|
Fairly simple, open-ended question here.
I'm considering running an alignmentless game in the future. I was wondering if any DMs out there who have already done as much could tell me what to expect from players (perhaps in and out-of-character), when to beware the rules getting wonky, and other general observations.
I intend to write a system of guidelines for seamless removal of alignment rules if things go well in the future, so any help or insight provided here would be much appreciated.
I really liked running a campaign without alignment. My players tend to straight-jacket themselves to their alignment way too much. If I have to hear the words "but that's what my character would do" one more time I'll grab them by the throat and... ah hem, sorry. Don't tell me that's what your character would do. Just do it. It's so much nicer, in my opinion, when the players just play the character they want to play without the preconception of alignment. No one always follows a set course of actions based on their beliefs all the time. People stray from the course sometimes. It's human [elf, orc, dwarf and gnomish] nature. Alignments are supposed to just be a general guideline or outlook. Make people wonder about your character. Be dynamic...unpredictable.
Sorry to stray there. My only suggestion would be to try to replace alignment with something else. I used the Taint system with campaign ideas out of Heroes of Horror. It worked well. Alignment based spells were replaced with ones that affected tainted creatures. Not everything that would be considered evil is tainted which provides a nice dynamic. If you do this, it doesn't really nullify any spells or special abilities. It just changes them a little. It may weaken them a bit but that's probably a good thing. Let's face it, Detect Evil is way more useful than any of the other Detect Alignment spells as it is with all of the other alignment based spells. Most of the things you have to worry about are evil.
In my game, I ditched alignments for anything that's not outsiders or undead. Spells still have alignment descriptors, though, and paladins still have codes of conduct they're expected to follow (for example).
"Detect Evil" then essentially becomes "Detect Evil Magic", but there aren't really a huge number of implications.
In my game, I ditched alignments for anything that's not outsiders or undead. Spells still have alignment descriptors, though, and paladins still have codes of conduct they're expected to follow (for example).
Same here, in almost all respects. Demons, devils, celestials embody cosmic forces, and are therefore aligned. Most mortals don't, and aren't. My detect evil is more like a detect taint spell, for sniffing out evil extraplanar influences & magics.
I'm for ditching traffic lights, student loan payments, and most other U.S laws myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As pervasive as alignment is in the thinking surrounding this game, it's deceptively easy to trim it out of the mechanics.
Really, without alignments, you don't need [alignment] spells at all. Protection from [alignment] is a broken spell and always has been; you shouldn't miss it. Detect [alignment] can likewise be removed. Give paladins +3 to sense motive.
One thing to watch out for is that players may sometimes take "no alignments" to mean "anything goes". In some games the threat of an evil alignment becomes a cudgel which DMs use to keep players in line, and it may be tempting to go balistic once that is removed.
Make sure you note that this is still a heroic game (presuming, of course, that that's what you want).
Personally, I think a "heroic PCs only" rule is much better than the "no evil PCs" rule which most games default to, as not all good or neutral characters make good adventurers, and not all evil characters make bad ones. But, as usual, it's far to easy to use alignments as short-hand for what we realy mean.
While I personally have no problem with alignment, I did ponder a bit about how to go without alignment when 4E first came out and discussions of its alignment system popped up.
If you don't want spells that are predicated on alignment to have to be modified or scrapped, here's what I had thought about.
As others have said, outsiders and undead tend to "need" to have some alignment tag. So, even if they don't already have it, any creature that is undead or an outsider that has an alignment now gains the alignment subtypes that apply. Thus, a devil has the (Law) and (Evil) subtypes. A protean has the (Chaos) subtype.
Any class that gains an "aura" now grants a being that is of that class an alignment subtype. For the most part, this affects paladins and clerics. The subtype for a cleric would be the alignment of their god, so a cleric of Abadar, for example, would gain the (Law) subtype, and a cleric of Desna would gain the (Chaos) and (Good) subtype.
A paladin would gain the (Law) and (Good) subtype.
Now, under this system, a given creature does not have to follow their subtype to the letter, its just that, as far as cosmic forces go, they are tethered to universal forces related to the subtype that they have gained.
