Heinsoo on Alignment & Rebranding

[The Human Target]

Number of Alignment table arguments in 3e?

Many.

Number in 4e?

None.

That's all I need to know.

 

[GreyLord]

I don't know much about 4e, but what's the difference between unaligned and neutral? Choosing an alignment that's not an alignment just sounds munchkin to me.

I know a guy who runs his 3.5 game with no alignments. It works for him most of the time but it takes constant reworking of the rules, and game balance is often skewed because alignment is also a game balance tool. With complex systems like 3.5 it's often a slippery slope changing things and alignment isn't as insignificant as it may seem at first.

Without getting too far off topic into a discussion of what alignments mean, I'll say it would be nice to have more definition in the rules as to just how to apply it to common situations. The ubiquitous scenario "Do you kill the baby orcs?" comes to mind.

But I digress... changing stuff, especially iconic stuff like alignment, so drastically in 4e does seem to be driving all the "does it still feel like D&D?" questions coming from 5e development. My playgroup didn't think about changing editions until years after Pathfinder had come out, but it was that exact thing that made PF much more appealing than 4e. And I think brand identity in the internet age is worth a lot less than the bean counters think. Branding didn't stop eveyone I know from choosing Pathfinder instead of a less attractive "D&D" branded option. That said, not many of us were happy about that either, so maybe brand identity does count for something... just not what they think.

Well, from 1e...nothing really.

However, during the time of 1e, a series called Dragonlance came out. It redefined Neutral as more trying to keep the balance between the forces of good/evil and law/balance. Suddenly instead of simply someone who really wasn't any of the alignments, they had to be some sort of balancer of the forces, which never made sense to me since I don't see animals (which almost always were given neutral alignments) as such. BUT...at that point, being neutral was definitely NOT unaligned as it was more of trying to balance everything.


ON ANOTHER NOTE...

It always bugs me when people point to 4e as trying to rewrite the book and realign D&D. All 4e did was follow 3e's example and further what 3e did and the aims of 3e. People have short memories.

3e was also accused of copying video games (specifically the Diablo series in it's case...another blizzard game series, particularly the feat trees, down to some of the feat trees bearing an uncanny resemblance to some skill trees according to some when 3e came out).

If one wants to follow the evolution of 4e...simply look to 3e before it.

However, whereas 4e actually had some things MORE IN COMMON with older editions (in areas of making it harder to multiclass/dualclass, higher XP allowances, freedom of how skills and inventive roleplaying operated...at least at first with page 42), it rifted pretty heavily from 3e. As 3e was the biggest thing in sight...and the popular game...people forgot how angst others were over 3e when it originally came out and had the angst themselves.

The problem is, even if 4e handled some things more like an older edition, all the new classifications (defender, striker, controller, leader) were more of the modern game theory (which some have stated was inspired more by the video game development and creation theories) along with each class having special powers and other items. This changed it drastically from other versions of D&D (sort of how feats, feat trees, and the change of how skills were handled changed 3e from older editions).

Many of the players who went to 4e seemed to be those who were unhappy with 3e, who were always in the store of the new shiny...and of course new players. It seemed that very few old timers who didn't like 3e started playing 4e (they had AD&D, stuck with it through the 3e years...why switch now?). Hence instead of developing along OSR lines (which it could, the ideas were there on page 42), it developed more along the lines that 3e set precedence for, but with even MORE stringent rules following and a higher concentration on combat (rather than aspects of the game such as stronger roleplaying, inventiveness, and houseruling).

4e was a vapid departure pushed even further. Even if page 42 had the basis for a more OSR type game the other items it came with turned off many an old time gamer more than 3e. In some of the ways it departed from anything previously. It was simply changing itself to align more with what the designers wanted (or thought others wanted) in a game (similar to how the 3e designers did it. There's a REASON 3e took on some aspects of ICE games...just look at what some of the designers enjoyed and had previously worked on).

4e Unlike 3e pushed the envelope even further. They kept the D20 core, but while keeping D20, they deserted MANY of the sacred cows of the original AD&D.

This had started, once again, under 3e (doing away with THACO, descending AC, restricted classes in multiclassing, level limits, weapon speeds, the entire initiative and measuring system, etc...etc..etc.), but was furthered MUCH MORE along in 4e. Instead of classes having their traditional standings...they switched to this new 4 squared dynamic (once again defender, striker, controller, leader) and a whole slew of other things which killed a bunch of sacred cows.

