What happens when you get rid of alignment?

[Guilt Puppy]

What's the problem with alignments? They're a good thing. On top of that, they're incredibly flexible. The alignments aren't set in stone, and are just guidelines. It says so in the PH.

On one hand it says they are guidelines, on the other hand it treats them as physical absolutes. I have no problems with using them as guidelines -- although I think it's fairly narrow in that regard -- but treating them as physical absolutes I don't like. For demons, celestials, yes, good and evil are intrinsic to their being... But to the NE Assassin? By the rules, it's more than a guideline for him -- it's a part of his person, as real as his height or eye color, in that he becomes vulnerable to holy weapons, detect evil, et cetera... This is what I don't like, and you'll see in my post that this is what I wanted to change.

The reason for alignments is so players don't divert all over the plaqce on a whim, and so the character doesn't act out depending on the player's mood. If you removed alignment, the players could be heroes one day, villains the next, and then not care the day after that, which is totally unrealistic and utterly ridiculous!

That's assuming the players are bad roleplayers. If they have a concept of their character, they know what they will and will not do -- if they don't, then they don't. I don't see why they need a game mechanic to help them with that -- is there a mechanic for how much they value their family, how much risk they're willing to take in combat, or any other of the role-playing details which you suggest will immediately fall into chaotic inconsistency without a game rule to guide them?

In short, I don't think they need to be forced into being consistent -- in either case, if they're inconsistent, I'd just tell them that they'd become CN or N. I just don't think that being inconsistent should be some tangible part of a character in the physics of the world (making you vulnerable to lawful weapons, et cetera.)

As for the system itself, the Law/Chaos axis is the ambiguous one that is hard to define, because it's based on culture. The Good/Evil axis, however, is based on fact, and is therefore quite easy to define. Killing someone who has done nothing wrong is evil. Rape is evil without exception. Stealing from someone for the sake of greed alone is evil. Genocide is evil. Racism is evil. Worshipping Tharizdun is evil. Very easy to define good and evil, see? Good/Evil has nothing to do with opinion, and therefore is a set axis which is easy to identify with one way or the other.

First, I don't think it's that easy to define good and evil. "Racism is evil," for instance... That means Thomas Jefferson was Evil, Henry Ford was Evil, D.W. Griffith was Evil, et cetera... Of course, when you actually look at them, it's more an issue of ignorance, naivety, et cetera... And really, similar could be said of many of the things you defined as "evil."

Of course, in the real world this doesn't matter... Calling someone evil doesn't actually effect who they are, just how they're perceived. In D&D, however, by those definitions Thomas Jefferson had better stay away from people with holy weapons and paladins, because they are more potent against him.

Anyway, read the rules and read the books before passing judgment. Making uneducated statements like those in this topic only leads to confusion.

I'm not sure if that's directed at me or not. In my post, all statements I made were expressing my personal opinions... I'm not sure how I can be uneducated regarding my own opinions. If you're saying the personal opinions themselves are uneducated, I wonder why you came to that conclusion. An opinion is the comparison of two things: Personal taste, and factual information. Unless you know my personal tastes, you cannot say that I should have arrived at a different opinion based on the factual information.

---

Posted by Shalewind
I think what he was attempting to imply is that in D&D they are universal. The DM sets the boundaries, "What is evil and what is good in this universe". And then that is that. Typical D&D isn't realistic in this fashion, it is heroic fantasy. Alignment is made as a tool so that every monster and encounter isn't a moral delimae.

Yes, you can do that, but I'd rather no go to the trouble. If I think something is wrong and my players think it is right (or vice versa), I don't feel it should have any tangible effect on them -- I think it ought to be up to the player to decide what their character thinks is right and wrong, without having the whole game world stand up and disagree.

---

Everyone else:

Thanks to those who pointed out the Allegiance system -- as a role-playing aid, it seems much more flexible that the alignment grid. I think I'll adopt it to replace character class prereqs (and similar things), because I do like the flavor the prereqs enforce. Alignment will remain, but only in cases where it is a fundamental quality of some thing (be it a demon, an evil spell, whatever). Likewise, it is only in these cases that things like detect evil, unholy weapons, et cetera will work.

BTW, to those who have run games using a similar system (it sounds like there are a few of you out there), did you feel alignment-based effects needed to be made cheaper or more powerful to compensate for how much more rare their usefulness becomes? For instance, changing holy weapons to +1 equivalent, making the Paladin's smite evil more powerful somehow, et cetera?

