D&D 5E Recent Errata clarifications

[Bolares]

No, I want more. I want it on spells, I want it on classes, I want it on races, I want it on planes.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No, I want more. I want it on spells, I want it on classes, I want it on races, I want it on planes.

I certainly dont want LESS.

And that would probably make me stop playing D&D. I barely tolerate Alignment as it is, and absolutely hate the nonsensical and redundant Great Wheel Cosmology. If D&D had a flood of more alignment in the game, with restrictions on classes/subclasses, spells, and races, I would leave the hobby.

 

[Charlaquin]

Wraith was good, and I appreciated that Geist didn’t try to be nuWraith but did its own, equally awesome thing.

 

[Scribe]

And that would probably make me stop playing D&D. I barely tolerate Alignment as it is, and absolutely hate the nonsensical and redundant Great Wheel Cosmology. If D&D had a flood of more alignmnet in the game, with restrictions on classes/subclasses, spells, and races, I would leave the hobby.

Why you gotta yuk my yum dude?

 

[Charlaquin]

No, I want more. I want it on spells, I want it on classes, I want it on races, I want it on planes.

I certainly dont want LESS.

This may come as a surprise, but I actually agree with you on that. At least, if it’s going to exist at all. If alignment has no mechanical consequences, it’s just a pointless descriptive tag that causes arguments on the interest and nothing else. Get rid of it, it’s not doing anything useful. Or, make it do something useful. I’d be fine with either solution, but 5e’s current approach of trying to have alignment exist but not matter in any way is the worst of both worlds.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not. That's why I cited all of the articles over the years that dealt with the issue. Regardless of your experience never seeing it, or my experience having seen it, certainly you can agree that if it's a repeated topic in articles of the years in how to deal with, then certainly it exists, right?

I also don't think it's a stretch to say that if rule is defined as X, then most people will treat it like X. Or are you arguing that most people do not read a rule and default to assuming that's how said rule should be incorporated? Because I'd find that hard to believe.

What can I say? I was responding to a post that said "most people" had a problem with alignment. That would indicate a plurality of people have a problem with alignment. Since I've played with literally hundreds of people over the years (dozens in home games and extensive public play as player and DM) if it were as big an issue as some people claim it would be incredible that I've never heard of it nor seen it be a major issue.

Is it occasionally a problem? Was it an issue for some people in versions of the game that have not been current for decades? Was it an issue for some people decades ago? Okay. What does that have to do with the current game?

Unless of course you have some broad based survey that I've never seen. Do some articles discuss it? Sure. An article popped up on my feed the other day "10 fake rules every DM should use!" There's a whole thread about garbage articles. We have the internet where you can find articles about all sorts of ideas, opinions and theories including some that are truly bizarre.

People write provocative things all the time to get eyeballs. I know some people have an issue with alignment, if you do you can ignore it. I've had discussions about alignment in the past, and there have sometimes been minor differences but nothing serious*. I do think the MM should go back to the 3.x version of alignment that explicitly stated things like orcs are frequently CE.

*The only time I had an issue was with 2E's CN being basically chaotic insane. But that was more of an issue with 1 individual who also thought they were literally a werewolf.

 

[Sacrosanct]

When your book comes out, with a disclaimer/warning, as we have discussed, and if you get blasted by X number of people for being insensitive, or triggering, or whatever.

Who's fault will that be?

I have a content advisory on the cover, as well as an indicator on every relevant monster entry. That is not remotely the same has having one disclaimer hidden somewhere in the beginning that many won't see, especially if they are using digital content (I keep brining that up but you seem to keep ignoring it.)

You're telling people they are at fault for not reading that less-accessible disclaimer and alignments should be kept in the stat block, when there is a more-accessible guidance on how to play the creature in it's entry that is on the same page that their alignment is (therefore making the alignment in the statblock moot and not needed), but don't want to read that. That's what I find disingenuous. If you read the flavor text, there is no need for alignment in the stat block at all.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Why you gotta yuk my yum dude?

Not the same thing. You can add those things with less than a snap of your finger as a DM. If you want to make Oathbreaker Paladins all have to be Evil, Devotion Paladins all have to be Lawful Good, Orcs all to be evil, etc, you are free to do that with your DM hat on. It takes more work and justification as a DM to remove that than add on minor restrictions like "no, your Lawful Good Devotion Paladin cannot burn down the Oprhanage and still call themselves good". Having to go through all of the books and remove every instance of alignment-restrictions (which would probably heavily influence class spell lists and racial abilities) to make it what I wanted is more work than just saying "no, Orcs have to be evil in this world".

I'm not saying that it's wrong to like alignment, I'm saying that if that was added to the game in the way you want it, it would almost definitely make me leave the game.

 

[Scribe]

This may come as a surprise, but I actually agree with you on that. At least, if it’s going to exist at all. If alignment has no mechanical consequences, it’s just a pointless descriptive tag that causes arguments on the interest and nothing else. Get rid of it, it’s not doing anything useful. Or, make it do something useful. I’d be fine with either solution, but 5e’s current approach of trying to have alignment exist but not matter in any way is the worst of both worlds.

Probably fair. In the last 6 or so months I've quickly pivotted away from 5e's approach to pretty much everything, maybe it was LevelUp that had me thinking about things differently, maybe it was looking again at PF1 and remembering how things could (should?) be, I dont know.

Ultimately, 5e is not demonstrating the type of depth (it may have its own depth!) that I'm wanting, at all at this point, and the removal of Alignment is the removal of just one more piece of that.

 

[Scribe]

If you read the flavor text, there is no need for alignment in the stat block at all.

You can continue to repeat this, and I'll continue to disagree, until we both keel over from our advancing age.

You can also continue to say its harder to find the relevant piece of information. Granted! They dont have plastered disclaimers that you can do what you wish. I wont agree that its 'hidden' but maybe in the digital version its harder to find? Sure, I dont know.

I will continue to refuse to accept that there is an issue, when the text clearly says 'change it if you want', and we live in the bloody internet age, with all information at the tips of our phone.