Removing Alignment

[Wiseman]

Is it possible to remove alignment from the game and still have it be playable? I've already had the idea of changing alignment based effects to now work on anyone you consider an enemy. Anything else that would need to be done?

[Mask_De_H]

That's pretty much it; once you remove the [Alignment] tags from monsters, Detect Asshole/Magic Circle vs. Asshole is pretty much the way to handle those kinds of effects.

[Dean]

The game plays much better without alignment. I kept the creature subtype myself because I considered that totally separate but I think that regardless of the specifics you'll find it to be a positive change all in all.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

You could work it like Warhammer, where containing or being mutated by chaositrons doesn't necessarily describe your morality. People just assume you're evil by default.

[deaddmwalking]

Most spells work fine with minimal change if you discard alignment. Getting a +2 AC against all enemies instead of just specifically evil ones has minimal effect on game play. If you have a Paladin that really cares about detect evil you may want to consider something else - maybe a really good bonus on Sense Motive - ultimately, that opens up more play space since knowing the cobbler is evil is not as useful as figuring out he's lying and afraid the party will find the secret door to his see dungeon in the corner of his workshop.

Spells like forbiddance (if I'm remembering correctly which one that is) are harder if the damage would normally key off alignment. Assuming you don't want a landmine that kills an innocent child, you can't key it to affiliation (members of my religion), and if it is based on intention you have to figure out how the magic knows what people are going to do.

Basically, dealing with effects that reference alignment can be handled on a case by case basis pretty easily. Spending time learning motivations makes the game far more interesting than just labeling the antagonists 'evil'. It also encourages more realistic and conflicted NPCs. People can be good in some ways and horrible in others and it creates a lot of stories that aren't possible with white hats and black hats.

[hyzmarca]

Spells like forbiddance (if I'm remembering correctly which one that is) are harder if the damage would normally key off alignment. Assuming you don't want a landmine that kills an innocent child, you can't key it to affiliation (members of my religion), and if it is based on intention you have to figure out how the magic knows what people are going to do.

Forbiddance is a landmine that will probably kill innocent children if you put it anywhere easily accessible even with alignment. It doesn't even have to be an evil kid. If you're Lawful Good and he's Neutral Good then he takes 6d6 damage.

[hamstertamer]

Most spells work fine with minimal change if you discard alignment. Getting a +2 AC against all enemies instead of just specifically evil ones has minimal effect on game play. If you have a Paladin that really cares about detect evil you may want to consider something else - maybe a really good bonus on Sense Motive - ultimately, that opens up more play space since knowing the cobbler is evil is not as useful as figuring out he's lying and afraid the party will find the secret door to his see dungeon in the corner of his workshop.

Spells like forbiddance (if I'm remembering correctly which one that is) are harder if the damage would normally key off alignment. Assuming you don't want a landmine that kills an innocent child, you can't key it to affiliation (members of my religion), and if it is based on intention you have to figure out how the magic knows what people are going to do.

Basically, dealing with effects that reference alignment can be handled on a case by case basis pretty easily. Spending time learning motivations makes the game far more interesting than just labeling the antagonists 'evil'. It also encourages more realistic and conflicted NPCs. People can be good in some ways and horrible in others and it creates a lot of stories that aren't possible with white hats and black hats.

Yeah, I don't get the against enemy thing. What constitutes "an enemy?" Is the orphan boy that pickpocks an enemy? Is the bandit under a charm spell an enemy? Saying against enemy is too wishy washy for me. In the Alignment system, at least, creatures and items are intrinsically evil. They are literally born that way. So, no Orc can get past the circle of protection against evil regardless of it's intentions. The "against enemy" was apart of "the 4th" and it was one of the signifiers that "the 4th" wasn't D&D, and it wasn't the only thing by a long shot.

[Cervantes]

Most spells work fine with minimal change if you discard alignment. Getting a +2 AC against all enemies instead of just specifically evil ones has minimal effect on game play. If you have a Paladin that really cares about detect evil you may want to consider something else - maybe a really good bonus on Sense Motive - ultimately, that opens up more play space since knowing the cobbler is evil is not as useful as figuring out he's lying and afraid the party will find the secret door to his see dungeon in the corner of his workshop.

Spells like forbiddance (if I'm remembering correctly which one that is) are harder if the damage would normally key off alignment. Assuming you don't want a landmine that kills an innocent child, you can't key it to affiliation (members of my religion), and if it is based on intention you have to figure out how the magic knows what people are going to do.