However, any alignment based spell still functions the way it normally would, but it now keys on those with alignment subtypes instead of an actual alignment.
|
Once again, same for me. I pretty much ditched alignment for anyone who isn't tied to it. Clerics are still expected to follow fairly closely their god's alignment, and have their aligned aura, paladins have an alignment, and that is really it for the base classes. Aligned outsiders retain their's, but outsiders like elementals and such don't have one, and most undead have the evil alignment.
I thought about ditching it completely, but didn't want feel like changing the game that much, since it is fairly deeply integrated into the system. Does kinda take some uumph out of the paladin though, so I usually let him smite enemies who epitomize the antithesis of their diety's tenants, kind of a smite evil or infidel type thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, right. Smite.
Honestly? I would just let paladins smite anyone they want. I don't think the "evil only" restriction was ever necessary for balance purposes; a paladin who doesn't make at least a few attacks per day against an evil creature clearly isn't doing his job right.
|
|
One thing to watch out for is that players may sometimes take "no alignments" to mean "anything goes".
Another thing to watch out for is the exact opposite, which I would describe as 'alignment-hugging'...
DM: The last orc cowers after witnessing you tear through his allies so quickly. You can tell he's about to take off running.
Player: I shatter his skull with my mace. I'm good and orcs are nothing more than a vile, evil plague in this realm. (Rolls, hits.)
DM: You do shatter his skull. Pieces of his brain splatter on an orc child you didn't previously see peeking into the room.
Player: I kill the orc child too. He's bound to be evil also for not having fled yet. (Rolls, hits.)
DM: (Sighs) Okay. The kid's brains are everywhere now too.
Player: I eat some brains off the wall. I'm chaotic. Why the hell not.
This is the kind of thing I'd like to avoid altogether in the future. I've also noticed that sometimes this sort of thing starts to happen unintentionally when players over-think their character's morals.
The problem is that alignment is relative. I'm sick of it, to be honest.
The problem is that alignment is relative. I'm sick of it, to be honest.
I doubt you would make similar assertions about other things which you believe to be true in the real world. Such as "no one lives forever", "dreams are just in your head", or "people can't fly".
Sword&sorcery commonly speculates fantasy-elements which render any or all of these statements false, and you don't seem to have a problem with this. D&D-style fantasy in particular envisions forces which render your "alignment is relative" statement false as well.
You don't have to appreciate that, any more than you have to like/include flight or immortality or dream-worlds in your setting. But I do hope that you recognize this peeve as a personal preference.
|
Alignment may be absolute in the game universe, but the PCs are just imperfect creatures. Thus their understanding of their alignment (and their behaviour based upon it) is fallible and indeed relative.
Finite creatures cannot hope to truly understand infinite concepts. They can still hope to emulate them though.
Yes, very true.
I said that it's wrong to call alignment relative, because I think that specificly refers to the cosmic and objective (sorry if that's pedantic of me), but morality still exists in all the shades and currents of the real-world, as the many and varied mortals struggle to do what they think they should do (whether or not they're trying to emulate the objectivity of alignment).
Edit: it's worth elaborating on that parenthetical: you don't have to be in line with the universal moral code of Good/Evil/Chaos/Law to be a morally-driven person. For example, even the most generic D&D settings usually include groups devoted to preserving nature. Some of these individuals turn out good, some turn out evil, but they don't care: they still feel they're in the right. And cutting down a tree isn't evil, but they still share an utter conviction that it's wrong.
Just because the cosmic guidelines exist doesn't mean you have to follow them.
Regardless of whether I'm playing or GM, I use to leave that space blank until I've come to know the character enough.
Trying to get back on track:
Believe it or not, removing alignment and fosturing moral ambiguity are two completely different things.
Removing alignment doesn't mean that your players aren't going to kill the orc. It doesn't mean that your players shouldn't kill the orc. Or even the child-orc for that matter. It's a little green monster, it has a 95% chance of growing up to be a violent man-eating brute and killing humans, I'm going to stab it. The moral and ethical machinations of your setting will, by default, continue roughly as before even if they don't have objective labels.
