Stripping alignment out of D&D
- Thread starter Liminal Syzygy
- Start date
d4
First Post
i'd keep them in, and base who can cast which ones on the alignment of the cleric's god. (since gods would most likely still have alignments in this kind of "middle-of-the-road" approach.) but they're not going to have as much utility as they normally would, for the most part.Cordo said:
i'd keep in the holy/unholy/lawful/chaotic weapons and 3.5 DR too. it makes those weapon qualities slightly less useful, however -- because they're only going to work on outsiders, undead, and other "inherently" aligned critters.
as far as a "bad" person being able to pick up a holy sword without trouble, as i posted above, i don't really have much of a problem with that. if you do, you could give the weapon a quality that would somehow prevent that. (perhaps something to detect evil thoughts and intent, and not just evil alignment.)
d4
First Post
oh, i agree. there's a rich tradition of fantasy where things like Good and Evil are palpable qualities with real consequence.Vaxalon said:
on the other hand, there's something to be said for a cosmology that's much "grayer" and more modern in conception, where good and evil are more in the eye of the beholder than absolute qualities.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Cordo said:
If you speak of a clever solution, and mean a simple rule to adjucate if a certain effect will work: no, there probably is no one. It is the DM who has the responsibility if he thinks a "Holy Sword" woulnd`t work for a certain person.
If it is the Holy Sword of Mordor (if there was one), maybe an cruel rapist serial killer can swing it without any problems, but if it was the Holy Sword of "Jarod the Just and Brave", he wouldn´t be able to use it. (just as an example)
(Removing aligment could also allow us to get rid of something I always considered stupid: Why would someone, just because he worshipped an evil god, consider his magical uber weapon "unholy"? It is clearly devoted to his god, so it should be holy to him. Now, if it was the chosen weapon of a a Goodkiller, it might be considered unholy)
If you hesitate to remove alignment all together, I think the D20 Modern Allegiance system is not too bad. It allows you a bit better to define what is important to you (allowing you to have an allegiance like (good, United States Marine Force) but at the same time you still have the old alignments in it so you could still adjucate the old D&D items.
(Still, I prefer my system without any Alignment system, or at least one without rulewise consequences)
Arcana Unearthed is also a D&D variant (even if not in a "legal" way) without Alignments. Since I will mostly use the 3.5 monsters for AU (if they do fit to the setting), and will also use its DR system, I will have to tweak some effects in regard to this. I already decided to allow Bane weapons to ignore any natural and innate Damage Reduction of a creature, and to allow partial ignorce if only partial prerequisites are met (like with Holy and Silver - Silver weapons ignore a bit, but not all of the DR), and allow Magic Users and Priests to "bless" weapons to be fulfill any kind of alignment specific requirement against DR (so a blessed greatsword would work both against Devils and Angels)
Mustrum Ridcully
Another way to scrap alignment but keep some of its effects (such as bad people not being able to wield good weapons) would be to adopt something like the Dark Side/corruption system from d20 Star Wars. Extremely heinous acts (as defined by the DM) require a wisdom check; failed wisdom checks increase corruption; people with corruption above a certain level have certain effects occur.
I've used such a system, and made any magical act that directly harms another living being require a corruption check. That rule alone has radically changed the role of magic in this campaign.
I've used such a system, and made any magical act that directly harms another living being require a corruption check. That rule alone has radically changed the role of magic in this campaign.
AFGNCAAP
First Post
Honestly, I have to second the idea of using the Alliegiances system from d20 Modern.
It's a way to have & not have AL in a game, IMHO. And, issues of what's most imposrtant to a character is evident on a character sheet--the Alliegiance listed first is most important, the alliegiance listed second is second-most important, etc.--no more issues whether the "lawful" or "good" part is most important with a "Lawful Good" character, etc.
It's a way to have & not have AL in a game, IMHO. And, issues of what's most imposrtant to a character is evident on a character sheet--the Alliegiance listed first is most important, the alliegiance listed second is second-most important, etc.--no more issues whether the "lawful" or "good" part is most important with a "Lawful Good" character, etc.