Basically, dealing with effects that reference alignment can be handled on a case by case basis pretty easily. Spending time learning motivations makes the game far more interesting than just labeling the antagonists 'evil'. It also encourages more realistic and conflicted NPCs. People can be good in some ways and horrible in others and it creates a lot of stories that aren't possible with white hats and black hats.

Yeah, I don't get the against enemy thing. What constitutes "an enemy?" Is the orphan boy that pickpocks an enemy? Is the bandit under a charm spell an enemy? Saying against enemy is too wishy washy for me. In the Alignment system, at least, creatures and items are intrinsically evil. They are literally born that way. So, no Orc can get past the circle of protection against evil regardless of it's intentions. The "against enemy" was apart of "the 4th" and it was one of the signifiers that "the 4th" wasn't D&D, and it wasn't the only thing by a long shot.

Anyone the caster views as an enemy? Doesn't seem that tricky.

[Zaranthan]

Saying against enemy is too wishy washy for me.

It's +2 AC. It works on everybody who's trying to hit you.

In the Alignment system, at least, creatures and items are intrinsically evil. They are literally born that way. So, no Orc can get past the circle of protection against evil regardless of it's intentions.

Outsiders are. Most intelligent creatures are "usually X", not "always X". Also, MCAE only hedges out evil summoned creatures, so even if the Orc is evil, the circle doesn't hedge him out (unless he was summoned).

The "against enemy" was apart of "the 4th" and it was one of the signifiers that "the 4th" wasn't D&D, and it wasn't the only thing by a long shot.

Now here you have an actual point. It's a dumb one, but at least it exists.

There's nothing wrong with having the caster consciously decide who counts as "allies" when he casts Prayer. Creatures shouldn't have automatic blue/red dot designations when they're placed on the mat, that bit's rubbish, but there's nothing "not D&D" about having spells that only affect targets of the caster's choosing. After all, mass hold person doesn't snag your friends, and you don't strike me as the sort of person who thinks 3E was "not D&D".

[Dean]

When removing alignments from my games (except the good and evil subtype) I didn't change any of the Protection spells. So they only worked against Demons or Devils or some evil outsiders. I considered this functioning as intended.

Honestly the protection line just isn't that important to gameplay. Nobody missed them, nobody even ever brought them up. They don't matter.

[deaddmwalking]

I don't see a problem with just +2 AC. The reason I said 'enemies' is because usually your friends don't attack you. In the event that they do, you should get a +2 AC against those attacks. A protection spell should provide protection, just like a shield spell provides protection.

The alignment exceptions don't really help anything. If the party is fighting a group of 12 bandits, does it really matter if 4 of them are neutral and 8 of them are evil? Do I care to track whether the +2 AC applies or doesn't to a particular attack?

As far as spells like that go, making them apply to any attacker works fine. The issue is only spells that have a trigger based on alignment - basically trap type spells. If a magical sensor can determine your alignment in order to engage a spell (and adventures are rife with exactly this kind of thing) the 'evil' orcs can go anywhere in the complex, but the 'good' adventurers trigger traps. I don't really like the idea of magical sensors 'reading' you that effectively, but if you have that type of thing you need to consider whether it still works and if so, what type of criteria you can use.

[MGuy]

I haven't played with alignments for so long that I can't really fathom a scenario where it would be difficult to remove it.

[RadiantPhoenix]

As far as spells like that go, making them apply to any attacker works fine. The issue is only spells that have a trigger based on alignment - basically trap type spells. If a magical sensor can determine your alignment in order to engage a spell (and adventures are rife with exactly this kind of thing) the 'evil' orcs can go anywhere in the complex, but the 'good' adventurers trigger traps. I don't really like the idea of magical sensors 'reading' you that effectively, but if you have that type of thing you need to consider whether it still works and if so, what type of criteria you can use.

Arcane Marks on the orcs, or just detecting a particular symbol stamped on them/their underwear.

[hyzmarca]

As far as spells like that go, making them apply to any attacker works fine. The issue is only spells that have a trigger based on alignment - basically trap type spells. If a magical sensor can determine your alignment in order to engage a spell (and adventures are rife with exactly this kind of thing) the 'evil' orcs can go anywhere in the complex, but the 'good' adventurers trigger traps. I don't really like the idea of magical sensors 'reading' you that effectively, but if you have that type of thing you need to consider whether it still works and if so, what type of criteria you can use.

Arcane Marks on the orcs, or just detecting a particular symbol stamped on them/their underwear.

