Are plug and play alignment systems possible?

This question popped into my head when I was reading the Torment Kickstarter page. The alignment system they propose ties into the metaphysics of the world, but is more about motivation than morality.

This is an interesting idea, and it calls to mind past moral metaphysics briefly mentioned in other products -> Some variation of karma or bushido, codes put forth by various gods, Planescape factions, etc.

How hard would it be to create morality systems people can opt into? I figure you need a few spells, some notes about damage reduction and bonuses, and probably an alternative paladin class or classes.

I'd love to see the classic alignment wheel as an option in the core 5e books, with future possibilities in the DDI or Unearthed Arcana books.

Of course I've also said in the past that if the game really is modular they should come out with an Unearthed Arcana ASAP....
Planewalker's Codex, the free Planescape Zine Please Contribute Words To: A Day in the Life of Planars - Snapshots of Life in the Multiverse Walking the Parallel Multiverses Alternate Prime Worlds



what sense is smite when it can affect anyone, you could hit a baby with smite then. smite was ment to punish evil as a pally was a hand of good. you can alter that for pallys of other gods but it dosent wash for me and stuff like that i would toss you.



Yea, I'd toss anyone who would attempt to do such a deed, I don't care what alignment you are (unless it's a totally evil game and we're doing some sort of horror style campaign). But to be honest, that scenario never even occured to me *shurggs*. I guess I"m not a deranged individual though. I was thinking more along the lines of Constructs, Oozes, and Dire Animals that many evil mages might keep around for protection. It's really annoying for a paladin (in pursuit of justice and good) that can't rely on his most basic and principled powers to fight monsters protecting an evil d-bag because they're not specifically evil (but nor can they be reasoned with).

Additionally, the mechanics need to speak to a more inclusive rule-set (which is what I was assuming the designers are going for) so that I can have my paladins smite the Dire Bear and you can have your Paladins not smite things that aren't intristically evil. Additionally it helps for those who run campaigns with no alignment as well as Paladins of different alignments or Paladins that don't have deities in their setting.

But you do bring up a weird point: You say the Paladin's Smite shouldn't work on non-evil beings, that it's ok that they "fizzle" as it were. But what about say, a LG Cleric of Heironeous/Tyr/Helm/Paladine that uses Inflict Light Wounds on said baby? I mean, there are no alignment requirements and there are no restrictions so the act could be done. How, exactly, is that any better?  




to answer the last part is an easy one as you cannot recieve cause light wounds from a good aligned god anyway so problem solved




Says who?


Carl  



says the game rules reversible spells that create effects that are against the ethos of a god should not be granted as the god is the one giving them and to do the opposite is to make the god have no controll over what he is giving to clerics, as there are other damaging holy spells that can be used


www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Inflict_Light_...

or the cleric could just use a warhammer, which gets a bonus from strength and isn't limited to being cast a certain number of times per day, and is otherwise the same besides not being a touch attack.  
anyway, if a good character kills a child they'd better have a REALLY Good reason for it, like that time Jack Harkness ( i know he's more neutral but nevermind that) sacrificed his own son (grandson?,) because that was literally the ONLY way to save millions of children.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  




what sense is smite when it can affect anyone, you could hit a baby with smite then. smite was ment to punish evil as a pally was a hand of good. you can alter that for pallys of other gods but it dosent wash for me and stuff like that i would toss you.



Yea, I'd toss anyone who would attempt to do such a deed, I don't care what alignment you are (unless it's a totally evil game and we're doing some sort of horror style campaign). But to be honest, that scenario never even occured to me *shurggs*. I guess I"m not a deranged individual though. I was thinking more along the lines of Constructs, Oozes, and Dire Animals that many evil mages might keep around for protection. It's really annoying for a paladin (in pursuit of justice and good) that can't rely on his most basic and principled powers to fight monsters protecting an evil d-bag because they're not specifically evil (but nor can they be reasoned with).