That's not to say that nothing changes, however. For example, in most D&D settings, a ruler either mantains a good alignment (and uses that as a mantle of authority) or says "screw ethics" and does as he wishes. A king can't pretend to be in the right if it's public knowledge that he takes damage from holy smite, so there is less value in the kind of posturing which you see in real-world politics.
Remove that, and suddenly EVERYONE is claiming to be the good-guy (just like in the real world), while the few rulers who really ARE extremely altruistic have little to show for it besides (if they're lucky) the respect of their subjects. The image you project becomes much more important than your actual policy. Subterfuge and deception become commonplace.
Conversely, some of the moral machinations of your setting may carry on with even GREATER force than before (I touched on this above). No matter how zealously you follow a cause, it's hard to say you're in the right when you detect as Neutral. But in your world the druids and nature-freaks, devotees of the arcane, racial purists, and other nut-jobs might be even more brazen than before.
(if you actually want this sort of real-world extremism, I think it helps to obscure the afterlife in your world too).
But, where was I.. Oh, right, killing the orc.
The reason you (the hero) kill the orcs isn't that they are EVIl and you are GOOD. The reason is that they have powerful, innate predelections towards violence and are going to keep slaughtering peasants until you wipe them out.
Alignments don't create this situation; they only label it. As a side track, alignments didn't invent the concept of moral high-ground or self-righteousness either, and if your players leap at the chance to define "good" and "evil" for themselves, I think that's they're perogative.
The key to creating a more "realistic", or at least ethically nuanced, game is to drive home the fact that the orcs are hum-, er, creatures too.
A mother orc scoops up four of her children into her beefy arms and runs howling away from the fight. One orc laughs at an injured comrad, but another tries to drag the wounded orc to safety. A good-aligned orc fights for acceptance in the town where they re-equip, and another sells out his evil tribe by offering help or information to the heroes. "Chaotic Evil" does not mean one-dimensional or invariant- remind them of that.
This may take time, because players come to the table with years of preconception telling them that orcs ARE inhuman, one-dimensional cannon fodder (and if you don't like that, then maybe you shouldn't use orcs).
And, even if you do all this, there's always the chance that it simply won't make an impression on your players. Perhaps you've been doing it for ages and it still hasn't made an impression on your players.
Perhaps your players just want a dungeon crawl.
In such a case, yes, removing alignments won't help you, but that isn't because your players are "clinging to alignment" or because they're doing anything wrong. After all, isn't the point of removing alignment to let them choose for themselves what is "right" and "wrong"?
I have been running without alignments for 20 years.
I tell the players when they roll up their characters that they can write down an alignment if it makes them feel better, or if it helps them roleplay. Or they can leave it blank.
I didn't remove any of the alignment-related stuff though, so I guess I still have alignment, just not applicable to PCs.
Over time, as they play their characters, I have a good idea what their alignment is. Someone who is generally playing as a good guy will detect as good if anyone casts Detect Good on them, and they shouldn't pick up an unholy weapon.
Etc.
Seems to work out OK, and my players don't miss having alignments written on their sheets.
So.. you're basically using alignments, but tricking your players into thinking as they would in an alignment-free game?
Sneaky-sneaky. ^^
|
|
Thanks to those who posted their insight or observations. Lots of good stuff is here already and I foresee myself re-reading it until I come up with rules that really work for my future game and group.
I'd like to try and clarify for a second what I was attempting to explain in my last post...
I feel that alignment (after having been mixed with character emotions - character morality, really) is fluff that should not be mixed with the crunch. I feel that debating matters of alignment with a player is an exercise in futility. My point with the orc scenario is that killing an orc is something that can be good, neutral, evil, lawful, or chaotic, and depending on character mood, also possibly the exact opposite. Maybe all four. I'm fairly confident that I could rationalize any character's actions in any given scenario with any given alignment. I think what I need to do is compile a short list of house rules to fill gaps after removing alignment entirely. I'm not a rule-on-the-spot type DM, when I can help it.
