The entire point of Kickstarter is "fund this because you believe in the idea, then take your chances on the execution". Wait And See defeats the whole website.
Frankly, the logic behind some of those snippets makes sense. Warlocks are too constrained by their inadequate spell slots, and short-rest spell recharge produces a lot of unintended consequences DMs keep having headaches over. Paladins are disincentivized to cast spells because their spells are also their Smites, so separating the two resource pools makes sense. Culling Action Surge from fighters will piss them off, and since I have no idea what EN World is giving fighters to compensate I can't judge.
The idea seems to be that they're hoping to give players all of the choice and buildyness people are currently forced to multiclass to get in 5e within each individual class and relegating multiclassing to an actual optional rule, something you do for thematic/story reasons rather than because a specific edge-case multiclass mix is almost strictly better than either single class. I can get behind that design philosophy, though they're definitely not communicating it well.
The entire point of Kickstarter is "fund this because you believe in the idea, then take your chances on the execution". Wait And See defeats the whole website.
Frankly, the logic behind some of those snippets makes sense. Warlocks are too constrained by their inadequate spell slots, and short-rest spell recharge produces a lot of unintended consequences DMs keep having headaches over. Paladins are disincentivized to cast spells because their spells are also their Smites, so separating the two resource pools makes sense. Culling Action Surge from fighters will piss them off, and since I have no idea what EN World is giving fighters to compensate I can't judge.
The idea seems to be that they're hoping to give players all of the choice and buildyness people are currently forced to multiclass to get in 5e within each individual class and relegating multiclassing to an actual optional rule, something you do for thematic/story reasons rather than because a specific edge-case multiclass mix is almost strictly better than either single class. I can get behind that design philosophy, though they're definitely not communicating it well.
I can agree with all this, but I don't like HOW they decided to achieve these things. Especially considering that they expect people to be able to play the standard 5e classes along side their versions of the classes. The extent to which they have reinvented everything makes it hard to believe in that level of compatibility.
I have mixed feelings on the previews Golaryn was kind enough to quote earlier, but then I don't have enough experience to say how better or worse my experience would be with them. I will however say that people are right to question the motives behind the new designs; it almost seems contrarian, like change for the sake of change, rather than listening to feedback. It's one thing to draw the "game designer" card to imply they know better, but that sole mention stands out like a sore thumb across all the mentions of how they sent out surveys and seemed to adequately relay their understanding of the feedback.
Fortunately there's time for anyone who regrets backing this to change their minds. There's 21 days left, so I can't entirely sympathise with those who have buyer's remorse after enough time to edit or outright cancel their pledge given the generous previews given thus far.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
The entire point of Kickstarter is "fund this because you believe in the idea, then take your chances on the execution". Wait And See defeats the whole website.
Frankly, the logic behind some of those snippets makes sense. Warlocks are too constrained by their inadequate spell slots, and short-rest spell recharge produces a lot of unintended consequences DMs keep having headaches over. Paladins are disincentivized to cast spells because their spells are also their Smites, so separating the two resource pools makes sense. Culling Action Surge from fighters will piss them off, and since I have no idea what EN World is giving fighters to compensate I can't judge.
The idea seems to be that they're hoping to give players all of the choice and buildyness people are currently forced to multiclass to get in 5e within each individual class and relegating multiclassing to an actual optional rule, something you do for thematic/story reasons rather than because a specific edge-case multiclass mix is almost strictly better than either single class. I can get behind that design philosophy, though they're definitely not communicating it well.
In exchange for Action Surge, all Fighters get Maneuvers. And a lot of the maneuvers that they get access to apparently let them make another attack, so they sorta still get a minor Action Surge if they want it.
I agree with the changes to Warlocks and Paladins. Although I love those two classes, they aren't perfect, and what ENworld's versions of those classes are doing is something that I think helps them be more balanced and played more as intended by WotC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
As a backer, I get update emails about the information a lot of you are wondering about, but I thought it was also public domain...? Should be able to see for yourselves HERE.
I've read the design philosophy beneath the changes to the warlock. Elderitch Blast is not a cantrip anymore, is based on warlock levels (not character level), and can only be fueled by Warlock resources. Then they show how Eldritch Blast can be customized, ie: there's the regular 120ft ranged spell attack, but now there's also a saving throw version, a melee version similar to Green Flame Blade and a version with a vampiric effect. They justify all this as a disincentive for players to dip into warlock to take the best features of the warlock without ever intending to actually play a warlock.
