• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E I thought WotC was removing biological morals?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
It seems pretty clear at this point that D&D needs to do more than just include that bit about alignment, though, considering how many people appear to have missed it and assume that a listed alignment means every single member of the species has that alignment. Maybe a whole section on varying monster portrayals (plus more nuance and options in monster listings generally).

I'm hoping Fizban's demonstrates a viable path forward...
I'd be happy if they went back to the 3e alignments. They were far more helpful with aiding players in their roleplay and the races generally not listed as always X alignment. Most of them were sometimes X, usually Y or often Z alignments. It left a lot of space open for other alignments to be used.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mrpopstar

Sparkly Dude
Not accurately, though. People who are MUCH bigger and can lift, carry and drag more, are also STRONGER. To represent that goliaths need to on average have a higher strength score than halflings. That requires a strength bonus.
I was just speaking to @Cadence's correlating strength to size, pointing out that that particular point is specifically called out regardless of either characters' strength.
 

JEB

Legend
I'd be happy if they went back to the 3e alignments. They were far more helpful with aiding players in their roleplay and the races generally not listed as always X alignment. Most of them were sometimes X, usually Y or often Z alignments. It left a lot of space open for other alignments to be used.
Right, always (exceptions are unique or rare), usually (over 50%), or often (40-50%, with exceptions common). Someone else posted screenshots with the exact text upthread, but I don't recall who it was at this point (sorry!).

Which would certainly be an improvement over 5E's information on alignment. (Although to be fair, 3E still tucked the specifics into the glossary.)
 

Since I was just reminded elsewhere this exists, what's the general feeling on the new lore that drow who worship Lolth have supernaturally-occurring markings on their skin?

lolth's embrace.jpg


What if WotC just decided to have all the evil gods start marking their followers just so we know which drow or orcs or whatever are Chaotic Evil and which ones are chill? Maybe Gruumsh could also expand his followers from just orcs to a more diverse group including humans and ogres and cyclopes and such instead of just being the orc god.
 
Last edited:




Lots of DMs I know, and in my own campaigns, this is already the case.
That's the only way I can ever imagine being inclined to use Gruumsh. I find orcs themselves boring, but a coalition of humans, orcs, half-orcs, ogres, orogs, half-ogres, and maybe even hill giants and cyclopes sounds more interesting.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Honestly the screenshot reflects what I said. I honestly am misunderstanding you.
I had two links. The second link was to the post that I had also screenshotted. You ignored both the screenshot and the second link, and instead addressed only the first link--but that was answered in the screenshot.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
They didn't evolve at all. They were created much the same as they are now.
Depends on a lot of things. Ever read 2e's Draconomicon? Whole chapter on draconic evolution and how they came from "eodrakes" or something like that.

And, of course, some settings may use evolution, really fast evolution, or uplifting instead of having the gods stick all the races down on the world (except for humans, who got there mysteriously, of course).
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top