My loyalty is to a higher cause like democracy, equality, and freedom, and not something as dumb and toxic as blood and soil.
Are you making the argument that showing loyalty to your family is toxic? I might be inclined to understand that blind loyalty or limitless loyalty can be an issue. But otherwise it's a hard no to that very statement.
Not at all. D&D has had non-human PCs and human antagonists from the start. There's never been a "human=good" or "non-human=bad" divide in D&D, and there's never been a rule of thumb that humans are to be cheered on and non-humans are to be booed.
Actually, it IS since you've now twice ignored what I said. [REDACTED]
The Keep is a defensive redoubt and its the Caves of Chaos that are the offensive bastion where all manner of Humanoids and Human Cultists gather.
I root for my people, and I define my people as anyone who shares the same ideals as me. It does not matter if the person is an elf, goblin, human, or some other race.
Newsflash, newbie, Goblins don't share your ideals. They view humans and demihumans are playthings to abuse, enslave and murder and then eat.
My loyalty is to a higher cause like democracy, equality, and freedom, and not something as dumb and toxic as blood and soil.
Are you making the argument that showing loyalty to your family is toxic? I might be inclined to understand that blind loyalty or limitless loyalty can be an issue. But otherwise it's a hard no to that very statement.
"Blood and soil" is a phrase wrought with notions of extreme nationalism and racial supremacy, just in case you're not aware.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Not at all. D&D has had non-human PCs and human antagonists from the start. There's never been a "human=good" or "non-human=bad" divide in D&D, and there's never been a rule of thumb that humans are to be cheered on and non-humans are to be booed.
Actually, it IS since you've now twice ignored what I said. You're either intentionally ignoring what I said or ignorant of it. Which is it?
The Keep is a defensive redoubt and its the Caves of Chaos that are the offensive bastion where all manner of Humanoids and Human Cultists gather.
You might be mixing up my replies with some of the others, but that's ok. I don't particularly care for the Keep on the Borderlands argument, since a) you're reading a few things into it that aren't actually backed up by the text and b) it'd only be a single example of whatever it is you're trying to prove is an absolute rule for D&D, and that's not how proving an absolute works.
Moreover, those human cultists are, well, human and yet also nominal bad guys, so not to be rooted for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
My loyalty is to a higher cause like democracy, equality, and freedom, and not something as dumb and toxic as blood and soil.
Are you making the argument that showing loyalty to your family is toxic? I might be inclined to understand that blind loyalty or limitless loyalty can be an issue. But otherwise it's a hard no to that very statement.
Blood and soil is a slogan used by terrorists and extremists.
As for loyalty to family, my loyalty to my family is conditional. Family means nothing if they do not share my values. I was never consulted whether I should be brought forth to this world and I have no choice on who my parents and siblings are. So no, family bonds by itself means little to nothing to me. Generally speaking though, for most people, family members share enough values with each other that being torn between sticking with your beliefs or sticking with your family is not something that comes up often.
I root for my people, and I define my people as anyone who shares the same ideals as me. It does not matter if the person is an elf, goblin, human, or some other race.
Newsflash, newbie, Goblins don't share your ideals. They view humans and demihumans are playthings to abuse, enslave and murder and then eat.
Goblins at your table do not, but your goblins are not the end all and be all of goblinoids. I do not care about your homebrew goblins; they are homebrew and irrelevant. What I care about are the official goblins, and there are some decent ones out there.
Lots of goblins in official 5e lore share my values. In Eberron, you can find goblinoids of various personalities and dispositions, and the alignments for races are practically useless there. In Faerun, the Chill mercenaries are at least cordial enough to work with surrounding towns and cities. And just looking at the database for NPCs, Bol'Bara is good, and Yuk Yuk and Spiderbait are neutral.
Yes! The goblins of Eberron are a civilized race just like gnomes or halfings… it’s all about the story.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
Not at all. D&D has had non-human PCs and human antagonists from the start. There's never been a "human=good" or "non-human=bad" divide in D&D, and there's never been a rule of thumb that humans are to be cheered on and non-humans are to be booed.
Actually, it IS since you've now twice ignored what I said. [REDACTED]
The Keep is a defensive redoubt and its the Caves of Chaos that are the offensive bastion where all manner of Humanoids and Human Cultists gather.
