Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pukunui" data-source="post: 8487481" data-attributes="member: 54629">This comes across as some serious hyperbole to me. How does removing one line that essentially says “Most creatures of this race are x alignment so you should probably make your PC that alignment too” make it so there’s no frame of reference?I just quoted from the PHB entry on dwarves showing just how much frame of reference there is. I don’t feel like I need a “typically lawful good” label on dwarves to know that they are typically lawful good. I think new players who take the time to read the race descriptions will be able to understand how those races typically work just fine without an officially suggested alignment tag.While I think “terrible” is going a bit too far, I will agree that these kind of changes at this point in the game’s life cycle are annoying. I would have preferred it if they’d left the big changes for the anniversary edition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pukunui, post: 8487481, member: 54629"] This comes across as some serious hyperbole to me. How does removing one line that essentially says “Most creatures of this race are x alignment so you should probably make your PC that alignment too” make it so there’s [I]no[/I] frame of reference? I just quoted from the PHB entry on dwarves showing just how much frame of reference there is. I don’t feel like I need a “typically lawful good” label on dwarves to know that they are typically lawful good. I think new players who take the time to read the race descriptions will be able to understand how those races typically work just fine without an officially suggested alignment tag. While I think “terrible” is going a bit too far, I will agree that these kind of changes at this point in the game’s life cycle are annoying. I would have preferred it if they’d left the big changes for the anniversary edition. [/QUOTE]

Verification