I'll have to read up on lore that may not have anything to do with my setting anyway just because I can't remember what Alignment a Bugbear is off hand.
Honest question: what does it matter what a Bugbear's alignment in the "default" setting is if you're not using that setting?
Yes, because the Default Setting in 5e (the Forgotten Realms) are what the core rulebook's lore is based around. This is hopefully going to be different whenever 6e comes, but it currently matters. If I'm playing in Eberron, and I have a group of Bugbears meet the players, a player that has read the Monster Manual (such as my 2 players that have been DMs) will know their alignment, causing them to think that this setting's Bugbears are evil, like the ones in FR.
Issues like this have come up in my campaigns, and I can attest to the fact that Alignment on Monster Stats has done more harm than good at my table, even if I can "just ignore it".
That's an answer to a slightly different question, namely whether it matters if monsters/species have a nominal alignment at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I actually hate the alignment system, it limits character growth and creativity
No bad guy will ever view themselves as evil, it's always a matter of perspective. I think the alignment system is rather outdated and actually not that useful. I don't know if I have ever played a single character where I have not deviated from his alignment for rp reasons.
Also, all these people saying that Goblins can't be good and Matt Mercer is doing it wrong.....It's his world. Not your's. His. You don't have to play in it, his lore is not forced into the rules. Have any of you ever played a campaign where any of the races are at all different from LotR? Because it doesn't seem like it. Not that that's a bad thing, but you shouldn't impose your views as facts. If people are actually getting mad at Matt Mercer for saying Goblins can be good in his HOMEBREW WORLD, that is a problem. A rather large one
I also think that players should have, you know, control of their own character. In a system where goblins are a playable race, I think that any DM would be doing their players a 'terrible disservice' by forcing them to be evil.
I actually hate the alignment system, it limits character growth and creativity
This! But if WotC wants to get rid of the alignment system, which I hope they will, why haven’t they gone the whole way with it and said “alignment is vestigial, we won’t be using it any more?”
I noticed when reading Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft that none of the new creatures seemed to have alignments. Why is this? I would assume it's because of the bad direction D&D has been going in, but it seems like such a stupid decision to remove alignments from monsters when alignment is still a major part of the game. I mean, are you really going to tell me that a Dullahan shouldn't be classified as evil?
Tasha's monsters don't have alignments, either. I'm told Candlekeep Mysteries has a rules block in it telling you how to read such a statblock, but there's no game-wide resolution I know of. As it stands, the answer is "lack of proofreading", unless Van Richten's explains itself - I can tell you Tasha's does not, meaning the statblocks in Tasha's are illegal. I am under the impression that Candlekeep Mysteries claims that a statblock with no alignment is intended to be read as a statblock with "any alignment" where its alignment should be, but of course, WOTC could have just printed that, to render the statblocks legal. So I have no good answer for you.
I actually hate the alignment system, it limits character growth and creativity
No bad guy will ever view themselves as evil, it's always a matter of perspective. I think the alignment system is rather outdated and actually not that useful. I don't know if I have ever played a single character where I have not deviated from his alignment for rp reasons.
Also, all these people saying that Goblins can't be good and Matt Mercer is doing it wrong.....It's his world. Not your's. His. You don't have to play in it, his lore is not forced into the rules. Have any of you ever played a campaign where any of the races are at all different from LotR? Because it doesn't seem like it. Not that that's a bad thing, but you shouldn't impose your views as facts.
I also think that players should have, you know, control of their own character. In a system where goblins are a playable race, I think that any DM would be doing their players a 'terrible disservice' by forcing them to be evil.
Not how any of this works at all. As lightly covered in the Volo's entry letting you play a Goblin and as heavily covered in the Monster Manual where alignments in stat blocks are explained, MM Goblins being listed as "neutral evil" is simply the default, just like draconic alignment - it's based on the default culture the creature in question has for its default setting (for Goblins, this is Faerun). That listing has absolutely never meant that goblins can't be good, especially not in a custom world like Mercer's. That's not even dependent on Goblins being a playable race - full-on dragons aren't, either, and the MM explicitly points out that all of this logic applies to dragons, too. It's your world.
What the lack of an alignment in a statblock does - aside from making it impossible to read using the MM rules for reading a statblock - is prevent a DM from understanding at a glance how a creature is generally intended by WOTC to behave, with no clear benefit, as removing the information doesn't meaningfully declutter the statblock - it isn't easier to read the rest of it, and new information isn't put where the alignment information used to be.