They did something similar with the Figther. They axed Action Surge because players were taking it to do cheese with their main class, like casting two spells per turn or going NOVA with smites.
Same deal with Paladins, where players dipped in the class to gain access armor and shield proficiencies and/or smites via spell slots.
They go on to say this:
Multiclassing
Some readers may be starting to feel like Level Up is designed to discourage multiclassing at this point, because the first three classes in this article have been adjusted to make specific multiclass builds less potent, but that’s not at all the case. In fact, the core rules contain eight (or maybe ten; we have two more as stretch goals) sets of what we refer to as synergy feats, which are three-feat chains designed to make a specific concept work. The eight that are in there already enable specific multiclass combinations, and the two that are stretch goals will allow you to play as undead creatures! The aim of the changes was not to discourage multiclassing, but to shut off some unbalancing mix/maxed combinations that are seen by some as “correct” builds.
I'm kind of on board with the sentiment of nuking multiclass combinations that are only taken for 'dips'. However, I've been playing games for 4 decades and there's not one game I have played that offered modular builds that hasn't degenerated into a limited number of 'optimum' builds that are better most of the time. And now they are offering classes with TONS of new options? LOL, they poo poo on the multiclassing cheese that they say exists in 5e while setting themselves up to be in the same 'cheese' zone once players have optimized each class or multiclass in their system.
All they're doing is giving players something fresh to consume. I don't think they are solving anything. They're just saying "We don't like the cheezy builds that have evolved, so we're making a new system where they aren't options. But look at all these carrots we're giving you instead!"
And regarding the whole caster versus martial argument, I find the following situation at my table kind of funny: I'm backing Level Up to have it available for my gaming table to use if they want. (I won't be DM'ing) One particular player is all over this as he thinks martial characters are boring. He's also the player that made a caster class (Cleric) with a martial feel to it, but now he has all these spells the party expects him to use to 'save the day' and he complains that he never gets to hit things with his fancy magical mace that he pushed so hard to get.
However, I've been playing games for 4 decades and there's not one game I have played that offered modular builds that hasn't degenerated into a limited number of 'optimum' builds that are better most of the time. And now they are offering classes with TONS of new options? LOL, they poo poo on the multiclassing cheese that they say exists in 5e while setting themselves up to be in the same 'cheese' zone once players have optimized each class or multiclass in their system.
Bingo
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Spoilers: even games without modular builds have a limited number of 'optimum' choices. In 5e, paladins are better than rangers. Wizards are better than sorcerers. A mastiff is better than a level 20 Champion fighter. In literally anything ever, there are going to be choices that are better than others. You can't escape it, you can't avoid it, you can't design around it. All you can do is try to make the gap small enough that it matters less, and try to ensure that even your 'bad' options are interesting and worth playing with. Modular build opportunities provide a great many benefits, and in a game like D&D with a GM to ride herd on the worst edge cases and excesses they put a great deal of the "Role" in "Role Playing Game".
However remember people have paid for this already, proof that sometimes it is best to wait and see with a kickstarter idea.
I was trying to make this point earlier but it was rebuffed...
To be more precise, people have made a pledge and thus are allowed to make comments rather than just read them. Until the KS campaign ends a backer can always cancel their pledge. Nobody has paid anything yet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Anyone else here have thoughts and opinions on this?
Well seeing as many of us homebrew our own planes and cosmology, and most campaigns take place largely on the material plane this is not exactly a reason to buy the system.
Anyone else here have thoughts and opinions on this?
They are changing Law vs Chaos to Nihilistic LE vs Nihilistic CE? Ummmm.... why?
Because one of the biggest complaints about the traditional Alignment grid is its powerful inherent bias towards LG, perhaps? It's always been a stretch, and a job of convincing the DM, to call anything else a proper player alignment, and the constraints that can place on some games are tight and uncomfortable. 'Orderly decay' versus 'chaotic corruption' at least frames a choice and removes some - not all, but some - of the inherent bias in the system.
Anyone else here have thoughts and opinions on this?
They are changing Law vs Chaos to Nihilistic LE vs Nihilistic CE? Ummmm.... why?
Because one of the biggest complaints about the traditional Alignment grid is its powerful inherent bias towards LG, perhaps? It's always been a stretch, and a job of convincing the DM, to call anything else a proper player alignment, and the constraints that can place on some games are tight and uncomfortable. 'Orderly decay' versus 'chaotic corruption' at least frames a choice and removes some - not all, but some - of the inherent bias in the system.
