I would like to see a review of the updating of content policy in light of the new book announced.
Traditionally when a new version of something is released in a book, the old version is updated. For example Brain in a Jar had an alignment in Rime meenlock had an alignment in volos, but because it was printed in Van Richten's it was respectably changed to the updated version removing all references to the alignment. Keep in mind if this model is followed then I don't need to buy the new book next year because all my creature stat blocks will be updated automatically to the latest version. Unfortunately I will no longer be able to use the old version if I wanted to, but free book content is nice. I am guessing this will be the same for the player races as well. Clearly this policy has to change to accommodate the updated stat blocks.
Further to this now that alignments are back we have creature stat blocks in books that randomly don't have alignments that should. Sure keep Van Richtens as printed, but restore the other books to their original printing and make sure the creature rules has the most accurate information.
Additionally this rule of sticking to referencing the content from the the first place is was printed, while a perfectly logical rule, makes the platform less usable. Once something is in a setting agnostic book, it should not be locked behind a setting toggle. The perfect example of this is the College of Eloquence; I should not have to have the Magic content filter turned on to get something that is in Tasha's. This is a case of doggedly clinging to a policy making the platform less usable. I can only imagine this issue will become worse with the introduction of the new book. The three core rules and the three expansion books should be core D&D and not need any filters turned on.
What I am suggesting is a holistic overhaul of the updating content policy that works a bit more "spirit of the law" and a bit less "letter of the law".
Edit: Brain in a Jar wasn't the best example. It still does not have an alignment listed, where it will eventually be printed with "any alignment". So it is still a valid example.
The issue comes down to this. If Wizards update the information on a creature in a new book it becomes canon from that point forward. If you want the old stat-block information you then need to go and google that information on it before the change was made, or keep a copy of such for yourself.
In the case of something like Brain in a Jar, it doesnt actually have any alignment under 5e because it can be any alignment since it's no longer referred to as being evil. Its like saying all Orc's are CE, when in fact they are not since Volo's allows you to make an Orc PC. Back to Brain in a Jar, the MM within DDB doesnt show any alignment on it, that could be a mistake, but it does refer to Rime pg278 at the bottom. Also the Brain in a Jar in Richters on DDB has the same stat-block as is in Rime.
Overall, the alignment listed for Brain in a Jar is Any Alignment, as per the wizard release PDF below.
But when it comes to a creature's alignment, its upto the DM on whether that alignment holds or not under 5E. Or any edition for that matter.
PS: Also to add, minor details like this aint something that needs to be fixed up when there are more important things they need to be dealing with thanks to scheduled releases.
The issue comes down to this. If Wizards update the information on a creature in a new book it becomes canon from that point forward. If you want the old stat-block information you then need to go and google that information on it before the change was made, or keep a copy of such for yourself.
In the case of something like Brain in a Jar, it doesnt actually have any alignment under 5e because it can be any alignment since it's no longer referred to as being evil. Its like saying all Orc's are CE, when in fact they are not since Volo's allows you to make an Orc PC. Back to Brain in a Jar, the MM within DDB doesnt show any alignment on it, that could be a mistake, but it does refer to Rime pg278 at the bottom. Also the Brain in a Jar in Richters on DDB has the same stat-block as is in Rime.
Overall, the alignment listed for Brain in a Jar is Any Alignment, as per the wizard release PDF below.
But when it comes to a creature's alignment, its upto the DM on whether that alignment holds or not under 5E. Or any edition for that matter.
PS: Also to add, minor details like this aint something that needs to be fixed up when there are more important things they need to be dealing with thanks to scheduled releases.
I fully understand the reason why the changes are made. The point of the post was showing that the existing policy breaks down under closer examination and won't work with the new book coming out. Something will need to change, I am just getting in my feedback in.
Also Brain in a Jar was just the first creature I found that had been changed. This turned out to be a bad example. Replace with any monster from Van Richten's that can't have any alignment. Wizards experimentation works well in the print only world, but on a digital platform like DDB is creates a convoluted mess of old and new.
The issue comes down to this. If Wizards update the information on a creature in a new book it becomes canon from that point forward. If you want the old stat-block information you then need to go and google that information on it before the change was made, or keep a copy of such for yourself.
