Thoughts on removing morality from my campaigns

[Zilfer]

So the sudden realization has hit!

Basically your doing a campaign set in the setting area. It's like if I took Barovia and threw it into a Forgotten realms campaign. It's ravenloft the area/place but not ravenloft the setting.

(hard to describe what I mean)

[herkles]

You mean ravenloft without the dnd system, right? I do that myself, i use BRP instead of dnd. btw Human, I thought that gurps already did not have an alignment system? though considering I know little of gurps other then its crunch heavy I can not say for sure.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

You mean ravenloft without the dnd system, right?

That's not necessarily the same thing. Some non-dnd systems still have an alignment system. While it's true that HMB is doing both, that's not what this thread is specifically about.

[HuManBing]

So the sudden realization has hit!

Basically your doing a campaign set in the setting area. It's like if I took Barovia and threw it into a Forgotten realms campaign. It's ravenloft the area/place but not ravenloft the setting.

Again, very early in this thread the claim was made that my changes were so drastic that they removed the campaign from any definition of "Ravenloft the setting" (as you put it).

I completely reject this argument based on the current evidence and nobody has put forth sufficient evidence to convince me otherwise. My changes to the setting, I think, are entirely within the ambit of the Ravenloft setting, given that canonical examples exist of similar plot elements.

I'm not going to rehash the arguments. They're located in my first three or four responses in this thread.

[Zilfer]

I wasn't saying it wasn't 'Ravenloft' just because you didn't have the Dark Powers. Was more saying you were using the Ravenloft Land for lack of a better term as the back drop of your campaign.

It's as much Ravenloft as anything else with one thing or two stripped or taken out of it. For example taking out a referee in a game of football doesn't make it not football or changing the rules that there's no tackling just 'flags' or twohand touch instead of tackle football.

We mostly name it something else like. Touch football but at the root it's still football right? Though some would argue differently. xD Something of a purist or whatever xD

[alhoon]

As for removing morality:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20130624

In the new D&D, moral alignment will be there, but it won't have mechanical effects so you can easily remove it. It mentions in the article that a good number of DMs don't use the alignments of D&D.

[ewancummins]

As for removing morality:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20130624

In the new D&D, moral alignment will be there, but it won't have mechanical effects so you can easily remove it. It mentions in the article that a good number of DMs don't use the alignments of D&D.

That's pretty cool.


It doesn'r work for every setting or campaign, but it's a good default, IMO.

I often run B/X D&D, with a three alignment axis (Law, Neutrality, Chaos). It occasionally comes into play in a mechanical fashion. More often, it serves as a guide to roleplaying.

[Zilfer]

As for removing morality:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20130624

In the new D&D, moral alignment will be there, but it won't have mechanical effects so you can easily remove it. It mentions in the article that a good number of DMs don't use the alignments of D&D.

That's pretty cool.


It doesn'r work for every setting or campaign, but it's a good default, IMO.

I often run B/X D&D, with a three alignment axis (Law, Neutrality, Chaos). It occasionally comes into play in a mechanical fashion. More often, it serves as a guide to roleplaying.

Generally that spectrum i think would be the easiest to set guidelines for. It's easier to argue lawful chaotic i've found than good and evil because 'good and evil' is waaaay different for some people. xD

[ewancummins]

As for removing morality:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20130624

In the new D&D, moral alignment will be there, but it won't have mechanical effects so you can easily remove it. It mentions in the article that a good number of DMs don't use the alignments of D&D.

That's pretty cool.


It doesn'r work for every setting or campaign, but it's a good default, IMO.

I often run B/X D&D, with a three alignment axis (Law, Neutrality, Chaos). It occasionally comes into play in a mechanical fashion. More often, it serves as a guide to roleplaying.

Generally that spectrum i think would be the easiest to set guidelines for. It's easier to argue lawful chaotic i've found than good and evil because 'good and evil' is waaaay different for some people. xD

Yup.

For Ravenloft I strongly prefer to use Good versus Evil as the grand conflict.

If I were running a Dragonlance game, I would also emphasis Good versus Evil, with Neutrality as a force/faction/ethos. Alignment is pretty much part of the world.

Not every setting or campaign needs alignment rules, but I do like keeping alignment as a standard feature of D&D.


YMMV