Additionally, the mechanics need to speak to a more inclusive rule-set (which is what I was assuming the designers are going for) so that I can have my paladins smite the Dire Bear and you can have your Paladins not smite things that aren't intristically evil. Additionally it helps for those who run campaigns with no alignment as well as Paladins of different alignments or Paladins that don't have deities in their setting.

But you do bring up a weird point: You say the Paladin's Smite shouldn't work on non-evil beings, that it's ok that they "fizzle" as it were. But what about say, a LG Cleric of Heironeous/Tyr/Helm/Paladine that uses Inflict Light Wounds on said baby? I mean, there are no alignment requirements and there are no restrictions so the act could be done. How, exactly, is that any better?  




to answer the last part is an easy one as you cannot recieve cause light wounds from a good aligned god anyway so problem solved




Says who?


Carl  



says the game rules reversible spells that create effects that are against the ethos of a god should not be granted as the god is the one giving them and to do the opposite is to make the god have no controll over what he is giving to clerics, as there are other damaging holy spells that can be used




Just reread the rules to make sure you were wrong. You're wrong. There are no such restrictions in 5e.




yes because you are able to read 5 percent of the basic rules and nothing else. wow so your so smart

if surch restrictions exist they're not in the spells section, or the cleric section

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  




what sense is smite when it can affect anyone, you could hit a baby with smite then. smite was ment to punish evil as a pally was a hand of good. you can alter that for pallys of other gods but it dosent wash for me and stuff like that i would toss you.



Yea, I'd toss anyone who would attempt to do such a deed, I don't care what alignment you are (unless it's a totally evil game and we're doing some sort of horror style campaign). But to be honest, that scenario never even occured to me *shurggs*. I guess I"m not a deranged individual though. I was thinking more along the lines of Constructs, Oozes, and Dire Animals that many evil mages might keep around for protection. It's really annoying for a paladin (in pursuit of justice and good) that can't rely on his most basic and principled powers to fight monsters protecting an evil d-bag because they're not specifically evil (but nor can they be reasoned with).

Additionally, the mechanics need to speak to a more inclusive rule-set (which is what I was assuming the designers are going for) so that I can have my paladins smite the Dire Bear and you can have your Paladins not smite things that aren't intristically evil. Additionally it helps for those who run campaigns with no alignment as well as Paladins of different alignments or Paladins that don't have deities in their setting.

But you do bring up a weird point: You say the Paladin's Smite shouldn't work on non-evil beings, that it's ok that they "fizzle" as it were. But what about say, a LG Cleric of Heironeous/Tyr/Helm/Paladine that uses Inflict Light Wounds on said baby? I mean, there are no alignment requirements and there are no restrictions so the act could be done. How, exactly, is that any better?  




to answer the last part is an easy one as you cannot recieve cause light wounds from a good aligned god anyway so problem solved




Says who?


Carl  



says the game rules reversible spells that create effects that are against the ethos of a god should not be granted as the god is the one giving them and to do the opposite is to make the god have no controll over what he is giving to clerics, as there are other damaging holy spells that can be used




Just reread the rules to make sure you were wrong. You're wrong. There are no such restrictions in 5e.




yes because you are able to read 5 percent of the basic rules and nothing else. wow so your so smart



What are you talking about? This rule does not exist, nor has it ever existed. Where you are getting it from?



what sense is smite when it can affect anyone, you could hit a baby with smite then. smite was ment to punish evil as a pally was a hand of good. you can alter that for pallys of other gods but it dosent wash for me and stuff like that i would toss you.



Yea, I'd toss anyone who would attempt to do such a deed, I don't care what alignment you are (unless it's a totally evil game and we're doing some sort of horror style campaign). But to be honest, that scenario never even occured to me *shurggs*. I guess I"m not a deranged individual though. I was thinking more along the lines of Constructs, Oozes, and Dire Animals that many evil mages might keep around for protection. It's really annoying for a paladin (in pursuit of justice and good) that can't rely on his most basic and principled powers to fight monsters protecting an evil d-bag because they're not specifically evil (but nor can they be reasoned with).

