lawful. Including a lot of Native American tribes.

We actually play an alignment as a role playing tool but when it comes to game mechanics we ignore alignment.

[Ramza00]

Thanks for all the good points guys. I will probably just drop it, but at least now I know what to look out for. So basically:
- Keep alignment for angels and devils.
- Mindless undead can stay evil as well, while intelligent undead can be not evil in rare cases.
- Spells can stay as they are.
- Clerics and paladins will not lose abilities if they're shifting alignment but rather if their actions go against the dogma of their god (the same will count for smite, ie it only works on creatures opposed to the god's dogma).

Does that look reasonable?

Yes this looks reasonable, and pardon my metaphysical language.


You are reinventing the wheel for dozens, no a myriad of people have done this before and roughly identical adjucations and adjustments. Just think in a wheel though for the wheel turns in a flow like state, but you also need to think not about the axis, the line between axel and wheel, the circle of the wheel… those 3 things but instead about the 3rd derivative of position in regards to time (sorry for the Greek / Math) … you need to be thinking about the speedbumps on the road, any of those “jerks” (literally a physics term) and how you handle this and adjucate it as a DM.


It is easy to adjucate when it comes up, but you need to be comfortable doing so, and DMGs and similar books / documents job is to remind you speed bumps will occur and give you a rough idea of how they occur, why they occur, and how to quickly flow past them to create a simulation / seamless experience.

So enjoy the carriage / chariot ride 🙂

[ShurikVch]

Note: Monte Cook removed alignments completely in Arcana Unearthed:

No Alignments

There are no alignments in Arcana Unearthed into which you must shoehorn your character's outlook. This rulebook does not attempt to define good or evil, nor does it address law or chaos. Characters should decide for themselves what is good and what is evil, the way real people do. There are no spells that reveal whether a character is evil or good - his actions and the perspectives of those around him determine that. No (or at least very few) characters think of themselves as evil. The truth is, such concepts are relative.

Yet even without alignments, villains still do terrible things to further their own goals. Heroes still make great sacrifices to stop them. The classic conflicts all remain. But now there are even more. Two noble and altruistic characters might oppose each other. Their personal ideologies might even cause each of them to define the other as "evil."

Characters with a conscience still act responsibly, and those with a code of conduct still adhere to it: having no alignment is not an excuse for all characters to act wantonly. As in the real world, things are much more interesting if there are not nine alignments but, in fact, an infinite number of them - each character becomes his own alignment.
Despite this, book still have mentions of demons (says they're "permanently tainted") and spells to travel to another Plane
Moreover - book have two new classes (which are closely resemble two "old" classes): Oathsworn is "kinda-Monk", while Champion is a "Paladin with SLA instead spells" which can pick a "cause" (Darkness, Death, Freedom, Life, Light, or Magic) and get abilities depending on the pick

Also, d20 Modern don't uses concept of "Alignment" (instead, it have "Allegiances" - but it can be really anything, up to "none")

[ericgrau]

I think you could keep them as creature subtypes and planes, drop alignments for everything else and be fine. You would want to suggest to players that alignment based spells are not nearly as good unless visiting the appropriate plane. And you'd have to either drop or rework paladin. I like the idea of giving them a list of creature types they can smite. Since most adventurers fight primarily evil foes, I'd be very generous with that list and/or add something else too. But for the most part the switch is not hard.

In case you're wondering about the rules side of things for those creatures, a lawful good succubus would be affected by nearly all alignment affecting spells (anti-law, anti-good, anti-chaos, and anti-evil). And even though the entry says "always chaotic evil", the MM explains that this is due to their inherent nature and that there can be very rare exceptions. So the mental alignment and physical alignment can be separated completely and such monsters and planes shouldn't cause issues.

[Telonius]

Two things off the top of my head:

- spells checking for alignment
- classes checking for alignment

Anything else? And assuming something would in fact cause serious problems with game balance, what would be a reasonable solution?

- Magic Items checking for alignment (Candle of Invocation, Obsidian Steed, Horn of Goodness/Evil, Phylactery of Faithfulness, Talisman of Pure Good/Ultimate Evil, etc). These would have to be kind of case by case. Some of them (like Obsidian Steed) could just function as written, removing the alignment stuff. Phylactery of Faithfulness ... that item is an in-game solution for an out-of-game problem. Replace the item by having the player not being a jerk, and having the DM not trying to catch a Paladin in a stupid "Gotcha!" moment. Horn of Goodness/Evil: solve it by not having it conform to its wielder. Candle of Invocation: broken for reasons that go beyond alignment. For the Artifacts, those are a bit trickier. If you're removing alignment entirely, I'd probably treat minor artifacts as though they were intelligent items, and call for a will save vs the item's Ego if they're acting against the item's interest. Major artifacts (things where "you're immediately incinerated if you're the wrong alignment" is the current rule) would be even more case by case.


