I noticed when reading Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft that none of the new creatures seemed to have alignments. Why is this? I would assume it's because of the bad direction D&D has been going in, but it seems like such a stupid decision to remove alignments from monsters when alignment is still a major part of the game. I mean, are you really going to tell me that a Dullahan shouldn't be classified as evil?
I noticed when reading Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft that none of the new creatures seemed to have alignments. Why is this? I would assume it's because of the bad direction D&D has been going in, but it seems like such a stupid decision to remove alignments from monsters when alignment is still a major part of the game. I mean, are you really going to tell me that a Dullahan shouldn't be classified as evil?
well a large number of them are non-sentient so yeah.But also no one uses alignment anyways and this is a incredibly morally ambiguous setting,so who cares.
I noticed when reading Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft that none of the new creatures seemed to have alignments. Why is this? I would assume it's because of the bad direction D&D has been going in, but it seems like such a stupid decision to remove alignments from monsters when alignment is still a major part of the game. I mean, are you really going to tell me that a Dullahan shouldn't be classified as evil?
well a large number of them are non-sentient so yeah.But also no one uses alignment anyways and this is a incredibly morally ambiguous setting,so who cares.
Well I'm sure some people care, me included. I was simply asking if there was a stated reason for it. Also, if they are non-sentient then they should have unaligned as their alignment but they don't.
Yep, I totally support removing alignment for humanoids but everything? It’s just silly, and I don’t fancy having to read the flavor text for every monster.
Is it really though? Personally I don't have much of a problem with alignment, but I don't see it being in any way significant anymore in 5E - and that since the beginning of the edition, it's not a recent thing. Protection from Evil and Good doesn't even protect against Evil or Good creatures.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Is it really though? Personally I don't have much of a problem with alignment, but I don't see it being in any way significant anymore in 5E - and that since the beginning of the edition, it's not a recent thing. Protection from Evil and Good doesn't even protect against Evil or Good creatures.
Ok, it's not as big as it used to be, but keep in mind alignment is a physical, tangible, force in the multiverse, and it is definitely necessary, no matter how much you dislike it. Sure, you can do away with alignment, but at the end of the day after reading the text describing orcs or trolls and how they kill innocent people and raid civilization, I'm going to come to the conclusion that they are evil. Why not just tell everyone that by putting it on the stat block? I agree that alignment can be confusing with characters and can possibly restrict characters, but it is needed for enemies and monsters, or else every fight with even a headless freaking horseman becomes a moral quandary as we struggle to figure out if it's really evil or if we are misunderstanding it.
Is it really though? Personally I don't have much of a problem with alignment, but I don't see it being in any way significant anymore in 5E - and that since the beginning of the edition, it's not a recent thing. Protection from Evil and Good doesn't even protect against Evil or Good creatures.
Ok, it's not as big as it used to be, but keep in mind alignment is a physical, tangible, force in the multiverse, and it is definitely necessary, no matter how much you dislike it. Sure, you can do away with alignment, but at the end of the day after reading the text describing orcs or trolls and how they kill innocent people and raid civilization, I'm going to come to the conclusion that they are evil. Why not just tell everyone that by putting it on the stat block? I agree that alignment can be confusing with characters and can possibly restrict characters, but it is needed for enemies and monsters, or else every fight with even a headless freaking horseman becomes a moral quandary as we struggle to figure out if it's really evil or if we are misunderstanding it.
I have played this game for 6 years and still have never used aligment.NEVER AT ALL.most of the time where alignment matters it's to shove lore in your face when the lore has already been shoved in your face.
I may have ranted a bit there, my goal isn’t to fight anyone or even express my opinion, it was just to ask if there was a stated, good reason for getting rid of alignment on the new monsters
alignment is a physical, tangible, force in the multiverse, and it is definitely necessary
Repeating myself here, but: is it really though? Again, I don't have much of a problem with it. I don't see the necessity though. I mean, you immediately follow this up with "sure, you can do away with alignment" - if that's the case, how can it definitely be necessary?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
alignment is a physical, tangible, force in the multiverse, and it is definitely necessary
Repeating myself here, but: is it really though? Again, I don't have much of a problem with it. I don't see the necessity though. I mean, you immediately follow this up with "sure, you can do away with alignment" - if that's the case, how can it definitely be necessary?
