Alignment-free campaign

[Snapdragyn]

Yay, time for another of our favorite topics!

The purpose in this thread is to discussion specific issues in removing alignment from D&D. Please forget the 'it isn't D&D' stuff, the 'alignment works as is' stuff, & the 'alignment works as is if you really read the rules' stuff. I agree that alignment simplifies many of the things I'm going to be writing below. I'm interested in the less simple version (the simplicity of alignment comes at a cost of moral ambiguity which I miss in D&D) and particularly in the thought exercise in removing alignment without negatively impacting game balance. If you enjoy rules puzzles, welcome!


CLASSES

In many cases, class alignment restrictions can be replaced with detailed 'codes of honor'. Penalties for breaking these should be the same as for alignment restrictions in RAW. Obviously it can be argued that alignment is a simpler shorthand for these codes of honor, but that isn't the point of this thread.

Barbarian

Currently: Non-lawful.
CHange to: Perhaps a 'code of honor' that would reflect the 'savage' nature of the class? 'Never let someone insult you', um... what else?

Bard

Currently: Non-lawful.
Change to: A bardic 'code of honor'? Um... eat, drink, & give Eric's grandma conniption fits? This one probably stumps me most of the classes. Frankly, though, if lawful rogues are allowed I'm tempted to let it pass for bards as well.

Cleric

Currently: One alignment step from deity.
Change to: Allow any (see the Eberron Campaign Setting) or have each church or deity enforce a code of behavior . Mixed system possible (some churchs/deities could be more strict, others could be lax & plagued with corruption).

Druid

Currently: Any neutral.
Change to: As broad as that is, I'm very tempted to not worry about it. Perhaps use clearly developed expectations of the specific deity instead, similar to the second option mentioned under clerics above.

Paladin

Currently: LG.
Change to: Replace with detailed code of honor specific to the knightly order.

Monk

Currently: Any lawful.
Change to: Replace with detailed code of honor specific to the monastic order.


CLASS ABILITIES

Casting Spells of Opposed Alignment -- Spells no longer have alignment. Some spells may have effects which violate specific codes (e.g. a deity of healing may consider inflict spells to be a vile corruption of her divinely granted powers).

Cleric & Paladin Auras -- Gone. Serves no purpose without detect & protection spells AFAIK.

Detect evil -- Gone. The point is, after all, to get rid of the glowing red target circles.

Ki strike 10th level -- See DR below.

Turning or Rebuking Undead -- Depends on the deity; some may grant turning, some rebuking, some either with the player choosing at character creation as per neutral clerics.

Smite evil -- Allow smite to work against any opponent. Alternatively, different orders could smite different classes of creature (aberrations, outsiders, etc.); this option probably represents a greater restriction than the base rule, however, so should be considered carefully.


SPELLS

Blasphemy -- Replace alignment-based effects with deity-based effects? (This modification would work best in campaigns with few deities.)

Bless/Curse water -- Replace the alignment-based effect with banishing type (see DR below) or allow each to effect all outsiders equally.

Bless weapon -- Replace with banishing type (see DR below).

Detect <alignment> -- Gone.

Forbiddance -- Replace the variable damage by alignment with DM-adjudicated variable damage by intent. Those actively wishing to kill to the caster receive 12d6 damage; possessed or controled beings or those wishing to capture the caster (but not capture in order to kill later) receive 6d6 damage.

Hallow/Unhallow -- Modify the magic circle effects as per the spell or replace with deity-based effects.

Holy/Unholy aura -- Hrm. Not sure on this one.

Holy smite/Unholy blight -- Allow to affect any, as per smite in Class Abilities section.

Holy sword -- Replace the extra damage against evil with a banishing type (see DR below) or allow it to effect any enemy. Modify the magic circle as per that spell.

Magic circle against <alignment> -- See protection from spells below.

Protection from <alignment> -- Should not just disappear. Allow to work against any 'enemy'?

Summon monster -- Allow any creature from the appropriate level list or devise specialized summoning lists (see UA for guidelines).


OTHER MECHANICS

DR/<alignment> -- DR is a key balance component for many creatures. Simply removing this would change the difficulty of the encounter. Replace each DR alignment type with a 'banishing' type (i.e. 'fiend-banishing' for DR/good, 'angel-banishing' for DR/evil, not sure of names for DR/lawful & DR/chaotic 'banishing' types) The banishings would work against any creature having the matching DR regardless of the creature's actual type, but would not have any effect on creatures who do not have the matching DR regardless of the creature's alignment entry. For example, a +1 'angel-banishing' sword would overcome the DR of a deva or an archon equally well and deal an additional +2d6 damage to each (since each has the 'DR/evil' special quality); it would have no effect on a gold dragon beyond being a +1 magic weapon (though gold dragons have a 'good' alignment entry they do not have the 'DR/evil' special quality). Because this change reduces the power of aligned weapons, cost of each should be reduced to +1 bonus.