"Humanoids" includes non-humans. And the evil cultists are humans. Even in the first days of D&D, there were human villains & non-human (elf, dwarf, halfling, etc.) heroes. Oh, and Gary Gygax was a fair supporter of progressive politics before he passed away.
No amount of "Orcs Will Not Replace Us" rhetoric will change that.
It hasn't 'slipped through the cracks', no monster since Candlekeep Mysteries has been printed with alignment. Seems very much like an intentional choice.
Anyway, I think unless a mod responds with wizards’ stated official reason for getting rid of alignments, there isn’t one and we can end this thread before it turns into 20+ pages of off topic arguing and expressing of differing opinions
Hello JoJoBeans07,
You seem to have some ability to see into the future. Would you mind giving me your guess on the lottery numbers? Will I ever play a D&D campaign that finishes its story?
I don't really mind most alignments being taken away. My main idea is that they are (at least to me) suggestions. Generalizations. Orcs are generally more aggressive and violent, halflings are generally more good natured. However, those suggestions were useful to have, not as much with the obviously evil creatures, or the one meant to just screw with the party, but things like devils or demons. The main difference in 5e between devils and demons is their chaotic or lawful alignment. That's kind of their whole thrust. One side is meant to be the more soul stealing, sneaky, but powerful lawyer from hell, and the others are basically engines of chaos. It doesn't make sense to me to remove alignments all together, especially when it's actually helpful to the game. I guess this is part of their move to try not to "offend anyone", but let's be real here, if you don't like alignments, you don't have to use em. But could you leave them in there for the people who do? I feel like taking them out could potentially cause a problem, but leaving them in really wouldn't.
(PS: If this question or one like it has already been answered, sorry, but I didn't feel like reading through 22 pages of text to find it :)
also, I'm seeing a lot of responses as this whole thing being part of WotC process to remove "racist tropes" from DnD. Get real. I don't think anyone sees alignment as racist, and if they do, that's awfully close minded. The way I see it, DnD is left up to the creativity and decisions of the DM who does the worldbuilding. I don't think alignment's are absolutes, or even that they are basic or boring. A lot of people have been bringing up that trying to confine a creature to 3 basic evils is stupid, but that just shows that you lack creativity. How you play a monster is up to you. I have a world of samurai inspired lawful neutral hobgoblins for example. Not to say that all of them are exactly and perfectly neutral, but they tend to fit in with that category. I think the mistake a lot of you are making is thinking alignments are these thin, ultra small categories that monsters were being squeezed into. They're not. It takes a creatuive DM and a broad thinker to use those categories correctly, something a lot of people apparently lack.
but all that to say,
I'd rather WotC let players and DM's make their own decisions instead of forcing their agendas like this on players. It's really sad and honestly kind of annoying. I know they're a corporation and obviously have political agendas, but please try to preserve the creativity of DnD and the DM controlled game, rather than the corporation controlled game.
also, I'm seeing a lot of responses as this whole thing being part of WotC process to remove "racist tropes" from DnD. Get real. I don't think anyone sees alignment as racist, and if they do, that's awfully close minded. The way I see it, DnD is left up to the creativity and decisions of the DM who does the worldbuilding. I don't think alignment's are absolutes, or even that they are basic or boring. A lot of people have been bringing up that trying to confine a creature to 3 basic evils is stupid, but that just shows that you lack creativity. How you play a monster is up to you. I have a world of samurai inspired lawful neutral hobgoblins for example. Not to say that all of them are exactly and perfectly neutral, but they tend to fit in with that category. I think the mistake a lot of you are making is thinking alignments are these thin, ultra small categories that monsters were being squeezed into. They're not. It takes a creatuive DM and a broad thinker to use those categories correctly, something a lot of people apparently lack.
but all that to say,
I'd rather WotC let players and DM's make their own decisions instead of forcing their agendas like this on players. It's really sad and honestly kind of annoying. I know they're a corporation and obviously have political agendas, but please try to preserve the creativity of DnD and the DM controlled game, rather than the corporation controlled game.