Additionally, the mechanics need to speak to a more inclusive rule-set (which is what I was assuming the designers are going for) so that I can have my paladins smite the Dire Bear and you can have your Paladins not smite things that aren't intristically evil. Additionally it helps for those who run campaigns with no alignment as well as Paladins of different alignments or Paladins that don't have deities in their setting.

But you do bring up a weird point: You say the Paladin's Smite shouldn't work on non-evil beings, that it's ok that they "fizzle" as it were. But what about say, a LG Cleric of Heironeous/Tyr/Helm/Paladine that uses Inflict Light Wounds on said baby? I mean, there are no alignment requirements and there are no restrictions so the act could be done. How, exactly, is that any better?  




to answer the last part is an easy one as you cannot recieve cause light wounds from a good aligned god anyway so problem solved




Says who?


Carl  



says the game rules reversible spells that create effects that are against the ethos of a god should not be granted as the god is the one giving them and to do the opposite is to make the god have no controll over what he is giving to clerics, as there are other damaging holy spells that can be used




Just reread the rules to make sure you were wrong. You're wrong. There are no such restrictions in 5e.




yes because you are able to read 5 percent of the basic rules and nothing else. wow so your so smart



What are you talking about? This rule does not exist, nor has it ever existed. Where you are getting it from?


Im guessing it was a houserule in a previous edition that got confused as an actual rule somewhere down  the line.
Unearthed Arcana should be released at launch if the game's going to be as modular as they say. Unless the DMG has a lot of desired modules built in.



Given how little of the game is actually core, I'd say the DMG will be mostly made up of modules.


What are you talking about? This rule does not exist, nor has it ever existed. Where you are getting it from?



Remember what I said about him taking things that are his own personal point of view as axiomatic?  There.

Also known as 'his imagination'/'his house rules'.


What are you talking about? This rule does not exist, nor has it ever existed. Where you are getting it from?



Remember what I said about him taking things that are his own personal point of view as axiomatic?  There.

Also known as 'his imagination'/'his house rules'.



it was a rule in second edition with reversable cleric spells and how they were only for evil or non good clerics
See Post #39.  CarlT posted the text.  It was not a rule in the book.  Perhaps at your table, but not in the book.
See Post #39.  CarlT posted the text.  It was not a rule in the book.  Perhaps at your table, but not in the book.





Some spells are reversible (they can be cast for an effect opposite to that of the

standard spell). This is noted after the spell name. Priests with reversible spells must

memorize the desired version. For example, a priest who desires a

cause light wounds

spell must petition for this form of the spell when meditating and praying. Note that

severe penalties can result if the spell choice is at variance with the priest's alignment

possible penalties include denial of specific spells, entire spell levels, or even all spells

for a certain period.

so i guess when you pray to a god of good he would say no
Not necessarily, no.   Read the text again, and comprehend it this time.  It specifically says you can ask for it, get it, and cast it.  At the whim of the DM (not a good thing), granted, but in no way does it explicly state that a good cleric cannot EVER get an Inflict spell.

 Especially since it makes no sense to say no, since Inflict Light Wounds and Bash With Mace accomplish the exact same thing, and the god doesn't seem to care if you use Bash With Mace, and since the Heal/Inflict spells have no alignment tags, that means they're inherently neutral.  A spell is just a tool; what you do with it is what matters.
Not necessarily, no.   Read the text again, and comprehend it this time.  It specifically says you can ask for it, get it, and cast it.

 Especially since it makes no sense to say no, since Inflict Light Wounds and Bash With Mace accomplish the exact same thing, and the god doesn't seem to care if you use Bash With Mace, and since the Heal/Inflict spells have no alignment tags, that means they're inherently neutral.  A spell is just a tool; what you do with it is what matters.



actually cure spells are in the necromancy sphere so alot of gods wouldnt grant it.
Not necessarily, no.   Read the text again, and comprehend it this time.  It specifically says you can ask for it, get it, and cast it.