In the case of something like Brain in a Jar, it doesnt actually have any alignment under 5e because it can be any alignment since it's no longer referred to as being evil. Its like saying all Orc's are CE, when in fact they are not since Volo's allows you to make an Orc PC. Back to Brain in a Jar, the MM within DDB doesnt show any alignment on it, that could be a mistake, but it does refer to Rime pg278 at the bottom. Also the Brain in a Jar in Richters on DDB has the same stat-block as is in Rime.
Overall, the alignment listed for Brain in a Jar is Any Alignment, as per the wizard release PDF below.
But when it comes to a creature's alignment, its upto the DM on whether that alignment holds or not under 5E. Or any edition for that matter.
PS: Also to add, minor details like this aint something that needs to be fixed up when there are more important things they need to be dealing with thanks to scheduled releases.
I fully understand the reason why the changes are made. The point of the post was showing that the existing policy breaks down under closer examination and won't work with the new book coming out. Something will need to change, I am just getting in my feedback in.
Also Brain in a Jar was just the first creature I found that had been changed. This turned out to be a bad example. Replace with any monster from Van Richten's that can't have any alignment. Wizards experimentation works well in the print only world, but on a digital platform like DDB is creates a convoluted mess of old and new.
You are aware that what you SEE on DDB is very much what you SEE in the printed books. They are exactly the same. Anything that does get misprinted, such as alignments, or even stats, get pointed out in the threads, or in individual threads, within Bugs & Support.
However you will often find that the digital platform is more upto date than the printed books because those erratas are put online by Wizard and announced by them as being there and get updated in future printings of the books.
Also, a lot of stuff printed in Van Richten's is aimed purely at the Ravenloft world, or I should say Demiplane since that's its location and is connected by the Ethereal Realm to FR, and not other places. While it is DnD material it doesnt always apply across the whole of the DnD realms/worlds and is again left purely upto the DM if they want to change it to such in their games, because each DM has their own visage of how their games within the DnD world go.
PS: The other thing you have to remember is that Tasha's brought out a lot of changes within how you can modify things within your worlds, it wasnt just aimed at the PC side, but also the NPC/Monster side, when it came to changes one can make.
I think you missed the point of my feedback, and I don't think you read what I actually wrote.
Oh I read what you wrote, so attacking my literacy level to me just shows you dont like what I wrote nor agree. That is fine. However, its not something they are going to go out of their way to fix when it dont need to be fixed. If you want to have it how you want it, then do it that way. Alignment and such stat-blocks are purely upto how the DM uses them, therefore optional when it comes to Alignment.
That being said however, Ravenloft is on a plain of its own and dont even have to be connected to Eberron or Toril in your game. Therefore again monsters have their own stats within the Ravenloft universe. But in Eberron or Toril, should they exist there in your game, would have a different stat block to Ravenloft.
That is however where your feedback about alignments. Aligments change and have always been within the games. You have the option within your character sheet and DMs have the option to give an alignment to monstered. However not all monsters have alignments, animals/beasts for example dont have alignments, they are unaligned, does that mean they are Neutral, maybe, but when you come to how alignments are viewed you could say that a monster such as a wolf is evil because it kills. Alignment is a view of the person viewing that monster. Orcs are inherently evil, but whose view is that, the person that original wrote orcs.
So again, why do you always need an alignment on a monster, you dont or you do, but that's your view that one needs to be there. In my case, I dont care if its listed there, because again, its upto the ST that stats they are there and the only time I would really care is if I decided to cast a detection spell that would detect if there was evil and they were evil alignment.
Anyway, I'm out, you keep up on the feedback which might only have a bearing on your own world as a DM.
Alignment had a time out in the stat blocks of Candlekeep Mysteries and Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft. We omitted alignment in those books as a temporary measure, giving us time to determine how to handle alignment going forward. Now that we’ve done that work, alignment returns in The Wild Beyond the Witchlight and appears in all our other upcoming books as well.
So this is a quote from Jeremy Crawford. I think this more than sums up my point. These books are the exception, not the rule. If a stat block in Candlekeep or Van Richten's is in a previous book, then don't remove the alignment from that previous book.