I meant “sure, you (the subject, not YOU) can try to get rid of alignment, but at the same time I’m still going to think so and so is evil, so getting rid of it was pointless” it’s used in mechanics for certain magic items too. I realize that it isn’t the most important thing, but I feel that it shouldn’t be removed entirely at least from this edition when it is still used in mechanics and in previous monster stats. Save removing it entirely for 6e if that’s what wizards wants to do, don’t lose consistency be getting rid of it midway through 5e
Anyway, I think unless a mod responds with wizards’ stated official reason for getting rid of alignments, there isn’t one and we can end this thread before it turns into 20+ pages of off topic arguing and expressing of differing opinions
There's maybe six things in 5E's rules that actually check for alignment. And generally one doesn't need to be told that a troll is "evil" when it's rampaging through a village eating people. The fact that it's eating people is reason enough to stop it.
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.
alignment is a physical, tangible, force in the multiverse, and it is definitely necessary
Repeating myself here, but: is it really though? Again, I don't have much of a problem with it. I don't see the necessity though. I mean, you immediately follow this up with "sure, you can do away with alignment" - if that's the case, how can it definitely be necessary?
I meant “sure, you (the subject, not YOU) can try to get rid of alignment, but at the same time I’m still going to think so and so is evil, so getting rid of it was pointless” it’s used in mechanics for certain magic items too. I realize that it isn’t the most important thing, but I feel that it shouldn’t be removed entirely at least from this edition when it is still used in mechanics and in previous monster stats. Save removing it entirely for 6e if that’s what wizards wants to do, don’t lose consistency be getting rid of it midway through 5e
Every monster still has an alignment (or is unaligned, if that's appropriate). It's just not spelled out that every specimen of a certain monster type has X alignment anymore. Alignment isn't removed, it's only made less obvious.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
I may have ranted a bit there, my goal isn’t to fight anyone or even express my opinion, it was just to ask if there was a stated, good reason for getting rid of alignment on the new monsters
The "stated, good reason" is likely Diversity and D&D. Or at least, this is as close as you're going to get.
Alignment is not at all a "physical, tangible force in the multiverse" for all tables, and as was discussed to death in the other thread many people feel that the traditional D&D alignment system is a strangling straitjacket that interferes with their ability to make their characters and their worlds more rich and believable. There's many people who do not at all agree that this is a 'bad' direction to be going in, and relegating alignment to an optional tool DMs from older editions of the game can use for certain settings makes more sense than trying to force every last single creature in the entire cosmos to align perfectly, flawlessly, and unchangingly to one of nine and only nine possible motivations.
That said? The alignment of any given critter in VRG should be self-evident when you use it. If you, as a DM, cannot look at the monster you're using and decide A.) if its alignment actually matters, or B.) what that alignment is? You probably haven't prepared the encounter thoroughly enough. Any critter basic enough to be a throw-it-in bolt-on for a random encounter doesn't really have an alignment that matters - its alignment is "Hates The Party". Anything with enough goals, motivation, and prep time for its alignment to actually matter should be fleshed out enough that you just know its alignment regardless of whether Wizards has inflicted one on it. The bodytaker plant is a great example - if there's a bodytaker plant and a bunch of podlings on your random encounter table, the bodytaker's alignment doesn't matter. Its alignment is "****s With Party" and all you need are its combat stats.
If that Bodytaker is a big villain in the adventure, though? If it's been slowly, inexorably digesting and replacing every creature in a remote village the party stumbles across, carefully and cautiously extending its reach and influence one victim at a time, remaining hidden and searching for ways to subvert the deadly adventurers threatening to root it out and destroy its foothold in the region? Well, that bodytaker's goals should be superseding any "alignment" forced on it...but if you need one, its alignment is pretty clearly Lawful Evil. The bodytaker plant thrives on control; it places itself at the top of whatever organizational structure exists within its area and uses that structure to protect itself and further its goals, manipulating those within that structure without regard for their well-being but doing whatever it must to preserve the structure. Its goal is to create a stable, productive society around itself that it can control as it pleases and which expands its reach. Its alignment is easy to pick out.
Most other critters' alignments, if their alignment matters at all, are easy to establish with only brief rumination on what the creature's goals are.
Anyway, I think unless a mod responds with wizards’ stated official reason for getting rid of alignments, there isn’t one and we can end this thread before it turns into 20+ pages of off topic arguing and expressing of differing opinions
FWIW, a mod isn't going to know WotC stated official reason any more than any of us. As DDB doesn't have any insight into WotC's editorial process any more than anyone else. Maybe they're creative team could do a vid with one of the WotC creators to discuss the bestiary and alignment, or maybe it'll show up in a WotC social media feed, or another community member with professional access. Or maybe it won't at all since the books been out for a few weeks and no one's feeling a lot of heat coming off that topic.
