Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Neochronic 12-07-06, 02:48 AM	Allright, I dislike the D&D definition of alignment, but it's so entwined with D&D that it would be hard to just throw it out. As an alternative, here's what I was thinking: All creatures that do not have an alignment subtype would be treated as true neutral for all abilities that check alignment. Any creature with an alignment subtype would be treated as being of that alignment. In this way, alignments become more like cosmic forces, and less like a tool for ruining a plot hook. Is he good or evil? You never know! One thing this does do is weaken alignment based spells. Now, I haven't gone through everything (even in the core books) that's alignment based, but I'm wondering if there's any glaringly obvious problems with this solution that I just haven't noticed. Thanks :) PS I'm sure I'm not the only one who's thought of something like this, but I haven't seen anything about it.
Tenebrous_Sage 12-07-06, 03:04 AM	It will mess up Paladins and Clerics.
slashrat 12-07-06, 05:01 AM	Easy to fix; DM's call on when player's fullfil any "alignment" requirements that a class has
a_psh 12-07-06, 05:02 AM	It will mess up Paladins and Clerics.Just plain having alignment around messes up paladins and clerics, too.
ArcTan 12-07-06, 05:29 AM	Do what Eberron does with Clerics and rule that their own alignment has no bearing on whether they can manifest their deity's alignment when acting on their behalf, and you're fine. (Right now that's how it works anyway -- a Lawful Good worshipper of Wee Jas manifests a Lawful Neutral aura because he's channeling the goddess' power. The current rule is that the deity's aura can replace yours but you have to be within one step -- Eberron rules you can be any alignment -- in this universe you would always simply be Neutral anyway.) Paladins? Just rule that they have to abide by a specific code of conduct and fall if they break it, and take the alignment definition out of it. *Associate* Paladins with the idea of Lawful Good and make their code Lawful Good, but do not rule that this ever gives the character itself a Lawful Good aura or define breaking the code as commiting "an evil act" -- de-universalize it. (And, while you're at it, add Paladins of other codes that could be Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good or Chaotic Evil.)
makeshiftwings 12-07-06, 05:52 AM	Allright, I dislike the D&D definition of alignment, but it's so entwined with D&D that it would be hard to just throw it out. As an alternative, here's what I was thinking: All creatures that do not have an alignment subtype would be treated as true neutral for all abilities that check alignment. Any creature with an alignment subtype would be treated as being of that alignment. In this way, alignments become more like cosmic forces, and less like a tool for ruining a plot hook. Is he good or evil? You never know! One thing this does do is weaken alignment based spells. Now, I haven't gone through everything (even in the core books) that's alignment based, but I'm wondering if there's any glaringly obvious problems with this solution that I just haven't noticed. Thanks :) PS I'm sure I'm not the only one who's thought of something like this, but I haven't seen anything about it. This is basically what I do, but I have a few more rules: Most things are mechanically neutral. Undead, evil outsiders, evil-subtypes, blackguards and negative-energy-using clerics are mechanically evil. Deathless, good outsiders, good-subtypes, paladins and positive-energy-using clerics are mechanically good. Smite Evil / Smite Good just become "Smite anything as long as you can justify it in character". (This is mostly because I felt bad for the paladin, but I think it would work fine if he could only affect the Evil things above.) Also, something can be mechanically good or evil without necessarily being emotionally good or evil. There will be a great pull towards emotional good or evil if you're classified, but you can overcome it. So a vampire could be a legitimately good person, if he overcame his natural evil urges, but he would still be detected and affected as Evil by spells. Similarly an angel could become corrupt, but would still be detected/affected as Good.
Lethanic 12-07-06, 09:11 AM	Or just play alignment the way its meant to be used and there aren't any significant problems.
makeshiftwings 12-07-06, 08:09 PM	Or just play alignment the way its meant to be used and there aren't any significant problems. Except for the ones that have to do with alignment.
The_Third_Karsus 12-07-06, 11:39 PM	Normally I play alignments such as Chaotic good or neutral but occasionally a Lawful good monk does find their way onto my D&D sheet. However, when I ran a campaign I used basically what the class description went by although the players did have the "label" of Lawful, Chaotic etc.. Also, alignment is more of a guideline. I mean c'mon, if you’re a Paladin you shouldn't be running around killing off the mages guild for no good reason. And if you’re a Barbarian you shouldn't be following the orders of a town guard etc. I think you should get the point... :D
OleOneEye 12-08-06, 01:55 AM	The game works just fine completely throwing out alignment. Ignore anything that has to do with alignment. Let the paladin smite anything to offset loosing detect evil. You are good to go. In the alternative, look at alignments as vague guidelines that reflect the overall makeup of a soul. Just because someone is lawful good doesn't mean he can't kick dogs and spit on children - but rather, in the grand scheme when all his actions and motives are added up he balances toward lawful good. No need to make alignments into straightjackets.
Neochronic 12-08-06, 03:11 AM	Well, the reason I want to get rid of alignment as is, is because it ruins many plot twists, such as having an evil character traveling with the party, and only later revealing it. With a paladin in the party, the evil character has to resort to magic items to keep his alignment hidden, and that gets old if used too much. The reason I want to keep alignment, is so I can make use of the Incarnate and Soulborn without greatly changing their abilities. I'm planning on dumping the vancian magic system, so I want to add multiple other magic options. So far, I'm looking at keeping Rogue, Monk, Fighter, maybe Barbarian (hate the limited rage per day), Ranger (using the spelless option from CW), Warlock, Paladin (again, spelless), Dragonfire Adept, Dragon Shaman, Incarnate, Soulborn, Totemist, and I'm thinking of making an alternate warlock with the druid's shapeshifting option from PHB2 instead of eldritch blast.
Ocalus 12-08-06, 01:24 PM	Except for the ones that have to do with alignment. Or rather "Except for the ones that have to do with people's misunderstandings and misconceptions about alignment."
a_psh 12-08-06, 01:52 PM	Or rather "Except for the ones that have to do with people's misunderstandings and misconceptions about alignment."Nope. Alignment sucks, fundamentally. To paraphrase my own sig, do you really expect to sit in judgement over everything the players do and then have them actually express their own worldview rather than yours? Why would they do that when the game rewards them for following the GM's morality and punishes them for asserting their own?
makeshiftwings 12-08-06, 05:19 PM	Or rather "Except for the ones that have to do with people's misunderstandings and misconceptions about alignment." Yes, like the misconception that alignment is a good idea.