The problem is that alignment is relative. I'm sick of it, to be honest.I doubt you would make similar assertions about other things which you believe to be true in the real world. Such as "no one lives forever", "dreams are just in your head", or "people can't fly".
Sword&sorcery commonly speculates fantasy-elements which render any or all of these statements false, and you don't seem to have a problem with this. D&D-style fantasy in particular envisions forces which render your "alignment is relative" statement false as well.
You don't have to appreciate that, any more than you have to like/include flight or immortality or dream-worlds in your setting. But I do hope that you recognize this peeve as a personal preference.
Well said Hydro!
My gripe with alignment is the detect evil spell, which short circuits far more interesting situations than the fly spell, and is only a 1st level spell. I have always chosen to make detect evil work only on supernatural evil.
Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
I require more powerful magic to pierce intention (at least 4th level) and allow lower level magic to foil such spells. Even in fantasy, one must value the sanctity of one's own thoughts, if only for the sake of plot.
Interesting new word, in my own gaming group we mostly play soft alignments without overly stressing about it. My natural alignment is neutral good so most of my characters end up being played that way. My son on the other hand is the poster child of chaotic good. One of our players is lawful good but also flexible about tactics and strategy. As an example my 16th level (NG) cleric of Lathander/Pelor/Apollo/Sarenrae has had several thousand of his fellow worshippers killed and/or tortured by citizens of the empire. Perfectly legal since we are now an outlawed religion by decree of the Empiress. Nobody expects my character to just try to broker a peace agreement with the empire. Will he need an atonement after the latest counter strike is done, probably.
As far as game mechanics go, Detect Evil (or any alignment) can become Detect Enemy and react to anyone who has hostile intentions towards you.
doug
|
I think the single biggest problem that an no-alignment game presents comes from divine magic, particularly the upper level alignment spells like Holy Word. Detect Alignemnt I've never really had a problem with. There are natural and easy countes to it. Like not being Evil. If you are not the alignment in question, the spell shows nothing. A 2nd Level spell can easily counter it for an item. Protection From Evil (or whatever), is a fantastic way for a priest to ward against possession. It is actually one of the only ways, and shouldn't be touched. Drop the +2/+2 if you want.
But things like Holy Word,Chaos Hammer, etc. . . are the divine's big guns in some senses. If you remove the alignment parts, so that it effects everyone, it becomes very powerful. If you leave it up to the DM to decide against who it applies, it usually becomes a good way of getting rid of goons but nothing else. Kind of like the Save or Dies with DM's that roll behind screens.
I think the single biggest problem that an no-alignment game presents comes from divine magic, particularly the upper level alignment spells like Holy Word. Detect Alignemnt I've never really had a problem with. There are natural and easy countes to it. Like not being Evil.
Note that not being evil is not a counter to Holy Word; it affects non-good creatures, not evil creatures. But even if you don't allow it to affect unaligned creatures, it still works fine as a banishment-type spell that also injures certain creatures as an added bonus.
|
|
What I mean is, if it just up to the DM to tell you how effective the spell is, it automatically becomes a lot less effective that it should be. In the same way that Save or Die spells do. Essentually, if the DM rolls a 1 (behind the screen so no one can call BS)and the BBG is suppossed to die on that first round of combat, oops, he saved. It makes the player feel cheated, because the only time the spells do work is whenever it is such a minor target that you wouldn't waste such a high level spell on them anyway, or it is not important. I know this is not universal, but I have never seen a DM not do this in a lot of different groups.
But those Alignment based attack spells specifically affect some creatures for certain reasons. If you take those reasons away, it causes a big problem for those spells. It needs to be made clear from the start what will and will not be affected, for one. Not specifically, but players need to have an idea. If it is just up to the DM and how well the challenge is at that moment, that pretty much translates into "it fails".
But those Alignment based attack spells specifically affect some creatures for certain reasons. If you take those reasons away, it causes a big problem for those spells. It needs to be made clear from the start what will and will not be affected, for one.
Oh, for sure.
Not being Evil really is a counter to Holy Word. You take minimal damage and suffer no effects. I might be saying the wrong spell, (Holy Smite).