If anything, if it clarifies a specific way of handling alignment that can be helpful in the first place. 5E removed most of the practical consequences of alignments, but does a pretty poor job of explaining them and how to use them, if at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Anyone else here have thoughts and opinions on this?
They are changing Law vs Chaos to Nihilistic LE vs Nihilistic CE? Ummmm.... why?
Because one of the biggest complaints about the traditional Alignment grid is its powerful inherent bias towards LG, perhaps? It's always been a stretch, and a job of convincing the DM, to call anything else a proper player alignment, and the constraints that can place on some games are tight and uncomfortable. 'Orderly decay' versus 'chaotic corruption' at least frames a choice and removes some - not all, but some - of the inherent bias in the system.
The majority of my parties play Cotic Neutral or good, I know very few players who play lawful good. But, I dont really pay any attention to the allignment grid anyway, my whole issue with it is the binary approach it takes, an evil character gan do good acts and not become good and a good character can totally do something evil and not change alignment. I mean we are playing a game where "heros" regularly kill things and see the most horiffic acts without suffering any psycological issues lol. Alignment to me is a guide in sessio 0 for how will your character act in the first 30 mins, from then on it is about the oplayer feeling out and experiancing and doing things the character would do naturally in the situation, not sticking to some arbritary alignment
But, I dont really pay any attention to the allignment grid anyway, my whole issue with it is the binary approach it takes, an evil character gan do good acts and not become good and a good character can totally do something evil and not change alignment. I mean we are playing a game where "heros" regularly kill things and see the most horiffic acts without suffering any psycological issues lol. Alignment to me is a guide in sessio 0 for how will your character act in the first 30 mins, from then on it is about the oplayer feeling out and experiancing and doing things the character would do naturally in the situation, not sticking to some arbritary alignment
Well, alignment is supposed to drive action, not the other way around. Doing something that goes against your alignment doesn't change your alignment, it at most presupposes your alignment had shifted already. Which can totally happen, alignment isn't set in stone. But if you think of alignment as arbitrary, you should probably just drop it altogether. What the character would naturally do is a reflection of their alignment, that's pretty much by definition what alignment means.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The problem of Law vs Chaos has always been more 'what the heck does it mean', not 'powerful incentive towards LG'. However, actually looking at their cosmology, I see no evidence that the Gyre vs the Far Realms is Law vs Chaos.
"Powerful?" pardon, but what benefits does it give over other alignments, exactly? LG certainly gives none in 5e.
Even in earlier editions the only way that would be is if Paladins were somehow OP, but never heard any such accusation, particularly given the traditional strict requirements to stay within LG, which, again traditionally, was far more often a straight jacket as any benefit whatsoever.
And replacing them with two different flavours of evil? Sounds more like just biasing everything towards evil. What are they doing with the good / evil axis? Changing that up by making it about the freedom of goodness vs the necessary justice?
I don't mean mechanically powerful. I mean the system is inherently, strongly, biased towards Lawful Good. You can tell because the entire system is described as if from the perspective of a Lawful Good individual. The other axes are "Chaos" and "Evil", and all of the language around the system presupposes the core ideal that the further you stray from LG< the further you stray from the True And Proper Way. 'Evil' alignments are outlawed altogether at most tables and in Adventurer's League, which makes it plain that the furhter from 'Good' you stray the worse of a person you are, and the system also assumes anyone with a Chaotic alignment is actively at odds with and working against society.
'Orderly decay' vs 'Chaotic corruption' at least intimates at the fact that Law/Order is not an unabashed, unqualified, always-da-bess good, just like attempts to reframe the Good/Evil axis as "serves others vs. serves self" tries to intimate that there's benefits and drawbacks to both ends of that axis.
Not that this is supposed to be the thirteen millionth thread on alignment nonsense, but hey. Why not, eh?
The fact that D&D has always been biased towards "Evil is Bad" doesn't concern me, as it's sort of a tautology. Law=Good, Chaos=Evil was a thing in early D&D and made a bit of a resurgence in 4th edition (which had only LG, G, N, E, and CE) but I wouldn't call it a general bias in D&D.
In general Law has been the alignment of civilization; outside of anomalies like the drow, if it has big cities, police, courts, standing armies, and so on, it's probably lawful; if it's a bunch of rugged individualists or smaller groups it's chaotic. If the campaign is something like a 4th edition 'points of light' where you're protecting pockets of civilization against the howling hordes, sure, good and lawful probably go together, but if you're heroic rebels in an insurrection against the Evil Empire you're probably looking at CG vs LE.