Voadam
Legend
A couple options for removing alignment
Alignment affects some classes, some spells, some items, and some creatures DR in 3.5.
Classes are not really a problem, an honor bound barbarian berserker who sticks to his code or a rapscallion drunken master monk are workable archetypes. Paladins are a little trickier they have detect evil as a class power and some feel the appeal of the class is the alignment restriction. I personally have no problem with corrupt champions of "good".
Spells there are descriptor spells and spells that have different effects that mechanically relate to alignment such as detects, protection from, etc. For these they can be removed or altered to be alignment neutral (protects don't have openings or outsider type limitations) or alignment could simply be descriptors for spells and outsiders.
aligned items that have negative effects on other alignments, could be removed, have the alignment issues removed, or affect descriptors only (for evil bane for example). Another option is robes of archmagi could be any color and not cause negative levels to alignments.
Creatures, could keep outsider descriptors and DR or remove them and replace alignment DR with magic.
So IMO the biggest mechanical change will be the loss of detect alignment abilities and spells.
Alignment affects some classes, some spells, some items, and some creatures DR in 3.5.
Classes are not really a problem, an honor bound barbarian berserker who sticks to his code or a rapscallion drunken master monk are workable archetypes. Paladins are a little trickier they have detect evil as a class power and some feel the appeal of the class is the alignment restriction. I personally have no problem with corrupt champions of "good".
Spells there are descriptor spells and spells that have different effects that mechanically relate to alignment such as detects, protection from, etc. For these they can be removed or altered to be alignment neutral (protects don't have openings or outsider type limitations) or alignment could simply be descriptors for spells and outsiders.
aligned items that have negative effects on other alignments, could be removed, have the alignment issues removed, or affect descriptors only (for evil bane for example). Another option is robes of archmagi could be any color and not cause negative levels to alignments.
Creatures, could keep outsider descriptors and DR or remove them and replace alignment DR with magic.
So IMO the biggest mechanical change will be the loss of detect alignment abilities and spells.
The Hanged Man
First Post
IMO, it's really difficult to lose alignment. Too many mechanics depend on it - the Protection spells are just the tip of the iceberg. For example, there's tons of spells that have [Evil], [Good], etc descriptors - what happens to them? The descriptor is part of the balance.
Plus, you need to rebalance all of the spells and items that are affected by alignment, which can be a mighty pain.
For a playable solution, I'd suggest leaving alignment as is for NPC's - where it works fine as a general quide for character - and loosen restrictions on PC alignment except where it matters, for Paladins, Monks (Lawful), and Clerics (deity based). This leads to some artificiality like lawful good fighters punking homeless guys for spare change, but it's better than nothing.
Plus, you need to rebalance all of the spells and items that are affected by alignment, which can be a mighty pain.
For a playable solution, I'd suggest leaving alignment as is for NPC's - where it works fine as a general quide for character - and loosen restrictions on PC alignment except where it matters, for Paladins, Monks (Lawful), and Clerics (deity based). This leads to some artificiality like lawful good fighters punking homeless guys for spare change, but it's better than nothing.
Cordo said:
Well, mechanically it's simple, but the effects are kind of far-ranging and will vary from game to game. When you get rid of all the spells with effects based on alignment, clerics lose some pretty useful high level spells. Whether that's a big balance problem of course depends on how often your campaign sees high level clerics in action.
eris404
Explorer
willpax said:
I was going to suggest something like this as well - actually Dragon Magazine has had two articles recently that detailed similar systems that I was thinking of introducing into my next campaign. I think it would work well with some of the rules from the BoVD. Just out of curiosity, how do you handle things like Smite Evil? Do they exist in your campaign at all or do they only affect creatures/NPCs over a certain "corruption score?"
willpax said:
Wow, I bet! I'm thinking wizards don't throw around fireballs like they were nothing.
How do your players like this?Similar Threads