Also, which creatures should be considered intrinsically their alignment? Alignment-embodying outsiders for sure, and undead should probably be evil (which makes trouble for liches who try to become good, although it opens up some interesting things), but what about certain aberrations, that sort of thing? Humanoid races I would never give a concrete alignment... Only things where good/evil/law/chaos is incorporated into their being. (For that reason, I'd make tieflings and aasimar inherently evil and good, although I would not force players to roleplay them that way -- just tell them that they felt a certain tug in one direction, and that this force was still a basic part of them.)

 

[Tonguez]

If I may direct you to the following Table from the SRD version of Detect Evil

Creature/Object Evil Power
--------------- ----------
Evil creature HD / 5
Undead creature HD / 2
Evil elemental HD / 2
Evil magic item or spell Caster level / 2
Evil outsider HD
Cleric of an evil deity Level

If we decide that an Evil Creature is one with an Evil Subtype (like Hell Hound (Fire, Evil) then we know that

Inherently Evil creatures include
Undead, Elementals, Outsiders, Clerics of Evil Deities and Evil Spells/Items.
Abberations maybe (though personally I wouldn't eg the Otyugh is a 'beast' and Mindflayers should be treated like other 'Humanoids' (weird alien humanoids but still...) and imc I have Abberation NPCs)

NOTE: the spell does NOT refer to alignment but to TYPE descriptors

 

[Someone]

BTW, to those who have run games using a similar system (it sounds like there are a few of you out there), did you feel alignment-based effects needed to be made cheaper or more powerful to compensate for how much more rare their usefulness becomes? For instance, changing holy weapons to +1 equivalent, making the Paladin's smite evil more powerful somehow, et cetera?

For spells and weapon enchantments I´d say no. For class abilities, maybe, or give the player the opportunity to change them for another.

Also, which creatures should be considered intrinsically their alignment? Alignment-embodying outsiders for sure, and undead should probably be evil (which makes trouble for liches who try to become good, although it opens up some interesting things), but what about certain aberrations, that sort of thing? Humanoid races I would never give a concrete alignment... Only things where good/evil/law/chaos is incorporated into their being. (For that reason, I'd make tieflings and aasimar inherently evil and good, although I would not force players to roleplay them that way -- just tell them that they felt a certain tug in one direction, and that this force was still a basic part of them.)

That depends on the setting. But for "normal" D&D, say Forgotten and Greyhawk, then creatures who are always of that alingment and clerics and paladins of level 9+.

 

[green slime]

more interesting than having Mr. Paladin walk up to a cleric and cast detect evil on him, find out he's "evil", then strike him down.

I've currently got a psychotic Paladin running around in my campaign world. The PCs are all around level 8, so they're becoming one man armies, especially in crowded halls. The party Paladin, who's actually a decent RPer normally, cast Detect Evil in the palace of the local king. A guard nearby fairly RADIATED evil, so guard gets run through.

His partner, who CAN'T detect evil, attacks the Paladin, who in turn kills him (after pausing for a moment, saying "But he was evil!" and getting a halberd in the stomache).

Long story short, things escalated quickly. The king, who was a neutral evil and worshipping some ancient deity, comes down the hall as the Paladin has just finished toasting the barracks.

Him: "Detect Evil"

Me: "Okay, after about thirty seconds, you find the King is radiating evil as well, as are the two councilers around him." *sigh*

Him: "BLASphemers! Prepare to die!"

Initiative is rolled, he charges the King, gets lucky on a Crit, and manages to Greatcleave the entire bunch of them with his longsword.

I really despise the Detect spells.

Perhaps because you haven't read the Detect Evil description properly? The guard shouldn't have registered as Evil. The King shouldn't have registered as evil. He wasn't a Cleric of an Evil God. He wasn't an Evil Outsider. He was a human worshipper of an Evil God.

from the SRD
Creature/Object Evil Power
--------------- ----------
Evil creature HD / 5
Undead creature HD / 2
Evil elemental HD / 2
Evil magic item or spell Caster level / 2
Evil outsider HD
Cleric of an evil deity Level

An Evil creature is one that has the Descriptor [Evil] in its Description, not some minor money-grabbing, PC-swindling horse merchant. Has your campaign gotten this far but the paladin doesn't realise that all minor "evil" is not to be slaughtered on sight? Just because someone wanders around, with horrible nasty thoughts in their head, torturing insects, and being a bully, do they deserve to die????

This makes Detect Evil much less abused in a social environment. It should also be noted that you don't stand around for 30 seconds "detecting Evil" in the royal premises, armed to the teeth, without someone poking you in the eye, disturbing your concentration check. Such bad manners would be poorly accepted in wealthy social circles. I mean, the very nerve of that fellow. That's like insisting the President take a polygraph test on election promises...

My take there is plenty of room for grey areas within the alignment scale. Alignment is only a guideline for what morals/ethics your PC has. It is only a true worry for the Paladin. Too bad so many of them are poorly played.