The fact that the Forgotten Realms doesn't really have a good location or candidate for Oppressive Evil Empire is one of the flaws of the setting -- it's because the setting is unwilling to let evil have large scale victories.
"Powerful?" pardon, but what benefits does it give over other alignments, exactly? LG certainly gives none in 5e.
Even in earlier editions the only way that would be is if Paladins were somehow OP, but never heard any such accusation, particularly given the traditional strict requirements to stay within LG, which, again traditionally, was far more often a straight jacket as any benefit whatsoever.
And replacing them with two different flavours of evil? Sounds more like just biasing everything towards evil. What are they doing with the good / evil axis? Changing that up by making it about the freedom of goodness vs the necessary justice?
I don't mean mechanically powerful. I mean the system is inherently, strongly, biased towards Lawful Good. You can tell because the entire system is described as if from the perspective of a Lawful Good individual. The other axes are "Chaos" and "Evil", and all of the language around the system presupposes the core ideal that the further you stray from LG< the further you stray from the True And Proper Way. 'Evil' alignments are outlawed altogether at most tables and in Adventurer's League, which makes it plain that the furhter from 'Good' you stray the worse of a person you are, and the system also assumes anyone with a Chaotic alignment is actively at odds with and working against society.
'Orderly decay' vs 'Chaotic corruption' at least intimates at the fact that Law/Order is not an unabashed, unqualified, always-da-bess good, just like attempts to reframe the Good/Evil axis as "serves others vs. serves self" tries to intimate that there's benefits and drawbacks to both ends of that axis.
Not that this is supposed to be the thirteen millionth thread on alignment nonsense, but hey. Why not, eh?
Evil is, well, evil and half the players out there seem to think chaotic is what you play when you want to play evil without admitting it by putting "evil" on your character sheet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"Powerful?" pardon, but what benefits does it give over other alignments, exactly? LG certainly gives none in 5e.
Even in earlier editions the only way that would be is if Paladins were somehow OP, but never heard any such accusation, particularly given the traditional strict requirements to stay within LG, which, again traditionally, was far more often a straight jacket as any benefit whatsoever.
And replacing them with two different flavours of evil? Sounds more like just biasing everything towards evil. What are they doing with the good / evil axis? Changing that up by making it about the freedom of goodness vs the necessary justice?
I don't mean mechanically powerful. I mean the system is inherently, strongly, biased towards Lawful Good. You can tell because the entire system is described as if from the perspective of a Lawful Good individual. The other axes are "Chaos" and "Evil", and all of the language around the system presupposes the core ideal that the further you stray from LG< the further you stray from the True And Proper Way. 'Evil' alignments are outlawed altogether at most tables and in Adventurer's League, which makes it plain that the furhter from 'Good' you stray the worse of a person you are, and the system also assumes anyone with a Chaotic alignment is actively at odds with and working against society.
'Orderly decay' vs 'Chaotic corruption' at least intimates at the fact that Law/Order is not an unabashed, unqualified, always-da-bess good, just like attempts to reframe the Good/Evil axis as "serves others vs. serves self" tries to intimate that there's benefits and drawbacks to both ends of that axis.
Not that this is supposed to be the thirteen millionth thread on alignment nonsense, but hey. Why not, eh?
I think this part is a completely separate issue that is more about players than the D&D alignment system. In my own personal experience, the venn diagram of players that play "evil" characters and players that are disruptive has a lot of over lap.
However remember people have paid for this already, proof that sometimes it is best to wait and see with a kickstarter idea.
The entire point of Kickstarter is "fund this because you believe in the idea, then take your chances on the execution". Wait And See defeats the whole website.
Frankly, the logic behind some of those snippets makes sense. Warlocks are too constrained by their inadequate spell slots, and short-rest spell recharge produces a lot of unintended consequences DMs keep having headaches over. Paladins are disincentivized to cast spells because their spells are also their Smites, so separating the two resource pools makes sense. Culling Action Surge from fighters will piss them off, and since I have no idea what EN World is giving fighters to compensate I can't judge.
The idea seems to be that they're hoping to give players all of the choice and buildyness people are currently forced to multiclass to get in 5e within each individual class and relegating multiclassing to an actual optional rule, something you do for thematic/story reasons rather than because a specific edge-case multiclass mix is almost strictly better than either single class. I can get behind that design philosophy, though they're definitely not communicating it well.
Please do not contact or message me.
