GSL Alternate Alignment system

[Cwheeler]

For my 4th edition product, a campaign setting, I want to present an alternate alignment system (based on the law/chaos axis, rather than the good/evil).

Is this permissible under the GSL?

If not, is there any way around this? Perhaps by presenting this alternate system as an option, rather than a 'fact'...

Could I get around this by writing the alignment section that I want, accompanied by a sidebar that explains a) that this is an optional system, and b) has tips on adapting the campaign setting to use the official alignment system.

I know that the GSL is a confusing and occasionally imprecise document, but any advice would be welcome.

Thankyou.

[see]

Hmm. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a Wizards representative, so, this is not authoritative in the least, but the way it looks to me is:

The GSL says:

Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter the definition of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product. Without limiting the foregoing, Licensee may create original material that adds to the applicability of a 4E Reference, so long as this original material complies with the preceding sentence.

Alignment is one of the references; therefore, you may not "define, redefine, or alter the definition of alignment".

The PHB says:

If you choose an alignment, you're indicating your character's dedication to a set of moral principles: good, lawful good, evil, or chaotic evil.

I think one could, using the "add to applicability", add new alignments beyond those four. However, if your alignment system does not include all four, you are redefining or altering the definition of alignment, and are in violation of the GSL. Similarly, since all four are references, if your new system redefines any of the four, you are similarly in violation of the GSL. That you label any system that does redefining as an "optional" replacement doesn't, to me, seem to have any weight under the GSL.

Instead, I'd avoid the term "alignment" entirely. Don't make any references to it. Refer to a "Ethical Allegiance", pitting the forces of "Order" against "Anarchy" or somesuch, avoiding the SRD-defined terms entirely.

[Cwheeler]

Thank you, that is a very good tip.

I must admit that I find it a little annoying that Wizards seems to have created a such a strong bias in 4th edition, prompting the game to to function purely on the 'good vs evil' axis.

At least they didn't include the cosmology in the SRD (they would have really shot themselves in the foot then...)

P.S.
I've just checked the SRD, and it seems that the terms 'chaotic' and 'lawfull' aren't actually listed. They have 'chaotic evil' and 'lawful good', but those are distinct terms in their own. I can't use the term Alignment, but I can find a way around that. Aleigance is ok, but that ties the character very heavily with the principal. I think I'll use the term Beliefs, and provide a set of example belief systems, using the law/chaos axis as a basis.

[Corjay]

see is correct in his interpretation. Though I'm not sure creating extra alignments is the same as creating extra classes. I think creating extra alignments would be more like adding to a particular class, which might actually violate the above quote from the GSL.

Annoying the GSL may be because everyone's used to the freedoms of the OGL, but the OGL was not smart business practice on WOTC's part, while the GSL is (with the exception of subsection 6.1). People think that 4e came too soon on the heals of 3e, but when you think about the enormous sums of money WOTC was hemorrhaging because of the OGL, then you can understand the need for a new system and license.

[jgbrowning]

Originally Posted by Corjay

Annoying the GSL may be because everyone's used to the freedoms of the OGL, but the OGL was not smart business practice on WOTC's part, while the GSL is (with the exception of subsection 6.1). People think that 4e came too soon on the heals of 3e, but when you think about the enormous sums of money WOTC was hemorrhaging because of the OGL, then you can understand the need for a new system and license.

I disagree.

joe b.

[Corjay]

Very enlightening. You make a convincing argument.

[jmucchiello]

Originally Posted by Corjay

People think that 4e came too soon on the heals of 3e, but when you think about the enormous sums of money WOTC was hemorrhaging because of the OGL, then you can understand the need for a new system and license.

Brilliant sarcasm. (I hope.)

[Corjay]

Oh yeah, I'm being real sarcastic. Because we all know the real reason they felt the need to completely rewrite the OGL into the GSL was because the OGL was sooo lucrative.

[jmucchiello]

Originally Posted by Corjay

Oh yeah, I'm being real sarcastic. Because we all know the real reason they felt the need to completely rewrite the OGL into the GSL was because the OGL was sooo lucrative.

The OGL was never meant to make money. It was designed to increase D&D's network of players. With games like M&M, C&C, True20, it did that very well. It is much easier to find players for 3.x D&D games than say GURPS or HERO since even people who've abandoned D&D for M&M, C&C, True20, etc are able to grok 3.x D&D quickly. Moving players to completely unrelated systems takes more effort and the network of players of those games is smaller making getting a game started harder.

The OGL did not cause any hemorrhaging of money. It was financially sound business practice. If you can point to a some proof that there was money loss specifically due to the OGL, quoting from a WotC source, I'd like to see it.

The reason they abandoned the OGL is because the current suits, like you, don't understand network externalities.

[Corjay]

Originally Posted by jmucchiello

The OGL was never meant to make money....The reason they abandoned the OGL is because the current suits, like you, don't understand network externalities.

LOL. That is why I won't even bother with your flailing about.

[Brown Jenkin]

Originally Posted by Corjay

LOL. That is why I won't even bother with your flailing about.

jmucchiello sums up the OGL logic nicely. Ryan Dancey put forth the exact same case when he created the OGL. So how about the proof of failure that was asked of you.