Until we get a rules entry clarifying what a statblock with no listed alignment means and how it differs from the other 11 possibilities (each of the 9 strongly typed alignments, unaligned, and any), the single biggest thing accomplished by leaving the alignment information out is confusing the heck out of the DM, and I expect that to still be true, just less so, if and when we ever get an explanation.
I believe that people are kind of fuzzy about the Alignments of the upper planes because they don't *fight* the stuff from them. Fiends, yes, those get fought all the time. People know all about the difference between Devils and Demons. They argue over the finer points, but they have a good enough grasp over all. Daemons are the ones in between, fighting for either side or just on their own. Who fights with Celestials? How many games are Evil players fighting the good guys? I can't say, but I don't get the impression they are all that common.
With Planescape, more attention would be on Alignment I expect. Then people might be more cognizant of the names and characters of the assorted Planes. I will have to admit, I'm not really sure which alignment goes with Limbo any more. I'd have to look it up. I haven't had anyone go there. Lawful Neutral I think... Hades and Carceri? No clue to be honest.
Lets see... Arcadia is probably the Chaotic Good one, Mount Celestia would be where the 7 Heavens of Lawful Good are, and that leaves Bytopia for Neutral Good. Probably.
Ok. Went and checked. It was bugging me. I got Mount Celestia and Limbo right. I got Arcadia and Bytopia wrong. I didn't do too bad I guess, 50-50. I didn't try for Hades and Carceri, so I'd say I got a "D" on that test. I keep forgetting that there are more than 9 Outer Planes.
I actually hate the alignment system, it limits character growth and creativity
This! But if WotC wants to get rid of the alignment system, which I hope they will, why haven’t they gone the whole way with it and said “alignment is vestigial, we won’t be using it any more?”
Because that would require a PHB reprint AKA a lot of money.
In 6e I want no alignments, race abilities to be really cool and different from each other (Atm with the Tasha's rules they feel really bland, but if their signature abilities were cool the ASIs wouldn't really matter too much), a system that is more complex for martial classes than 5e is and a less massive spell list to open up opportunities for classes like the psionic and niche race abilities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Planescape is going to be rather strange if they remove Alignment entirely from the game, and that's the setting I most look forward to seeing.
Just requires that they define what the different outer planes actually stand for in a way that's more coherent than the alignment system. I couldn't actually tell you what the important philosophical distinctions are between, say, Arcadia, Mount Celestia, and Bytopia.
Yep. Isn't interesting how it's easy to differentiate elemental/planar evil with the Hells and Abyss (and a lot of folks just going a bit "blurry" with Hades, Carceri, etc.) where as good is sorted stuck in some vagueness to see if anything really makes them distinct from each other?
The vagueness is pretty bad even with the evil planes; without actually looking it up, would you know the exact placement of Acheron, Carceri, Gehenna, Hades, and Pandemonium?
I noticed when reading Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft that none of the new creatures seemed to have alignments. Why is this? I would assume it's because of the bad direction D&D has been going in, but it seems like such a stupid decision to remove alignments from monsters when alignment is still a major part of the game. I mean, are you really going to tell me that a Dullahan shouldn't be classified as evil?
Tasha's monsters don't have alignments, either. I'm told Candlekeep Mysteries has a rules block in it telling you how to read such a statblock, but there's no game-wide resolution I know of. As it stands, the answer is "lack of proofreading", unless Van Richten's explains itself - I can tell you Tasha's does not, meaning the statblocks in Tasha's are illegal. I am under the impression that Candlekeep Mysteries claims that a statblock with no alignment is intended to be read as a statblock with "any alignment" where its alignment should be, but of course, WOTC could have just printed that, to render the statblocks legal. So I have no good answer for you.
I actually hate the alignment system, it limits character growth and creativity
No bad guy will ever view themselves as evil, it's always a matter of perspective. I think the alignment system is rather outdated and actually not that useful. I don't know if I have ever played a single character where I have not deviated from his alignment for rp reasons.
Also, all these people saying that Goblins can't be good and Matt Mercer is doing it wrong.....It's his world. Not your's. His. You don't have to play in it, his lore is not forced into the rules. Have any of you ever played a campaign where any of the races are at all different from LotR? Because it doesn't seem like it. Not that that's a bad thing, but you shouldn't impose your views as facts.