I can agree with all this, but I don't like HOW they decided to achieve these things. Especially considering that they expect people to be able to play the standard 5e classes along side their versions of the classes. The extent to which they have reinvented everything makes it hard to believe in that level of compatibility.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I have mixed feelings on the previews Golaryn was kind enough to quote earlier, but then I don't have enough experience to say how better or worse my experience would be with them. I will however say that people are right to question the motives behind the new designs; it almost seems contrarian, like change for the sake of change, rather than listening to feedback. It's one thing to draw the "game designer" card to imply they know better, but that sole mention stands out like a sore thumb across all the mentions of how they sent out surveys and seemed to adequately relay their understanding of the feedback.
Fortunately there's time for anyone who regrets backing this to change their minds. There's 21 days left, so I can't entirely sympathise with those who have buyer's remorse after enough time to edit or outright cancel their pledge given the generous previews given thus far.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
In exchange for Action Surge, all Fighters get Maneuvers. And a lot of the maneuvers that they get access to apparently let them make another attack, so they sorta still get a minor Action Surge if they want it.
I agree with the changes to Warlocks and Paladins. Although I love those two classes, they aren't perfect, and what ENworld's versions of those classes are doing is something that I think helps them be more balanced and played more as intended by WotC.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
As a backer, I get update emails about the information a lot of you are wondering about, but I thought it was also public domain...? Should be able to see for yourselves HERE.
I've read the design philosophy beneath the changes to the warlock. Elderitch Blast is not a cantrip anymore, is based on warlock levels (not character level), and can only be fueled by Warlock resources. Then they show how Eldritch Blast can be customized, ie: there's the regular 120ft ranged spell attack, but now there's also a saving throw version, a melee version similar to Green Flame Blade and a version with a vampiric effect. They justify all this as a disincentive for players to dip into warlock to take the best features of the warlock without ever intending to actually play a warlock.
They did something similar with the Figther. They axed Action Surge because players were taking it to do cheese with their main class, like casting two spells per turn or going NOVA with smites.
Same deal with Paladins, where players dipped in the class to gain access armor and shield proficiencies and/or smites via spell slots.
They go on to say this:
Multiclassing
Some readers may be starting to feel like Level Up is designed to discourage multiclassing at this point, because the first three classes in this article have been adjusted to make specific multiclass builds less potent, but that’s not at all the case. In fact, the core rules contain eight (or maybe ten; we have two more as stretch goals) sets of what we refer to as synergy feats, which are three-feat chains designed to make a specific concept work. The eight that are in there already enable specific multiclass combinations, and the two that are stretch goals will allow you to play as undead creatures! The aim of the changes was not to discourage multiclassing, but to shut off some unbalancing mix/maxed combinations that are seen by some as “correct” builds.
I'm kind of on board with the sentiment of nuking multiclass combinations that are only taken for 'dips'. However, I've been playing games for 4 decades and there's not one game I have played that offered modular builds that hasn't degenerated into a limited number of 'optimum' builds that are better most of the time. And now they are offering classes with TONS of new options? LOL, they poo poo on the multiclassing cheese that they say exists in 5e while setting themselves up to be in the same 'cheese' zone once players have optimized each class or multiclass in their system.
All they're doing is giving players something fresh to consume. I don't think they are solving anything. They're just saying "We don't like the cheezy builds that have evolved, so we're making a new system where they aren't options. But look at all these carrots we're giving you instead!"
And regarding the whole caster versus martial argument, I find the following situation at my table kind of funny: I'm backing Level Up to have it available for my gaming table to use if they want. (I won't be DM'ing) One particular player is all over this as he thinks martial characters are boring. He's also the player that made a caster class (Cleric) with a martial feel to it, but now he has all these spells the party expects him to use to 'save the day' and he complains that he never gets to hit things with his fancy magical mace that he pushed so hard to get.
Bingo
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Spoilers: even games without modular builds have a limited number of 'optimum' choices. In 5e, paladins are better than rangers. Wizards are better than sorcerers. A mastiff is better than a level 20 Champion fighter. In literally anything ever, there are going to be choices that are better than others. You can't escape it, you can't avoid it, you can't design around it. All you can do is try to make the gap small enough that it matters less, and try to ensure that even your 'bad' options are interesting and worth playing with. Modular build opportunities provide a great many benefits, and in a game like D&D with a GM to ride herd on the worst edge cases and excesses they put a great deal of the "Role" in "Role Playing Game".
Please do not contact or message me.