Whew! Yeah, it's a lot to change. Obviously I would not adopt such broad changes without thoroughly discussing it with players first (particularly for developing class-based codes of honor, where player input would be essential both for mutual understanding of the ramifications of breaking the code & for player satisfaction with the chosen class). There are some areas where I'm not sure quite what to do, & I'm sure I've missed some spells (heck, I found most of the ones I listed just looking for one that I'd already thought about).

 

[Warehouse23]

I would think that "official" class-based codes of honor would chafe just the same way to anti-alignment players that alignments do. Any imposing of "this is how you have to play your character" smacks of heavy handedness to them.

For cleric good/evil issues and DR good/evil issues, the euphamisms "holy" and "unholy" could be swapped in without any loss of generality.

The problem with alignment rules as I see them is that most "abusers" of the system use them to excuse ("justify") their actions in a mechanical sense ("My rogue steals because he is evil.... or because he is chaotic. Yeah.", rather than using them to motivate roleplaying interactions.

The best roleplaying experiences I've had with alignment are those where it is never mentioned. On the odd occaision it comes up, folks get little surprises ("What? You're Lawful Good? Wow. That explains a lot.")

 

[Turjan]

Well, AU/AE is already an example for D&D without alignment, and a look at the correspondent AU class shows the solution. That said, I think the only two classes that need some 'code of honour' are the paladin and the monk. You can class features based on a life goal or an oath to achieve this. None of the other classes needs anything like that.

 

[Particle_Man]

Iron Heroes also does without alignment.

 

[Tewligan]

Iron Heroes also does without alignment.

It does? Awww, man - add that to the list of reasons I gotta get it. Oh, in a couple of weeks when I have more free cash...

 

[Voadam]

My suggestion, Take out alignment altogether.

Bard, barbarian, druid, no new restrictions.

Monk you only have to deal with ki strike lawful (for when you fight Slaad).

Paladins are a problem with both smite evil and detect evil as major class features. Perhaps favored enemy undead and detect undead instead. Although smite anybody is a nice touch for a divine powered champion.

Spells. Treat everybody as neutral, eliminate unncecessary spells.

 

[ForceUser]

My friend developed a simply alignment-less system that doesn't screw too badly with the aligned classes and spells.

Instead of alignments, there are four axes of power: Grace, Taint, Order, and Chaos. The vast majority of mortal creatures--everything from humans to goblins, orcs, and trolls--are neutral with regard to these axes. They act according to their natures and cultures, but not to an alignment system. Divine spellcasters, paladins, and some monks are aligned with Grace, and must act as exalted characters from the Book of Exalted Deeds. Paladins are also aligned with Order, although this is secondary to Grace. Evil divine spellcasters, of course, align to Taint. Outsiders are automatically aligned to the axes that befit their natures. Undead are Tainted. Most everything else is neutral.

Paladins detect Taint, not evil intent, and smite foe, not evil; if you're a paladin, use good judgment and be careful who you smite.

In this system, spells such as protection from evil and dispel evil work as normal, except that they're only going to work against aligned enemies--your standard ogre is not Tainted, he's just mean, so he's going to ignore the effects of protection from Taint when he clobbers you. On the balance, this means alignment-based spells are less versatile than in standard D&D, but are just as useful as always verses some of the most fearsome foes, namely evil divine spellcasters, evil outsiders, and undead.

We've used it in play for some time now, and it's a good system.

 

[Tonguez]

1. Keep the Subtype Descriptors GOOD EVIL CHAOS LAw - they only apply to outsiders (and possible monsters) so wont be a headache

1a Add the Descriptor to Undead and any other monster that takes your fancy (eg Troll (Giant, Evil)

2. Alignment Spells only effect creatures with the Subtype Descriptor (ie a Paladin can smite a Demon but not Farmer Joe the mule-beater)

3. Code of Conduct for Paladins, Discipline for Monks

4. Clerics can worship any diety the PC chooses (but they take on the Dieties 'taint' (ie aligned subtype))

5. No restrictions for any other class (exactly why can't a Barbarian be lawful?)

 

[Mercule]

We use something more akin to d20 Modern Allegiences. It works pretty well. You actually have to pledge yourself to the service of Good/Evil/whatever to "detect" as that. No classes have alignment requirements (caveat: I've banned Paladin). The default isn't even "Neutral" (that would imply actively maintaining a balance), but "unaligned".

IMO, I think this is a great simplification. You ditch the hassle of the alignment system without having to worry about the ripple effect througout the rest of the system. Protection from Evil, etc. still have a function, the DR values for demons, etc. still make sense, and so on.

Edit: Functionally, I think Tonguez system would play out almost exactly like the one I use.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Rather than imposing codes of conduct on anyone but paladins and clerics (and even clerics I would refocus your attention on domain choice and personifying those) if you want to keep the flavor of the allignment restrictions for bard, barbarian and monk, I would describe it as wildness for the first two and dicipline for the latter. For instance : the barbarian gains his rage ability and other advantages from a wildness of spirit that chafes against excessive discipline. He cannot learn certain structured or disciplined abilities (such as a wizard's learned and prepared spells, a monk or paladins extreme self control or dedication to a diety with order as part of its portfolio) without sacrificing the wild spirit which fuels his extraordinary abilities.