Now looking closely there are actually very few creatures that fall into this category, (I thought is was more widespread), so either this has already been mostly resolved or the intersection on the venn diagram is really small. The one I found was the Meenlock, and this will probably be fixed by the new stat block in the new book. I am all for the most accurate data, but combine it in a way we don't lose the data.
Too sum up, I don't think the current rigid rules on updating content fit with the intentions of the D&D design team anymore, and this could cause more issues in the future. I think the policy should be reviewed rather, than just stating the policy anytime someone points out a weird data interactions on the site. When I raised the MOOT subclass issue, I was just given an explanation for the reason why it is they way it is. I don't want an explanation, I want the policy looked at critically and then revised based on usability. Not some arbitrary rules.
I am not talking about the function of alignment in D&D.
Alignment had a time out in the stat blocks of Candlekeep Mysteries and Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft. We omitted alignment in those books as a temporary measure, giving us time to determine how to handle alignment going forward. Now that we’ve done that work, alignment returns in The Wild Beyond the Witchlight and appears in all our other upcoming books as well.
So this is a quote from Jeremy Crawford. I think this more than sums up my point. These books are the exception, not the rule. If a stat block in Candlekeep or Van Richten's is in a previous book, then don't remove the alignment from that previous book.
Now looking closely there are actually very few creatures that fall into this category, (I thought is was more widespread), so either this has already been mostly resolved or the intersection on the venn diagram is really small. The one I found was the Meenlock, and this will probably be fixed by the new stat block in the new book. I am all for the most accurate data, but combine it in a way we don't lose the data.
Too sum up, I don't think the current rigid rules on updating content fit with the intentions of the D&D design team anymore, and this could cause more issues in the future. I think the policy should be reviewed rather, than just stating the policy anytime someone points out a weird data interactions on the site. When I raised the MOOT subclass issue, I was just given an explanation for the reason why it is they way it is. I don't want an explanation, I want the policy looked at critically and then revised based on usability. Not some arbitrary rules.
I am not talking about the function of alignment in D&D.
Firstly, a quote without source is just a quote.
Secondly. You ARE talking about the function of alignment in D&D when you are in here complaining about content policy regarding such.
However, lets go back to what Crawford may or may not have said.
"Now that we’ve done that work, alignment returns in The Wild Beyond the Witchlight and appears in all our other upcoming books as well."
Witchlight has just been released, so that is a moot point there regarding such. Alignment was also only omitted from TWO books, both of which are stand alone, Wizard has it posted about Candlekeep Mysteries on its website, simple search on those two words STATE they are stand alone. As I pointed out Van Richter is Ravenloft, a world/realm/plane on its own. It has ZERO bearing.
However, I am going to quote something here and put an end of this beating of a dead horse. Quoted from ThinkDM, link provided which effectively states what I have been saying. Alignment is optional, it doesnt need to be corrected on the stat blocks if that is what is OFFICIALLY given to DDB by Wizards. You tried to say the Brain in a Jar was a bad example because it has different information in TWO different books, one which again is stand alone.
"In other ways, this discussion doesn’t matter at all. Alignment is easily ignored. It has little to no impact on how the game is actually played. Mechanically, 5th Edition has moved away from it. Players fill out their character sheets with a trait, bond, ideal, and flaw that inform their actions. Even spells like protection from evil and good key off of monster type, not alignment. It’s basically defunct."
So again, the policy being followed is whatever Wizards tell them to put in the stat-block, whether you use it is upto you. Anyway, I'm out, enjoy continuing to beat the horse some more, I think a Necromancer will be along shortly to raise it back up so it can start kicking around some more.
Stop getting hung up on what function alignment does or does not provide. Alignment just happens to be something that has been messed around with by wizards.
I am talking about the current policy for updating content and why sometimes it fails to make logical sense from a data update point of view. Also when the new book comes we just get it for free?
It also does not make sense when (a now) core subclass is locked behind a setting toggle. Now the first book is more important than the last book. It all just seems incongruent.
This whole argument tires me. I am commenting on the policy, not the relevance of the content the policy affects. Why make the feedback then? Because who knows what else might change in the future, I would like to have well thought out policies for how these data changes are handled.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would like to see a review of the updating of content policy in light of the new book announced.
