Stripping alignment out of D&D

[Argus Decimus Mokira]

Hey

Stripping alignment from my game as well. This is how I went about it ...

1. Download SRD
2. Alt-f each file, searching for Good, Evil, Chaos and Law
3. Delete every instance of the above words
4. Re-write sections if necessary
5. Print and use as "Core Rulebook alpha <-> omega", with Core rulebooks I - III as back ups

This has led to spells such as protection and magic circle, which protect against mind control and outsiders. I removed the alignment domains, and the holy aura (et al) and holy cloak (et al) spells. All classes with an alignment restriction have a code of conduct a la Paladins. I likey so far.

Thanks
Matt

 

[barsoomcore]

Barsoom has no alignment, but Barsoom is pretty far from typical D&D. Compared to other changes I made ("No non-humans! No spellcasting! Guns!"), stripping alignment wasn't a big deal.

Although frankly, it's not a big deal. I mean, if you don't want alignment, do you really want paladins, anyway? It's just common sense, right -- no alignment, okay, then, no protection from evil. Pretty simple.

Balance issues? Well, my campaign's not balanced to any particular degree and frankly I'm skeptical of claims that you can balance game items with particularly scientific rigour. I mean, you can cope with it in game, I'm sure.

I have had exactly zero problems removing alignment from D&D.

That's not an argument that you should do it (every campaign is different), but just saying that it's no big deal.

 

[Sir Elton]

That's not an argument that you should do it (every campaign is different), but just saying that it's no big deal.

It shouldn't be a big deal. Everyone's campaign is as different as the many people on earth are different. We are all telling different stories, so it's no big deal if you remove alignment or keep it.

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

4. Re-write sections if necessary

...

This has led to spells such as protection and magic circle, which protect against mind control and outsiders. I removed the alignment domains, and the holy aura (et al) and holy cloak (et al) spells. All classes with an alignment restriction have a code of conduct a la Paladins.

Thanks. This is exactly the kind of info I'm looking for. Specific solutions, what spells were changed and how, what spells deleted, etc.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

One suggestion if you really like an occasional mystic read on people's personalities would be to replace detect [allignment] spells and abilities with a low level empathy, or an instant take 20 on a sense motive check. It still won't be as easy (or as hard, for that matter) as "good" "evil" or "neither" but when the fighter who regularly beats people up for fun goes to the temple of protection and community for healing, there is likely someone there who will notice that he's a psychopath... the fact that the psychopath does not radiate a mystical aura of "evil" won't change the fact that he will get zero healing, except maybe of the forcible psychological kind....

A paladin might not be able to scan his potential pals for unapproved vibes, but when enteracting with someone directly, he might get a flashing vision of recent emotionally intense expereinces.

Of course, I really don't worry that lack of allignment will cause my players to do random evil with their (told to design as) heroic characters... Anyone who plays that imature is out of the group anyway.

Kahuna burger

 

[willpax]

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?"

Well, one problem is that I use a homegrown magic system as well, so spell descriptors don't present the same challenges. But, yes, anything that would affect evil or be limited to good will affect someone with high (10+wisdom bonus) corruption points. The number of corruption points would then be subtracted from whatever saving throw would be necessary to avoid the effect (for example, the will save needed for an attempt to cross a circle of protection).

I basically give the players a choice between insanity and evil as far as the effects of corruption, but they've all been so afraid of it that I've never had to take a player over.

Originally Posted by willpax
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.

Wow, I bet! I'm thinking wizards don't throw around fireballs like they were nothing. How do your players like this?

The effects of this change have been quite pleasing. I have two magic-using players, and (becuase they knew this rule from the beginning) they chose specialities that are less affected--dexterity/buff/charms for one, and divination/illusion for the other. One character has just learned to use force bolts, which now represent a sore temptation.

The players don't mind because the NPCs also work under the same restrictions, although a truly evil/insane magician who knew she or he was dying next week anyway would present a bit of a challange. The casters have become much more thoughtful and creative with their magic use--I've made divination more useful in all sorts of ways, and kept casters in general fairly rare to keep the "special" feel.

 

[Whitey]

One option, just 'cause no one else has posted it yet...
Instead of having alignment be as indellible as a fingerprint, have it fluctuate based on the party's recent deeds. That fighter was lawful good, until they made a habit of extracting fingernails as well as information. This is a paramount consideration for paladins and clerics, who may well have to act as the party's more compass as well as walking BandAid, and opens up new RP subtexts all 'round the table. Maybe after atonement, commune, penance at a suitable shrine, or whatever the fitting recourse seems, they'd not need worry that the next order's wrath, for example, would either dud or wipe out half the party - there's more to being a goodly hero than stabbin' at what takes a stab at you.

 

[Drakmar]

Rather than taking Alignment out, try adding stuff to it. Give each player access to the BoVD, and the BoED and get them to read the stuff on Good and Evil. Then, get them to choose an alignment.

What I do, and my DM do, is also utilise the Nature and Demeanor system from the White Wolf games. This allows the player to have a better framework on which to base their characters actions.

The main reason to have an alignment system or the Nature and Demeanor system is so that both the player and the DM have a framework to base how well the Player is playing the Character that they have created. This allows the DM to award more experience for the player Roleplaying his character's Alignment and/or Nature and Demeanor.


Personally, I much prefer to have an Alignment. Nature and Demeanor also help. I also find that having a well defined culture to base some of my character's action on also of great benifit.

Drakmar.

 

[Argus Decimus Mokira]

Hey

As an aside ... I once ran a FR campaign that used alignment with a number assigned to each component, ranging from 0 to 10. Folks with an alignment restriction had to have at least a 4 in that alignment, outsiders with an alignment type had an automatic 10 in that alignment component, and elementals, constructs, and any outsider that was "Always neutral" had a 0. Living, Prime-planar creatures ranged from 1 to 9 on good-evil and law-chaos axes. A rating of 1-3 was considered "neutral", 4-6 was "aligned", and 7-9 was "strongly aligned". A given population would follow a bell curve along each axis, with 68.3% of the population falling in the 1-3 range, another 27.1% in the 4-6 range, and the remaining 4.6% having an alignment rating between 7 and 9. With the two axes combined, you could create a 2D chart for every creature, tracking a point in space that refelcted its alignment. Each number had a different interpretation of chaos/evil/good/law, and the numbers were very dynamic because of it. A persons alignment would change rather often depending on his/her actions. The numbers also led to more severe alignment-related effects, so a paladin with a Good rating of 9 would be more damaged from reading a Tome of Ineffable Evil than a bard that was Good 4.

Once that campaign ended, I vowed to never again use alignment.
Matt

 

[Hawkshere]

In my next campaign, I'm going to reduce the impact of alignment very simply. Alignment will be a Special Quality (Ex) that only appears on a person, creature, or object as appropriate. PCs (and most NPCs) will not have any alignment SQ at all by default, regardless of their personal ethos/morals. Only those characters that have earned a special significance or association will be "marked" with an Alignment SQ. PCs earn alignments through roleplaying and/or simply taking classes or feats with alignment requirements. A paladin gains both Good and Law as SQs, whereas a monk only gains Law and a ranger gains Neutral. (That's Neutral with a capital "N", as opposed to no alignment at all.) NPCs work the same way, with more DM control over the assignment. Thus, the serial baby-eater earns his "SQ: Evil (Ex)" designation by simple DM fiat (and common sense, hehe).

This requires no other changes to the rules. Everything else works the same.