To tell you the truth, I didn't even notice. After filtering monsters by alignment it looks like several creatures in Candlekeep Mysteries don't have any either. This doesn't bother me in the slightest. They can remove the suggested alignments from every single stat block and it won't affect my game at all. If I ever need to know a creature's alignment I can give it one on the spot.
Perhaps the people who wrote all that lore were upset that something they were paid to create was being largely ignored.
LOL... it would be hilarious if this were the real reason they removed alignment.
Of course I would respond with, perhaps if the people who wrote all of that lore had written anything worth reading, let alone incorporating into my game world, I'd not be as liable to skip it and make my own stuff up in its place. It'd be way easier for me, too.
But meh, not like I was going to buy this book anyway... and here is one more reason not to.
I can just imagine what the "sensitivity readers" are doing to Mordenkainen's and Volo's.
Anything that has an Int above animal level has, and always will have, an Alignment. Some are evil by culture, or circumstances as how their god made them, and there is no deviation.
There is no such thing as a "good" demon, as they would be slaughtered by their kin and associates long before they encountered players. Same for Drow, Gnolls, etc. There are some, a very loud minority, that are agitating to change this, Some even work at Hasbro. It does not change the facts of 50 years of history in D&D.
Oh, and Drow should be Albino, with no pigmentation at all, as all truly subterranean creatures are. And by the same token, desert creatures that are exposed to a lot of sunlight, should be dark-skinned, as that pigmentation is a evolutionary protection against skin cancer.
All of this is depending on setting and specific tables. In some cases, Demons are literally embodiments of their alignment- if they cease to be Chaotic Evil, they are no longer demons. In other stories, they are instead more of another species of entity.
There have been many canon demons and devils that were good aligned over the course of the game. All of them remained demons and devils.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Anything that has an Int above animal level has, and always will have, an Alignment. Some are evil by culture, or circumstances as how their god made them, and there is no deviation.
There is no such thing as a "good" demon, as they would be slaughtered by their kin and associates long before they encountered players. Same for Drow, Gnolls, etc. There are some, a very loud minority, that are agitating to change this, Some even work at Hasbro. It does not change the facts of 50 years of history in D&D.
Oh, and Drow should be Albino, with no pigmentation at all, as all truly subterranean creatures are. And by the same token, desert creatures that are exposed to a lot of sunlight, should be dark-skinned, as that pigmentation is a evolutionary protection against skin cancer.
All of this is depending on setting and specific tables. In some cases, Demons are literally embodiments of their alignment- if they cease to be Chaotic Evil, they are no longer demons. In other stories, they are instead more of another species of entity.
There have been many canon demons and devils that were good aligned over the course of the game. All of them remained demons and devils.
The writers of the Blood Wars chapters of Mord's would beg to differ.
Y'know, Vince? if you're having trouble successfully portraying your 'Evil' critters as evil without having the sourcebooks force-feed the idea down people's throats, there's a lot of useful supplementary material out there.
I haven't watched it myself, but Goblin Slayer does an excellent job of remonsterizing goblins. They're portrayed as almost more demonic than anything else - feral, animalistic monstrosities with no kindness, no real sense of self, and an endless hunger for violence (leaving the obvious horror of their parasitic reproduction for the moment). They don't live in neat, orderly villages that exactly mimic a human village - their nests more resemble termite mounds, and even high-level adventurers think twice before stepping foot in a goblin nest. The show plays with the idea that these things aren't worth the trouble higher-level adventurers would have to go through to eliminate them...but they're still terrifying monsters that can ravage the countryside if left entirely unchecked. They don't speak, they don't really cooperate beyond the most basic level, and even their champions are more unnatural mutations than they are stalwart protectors. It'd be a good case study for rewinding the clock in your own game and rendering goblinoid races back into guilt-free murder pinatas
It's a vision far more in line with the whole Always Chaotic Evil thing than anything with a PC statblock. You'd have to adjust the monster statblocks in the game to de-emphasize high-value weapons like swords and stuff like armor - these sorts of cultures aren't even cultures proper. They're huge, cursed packs of barely-sapient scavengers who use what they carry away from their raids/hunts but don't produce such things themselves. Obviously there would be no option to play such a character in a world where this is how ACE species work, but it's still a much better route to take than "well, the DMG says they're evil so get to killin', team" all while the critters in question are basically doing nothing at all any differently than any regular sapient species save for the occasional resource raids - which, considering humanity and allies' general efforts at constant, unrelenting genocide, seem more justified than not in settings where your orcs, goblins, and similar critters are just greener, toothier versions of regular dudes.
