I am just wondering what role alignments play in DnD lately. I have ran an evil Character and a good character. They both felt that the alignment was just tacked on especially with background questions(personality, ideals, bonds, and flaws).
I understand the history of alignments. I ran a swordsage in 3.5 that was stripped of good alignment and given a neutral one until she atoned. However in 5e, at least to me, seems tacked on.
Alignment is an artifact that's left over from previous editions. The only "purpose" it servers in 5E is telling muderhobo players which things from the Monster Manual are acceptable to kill on sight and which they have to try to talk to first.
Alignment is as important as the players at the table want to make it.
I still use it in my games. I find it broadly useful when looking at an NPC or a monster to help me quickly figure out what type of behavior I am going to have to RP for that monster or NPC. It's not quite as useful for players, since they only play one character, and they have the luxury of molding that character over dozens of sessions. But for an NPC I'm only going to RP for 30 minutes, or a monster who is only going to be in a combat for 4 rounds, it is tremendously helpful to have a really easy reference to how this individual will react to a broad range of situations, without having to read a wall of text to figure that out.
I also use alignments, generally speaking, to characterize my nations. It's not that every person in the nation is that alignment -- far from it -- but rather, it helps me figure out the geopolitical relationships. My Roman Empire is "Lawful Neutral" -- this is a fairly reasonable alignment for them given the march of real world history. They had some of the earliest written laws; many of the modern laws of the west are based on those laws; they built cities, roads, and other structures following repeated patterns and strict guidelines; and they imposed rigid laws and rules on all the lands they conquered. So they were clearly, overall, Lawful. The Romans did tons of both good and evil things over the years, which IMO places them squarely in the Neutral zone on the good/evil axis.
On the other hand, the Halfling nation in my world is Chaotic Good -- halflings are sweet but not very big on centralized government or codified laws. The elvish nations are Chaotic Good (wood elves) or Neutral Good (high elves). The Grey Elf (moon elf) province within the Roman Empire, which has been part of the Empire since it was a Republic, would be considered Lawful Good... They get along well with the Romans in general because both are highly lawful. Mountain Dwarves (not inside the empire) are Neutral to Neutral Good. Hill Dwarves (who live inside the empire) are Lawful Neutral. And so on.
I find it easier to characterize the national outlook in two words like that -- words I understand and have understood for many years -- than to try to write several paragraphs explaining why they do or don't get along.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Alignment is not mechanically important any more; there aren't effects that key on being 'evil' or 'good'. It is still provided for monsters, and is potentially useful for understanding their behavior, but I've always found the definitions of the alignments too crude and vague to serve much purpose.
I also use it for religion. Each god has an alignment, and only permits worship by followers who match the god in at least one alignment, and do not have the opposite in the other alignment. For example, Venus is Chaotic Good, so she will accept Neutral Good, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Good. She will not accept Lawful or Evil ones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It used to be important. As far as I can tell, alignment affects being able to use things like the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds, but very little else. In BG:DiA, alignment affects how many soul coins you can hold without being worn down.
On the other hand, alignment used to be a gatekeeper for various classes, many magic items and feats. In 2e, lawful and chaotic were more like factions than actual beliefs. Either you were with the wind dukes or the demons, essentially.
I also use it for religion. Each god has an alignment, and only permits worship by followers who match the god in at least one alignment, and do not have the opposite in the other alignment. For example, Venus is Chaotic Good, so she will accept Neutral Good, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Good. She will not accept Lawful or Evil ones.
Eh, I prefer to be more specific about what gods favor and oppose (not that I would call Venus CG. CN at best, decent argument for CE).
The more time I spend on these forums, the less value I have for other peoples opinions when it comes to D&D and the way I play and enjoy the game. The alignments system is there to be used or ignored as you or the DM sees fit. No one else's thoughts really matter.
However, since you asked. Alignment is a useful tool for the DM when dealing with NPC's and for players to use as a starting point for how they wish to RP their characters. Beyond that it doesn't have a mechanical impact on the game for the most part.
Personally I have come to the "conclusion" that alignment shouldn't be used for anything from the prime material plane. The outer planes being embodiment's of certain alignments makes sense, but the prime material plane entities have free will.
Alignment is a shorthand for DMs as others have said, or for a race or god etc. But they can easily be replaced by the bond, flaw and ideals system with more variety and less granularity.