Alignment was one of these.

I'd agree, much of it was a misunderstanding of the nostalgia that went into these...as well as a misunderstanding of how people utilized them in the game and the actual dynamics of play that were utilized in the game with it. In hindsight, if switching it up like they did...it probably would have been better simply to have a good and evil axis...with a good...and Angelic Good...or something like that which had no connections to the previous Lawful and Chaotic. I'd still think there would be a LOT of angst over the alignment thing...but I think it would have been less confusing. I think the inclusion of the Lawful and Chaotic into 4e alignment system confused some people or made others misunderstand how this new dynamic was supposed to work.

IN MY OPINION...of course.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

However, during the time of 1e, a series called Dragonlance came out. It redefined Neutral as more trying to keep the balance between the forces of good/evil and law/balance. Suddenly instead of simply someone who really wasn't any of the alignments, they had to be some sort of balancer of the forces, which never made sense to me since I don't see animals (which almost always were given neutral alignments) as such. BUT...at that point, being neutral was definitely NOT unaligned as it was more of trying to balance everything.

I could have sworn this idea was around earlier. Mordenkainen was said to be the absolute embodiment of True Neutral. No one could predict whether he was going to help people or destroy them all because he'd switch sides in order to balance things out.

As far as I know, his background was written up based on the player who played the character in the early days of D&D. So, I believe the idea that Neutral was an enforcer of balance was around from the very beginning of D&D.

I believe the 2e PHB defined neutral as either unaligned OR balance enforcer.

 

[Gadget]

Well, from 1e...nothing really.

However, during the time of 1e, a series called Dragonlance came out. It redefined Neutral as more trying to keep the balance between the forces of good/evil and law/balance. Suddenly instead of simply someone who really wasn't any of the alignments, they had to be some sort of balancer of the forces, which never made sense to me since I don't see animals (which almost always were given neutral alignments) as such. BUT...at that point, being neutral was definitely NOT unaligned as it was more of trying to balance everything.

This was not a specific dragonlance thing. Gygax himself had this 'cosmic balance' idea for neutral alignment in many of his products and it was especially prominent in his Gord the Rogue books, many of which predated Dragonlance, IIRC.

 

[GreyLord]

This was not a specific dragonlance thing. Gygax himself had this 'cosmic balance' idea for neutral alignment in many of his products and it was especially prominent in his Gord the Rogue books, many of which predated Dragonlance, IIRC.

While Gord existed prior to Dragonlance(1984), I believe the Gord(1985) stories were actually published after Dragonlance.

I could have sworn this idea was around earlier. Mordenkainen was said to be the absolute embodiment of True Neutral. No one could predict whether he was going to help people or destroy them all because he'd switch sides in order to balance things out.

As far as I know, his background was written up based on the player who played the character in the early days of D&D. So, I believe the idea that Neutral was an enforcer of balance was around from the very beginning of D&D.

I believe the 2e PHB defined neutral as either unaligned OR balance enforcer.

With Mordenkainen, I'm not as positive. Mordenkainen was previously shown (1980) which was prior to Dragonlance, but I don't know he was represented as such. I think we find out more of Gary's representation when they finally presented his stats (1984) almost the same period as Dragonlance, but the representation you state, I'm not certain that came out until later. However, with the actions you describe, I don't think was represented until Gary was out of TSR. I believe that representation was more of a 2e thing, either in the build up, or when it actually was already out.

Gary's Mordenkainen I think could be seen more like the Paladine of the Dragonlance series, if analyzed more carefully. He did design the circle of eight, but for aspects more for the stability and balance of Oerth. In that, they tried to balance the "alignments" if that's how we approach it which definitely could be the influence from which Dragonlance came with it's alignment ideas. However, when we view the actual actions of the Circle, I believe it was almost always against some unbalancing force of evil.

That said, I was mistaken to a degree. The idea of Neutral maintaining a balance can be traced to AD&D (1e) where it is stated that

"the True Neutral look upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect-evil and good, chaos and law-of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially."

It's the next part which I think is more important and in many ways was less presented as time passed, with the portion above getting more attention then the portion below.

Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be."

Which I suppose would be the embodiment of the Circle of Eight and how it operates in regards to balancing everything out.

In that aspect I suppose it could be seen from the Natural viewpoint (animalistic/Nature) or the Balancing Veiwpont (Mordenkainen/Circle of Eight).

 

[Jester David]

I didn't mind the 4e alignments, but alignment in 4e was particularly forgettable. Because there were no restrictions, spells keyed to alignment, and monsters could be any alignment it typically made alignment as important a part of the character sheet as eye colour. It stopped arguments over alignment at the table because it stopped mattering.

It was a good option for people who wanted really simple, easy to describe alignments.
I just didn't like that the system came at the expense of the traditional nine, a complaint mirrored by many of the 4e changes:
I liked the World Axis cosmology well enough, but didn't like that it came at the expense of the Great Wheel.
I liked the refocusing of demons & devils, but didn't like that it came at the expense of the Blood War and various fiends switching teams.
I liked the connection between the giants, elements, and primordials, but didn't like that it came at the expense of traditional Greek titans or the portrayal of some giants.
I liked the concept of devas and angels becoming mortals locked in a cycle of reincarnation, but didn't like that it came at the expense of the aasimar and celestial-blooded races.
I liked the addition of a magical race of elfin fey from Faerie, but didn't like that it came at the expense of the grey elves and stole the name "eladrin".

This really emphasises the "rebranding" aspect of 4e. They could change almost anything so they changed just about everything. There was a lot of change for change's sake. And there were cries to dump many of the remaining sacred cows. There was a real group-mind pushing change and something different than D&D and traditional fantasy, both from new players (who had no attachment to the old) and established players (who'd done it all with traditional fantasy).
Of course, this led to the anti-4e backlash, the rise of OSR, and general discontent with the game.

Back to alignment, I think we need a few different alignment systems. We need the traditional nine for those who want it, and potentially spell effects and mechanics ties to alignment such as falling from grace and redemption. And then we need a simple bare-bones alignment alternative, like the 4e system or even simpler, for those who just want good & evil. And then there can be a system that dumps alignment altogether.
Plus variants like honor and respect.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I just didn't like that the system came at the expense of the traditional nine, a complaint mirrored by many of the 4e changes:
I liked the World Axis cosmology well enough, but didn't like that it came at the expense of the Great Wheel.
I liked the refocusing of demons & devils, but didn't like that it came at the expense of the Blood War and various fiends switching teams.
I liked the connection between the giants, elements, and primordials, but didn't like that it came at the expense of traditional Greek titans or the portrayal of some giants.
I liked the concept of devas and angels becoming mortals locked in a cycle of reincarnation, but didn't like that it came at the expense of the aasimar and celestial-blooded races.
I liked the addition of a magical race of elfin fey from Faerie, but didn't like that it came at the expense of the grey elves and stole the name "eladrin".

It's a common refrain: "(insert thing that 4e added) is great, but I liked (insert thing that 4e took out)." It's the kind of complaint at the heart of a lot of "It's just not D&D to me" sentiments.

I just hope they realize that part of the reason this happened was because of their over-reliance on branding. New looks and new feels are all well and good, even necessary from time to time, but it's not just a carte blanche to throw out the old and welcome in the new. If you need to re-brand, you need to make sure you understand who you're trying to sell your product to, and to do that you need to understand the value your product ALREADY offers and what new markets might be receptive to it. You don't use it as an excuse to abandon your original product, and if you don't actually understand what value your product already offers, you're just going to wind up blowing yourself up in an effort to re-invent yourself.

It's easy to root for making new stories, it's easy to see a value that you once ignored, it's a lot harder to change the way you think about what you make. Are you making the most awesome D&D you can make and then allowing the brand team to figure out what it is in the market, or are you making the D&D that the brand team asks you to make, so that they can easily position whatever it is you end up making in the market? If it's the latter...I become suspicious. Maybe you'll still get it right, but it's a harder sell.

 

[jsaving]

The 1e/2e/3e alignment system took as its starting point the notion that things shouldn't be as simple as "Team Good" and "Team Evil." LG and CG characters differed significantly in important respects ranging from honorable behavior to the proper size and scope of government, and could easily find common ground with like-minded members of Team Evil to advance those principles even to the point of battling other members of Team Good.