IMO Removing alignment gives DMs MORE control....that way a player can't complain if you have a Lawful Good Hobgoblin.
also, I'm seeing a lot of responses as this whole thing being part of WotC process to remove "racist tropes" from DnD. Get real. I don't think anyone sees alignment as racist, and if they do, that's awfully close minded. The way I see it, DnD is left up to the creativity and decisions of the DM who does the worldbuilding. I don't think alignment's are absolutes, or even that they are basic or boring. A lot of people have been bringing up that trying to confine a creature to 3 basic evils is stupid, but that just shows that you lack creativity. How you play a monster is up to you. I have a world of samurai inspired lawful neutral hobgoblins for example. Not to say that all of them are exactly and perfectly neutral, but they tend to fit in with that category. I think the mistake a lot of you are making is thinking alignments are these thin, ultra small categories that monsters were being squeezed into. They're not. It takes a creatuive DM and a broad thinker to use those categories correctly, something a lot of people apparently lack.
but all that to say,
I'd rather WotC let players and DM's make their own decisions instead of forcing their agendas like this on players. It's really sad and honestly kind of annoying. I know they're a corporation and obviously have political agendas, but please try to preserve the creativity of DnD and the DM controlled game, rather than the corporation controlled game.
IMO Removing alignment gives DMs MORE control....that way a player can't complain if you have a Lawful Good Hobgoblin.
Good point, I respect your opinion. However, what I was trying to say is that alignments really aren't as restrictive as people make them out to be. Furthermore, if a player complains, just don't play with them, or work it out. For example, you're saying that a player might complain if you have a LG hobgoblin, and their listed alignment is LE. But you're saying that players wouldn't complain if you played the hobgoblin the exact same way, but alignments didn't exist? (correct me if i'm wrong)
also, I'm seeing a lot of responses as this whole thing being part of WotC process to remove "racist tropes" from DnD. Get real. I don't think anyone sees alignment as racist, and if they do, that's awfully close minded. The way I see it, DnD is left up to the creativity and decisions of the DM who does the worldbuilding. I don't think alignment's are absolutes, or even that they are basic or boring. A lot of people have been bringing up that trying to confine a creature to 3 basic evils is stupid, but that just shows that you lack creativity. How you play a monster is up to you. I have a world of samurai inspired lawful neutral hobgoblins for example. Not to say that all of them are exactly and perfectly neutral, but they tend to fit in with that category. I think the mistake a lot of you are making is thinking alignments are these thin, ultra small categories that monsters were being squeezed into. They're not. It takes a creatuive DM and a broad thinker to use those categories correctly, something a lot of people apparently lack.
but all that to say,
I'd rather WotC let players and DM's make their own decisions instead of forcing their agendas like this on players. It's really sad and honestly kind of annoying. I know they're a corporation and obviously have political agendas, but please try to preserve the creativity of DnD and the DM controlled game, rather than the corporation controlled game.
IMO Removing alignment gives DMs MORE control....that way a player can't complain if you have a Lawful Good Hobgoblin.
Good point, I respect your opinion. However, what I was trying to say is that alignments really aren't as restrictive as people make them out to be. Furthermore, if a player complains, just don't play with them, or work it out. For example, you're saying that a player might complain if you have a LG hobgoblin, and their listed alignment is LE. But you're saying that players wouldn't complain if you played the hobgoblin the exact same way, but alignments didn't exist? (correct me if i'm wrong)
If they want to make waves they will do so either way if you introduce a Lawful Good Hobgoblin....but if the default statblock for all humanoids moving forward is "any alignment" then there is less inheriant belief in "Goblin = Evil" Which I think is what they want to get away from.
You would actually have to interact with them to understand their motivations and not just kill on sight.
also, I'm seeing a lot of responses as this whole thing being part of WotC process to remove "racist tropes" from DnD. Get real. I don't think anyone sees alignment as racist, and if they do, that's awfully close minded. The way I see it, DnD is left up to the creativity and decisions of the DM who does the worldbuilding. I don't think alignment's are absolutes, or even that they are basic or boring. A lot of people have been bringing up that trying to confine a creature to 3 basic evils is stupid, but that just shows that you lack creativity. How you play a monster is up to you. I have a world of samurai inspired lawful neutral hobgoblins for example. Not to say that all of them are exactly and perfectly neutral, but they tend to fit in with that category. I think the mistake a lot of you are making is thinking alignments are these thin, ultra small categories that monsters were being squeezed into. They're not. It takes a creatuive DM and a broad thinker to use those categories correctly, something a lot of people apparently lack.
but all that to say,
I'd rather WotC let players and DM's make their own decisions instead of forcing their agendas like this on players. It's really sad and honestly kind of annoying. I know they're a corporation and obviously have political agendas, but please try to preserve the creativity of DnD and the DM controlled game, rather than the corporation controlled game.
