Author Topic: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?  (Read 6657 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Endarire

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
    • Email
I do, and here's how I'd handle things.

-No alignment prerequisites.
-No alignment subtypes.
-No alignment domains.
-Detect alignment becomes detect type.  This works as detect undead but for a creature type or subtype specified at cast time.
-Magic circle against alignment and protection from alignment work as-is, but against the specified creature (sub)type.
-No holy word/dictum/blasphemy/cloak of chaos.
-Smite Alignment becomes Smite.  The bonuses to accuracy are the same, but it works against anything.
-Clerics worship an ethos by default, thereby allowing them to pick their own domains.  Those who wanted to sign on with a deity would gain a code of conduct.

I believe doing this would solve many problems and move players from the mindset of "Kill it because it's [Evil]!" to a more GM-friendly "Kill it because it's there!"

I believe the alignment system and alignment-related abilities are a sour mix of fluff and crunch.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2010, 01:48:19 AM by Endarire »
Hood - My first answer to all your build questions; past, present, and future.

Speaking of which:
Don't even need TO for this.  Any decent Hood build, especially one with Celerity, one-rounds [Azathoth, the most powerful greater deity from d20 Cthulu].
Does it bug anyone else that we've reached the point where characters who can obliterate a greater deity in one round are considered "decent?"

weenog

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2010, 01:53:27 AM »
I don't know that it would be overall better, but one thing I will say for it is it would emasculate a lot of bickering about necromancy.

Being maintained by energy from a neutral plane or casting spells that manipulate it is evil, indeed.  :banghead
"We managed to make an NPC puke an undead monster."
"That sounds like a victory to me."

Solo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2684
  • Solo the Sorcelator, at your service
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2010, 01:54:51 AM »
Yes.

"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down!"

The Legend RPG, which I worked on and encourage you to read.

weenog

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2010, 01:59:06 AM »
Come to think of it, yeah, the only reason I ever pay attention to alignment is for purposes of meeting/maintaining requirements.  If all of those are gone, I can act quite a bit more naturally, as can everyone else.  No alignment system would be better.
"We managed to make an NPC puke an undead monster."
"That sounds like a victory to me."

dna1

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Im not albino Im just from Alaska
    • Email
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2010, 02:28:15 AM »
i think the alignment system they have now isnt very good.
even lawfull and good people will do bad things in the right circumstances
Slappin ho's like E-Honda

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2010, 02:29:50 AM »
I think it should exist, but be rarer.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

weenog

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2010, 02:34:36 AM »
even lawfull and good people will do bad things in the right circumstances

I take it you've never encountered Lawful Stupid or Stupid Good.

Practical lawful and/or good people will put necessity before morals and ethics at times, but not all characters of those alignments are practical.  And it works for the other alignments, too.  Hell I once had a CE character draw up a fair, magically binding contract and adhere to it rather than looking for ways out, just to keep the party he needed from imploding.  And I think everyone has seen the Chaotic "Neutral" character that does it wrong on purpose just because he's Chaotic.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2010, 02:44:05 AM by weenog »
"We managed to make an NPC puke an undead monster."
"That sounds like a victory to me."

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2010, 02:57:44 AM »
Well, alignment in itself is a needed concept considering how much of the genre falls within 'epic battle of good and evil', so the mechanics must be able to support this need. Not all games have such a focus, so the alignment rules must ALSO be sufficiently detachable from the system.
Unfortunately, the rules for it are poorly done and the allocations often arbitrary. Add to that the issue of many aligned effects tending towards horribly broken(the BoED and BoVD have added 'much' to overpowered effects)...I can certainly see why many would rather do away with it entirely than try to make it work.

Biggest beef, most clerics and paladins follow a god, who has a code of conduct(might not be very strict either, for quite a few of the even tempered ones). Gods' code of conduct does not equate to aligned code of conduct, as the behavior of deities in fiction and mythology prove. Clerics are by default, strongly good/evil(with a passing nod to neutrality in that they 'can have the option to follow either).
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

weenog

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2010, 03:14:26 AM »
You can still have the concept without having the system take a side and say "This is good, that is evil." Presumably most people consider activities in line with their own moral compass as good, and things going in other directions as evil.

A party of mainly freedom-oriented characters could have their epic battle of good and evil knocking down a tyrannical king or tribute-demanding dragon.  A party of characters that believe in technological progress and order could have their epic battle of good and evil fighting back the terrorist druids that keep disrupting dam projects, razing buildings and attacking logging and mining crews.

You don't need an alignment system to have a epic battles of good vs evil.  All you need is differing belief systems that can't coexist in the same place, and people that care strongly enough to fight and die over them.
"We managed to make an NPC puke an undead monster."
"That sounds like a victory to me."

Endarire

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
    • Email
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2010, 03:34:16 AM »
I've noticed that alignment is basically this:

"Good" is what I like.  "Evil" is what I don't.  If I want to kill something, or wage war, or justify some icky acts, I declare the victims "evil" and proceed to do as I see fit.  Thus, by destroying evil, I'm more good.  Or something like that.

