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?”
Bingo. The few elements of the 5e system that use alignment in a crunchy way are clunky and out of place. Alignment should be tossed in the bin (along with monster HD, don't @ me).
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?”
WotC learned from 4e to be cautious and subtle when slaughtering sacred cows.
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?”
WotC learned from 4e to be cautious and subtle when slaughtering sacred cows.
That is fair. And personally, despite my dislike of alignment, I’m happy if it stays, along with things like classes (especially fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard), the 6 ability scores, etc. There are other games better than D&D, especially for story-focused games: at this point, the best part of D&D is fame and nostalgia. And I honestly don’t mind. (Though I also wish we could admit that D&D isn’t the only RPG in the world and give other systems some love!)
I'll give other RPGs some love as soon as they give me online tools that don't cost a billion dollars, or which don't require me to spend three months taking a course in quantoparallel nonlinear Boolean mathemagics to get functional. I do that shit for my day job, my engineering brain is all tapped out when it comes to my hobbies. And frankly, an engineering team that designs a U.I. as obtuse, unintuitive, and anti-useful as some of these 'popular' VTT programs and their thousand-dollar RPG inserts would be lined up and shot in most any other field.
But that's besides the point.
Frankly, I don't give a damn if alignments are bolted back onto monster stat blocks. I will continue to ignore it and use the monster as I see fit, with whatever goals, desires, and motivations work for my game. I feel a little bad for people so constrained in their thinking that they cannot use a monster if they don't have a two-word descriptor telling them which of three varieties of pre-programmed Generically Evulz the critter adheres to, but if they need it? They need it. Let 'em have it, no skin off my nose, and if players challenge me at the table over playing a critter's alignment 'wrong'? I'll remind them who the DM is for the game and invite them to react to the critter they're facing at my tasble, rather than the critter they read about in the book outside of session.
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.
Alignment going away isn't a big change on it's own, but as things move further and further away from the core 3 books, confusion is going to happen. Each of the changes being implemented are small, but still changes. Eventually they will have to consolidate and publish the revisions in a way that makes all the material available match up to avoid confusing new players. In no way am I saying that the changes are bad, but standardization between the books makes them easier to use together.
I'll give other RPGs some love as soon as they give me online tools that don't cost a billion dollars, or which don't require me to spend three months taking a course in quantoparallel nonlinear Boolean mathemagics to get functional. I do that shit for my day job, my engineering brain is all tapped out when it comes to my hobbies. And frankly, an engineering team that designs a U.I. as obtuse, unintuitive, and anti-useful as some of these 'popular' VTT programs and their thousand-dollar RPG inserts would be lined up and shot in most any other field.
But that's besides the point.
Frankly, I don't give a damn if alignments are bolted back onto monster stat blocks. I will continue to ignore it and use the monster as I see fit, with whatever goals, desires, and motivations work for my game. I feel a little bad for people so constrained in their thinking that they cannot use a monster if they don't have a two-word descriptor telling them which of three varieties of pre-programmed Generically Evulz the critter adheres to, but if they need it? They need it. Let 'em have it, no skin off my nose, and if players challenge me at the table over playing a critter's alignment 'wrong'? I'll remind them who the DM is for the game and invite them to react to the critter they're facing at my tasble, rather than the critter they read about in the book outside of session.
That’s not really a fair criticism. The online tools suck, yes, but most RPGs are designed to be played in person with physical books anyway, especially the indie ones that can’t afford a VTT interface anyway. It sucks when your RPG friends aren’t nearby and you have to resort to the internet, and it does limit your options, but that’s not a reason to dismiss other games as a whole. (Plus, the best are less crunchy than 5e, not more: Dread is a key example!)
Other than that I agree with you. If they’re gonna have alignment, it should go on stat blocks, but that hasn’t stopped my last few sessions from including a Good skeleton, variously aligned werewolves, and some quite reasonable hags.
My friends live across most of the continental United States. A few of them live outside the U.S. altogether. There's no such thing as an in-person table for me, and that means any fame that eschews online tools or uses tools one cannot easily replicate online (Savage Worlds' frequent use of playing cards comes to mind), that game is out of contention for me and my group. That's simply the way it is, however much I might otherwise love a given engine.