Traditionally when a new version of something is released in a book, the old version is updated. For example
Brain in a Jar had an alignment in Rimemeenlock had an alignment in volos, but because it was printed in Van Richten's it was respectably changed to the updated version removing all references to the alignment. Keep in mind if this model is followed then I don't need to buy the new book next year because all my creature stat blocks will be updated automatically to the latest version. Unfortunately I will no longer be able to use the old version if I wanted to, but free book content is nice. I am guessing this will be the same for the player races as well. Clearly this policy has to change to accommodate the updated stat blocks.Further to this now that alignments are back we have creature stat blocks in books that randomly don't have alignments that should. Sure keep Van Richtens as printed, but restore the other books to their original printing and make sure the creature rules has the most accurate information.
Additionally this rule of sticking to referencing the content from the the first place is was printed, while a perfectly logical rule, makes the platform less usable. Once something is in a setting agnostic book, it should not be locked behind a setting toggle. The perfect example of this is the College of Eloquence; I should not have to have the Magic content filter turned on to get something that is in Tasha's. This is a case of doggedly clinging to a policy making the platform less usable. I can only imagine this issue will become worse with the introduction of the new book. The three core rules and the three expansion books should be core D&D and not need any filters turned on.
What I am suggesting is a holistic overhaul of the updating content policy that works a bit more "spirit of the law" and a bit less "letter of the law".
Edit: Brain in a Jar wasn't the best example. It still does not have an alignment listed, where it will eventually be printed with "any alignment". So it is still a valid example.
The issue comes down to this. If Wizards update the information on a creature in a new book it becomes canon from that point forward. If you want the old stat-block information you then need to go and google that information on it before the change was made, or keep a copy of such for yourself.
In the case of something like Brain in a Jar, it doesnt actually have any alignment under 5e because it can be any alignment since it's no longer referred to as being evil. Its like saying all Orc's are CE, when in fact they are not since Volo's allows you to make an Orc PC. Back to Brain in a Jar, the MM within DDB doesnt show any alignment on it, that could be a mistake, but it does refer to Rime pg278 at the bottom. Also the Brain in a Jar in Richters on DDB has the same stat-block as is in Rime.
Overall, the alignment listed for Brain in a Jar is Any Alignment, as per the wizard release PDF below.
https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/dragon/34/dra34_icewinddale_brain.pdf
But when it comes to a creature's alignment, its upto the DM on whether that alignment holds or not under 5E. Or any edition for that matter.
PS: Also to add, minor details like this aint something that needs to be fixed up when there are more important things they need to be dealing with thanks to scheduled releases.
I fully understand the reason why the changes are made. The point of the post was showing that the existing policy breaks down under closer examination and won't work with the new book coming out. Something will need to change, I am just getting in my feedback in.
Also Brain in a Jar was just the first creature I found that had been changed. This turned out to be a bad example. Replace with any monster from Van Richten's that can't have any alignment. Wizards experimentation works well in the print only world, but on a digital platform like DDB is creates a convoluted mess of old and new.
You are aware that what you SEE on DDB is very much what you SEE in the printed books. They are exactly the same. Anything that does get misprinted, such as alignments, or even stats, get pointed out in the threads, or in individual threads, within Bugs & Support.
However you will often find that the digital platform is more upto date than the printed books because those erratas are put online by Wizard and announced by them as being there and get updated in future printings of the books.
Also, a lot of stuff printed in Van Richten's is aimed purely at the Ravenloft world, or I should say Demiplane since that's its location and is connected by the Ethereal Realm to FR, and not other places. While it is DnD material it doesnt always apply across the whole of the DnD realms/worlds and is again left purely upto the DM if they want to change it to such in their games, because each DM has their own visage of how their games within the DnD world go.
PS: The other thing you have to remember is that Tasha's brought out a lot of changes within how you can modify things within your worlds, it wasnt just aimed at the PC side, but also the NPC/Monster side, when it came to changes one can make.
I think you missed the point of my feedback, and I don't think you read what I actually wrote.
Oh I read what you wrote, so attacking my literacy level to me just shows you dont like what I wrote nor agree. That is fine. However, its not something they are going to go out of their way to fix when it dont need to be fixed. If you want to have it how you want it, then do it that way. Alignment and such stat-blocks are purely upto how the DM uses them, therefore optional when it comes to Alignment.
