Removing Alignments and DR?

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I can't seem to find it with
google.

If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
good.

- Justisaur
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I can't seem to find it with
> google.
>
> If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
> that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
> many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
> alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
> good.

Change 'em to /magic, I guess? Not a perfect solution, but neither is
removing alignment from D&D. It's pretty integral. :)

So a Balor would have 15/cold iron and magic.

Another option would be to introduce "consecrated" damage, and replace
all normal DR/alignments with DR/consecrated. You could then include
spells like Consecrate Weapon, introduce Consecrated as a +1 weapon
enhancement, give your Paladin-equivalent Consecrated Strike instead of
Smite Evil, etc.

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I can't seem to find it with
> google.
>
> If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
> that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
> many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
> alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
> good.

DR 15/cold iron and sacred (or holy or whatever)...

But the alignment subtypes and a creature's alignment are
separate things in game terms, eliminate alignments but keep
subtypes solves your problem. Even in standard D&D3.5 having
an alignment subtype doesn't guarantee that a creature is of
the alignment in question.

I really don't see the point to demons WITHOUT some sort
of evil subtype or definition.

DougL
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
> > I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I can't seem to find it with
> > google.
> >
> > If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
> > that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
> > many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
> > alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
> > good.
>
> Change 'em to /magic, I guess? Not a perfect solution, but neither is
> removing alignment from D&D. It's pretty integral. :)
>
> So a Balor would have 15/cold iron and magic.

I thought there were things that had magic & an alignment requirement,
but I can't find any so it appears that would work. Magic is a bit
more common than the alignements though.

What other things are you going to have to look at for alignment?
There's the paladin stuff, the spells & the DR. I don't really see
that it's that integral.

The spells could be somewhat problematic, like Blasphemy. If you just
drop them they drop the power of clerics (although not necessarily
bad). If you make them work agains hostiles or non-worshipers they
become slightly more powerful. Not really all that much, since thier
usual use wouldn't be affected that much.

>
> Another option would be to introduce "consecrated" damage, and replace
> all normal DR/alignments with DR/consecrated. You could then include
> spells like Consecrate Weapon, introduce Consecrated as a +1 weapon
> enhancement, give your Paladin-equivalent Consecrated Strike instead of
> Smite Evil, etc.
>

That's a rather interesting idea, I rather like that. Not sure what
consecrated strike would work against though... outsiders and undead
maybe? Evil is a pretty broad category - might want to include
anything unnatural say Elementals, Fay & Abberations as well.

- Justisaur
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:

> I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I can't seem to find it with
> google.
>
> If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
> that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
> many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
> alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
> good.

Don't forget Lawful and Chaotic damage!

- Ron ^*^
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Justisaur said

> I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I can't seem to find it with
> google.
>
> If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
> that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
> many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
> alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
> good.

IIRC MSB took a break from some mindless abuse to engage in some rational
discussion about it, but apart from that I don't remember the thread
subject or anything else.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
>
> If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
> that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
> many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
> alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
> good.

The things with DR X/alignment are angels and feinds. Why exactly
would you want angels and feinds in a game that doesn't concern itself
with Good and Evil?

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> writes
>I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I can't seem to find it with
>google.
>
>If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
>that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
>many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
>alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
>good.

Since a subtype doesn't necessarily have to wander hand in hand with
alignment - nothing. A CN demon (with alignments still in place) could
still have the Evil subtype, purely down to its lower-planar origin.
Viz, a demon doesn't lose the Evil subtype by shifting alignment. So,
dropping alignment doesn't mean you also have to drop the
Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic... subtypes, and therefore could keep the DR
for those subtypes intact.

--
Ian R Malcomson
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box"
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:

> I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I can't seem to find it with
> google.
>
> If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
> that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
> many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
> alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
> good.
>
> - Justisaur
>

I'd switch them all do DR/Magic. Or maybe Good=Silver, Evil=Iron,
Chaotic=Bronze, Lawful=Wood (or something like that). All you really
need is a four line conversion chart, and you're set. You don't need to
invent a darned thing.

CH
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

DougL wrote:

> Justisaur wrote:
>
>>I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I can't seem to find it with
>>google.
>>
>>If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
>>that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
>>many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
>>alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
>>good.
>
>
> DR 15/cold iron and sacred (or holy or whatever)...
>
> But the alignment subtypes and a creature's alignment are
> separate things in game terms, eliminate alignments but keep
> subtypes solves your problem. Even in standard D&D3.5 having
> an alignment subtype doesn't guarantee that a creature is of
> the alignment in question.
>
> I really don't see the point to demons WITHOUT some sort
> of evil subtype or definition.
>
> DougL
>

That's a genre decision. If you want lots of moral ambiguity and gray
behavior, plus the ability to never really know the good guys from the
bad guys, or you want the ability for PC's and NPC's to switch sides,
dropping alignment is key.