The bestiary consists of horrific creatures and denizens of domains of dread. Does it matter how any of them align to the multiverse beyond what's given in their text descriptions?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
March 15th, 2016, was the year Curse Of Strad was released as an Adventure. I vaguely remember that in the early planning stages prior to its release, there was much talk about removing alignment from monsters. It was seen as less than Politically Correct and upset People Of Color that Drow were black, and Orcs were evil and somehow that related to People Of Color being ugly. The fictional Vishanti were revised because the real world Romani might be offended by how they were portrayed.
I cannot find an official release about this. I don't know if there ever was one. I merely remember the endless arguments about Wizards of the Coast and Political Correctness.
As near as I can determine, the idea is to allow any and all monsters as player characters, possibly only the humanoid ones, but it is hard to tell. Presumably this will encourage DM's to pay more careful attention to the lore for each creature rather than use two words that sums everything up just fine. Perhaps the people who wrote all that lore were upset that something they were paid to create was being largely ignored. We have not seen good aligned player character Mindflayers... yet... I have seen the demands, and Van Rickten's does seem to be pointing that way.
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.
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.
All of this is depending on setting and specific tables. In some cases, Demons are literally embodiments of their alignment- if they cease to be Chaotic Evil, they are no longer demons. In other stories, they are instead more of another species of entity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Perhaps the people who wrote all that lore were upset that something they were paid to create was being largely ignored.
LOL... it would be hilarious if this were the real reason they removed alignment.
Of course I would respond with, perhaps if the people who wrote all of that lore had written anything worth reading, let alone incorporating into my game world, I'd not be as liable to skip it and make my own stuff up in its place. It'd be way easier for me, too.
But meh, not like I was going to buy this book anyway... and here is one more reason not to.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I noticed when reading Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft that none of the new creatures seemed to have alignments. Why is this? I would assume it's because of the bad direction D&D has been going in, but it seems like such a stupid decision to remove alignments from monsters when alignment is still a major part of the game. I mean, are you really going to tell me that a Dullahan shouldn't be classified as evil?
well a large number of them are non-sentient so yeah.But also no one uses alignment anyways and this is a incredibly morally ambiguous setting,so who cares.
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
Well I'm sure some people care, me included. I was simply asking if there was a stated reason for it. Also, if they are non-sentient then they should have unaligned as their alignment but they don't.
Yep, I totally support removing alignment for humanoids but everything? It’s just silly, and I don’t fancy having to read the flavor text for every monster.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Is it really though? Personally I don't have much of a problem with alignment, but I don't see it being in any way significant anymore in 5E - and that since the beginning of the edition, it's not a recent thing. Protection from Evil and Good doesn't even protect against Evil or Good creatures.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Ok, it's not as big as it used to be, but keep in mind alignment is a physical, tangible, force in the multiverse, and it is definitely necessary, no matter how much you dislike it. Sure, you can do away with alignment, but at the end of the day after reading the text describing orcs or trolls and how they kill innocent people and raid civilization, I'm going to come to the conclusion that they are evil. Why not just tell everyone that by putting it on the stat block? I agree that alignment can be confusing with characters and can possibly restrict characters, but it is needed for enemies and monsters, or else every fight with even a headless freaking horseman becomes a moral quandary as we struggle to figure out if it's really evil or if we are misunderstanding it.
I have played this game for 6 years and still have never used aligment.NEVER AT ALL.most of the time where alignment matters it's to shove lore in your face when the lore has already been shoved in your face.
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
I may have ranted a bit there, my goal isn’t to fight anyone or even express my opinion, it was just to ask if there was a stated, good reason for getting rid of alignment on the new monsters
Repeating myself here, but: is it really though? Again, I don't have much of a problem with it. I don't see the necessity though. I mean, you immediately follow this up with "sure, you can do away with alignment" - if that's the case, how can it definitely be necessary?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I meant “sure, you (the subject, not YOU) can try to get rid of alignment, but at the same time I’m still going to think so and so is evil, so getting rid of it was pointless” it’s used in mechanics for certain magic items too. I realize that it isn’t the most important thing, but I feel that it shouldn’t be removed entirely at least from this edition when it is still used in mechanics and in previous monster stats. Save removing it entirely for 6e if that’s what wizards wants to do, don’t lose consistency be getting rid of it midway through 5e
Anyway, I think unless a mod responds with wizards’ stated official reason for getting rid of alignments, there isn’t one and we can end this thread before it turns into 20+ pages of off topic arguing and expressing of differing opinions
There's maybe six things in 5E's rules that actually check for alignment. And generally one doesn't need to be told that a troll is "evil" when it's rampaging through a village eating people. The fact that it's eating people is reason enough to stop it.
