This actually isn't a new thing as far as I know. Throughout most of D&D's history, alignment has changed if characters do certain things, for example if a good character does horrendous acts of evil.
We still use it and I imagine we always will. As mentioned elsewhere, it makes fights a bit more interesting for martials and makes movement abilities more valuable. There's no such thing as melee Sneak Attack being "too easy" when ranged rogues can Steady Aim and SA from range all day long - and rogues need all the help they can get anyway.
There's also the monster side of it, which no one else seems to acknowledge in these discussions when they talk about how easy advantage is to get. It makes PCs being surrounded a lot more dangerous, which is as it should be.
I have played for many years and I have heard "Your character wouldn't do that because of your alignment" far far too many times. If it wasn't an issue, they would not have had to spell it out so plainly in the new DMG.
Coming from the Red and Blue boxes, alignment used to be critical to several classes. The DM would give that kind of warning to a Paladin or Cleric about to lose the favor of their Diety, or a Monk or Druid straying from their mandated alignments. Since then not so much.
I have played for many years and I have heard "Your character wouldn't do that because of your alignment" far far too many times. If it wasn't an issue, they would not have had to spell it out so plainly in the new DMG.
Coming from the Red and Blue boxes, alignment used to be critical to several classes. The DM would give that kind of warning to a Paladin or Cleric about to lose the favor of their Diety, or a Monk or Druid straying from their mandated alignments. Since then not so much.
The problem was that the guidelines for alignment tended to be vague and contradictory, resulting in players feeling like they were being forced to play Lawful Stupid characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I am way more interested in watching how folks will handle the clarification on alignment.
Oh? Do tell ... or link maybe?
they went hard on the point that alignment does not determine how a character acts, a characters acts determine their alignment. So it can change in game, based on the actions of the PC, and is determined by those actions.
Which, in practice, is waaaay different from how most folks see it.
most folks see it as being a guide for how you should act, a sort of personality template that has the PC doing things because of their alignment.
Now it is alignment happens because of things you do, and the DM will change it.
Whilst it serves as a guide (and I don't think the DMG rules say anything in opposition to that) it isn't rigid either. I think the point of the DMG on this is more "it's not set in stone, a character can act contrary to their alignment, and when this becomes a habit, then their alignment should change to reflect this", it's more a tool against players who go murder hobo whilst insisting they're still lawful good or something.
It gives Martials an edge over Spellcasters, rewards being within reach of the enemy by increasing Crit chance (aware there are ranged attacks and spells, I'm thinking of meatier enemies that have strong melee blows who sometimes have multiattack) and my players are already used to using it.
Interesting that they've not kept it as an optional rule, especially as the popularity of Critical Role means that this rule already has a wide exposure. Understand why people don't use this rule, just surprised it's still not optional.
Possibly it's precisely because of the wide exposure that they didn't include it as an optional rule.
Plenty of people do know about it and can still make that choice as a house rule if they wish, but perhaps having it as optional alongside such popularity might turn it into the default and even make it more difficult for DMs to set up a campaign without it if it's within the players expectations and those players can point to "look, it's even an optional rule, so surely it must be balanced enough" (it's not balanced at all though).
It's good IMO they left it out, it just makes it too easy to get advantage, thereby devaluing other ways of getting/giving advantage, and reduces tactical play to just "let me walk around a bit to get advantage " and conga lines instead of the many marvelous ways that one could get advantage and control the battlefield otherwise.
This actually isn't a new thing as far as I know. Throughout most of D&D's history, alignment has changed if characters do certain things, for example if a good character does horrendous acts of evil.
We still use it and I imagine we always will. As mentioned elsewhere, it makes fights a bit more interesting for martials and makes movement abilities more valuable. There's no such thing as melee Sneak Attack being "too easy" when ranged rogues can Steady Aim and SA from range all day long - and rogues need all the help they can get anyway.
There's also the monster side of it, which no one else seems to acknowledge in these discussions when they talk about how easy advantage is to get. It makes PCs being surrounded a lot more dangerous, which is as it should be.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Coming from the Red and Blue boxes, alignment used to be critical to several classes. The DM would give that kind of warning to a Paladin or Cleric about to lose the favor of their Diety, or a Monk or Druid straying from their mandated alignments. Since then not so much.
The problem was that the guidelines for alignment tended to be vague and contradictory, resulting in players feeling like they were being forced to play Lawful Stupid characters.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Whilst it serves as a guide (and I don't think the DMG rules say anything in opposition to that) it isn't rigid either. I think the point of the DMG on this is more "it's not set in stone, a character can act contrary to their alignment, and when this becomes a habit, then their alignment should change to reflect this", it's more a tool against players who go murder hobo whilst insisting they're still lawful good or something.
Possibly it's precisely because of the wide exposure that they didn't include it as an optional rule.
Plenty of people do know about it and can still make that choice as a house rule if they wish, but perhaps having it as optional alongside such popularity might turn it into the default and even make it more difficult for DMs to set up a campaign without it if it's within the players expectations and those players can point to "look, it's even an optional rule, so surely it must be balanced enough" (it's not balanced at all though).
It's good IMO they left it out, it just makes it too easy to get advantage, thereby devaluing other ways of getting/giving advantage, and reduces tactical play to just "let me walk around a bit to get advantage " and conga lines instead of the many marvelous ways that one could get advantage and control the battlefield otherwise.
The new DMG is pretty much missing all optional rules, it's not like flanking is the only thing that's gone.