I also think that players should have, you know, control of their own character. In a system where goblins are a playable race, I think that any DM would be doing their players a 'terrible disservice' by forcing them to be evil.
Not how any of this works at all. As lightly covered in the Volo's entry letting you play a Goblin and as heavily covered in the Monster Manual where alignments in stat blocks are explained, MM Goblins being listed as "neutral evil" is simply the default, just like draconic alignment - it's based on the default culture the creature in question has for its default setting (for Goblins, this is Faerun). That listing has absolutely never meant that goblins can't be good, especially not in a custom world like Mercer's. That's not even dependent on Goblins being a playable race - full-on dragons aren't, either, and the MM explicitly points out that all of this logic applies to dragons, too. It's your world.
What the lack of an alignment in a statblock does - aside from making it impossible to read using the MM rules for reading a statblock - is prevent a DM from understanding at a glance how a creature is generally intended by WOTC to behave, with no clear benefit, as removing the information doesn't meaningfully declutter the statblock - it isn't easier to read the rest of it, and new information isn't put where the alignment information used to be.
Until we get a rules entry clarifying what a statblock with no listed alignment means and how it differs from the other 11 possibilities (each of the 9 strongly typed alignments, unaligned, and any), the single biggest thing accomplished by leaving the alignment information out is confusing the heck out of the DM, and I expect that to still be true, just less so, if and when we ever get an explanation.
Okay, I think we agree.
I was mostly replying to Vince Snetterton who said that Matt allowing a goblin to be good was a terrible thing. I also think that in the default setting, there should be at-a-glance alignments, however I wish it had a disclaimer at the beginning of the MM that said something to let DMs know that everything in the book is subject to change depending on the setting. I also think that if they are going to remove something like the alignment, they should have said something
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I was mostly replying to Vince Snetterton who said that Matt allowing a goblin to be good was a terrible thing. I also think that in the default setting, there should be at-a-glance alignments, however I wish it had a disclaimer at the beginning of the MM that said something to let DMs know that everything in the book is subject to change depending on the setting.
I was mostly replying to Vince Snetterton who said that Matt allowing a goblin to be good was a terrible thing. I also think that in the default setting, there should be at-a-glance alignments, however I wish it had a disclaimer at the beginning of the MM that said something to let DMs know that everything in the book is subject to change depending on the setting.
I was mostly replying to Vince Snetterton who said that Matt allowing a goblin to be good was a terrible thing. I also think that in the default setting, there should be at-a-glance alignments, however I wish it had a disclaimer at the beginning of the MM that said something to let DMs know that everything in the book is subject to change depending on the setting.
Not really. I want one that says that 'this is the default for the Forgotten Realms, in your campaign the entire race as a whole could be a different alignment'
Perhaps phrased more elegantly though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I was mostly replying to Vince Snetterton who said that Matt allowing a goblin to be good was a terrible thing. I also think that in the default setting, there should be at-a-glance alignments, however I wish it had a disclaimer at the beginning of the MM that said something to let DMs know that everything in the book is subject to change depending on the setting.
Not really. I want one that says that 'this is the default for the Forgotten Realms, in your campaign the entire race as a whole could be a different alignment'
Perhaps phrased more elegantly though.
But what if a DM wants a good goblin in the Forgotten Realms? a DM controls the game, and not every (or arguably most) DM(s) wants to follow the established lore of the setting in full. The wording works both for alternate settings as well as custom campaigns in the realms. I see no reason to change it.
It is slightly off topic, but on reflection I see that some of the problem with Alignment in general is that 5th Edition didn't explain it at all well. Just one page. I'm not sure why they did that. I got started with AD&D First Edition. I remember the havoc caused by Alignments.
Paladins in particular were a problem. The ability to Detect Evil at will, with no limit to the number of uses, lead to arguments like "Shouldn't a Paladin be constantly scanning for Evil, arrest anyone detected as being so, and kill anyone who resists arrest?". Paladins were the only class restricted to just one Alignment, Lawful Good, and could lose their powers permanently if they strayed. It was left entirely up to the DM to determine if they were straying, they didn't have to give warnings, and cruel DMs liked to put you in situations where things were not clear. Cultural Relativity was such a pain in the tush. "It's fine and according to the Law here in this nation to cut off people's hands for stealing, so Paladins have to do that, right?" Maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the DM. Paladins were expected to be Lawful Stupid a lot, and do things like answer any cry for help they heard, no matter how suspicious, or hold up their end of bargains made by people who were pushing the limits of Evil.