To be more precise, people have made a pledge and thus are allowed to make comments rather than just read them. Until the KS campaign ends a backer can always cancel their pledge. Nobody has paid anything yet.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Well, Level Up just unveiled the base setting of their system's cosmology. It certainly looks interesting, and I'm excited to see the axis of "Law versus Chaos" becoming the "Orderly decay of everything versus the maddening corruption of the Far Realm".
Anyone else here have thoughts and opinions on this?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Well seeing as many of us homebrew our own planes and cosmology, and most campaigns take place largely on the material plane this is not exactly a reason to buy the system.
Because one of the biggest complaints about the traditional Alignment grid is its powerful inherent bias towards LG, perhaps? It's always been a stretch, and a job of convincing the DM, to call anything else a proper player alignment, and the constraints that can place on some games are tight and uncomfortable. 'Orderly decay' versus 'chaotic corruption' at least frames a choice and removes some - not all, but some - of the inherent bias in the system.
Please do not contact or message me.
If anything, if it clarifies a specific way of handling alignment that can be helpful in the first place. 5E removed most of the practical consequences of alignments, but does a pretty poor job of explaining them and how to use them, if at all.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The majority of my parties play Cotic Neutral or good, I know very few players who play lawful good. But, I dont really pay any attention to the allignment grid anyway, my whole issue with it is the binary approach it takes, an evil character gan do good acts and not become good and a good character can totally do something evil and not change alignment. I mean we are playing a game where "heros" regularly kill things and see the most horiffic acts without suffering any psycological issues lol. Alignment to me is a guide in sessio 0 for how will your character act in the first 30 mins, from then on it is about the oplayer feeling out and experiancing and doing things the character would do naturally in the situation, not sticking to some arbritary alignment
Well, alignment is supposed to drive action, not the other way around. Doing something that goes against your alignment doesn't change your alignment, it at most presupposes your alignment had shifted already. Which can totally happen, alignment isn't set in stone. But if you think of alignment as arbitrary, you should probably just drop it altogether. What the character would naturally do is a reflection of their alignment, that's pretty much by definition what alignment means.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The problem of Law vs Chaos has always been more 'what the heck does it mean', not 'powerful incentive towards LG'. However, actually looking at their cosmology, I see no evidence that the Gyre vs the Far Realms is Law vs Chaos.
I don't mean mechanically powerful. I mean the system is inherently, strongly, biased towards Lawful Good. You can tell because the entire system is described as if from the perspective of a Lawful Good individual. The other axes are "Chaos" and "Evil", and all of the language around the system presupposes the core ideal that the further you stray from LG< the further you stray from the True And Proper Way. 'Evil' alignments are outlawed altogether at most tables and in Adventurer's League, which makes it plain that the furhter from 'Good' you stray the worse of a person you are, and the system also assumes anyone with a Chaotic alignment is actively at odds with and working against society.
'Orderly decay' vs 'Chaotic corruption' at least intimates at the fact that Law/Order is not an unabashed, unqualified, always-da-bess good, just like attempts to reframe the Good/Evil axis as "serves others vs. serves self" tries to intimate that there's benefits and drawbacks to both ends of that axis.
Not that this is supposed to be the thirteen millionth thread on alignment nonsense, but hey. Why not, eh?
Please do not contact or message me.
The fact that D&D has always been biased towards "Evil is Bad" doesn't concern me, as it's sort of a tautology. Law=Good, Chaos=Evil was a thing in early D&D and made a bit of a resurgence in 4th edition (which had only LG, G, N, E, and CE) but I wouldn't call it a general bias in D&D.
In general Law has been the alignment of civilization; outside of anomalies like the drow, if it has big cities, police, courts, standing armies, and so on, it's probably lawful; if it's a bunch of rugged individualists or smaller groups it's chaotic. If the campaign is something like a 4th edition 'points of light' where you're protecting pockets of civilization against the howling hordes, sure, good and lawful probably go together, but if you're heroic rebels in an insurrection against the Evil Empire you're probably looking at CG vs LE.
The fact that the Forgotten Realms doesn't really have a good location or candidate for Oppressive Evil Empire is one of the flaws of the setting -- it's because the setting is unwilling to let evil have large scale victories.
Evil is, well, evil and half the players out there seem to think chaotic is what you play when you want to play evil without admitting it by putting "evil" on your character sheet.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think this part is a completely separate issue that is more about players than the D&D alignment system. In my own personal experience, the venn diagram of players that play "evil" characters and players that are disruptive has a lot of over lap.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master