How do you use aligmnent based mechanics without alignment?

[Particle_Man]

Look at the Detect Evil spell (following CAP from the SRD


The list is pretty explicit about what counts when using the spell.
An Evil creature is one that has the EVIL descriptor (just as a Good creature has the GOOD descriptor etc)

I think that this point was never definitively settled by Wotc: the other side of the argument, of course, is that Evil creature means "any creature that has the evil alignment" as opposed to "any creature with the [Evil] subtype".

 

[am181d]

I'm not using alignment in my current game. Should any of the relevant alignment-based effects come into play, I would just use common sense. (The maiden-devouring dragon is evil. The marauding bandit is evil. The third foot solider to the left isn't, but all the other ones are.) Anyone who's not exceptionally good or exceptionally evil would count as neutral. Same with law/chaos...

 

[Navior]

I got rid of alignment from my games some time ago, and I've found that the changes that need to be made are not all that pervasive. There are a bunch of spells that are affected by alignment, but most of them only need very small changes to make them work. The spells most affected are the detect evil/chaos/law/good spells. I've moulded them all together into a single spell simply called "detect hostility". The spell basically allows the caster to know whether others have hostile intent, but it does not reveal the reasons for that hostility, so you can't actually know for certain whether the person is villainous or not.

For the holy word/blaspheme/etc. spells, I've also amalgamated them into a single spell just called "holy word". Instead of alignment properties, it instead targets creatures of opposed religions.

For most other spells, any changes are quite minor.

 

[Li Shenron]

Detect Alignment/ Smite Alignment
Protection from Alignment

Holy/Unholy/Chaotic/Lawful weapons, ect.

If you completely got rid of alignment, then you may just consider to ban those spells and enchantments from the game.

If you instead dropped the permanent alignment of characters, so that a player is not compelled to have a written alignment on her papers, but the concept is still somehow part of the game, I'd suggest that the DM bases alignment issues on the cuurent behaviour/intentions of characters.

For example, instead of having an "evil" individual, you regard everyone basically as neutral or alignment-less. If the person e.g. commits a murder, he may have now an evil aura around him, and the aura may even last years if he never atones or at least repent inside and try to make amend. The aura may also appear before the actual murder, originating from his inner desire to commit it while he's only planning it.

Some characters such as evil cultists who regularly perform human sacrifices, may effectively have a constant evil aura. But if they stopped behaving evilly, then the aura may slowly fade.

It is more complicated (and slightly different) when it's about law & chaos, but e.g. a character currently enforcing the law may register as lawful for the moment, but not someone merely following a code of conduct. Someone would be momentarily chaotic if participating in an action against the current legitimate government for example, but not if he was just stealing something for himself.

IOW, I would adjudicate the good/evil axis when individual consequences are concerned, and the law/chaos when social consequences are concerned.

For weapon enchantments, you could also run it differently: instead of making a holy weapon work against evil, you can make it work towards good, which is not the same thing. E.g. it would not work better when executing a serial killer when the killer is already imprisoned and not able to kill anyone anymore; it would work when attacking the killer actually does good i.e. saves the life of an innocent currently threatened.

 

[maransreth]

I have recently been confronted with this problem as in my new campaign, I don't want to use alignment, but what to do with the spells or damage reduction.

I turned to Arcana Unearthed/Evolved for the damage reduction as Monte doesn't use alignment, BUT does use the good/evil/chaotic for monster damage reduction. So I am thinking of using this as well and for the spells, remove reference to alignment or get rid of the spell all together.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I would retain alignment types for those creatures which have them - so, fiends are still [Evil], celestials still [Good], and so on. Spells like detect evil would have their utility reduced to a level roughly congruent with detect undead, but I don't think that's a big deal. Detect evil is pretty much strictly better than detect undead because of its wider utility.

If you want to retain the ability to detect direct servants of aligned deities, like paladins or evil clerics, simply rule that they possess the appropriate alignment subtype. It could be something which sets them apart from the rest of the faithful; feats like True Believer could endow a lay worshipper with the subtype if appropriate. For simplicity's sake, paladins and blackguards would have the subtype, but only clerics of deities who possess an alignment domain would.

You could still have anarchic, axiomatic, holy and unholy weapons, or you could replace the enchantment with an equivalent of silversheen. You know, anoint the blade with holy water, that sort of thing.

Without alignments for regular everyday mortals, smites are more appropriately directed against specific enemies of a religion. Paladins of specific deities - pretty much a necessity in an alignment-free campaign - would be able to smite whatever their god thinks is anathema. Paladins of Pelor might smite undead, for instance, and servants of a god dedicated to darkness.

 

[Lela]

Without alignments for regular everyday mortals, smites are more appropriately directed against specific enemies of a religion. Paladins of specific deities - pretty much a necessity in an alignment-free campaign - would be able to smite whatever their god thinks is anathema. Paladins of Pelor might smite undead, for instance, and servants of a god dedicated to darkness.

There's no shortage of people any given god might be mad at (shadows, Shar, killers, undead, prostitutes, elves, giants, fey). It just means that the DM and player need to be on their toes in a fight. Same with detect spells; it becomes Detect Anti-Pelor People while the spells that conceal alignment become Hide My Aura From Those Jerks Who Want to See It. Again, the DM needs to be on his game.

I had planned this all out when I started allowing AU/AE into my campaign. I figured that with a mix of PCs who had alignment and those that didn't, it would get complicated real fast. Fortunately for me, all my PCs have grabbed onto Monte's work and holding fast. As such, I haven't had to deal with it from a PC perspective.

When I do, I plan to use the method detailed above. Helps flesh out the deity in the process.

 

[Tatsukun]

I just made one god for each of the four corners (Law, Chaos, Good, Evil), then replaced every instance of those words with the name of the god.

Then, people in-character can debate if GodA is evil or not without anyone saying "Well, his clerics show up in 'Detect Evil'!". Now the spell is called "Detect Mousam" so of course it detects followers of Mousam!

-Tatsu

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Same with detect spells; it becomes Detect Anti-Pelor People while the spells that conceal alignment become Hide My Aura From Those Jerks Who Want to See It.

This is a direction I wouldn't personally go. I think it's a fine thing for paladins to beat down the enemies of their faith; I don't see where a short-term variable is worth detecting. It's the same with "detect evil intention" spells - it's a very different thing to know that someone is Evil than i is to know they want to hurt you right now. The latter is useful, but I don't think it adds much to the game to have it as a spell category.

Sense Motive does for me.

 

[Lela]

Hmmmmm, I actually think we're in the same place mhacdebhandia. By Detect Anti-Pelor People I meant those who were against Pelor (thus the use of the anti as opposed to the use of the non). In my case, what I mean is Pelor would be opposed to Shadows and Undead, a deity of sexual purity would have problems with prostitutes, while Grummish would have elf issues. If it's in the basic dogma--the essence of the deity's being--then it would fall under Smite Anti-Me People and the Detect equivalent.