- Leadership rules - Leadership score penalties for different alignment. Could fix by changing to "incompatible general goals."


- Cleric issues - Deities not giving spells, channeling cure vs inflict spells. Fix "deities not giving spells" by changing it to "acting in the deity's interests and according to their teachings" rather than alignment. Fix "cure vs inflict" by removing the alignment component to it. Pick one or the other when you become a Cleric; your deity gives you that for the rest of your career (optional Atonement-style quest to reset it).

[ericgrau]

Phylactery of Faithfulness
I agree 99% of the time it's useless and pointless. However for my LG half-illithid paladin of Cthulhu it was invaluable. Loads of fun, wish I could have played him longer.

Agreed, most alignment items could simply be dropped or have their alignment requirements dropped.

[Zanos]

I'm not so sure it does. I run my games in Forgotten Realms, and you don't go to hell for being bad. You go to hell for pledging your soul to hell. This is also why devils will court you in the fugue plane and try to get to you before the planar representatives of your chosen patron deity (if any) does. So they'll try and basically recruit you to join hell, and might offer you an instant upgrade to something better than a lemure as an incentive.
The reason that most people want to remove alignment is because they think that having objective alignments is a bad thing, which is where my criticism comes from. FR has a way around it for that specific process, but it doesn't really address the greater issues that having an objective Heaven and Hell raise when you remove alignment from characters. You file the serial numbers of off Good and Evil humanoids, but you still have an objective list of Good characteristics(the way that Good outsiders behave) and an objective list of Evil characteristics(the way that Evil outsiders behave). If you don't want to use it mechanically, that's fine, but it's not as though you've actually introduced subjective alignment into the setting. You've just obfuscated it. Someone can still evaluate their actions against the aforementioned alignment exemplars to determine if their behavior is Good or Evil. And the Heavens would still be judging your actions in life, even if being Evil doesn't necessarily consign your soul to Hell on its own. It's nigh impossible for subjective alignment to exist in a setting where your soul is, in some cases literally, weighed against a feather when you die.

Personally, I just accept that the outer planes were setup in a certain way that not all mortals are going to agree with, and characters can do Evil things without necessarily twirling their mustache, and the judgement of the gods can be very unfair. The entire Wall of the Faithless in FR is explicitly and horrifically unfair.

[Darg]

Let me answer your question with some questions.

1. Counting the SRD variants you can only be a paladin of four different Alignments! What ... Gods of the other 5 alignments can'r have paladins. Doesn't make sense to us.

2. You have to be evil and not believe in gods to be an Ur-Priest? Why can't I be good and not beleive in the gods? Doesn't make sense to us.

3. A Rogue can be of any alignment but a Bard cannot be lawful? I'd bet they are even historical antecedents for this one.

4.Barbarians cannot be lawful? There are historical barbarian tribes that were in fact very honorable and lawful. Including a lot of Native American tribes.

We actually play an alignment as a role playing tool but when it comes to game mechanics we ignore alignment.

1. Variants are for fun, not necessarily setting enforcement. Optional rules like these are just that, optional. Just like the DM saying paladins don't have to be lawful would be. The base classes created by D&D aren't the only base classes that can exist after all. There are guidelines for making custom classes in the DMG.

2. It's the flavor of the class as envisioned by WotC. All PRCs are templates by which a DM is meant to modify to be campaign appropriate.

3. Bards can be of a neutral alignment. The inflexibility of the lawful alignment does not lend itself to the creativity that is intrinsic to the flavor of the class. There's no need to think too hard here.

4. There is always a version of honor and law where ever you go. A society itself doesn't have an alignment; the people that make up that society are the ones with the alignment. I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't call native american tribes barbarians. Prior to having 10s of millions of lives lost from disease over the century after the "discovery" of the americas the native populations had relatively sprawling cityscapes and civilizations that would have rivaled european cities and civilizations of the era.

The reason you find barbarians more outside of more "civilized" areas is because the the wildness needed for their rages is more accepted in those places. Their tribesmen can be lawful aligned just like how city dwellers can be chaotic. Lawful tribesmen just can't be barbarians just like how a good cleric cannot take the evil domain as it represents their spiritual inclinations.

