Heinsoo on Alignment & Rebranding

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Well, in the 4E design team's defense, the Law-Chaos axis has always been pretty misunderstood, though instead of going halfway they might have been better off with just the one axis of Good-Neutral-Evil-Unaligned. (Distinction between Neutral -- actively seeking a balance between good and evil -- versus unaligned -- doesn't care, doesn't take sides, doesn't seek balance.)

The smart call for 5E would be to return to the 3x3 grid +1 system (the +1 being unaligned) to hold to tradition while keeping alignment mechanically outside the game so those who want to drop alignment entirely can.

Though I'd like to add a "Smart - Stupid" axis myself, to account for all those Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid characters out there. That's a thing, right?

 

[Shemeska]

I'd be curious to know how the design team as a whole stood (initially and over time as membership changed) on some of 4e's wide ranging changes to long-standing flavor elements in the game, and how much of it was by their intent versus imposed by marketing.

Initially a lot of long-term flavor from 1e/2e/3e was rejected pretty harshly in favor of 4e's "this is D&D now. These setting elements and core conceits are what will be found in every D&D setting now because we say so" approach. However at some point that changed, and while still trying to stick within the framework of 4e's cosmology, there was a distinct effort (at least by some freelancers) to put material back in (4e's Demonomicon especially). However at the same time, I remember being advised to specifically avoid using the word yugoloth in one project because its presence there might run afoul of someone on staff (who was not named) and might cause the piece to be rejected.

 

[Gadget]

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.

Unaligned means just that: you are not aligned. Not some sort of Swiss bank, mediation type of stuff. You just don't play that game. You may have your own personal ethics, but you just don't align with the cosmic forces; you're an average joe just trying to live your life. IMO, it is what neutral should have been. You're not concerned with some sort of cosmic balance between good/evil or law/chaos.

How is alignment a game balance tool? I mean, sure, in 1e paladins were saddled with a lot of alignment restrictions in order to balance out being a fighter++. But I think we can agree that that particular form of balance is a design best left in the past.

Furthermore, I would say D&D needs less emphasis on alignment, not more. That is what 4e did, it was not nearly as tied into the system as in previous editions. Sure, demons, paladins, undead, angels could be affected or detected by certain spells/powers, but it is very limited beyond this. To me, I have always played D&D in spite of its hokey alignment system, not because of it. So I find it less of 'feel like D&D' than many others. Sure, In epic fantasy you have various good vs evil themes, not to mention beings that tend to embody them, but that does not call for forcing everyone into a 9 tier alignment system. To me, Pathfinder, despite some good adventure material, was a warmed over 3.75, a system that I grew tired of before Pathfinder even came out.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Unaligned merely meant (under the 4e axis) you didn't necessarily adhere to good or evil. It was selfish, mercenary, and or disinterested. Unlike True Neutral, which wavered between "not choosing sides" and "keeper of balance", Unaligned just means you look out for you, your friends, your interests. You're not interested in the Greater Good, nor are you malevolent and cruel that defines Evil.

Unaligned appears to be back in Next, but its mostly reserved for things that don't have the intellectual capacity to make moral choices (animals, plants, constructs, oozes, animated undead, etc).

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I think there is two elements going on here:

1.) The dual axis system of describing alignment (LG, CN, NE) vs the five descriptives (LG, G, U, E, CE)

2.) The mechanical effects of said alignment on the game (Detect Evil, Protection from Good, etc).

Personally, I prefer the dual axis mechanism, but dislike the mechanical effects (barring a few exceptions) of alignment with spells and magic items.

 

[Alzrius]

It goes back at least to 1e; not sure about anything before that.

I just checked my books. The D&D Rules Cyclopedia and the AD&D 1E Player's Handbook entries for detect evil both lack any language regarding the strength of the aura varying by the sort of creature detected.

Interestingly, the 2E PHB does have qualifiers about creatures radiating auras; quite a few, in fact. It notes that some creatures that are strongly aligned wil always radiate an aura, but most other creatures won't unless intent on committing an action. It also implies that polymorphing can defeat radiating an aura, at least for creatures that aren't strongly aligned. Finally, it's possible to use the spell to detect the ethical bent of a strongly-aligned creature.

Of course, other than a few example monsters, there's not much definition of what constitutes a strongly-aligned creature. Still, AD&D Second Edition seems to be the genesis of varying the strength of the aura based on the type of creature detected.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Unaligned appears to be back in Next, but its mostly reserved for things that don't have the intellectual capacity to make moral choices (animals, plants, constructs, oozes, animated undead, etc).

Then it really should be "Alignment: none" in those cases. I'd prefer to reserve unaligned for those who could choose, but choose not to.

 

[Nagol]

I just checked my books. The D&D Rules Cyclopedia and the AD&D 1E Player's Handbook entries for detect evil both lack any language regarding the strength of the aura varying by the sort of creature detected.

Interestingly, the 2E PHB does have qualifiers about creatures radiating auras; quite a few, in fact. It notes that some creatures that are strongly aligned wil always radiate an aura, but most other creatures won't unless intent on committing an action. It also implies that polymorphing can defeat radiating an aura, at least for creatures that aren't strongly aligned. Finally, it's possible to use the spell to detect the ethical bent of a strongly-aligned creature.

Of course, other than a few example monsters, there's not much definition of what constitutes a strongly-aligned creature. Still, AD&D Second Edition seems to be the genesis of varying the strength of the aura based on the type of creature detected.

Rules for strength of auras is in the 1e DMG. Pg. 41 has the strength categories as part of the discussion on the spell Detect Evil.

pg. 60 has some qualifiers about what can and cannot be detected. For PC-types, a strongly aligned and unwavering faith character 8th level or higher can be detected.

 

[the Jester]

I just checked my books. The D&D Rules Cyclopedia and the AD&D 1E Player's Handbook entries for detect evil both lack any language regarding the strength of the aura varying by the sort of creature detected.

Regarding 1e, this is one of those many maddening areas where the additional material in the DMG is crucial to getting the full picture of how the spell works.

Detect Evil: Basically the degree of evil (faint, moderate, strong, overwhelming) and its general nature (expectant, malignant, gloating, etc) can be noted. If the evil is overwhelming, the general bent (lawful, neutral, chaotic) has a 10% chance per level of the cleric of being detecable.

Detect Evil: The magic detects only the intensity of the evil. (Cf. cleric spell of the same name.)

It is important to make a distinction between character alignment and some powerful force of evil or good when this detection function is considered. In general, only a know alignment spell will determine the evil or good a character holds within. It must be a great evil or a strong good to be detected. Characters who are very strongly aligned, do not stray from their faith, and who are of relatively high level (at least 8th or higher) might radiate good or evil if they are intent upon appropriate actions. Powerful monsters such as demons, devils, ki-rin and the like will send forth emanations of their evil or good. Aligned undead must radiate evil, for it is this power and negative force which enables them to continue existing. Note that none of these emanations are possible without magical detection....

...powerful magic items which have some purpose as respects alignment will radiate evil or good...

Unholy water will emanate evil, just as holy water will emanate good. Places sanctified to some deity of evil or good will certainly give off an appropriate aura.

 

[Alzrius]

Ah, I had forgotten that 1E had additional explanatory notes for spells in the DMG. Of course, those seem to make this less intelligible, rather than more...which strikes me as typical of AD&D 1E.