Rangers had to be Good. Druids had to be True Neutral. Assassins had to be Evil. Monks had to be Lawful. Barbarians had to be Chaotic. I do not remember Alignment in those days with fondness.
The current version though, is handy. It's rather like Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws, and should be given no more weight than those are. It helps round out Backgrounds and makes it easier to create a backstory. If the Player's Handbook had been written so as to stress how Alignment was only a loose guideline to give insight into roleplaying, and the Dungeon Master's Guide had given advice on the concepts of Morals and Ethics that are behind the Alignment system the game as a whole would be better off.
More directly on topic, I *think* I understand why they are removing Alignment from monsters. It's partly for Political Correctness, and partly so there can be Player Characters of Monstrous origin. "People Of Monster"? I don't know. I see it as a mistake. The Alignment system is one of those odd cornerstones of D&D, semi-obsolete though it might be. It's like the Vancian Magic System, for all its warts. Without it, it's "just not D&D anymore". Old timers like me, who had to walk up hill to school, in the snow, to play D&D, and use a pencil and a piece of paper to create our characters, want to keep it around. And you kids get off my lawn!
It is slightly off topic, but on reflection I see that some of the problem with Alignment in general is that 5th Edition didn't explain it at all well. Just one page. I'm not sure why they did that. I got started with AD&D First Edition. I remember the havoc caused by Alignments.
<snip>
More directly on topic, I *think* I understand why they are removing Alignment from monsters. It's partly for Political Correctness, and partly so there can be Player Characters of Monstrous origin. "People Of Monster"? I don't know. I see it as a mistake.
Or perhaps it's because of how alignments back in 1st edition were way more trouble than they were worth and subsequent editions haven't improved on that state of affairs?
It's partly for Political Correctness, and partly so there can be Player Characters of Monstrous origin.
D&D has had a rather well-known CG Drow Ranger for over 30 years. PCs being exceptions to the rules that apply to everything else precedes WotC. Not even WotC-as-owners-of-D&D, WotC as a company period.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Planescape is going to be rather strange if they remove Alignment entirely from the game, and that's the setting I most look forward to seeing.
Just requires that they define what the different outer planes actually stand for in a way that's more coherent than the alignment system. I couldn't actually tell you what the important philosophical distinctions are between, say, Arcadia, Mount Celestia, and Bytopia.
Yep. Isn't interesting how it's easy to differentiate elemental/planar evil with the Hells and Abyss (and a lot of folks just going a bit "blurry" with Hades, Carceri, etc.) where as good is sorted stuck in some vagueness to see if anything really makes them distinct from each other?
The vagueness is pretty bad even with the evil planes; without actually looking it up, would you know the exact placement of Acheron, Carceri, Gehenna, Hades, and Pandemonium?
Ok, I got Carceri wrong, largely because I associate it with "incarceration" so think discipline and punish rather than the pits of Tartarus. To be fair, I spend a lot of time working lower planes intrigue, but also to be fully honest I didn't note the ones that also include a LN or CN aspect to its orientation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Slightly off topic as well, but making sweeping changes like Alignment, Lineage and Lore and tucking them into splat books will lead to a lot of confusion as 5e progresses.
Ok, I got Carceri wrong, largely because I associate it with "incarceration" so think discipline and punish rather than the pits of Tartarus. To be fair, I spend a lot of time working lower planes intrigue, but also to be fully honest I didn't note the ones that also include a LN or CN aspect to its orientation.
Honestly, I would swap Carceri and Gehenna, I don't see a lot of logic to the way either one is placed.
Slightly off topic as well, but making sweeping changes like Alignment, Lineage and Lore and tucking them into splat books will lead to a lot of confusion as 5e progresses.
Declining to label creatures with an alignment doesn't seem too sweeping to me. They are not removing alignment, they are just not hard labeling any creature going forward.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's an answer to a slightly different question, namely whether it matters if monsters/species have a nominal alignment at all.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I actually hate the alignment system, it limits character growth and creativity
No bad guy will ever view themselves as evil, it's always a matter of perspective. I think the alignment system is rather outdated and actually not that useful. I don't know if I have ever played a single character where I have not deviated from his alignment for rp reasons.