Though the PCs can circumvent that by stealing and wearing an Orc's underwear, which is much easier than getting a Helm of Opposite Alignment.

[8d8]

I played in a game once with an ally trait that gets automatically applied to anyone with whom you willingly travel for a full day. Basically, your kidnappers aren't your allies and neither is the hot chick you just saved from the hotter chick's dungeon, but your bard who's trying really hard not to write a song about your flatulence is your unfortunate ally and can't change that without a stabbing. The effect of that is area spells automatically or never target allies and allies aren't considered enemies for things that trigger automatically. It worked well, but never having to worry about allies caught in a fireball blast did seem kind of like an unintended benefit, and complications arose when we stuck with it too rigidly and had to make saves against harmless effects from friendly folk (I didn't benefit from a bless due to a good roll). The idea has merit even if it wasn't implemented well when I played.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Though the PCs can circumvent that by stealing and wearing an Orc's underwear, which is much easier than getting a Helm of Opposite Alignment.

Yeah, you probably want to put the mark on the orcs themselves.

Make the players do some skin transplants.

[hamstertamer]

Saying against enemy is too wishy washy for me.

It's +2 AC. It works on everybody who's trying to hit you.

So there is no designation by the spell of an enemy or non-enemy. You just want it to be protection +2 AC, +2 resistance. Originally, someone wanted to exchange alignment based protection to a spell the assigns targets as enemies or non-enemies by how the caster views them, but you are dropping all designation all together and want it be like a shield or armor spell, which is just fine, but "against enemy" is stupid.

[TiaC]

Saying against enemy is too wishy washy for me.

It's +2 AC. It works on everybody who's trying to hit you.

So there is no designation by the spell of an enemy or non-enemy. You just want it to be protection +2 AC, +2 resistance. Originally, someone wanted to exchange alignment based protection to a spell the assigns targets as enemies or non-enemies by how the caster views them, but you are dropping all designation all together and want it be like a shield or armor spell, which is just fine, but "against enemy" is stupid.

If someone is attacking you, you can probably assume that they are your enemy.

[hamstertamer]

It's +2 AC. It works on everybody who's trying to hit you.

So there is no designation by the spell of an enemy or non-enemy. You just want it to be protection +2 AC, +2 resistance. Originally, someone wanted to exchange alignment based protection to a spell the assigns targets as enemies or non-enemies by how the caster views them, but you are dropping all designation all together and want it be like a shield or armor spell, which is just fine, but "against enemy" is stupid.

If someone is attacking you, you can probably assume that they are your enemy.

Which is irrelevant to the shield spell, and the way Zaranthan wants the protection spells to work.

This how the text for the "Protection" spell (just drop the "from alignment" part) should be...


This spell wards a creature from attacks, from mental control, and from summoned creatures. This spell creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot. The barrier moves with the subject and has three major effects.

First, the subject gains a +2 deflection bonus to AC and a +2 resistance bonus on saves.

...



Not this, as "Protection from Enemies" ...

This spell wards a creature from attacks by enemy creatures, from mental control, and from summoned creatures. It creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot. The barrier moves with the subject and has three major effects.

First, the subject gains a +2 deflection bonus to AC and a +2 resistance bonus on saves. Both these bonuses apply against attacks made or effects created by enemy creatures.

...




See the difference?

[TiaC]

"Attacks" and "Attacks by enemy creatures" are the same fucking thing. If someone attacks you, they can be assumed to be your enemy.

[hamstertamer]

"Attacks" and "Attacks by enemy creatures" are the same fucking thing. If someone attacks you, they can be assumed to be your enemy.

No shit dude.

That's why it's redundant and pointless to say "This spell wards a creature from attacks" with "by enemy creatures." Unless there is a way to be attacked by non-enemy creatures. You can't define "enemy creature" as "any creature that attacks you." Saying " by enemy creatures" or "against enemy creatures" leads people to believe that there is non-enemy creatures that can attack you and the protection wouldn't apply.

[Zaranthan]

The only situation where conditional protection might matter that I can think of is something like this:

Roll Initiative!
Alice goes first, and casts Protection from Evil on herself.
Bob steps in front of Alice, hoping to intercept a charging enemy before it gets to her.
One of the enemies turns out to be a wizard, too, and casts Confusion on Bob.
On Bob's turn, he rolls on the Confusion table and gets "Attack nearest creature." Whoops, Alice is still standing next to him. She eats a faceful of his axe, because Bob's not Evil.

Now you might think that's dumb, and that's fine. But you ARE changing that if you use my interpretation.