IMO Removing alignment gives DMs MORE control....that way a player can't complain if you have a Lawful Good Hobgoblin.
Good point, I respect your opinion. However, what I was trying to say is that alignments really aren't as restrictive as people make them out to be. Furthermore, if a player complains, just don't play with them, or work it out. For example, you're saying that a player might complain if you have a LG hobgoblin, and their listed alignment is LE. But you're saying that players wouldn't complain if you played the hobgoblin the exact same way, but alignments didn't exist? (correct me if i'm wrong)
If they want to make waves they will do so either way if you introduce a Lawful Good Hobgoblin....but if the default statblock for all humanoids moving forward is "any alignment" then there is less inheriant belief in "Goblin = Evil" Which I think is what they want to get away from.
You would actually have to interact with them to understand their motivations and not just kill on sight.
I see what you're saying. I think the Goblin=evil trope makes it more interesting when my players encounter a good hobgoblin, because out ooc they are kind of suspicious, but in character it encourages good roleplaying. But I think you're point is good too. What I'm most annoyed at is WotC for changing a standard that's been there for almost 50 years. I don't hate or even strongly disagree with the players who want alignments removed. That being said, I'd rather them let players do it in their own campaigns. It's easier to ignore alignments than it is to try to invent one.
also, I'm seeing a lot of responses as this whole thing being part of WotC process to remove "racist tropes" from DnD. Get real. I don't think anyone sees alignment as racist, and if they do, that's awfully close minded. The way I see it, DnD is left up to the creativity and decisions of the DM who does the worldbuilding. I don't think alignment's are absolutes, or even that they are basic or boring. A lot of people have been bringing up that trying to confine a creature to 3 basic evils is stupid, but that just shows that you lack creativity. How you play a monster is up to you. I have a world of samurai inspired lawful neutral hobgoblins for example. Not to say that all of them are exactly and perfectly neutral, but they tend to fit in with that category. I think the mistake a lot of you are making is thinking alignments are these thin, ultra small categories that monsters were being squeezed into. They're not. It takes a creatuive DM and a broad thinker to use those categories correctly, something a lot of people apparently lack.
but all that to say,
I'd rather WotC let players and DM's make their own decisions instead of forcing their agendas like this on players. It's really sad and honestly kind of annoying. I know they're a corporation and obviously have political agendas, but please try to preserve the creativity of DnD and the DM controlled game, rather than the corporation controlled game.
IMO Removing alignment gives DMs MORE control....that way a player can't complain if you have a Lawful Good Hobgoblin.
Good point, I respect your opinion. However, what I was trying to say is that alignments really aren't as restrictive as people make them out to be. Furthermore, if a player complains, just don't play with them, or work it out. For example, you're saying that a player might complain if you have a LG hobgoblin, and their listed alignment is LE. But you're saying that players wouldn't complain if you played the hobgoblin the exact same way, but alignments didn't exist? (correct me if i'm wrong)
If they want to make waves they will do so either way if you introduce a Lawful Good Hobgoblin....but if the default statblock for all humanoids moving forward is "any alignment" then there is less inheriant belief in "Goblin = Evil" Which I think is what they want to get away from.
You would actually have to interact with them to understand their motivations and not just kill on sight.
There are next to no means of in-game determining what a creature's exact alignment is in 5E anyway, so there's no meaningful distinction between playing one as [alignment X] or it having [alignment X] on paper.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'd rather WotC let players and DM's make their own decisions instead of forcing their agendas like this on players.
WotC is letting players and DMs decide how characters and monsters will behave, rather than forcing a decision on them. There is no way that removing alignment is more restrictive.
also, I'm seeing a lot of responses as this whole thing being part of WotC process to remove "racist tropes" from DnD. Get real. I don't think anyone sees alignment as racist, and if they do, that's awfully close minded. The way I see it, DnD is left up to the creativity and decisions of the DM who does the worldbuilding. I don't think alignment's are absolutes, or even that they are basic or boring. A lot of people have been bringing up that trying to confine a creature to 3 basic evils is stupid, but that just shows that you lack creativity. How you play a monster is up to you. I have a world of samurai inspired lawful neutral hobgoblins for example. Not to say that all of them are exactly and perfectly neutral, but they tend to fit in with that category. I think the mistake a lot of you are making is thinking alignments are these thin, ultra small categories that monsters were being squeezed into. They're not. It takes a creatuive DM and a broad thinker to use those categories correctly, something a lot of people apparently lack.
but all that to say,
I'd rather WotC let players and DM's make their own decisions instead of forcing their agendas like this on players. It's really sad and honestly kind of annoying. I know they're a corporation and obviously have political agendas, but please try to preserve the creativity of DnD and the DM controlled game, rather than the corporation controlled game.
