D&D 5E Recent Errata clarifications

[Scribe]

Yeah, perhaps. but you have to understand basic human behavior. If you tell the masses that a rule = X, then it should not be a surprise to see most players act like rule = x, and it doesn't necessarily mean they are doing it wrong. They are doing it based on the expectations the game told them to do.

If the game defines lawful good as X, and a player is lawful good, then you should expect people to assume other players will try to keep that PC's behavior to X. That's what rules and guidelines are.

When you define something as a default, you should expect people to treat it like the norm, and it's not "wrong" their part to do so.

I cannot even remember the last time people told me in a game that Alignment is some auto pilot script for a players morality. It just has literally never been that way in my games.

It honestly bewilders me that players forget they are PEOPLE and people act 'out of character' literally all the time.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I cannot even remember the last time people told me in a game that Alignment is some auto pilot script for a players morality. It just has literally never been that way in my games.

It honestly bewilders me that players forget they are PEOPLE and people act 'out of character' literally all the time.

That's great for you, you're lucky!

But it is a big issue for most people. So big, that there were numerous articles back in the day to address it (lawful good paladins being the most common article). Like I said, if you define something as a rule, then most people are going to treat it like a rule. That's not mind bending or shocking.

 

[Scribe]

That's great for you, you're lucky!

But it is a big issue for most people. So big, that there were numerous articles back in the day to address it (lawful good paladins being the most common article). Like I said, if you define something as a rule, then most people are going to treat it like a rule. That's not mind bending or shocking.

I get you, on the rules side.

But there are very few if any mechanical hooks, on Alignment these days, much to my chagrin.

That's why I can't understand how it's still either misunderstood, or an issue.

I do believe this, and how they choose to deal with Gods, is why we don't have Planescape, but it still confuses me.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I've always found how the game treated the 9 alignments too restricting anyway, and felt that way way back in 1981. I can't count the number of times I've seen a DM or player say, "You can't do that, you're alignment XY." It's nonsense. And unnecessarily limiting to choice. Intelligent creatures are lot more complex than that.

A lot of people also forget, or ignore, that good and Good or evil and Evil are not always the same. Good can do evil to advance the greater Good, just as Evil can do good to advance their Evil cause. Just look at the Paladin restrictions from the AD&D days of being allowed to work with evil if it helped defeat a greater Evil. Any sentient, mortal race should have that same variation and flexibility to it. I only really bring in alignment restrictions when it comes to PCs/NPCs who channel divine/infernal powers. They go against the beliefs/alignment of the Being powering them and they run the risk of losing their powers/magic.

 

[Oofta]

That's great for you, you're lucky!

But it is a big issue for most people. So big, that there were numerous articles back in the day to address it (lawful good paladins being the most common article). Like I said, if you define something as a rule, then most people are going to treat it like a rule. That's not mind bending or shocking.

I have yet to meet any of these "most people" in real life. If it wasn't for forums I wouldn't know it was an issue and I've played with hundreds of different folks over the years. It was an option to more strictly enforce alignment, what 30-40 years ago? Even back then we just ignored it, as everyone I knew did.

Don't assume your experience is any indication of a larger issue.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And don't accept larger sample sizes if your personal sample supports your hypothesis more!

 

[Charlaquin]

Wow. I think this is the first time I've seen an Animorphs reference online (besides the meme templates). Nice.

Animorphs has a decent cult following online. I’m just surprised to see the reference here, where the average user wasn’t in the books’ target age range when they were being released.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Animorphs has a decent cult following online. I’m just surprised to see the reference here, where the average user wasn’t in the books’ target age range when they were being released.

Do you mean those old books with the freaky human to an animal on them?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Animorphs has a decent cult following online. I’m just surprised to see the reference here, where the average user wasn’t in the books’ target age range when they were being released.

And it's seeing kind of a renaissance of Youtube commentary and analysis.

 

[Laurefindel]

I have yet to meet any of these "most people" in real life. If it wasn't for forums I wouldn't know it was an issue and I've played with hundreds of different folks over the years. It was an option to more strictly enforce alignment, what 30-40 years ago? Even back then we just ignored it, as everyone I knew did.

Don't assume your experience is any indication of a larger issue.

I've seen them before, albeit much less frequently in the last 20 years or so

What I'm seeing now however, is people questioning the Good alignment of deity X or culture Y, because they do/allow/encourage Z, in greater or lesser proportion, which these people find morally ambiguous or plain wrong. In other words, this deity (or that culture or that fictional character etc) cannot be good because they do this or allow that to happen.