Heinsoo on Alignment & Rebranding

[thewok]

I actually prefer 4E's alignment system, myself. Honestly, I just really don't like alignment as a mechanic. I've removed all detect alignment, protection from alignment and other such spells from my game. If you want to know someone's alignment, you're going to have to figure it out on your own.

Even in 4E, I had players write "Chaotic Good" on their character sheet. In truth, I'm just worried about Good and Evil. Have you taken a side in that cold war? If not, then you're Unaligned.

 

[Umbran]

A Supplicant/Cavalier could also describe Brienne of Tarth from Game of Thrones, though, which isn't quite the same thing as a Lawful Good Paladin, in my read, although I'm sure it could be argued that she fits.

Well, just as "Lawful Good" doesn't say everything about a personality, neither does a nature/demeanor pair. Brienne can be seen as a supplicant to whoever is her commander at the time, if she has one, or to a promise she's made. A paladin is a supplicant to a god or a code, and that can make all the difference.

Though, honestly, I think Brienne would fit paladinhood pretty darned well. She's got a ton more honor than most of the rest of folks behind her. Most of her actions fit within a paladin's code. The only thing she lacks is the usual self-confidence/righeousness of paladins.

Brienne of Tarth is very similar to a young Paksennarion, who most certainly wound up as a paladin.

 

[Obryn]

I was just glad that "unaligned" was a thing, and that alignment was removed from the mechanics.

People could have picked "communist" as their alignment for all the mechanical impact it would have had.

 

[Alzrius]

There are certain stories you simply cannot tell in the D&D Universe pre-4e. The rules of the game and the fluff that goes with it says no. The 9 alignments and the ability to detect alignments meant certain things in terms of story. It also meant the planes had to work with the alignment system. Which further decreased the number of stories you could tell.

Now, I'm not saying that people didn't just ignore these problems and make up new stories anyways. People are creative and can get around restrictions. However, half of the time it seemed like people needed to spend an increasing amount of time explaining WHY and HOW their adventure broke the standard D&D assumptions.

I don't think that this is true, at least not to any significant degree. The setting and flavor of 4E were large changes that had comparatively small practical effects in terms of opening up what kinds of stories you could tell compared to previous editions. That's because the mandates of the previous editions were virtually never written in stone. Planescape's Well of Worlds adventure anthology had you delivering love letters between a devil and a demon (er, a baatezu and a tanar'ri), for example.

Now, if the issue was one of the mechanics supporting the narrative you wanted to create, then I think that there was a great difference between 4E and previous editions, but I'm of the mind that what was gained paled in comparison to what was lost. Greater tactical combat balance meant that greater restrictions had to be imposed so that results could more readily be expected to fall within established parameters.

For example:
"So, the king's new wife is secretly a succubus. She's controlling him. Wait, I can't do that. The king's best friend is a Paladin so he'd be able to detect that the queen was evil. But wait, maybe the succubus has a magic item of some sort that masks her alignment."

I can see that they might have wanted to say "Let's let people make those stories without needing justification for the fact that they cause problems with the rules."

This is a minor point, but noting that someone is evil is far different than noting that they're a demon who's using mind-controlling magic. That paladin has hardly derailed the plot.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Not to put TOO much weight on a 140 character limit...

Too late!

As you say, this is an off-the-cuff tweet of 140 chars, it's best not to read too much into it. I think the main takeaway is that the devs didn't realize how important the nine alignments were to the community when they changed it.

WHY did they change it? My (rusty) memory is that the reason is right there in the PHB: they didn't want players taking alignments like 'chaotic neutral' and 'chaotic evil' just because they were options on the grid. The rules pretty clearly suggest that the player select a good or neutral alignment unless otherwise suggested, and that players wishing to do otherwise should talk to their DMs.

The PHB strongly emphasizes that the PCs are 'heroic', which dovetails with 4e's philosophy of cinematic action. From that perspective it makes sense to restrict PCs to the 'heroic' alignments. The stripped down alignment system also makes sense in the context of the Eurogames design aesthetic that implicitly informs the whole game. Of course, it DOESN'T make sense in the context of the D&D alignment grid being iconic, and that's where they erred.

They probably should have just said, "Here's the nine alignments, you don't have to use them, if you want to be evil or crazy please ask your DM" and left it at that.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I don't think that this is true, at least not to any significant degree. The setting and flavor of 4E were large changes that had comparatively small practical effects in terms of opening up what kinds of stories you could tell compared to previous editions. That's because the mandates of the previous editions were virtually never written in stone. Planescape's Well of Worlds adventure anthology had you delivering love letters between a devil and a demon (er, a baatezu and a tanar'ri), for example.

They weren't set in stone but they did discourage certain stories. I haven't read that adventure, but I'm guessing that the REASON that adventure was a big deal was that it was an exception to the standard D&D mythology. One could say that the story in question would have completely different implications if there was no Blood War and there were no alignments. Instead it becomes a simple quest to deliver a letter. Which is a very different story even if the actions are exactly the same.

I'm not saying the stories that are told are better or worse, but they are different. It's the same way as saying that plots in the Star Wars Universe kind of have to take into account the trappings of the Star Wars Universe: Jedi exist or did exist, starships exist, and so on. Certain stories cannot be run in that universe. Alignment is one of many D&D trappings that have an effect on the stories you can tell.

This is a minor point, but noting that someone is evil is far different than noting that they're a demon who's using mind-controlling magic. That paladin has hardly derailed the plot.

Almost every edition of D&D has had detect evil give you the strength of the evil in question and most demons and devils were supernatural evil and were extremely high on that chart. Most standard evil people detected as really low or didn't detect at all. Basically, the only things that detected as powerful evil were the "You should eliminate these IMMEDIATELY" creatures: Demons, Devils, and extremely powerful servants(including clerics) of evil gods.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My (rusty) memory is that the reason is right there in the PHB: they didn't want players taking alignments like 'chaotic neutral' and 'chaotic evil' just because they were options on the grid.