You can say someone is neutral good, but you could easily say the following: Ideals Respect. People deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. (Good) Bonds I have a family, but I have no idea where they are. One day, I hope to see them again. Flaws I’m convinced of the significance of my destiny, and blind to my shortcomings and the risk of failure.
and have a skeleton framework to flesh a character out. You can extrapolate any actions from there. It seems to me that this is what alignment is really used for anyway.
I say, for the purposes of meaningful conflict, absolutely yes.
Whenever a character might want to negotiate with the villain of a campaign, rather than, say, smite them out of righteous zeal...alignment matters.
When the party comes face to face with a town guard who's been corrupted by the local thieves guild and is robbing the poor of what little they have...alignment might decide whether or not they hand the crooked guard over to the authorities for judgement...or just slit their throat. Again, alignment matters.
It is a tool there for the DM to decide whether or not to use...an extreme that prevents certain characters from pursuing a course of action that could drastically alter events in a campaign...at least, without entirely upending a characters alignment for the foreseeable future.
For instance...if one of your party is the stereotypical "evil" character, and has murdered countless people for fun...and suddenly feels like they cannot kill someone, for some reason (or worse, has fallen in love)...then the DM has leverage to judge that particular no longer is completely evil...but neutral.
DM: "Yeah...mercy was never in your vocabulary until this point. You're not the monster in this story anymore."
Evil Player: "This is terrible...I CARE....!! WHAT IS THIS STABBING PAIN IN MY GUT?!"
(Paladin silently punches the air in victory)
...or conversely, to show character's fall from grace.
Our party Paladin (gods bless you, Markus, you were so much fun), started off as a Lawful Good, Oath of the Crown.
Then our party made some questionable, on-the-fly decisions...then he lost some friends...an unsuspecting goblin village may have been incinerated, then flung miles into the distance...some creatures may have lost their hands...and poor Markus slowly began to lose his mind.
He went from Lawful Good...then Lawful Neutral...then Chaotic Neutral...
By the next campaign, he'd become a fully-fledged, Evil-aligned character...chopping off heads and stuffing them into a sack in the middle of the Chultan jungles.
None of the things you describe require a named 'alignment'. They just require your character to have a personality (which in 5e is tied in to the system of traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws).
Note that certain ideals are associated with certain alignments, and they do have mechanical effects (in terms of the Inspiration system), though they're generally considered underwhelming (Inspiration doesn't do a whole lot).
I chiefly only consider alignment when coming up with character concepts. From that perspective it's a great springing off point, starting with where they might fall on an alignment grid and how they interact with those ideals, or how best to make a character of a certain alignment. For me it really you the bones of your character which you can then flesh out as you like. Then once you start actually playing the character they're free to grow and change as a person, so alignment is less rigid from then on.
None of the things you describe require a named 'alignment'. They just require your character to have a personality (which in 5e is tied in to the system of traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws).
Note that certain ideals are associated with certain alignments, and they do have mechanical effects (in terms of the Inspiration system), though they're generally considered underwhelming (Inspiration doesn't do a whole lot).
They like alignments. What difference is it to you?
Eh, I prefer to be more specific about what gods favor and oppose (not that I would call Venus CG. CN at best, decent argument for CE).
AD&D's Deities and Demigods lists Aphrodite as Chaotic Good, just FYI. I know Venus != Aphrodite, but they didn't do the Roman pantheon in Deities and Demigods. Additionally, since Venus is a love goddess, it's hard to see how love is a force of evil, or even neutrality. Love has, traditionally in western culture, been viewed as a force of good. Chaotic, yes, not very rules-followy, yes. But good.
Beyond that, I am doing some specific things with my omniverse and how it works in terms of alignment, and where alignment comes from... and also I have my own version of the origins of the gods, which is not exactly what you'd read in Bullfinch's Mythology. So... Venus in my campaign would not 100% align with Venus as you might know her from the classics. She's close, but not 100%. Same with all the gods.
Anyway, the point is not what alignment she is, but rather, that the worshipers have to be of a certain alignment for her to accept them. I mean, other people could try to pray to her, but she wouldn't be likely to respond.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Eh, I prefer to be more specific about what gods favor and oppose (not that I would call Venus CG. CN at best, decent argument for CE).
AD&D's Deities and Demigods lists Aphrodite as Chaotic Good, just FYI.
I was talking about actual Greek myths, and, well, Aphrodite is, like most Greek gods, a pretty thorough jerk at best. Her particular shining example is starting the Trojan War, which lasted for ten years and resulted in the complete destruction of Troy, because she wanted to bribe a judge to declare her the most beautiful of goddesses.