 Especially since it makes no sense to say no, since Inflict Light Wounds and Bash With Mace accomplish the exact same thing, and the god doesn't seem to care if you use Bash With Mace, and since the Heal/Inflict spells have no alignment tags, that means they're inherently neutral.  A spell is just a tool; what you do with it is what matters.



actually cure spells are in the necromancy sphere so alot of gods wouldnt grant it.



Which is a completely different thing than calling things on a good/evil axis, because necromancy is inherently neither.  Again, a spell is merely a tool, neither good nor evil; it's what you do with it that matters.  And, of course, not every setting has gods at all, or gods that pay attention to mortal affairs.

I agree that what spells a god grants, if you use gods, should be based on their portfolio, and not all gods should grant healing spells.  Can't for the life of me figure out why a Storm god would care about healing spells; his clerics should be throwing around lightning bolts.


I agree that what spells a god grants, if you use gods, should be based on their portfolio, and not all gods should grant healing spells.  Can't for the life of me figure out why a Storm god would care about healing spells; his clerics should be throwing around lightning bolts.



I'd assume he'd grant them to keep his cleric alive to cast more lightning bolts.
"Additionally it helps for those who run campaigns with no alignment as well as Paladins of different alignments or Paladins that don't have deities in their setting."

Yeah, this part of what I was thinking of. Paladins shouldn't have to be lawful good. Their powers should be associated with following a code, which trends toward lawful but there a CG Paladin of Freedom in the 3.X UA.

You can have a paladin who is loyal to a sorcerer king in Dark Sun, or one that serves as a hunter for the Raven Queen.



I always prefer to use the term 'Holy Warrior' when describing such characters as a paladin who is loyal to a sorcerer king in Dark Sun, or one that serves as a hunter for the Raven Queen.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours


I agree that what spells a god grants, if you use gods, should be based on their portfolio, and not all gods should grant healing spells.  Can't for the life of me figure out why a Storm god would care about healing spells; his clerics should be throwing around lightning bolts.



I'd assume he'd grant them to keep his cleric alive to cast more lightning bolts.



Nah.  He'd give him MOAR LIGHTNING.  Killing the enemies faster keeps the cleric alive, too.
I have got a little house rule. The powers with aligment key can affect character with opposite allegiance. For example a CE drow priestess can use unholy blight againts a CE shaman orc.




To avoid this.



"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Not necessarily, no.   Read the text again, and comprehend it this time.  It specifically says you can ask for it, get it, and cast it.

 Especially since it makes no sense to say no, since Inflict Light Wounds and Bash With Mace accomplish the exact same thing, and the god doesn't seem to care if you use Bash With Mace, and since the Heal/Inflict spells have no alignment tags, that means they're inherently neutral.  A spell is just a tool; what you do with it is what matters.



actually cure spells are in the necromancy sphere so alot of gods wouldnt grant it.


By that logic no good-aligned Cleric can get cure spells since they're necromancy.
Not necessarily, no.   Read the text again, and comprehend it this time.  It specifically says you can ask for it, get it, and cast it.

 Especially since it makes no sense to say no, since Inflict Light Wounds and Bash With Mace accomplish the exact same thing, and the god doesn't seem to care if you use Bash With Mace, and since the Heal/Inflict spells have no alignment tags, that means they're inherently neutral.  A spell is just a tool; what you do with it is what matters.



actually cure spells are in the necromancy sphere so alot of gods wouldnt grant it.


By that logic no good-aligned Cleric can get cure spells since they're necromancy.



Yeah.  It's an error when DMs think that necromancy is somehow evil or wrong just because it's "necromancy".  There's a reason why only some of the necromancy spells had the evil descriptor attached to them. 
Well you should ideally be able to count negative energy as neutral (my perf) or evil as you choose.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.