Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft Review Round-Up – What the Critics Say
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8286007" data-attributes="member: 7023887"><p>Alignment already is practically nonexistent in 5e. Taking out 1-2 words from every stat block is by no means the same thing as me advocating for a Psion class, more Class Feature Variants, or a Customize Your Origin system. Those are mechanical, while alignment only has a handful of mechanics attached to it throughout the whole game.</p><p></p><p>I don't remember those arguments. They may have been made, but I don't remember partaking in a discussion where those arguments were made (feel free to correct me if you can find an example of someone saying that when I was actively participating in that same discussion. A better example would be of me responding to someone saying that, if you can). </p><p></p><p>I feel that Alignment has a negative impact on the game, primarily due to its oversimplification of a complicated topic. I feel that it doesn't have a place in most D&D campaigns, barring Planescape because it depends on alignment (I even championed to continue to include alignment in the game in Planescape material). I feel the same way about this that I feel about including the Piety system from Mythic Odysseys of Theros or the Survivor mechanics from Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft in other campaigns that don't take place in those settings. Include alignment in Planescape, but not by default outside of it. Include the Piety system in Theros, but not by default outside of it. Include Survivors in Ravenloft, but not by default in other campaign settings. </p><p></p><p>It's one thing to include Class Feature Variants or Customize Your Origin mechanics in an optional book (TCoE), and another to include alignment in every book that contains deities, racial stats, and/or monster stat blocks. One is systematic, alignment, and another is optional, CFVs/Customize-Your-Origin (or, at least, it Customize Your Origin was supposed to be optional. I never advocated for it to not be optional in 5e). </p><p></p><p>I never advocated for anything to be pigeonholed in anything else or to take away the power of the DM to allow or disallow whatever content they want in their campaigns. I don't allow the official Kenku at my table, I don't allow Piety in my Eberron campaigns, and I don't allow Order of the Scribes Wizards at any of my campaigns. </p><p></p><p>I have no idea what you're talking about for the "stepping on the toes of new material" or "skill checks", so I'm going to ignore that as I am certain I had no part in any discussion about that. </p><p></p><p>Like I addressed above, alignment is different from Class Feature Variants, Customize Your Origin mechanics, and new subclasses. Any DM that doesn't want mechanics from Tasha's doesn't have to buy that book, but alignment was automatically a part of practically every D&D 5e book before Candlekeep Mysteries. I didn't advocate for the removal of alignment in 5e, I wanted that in a 5.5e/6e, but I'm not particularly upset that the direction shift came early. My reasons for disliking alignment are mainly because it's a pervasive system that was included in every D&D 5e book whether or not I wanted it. I couldn't just not buy the books with alignment included in it, because every book had alignment included. However, the people who don't want to use the content in Tasha's can just not buy/use Tasha's. It's a different situation. There's a difference between pulling out weeds sprinkled throughout a field and making a fence between an area containing all weeds and an area containing the field. </p><p></p><p>Excuse me, but as I said above, I never advocated for this change. My being happy because of it didn't motivate WotC to make it, and I don't work for WotC and personally make this change. Stop attacking me over something I never did or advocated for. Sure, I don't like alignment. I have never hidden my dislike for it. However, I didn't ask for this, and it's not hypocritical for me to embrace a change that I like even if I didn't ask for it. If someone you know gives you ice cream without you asking, you eat the goddam ice cream. </p><p></p><p>Are we done here, or must I move on from proving that I'm not a D&D-book-burner to not being a Hypocritical Alignment-Destroyer?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Levistus's_Leviathan, post: 8286007, member: 7023887"] Alignment already is practically nonexistent in 5e. Taking out 1-2 words from every stat block is by no means the same thing as me advocating for a Psion class, more Class Feature Variants, or a Customize Your Origin system. Those are mechanical, while alignment only has a handful of mechanics attached to it throughout the whole game. I don't remember those arguments. They may have been made, but I don't remember partaking in a discussion where those arguments were made (feel free to correct me if you can find an example of someone saying that when I was actively participating in that same discussion. A better example would be of me responding to someone saying that, if you can). I feel that Alignment has a negative impact on the game, primarily due to its oversimplification of a complicated topic. I feel that it doesn't have a place in most D&D campaigns, barring Planescape because it depends on alignment (I even championed to continue to include alignment in the game in Planescape material). I feel the same way about this that I feel about including the Piety system from Mythic Odysseys of Theros or the Survivor mechanics from Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft in other campaigns that don't take place in those settings. Include alignment in Planescape, but not by default outside of it. Include the Piety system in Theros, but not by default outside of it. Include Survivors in Ravenloft, but not by default in other campaign settings. It's one thing to include Class Feature Variants or Customize Your Origin mechanics in an optional book (TCoE), and another to include alignment in every book that contains deities, racial stats, and/or monster stat blocks. One is systematic, alignment, and another is optional, CFVs/Customize-Your-Origin (or, at least, it Customize Your Origin was supposed to be optional. I never advocated for it to not be optional in 5e). I never advocated for anything to be pigeonholed in anything else or to take away the power of the DM to allow or disallow whatever content they want in their campaigns. I don't allow the official Kenku at my table, I don't allow Piety in my Eberron campaigns, and I don't allow Order of the Scribes Wizards at any of my campaigns. I have no idea what you're talking about for the "stepping on the toes of new material" or "skill checks", so I'm going to ignore that as I am certain I had no part in any discussion about that. Like I addressed above, alignment is different from Class Feature Variants, Customize Your Origin mechanics, and new subclasses. Any DM that doesn't want mechanics from Tasha's doesn't have to buy that book, but alignment was automatically a part of practically every D&D 5e book before Candlekeep Mysteries. I didn't advocate for the removal of alignment in 5e, I wanted that in a 5.5e/6e, but I'm not particularly upset that the direction shift came early. My reasons for disliking alignment are mainly because it's a pervasive system that was included in every D&D 5e book whether or not I wanted it. I couldn't just not buy the books with alignment included in it, because every book had alignment included. However, the people who don't want to use the content in Tasha's can just not buy/use Tasha's. It's a different situation. There's a difference between pulling out weeds sprinkled throughout a field and making a fence between an area containing all weeds and an area containing the field. Excuse me, but as I said above, I never advocated for this change. My being happy because of it didn't motivate WotC to make it, and I don't work for WotC and personally make this change. Stop attacking me over something I never did or advocated for. Sure, I don't like alignment. I have never hidden my dislike for it. However, I didn't ask for this, and it's not hypocritical for me to embrace a change that I like even if I didn't ask for it. If someone you know gives you ice cream without you asking, you eat the goddam ice cream. Are we done here, or must I move on from proving that I'm not a D&D-book-burner to not being a Hypocritical Alignment-Destroyer? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft Review Round-Up – What the Critics Say
Top