IMO Removing alignment gives DMs MORE control....that way a player can't complain if you have a Lawful Good Hobgoblin.
Good point, I respect your opinion. However, what I was trying to say is that alignments really aren't as restrictive as people make them out to be. Furthermore, if a player complains, just don't play with them, or work it out. For example, you're saying that a player might complain if you have a LG hobgoblin, and their listed alignment is LE. But you're saying that players wouldn't complain if you played the hobgoblin the exact same way, but alignments didn't exist? (correct me if i'm wrong)
If they want to make waves they will do so either way if you introduce a Lawful Good Hobgoblin....but if the default statblock for all humanoids moving forward is "any alignment" then there is less inheriant belief in "Goblin = Evil" Which I think is what they want to get away from.
You would actually have to interact with them to understand their motivations and not just kill on sight.
There are next to no means of in-game determining what a creature's exact alignment is in 5E anyway, so there's no meaningful distinction between playing one as [alignment X] or it having [alignment X] on paper.
There's no in game means of determining exact alignment, sure. But through dice checks and roleplay, you can usually tell what a creature is doing or what it's motives are. I believe there are even certain rogue or bard abilities in certain subclasses that let you determine a creature's alignment (i could be wrong about that though). I would argue that the alignment in the MM is a suggestion, but players should come into your campaign (unless it's a pre-published one) willing to accept whatever the DM cooks up. So yes, the one on paper should not determine how you play every hobgoblin, but might be a suggestion on how they are in the world as a whole.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Updog
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Are you making the argument that showing loyalty to your family is toxic? I might be inclined to understand that blind loyalty or limitless loyalty can be an issue. But otherwise it's a hard no to that very statement.
Actually, it IS since you've now twice ignored what I said. [REDACTED]
The Keep is a defensive redoubt and its the Caves of Chaos that are the offensive bastion where all manner of Humanoids and Human Cultists gather.
Newsflash, newbie, Goblins don't share your ideals. They view humans and demihumans are playthings to abuse, enslave and murder and then eat.
"Blood and soil" is a phrase wrought with notions of extreme nationalism and racial supremacy, just in case you're not aware.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You might be mixing up my replies with some of the others, but that's ok. I don't particularly care for the Keep on the Borderlands argument, since a) you're reading a few things into it that aren't actually backed up by the text and b) it'd only be a single example of whatever it is you're trying to prove is an absolute rule for D&D, and that's not how proving an absolute works.
Moreover, those human cultists are, well, human and yet also nominal bad guys, so not to be rooted for.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Blood and soil is a slogan used by terrorists and extremists.
As for loyalty to family, my loyalty to my family is conditional. Family means nothing if they do not share my values. I was never consulted whether I should be brought forth to this world and I have no choice on who my parents and siblings are. So no, family bonds by itself means little to nothing to me. Generally speaking though, for most people, family members share enough values with each other that being torn between sticking with your beliefs or sticking with your family is not something that comes up often.
Goblins at your table do not, but your goblins are not the end all and be all of goblinoids. I do not care about your homebrew goblins; they are homebrew and irrelevant. What I care about are the official goblins, and there are some decent ones out there.
Lots of goblins in official 5e lore share my values. In Eberron, you can find goblinoids of various personalities and dispositions, and the alignments for races are practically useless there. In Faerun, the Chill mercenaries are at least cordial enough to work with surrounding towns and cities. And just looking at the database for NPCs, Bol'Bara is good, and Yuk Yuk and Spiderbait are neutral.
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 >
Yes! The goblins of Eberron are a civilized race just like gnomes or halfings… it’s all about the story.
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
"Humanoids" includes non-humans. And the evil cultists are humans. Even in the first days of D&D, there were human villains & non-human (elf, dwarf, halfling, etc.) heroes.
Oh, and Gary Gygax was a fair supporter of progressive politics before he passed away.
No amount of "Orcs Will Not Replace Us" rhetoric will change that.