Y'know, Vince? if you're having trouble successfully portraying your 'Evil' critters as evil without having the sourcebooks force-feed the idea down people's throats, there's a lot of useful supplementary material out there.
I haven't watched it myself, but Goblin Slayer does an excellent job of remonsterizing goblins. They're portrayed as almost more demonic than anything else - feral, animalistic monstrosities with no kindness, no real sense of self, and an endless hunger for violence (leaving the obvious horror of their parasitic reproduction for the moment). They don't live in neat, orderly villages that exactly mimic a human village - their nests more resemble termite mounds, and even high-level adventurers think twice before stepping foot in a goblin nest. The show plays with the idea that these things aren't worth the trouble higher-level adventurers would have to go through to eliminate them...but they're still terrifying monsters that can ravage the countryside if left entirely unchecked. They don't speak, they don't really cooperate beyond the most basic level, and even their champions are more unnatural mutations than they are stalwart protectors. It'd be a good case study for rewinding the clock in your own game and rendering goblinoid races back into guilt-free murder pinatas
It's a vision far more in line with the whole Always Chaotic Evil thing than anything with a PC statblock. You'd have to adjust the monster statblocks in the game to de-emphasize high-value weapons like swords and stuff like armor - these sorts of cultures aren't even cultures proper. They're huge, cursed packs of barely-sapient scavengers who use what they carry away from their raids/hunts but don't produce such things themselves. Obviously there would be no option to play such a character in a world where this is how ACE species work, but it's still a much better route to take than "well, the DMG says they're evil so get to killin', team" all while the critters in question are basically doing nothing at all any differently than any regular sapient species save for the occasional resource raids - which, considering humanity and allies' general efforts at constant, unrelenting genocide, seem more justified than not in settings where your orcs, goblins, and similar critters are just greener, toothier versions of regular dudes.
I am not sure if you are agreeing with me, or not.
Yes, what you just described would be considered as "evil" by sentient D&D beings, and likely most "real world" sentient beings. I don't need a stat bloc to tell me creatures that function as that are "evil'. But because of all the Mercer influenced "D&D players" (His group does not play D&D, but some aberration), we need stat blocs, more than ever, to state what is evil, what is not, in the game. Experienced players don't need that. But new players do.
Imagine some new player arrives and says "I want to play a goblin", and then me, being a DM, explains, "no, goblins are feral, animalistic monstrosities with no kindness, no real sense of self, and an endless hunger for violence". Then the player screams that I am a real life racist.
I'm not super conversant with 5e gnolls, but that wouldn't shock me. Primarily because it's a more effective way to create an Always Chaotic Evil species than 'green bad'. if one makes their ACE (not to be confused with ace-the-sexual-(lack-of)-orientation, i.e. asexual) species into ravening monsters, it's at least minimally more effective than "these guys are the same as you all in most every way, except more primitive and disadvantaged, which they're understandably pissed about so they raid the 'civilized' races for resources those races have spent centuries denying them...but because they're, y'know, green, they're evil, so have at 'em."
Though the other example that strikes me as useful for someone trying to play off the ACE thing without it being cringey and bad is Caesar's Legion, from Fallout: New Vegas. Caesar's Legion is one of the most effectively executed 'evil' factions in most any modern or semi-modern video game, even if it all hinges on one man's overwhelming force of personality. That could be the way of it for people desperate to cling to "Green Is Bad!" in their D&D - goblinoid species are more akin to warring, generally unstable Caesar's Legions, each one centered around a warlord with supernatural force of will and personality. Any legion that loses its warlord descends into chaos and infighting. It's still not great, because there's no real reason such a disorganized, fractious species would really survive in a world where a vastly more organized, better equipped, and more cohesive society can set its sights on their utter destruction...but Caesar's Legion could provide a useful template at any rate.