Alignment going away isn't a big change on it's own ...
It really didn't go away, it just is no longer hard coded into the stat block, meaning the DM is free to give each creature the alignment that is appropriate for the game.
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!
Alignment going away isn't a big change on it's own, but as things move further and further away from the core 3 books, confusion is going to happen. Each of the changes being implemented are small, but still changes. Eventually they will have to consolidate and publish the revisions in a way that makes all the material available match up to avoid confusing new players. In no way am I saying that the changes are bad, but standardization between the books makes them easier to use together.
Here's the thing though, they aren't really moving away from the core 3 books. Every single book they have published only requires the PH, DMG, and MM. Each addition to the catalogue just provides options that can enhance the core rulebooks. That is one reason why they reprint things in other books--so they do not need any other supplement. I wouldn't worry about new players. When I grew up I had three sometimes conflicting rule sets and zero guidance from TSR on how to do anything. Kids today have the entire internet and all sorts of support in a number of communities, including this one. It's all confusing until you realize that they tell you right in the rules that it ultimately doesn't matter as long as the table is having a great time. The changes being made in current and future products are thoughtful and necessary, as well as subtle. I wasn't kidding when I said that I didn't even notice the lack of alignments earlier. I was too busy imagining having a nosferatu vomit blood all over the party I'm currently running through Barovia. There was no doubt in my mind as to what that thing's alignment is. Give new players more credit. I'm sure they'll figure enough out to have some fun.
Alignment going away isn't a big change on it's own ...
It really didn't go away, it just is no longer hard coded into the stat block, meaning the DM is free to give each creature the alignment that is appropriate for the game.
Not being printed is a deviation from how previously printed stat blocks for 5e were done. It is a change. It is a change from what is standard in the Core 3 books. It is a small change, but it is not the only change that WotC is making. I am not making the argument that it should even be there. I am pointing out that over the past 12 months, there have been a number of changes to the rules and how those rules are presented when compared to the Core Books. Standardization of how the rules are presented and language used help make rules easy to use and understand between books within a give edition of the game.
Alignment going away isn't a big change on it's own, but as things move further and further away from the core 3 books, confusion is going to happen. Each of the changes being implemented are small, but still changes. Eventually they will have to consolidate and publish the revisions in a way that makes all the material available match up to avoid confusing new players. In no way am I saying that the changes are bad, but standardization between the books makes them easier to use together.
Here's the thing though, they aren't really moving away from the core 3 books. Every single book they have published only requires the PH, DMG, and MM. Each addition to the catalogue just provides options that can enhance the core rulebooks. That is one reason why they reprint things in other books--so they do not need any other supplement. I wouldn't worry about new players. When I grew up I had three sometimes conflicting rule sets and zero guidance from TSR on how to do anything. Kids today have the entire internet and all sorts of support in a number of communities, including this one. It's all confusing until you realize that they tell you right in the rules that it ultimately doesn't matter as long as the table is having a great time. The changes being made in current and future products are thoughtful and necessary, as well as subtle. I wasn't kidding when I said that I didn't even notice the lack of alignments earlier. I was too busy imagining having a nosferatu vomit blood all over the party I'm currently running through Barovia. There was no doubt in my mind as to what that thing's alignment is. Give new players more credit. I'm sure they'll figure enough out to have some fun.
Go to the Rules and Game Mechanic section and select any post. There is already terrible lack of clarity in the rules as is.
As for what TSR did, the rules sets for AD&D were a dumpster fire and should be a lesson for how not to write rule books.
Go to the Rules and Game Mechanic section and select any post. There is already terrible lack of clarity in the rules as is.
As for what TSR did, the rules sets for AD&D were a dumpster fire and should be a lesson for how not to write rule books.
And I am sure there are many knowledgeable people such as yourself ready to help clear said confusion. That's the point of those forums. I'd also like to think that to a new DM coming across a monster stat block without an alignment, the question "I wonder what this creature's alignment is?" isn't going to lead to confusion but instead to great campaign ideas.