CH
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
> That's a genre decision. If you want lots of moral ambiguity and gray
> behavior, plus the ability to never really know the good guys from the
> bad guys, or you want the ability for PC's and NPC's to switch sides,
> dropping alignment is key.

There are other ways to deal with that; Eberron uses some of them.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>That's a genre decision. If you want lots of moral ambiguity and gray
>>behavior, plus the ability to never really know the good guys from the
>>bad guys, or you want the ability for PC's and NPC's to switch sides,
>>dropping alignment is key.
>
>
> There are other ways to deal with that; Eberron uses some of them.

Note to self: no stating absolutes before my morning coffee.

CH
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
> >
> > If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
> > that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
> > many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
> > alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
> > good.
>
> The things with DR X/alignment are angels and feinds. Why exactly
> would you want angels and feinds in a game that doesn't concern itself
> with Good and Evil?
>

Good & Evil (and Law & Chaos) as abstracts or shades of grey rather
than detectable, affectable absolutes.

Of course one might want celestials & fiends as just creatures from
other dimensions.

- Justisaur
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I can't seem to find it with
> google.
>
> If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
> that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
> many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
> alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
> good.
>
> - Justisaur
>

How about DR 15/cold iron and demonbane?

Most things that have alignment vulnerability belong to some
identifiable creature type or subtype. Just create an appropriate -bane
descriptor that weapons can have for overcoming their DR.

-snake
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
>
> > I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I can't seem to find it with
> > google.
> >
> > If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
> > that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
> > many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
> > alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
> > good.
>
> Don't forget Lawful and Chaotic damage!

Yeah, in discussions about D&D alignment, Law and Chaos rarely come up.
You rarely see LE and LG creatures band together to fight a Chaotic
threat, but you see LG and CG creatures band together frequently to
fight an Evil threat.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
> >
> > If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
> > that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
> > many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
> > alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
> > good.
>
> The things with DR X/alignment are angels and feinds. Why exactly
> would you want angels and feinds in a game that doesn't concern itself
> with Good and Evil?

You can still have good and evil without Good and Evil.

Brandon
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hans Dykstra <codykstras@adelphia.net> wrote:
> How about DR 15/cold iron and demonbane?
>
> Most things that have alignment vulnerability belong to some
> identifiable creature type or subtype. Just create an appropriate -bane
> descriptor that weapons can have for overcoming their DR.

Not a bad idea. Just remember to give angels etc. the "demonbane"
subtype so they get the DR penetration (assuming, of course, that you
want to match the current system).
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

copeab@yahoo.com <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Werebat wrote:
>> Justisaur wrote:
>>
>> > I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I can't seem to find it with
>> > google.
>> >
>> > If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
>> > that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
>> > many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
>> > alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
>> > good.
>>
>> Don't forget Lawful and Chaotic damage!
>
> Yeah, in discussions about D&D alignment, Law and Chaos rarely come up.
> You rarely see LE and LG creatures band together to fight a Chaotic
> threat, but you see LG and CG creatures band together frequently to
> fight an Evil threat.

In my current campaign, we actually have LE and CG creatures banding
together to fight a CN threat.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Hans Dykstra <codykstras@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>How about DR 15/cold iron and demonbane?
>>
>>Most things that have alignment vulnerability belong to some
>>identifiable creature type or subtype. Just create an appropriate -bane
>>descriptor that weapons can have for overcoming their DR.
>
>
> Not a bad idea. Just remember to give angels etc. the "demonbane"
> subtype so they get the DR penetration (assuming, of course, that you
> want to match the current system).

That's a good point. Not to mention dealing with spells and special
abilities that are related. Will the paladin's ability become "Smite
Enemies of My God" instead of Smite Evil? Spells that imbue weapons with
alignment descriptors? Etc.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
> > tussock wrote:
> >
> >>Justisaur wrote:
> >>
> >>>If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
> >>>that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
> >>>many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
> >>>alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
> >>>good.
> >>
> >> The things with DR X/alignment are angels and feinds. Why exactly
> >>would you want angels and feinds in a game that doesn't concern itself
> >>with Good and Evil?
> >
> > Good & Evil (and Law & Chaos) as abstracts or shades of grey rather
> > than detectable, affectable absolutes.
>
> Which doesn't really suit supernatural creatures of pure Good and
> absolute Evil, IMO.
>

Even christianity doesn't have absoulte evil and good (except perhaps
for the trinity - one or three beings however you look at it), the
demons were at one time angels and were good, even the epitome of evil
was the big guy's right hand in the begining.