Yes, what you just described would be considered as "evil" by sentient D&D beings, and likely most "real world" sentient beings. I don't need a stat bloc to tell me creatures that function as that are "evil'. But because of all the Mercer influenced "D&D players" (His group does not play D&D, but some aberration), we need stat blocs, more than ever, to state what is evil, what is not, in the game. Experienced players don't need that. But new players do.
New players certainly do not need arbitrary rules to teach them the right and proper alignment for goblins or whatever else. They can be trusted to make their game however they'd like.
Imagine some new player arrives and says "I want to play a goblin", and then me, being a DM, explains, "no, goblins are feral, animalistic monstrosities with no kindness, no real sense of self, and an endless hunger for violence". Then the player screams that I am a real life racist.
Yes, what you just described would be considered as "evil" by sentient D&D beings, and likely most "real world" sentient beings. I don't need a stat bloc to tell me creatures that function as that are "evil'. But because of all the Mercer influenced "D&D players" (His group does not play D&D, but some aberration), we need stat blocs, more than ever, to state what is evil, what is not, in the game. Experienced players don't need that. But new players do.
I mean, you are not playing D&D either, and your game is just as much of an abomination and aberration as anyone else's game, if not more so. If anything, new players play D&D much closer to RAW than any of us do, or at least they try to, since homebrew can seem daunting until they realize it is not. They might not get all the rules right at first, but they make more effort into knowing and following the rules and make a bigger deal out of RAW.
The meta reason is probably the inclusiveness issue. However, practically speaking, it's not like you're actually losing anything; the only thing alignment does is describe in very vague terms how a monster behaves, and they give monsters enough description that you can figure that out without knowing what its alignment is (and if it's important to you, you can figure out for yourself what its alignment is).
Oof. Not in my experience. You may want to review what new players are picking up at your table if they are unable to tell right from wrong in your monsters' actions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Anything that has an Int above animal level has, and always will have, an Alignment. Some are evil by culture, or circumstances as how their god made them, and there is no deviation.
There is no such thing as a "good" demon, as they would be slaughtered by their kin and associates long before they encountered players. Same for Drow, Gnolls, etc. There are some, a very loud minority, that are agitating to change this, Some even work at Hasbro. It does not change the facts of 50 years of history in D&D.
Oh, and Drow should be Albino, with no pigmentation at all, as all truly subterranean creatures are. And by the same token, desert creatures that are exposed to a lot of sunlight, should be dark-skinned, as that pigmentation is a evolutionary protection against skin cancer.
All of this is depending on setting and specific tables. In some cases, Demons are literally embodiments of their alignment- if they cease to be Chaotic Evil, they are no longer demons. In other stories, they are instead more of another species of entity.
There have been many canon demons and devils that were good aligned over the course of the game. All of them remained demons and devils.
That is true. I was speaking in more general terms to show that not every table or setting has the same lore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Yes, what you just described would be considered as "evil" by sentient D&D beings, and likely most "real world" sentient beings. I don't need a stat bloc to tell me creatures that function as that are "evil'. But because of all the Mercer influenced "D&D players" (His group does not play D&D, but some aberration), we need stat blocs, more than ever, to state what is evil, what is not, in the game. Experienced players don't need that. But new players do.
New players certainly do not need arbitrary rules to teach them the right and proper alignment for goblins or whatever else. They can be trusted to make their game however they'd like.
Imagine some new player arrives and says "I want to play a goblin", and then me, being a DM, explains, "no, goblins are feral, animalistic monstrosities with no kindness, no real sense of self, and an endless hunger for violence". Then the player screams that I am a real life racist.
There's no point engaging this straw man further.
Players don't "make the game". DM's do. Players only exist within the construct the DM creates. So when some player shows up at my table and tells me what alignment a goblin is, that is not going to fly. But in this new age nonsense, when we have mercer and his crew saying anything goes, and Eberron, there is an excellent chance of some new player who got into D&D because of critical role telling me that goblins can be good.
And thank you for stating that it is a straw man argument when some player says I am a racist when I state goblins are evil. You have just put to the lie the entire concept of racism with regard to orcs, drow. vistani, which of course, it is.
But in this new age nonsense, when we have mercer and his crew saying anything goes, and Eberron, there is an excellent chance of some new player who got into D&D because of critical role telling me that goblins can be good.
I thought you liked Volo's Guide to Monsters?