[lylsyly]

SNIPPED .....

Lets just agree to disagree ... It works at our table and that's all I actually care about!

[Gnaeus]

. And you'd have to either drop or rework paladin. I like the idea of giving them a list of creature types they can smite. Since most adventurers fight primarily evil foes, I'd be very generous with that list and/or add something else too. But for the most part the switch is not hard.


Smite is hardly op if it just works. Maybe the paladin just gets to hit slightly harder 3 attacks per day

[Returnip]

Yes this looks reasonable, and pardon my metaphysical language.


You are reinventing the wheel for dozens, no a myriad of people have done this before and roughly identical adjucations and adjustments. Just think in a wheel though for the wheel turns in a flow like state, but you also need to think not about the axis, the line between axel and wheel, the circle of the wheel… those 3 things but instead about the 3rd derivative of position in regards to time (sorry for the Greek / Math) … you need to be thinking about the speedbumps on the road, any of those “jerks” (literally a physics term) and how you handle this and adjucate it as a DM.


It is easy to adjucate when it comes up, but you need to be comfortable doing so, and DMGs and similar books / documents job is to remind you speed bumps will occur and give you a rough idea of how they occur, why they occur, and how to quickly flow past them to create a simulation / seamless experience.

So enjoy the carriage / chariot ride 🙂

Thanks! I know I will. And I have no issue adjudicate things on an ad hoc basis.


- Magic Items checking for alignment (Candle of Invocation, Obsidian Steed, Horn of Goodness/Evil, Phylactery of Faithfulness, Talisman of Pure Good/Ultimate Evil, etc). These would have to be kind of case by case. Some of them (like Obsidian Steed) could just function as written, removing the alignment stuff. Phylactery of Faithfulness ... that item is an in-game solution for an out-of-game problem. Replace the item by having the player not being a jerk, and having the DM not trying to catch a Paladin in a stupid "Gotcha!" moment. Horn of Goodness/Evil: solve it by not having it conform to its wielder. Candle of Invocation: broken for reasons that go beyond alignment. For the Artifacts, those are a bit trickier. If you're removing alignment entirely, I'd probably treat minor artifacts as though they were intelligent items, and call for a will save vs the item's Ego if they're acting against the item's interest. Major artifacts (things where "you're immediately incinerated if you're the wrong alignment" is the current rule) would be even more case by case.


- Leadership rules - Leadership score penalties for different alignment. Could fix by changing to "incompatible general goals."


- Cleric issues - Deities not giving spells, channeling cure vs inflict spells. Fix "deities not giving spells" by changing it to "acting in the deity's interests and according to their teachings" rather than alignment. Fix "cure vs inflict" by removing the alignment component to it. Pick one or the other when you become a Cleric; your deity gives you that for the rest of your career (optional Atonement-style quest to reset it).

Good points. Thanks.


The reason that most people want to remove alignment is because they think that having objective alignments is a bad thing, which is where my criticism comes from. FR has a way around it for that specific process, but it doesn't really address the greater issues that having an objective Heaven and Hell raise when you remove alignment from characters. You file the serial numbers of off Good and Evil humanoids, but you still have an objective list of Good characteristics(the way that Good outsiders behave) and an objective list of Evil characteristics(the way that Evil outsiders behave). If you don't want to use it mechanically, that's fine, but it's not as though you've actually introduced subjective alignment into the setting. You've just obfuscated it. Someone can still evaluate their actions against the aforementioned alignment exemplars to determine if their behavior is Good or Evil. And the Heavens would still be judging your actions in life, even if being Evil doesn't necessarily consign your soul to Hell on its own. It's nigh impossible for subjective alignment to exist in a setting where your soul is, in some cases literally, weighed against a feather when you die.

Personally, I just accept that the outer planes were setup in a certain way that not all mortals are going to agree with, and characters can do Evil things without necessarily twirling their mustache, and the judgement of the gods can be very unfair. The entire Wall of the Faithless in FR is explicitly and horrifically unfair.

I don't agree. Every single god in Forgotten Realms have a dogma specified. That's their basis for judging you and if you are allowed into their realm in the afterlife. If you have routinely opposed their dogma you have been a poor follower and can enjoy your time in the fugue plane, or take a devil up on its offer. Good and evil are blanket terms in FR, and it's not uncommon for the agendas of different faiths to oppose each other. So you choose which side you're on which affects where you end up.