Again, alignment is overrated.
Hood - My first answer to all your build questions; past, present, and future.

Speaking of which:
Don't even need TO for this.  Any decent Hood build, especially one with Celerity, one-rounds [Azathoth, the most powerful greater deity from d20 Cthulu].
Does it bug anyone else that we've reached the point where characters who can obliterate a greater deity in one round are considered "decent?"

TC X0 Lt 0X

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2010, 04:22:58 AM »
Alignment is just a restriction on characters that has been made into a Pseudo-Crunch when it clearly should be Fluff.
In my personal opinion, things don't need things to be color coated. You don't need your character sheet to say LAWFUL GOOD to save a village from Barbarians and you don't need it to say NEUTRAL EVIL to pick someones pocket. It is purely RP and should be treated as such.
Plus it would remove the excuse half the players who play CHAOTIC NEUTRAL have when they do stupid crap. But I'm Chaotic  :D. Yeah, Chaotic Stupid.
"Never beg, you earn, by winning,
or else you won't get anything..."

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2010, 04:39:28 AM »
You can still have the concept without having the system take a side and say "This is good, that is evil." Presumably most people consider activities in line with their own moral compass as good, and things going in other directions as evil.
I meant in the supernatural sense, not just character level. Angels, demons, etc. What does pure good/evil do?
But yes, that is one of the ways you can deal with it, subjective morality.
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

BoB - Lord of Evil

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 17
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2010, 05:39:36 AM »
I find it all depends on my group of players. Some like the party interaction and roleplaying perspetives of having an alignment while other groups dispense with it. I say just play with what makes the group have fun.
I have even run a game (levels 1-34) where I have had a redeemed succubus.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

fuinjutsu

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2010, 06:00:31 AM »
I think of Alignments as being big, cosmic allegiances, not behavioral guidelines.  paladins have a code of honor because they are PALADINS, not because they are lawful good.

Evil aligned people can give to charity and hug puppies in their spare time, they just owe allegiance to the greater infernal/abyssal/malevolent powers.

Good aligned peopela re expected to have some standards, but these are pretty lax.  And again, allegiance owed to Celestial types.
Eh, the wizard have more money than them combined, he could in theory just use all his money on a fleet of trained attack mules, but then we aren't playing 3.5 but zergling rushing in Starcraft instead.

Prime32

  • Administrator
  • Organ Grinder
  • *
  • Posts: 7534
  • Modding since 03/12/10
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2010, 06:16:20 AM »
You can still have the concept without having the system take a side and say "This is good, that is evil." Presumably most people consider activities in line with their own moral compass as good, and things going in other directions as evil.
I meant in the supernatural sense, not just character level. Angels, demons, etc. What does pure good/evil do?
But yes, that is one of the ways you can deal with it, subjective morality.
I figure that angels who eat babies still count as good unless they have their powers stripped from them. Likewise, you can have saintly demons who count as evil. Good and Evil creatures are automatically Exalted and Vile respectively.

Everyone who doesn't have some connection to an aligned outer plane is true neutral, regardless of their behaviour.
My work
The tier system in a nutshell:
[spoiler]Tier 6: A cartographer.
Tier 5: An expert cartographer or a decent marksman.
Tier 4: An expert marksman.
Tier 3: An expert marksman, cartographer and chef who can tie strong knots and is trained in hostage negotiation or a marksman so good he can shoot down every bullet fired by a minigun while armed with a rusted single-shot pistol that veers to the left.
Tier 2: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything, or the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.
Tier 1: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything and the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.[/spoiler]

Littha

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
    • Email
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2010, 07:38:11 AM »
I tend to work on a subjective alignment system, one in which the alignments of everyone around you are based on your characters view on the world. I had one Lawful Good cleric of a homebrew god of fire and purgation view everyone else in the world as some form of evil, this led to a lot of burning villagers.

The problem is when you come into contact with creatures that have an absolute alignment, Angels and Demons and the like. Generally I give them an absolute alignment, no matter what your view on them is they will turn up Good or Evil when you try and detect it.

There should be some difference between:
I think I am a good person
and
I am a person so good that it can be detected by supernatural means.

weenog

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2010, 07:40:48 AM »
Why should angels and demons be made an exception if alignment is going away?  Absolute good and absolute evil can get boring, anyway.  I kind of liked how Tales of Symphonia did it (angel was basically another word for lich, but most people didn't know that).
"We managed to make an NPC puke an undead monster."
"That sounds like a victory to me."

lianightdemon

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2010, 08:07:29 AM »
The thing about necromancy is how the game world perceives it. Necromancy in a sense is evil, your denying creatures their natural death and raising them in an unnatural fashion. I could see druids having real issues with necromancers. Even evil druids or balance too seriously.

Most necromancers use their powers to kill using peoples corpses as they please. This could be a hostile act that many would not appreciate. Say if your friend got killed would you want his body raised and walking around serving some guy who could use him to kill you or your other friends? Most necromancers don't use their power for good cause undead tend to have an urge to kill the living. Which causes them to go around killing people and making more undead.