[Corjay]

If I had access to the quarterly reports prior to rumors of 4e (necessary for excluding financial biases based from the rumors), I could. But unless you can tell me where I can find them, both sides of the argument are unprovable. Just because the networking concept was the basis is not proof that it worked. The concept can still be solid, while its execution is extremely flawed. The GSL also runs off the networking concept, but it executes it in a way that protects WOTC's bottom line (with the exception of subsection 6.1). A declaration that "the suits" somehow have less understanding of the effects of the OGL than jmucchiello is flawed to the point of being ridiculous. That's why there's nothing to argue against. He clearly is trying to assert his self-declared exceptional knowledge over those who are truly in the know (I speak of "the suits").

[Roger]

It'd be nice if every other thread didn't fill up with this sort of crap.

My fellow ENWorldians -- please, I implore you. Someone with 8 posts under their belt posted a fairly straightforward question in the correct subforum. If you want to do something other than answering the question, please avail yourselves of the Fork Thread button.

(Further to that point, if someone wants to reply to this post in particular, please do so by Forking.)



Cheers,
Roger

[Lizard]

Originally Posted by Corjay

Oh yeah, I'm being real sarcastic. Because we all know the real reason they felt the need to completely rewrite the OGL into the GSL was because the OGL was sooo lucrative.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll enjoy the profits from the licensing fees the GSL imposes...

[jmucchiello]

Originally Posted by Roger

It'd be nice if every other thread didn't fill up with this sort of crap.

My fellow ENWorldians -- please, I implore you. Someone with 8 posts under their belt posted a fairly straightforward question in the correct subforum. If you want to do something other than answering the question, please avail yourselves of the Fork Thread button.

(Further to that point, if someone wants to reply to this post in particular, please do so by Forking.)

Sorry but I'm strictly an ENWorld 1 grognard and can't do that....

Besides, the answer to the OP's question is "Get a Lawyer". Without these pointless diversions, this thread would be very short.

[jmucchiello]

Originally Posted by Corjay

If I had access to the quarterly reports prior to rumors of 4e (necessary for excluding financial biases based from the rumors), I could. But unless you can tell me where I can find them, both sides of the argument are unprovable.

You stated as fact that WotC lost money on the OGL. I asked you for a forum post by someone at WotC saying that is true. I didn't ask for financials. WotC's books are meaningless in this regard since there is no GAAP entry for "network effects".

A declaration that "the suits" somehow have less understanding of the effects of the OGL than jmucchiello is flawed to the point of being ridiculous.

See now, the network effect theory wasn't my theory. It was Ryan Dancey's theory. He wrote the OGL. He wrote the FAQs about the OGL still on the WotC website. If they didn't believe the words he wrote were still true, wouldn't they take those pages down?

Specifically, read the answer to Q: Why create Open Games?

He clearly is trying to assert his self-declared exceptional knowledge

How dare you doubt me!

[Corjay]

You know, the person who brought up the point about Dancey's theory was you. I didn't bring it up, and I never challenged it, and I never said it was your theory. What I challenged was your statement that the OGL was successful. I say again "Just because the networking concept was the basis is not proof that it worked. The concept can still be solid, while its execution is extremely flawed." To translate, just because the networking worked out doesn't mean the OGL was successful. The OGL can successfully accomplish networking without successfully accomplishing bolstering WOTC's bottom line. Conversely, WOTC's bottom line can be bolstered through securing their property as done in the GSL while still accomplishing Dancey's networking theory. Though, admittedly, as I pointed out a couple of times above, subsection 6.1 causes a kink in profits, a kink caused by putting a little damper on the networking aspect, and thus needs a rewrite in that portion.

Clear enough?

[jmucchiello]

Originally Posted by Corjay

To translate, just because the networking worked out doesn't mean the OGL was successful.

Nor does their moving away from the OGL prove it was unsuccessful or, as you said, causing them to hemorrhage money. The 4e team was not shy about poking fun at the flaws in 3.5. Where was the similar invectives for the OGL? If it was so bad they should have been complaining it was as bad as getting polymorph right.

The image of hemorrhaging money implies they almost went out of business over the OGL. That was ridiculous. You still haven't shown someone at WotC complaining about losing pennies over it.

[Corjay]

Originally Posted by jmucchiello

Nor does their moving away from the OGL prove it was unsuccessful or, as you said, causing them to hemorrhage money. The 4e team was not shy about poking fun at the flaws in 3.5. Where was the similar invectives for the OGL? If it was so bad they should have been complaining it was as bad as getting polymorph right.

The image of hemorrhaging money implies they almost went out of business over the OGL. That was ridiculous. You still haven't shown someone at WotC complaining about losing pennies over it.

And I'm not going to. You and I are people with two different views. I have the support of the fact that they changed the license so significantly that it's easy to have affirmation in my opinion that there was little redeeming value in the original business-wise. You have...what? Hmm, not the GSL, not the game, not your own side of someone at WOTC declaring its success (to counter your request of me). So, it looks like, even though I have no proof, I at least have a point over you. No? Give proof. Spillage about how you asked me first is meaningless. Proof goes both ways. You're asking me to provide proof over your own lack of proof. I'll stick with my 1 point score: a significant rewrite shows significant problems in the original. If you can one-up that, then maybe I might be inclined to search out some solid proof. I'm not going to waste my time on someone who isn't willing to waste theirs and then ask me to.

[Brown Jenkin]

Originally Posted by Corjay

I'll stick with my 1 point score: a significant rewrite shows significant problems in the original.

It shows no such thing. It shows that there are different people in charge with different ideas about the direction the company should be going. It does not show that OGL was flawed in any way.