Also, all these people saying that Goblins can't be good and Matt Mercer is doing it wrong.....It's his world. Not your's. His. You don't have to play in it, his lore is not forced into the rules. Have any of you ever played a campaign where any of the races are at all different from LotR? Because it doesn't seem like it. Not that that's a bad thing, but you shouldn't impose your views as facts. If people are actually getting mad at Matt Mercer for saying Goblins can be good in his HOMEBREW WORLD, that is a problem. A rather large one
I also think that players should have, you know, control of their own character. In a system where goblins are a playable race, I think that any DM would be doing their players a 'terrible disservice' by forcing them to be evil.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
This! But if WotC wants to get rid of the alignment system, which I hope they will, why haven’t they gone the whole way with it and said “alignment is vestigial, we won’t be using it any more?”
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Tasha's monsters don't have alignments, either. I'm told Candlekeep Mysteries has a rules block in it telling you how to read such a statblock, but there's no game-wide resolution I know of. As it stands, the answer is "lack of proofreading", unless Van Richten's explains itself - I can tell you Tasha's does not, meaning the statblocks in Tasha's are illegal. I am under the impression that Candlekeep Mysteries claims that a statblock with no alignment is intended to be read as a statblock with "any alignment" where its alignment should be, but of course, WOTC could have just printed that, to render the statblocks legal. So I have no good answer for you.
Not how any of this works at all. As lightly covered in the Volo's entry letting you play a Goblin and as heavily covered in the Monster Manual where alignments in stat blocks are explained, MM Goblins being listed as "neutral evil" is simply the default, just like draconic alignment - it's based on the default culture the creature in question has for its default setting (for Goblins, this is Faerun). That listing has absolutely never meant that goblins can't be good, especially not in a custom world like Mercer's. That's not even dependent on Goblins being a playable race - full-on dragons aren't, either, and the MM explicitly points out that all of this logic applies to dragons, too. It's your world.
What the lack of an alignment in a statblock does - aside from making it impossible to read using the MM rules for reading a statblock - is prevent a DM from understanding at a glance how a creature is generally intended by WOTC to behave, with no clear benefit, as removing the information doesn't meaningfully declutter the statblock - it isn't easier to read the rest of it, and new information isn't put where the alignment information used to be.
Until we get a rules entry clarifying what a statblock with no listed alignment means and how it differs from the other 11 possibilities (each of the 9 strongly typed alignments, unaligned, and any), the single biggest thing accomplished by leaving the alignment information out is confusing the heck out of the DM, and I expect that to still be true, just less so, if and when we ever get an explanation.
I believe that people are kind of fuzzy about the Alignments of the upper planes because they don't *fight* the stuff from them. Fiends, yes, those get fought all the time. People know all about the difference between Devils and Demons. They argue over the finer points, but they have a good enough grasp over all. Daemons are the ones in between, fighting for either side or just on their own. Who fights with Celestials? How many games are Evil players fighting the good guys? I can't say, but I don't get the impression they are all that common.
With Planescape, more attention would be on Alignment I expect. Then people might be more cognizant of the names and characters of the assorted Planes. I will have to admit, I'm not really sure which alignment goes with Limbo any more. I'd have to look it up. I haven't had anyone go there. Lawful Neutral I think... Hades and Carceri? No clue to be honest.
Lets see... Arcadia is probably the Chaotic Good one, Mount Celestia would be where the 7 Heavens of Lawful Good are, and that leaves Bytopia for Neutral Good. Probably.
Ok. Went and checked. It was bugging me. I got Mount Celestia and Limbo right. I got Arcadia and Bytopia wrong. I didn't do too bad I guess, 50-50. I didn't try for Hades and Carceri, so I'd say I got a "D" on that test. I keep forgetting that there are more than 9 Outer Planes.
<Insert clever signature here>
Because that would require a PHB reprint AKA a lot of money.
In 6e I want no alignments, race abilities to be really cool and different from each other (Atm with the Tasha's rules they feel really bland, but if their signature abilities were cool the ASIs wouldn't really matter too much), a system that is more complex for martial classes than 5e is and a less massive spell list to open up opportunities for classes like the psionic and niche race abilities.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The vagueness is pretty bad even with the evil planes; without actually looking it up, would you know the exact placement of Acheron, Carceri, Gehenna, Hades, and Pandemonium?