You are indeed mixing up Holy Word (affects all non-good creatures equally) and Holy Smite (much weaker against neutral creatures).
The biggest problem with alignment based spells seem to be the same problem that has caused Darkness (sorry to bring that up again) and some others like [Baleful] Polymorph to be nerfed so bad, yet it and many others remain intact. Any alignment based spell with the [i]evil[/] descriptor is going to be much more useful than the other unless you're playing in an Oriental Adventures type campaign setting. Evil is almost always what you're up against rendering the others fairly useless in most situations.
I personally don't have a problem with this but I'd guess that a lot of people do. They would probably like to see them bumped in level to reflect the the fact that they're more useful even though they do essentially the same thing as the others.
|
|
I'm not sure I see what you are saying? I think the problem with darkness was that it screwed everyone players and enemies, and was not clear as to what it really did. Bal. Polymorph is a completely different story though. I might just be missing something?
All I'm trying to say is alignmetless game especially hurt divine casters because a lot of the upper level spells are dependant on alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's probably a valid concern, but I think it's easy to write alignment-free versions of those spells.
Holy smite/unholy blight/etc: d6/level area attack that doesn't hurt your allies
Holy word/dictum/etc: Divine smack-down that inflicts crippling status changes based on victim's hit dice.
Holy aura: High-end multibuff
Did I miss any?
I would just use the [good] versions of all these spells as the baseline.
Smite: As holy smite but affects any creatures you choose as if they were evil. Ignore the extra effects for fiends and the diminished effects for Neutrals.
Divine word: As holy word but affects any creatures you choose as if they were evil.
Holy Aura: Works on anyone regardless of alignment (most of the effects of this spell don't care what the attacker's alignment is anyway).
As a side-note, "holy smite" isn't a cleric spell, it's a Good domain spell. If granting it as a general cleric spell I might bump it to 5th level, but I'd leave the other two as-is (even though not being limited by alignment makes them a bit more powerful).
I'm not sure I see what you are saying? I think the problem with darkness was that it screwed everyone players and enemies, and was not clear as to what it really did. Bal. Polymorph is a completely different story though. I might just be missing something?
My point was that some spells that had opposite effects are the same level and some are different levels. Baleful Polymorph used to just be called Polymorph. It could be used to change form or to forcefully change the form of an opponent. WoC actually split the spell and the latter effect raised one level. Darkness is and always has been two levels above Light even though it's opposite effects. Alignment based casting is very similar and it could be argued that Detect Evil and Holy Word are more useful than the spells that do the same thing with different alignments and should be bumped a level. I don't agree of course but that was my point. You'll rarely ever hear anyone say Detect Law is broken.
Yea, I wouldn't buy that at all.
PCs happen to usually be on Team Good, but if they were on Team Evil, they would be using the evil versions of those spells just as much as normal PCs use the good versions.
More importantly, there is absolutely no reason why an evil NPC cleric should be able to smite at a lower level than a good PC cleric. They're both dealing the same damage.
I think cleric is easily the best PC class to use for a BBEG. They're reasonably tough but also have the spellcasting abilities needed to make for an interesting encounter (and to buff themselves), without the volatile area-attack damage output of a high-level wizard. Also, undead hordes.
I'm not sure I can make sense of your post. "It might be a good idea to give unholy smite at a lower level than unholy blight so that evil clerics are more threatening when they don't have undead"? I guess that would be a fair trade-off, if you want an evil cleric who doesn't use undead, but I don't know what it has to do with the balance of the smite/blight spells.
Ah, right, sorry.
My confusion came from trying to read it as on-topic. ^^:
I don't agree either, but that is not really what I was saying.
I wasn't really directing my comment at you or anyone else in particular. I was just jumping in the conversation.
Spells are really hard to balance. I personally like opposite effects to be set at the same spell level just for the harmony of it all. I don't mind the fact that some spells of a certain level are more useful than others. There isn't really any way to avoid that.