Eh, I prefer to be more specific about what gods favor and oppose (not that I would call Venus CG. CN at best, decent argument for CE).
AD&D's Deities and Demigods lists Aphrodite as Chaotic Good, just FYI.
I was talking about actual Greek myths, and, well, Aphrodite is, like most Greek gods, a pretty thorough jerk at best. Her particular shining example is starting the Trojan War, which lasted for ten years and resulted in the complete destruction of Troy, because she wanted to bribe a judge to declare her the most beautiful of goddesses.
Well, to be fair, she didn’t technically start the war, that was Agamemnon. But she did cause Helen to fall in love with Paris.
But it was really Discord who started it by throwing the golden apple at the feat of Zeus’s three wives. She was jelly because she didn’t get invited to a party. Of course, if she didn’t start stuff like that, she would have been invited in the first place.
There are planes that affect creatures in different ways depending on how the plane's Alignment aligns with the creature. These are optional rules proposed in the DMG, which makes them valid if the DM desires.
The problem is that characters usually don't come into their own right out of the starting gate. It can take a few sessions for the players to settle into a personality for their characters - a character ends up being selfish despite writing in CG on the character sheet at Level 1, or a character ends up being a deliberate hero for the common people despite putting N on the character sheet at Level 1.
If it were me (and it's not), I'd have a few sessions and, then, an optional session to determine Alignments just in case a situation arises where Alignments could be used for story purposes - or it can be skipped completely.
It's as important as one wants it to be, but I'm not in favor of the Alignment dictating the actions but, rather, the actions dictating the Alignment. I figure, go ahead and leave that off the character sheet and either fill it in later or just ignore it and let the DM decide if the DM decides it becomes a factor in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
In my games, I use alignment as a short-hand descriptor, a very quick way of the players communicating to me a high level idea of their characters goal (good, neutral or evil) and their methods to accomplish those goals (lawful, neutral or chaotic).
I don't use alignment prescriptively, telling my players how they should act, except in the rare case of something like the Eye and Hand of Vecna that causes an alignment shift. And even then, I contextualise it in how they describe themselves. For example, say a player describes themself as lawful good and they get shifted to chaotic good, I'll say "Cool, what this means at a high level is where before you valued doing things by the rules, now those rules seem constrictive, they're no longer enabling your goals but preventing them."
Basically, it's a simple tool. It's a lot like 'This Is Your Life' from Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Those tables aren't going to give you a fully complete background, but they give you a good starting point that you can add to, adjust, tweak or completely disregard.
I don't use alignment prescriptively, telling my players how they should act, except in the rare case of something like the [Tooltip Not Found] that causes an alignment shift. And even then, I contextualise it in how they describe themselves.
Is the [Tooltip Not Found] a homebrew item? Which sourcebook is it in if not a homebrew item? It sounds interesting. :P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am just wondering what role alignments play in DnD lately. I have ran an evil Character and a good character. They both felt that the alignment was just tacked on especially with background questions(personality, ideals, bonds, and flaws).
I understand the history of alignments. I ran a swordsage in 3.5 that was stripped of good alignment and given a neutral one until she atoned. However in 5e, at least to me, seems tacked on.
What is everyone’s opinion? Is it needed anymore?
Alignment is an artifact that's left over from previous editions. The only "purpose" it servers in 5E is telling muderhobo players which things from the Monster Manual are acceptable to kill on sight and which they have to try to talk to first.
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.
Alignment is as important as the players at the table want to make it.
I still use it in my games. I find it broadly useful when looking at an NPC or a monster to help me quickly figure out what type of behavior I am going to have to RP for that monster or NPC. It's not quite as useful for players, since they only play one character, and they have the luxury of molding that character over dozens of sessions. But for an NPC I'm only going to RP for 30 minutes, or a monster who is only going to be in a combat for 4 rounds, it is tremendously helpful to have a really easy reference to how this individual will react to a broad range of situations, without having to read a wall of text to figure that out.
I also use alignments, generally speaking, to characterize my nations. It's not that every person in the nation is that alignment -- far from it -- but rather, it helps me figure out the geopolitical relationships. My Roman Empire is "Lawful Neutral" -- this is a fairly reasonable alignment for them given the march of real world history. They had some of the earliest written laws; many of the modern laws of the west are based on those laws; they built cities, roads, and other structures following repeated patterns and strict guidelines; and they imposed rigid laws and rules on all the lands they conquered. So they were clearly, overall, Lawful. The Romans did tons of both good and evil things over the years, which IMO places them squarely in the Neutral zone on the good/evil axis.