Wizards are attempting to get away from defining things as being innately good or evil. Here is a brief expert from an interview with JC done in 2020. The lines in quotes were questions he was asked and the rest is his response.
Even though the rules of 5th-edition D&D state that players and DMs determine alignment, the suggested alignments in our books have undeniably caused confusion. That's why future books will ditch such suggestions for player characters and reframe such things for the DM.
"What about the werewolf's curse of lycanthropy? It makes you evil like the werewolf." The DM determines the alignment of the werewolf. For example, the werewolf you face might be a sweetheart. The alignment in a stat block is a suggestion to the DM, nothing more.
"What about demons, devils, and angels in D&D? Their alignments can't change." They can change. The default story makes the mythological assumptions we expect, but the Monster Manual tells the DM to change any monster's alignment without hesitation to serve the campaign.
"You've reminded us that alignment is a suggestion. Does that mean you're not changing anything about D&D peoples after all?" We are working to remove racist tropes from D&D. Alignment is only one part of that work, and alignment will be treated differently in the future.
"Why are you telling us to ignore the alignment rules in D&D?" I'm not. I'm sharing what the alignment rules have been in the Player's Handbook & Monster Manual since 2014. We know that those rules are insufficient and have changes coming in future products.
"You've reminded us that alignment is a suggestion". Are all other D and D rules suggestions? One memory spell slot at spell level nine is a suggestion? Fireball does have a concussive force?
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.
Drow have dark skin color because they were cursed by Corellon Larethian.
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.
Drow have dark skin color because they were cursed by Corellon Larethian.
Which, you know, makes them even more problematic. ('Cuz "Dark Skin is a curse from God" is an actual excuse from real world religions to discriminate against real dark-skinned people that has been used in the past. See; Mark of Cain and Curse of Ham.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Wizards are attempting to get away from defining things as being innately good or evil. Here is a brief expert from an interview with JC done in 2020. The lines in quotes were questions he was asked and the rest is his response.
Even though the rules of 5th-edition D&D state that players and DMs determine alignment, the suggested alignments in our books have undeniably caused confusion. That's why future books will ditch such suggestions for player characters and reframe such things for the DM.
"What about the werewolf's curse of lycanthropy? It makes you evil like the werewolf." The DM determines the alignment of the werewolf. For example, the werewolf you face might be a sweetheart. The alignment in a stat block is a suggestion to the DM, nothing more.
"What about demons, devils, and angels in D&D? Their alignments can't change." They can change. The default story makes the mythological assumptions we expect, but the Monster Manual tells the DM to change any monster's alignment without hesitation to serve the campaign.
"You've reminded us that alignment is a suggestion. Does that mean you're not changing anything about D&D peoples after all?" We are working to remove racist tropes from D&D. Alignment is only one part of that work, and alignment will be treated differently in the future.
"Why are you telling us to ignore the alignment rules in D&D?" I'm not. I'm sharing what the alignment rules have been in the Player's Handbook & Monster Manual since 2014. We know that those rules are insufficient and have changes coming in future products.
"You've reminded us that alignment is a suggestion". Are all other D and D rules suggestions? One memory spell slot at spell level nine is a suggestion? Fireball does have a concussive force?
Yes, actually!
Any and all D&D 'rules' are suggestions. What you purchase, when you buy a D&D core rulebook, is a basic game engine and a system of recommendations their designers have built around that engine which Wizards is willing to say will give you a good game if you use them the way they're described. You are free to change or ignore any of those suggestions. The more you do so, the less of a guarantee Wizards is willing to offer that you'll have a good, functional game, but since the core D&D game engine is incomplete anyways, all DMs need to tune it to their own tables. Part of that is deciding which rules to implement and use and which rules to ignore. Knowing what's part of the engine that makes the game go, and what's just Wizards' own formalized internal house rules for using that engine.
Hint: "alignment" has never been part of the core game engine, even in editions where it super mattered.