"Goblins are typically neutral evil, as they care only for their own needs. A few goblins might tend toward good or neutrality, but only rarely." VGtM p. 119
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Players don't "make the game". DM's do. Players only exist within the construct the DM creates.
I think this attitude explains a lot of the differences I see between your opinion and that of myself (and others).
This comment suggests that you consider the game to be strictly under the control of the DM. It is not a collaborative process, it is the DM telling the players exactly how everything is. The players are entirely constrained by the DMs opinions, views and vision of what is and can be. They can "play the game", but only within very tighly and strictly defined boundaries, set by the DM and not open to any discussion.
When I DM the responsibility for world building and story telling is shared among myself and my players. I prepare things for the group, and I have final say on how the rules work, but the entire experience is collaborative. Everybody contributes, everybody has a say. My players are encouraged to assist, to provide input on how parts of the world should work, on where the story should go. My players are encouraged to discuss alternative interpretations of the rules, or possible house rules, with me outside the game (and this is only restricted in order toi keep the game flowing). I'm even happy to retcon where necessary.
With 2 completely different attitudes to the game (and specifically DMing) it is completely understandable that totally different opinions will occur often.
But in this new age nonsense, when we have mercer and his crew saying anything goes, and Eberron, there is an excellent chance of some new player who got into D&D because of critical role telling me that goblins can be good.
I thought you liked Volo's Guide to Monsters?
"Goblins are typically neutral evil, as they care only for their own needs. A few goblins might tend toward good or neutrality, but only rarely." VGtM p. 119
I love Volo's. I missed that reference. But it does not change the fact that mercer and his crew have done D&D a real disservice. Had he added to the customer base? Of course. But when I see people saying goblins can be a good playable character species, that is a hard no, and that is the kind of thing he and others have opened the door to.
Edit: Oh, and NO player should EVER be reading Volo's. It is a DM book, not a player book.
In D&D, alignment is essentially personified on various planes of existence, so in a sense, it is physical.
e.g. The higher planes are where good creatures reside, and the lower planes, evil creatures. There are numerous examples, such as Limbo that embodies chaotic neutral, or the seven heavens which is lawful good.
WoTC hasn't gotten rid of them, or changed them, so alignment is still relevant in D&D.
But as with all things in D&D, you are free to change anything you want.
In D&D, alignment is essentially personified on various planes of existence, so in a sense, it is physical.
e.g. The higher planes are where good creatures reside, and the lower planes, evil creatures. There are numerous examples, such as Limbo that embodies chaotic neutral, or the seven heavens which is lawful good.
WoTC hasn't gotten rid of them, or changed them, so alignment is still relevant in D&D.
But as with all things in D&D, you are free to change anything you want.
yes, yes, except alignment for *mortal* creatures who are not native to or of the stuff of the Outer Planes, Alignment is mutable and everchanging unless you're a real extremist.
if you're not an Immortal, alignment doesn't physically change you, in other words.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I have to say I like the idea of the alignments being entirely as they suit the world and the story. I feel like a description explaining the ways in which these creatures would commonly fit into areas (for example, Goblins are often evil but not as a rule, some intermingle with more open-minded communities and are good) thn just saying that they are good or they are evil.
I like it because it keeps the reigns of the game in the hands of the people playing it, rather than feeling like having a good orc or an evil angel be something of a special case.
I have to say that I don't find any sense in the idea that removing the alignment from the entries is in any way related to diversity and inclusion. That's like saying you made your restaurant vegan-friendly by writing the words "contains meat" next to every entry on the menu - it is clearly meant for the benefit of the vegans, but it doesn't actually change a damn thing about what really matters to them!
(and I'll be honest that I can't see how a fantasy game where creatures are given alignments to help people portray them in a consistent manner has any relation at all to the real world, which is not a fantasy game full of fictional monsters!)
To tell you the truth, I didn't even notice. After filtering monsters by alignment it looks like several creatures in Candlekeep Mysteries don't have any either. This doesn't bother me in the slightest. They can remove the suggested alignments from every single stat block and it won't affect my game at all. If I ever need to know a creature's alignment I can give it one on the spot.
I can just imagine what the "sensitivity readers" are doing to Mordenkainen's and Volo's.
There have been many canon demons and devils that were good aligned over the course of the game. All of them remained demons and devils.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The writers of the Blood Wars chapters of Mord's would beg to differ.