Yeah, Darkness might screw everyone if it were the completely eliminate the use of sight like it used to (and how we still play it) but it's not really as bad as it sounds. It makes Blind-Fight worth taking but it isn't something that every Fighter takes in our group. Heck, I'm playing a Warlock who can do it at-will and none of the Fighters have it. We've never found any reason feel that it needed changed (which is why we never bothered to carefully read the 3.5 version of the spell to know that it had been). Most of the time, it's the tactic used by monsters and evil races and just makes them more formitable opponents which is a good thing if you ask me.
|
|
So, what are the (percieved) bonuses foran alignmentless game? I've run some, but I just wanted to sort of jumpstart this back on topic. I've was always a fan of Ravenlofts take on Detect Good/Evil. In Ravenloft, there is no way to magically tell moral Alignment. Not even Paladins can sense evil. It encourages roleplay and characters to take note of NPC's actions and reactions, but it also means that you just can't tell for sure.
The flip side to that, though, is that Evil is very real. Unlike Craperron, which encourages Neutral (boring), Ravenloft is all about the fight against slow corruption and hard moral choices and consequences. I didn't really like the Oriental Adventures version of Taint. I liked the rules, just not the story about it. It seemed kind of weak fluff to fill in the mechanics, but that's just my opinion.
Taint was part of the L5R universe long before it visited d20. For my own part, that warp-your-very-bones approach to tangible evil appeals to me; or at least, I think it's a perfect fit to the setting.
Ascetically, it takes willing servants of evil and lumps them in with beggars and cripples. It reinforces the sense of an axiomatic heirarchy (I, noble samurai with flowing black hair and perfect skin, am at the top; you, vile sorcerer with toenails growing in your brain, are at the bottom). It also makes evil evil: there can be no delusions that "it's all a matter of perspective" when going over to the dark side has such dramatic and loathsome effects. At the same time, it's a grasping, cloying sort of evil, which can affect and corrupt you even if you don't willingly give yourself over to it.
As for giving up alignment, the biggest benefit from my perspective would be that it can make a setting seem fresh. Alignment is one of the things that makes D&D feel like D&D, which is both good and bad; all the worlds which use it feel, if not exactly the same, then at least tied together.
A fresh and creative world with alignment will still be approached as a D&D setting. Take alignment away, though, and players are more likely to approach a new world without preconceptions.
I don't think a no-alignment game is necessarily better, but it is different and different (if handled properly) is definitely good. ^^
I am also of the opinion that players new to roleplaying probably shouldn't have to deal with alignments. I'm not looking down my nose at those who dislike alignment here, don't get me wrong, but I do think it's an advanced roleplaying device, and for new players it is more likely to be a crutch.
As far as game mechanics go, Detect Evil (or any alignment) can become Detect Enemy and react to anyone who has hostile intentions towards you.
That may be true in a campaign where only the villains are evil.
I tend to think of evil as more prosaic. When players try to use detect evil as detect enemy, they'll quickly discover that perhaps a quarter of the commoners are evil... not of the "kill thousands to open a gate to Carceri" sort, but the "cheats at cards and hits puppies" sort.
Meanwhile, the truly villainous demon-summoning evil sorts often have the sense to conceal themselves from paladins.
So, what are the (percieved) bonuses foran alignmentless game? I've run some, but I just wanted to sort of jumpstart this back on topic. I've was always a fan of Ravenlofts take on Detect Good/Evil. In Ravenloft, there is no way to magically tell moral Alignment. Not even Paladins can sense evil. It encourages roleplay and characters to take note of NPC's actions and reactions, but it also means that you just can't tell for sure.
The flip side to that, though, is that Evil is very real. Unlike Craperron, which encourages Neutral (boring), Ravenloft is all about the fight against slow corruption and hard moral choices and consequences. I didn't really like the Oriental Adventures version of Taint. I liked the rules, just not the story about it. It seemed kind of weak fluff to fill in the mechanics, but that's just my opinion.
Why is Evil unreal in Eberron or in an alignmentless system? Your characters (and their enemies) don't stop being Good or Evil just because of what's written on a blank in your character sheet.
Eberron has alignment, actually (unless 4e Eberron is different?)
It tries to breed more moral ambiguity in a couple areas, though. (Secretly) evil priests of good gods, for instance.