Alignment's never really mattered in any of the games I've played in or run and I won't be sad to see it fade out. It already seems pretty irrelevant mechanically. You don't have things like alignment restrictions on classes, things like protection from good and evil affect creature types instead of alignment.
I honestly don't think much will be lost if eventually 6E comes around and they drop the 3 by 3 alignment grid entirely.
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.
Drow have dark skin color because they were cursed by Corellon Larethian.
Which, you know, makes them even more problematic. ('Cuz "Dark Skin is a curse from God" is an actual excuse from real world religions to discriminate against real dark-skinned people that has been used in the past. See; Mark of Cain and Curse of Ham.)
Drow have dark skin because Gygax said so, and Gygax said so because he took inspiration from the Svartálfar (literally "black elves") from Norse mythology. The in-setting reason for this doesn't change that and is not connected to any real life religious nutjobbery.
Is this something that nonetheless could/should/would be a matter of concern for WotC? Apparently yes, because image is something that needs to be maintained. Is it something to get up in arms over? Not really. If it's an issue at your table, deal with it - just like any other issue that might come up.
Bingo. The few elements of the 5e system that use alignment in a crunchy way are clunky and out of place. Alignment should be tossed in the bin (along with monster HD, don't @ me).
WotC learned from 4e to be cautious and subtle when slaughtering sacred cows.
That is fair. And personally, despite my dislike of alignment, I’m happy if it stays, along with things like classes (especially fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard), the 6 ability scores, etc. There are other games better than D&D, especially for story-focused games: at this point, the best part of D&D is fame and nostalgia. And I honestly don’t mind. (Though I also wish we could admit that D&D isn’t the only RPG in the world and give other systems some love!)
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I'll give other RPGs some love as soon as they give me online tools that don't cost a billion dollars, or which don't require me to spend three months taking a course in quantoparallel nonlinear Boolean mathemagics to get functional. I do that shit for my day job, my engineering brain is all tapped out when it comes to my hobbies. And frankly, an engineering team that designs a U.I. as obtuse, unintuitive, and anti-useful as some of these 'popular' VTT programs and their thousand-dollar RPG inserts would be lined up and shot in most any other field.
But that's besides the point.
Frankly, I don't give a damn if alignments are bolted back onto monster stat blocks. I will continue to ignore it and use the monster as I see fit, with whatever goals, desires, and motivations work for my game. I feel a little bad for people so constrained in their thinking that they cannot use a monster if they don't have a two-word descriptor telling them which of three varieties of pre-programmed Generically Evulz the critter adheres to, but if they need it? They need it. Let 'em have it, no skin off my nose, and if players challenge me at the table over playing a critter's alignment 'wrong'? I'll remind them who the DM is for the game and invite them to react to the critter they're facing at my tasble, rather than the critter they read about in the book outside of session.
Please do not contact or message me.
Alignment going away isn't a big change on it's own, but as things move further and further away from the core 3 books, confusion is going to happen. Each of the changes being implemented are small, but still changes. Eventually they will have to consolidate and publish the revisions in a way that makes all the material available match up to avoid confusing new players. In no way am I saying that the changes are bad, but standardization between the books makes them easier to use together.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That’s not really a fair criticism. The online tools suck, yes, but most RPGs are designed to be played in person with physical books anyway, especially the indie ones that can’t afford a VTT interface anyway. It sucks when your RPG friends aren’t nearby and you have to resort to the internet, and it does limit your options, but that’s not a reason to dismiss other games as a whole. (Plus, the best are less crunchy than 5e, not more: Dread is a key example!)
Other than that I agree with you. If they’re gonna have alignment, it should go on stat blocks, but that hasn’t stopped my last few sessions from including a Good skeleton, variously aligned werewolves, and some quite reasonable hags.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
My friends live across most of the continental United States. A few of them live outside the U.S. altogether. There's no such thing as an in-person table for me, and that means any fame that eschews online tools or uses tools one cannot easily replicate online (Savage Worlds' frequent use of playing cards comes to mind), that game is out of contention for me and my group. That's simply the way it is, however much I might otherwise love a given engine.
Oh well. C'est la vie.
Please do not contact or message me.