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.
Every monster still has an alignment (or is unaligned, if that's appropriate). It's just not spelled out that every specimen of a certain monster type has X alignment anymore. Alignment isn't removed, it's only made less obvious.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
The "stated, good reason" is likely Diversity and D&D. Or at least, this is as close as you're going to get.
Alignment is not at all a "physical, tangible force in the multiverse" for all tables, and as was discussed to death in the other thread many people feel that the traditional D&D alignment system is a strangling straitjacket that interferes with their ability to make their characters and their worlds more rich and believable. There's many people who do not at all agree that this is a 'bad' direction to be going in, and relegating alignment to an optional tool DMs from older editions of the game can use for certain settings makes more sense than trying to force every last single creature in the entire cosmos to align perfectly, flawlessly, and unchangingly to one of nine and only nine possible motivations.
That said? The alignment of any given critter in VRG should be self-evident when you use it. If you, as a DM, cannot look at the monster you're using and decide A.) if its alignment actually matters, or B.) what that alignment is? You probably haven't prepared the encounter thoroughly enough. Any critter basic enough to be a throw-it-in bolt-on for a random encounter doesn't really have an alignment that matters - its alignment is "Hates The Party". Anything with enough goals, motivation, and prep time for its alignment to actually matter should be fleshed out enough that you just know its alignment regardless of whether Wizards has inflicted one on it. The bodytaker plant is a great example - if there's a bodytaker plant and a bunch of podlings on your random encounter table, the bodytaker's alignment doesn't matter. Its alignment is "****s With Party" and all you need are its combat stats.
If that Bodytaker is a big villain in the adventure, though? If it's been slowly, inexorably digesting and replacing every creature in a remote village the party stumbles across, carefully and cautiously extending its reach and influence one victim at a time, remaining hidden and searching for ways to subvert the deadly adventurers threatening to root it out and destroy its foothold in the region? Well, that bodytaker's goals should be superseding any "alignment" forced on it...but if you need one, its alignment is pretty clearly Lawful Evil. The bodytaker plant thrives on control; it places itself at the top of whatever organizational structure exists within its area and uses that structure to protect itself and further its goals, manipulating those within that structure without regard for their well-being but doing whatever it must to preserve the structure. Its goal is to create a stable, productive society around itself that it can control as it pleases and which expands its reach. Its alignment is easy to pick out.
Most other critters' alignments, if their alignment matters at all, are easy to establish with only brief rumination on what the creature's goals are.
Please do not contact or message me.
FWIW, a mod isn't going to know WotC stated official reason any more than any of us. As DDB doesn't have any insight into WotC's editorial process any more than anyone else. Maybe they're creative team could do a vid with one of the WotC creators to discuss the bestiary and alignment, or maybe it'll show up in a WotC social media feed, or another community member with professional access. Or maybe it won't at all since the books been out for a few weeks and no one's feeling a lot of heat coming off that topic.
The bestiary consists of horrific creatures and denizens of domains of dread. Does it matter how any of them align to the multiverse beyond what's given in their text descriptions?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
March 15th, 2016, was the year Curse Of Strad was released as an Adventure. I vaguely remember that in the early planning stages prior to its release, there was much talk about removing alignment from monsters. It was seen as less than Politically Correct and upset People Of Color that Drow were black, and Orcs were evil and somehow that related to People Of Color being ugly. The fictional Vishanti were revised because the real world Romani might be offended by how they were portrayed.
I cannot find an official release about this. I don't know if there ever was one. I merely remember the endless arguments about Wizards of the Coast and Political Correctness.
As near as I can determine, the idea is to allow any and all monsters as player characters, possibly only the humanoid ones, but it is hard to tell. Presumably this will encourage DM's to pay more careful attention to the lore for each creature rather than use two words that sums everything up just fine. Perhaps the people who wrote all that lore were upset that something they were paid to create was being largely ignored. We have not seen good aligned player character Mindflayers... yet... I have seen the demands, and Van Rickten's does seem to be pointing that way.
I hope that helps
<Insert clever signature here>
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.
All of this is depending on setting and specific tables. In some cases, Demons are literally embodiments of their alignment- if they cease to be Chaotic Evil, they are no longer demons. In other stories, they are instead more of another species of entity.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
LOL... it would be hilarious if this were the real reason they removed alignment.
Of course I would respond with, perhaps if the people who wrote all of that lore had written anything worth reading, let alone incorporating into my game world, I'd not be as liable to skip it and make my own stuff up in its place. It'd be way easier for me, too.
But meh, not like I was going to buy this book anyway... and here is one more reason not to.
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.