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]

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]

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]

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]

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.