[ericgrau]

Smite is hardly op if it just works. Maybe the paladin just gets to hit slightly harder 3 attacks per day
I can't disagree at all. It was already designed to work 80-90% of the time and it was never near the top in power, so 100% can't hurt.

[Chauncymancer]

Let me answer your question with some questions.

1. Counting the SRD variants you can only be a paladin of four different Alignments! What ... Gods of the other 5 alignments can'r have paladins. Doesn't make sense to us.

2. You have to be evil and not believe in gods to be an Ur-Priest? Why can't I be good and not beleive in the gods? Doesn't make sense to us.

3. A Rogue can be of any alignment but a Bard cannot be lawful? I'd bet they are even historical antecedents for this one.

4.Barbarians cannot be lawful? There are historical barbarian tribes that were in fact very honorable and lawful. Including a lot of Native American tribes.

We actually play an alignment as a role playing tool but when it comes to game mechanics we ignore alignment.
Settings designed for Dungeons and Dragons are supposed to have as part of their world-building the idea that supernatural and magical forces are made, in some fundamental way, out of the energies and particles associated with the various alignments- the only class feature a lawful barbarian loses is Rage, and that's supposed to imply that the rage is tapping into some kind of cosmic chaotic force that gives the barbarian extraordinary powers (the untyped bonuses to their stats). Bards can't be lawful, and rogues can, because bards abilities come from tapping into the intrinsically chaotic performance magic complex. Urpriests abilities function in the details by hurling hand fulls of this evil substance and the machinery of the universe until spells fall out.
Paladins being only the four most extreme alignments is because originally the four corner alignments were the pure alignments, and Lawful Neutral was a compromise between Celestial and Diabolic.


I don't agree. Every single god in Forgotten Realms have a dogma specified. That's their basis for judging you and if you are allowed into their realm in the afterlife. If you have routinely opposed their dogma you have been a poor follower and can enjoy your time in the fugue plane, or take a devil up on its offer. Good and evil are blanket terms in FR, and it's not uncommon for the agendas of different faiths to oppose each other. So you choose which side you're on which affects where you end up.
This is because FR was actually created as a non-D&D product and is technically one of the first crossover products.

[rel]

I've been contemplating removing alignment wholesale from my games for some time and I've already gotten pretty close.

My homebrew setting doesn't have alignment planes, gods, alignment embodying monsters like angels and demons or alignment focused organizations.

Addressing what remains:
- For classes with alignment restrictions / requirements, I'm thinking about simply ignoring them.
PC's can play a monk / barbarian if they really want to.

-spells with an alignment component like protection from good. I'm hoping to avoid having to go through and make case by case judgements, but I can't see an elegant fix. Open to suggestions.

-class features and the like with an alignment component. As above, hoping to avoid making case by case rulings, but I can't see a work around.

-items with alignment components. I might just ban them, I've been planning to provide the PC's with inherent bonuses for some time and reduce the christmas tree effect. seems like a good time to make that happen.

-monsters with alignment based powers, particularly those the PC's get automatic access to via summoning or the like.
Considering simply removing those abilities, getting access to monsters becomes a little less powerful but that seems like a good thing.

So...

What am I missing?
Anything likely to break when I implement this?
suggestions on how to better deal with spells and class features?
Any issues I might run into?
Any other thoughts or ideas?

[Aotrs Commander]

I maintain alignment, but only because it would be less of a faff to clear it all out properly tha use it. That said, I also long ago ditched all alignment restrictions on classes with the explicit exception of Paladin and Antipaladin (and Exalted and vile feats) and to a lesser extent, channel energy choices. It's there, but the importance is fairly low.

I would be inclined to retain alignment subtypes for creatures and perhaps for spells (for the same uses as all the other subtypes). In fact, in my games, alignment subtypes and spells are explictly JUST that.Casting a spell with an [Evil] or [Good] descriptor doesn't make more Evil or Good anymore than a [Fire] spell makes you more firey, or a [Water] spell makes you more wet. It's all explictly on what you use it for.

(Now, fair point, there is a CORRELATION between Evil spells and becomign Evil, because a lot of Evil spells tend to lend themselves to Bad Things... But y'know, some does a sword and Fireball.)

Creature subtypes would make it easier to retain Smite functionality, for instance, though it would strictly be a nerf if you contrained it to that. But, as mentioned, at the risk of a little bit of a buff, you could just let is work on anything; maybe have it have enhanced effects on a certain subtype and reduced or no effect on the opposite. Thus, if you were an-alignment-irrelevant paladin, you maybe have to pick a type of smite (say, Smite Chaos) as your class feature, and that works on anything except creatures with the Chaotic Subtype and retains the extra damage (if playing PF1) against the Evil subtype.