On the other hand, the Halfling nation in my world is Chaotic Good -- halflings are sweet but not very big on centralized government or codified laws. The elvish nations are Chaotic Good (wood elves) or Neutral Good (high elves). The Grey Elf (moon elf) province within the Roman Empire, which has been part of the Empire since it was a Republic, would be considered Lawful Good... They get along well with the Romans in general because both are highly lawful. Mountain Dwarves (not inside the empire) are Neutral to Neutral Good. Hill Dwarves (who live inside the empire) are Lawful Neutral. And so on.
I find it easier to characterize the national outlook in two words like that -- words I understand and have understood for many years -- than to try to write several paragraphs explaining why they do or don't get along.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Alignment is not mechanically important any more; there aren't effects that key on being 'evil' or 'good'. It is still provided for monsters, and is potentially useful for understanding their behavior, but I've always found the definitions of the alignments too crude and vague to serve much purpose.
I also use it for religion. Each god has an alignment, and only permits worship by followers who match the god in at least one alignment, and do not have the opposite in the other alignment. For example, Venus is Chaotic Good, so she will accept Neutral Good, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Good. She will not accept Lawful or Evil ones.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It used to be important. As far as I can tell, alignment affects being able to use things like the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds, but very little else. In BG:DiA, alignment affects how many soul coins you can hold without being worn down.
On the other hand, alignment used to be a gatekeeper for various classes, many magic items and feats. In 2e, lawful and chaotic were more like factions than actual beliefs. Either you were with the wind dukes or the demons, essentially.
Eh, I prefer to be more specific about what gods favor and oppose (not that I would call Venus CG. CN at best, decent argument for CE).
The more time I spend on these forums, the less value I have for other peoples opinions when it comes to D&D and the way I play and enjoy the game. The alignments system is there to be used or ignored as you or the DM sees fit. No one else's thoughts really matter.
However, since you asked. Alignment is a useful tool for the DM when dealing with NPC's and for players to use as a starting point for how they wish to RP their characters. Beyond that it doesn't have a mechanical impact on the game for the most part.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Personally I have come to the "conclusion" that alignment shouldn't be used for anything from the prime material plane. The outer planes being embodiment's of certain alignments makes sense, but the prime material plane entities have free will.
Alignment is a shorthand for DMs as others have said, or for a race or god etc. But they can easily be replaced by the bond, flaw and ideals system with more variety and less granularity.
You can say someone is neutral good, but you could easily say the following:
Ideals
Respect. People deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. (Good)
Bonds
I have a family, but I have no idea where they are. One day, I hope to see them again.
Flaws
I’m convinced of the significance of my destiny, and blind to my shortcomings and the risk of failure.
and have a skeleton framework to flesh a character out. You can extrapolate any actions from there.
It seems to me that this is what alignment is really used for anyway.
An interesting question!
I say, for the purposes of meaningful conflict, absolutely yes.
Whenever a character might want to negotiate with the villain of a campaign, rather than, say, smite them out of righteous zeal...alignment matters.
When the party comes face to face with a town guard who's been corrupted by the local thieves guild and is robbing the poor of what little they have...alignment might decide whether or not they hand the crooked guard over to the authorities for judgement...or just slit their throat. Again, alignment matters.
It is a tool there for the DM to decide whether or not to use...an extreme that prevents certain characters from pursuing a course of action that could drastically alter events in a campaign...at least, without entirely upending a characters alignment for the foreseeable future.
For instance...if one of your party is the stereotypical "evil" character, and has murdered countless people for fun...and suddenly feels like they cannot kill someone, for some reason (or worse, has fallen in love)...then the DM has leverage to judge that particular no longer is completely evil...but neutral.
DM: "Yeah...mercy was never in your vocabulary until this point. You're not the monster in this story anymore."
Evil Player: "This is terrible...I CARE....!! WHAT IS THIS STABBING PAIN IN MY GUT?!"
(Paladin silently punches the air in victory)
...or conversely, to show character's fall from grace.
Our party Paladin (gods bless you, Markus, you were so much fun), started off as a Lawful Good, Oath of the Crown.
Then our party made some questionable, on-the-fly decisions...then he lost some friends...an unsuspecting goblin village may have been incinerated, then flung miles into the distance...some creatures may have lost their hands...and poor Markus slowly began to lose his mind.