Doesn't seem like one of the things Rob mentioned. Also Chaotic Evil was still an option on the grid in the 4e system...unless my memory's gone REALLY sour....

 

[Alzrius]

They weren't set in stone but they did discourage certain stories. I haven't read that adventure, but I'm guessing that the REASON that adventure was a big deal was that it was an exception to the standard D&D mythology. One could say that the story in question would have completely different implications if there was no Blood War and there were no alignments. Instead it becomes a simple quest to deliver a letter. Which is a very different story even if the actions are exactly the same.

I disagree with your conclusion here, for two reasons. First, because you can rationalize the idea of abetting a romance between a demon and a devil against the backdrop of the Blood War as a simple case of Romeo and Juliet - forbidden love against the backdrop of feuding groups. That's not particularly exclusionary in any edition.

The second reason is that, while a "simple quest to deliver a letter" would be very different from the above, there's nothing about that that 4E inherently does better than any previous edition. The only way to hold that there'd be any noticeable difference would be if you kept all of the factors exactly the same, and noticed what background assumptions were different...and even then, I don't think it'd be notably altered in any practical context. Going to Hell, picking up an item, and delivering it to the Abyss is going to be dangerous for the PCs regardless of whether or not there's a war between those two planes going on.

I'm not saying the stories that are told are better or worse, but they are different. It's the same way as saying that plots in the Star Wars Universe kind of have to take into account the trappings of the Star Wars Universe: Jedi exist or did exist, starships exist, and so on. Certain stories cannot be run in that universe. Alignment is one of many D&D trappings that have an effect on the stories you can tell.

Again, I say that the use of "cannot" in regards to what stories are told is overrated. If you've relegated certain campaign elements to the distant background, they cease to be a factor; this relegation is much easier than people tend to assume. You can have stories about X-Wing pilots without anyone being Force-sensitive. You can set an adventure on a single planet where no one pilots a starship, etc.

Almost every edition of D&D has had detect evil give you the strength of the evil in question and most demons and devils were supernatural evil and were extremely high on that chart. Most standard evil people detected as really low or didn't detect at all. Basically, the only things that detected as powerful evil were the "You should eliminate these IMMEDIATELY" creatures: Demons, Devils, and extremely powerful servants(including clerics) of evil gods.

This is true for more recent editions (e.g. 3E). I'm not sure how true that is for the older ones (my books are at home). I can tell you that OSRIC's version of detect evil doesn't grade it by Hit Dice or the type of creature detected.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Chaotic Evil was still an option on the grid in the 4e system...unless my memory's gone REALLY sour....

I think you're right, but I think it's also labeled "don't take this."

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I disagree with your conclusion here, for two reasons. First, because you can rationalize the idea of abetting a romance between a demon and a devil against the backdrop of the Blood War as a simple case of Romeo and Juliet - forbidden love against the backdrop of feuding groups. That's not particularly exclusionary in any edition.

No, it's not exclusionary but if we are being that broad then there ARE no new stories, ever. I think they mean "new stories" in terms of the very specific details of those stories. It's likely this story is actually one that can't be run in 4e at all. Demons want to destroy the universe in 4e. It's unlikely that they'd spend their time cultivating relationships of any kind.

The second reason is that, while a "simple quest to deliver a letter" would be very different from the above, there's nothing about that that 4E inherently does better than any previous edition. The only way to hold that there'd be any noticeable difference would be if you kept all of the factors exactly the same, and noticed what background assumptions were different...and even then, I don't think it'd be notably altered in any practical context. Going to Hell, picking up an item, and delivering it to the Abyss is going to be dangerous for the PCs regardless of whether or not there's a war between those two planes going on.

But the kind of things you'd see in the Abyss and Hell would be completely different in the 2 editions given they are very different places. Also, you might be willing to take the risk given that there is no particular dislike between demons and devils in 4e but you might not want to involve yourself in the Blood War. They'd be different stories in the 2 editions: The reasons to go on the quests would be different, the places you'd visit would be different and it's likely your interactions with the creatures would be different.

That example is just too similar in the two editions. Let's say a story about attempting to find a Elemental Gem created by the Primordials during their war against the Gods. It is now in the elemental chaos in an ice fortress with lava running through it guarded by elementals of all 4 varieties. The fortress can be reached by walking. It isn't environmentally dangerous to the PCs.

That story would be difficult, if not impossible to run in previous editions. The old elemental planes don't really allow that as an option. The reason the planes are different is because the alignments are different so the planes no longer need to be tied to them.

Again, I say that the use of "cannot" in regards to what stories are told is overrated. If you've relegated certain campaign elements to the distant background, they cease to be a factor; this relegation is much easier than people tend to assume. You can have stories about X-Wing pilots without anyone being Force-sensitive. You can set an adventure on a single planet where no one pilots a starship, etc.

Yes, but you can't run the story where one member Galactic Senate on Coruscant can't seem to get off the planet without coming up with a LOT of convoluted reasons why there are no starships around. Yes, MANY stories can be told. But some cannot. That's fine. Restrictions often cause some of the best creativity. However, if you want to open it up to entirely new stories something changing the restrictions helps.

This is true for more recent editions. I'm not sure how true that is for the older ones (my books are at home). I can tell you that OSRIC's version of detect evil doesn't grade it by Hit Dice or the type of creature detected.

Yeah, I believe it's true for 1e, 2e, 3e, and 3.5e. Though I could be wrong about 1e and 2e. It's been a while. I do remember 2e having some way to detect powerful as opposed to weak evil creatures.