D&D 5E RIP alignment

[Maxperson]

I don’t disagree, but tell that to these folks and everyone who liked their posts.

There's a reason why alignment is referred to as a Sacred Cow.

 

[Sacrosanct]

"Lawful evil" or "neutral evil" or "chaotic evil" are way, way more useful as quick descriptors for personalities than just "evil". 4E's attempt to simplify alignment ran into that issue, there was no longer any quick way to indicate "lawful but not good" or "chaotic but not evil". (4E's tendency to provide little to no personality or behavior for many monsters, outside of combat tactics, compounded that issue. Though at least they got better later.)

That said, I fully expect that a D&D without alignment in statblocks will lead many DMs to default to such simplistic portrayals, because it's easier. Bad guys will be generically bad, good guys generically good. This may even be the case if Wizards makes sure to give every monster/NPC a writeup packed with personality, because not every DM will memorize that... but they could always glance at the alignment in the statblock and go with "this bad guy is also lawful".

B/X seemed to manage fine

 

[JEB]

B/X seemed to manage fine

Except that "lawful" often also meant "good" and "chaotic" often also meant "evil". Note B/X elves are neutral rather than chaotic, for example.

 

[ccs]

Well, there is one good reason. When folks are upset at the idea of inborn alignment,

So because these people cant (wont) manage to:
A) read the intro page of the MM & apply that,
B) Realize that they are playing a game where anything & everything can be changed to suit their groups preferences,

Everyone else gets alignment stripped out of the game.

 

[Mistwell]

Hey, lets panic over a simple stat in a game. And then speculate wildly to confirm our panic. Yea that'll work.

Your divisiveness on this topic seems way over the top and trollish in level. Particularly since you repeated it, with increasing snark, as a drive-by.

 

[Mistwell]

Great. I never use it anyway.

If they removed a class or subclass that I never used and you did, how would you react to my saying great I never used it anyway?

In fact, I've seen YOU respond to people that don't want some additional rules that they simply don't have to use those rules but other people want them so why not be supportive of what others might use even if you don't. Why suddenly are you changing your principals on this topic?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Except that "lawful" often also meant "good" and "chaotic" often also meant "evil". Note B/X elves are neutral rather than chaotic, for example.

I mean B/ X only had three basic alignments, and it seemed to work fine with little or no issue. So I am hesitant to buy into the argument that going to a three category alignment would create significant issue.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So because these people cant (wont) manage to:
A) read the intro page of the MM & apply that,
B) Realize that they are playing a game where anything & everything can be changed to suit their groups preferences,

Everyone else gets alignment stripped out of the game.

That shouldn’t be a problem for you if you apply your own logic. Point B specifically.

 

[Stormonu]

I still have my pens to fix the stats blocks.

Wotc can do what it wants, I can still fix my books as I please.

 

[J-H]

Ehh... on the one hand, I don't like the direction the game has taken over the last year or so.

On the other hand, when I look at the monsters I write for my campaigns, I don't list alignment. I have a note at the beginning of the bestiary:
"Typical alignment for sentient races is discussed in the campaign chapters discussing the particular faction(s) they belong to. Beasts are neutral."

It should usually be very easy for the DM to determine the alignment of an NPC/monster based on its affiliations, loyalties, and place in the game world.