zoroaster100 said:
I'd rather that alignment be removed from the mechanics. If there was still a section talking about alignments, that would be fine with me, but I don't want basic class abilities like paladin's detect evil and smite evil balanced in a way that require alignment. I'd rather have such abilities fine tuned so that they are balanced in a way that DMs and players that don't use alignment can use the classses/class abilities/spells/etc. without having to rebalance them. For example, paladins could have a smite ability that can be used against anyone engaged in "evil" from the paladin's perspective. I'd like detect evil and know alignment to detect only magic and outsiders with the evil descriptor, not a normal person who happens to sometimes (or even currenly) do evil deeds.
I voted No but my real gripe is with alignment being involved in the mechanics. As moral guidelines, the alignment system is flavourful and is a classic part of D&D. However, the way alignment is treated in the mechanics (especially spells) bugs me to no end.
I absolutely hate the effect of spells like detect evil/good/law/chaos not to mention the "redneck alignment detection spells" (i.e. the alignment based attack spells - holy smite/unholy blight/etc and holy word/blasphemy/etc).
I'd much prefer that such "alignment" spells really be limited to the alignment descriptors (e.g. (Outsider, Evil, Extraplanar)) and characters with aligned auras (e.g. the clerical and paladin auras of good/evil/whatever) or be rewritten as detecting/smiting infidels (i.e. anyone worshipping a different faith or no faith at all). I like the idea of Detect Evil (especially the paladin's evil-radar) detecting unholy things like fiends and undead.
I just hate it also detecting any slimy or shifty individual with bad intentions (well, bad enough to register as "evil" on the alignment scale). It creates a sense of absolute black and white morality when there is really a large area of grey. If the grey is dark enough, it registers as black (and only the power level of the creature, not its actually morality, determines how powerful an "evil" it is according to the spell). A 20th level rogue who's larcenous, bad nature qualifies him for evil (despite some redeeming features) should not register as more evil than a child-sacrificing level 1 cleric of Nerull or a corpse-eating ghoul.
If the Detect alignment spells only detected creatures who are extreme cases (the real black and white - like fiends, celestials, slaad, undead, persons granted divine magic by good/evil/whatnot god, and perhaps exceptionally twisted/saintly/crazed/disciplined individuals), I'd find them a lot more flavourful and enjoyable. Supernatural detection (especially such mundane magic as a 1st level divination) should detect Good with a capital G, Evil with a capital E and so forth.
Exalted and vile characters should register as Good and Evil. Their counterparts for Law and Chaos should do the same. Clerics should register as their god's alignments (rather than their own) as should paladins and other divine characters. The good natured and kindly old lady might be good, but she's probably not saintly enough to be Good. The amoral cutpurse with a nasty streak might be evil, but he's probably not corrupt enough to be Evil.
Letting the paladin detect only the foulest evil makes their scanning ability more useful because it becomes far more reliable. When something did turn up under their detect evil, they could feel pretty secure in knowning they are facing something a dark and sinister instead of a mean-spirited lout. The way alignment is handled in the mechanics at the moment, it is impossible for a Grima Wormtongue-style evil councillor to use Bluff to conceal his nature (since 1st level spells are fairly common) yet the sheer number of false hits from petty sources of evil would make it absurdly easy for a demon possessing someone to avoid standing out.
I'd rather have evil-intentioned slimeballs like Wormtongue be able to use bluff to conceal their true nature and let the paladin's supernatural evil sensor make it easy for him to seek and destroy supernatural evil that infiltrates society.
While you can adapt the rules to carve away the alignment system, it is the way it is embedded into the mechanics (specifically into the magic system - spells and magic items mostly) that makes this annoying and surprisingly time consuming to do. I ran a no alignment game in my previous campaign. My players and I kept stumbling across yet another spell or magical effect that was dependent upon alignment and having to create house ruling after house ruling to deal with it.
It was enough of a pain that I decided to solve the issue in the exact opposite manner in my current campaign. Instead of removing alignment, I simply ruled that the alignments represent an active moral and spiritual choice and created a 10th alignment called "unaligned" which covers the vast majority of sentient beings (who have culturally based or relative senses of morality and don't follow a consistant behaviour pattern that would fit the 9 traditional alignments).
You can slide into one of the 9 traditional alignment unintentionally by following a clear pattern of behaviour and moral choices but most people are complicated moral creatures and fail to ever commit themselves deeply to any side in the eternal clash between Good and Evil or Law and Chaos. Unaligned folks look at the world from their own ideosyncratic view and don't think in terms of absolute objective morality. They might be deeply charitable and community oriented and yet hang suspicious strangers as "witches" as part of crazed mobs. They aren't black and white.
For spell purposes, these creatures are considered to have no alignment whatsoever unless the spell absolutely requires an alignment to function (in which case they are deemed to be True Neutral - n.b. in our game, true neutral represents a zen-like acceptance of all alignments as part of nature/existance and dedication to maintaining the Balance between them - folks that are focussed on self-interest are deemed to be unaligned). Most followers of the various gods are unaligned. They believe but have other factors that influence their moral decisons. Only the most devout resemble their deities alignment-wise.
It's not a perfect solution to deflating the impact of alignment on game mechanics, but reclassifying most of the folks (includes many who'd detect as good/evil/lawful/chaotic) into the grey, morally-ambiguous middle ground has worked pretty well in my game.
