Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8026997" data-attributes="member: 18">Soooo, that was plenty of words, but my takeaway was, and correct me if I'm wrong, oh people of the thread:"We're going to make it much more clear that alignments aren't inherent to races/species and that they are subject to change".Is that right? If so that seems entirely reasonable. I actually felt 5E was a moderate step back here, because whilst 5E made alignment about as meaningless as 4E (though missing my beautiful friend "Unaligned", RIP), 5E went on and on about alignment more, and presented it in a way that made it seem much more like a 2E or earlier deal where it was "inherent" to a lot of species (and not just wacky supernatural beings like devils/demons/etc.). So going back to 4E or greater levels of clarity that alignment wasn't fixed would definitely be a good thing.Personally I hope that with 6E (which, honestly, feels like it's suddenly gone from six+ years away to "maybe 2" years away) they ditch alignment even harder, and/or add some sort of other "motivation" trait, maybe one that actually had some mechanical interaction (a lot of games do something like this, and do it well).</blockquote>