D&D 5E RIP alignment

[cmad1977]

5e passively made alignment irrelevant by changing the detect and protection from evil/good spells.
I always give my characters an alignment out of habit as a vague guidepost but my traits/flaws/bonds/ideals all play more into whoever the character is and are much more useful.

 

[JEB]

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.

Sure, it worked. But there's no question that "lawful evil" is much more descriptive than "lawful" or "evil" alone. Gygax added more alignments for a reason.

 

[MGibster]

I mean, I don’t think it is, but it makes sense that WotC would want to err on the side of caution.

For the most part, I don't think WotC should be making too many decisions based primarily on their desire to err on the side of caution. When you try to make a product to appease everyone you end up with a souless product that pleases few. (And just so I'm clear I'm not against changes to make the game more inclusive.) When they make changes, I want it to be because they think it'll make for a better game experience rather than some desire to avoid controversy. In the case of alignment, I think WotC can make a pretty good argument that it doesn't add much to the game experience overall. I like alignment, but even I have to admit that I really don't need it and at this point it's removal wouldn't have a significant impact on how I run/play the game.

I think it won't be long before alignment is viewed the same way as THAC0. Just an odd artifact of the game's past that no longer exists, or if it exists, as an obscure optional rule that doesn't come up in published adventures.

 

[Lanefan]

What does the tweet say in the OP?

 

[overgeeked]

Alignment was already missing from the "pet" monster statblocks in Tasha's, and also missing from some NPC statblocks in the latest issue of Dragon+. And now, in Candlekeep Mysteries:


That's also two reasons now to expect that a 5.5/6E is in the early stages:

1) The current PHB races contradict the new race design philosophy established in the recent UA, since they have fixed ASIs and cultural traits.
2) The current PHB enshrines alignment as a default characteristic (and explicitly states that it's an inborn trait for some creatures).

I'm sure this makes some folks very happy, but it does seem like a shame to drop that easy shorthand for monster behavior entirely, when they could have simply dropped the part some found problematic (alignment as inborn trait) and kept it as something descriptive. Oh well.

I wouldn't be surprised to see alignment appear as an optional rule in the 5.5/6E DMG, though.

Good riddance. Alignment was poorly implemented, poorly understood, and barely if ever useful. It also made it easier for the game to keep holding on to overtly racist tropes. It will not be missed.

At most we will get a revised PHB. With sales booming 6E is years away. Unless there’s a pandemic bubble that bursts once this thing is under control. Once sales tank they‘ll start working on 6E.

 

[Charlaquin]

Indeed. And I expect Wizards to continue erring on the side of caution. Unless, of course, there's pushback the other way.

I expect them to continue erring on the side of caution too, which means being cautious of straying too far from the brand identity as well as trying to adapt to current cultural trends. There already is pushback the other way, and I anticipate WotC trying to cast as wide a net as possible by functionally removing alignment from the game, while still keeping it nominally a thing.

I suspect that's a compromise that wouldn't satisfy either party, to be honest. But to be fair, that's how compromises often work...

I don’t see it being dissatisfying to the folks opposed to inherent NPC alignments (and I say that as one of them). I don’t see it being satisfying to the majority of the alignment defenders either, but it does seem like a compromise that WotC would make to try to avoid alienating them completely. No guarantee that would be successful, of course.

 

[Lanefan]

Good riddance. Alignment was poorly implemented, poorly understood, and barely if ever useful. It also made it easier for the game to keep holding on to overtly racist tropes. It will not be missed.

By you.

It will by others.

 

[Charlaquin]

For the most part, I don't think WotC should be making too many decisions based primarily on their desire to err on the side of caution.

I’m not talking about what I think they should do, I’m talking about what I think they will do.

I think it won't be long before alignment is viewed the same way as THAC0. Just an odd artifact of the game's past that no longer exists, or if it exists, as an obscure optional rule that doesn't come up in published adventures.

You’re more optimistic than me, then. For what it’s worth, I hope you’re right.

 

[MGibster]

I’m not talking about what I think they should do, I’m talking about what I think they will do.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? That we marge together to form a grotesque gestalt with powers unimaginable to mortal ken, take WotC, and shape D&D according to our will? No, never mind. With Ravenloft coming out this is a bad, bad idea. We'd just end up as a Darklord CEO of WotC with the Dark Powers using Hasbro to prevent us from making any changes.

I might have had one too many Cherry Cokes tonight.

 

[Charlaquin]

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? That we marge together to form a grotesque gestalt with powers unimaginable to mortal ken, take WotC, and shape D&D according to our will? No, never mind. With Ravenloft coming out this is a bad, bad idea. We'd just end up as a Darklord CEO of WotC with the Dark Powers using Hasbro to prevent us from making any changes.

I might have had one too many Cherry Cokes tonight.

Not sure wether to “laugh with” or “love” this post.