It really didn't go away, it just is no longer hard coded into the stat block, meaning the DM is free to give each creature the alignment that is appropriate for the game.
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!
Here's the thing though, they aren't really moving away from the core 3 books. Every single book they have published only requires the PH, DMG, and MM. Each addition to the catalogue just provides options that can enhance the core rulebooks. That is one reason why they reprint things in other books--so they do not need any other supplement. I wouldn't worry about new players. When I grew up I had three sometimes conflicting rule sets and zero guidance from TSR on how to do anything. Kids today have the entire internet and all sorts of support in a number of communities, including this one. It's all confusing until you realize that they tell you right in the rules that it ultimately doesn't matter as long as the table is having a great time. The changes being made in current and future products are thoughtful and necessary, as well as subtle. I wasn't kidding when I said that I didn't even notice the lack of alignments earlier. I was too busy imagining having a nosferatu vomit blood all over the party I'm currently running through Barovia. There was no doubt in my mind as to what that thing's alignment is. Give new players more credit. I'm sure they'll figure enough out to have some fun.
Not being printed is a deviation from how previously printed stat blocks for 5e were done. It is a change. It is a change from what is standard in the Core 3 books. It is a small change, but it is not the only change that WotC is making. I am not making the argument that it should even be there. I am pointing out that over the past 12 months, there have been a number of changes to the rules and how those rules are presented when compared to the Core Books. Standardization of how the rules are presented and language used help make rules easy to use and understand between books within a give edition of the game.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Go to the Rules and Game Mechanic section and select any post. There is already terrible lack of clarity in the rules as is.
As for what TSR did, the rules sets for AD&D were a dumpster fire and should be a lesson for how not to write rule books.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah, I totally failed to notice it until threads here pointed it out, because it's kind of obvious that they're horrible nasty monsters.
And I am sure there are many knowledgeable people such as yourself ready to help clear said confusion. That's the point of those forums. I'd also like to think that to a new DM coming across a monster stat block without an alignment, the question "I wonder what this creature's alignment is?" isn't going to lead to confusion but instead to great campaign ideas.
Because they don’t need them.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
"You've reminded us that alignment is a suggestion". Are all other D and D rules suggestions? One memory spell slot at spell level nine is a suggestion? Fireball does have a concussive force?
Drow have dark skin color because they were cursed by Corellon Larethian.
Which, you know, makes them even more problematic. ('Cuz "Dark Skin is a curse from God" is an actual excuse from real world religions to discriminate against real dark-skinned people that has been used in the past. See; Mark of Cain and Curse of Ham.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yes, actually!
Any and all D&D 'rules' are suggestions. What you purchase, when you buy a D&D core rulebook, is a basic game engine and a system of recommendations their designers have built around that engine which Wizards is willing to say will give you a good game if you use them the way they're described. You are free to change or ignore any of those suggestions. The more you do so, the less of a guarantee Wizards is willing to offer that you'll have a good, functional game, but since the core D&D game engine is incomplete anyways, all DMs need to tune it to their own tables. Part of that is deciding which rules to implement and use and which rules to ignore. Knowing what's part of the engine that makes the game go, and what's just Wizards' own formalized internal house rules for using that engine.
Hint: "alignment" has never been part of the core game engine, even in editions where it super mattered.
Please do not contact or message me.
Alignment's never really mattered in any of the games I've played in or run and I won't be sad to see it fade out. It already seems pretty irrelevant mechanically. You don't have things like alignment restrictions on classes, things like protection from good and evil affect creature types instead of alignment.
I honestly don't think much will be lost if eventually 6E comes around and they drop the 3 by 3 alignment grid entirely.
Drow have dark skin because Gygax said so, and Gygax said so because he took inspiration from the Svartálfar (literally "black elves") from Norse mythology. The in-setting reason for this doesn't change that and is not connected to any real life religious nutjobbery.
Is this something that nonetheless could/should/would be a matter of concern for WotC? Apparently yes, because image is something that needs to be maintained. Is it something to get up in arms over? Not really. If it's an issue at your table, deal with it - just like any other issue that might come up.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].