4e recast player characters as isolated adventurers united in their efforts to protect "points of light" against a sinister world, saying explicitly in the alignment definition section of the PH that the various stripes of goodness "get along just fine." The notion that G and LG characters would definitionally be deemed so similar has probably been the biggest point of contention around our gaming table as far as alignment goes, with some of our players seeing this as a useful boiling-down of the old alignment system to its most important precepts and others seeing it as a dumbing-down that reduces rather than enriches the role-playing experience.

I've played every edition over the years and think each has its selling points, but what I most hope 5e will do is clearly relegate alignment to the "flavor" portion of the game -- no alignment detection spells, no alignment-based class entry requirements, nothing. If there are specific behaviors on which one might want to condition class entry, such as not using poison, fine, but most of the "problems" from alignment seem to come about when there are mechanical consequences from writing a particular alignment on the character sheet. (And from changing it, which used to result in level loss.) I personally think the old 9-alignment formulation plus a separate none/unaligned category is the way to go, but as long as alignment isn't mechanically part of 5e, then it doesn't necessarily matter much to me what the 5e team does (and I won't introduce mechanical problems into my game if I decide to go a different route).

 

[dd.stevenson]

It's a common refrain: "(insert thing that 4e added) is great, but I liked (insert thing that 4e took out)." It's the kind of complaint at the heart of a lot of "It's just not D&D to me" sentiments.

I just hope they realize that part of the reason this happened was because of their over-reliance on branding. New looks and new feels are all well and good, even necessary from time to time, but it's not just a carte blanche to throw out the old and welcome in the new. If you need to re-brand, you need to make sure you understand who you're trying to sell your product to, and to do that you need to understand the value your product ALREADY offers and what new markets might be receptive to it. You don't use it as an excuse to abandon your original product, and if you don't actually understand what value your product already offers, you're just going to wind up blowing yourself up in an effort to re-invent yourself.

It's easy to root for making new stories, it's easy to see a value that you once ignored, it's a lot harder to change the way you think about what you make. Are you making the most awesome D&D you can make and then allowing the brand team to figure out what it is in the market, or are you making the D&D that the brand team asks you to make, so that they can easily position whatever it is you end up making in the market? If it's the latter...I become suspicious. Maybe you'll still get it right, but it's a harder sell.

I agree with this, but I want to echo the idea that Heinsoo was very likely referring to branding imperatives imposed by the legal team in an effort to move D&D away from the portion of the brand identity that had been licensed under the OGL.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I agree with this, but I want to echo the idea that Heinsoo was very likely referring to branding imperatives imposed by the legal team in an effort to move D&D away from the portion of the brand identity that had been licensed under the OGL.

I'm not sure I see an indication that this is driven by the legal team.

The re-branding initiative may have been driven in part by OGL . One of the things re-branding is sometimes good for is in distinguishing you from a lot of competition, and if the managers of the brand saw the existence of this vast field of published off-brand D&D as a "muddying of the identity" of some sort, actually confusing people and reducing the value of D&D because of a lot of knock-offs, then re-branding is one logical approach to solving that issue.

That's not a legal consideration, though. It's still a branding/marketing consideration.

It's also deeply misguided for a library of reasons. Among those reasons is (a) a lack of appreciation for the market forces of the "knockoff economy", and (b) an ignorance of Ryan Dancey's brilliant concept of milking the externalities, but there's a lot of reactionary fearmongers in a typical business environment, and if some of those terrified minds are in charge of your brand, their insecurity might very well see a bunch of other people riding D&D's coattails as trouble instead of the boon I truly think it is.

You can see the existence of Pathfinder as, in part, a point in favor of the success of the D&D brand (it's still considered D&D, after all -- the brand has transcended the corporate ownership of it!), and some of the struggles of 4e might be seen to be a failure of WotC to compete with its own brand.

That's part of why it'll be interesting to see what happens with 5e and licensing/OGL. WotC's success in changing that climate (or lack thereof) will be most evident in how 5e embraces or fails to embrace this breathing world of D&D that lies outside of Redmond's art-splashed walls.

But it's not a legal consideration as much as it is a branding/marketing consideration, and one that is evidence of a stagnant, fearful brand team that is more interested in policing the brand than in growing it.