Other mythologies don't really have anything approaching absolute good.
Greek, and Norse the "Good" are a bunch of petty emotional squabbling
inbred homicidal maniacs showcasing the worst part of humanity, with an
occasional good bone.

As for law and chaos, there's a heck of a lot less evidence of
absolutes of those.

The only justification for having absolute Good & Evil is because it's
a fantasy world, and it's quite a cool fantasy to be able to just say a
few words (or stare) and tell if someone is one or the other or blast
them with (un)holy power. Unfortunately this simplifies role playing
and destroys a large number of possible plots. Is it worth it? Not
sure. I've never actually eliminated it in any game I've run, as I
didn't feel it was worth the huge effort. But I do often feel highly
constrained in my plots because of it. It's definitely more of a pain
from a DM point of view, and surely a boon to PCs.

> > Of course one might want celestials & fiends as just creatures from
> > other dimensions.
>
> OK; I'd as soon make a whole new monster as make up new background
> info for all the strongly aligned ones, or more likely just stick with
> the other thousand or so published critters.
>
> Nothing wrong with Gaints, Dragons, Undead, and Aberrations.
>

Very true, I've thought of that as well, but as I mentioned the
majority of High level threats are outsiders. You also have to do
something with the summon monster spells, as all of them are either
celestial or fiendish animals, or some type of outsider, only a very
few without alignment types.

>
> I guess if I really wanted the outsiders in play I'd consider them
> to be "all the same" mechanically, and have one new material type that
> bypassed all their DR. Messes with Celestials vs Feinds, but they don't
> need to be enemies sans alignment.
> Perhaps Wood, it should really have some mystical game benefit.
>

The problem with that is that a lot of the DRs of these creatures
alread includes a material.

So far the Consecrated or Magic or Bane options seem the most viable.

Magic is easiest, but it seriously downgrades the rarity of being able
to overcome the DR.

Bane is probably closest to what's in existance now, with a different
one required for each type, but would need some reworking since there's
no spell (that I'm aware of) that gives bane, as well as you no longer
have 'outsider, evil' if you eliminate the alignments, and 'demonbane'
etc. is significantly more limited than 'outsider, evil'. You could
just call it Lower Planar bane, but it sound lame, and somewhat defeats
the purpose. Even if you don't use bane to overcome the DR you still
have to look at what to do for the 'outsider, evil' cases, so it may be
the best bet anyway.

Consecrated is middle of the road between the two, where you change
holy/unholy ect to only work against outsiders, but it works against
all outsiders. It's nice, but I'm leaning toward magic just because of
the ease of implimentation, and the fact that PCs loose a lot of power
when you take away alignments anyway, which this will help take care
of.

- Justisaur
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 1 Sep 2005 09:55:11 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>The only justification for having absolute Good & Evil is because it's
>a fantasy world, and it's quite a cool fantasy to be able to just say a
>few words (or stare) and tell if someone is one or the other or blast
>them with (un)holy power. Unfortunately this simplifies role playing
>and destroys a large number of possible plots. Is it worth it? Not
>sure. I've never actually eliminated it in any game I've run, as I
>didn't feel it was worth the huge effort. But I do often feel highly
>constrained in my plots because of it.

What are those constraints?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> tussock wrote:
>
>>Justisaur wrote:
>>
>>>If you remove alignments from 3.5, what do you do with the DR types
>>>that include alignment? I thought of using some special metal, but
>>>many creatures already have a special metal with an and/or with an
>>>alignment requirement. For instance a Balor has DR 15/cold iron and
>>>good.
>>
>> The things with DR X/alignment are angels and feinds. Why exactly
>>would you want angels and feinds in a game that doesn't concern itself
>>with Good and Evil?
>
> Good & Evil (and Law & Chaos) as abstracts or shades of grey rather
> than detectable, affectable absolutes.

Which doesn't really suit supernatural creatures of pure Good and
absolute Evil, IMO.

> Of course one might want celestials & fiends as just creatures from
> other dimensions.

OK; I'd as soon make a whole new monster as make up new background
info for all the strongly aligned ones, or more likely just stick with
the other thousand or so published critters.

Nothing wrong with Gaints, Dragons, Undead, and Aberrations.


I guess if I really wanted the outsiders in play I'd consider them
to be "all the same" mechanically, and have one new material type that
bypassed all their DR. Messes with Celestials vs Feinds, but they don't
need to be enemies sans alignment.
Perhaps Wood, it should really have some mystical game benefit.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.