Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 6272868" data-attributes="member: 4348">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.</blockquote>

Verification