Y'know, Vince? if you're having trouble successfully portraying your 'Evil' critters as evil without having the sourcebooks force-feed the idea down people's throats, there's a lot of useful supplementary material out there.
I haven't watched it myself, but Goblin Slayer does an excellent job of remonsterizing goblins. They're portrayed as almost more demonic than anything else - feral, animalistic monstrosities with no kindness, no real sense of self, and an endless hunger for violence (leaving the obvious horror of their parasitic reproduction for the moment). They don't live in neat, orderly villages that exactly mimic a human village - their nests more resemble termite mounds, and even high-level adventurers think twice before stepping foot in a goblin nest. The show plays with the idea that these things aren't worth the trouble higher-level adventurers would have to go through to eliminate them...but they're still terrifying monsters that can ravage the countryside if left entirely unchecked. They don't speak, they don't really cooperate beyond the most basic level, and even their champions are more unnatural mutations than they are stalwart protectors. It'd be a good case study for rewinding the clock in your own game and rendering goblinoid races back into guilt-free murder pinatas
It's a vision far more in line with the whole Always Chaotic Evil thing than anything with a PC statblock. You'd have to adjust the monster statblocks in the game to de-emphasize high-value weapons like swords and stuff like armor - these sorts of cultures aren't even cultures proper. They're huge, cursed packs of barely-sapient scavengers who use what they carry away from their raids/hunts but don't produce such things themselves. Obviously there would be no option to play such a character in a world where this is how ACE species work, but it's still a much better route to take than "well, the DMG says they're evil so get to killin', team" all while the critters in question are basically doing nothing at all any differently than any regular sapient species save for the occasional resource raids - which, considering humanity and allies' general efforts at constant, unrelenting genocide, seem more justified than not in settings where your orcs, goblins, and similar critters are just greener, toothier versions of regular dudes.
Please do not contact or message me.
Strange. Your "Goblins" sounds like Gnolls in every way.
<Insert clever signature here>
I am not sure if you are agreeing with me, or not.
Yes, what you just described would be considered as "evil" by sentient D&D beings, and likely most "real world" sentient beings. I don't need a stat bloc to tell me creatures that function as that are "evil'. But because of all the Mercer influenced "D&D players" (His group does not play D&D, but some aberration), we need stat blocs, more than ever, to state what is evil, what is not, in the game. Experienced players don't need that. But new players do.
Imagine some new player arrives and says "I want to play a goblin", and then me, being a DM, explains, "no, goblins are feral, animalistic monstrosities with no kindness, no real sense of self, and an endless hunger for violence". Then the player screams that I am a real life racist.
I'm not super conversant with 5e gnolls, but that wouldn't shock me. Primarily because it's a more effective way to create an Always Chaotic Evil species than 'green bad'. if one makes their ACE (not to be confused with ace-the-sexual-(lack-of)-orientation, i.e. asexual) species into ravening monsters, it's at least minimally more effective than "these guys are the same as you all in most every way, except more primitive and disadvantaged, which they're understandably pissed about so they raid the 'civilized' races for resources those races have spent centuries denying them...but because they're, y'know, green, they're evil, so have at 'em."
Though the other example that strikes me as useful for someone trying to play off the ACE thing without it being cringey and bad is Caesar's Legion, from Fallout: New Vegas. Caesar's Legion is one of the most effectively executed 'evil' factions in most any modern or semi-modern video game, even if it all hinges on one man's overwhelming force of personality. That could be the way of it for people desperate to cling to "Green Is Bad!" in their D&D - goblinoid species are more akin to warring, generally unstable Caesar's Legions, each one centered around a warlord with supernatural force of will and personality. Any legion that loses its warlord descends into chaos and infighting. It's still not great, because there's no real reason such a disorganized, fractious species would really survive in a world where a vastly more organized, better equipped, and more cohesive society can set its sights on their utter destruction...but Caesar's Legion could provide a useful template at any rate.
Please do not contact or message me.
New players certainly do not need arbitrary rules to teach them the right and proper alignment for goblins or whatever else. They can be trusted to make their game however they'd like.
There's no point engaging this straw man further.