The followers of the good deities who value life would have problems with this, not only are they killing people but they are using their corpses to kill more people. So why would the good deities even grant you that when they want you to protect life and save it. You could even say that raising the undead traps the spirit of the individual back in their body denying them their afterlife.

Even if you are a good necromancer, there is a stereotype that necromancers are evil so even with your good intentions your still going to get the biased opinion from many areas ruled by good deities or those who value life.

As for the alignment thing, there should be alignment but it should not be as static as it is in the book. It should be more based on your actions then on what you set your alignment too. Classes with restriction could have them removed, since there seem to be variant's for everything anyhow. As for clerics if your following a good god you can't rebuke only turn and Vince versa for evil gods.   


Prime32

  • Administrator
  • Organ Grinder
  • *
  • Posts: 7534
  • Modding since 03/12/10
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2010, 08:25:45 AM »
The thing about necromancy is how the game world perceives it. Necromancy in a sense is evil, your denying creatures their natural death and raising them in an unnatural fashion. I could see druids having real issues with necromancers. Even evil druids or balance too seriously.

Most necromancers use their powers to kill using peoples corpses as they please. This could be a hostile act that many would not appreciate. Say if your friend got killed would you want his body raised and walking around serving some guy who could use him to kill you or your other friends? Most necromancers don't use their power for good cause undead tend to have an urge to kill the living. Which causes them to go around killing people and making more undead.

The followers of the good deities who value life would have problems with this, not only are they killing people but they are using their corpses to kill more people. So why would the good deities even grant you that when they want you to protect life and save it. You could even say that raising the undead traps the spirit of the individual back in their body denying them their afterlife.

Even if you are a good necromancer, there is a stereotype that necromancers are evil so even with your good intentions your still going to get the biased opinion from many areas ruled by good deities or those who value life.

As for the alignment thing, there should be alignment but it should not be as static as it is in the book. It should be more based on your actions then on what you set your alignment too. Classes with restriction could have them removed, since there seem to be variant's for everything anyhow. As for clerics if your following a good god you can't rebuke only turn and Vince versa for evil gods.
How are necromancers any worse than evokers? Fireballs and lightning bolts can only be used to kill, while necromancers can heal.

The Tome of Necromancy has some stuff on this. One problem is that creating things like skeletons and zombies does not trap a soul, while creating a golem does (it's even implied to torture the soul used). Yet creating a zombie is evil and creating a flesh golem is not.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2010, 08:29:10 AM by Prime32 »
My work
The tier system in a nutshell:
[spoiler]Tier 6: A cartographer.
Tier 5: An expert cartographer or a decent marksman.
Tier 4: An expert marksman.
Tier 3: An expert marksman, cartographer and chef who can tie strong knots and is trained in hostage negotiation or a marksman so good he can shoot down every bullet fired by a minigun while armed with a rusted single-shot pistol that veers to the left.
Tier 2: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything, or the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.
Tier 1: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything and the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.[/spoiler]

weenog

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
Re: Do you feel D&D would be better off without the alignment system?
« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2010, 09:34:28 AM »
The thing about necromancy is how the game world perceives it. Necromancy in a sense is evil, your denying creatures their natural death and raising them in an unnatural fashion. I could see druids having real issues with necromancers. Even evil druids or balance too seriously.

Most necromancers use their powers to kill using peoples corpses as they please. This could be a hostile act that many would not appreciate. Say if your friend got killed would you want his body raised and walking around serving some guy who could use him to kill you or your other friends? Most necromancers don't use their power for good cause undead tend to have an urge to kill the living. Which causes them to go around killing people and making more undead.

The followers of the good deities who value life would have problems with this, not only are they killing people but they are using their corpses to kill more people. So why would the good deities even grant you that when they want you to protect life and save it. You could even say that raising the undead traps the spirit of the individual back in their body denying them their afterlife.

Even if you are a good necromancer, there is a stereotype that necromancers are evil so even with your good intentions your still going to get the biased opinion from many areas ruled by good deities or those who value life.

As for the alignment thing, there should be alignment but it should not be as static as it is in the book. It should be more based on your actions then on what you set your alignment too. Classes with restriction could have them removed, since there seem to be variant's for everything anyhow. As for clerics if your following a good god you can't rebuke only turn and Vince versa for evil gods.   



Some things:
  • Not all necromancers create or use undead, some even oppose them --  halt undead and undeath to death are both Necromancy spells.
  • Not all undead-using characters use them to create more corpses -- needing no food, no rest, and no shelter, and being too mindless to get bored, zombies and skeletons make excellent unskilled labor for tasks such as tilling fields, digging firebreaks, and hauling stone to construct your new church, orphanage or bombevoker shelter.
  • This isn't a necromancy thread, and putting a stop to garbage like those was one of the first things put forward as a benefit of ditching alignment.
"We managed to make an NPC puke an undead monster."
"That sounds like a victory to me."