He went from Lawful Good...then Lawful Neutral...then Chaotic Neutral...
By the next campaign, he'd become a fully-fledged, Evil-aligned character...chopping off heads and stuffing them into a sack in the middle of the Chultan jungles.
Experiencing all that...yeah, alignment matters.
None of the things you describe require a named 'alignment'. They just require your character to have a personality (which in 5e is tied in to the system of traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws).
Note that certain ideals are associated with certain alignments, and they do have mechanical effects (in terms of the Inspiration system), though they're generally considered underwhelming (Inspiration doesn't do a whole lot).
I chiefly only consider alignment when coming up with character concepts. From that perspective it's a great springing off point, starting with where they might fall on an alignment grid and how they interact with those ideals, or how best to make a character of a certain alignment. For me it really you the bones of your character which you can then flesh out as you like. Then once you start actually playing the character they're free to grow and change as a person, so alignment is less rigid from then on.
They like alignments. What difference is it to you?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
As our atheist cleric once put it..."It exists as much as you believe it exists".
If we want to have specific examples, though...items?
There are items that can only be used based on alignment, right?
AD&D's Deities and Demigods lists Aphrodite as Chaotic Good, just FYI. I know Venus != Aphrodite, but they didn't do the Roman pantheon in Deities and Demigods. Additionally, since Venus is a love goddess, it's hard to see how love is a force of evil, or even neutrality. Love has, traditionally in western culture, been viewed as a force of good. Chaotic, yes, not very rules-followy, yes. But good.
Beyond that, I am doing some specific things with my omniverse and how it works in terms of alignment, and where alignment comes from... and also I have my own version of the origins of the gods, which is not exactly what you'd read in Bullfinch's Mythology. So... Venus in my campaign would not 100% align with Venus as you might know her from the classics. She's close, but not 100%. Same with all the gods.
Anyway, the point is not what alignment she is, but rather, that the worshipers have to be of a certain alignment for her to accept them. I mean, other people could try to pray to her, but she wouldn't be likely to respond.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I was talking about actual Greek myths, and, well, Aphrodite is, like most Greek gods, a pretty thorough jerk at best. Her particular shining example is starting the Trojan War, which lasted for ten years and resulted in the complete destruction of Troy, because she wanted to bribe a judge to declare her the most beautiful of goddesses.
Well, to be fair, she didn’t technically start the war, that was Agamemnon. But she did cause Helen to fall in love with Paris.
But it was really Discord who started it by throwing the golden apple at the feat of Zeus’s three wives. She was jelly because she didn’t get invited to a party. Of course, if she didn’t start stuff like that, she would have been invited in the first place.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There are planes that affect creatures in different ways depending on how the plane's Alignment aligns with the creature. These are optional rules proposed in the DMG, which makes them valid if the DM desires.
The problem is that characters usually don't come into their own right out of the starting gate. It can take a few sessions for the players to settle into a personality for their characters - a character ends up being selfish despite writing in CG on the character sheet at Level 1, or a character ends up being a deliberate hero for the common people despite putting N on the character sheet at Level 1.
If it were me (and it's not), I'd have a few sessions and, then, an optional session to determine Alignments just in case a situation arises where Alignments could be used for story purposes - or it can be skipped completely.
It's as important as one wants it to be, but I'm not in favor of the Alignment dictating the actions but, rather, the actions dictating the Alignment. I figure, go ahead and leave that off the character sheet and either fill it in later or just ignore it and let the DM decide if the DM decides it becomes a factor in the game.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
In my games, I use alignment as a short-hand descriptor, a very quick way of the players communicating to me a high level idea of their characters goal (good, neutral or evil) and their methods to accomplish those goals (lawful, neutral or chaotic).
I don't use alignment prescriptively, telling my players how they should act, except in the rare case of something like the Eye and Hand of Vecna that causes an alignment shift. And even then, I contextualise it in how they describe themselves. For example, say a player describes themself as lawful good and they get shifted to chaotic good, I'll say "Cool, what this means at a high level is where before you valued doing things by the rules, now those rules seem constrictive, they're no longer enabling your goals but preventing them."
Basically, it's a simple tool. It's a lot like 'This Is Your Life' from Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Those tables aren't going to give you a fully complete background, but they give you a good starting point that you can add to, adjust, tweak or completely disregard.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Is the [Tooltip Not Found] a homebrew item? Which sourcebook is it in if not a homebrew item? It sounds interesting. :P
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.