Crap, no, better: genius idea, just allow the smiters to straight up pick subtype to smite. Don't bother changing ANY mechanics at all! So you could pick Smite Fire as your class feature, which does the damage to Fire subtype creatures, but not Cold subtype creatures. You know what, never mind that last part, just pick a subtype, any subtype if 3.5; if PF1, you get the standard smite on that creature type, and the extra boost if the struck creature also has the Dragon, Outsider or Undead type.

Maybe give 'em more than one choice, since in an average game you'd probably have less specific subtypes than Evil targets, usually.)

But by making it entirely subtype based, you have already de-emphasied the alignment choice, and it becomes one option in a big bag. Basically make it kind of a favoured enemy.

Who! That means you could have Smite Human! (And deal extra damage to huma) vampires! Bonus!)

Crap, that's such a good idea, I have to might find a way of incorporating that into my game...!




Some of the alignment-based spells would be rendered largely moot; but in the case of stuff like Holy Word et all especially if playing in 3.5) - frankly good riddance, they were too easily abusable. Holy Smite et al could be very easily just ccombined into one spell (just call it "holy smite" anyway) and just let it affect all enermy creatures within the radius. It's not like it does an abusive amount of damage anyway. Hell, that might make it marginally more competative.

[ShurikVch]

1. Counting the SRD variants you can only be a paladin of four different Alignments! What ... Gods of the other 5 alignments can'r have paladins. Doesn't make sense to us.

FWIW, Dragon magazines included variants of Paladin class:
NG - Sentinel (#310)
CG - Avenger (#310)
LN - Enforcer (#310)
N - Incarnate (#310)
CN - Anarch (#310)
LE - Despot (#312)
NE - Corrupter (#312)
CE - Anti-paladin (#312)


Bards can't be lawful, and rogues can, because bards abilities come from tapping into the intrinsically chaotic performance magic complex.
Note: Devoted Performer feat (Complete Adventurer) allows to progress as L(G) Bard


-class features and the like with an alignment component. As above, hoping to avoid making case by case rulings, but I can't see a work around.
Depends on which class features you mean

Say, Smite Evil(/Good/.../whatever) - just make it Smite <anything>! Paladin already can do it via Strength of Conviction feat (Exemplars of Evil) - even if just 1/day; ToB Crusader isn't limited in the "valid target for Smiting" department from the get-go

Detect Evil? Dragon #323 includes such spells as Detect Attitude, Detect Guilt, Detect Heresy, and Detect Violence. How about to replace Detect Evil with one of those?
Paladin of Light substitution level (Dragon #340) replaces Detect Evil with Detect Night Creature...

Incarnum Defense? Maybe, just ban Soulborn?

[H_H_F_F]

You're going to be allowing for more than a few builds that would otherwise be illegal. That's not a problem most of the time, especially if you run a high powered game where the monk getting access to some previously chaotic-only option doesn't matter at all. The only one to really watch out for is Ur-Priest: It's one of the strongest classes out there, and you just let it access a whole lot more divine-advancing PRCs.

Also, you'd probably want to state that you can't get both rebuke and turn on the same character.

Otherwise, you should mostly be fine.


Settings designed for Dungeons and Dragons are supposed to have as part of their world-building the idea that supernatural and magical forces are made, in some fundamental way, out of the energies and particles associated with the various alignments- the only class feature a lawful barbarian loses is Rage, and that's supposed to imply that the rage is tapping into some kind of cosmic chaotic force that gives the barbarian extraordinary powers (the untyped bonuses to their stats). Bards can't be lawful, and rogues can, because bards abilities come from tapping into the intrinsically chaotic performance magic complex. Urpriests abilities function in the details by hurling hand fulls of this evil substance and the machinery of the universe until spells fall out.
Paladins being only the four most extreme alignments is because originally the four corner alignments were the pure alignments, and Lawful Neutral was a compromise between Celestial and Diabolic.