Okay, I think we agree.
I was mostly replying to Vince Snetterton who said that Matt allowing a goblin to be good was a terrible thing. I also think that in the default setting, there should be at-a-glance alignments, however I wish it had a disclaimer at the beginning of the MM that said something to let DMs know that everything in the book is subject to change depending on the setting. I also think that if they are going to remove something like the alignment, they should have said something
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Well, there is one.
Off-topic but I have to ask...how do you quote a specific section like that? Very cool!
But I agree...it is there but people do not read the entire book I guess. I didn't really need to idea of removing alignment as I did it arleady.
Not really. I want one that says that 'this is the default for the Forgotten Realms, in your campaign the entire race as a whole could be a different alignment'
Perhaps phrased more elegantly though.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
When you click on a book section from the table of contents, it generates a URL that points to that section of the book. Then just copy and paste.
But what if a DM wants a good goblin in the Forgotten Realms? a DM controls the game, and not every (or arguably most) DM(s) wants to follow the established lore of the setting in full. The wording works both for alternate settings as well as custom campaigns in the realms. I see no reason to change it.
It is slightly off topic, but on reflection I see that some of the problem with Alignment in general is that 5th Edition didn't explain it at all well. Just one page. I'm not sure why they did that. I got started with AD&D First Edition. I remember the havoc caused by Alignments.
Paladins in particular were a problem. The ability to Detect Evil at will, with no limit to the number of uses, lead to arguments like "Shouldn't a Paladin be constantly scanning for Evil, arrest anyone detected as being so, and kill anyone who resists arrest?". Paladins were the only class restricted to just one Alignment, Lawful Good, and could lose their powers permanently if they strayed. It was left entirely up to the DM to determine if they were straying, they didn't have to give warnings, and cruel DMs liked to put you in situations where things were not clear. Cultural Relativity was such a pain in the tush. "It's fine and according to the Law here in this nation to cut off people's hands for stealing, so Paladins have to do that, right?" Maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the DM. Paladins were expected to be Lawful Stupid a lot, and do things like answer any cry for help they heard, no matter how suspicious, or hold up their end of bargains made by people who were pushing the limits of Evil.
Rangers had to be Good. Druids had to be True Neutral. Assassins had to be Evil. Monks had to be Lawful. Barbarians had to be Chaotic. I do not remember Alignment in those days with fondness.
The current version though, is handy. It's rather like Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws, and should be given no more weight than those are. It helps round out Backgrounds and makes it easier to create a backstory. If the Player's Handbook had been written so as to stress how Alignment was only a loose guideline to give insight into roleplaying, and the Dungeon Master's Guide had given advice on the concepts of Morals and Ethics that are behind the Alignment system the game as a whole would be better off.
More directly on topic, I *think* I understand why they are removing Alignment from monsters. It's partly for Political Correctness, and partly so there can be Player Characters of Monstrous origin. "People Of Monster"? I don't know. I see it as a mistake. The Alignment system is one of those odd cornerstones of D&D, semi-obsolete though it might be. It's like the Vancian Magic System, for all its warts. Without it, it's "just not D&D anymore". Old timers like me, who had to walk up hill to school, in the snow, to play D&D, and use a pencil and a piece of paper to create our characters, want to keep it around. And you kids get off my lawn!
<Insert clever signature here>
Or perhaps it's because of how alignments back in 1st edition were way more trouble than they were worth and subsequent editions haven't improved on that state of affairs?
D&D has had a rather well-known CG Drow Ranger for over 30 years. PCs being exceptions to the rules that apply to everything else precedes WotC. Not even WotC-as-owners-of-D&D, WotC as a company period.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Ok, I got Carceri wrong, largely because I associate it with "incarceration" so think discipline and punish rather than the pits of Tartarus. To be fair, I spend a lot of time working lower planes intrigue, but also to be fully honest I didn't note the ones that also include a LN or CN aspect to its orientation.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Slightly off topic as well, but making sweeping changes like Alignment, Lineage and Lore and tucking them into splat books will lead to a lot of confusion as 5e progresses.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Honestly, I would swap Carceri and Gehenna, I don't see a lot of logic to the way either one is placed.
Declining to label creatures with an alignment doesn't seem too sweeping to me. They are not removing alignment, they are just not hard labeling any creature going forward.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!