That being said however, Ravenloft is on a plain of its own and dont even have to be connected to Eberron or Toril in your game. Therefore again monsters have their own stats within the Ravenloft universe. But in Eberron or Toril, should they exist there in your game, would have a different stat block to Ravenloft.
That is however where your feedback about alignments. Aligments change and have always been within the games. You have the option within your character sheet and DMs have the option to give an alignment to monstered. However not all monsters have alignments, animals/beasts for example dont have alignments, they are unaligned, does that mean they are Neutral, maybe, but when you come to how alignments are viewed you could say that a monster such as a wolf is evil because it kills. Alignment is a view of the person viewing that monster. Orcs are inherently evil, but whose view is that, the person that original wrote orcs.
So again, why do you always need an alignment on a monster, you dont or you do, but that's your view that one needs to be there. In my case, I dont care if its listed there, because again, its upto the ST that stats they are there and the only time I would really care is if I decided to cast a detection spell that would detect if there was evil and they were evil alignment.
Anyway, I'm out, you keep up on the feedback which might only have a bearing on your own world as a DM.
So this is a quote from Jeremy Crawford. I think this more than sums up my point. These books are the exception, not the rule. If a stat block in Candlekeep or Van Richten's is in a previous book, then don't remove the alignment from that previous book.
Now looking closely there are actually very few creatures that fall into this category, (I thought is was more widespread), so either this has already been mostly resolved or the intersection on the venn diagram is really small. The one I found was the Meenlock, and this will probably be fixed by the new stat block in the new book. I am all for the most accurate data, but combine it in a way we don't lose the data.
Too sum up, I don't think the current rigid rules on updating content fit with the intentions of the D&D design team anymore, and this could cause more issues in the future. I think the policy should be reviewed rather, than just stating the policy anytime someone points out a weird data interactions on the site. When I raised the MOOT subclass issue, I was just given an explanation for the reason why it is they way it is. I don't want an explanation, I want the policy looked at critically and then revised based on usability. Not some arbitrary rules.
I am not talking about the function of alignment in D&D.
Firstly, a quote without source is just a quote.
Secondly. You ARE talking about the function of alignment in D&D when you are in here complaining about content policy regarding such.
However, lets go back to what Crawford may or may not have said.
"Now that we’ve done that work, alignment returns in The Wild Beyond the Witchlight and appears in all our other upcoming books as well."
Witchlight has just been released, so that is a moot point there regarding such. Alignment was also only omitted from TWO books, both of which are stand alone, Wizard has it posted about Candlekeep Mysteries on its website, simple search on those two words STATE they are stand alone. As I pointed out Van Richter is Ravenloft, a world/realm/plane on its own. It has ZERO bearing.
However, I am going to quote something here and put an end of this beating of a dead horse. Quoted from ThinkDM, link provided which effectively states what I have been saying. Alignment is optional, it doesnt need to be corrected on the stat blocks if that is what is OFFICIALLY given to DDB by Wizards. You tried to say the Brain in a Jar was a bad example because it has different information in TWO different books, one which again is stand alone.
"In other ways, this discussion doesn’t matter at all. Alignment is easily ignored. It has little to no impact on how the game is actually played. Mechanically, 5th Edition has moved away from it. Players fill out their character sheets with a trait, bond, ideal, and flaw that inform their actions. Even spells like protection from evil and good key off of monster type, not alignment. It’s basically defunct."
https://thinkdm.org/2021/09/11/typical-alignment/
So again, the policy being followed is whatever Wizards tell them to put in the stat-block, whether you use it is upto you. Anyway, I'm out, enjoy continuing to beat the horse some more, I think a Necromancer will be along shortly to raise it back up so it can start kicking around some more.
Stop getting hung up on what function alignment does or does not provide. Alignment just happens to be something that has been messed around with by wizards.
I am talking about the current policy for updating content and why sometimes it fails to make logical sense from a data update point of view. Also when the new book comes we just get it for free?
It also does not make sense when (a now) core subclass is locked behind a setting toggle. Now the first book is more important than the last book. It all just seems incongruent.
This whole argument tires me. I am commenting on the policy, not the relevance of the content the policy affects. Why make the feedback then? Because who knows what else might change in the future, I would like to have well thought out policies for how these data changes are handled.