This is all very cool headcannon and an excellent world-building tool, but that's not what's going on in the books. A cavalier (who isn't a paladin and doesn't have a special mount) draws on pure law to charge well on horseback? Not more so than a rogue would have to pull on chaotic energy to pick a lock. They just put an alignment restriction there to signal the fluff of the class - upper social class feudal knight. That's also why Crimson scourge is none-good (no "non--good" particles to draw on, by the way), the Justiciar lawful, and the Bloodhound being ipen to any alignment. It's just whether or not the writer wanted it to be a class for those who hunt people unethically, for the law, or just hunt people. If the person who wrote justiciar would write thief-acrobat, thief-acrobat would be chaotic only, and you'd be here telling me that they use chaotic particles to support their weight while they balance.

Some alignment restrictions are supposed to connect to what you're talking about. Clerics, obviously. Druid and Incarnate, whatever. Monk, even - you need to be in tune with nature of the universe and have deep self discipline. Why not.

But some of it is just because "that's the sort of person that does that", and that logic is applied with 0 consistency.

[rel]

Depends on which class features you mean

Say, Smite Evil(/Good/.../whatever) - just make it Smite <anything>! Paladin already can do it via Strength of Conviction feat (Exemplars of Evil) - even if just 1/day; ToB Crusader isn't limited in the "valid target for Smiting" department from the get-go

Detect Evil? Dragon #323 includes such spells as Detect Attitude, Detect Guilt, Detect Heresy, and Detect Violence. How about to replace Detect Evil with one of those?
Paladin of Light substitution level (Dragon #340) replaces Detect Evil with Detect Night Creature...

Incarnum Defense? Maybe, just ban Soulborn?

Substituting spells for similar spells that don't reference alignment is a really good idea.
If I compile a list of spells and substitutions I can just refer to that list whenever said spells come up.

Be it as part of a monsters statblock, when a power or class feature references a spell, if a spell is automatically granted, etc.

Does anyone know if there's a list of spells that reference alignment or a similar list for class features?

[Malphegor]

Fiendish pacts get easier, if fiends still exist.
Without alignment being a hard coded thing, you can tempt anyone into little e evil with temptations and corruptions in the standard proceedures, but specifically a Good soul is worth just as much as an Evil soul so collecting the souls of already evil people is worth doing. But of course, fiends as a whole would be less cohesive, and just as likely to rise back to good as they would to fall.

Of interest though this does likely mean everyone would band together against evil of this kind because if fiends exist and work the same then they’re targeting EVERYONE meaning that everyone’s best interest is to stand together and fight. Being evil enough to ‘not be worth the effort they’re already damned I don’t get the credit’ isn’t a defence now, now every twisted nasty sort and vile neverdowell is just as juicy a target as the most exaltedly good saint, because all are equal and deliciously tempteable into soft e evil

[ShurikVch]

Settings designed for Dungeons and Dragons are supposed to have as part of their world-building the idea that supernatural and magical forces are made, in some fundamental way, out of the energies and particles associated with the various alignments- the only class feature a lawful barbarian loses is Rage, and that's supposed to imply that the rage is tapping into some kind of cosmic chaotic force that gives the barbarian extraordinary powers (the untyped bonuses to their stats). Bards can't be lawful, and rogues can, because bards abilities come from tapping into the intrinsically chaotic performance magic complex.
That reminded me of the original Manual of the Planes (1987), where Alternate Material Planes differed by the magical factor (MF): while Planes with high MF allowed spellcasting to all members of sentient races (without any need for preparation, and with "power limited only by imagination"), for Planes with extremely low MF - disallowed divine magic (or other magic based on reaching to other planes), then magic in general, songs, creativity and imagination, and finally even sentient life...

[Aquillion]

Honestly, Paladins aren't a big problem. Even without alignment as a rigorous thing in the setting, you can just have Paladins embody the flavor of those alignments and have codes that require behavior adhering to a particular interpretation of that alignment for them, even if alignments aren't a thing for anyone else.

Some of their alignment-based abilities will have to be rewritten to focus on eg. certain kinds of outsiders and undead, but it's not that hard.

(Of course, Paladins falling is often not a very fun mechanic, so you might want to just reduce the code to flavor and leave the decision of whether to allow Paladins who don't really follow their code up to individual groups.)

[Hrugner]

I dropped it forever ago and switched to using opposing goals and methods without defining specific goals and methods. So smite good would work on someone whose long term goal was not compatible with yours even if you were both "good".

The only downsides:
1. Sometimes you have to think about it for a minute when something you haven't thought of comes up, and you need to record your decision for future use.
2. The alignment parts of the system become less reliable, and the players could avoid alignment focused abilities since they may be unsure how they would work. I get around this by letting the player assert the moral opposition when there's some debate, and then maintaining that assertion throughout the game.