I mean, you are not playing D&D either, and your game is just as much of an abomination and aberration as anyone else's game, if not more so. If anything, new players play D&D much closer to RAW than any of us do, or at least they try to, since homebrew can seem daunting until they realize it is not. They might not get all the rules right at first, but they make more effort into knowing and following the rules and make a bigger deal out of RAW.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
The meta reason is probably the inclusiveness issue. However, practically speaking, it's not like you're actually losing anything; the only thing alignment does is describe in very vague terms how a monster behaves, and they give monsters enough description that you can figure that out without knowing what its alignment is (and if it's important to you, you can figure out for yourself what its alignment is).
Oof. Not in my experience. You may want to review what new players are picking up at your table if they are unable to tell right from wrong in your monsters' actions.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That is true. I was speaking in more general terms to show that not every table or setting has the same lore.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Players don't "make the game". DM's do. Players only exist within the construct the DM creates. So when some player shows up at my table and tells me what alignment a goblin is, that is not going to fly. But in this new age nonsense, when we have mercer and his crew saying anything goes, and Eberron, there is an excellent chance of some new player who got into D&D because of critical role telling me that goblins can be good.
And thank you for stating that it is a straw man argument when some player says I am a racist when I state goblins are evil. You have just put to the lie the entire concept of racism with regard to orcs, drow. vistani, which of course, it is.
I thought you liked Volo's Guide to Monsters?
"Goblins are typically neutral evil, as they care only for their own needs. A few goblins might tend toward good or neutrality, but only rarely." VGtM p. 119
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think this attitude explains a lot of the differences I see between your opinion and that of myself (and others).
This comment suggests that you consider the game to be strictly under the control of the DM. It is not a collaborative process, it is the DM telling the players exactly how everything is. The players are entirely constrained by the DMs opinions, views and vision of what is and can be. They can "play the game", but only within very tighly and strictly defined boundaries, set by the DM and not open to any discussion.
When I DM the responsibility for world building and story telling is shared among myself and my players. I prepare things for the group, and I have final say on how the rules work, but the entire experience is collaborative. Everybody contributes, everybody has a say. My players are encouraged to assist, to provide input on how parts of the world should work, on where the story should go. My players are encouraged to discuss alternative interpretations of the rules, or possible house rules, with me outside the game (and this is only restricted in order toi keep the game flowing). I'm even happy to retcon where necessary.
With 2 completely different attitudes to the game (and specifically DMing) it is completely understandable that totally different opinions will occur often.
I love Volo's. I missed that reference. But it does not change the fact that mercer and his crew have done D&D a real disservice. Had he added to the customer base? Of course. But when I see people saying goblins can be a good playable character species, that is a hard no, and that is the kind of thing he and others have opened the door to.
Edit: Oh, and NO player should EVER be reading Volo's. It is a DM book, not a player book.
In D&D, alignment is essentially personified on various planes of existence, so in a sense, it is physical.
e.g. The higher planes are where good creatures reside, and the lower planes, evil creatures. There are numerous examples, such as Limbo that embodies chaotic neutral, or the seven heavens which is lawful good.
WoTC hasn't gotten rid of them, or changed them, so alignment is still relevant in D&D.
But as with all things in D&D, you are free to change anything you want.
yes, yes, except alignment for *mortal* creatures who are not native to or of the stuff of the Outer Planes, Alignment is mutable and everchanging unless you're a real extremist.
if you're not an Immortal, alignment doesn't physically change you, in other words.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I have to say I like the idea of the alignments being entirely as they suit the world and the story. I feel like a description explaining the ways in which these creatures would commonly fit into areas (for example, Goblins are often evil but not as a rule, some intermingle with more open-minded communities and are good) thn just saying that they are good or they are evil.
I like it because it keeps the reigns of the game in the hands of the people playing it, rather than feeling like having a good orc or an evil angel be something of a special case.
I have to say that I don't find any sense in the idea that removing the alignment from the entries is in any way related to diversity and inclusion. That's like saying you made your restaurant vegan-friendly by writing the words "contains meat" next to every entry on the menu - it is clearly meant for the benefit of the vegans, but it doesn't actually change a damn thing about what really matters to them!
(and I'll be honest that I can't see how a fantasy game where creatures are given alignments to help people portray them in a consistent manner has any relation at all to the real world, which is not a fantasy game full of fictional monsters!)
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!