Probably slipped through the cracks
It hasn't 'slipped through the cracks', no monster since Candlekeep Mysteries has been printed with alignment. Seems very much like an intentional choice.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Hello JoJoBeans07,
You seem to have some ability to see into the future. Would you mind giving me your guess on the lottery numbers? Will I ever play a D&D campaign that finishes its story?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I don't really mind most alignments being taken away. My main idea is that they are (at least to me) suggestions. Generalizations. Orcs are generally more aggressive and violent, halflings are generally more good natured. However, those suggestions were useful to have, not as much with the obviously evil creatures, or the one meant to just screw with the party, but things like devils or demons. The main difference in 5e between devils and demons is their chaotic or lawful alignment. That's kind of their whole thrust. One side is meant to be the more soul stealing, sneaky, but powerful lawyer from hell, and the others are basically engines of chaos. It doesn't make sense to me to remove alignments all together, especially when it's actually helpful to the game. I guess this is part of their move to try not to "offend anyone", but let's be real here, if you don't like alignments, you don't have to use em. But could you leave them in there for the people who do? I feel like taking them out could potentially cause a problem, but leaving them in really wouldn't.
(PS: If this question or one like it has already been answered, sorry, but I didn't feel like reading through 22 pages of text to find it :)
Updog
also, I'm seeing a lot of responses as this whole thing being part of WotC process to remove "racist tropes" from DnD. Get real. I don't think anyone sees alignment as racist, and if they do, that's awfully close minded. The way I see it, DnD is left up to the creativity and decisions of the DM who does the worldbuilding. I don't think alignment's are absolutes, or even that they are basic or boring. A lot of people have been bringing up that trying to confine a creature to 3 basic evils is stupid, but that just shows that you lack creativity. How you play a monster is up to you. I have a world of samurai inspired lawful neutral hobgoblins for example. Not to say that all of them are exactly and perfectly neutral, but they tend to fit in with that category. I think the mistake a lot of you are making is thinking alignments are these thin, ultra small categories that monsters were being squeezed into. They're not. It takes a creatuive DM and a broad thinker to use those categories correctly, something a lot of people apparently lack.
but all that to say,
I'd rather WotC let players and DM's make their own decisions instead of forcing their agendas like this on players. It's really sad and honestly kind of annoying. I know they're a corporation and obviously have political agendas, but please try to preserve the creativity of DnD and the DM controlled game, rather than the corporation controlled game.
Updog
IMO Removing alignment gives DMs MORE control....that way a player can't complain if you have a Lawful Good Hobgoblin.
Good point, I respect your opinion. However, what I was trying to say is that alignments really aren't as restrictive as people make them out to be. Furthermore, if a player complains, just don't play with them, or work it out. For example, you're saying that a player might complain if you have a LG hobgoblin, and their listed alignment is LE. But you're saying that players wouldn't complain if you played the hobgoblin the exact same way, but alignments didn't exist? (correct me if i'm wrong)
Updog
If they want to make waves they will do so either way if you introduce a Lawful Good Hobgoblin....but if the default statblock for all humanoids moving forward is "any alignment" then there is less inheriant belief in "Goblin = Evil" Which I think is what they want to get away from.
You would actually have to interact with them to understand their motivations and not just kill on sight.
I see what you're saying. I think the Goblin=evil trope makes it more interesting when my players encounter a good hobgoblin, because out ooc they are kind of suspicious, but in character it encourages good roleplaying. But I think you're point is good too. What I'm most annoyed at is WotC for changing a standard that's been there for almost 50 years. I don't hate or even strongly disagree with the players who want alignments removed. That being said, I'd rather them let players do it in their own campaigns. It's easier to ignore alignments than it is to try to invent one.
Updog
There are next to no means of in-game determining what a creature's exact alignment is in 5E anyway, so there's no meaningful distinction between playing one as [alignment X] or it having [alignment X] on paper.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
WotC is letting players and DMs decide how characters and monsters will behave, rather than forcing a decision on them. There is no way that removing alignment is more restrictive.
There's no in game means of determining exact alignment, sure. But through dice checks and roleplay, you can usually tell what a creature is doing or what it's motives are. I believe there are even certain rogue or bard abilities in certain subclasses that let you determine a creature's alignment (i could be wrong about that though). I would argue that the alignment in the MM is a suggestion, but players should come into your campaign (unless it's a pre-published one) willing to accept whatever the DM cooks up. So yes, the one on paper should not determine how you play every hobgoblin, but might be a suggestion on how they are in the world as a whole.
Updog