Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8486220" data-attributes="member: 7032025">Sometimes nonsensical, but no, certainly less bland. I'm not sure about the &quot;restrictive&quot;. Although I will admit that it's good that WotC adresses the implicit &quot;always&quot; in the alignment of some races, I would like to point out that 3e already did it quite well at the time and honestly, even in BECMI or AD&amp;D we had absolutely no problem ignoring the alignment tag that came with monster races.And that is exactly what I'm protesting against. At least the racial stats made some sort of sense, as well as the different types of vision in previous editions, it gave at least an edge.As for the mindset, this is much more about roleplaying, and there have been intersting strong mindsets, although some were quite tolkienish, there were already fairly different takes on them even in previous editions, see the Elfes of Alfheim or those of Spelljammer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8486220, member: 7032025"] Sometimes nonsensical, but no, certainly less bland. I'm not sure about the "restrictive". Although I will admit that it's good that WotC adresses the implicit "always" in the alignment of some races, I would like to point out that 3e already did it quite well at the time and honestly, even in BECMI or AD&D we had absolutely no problem ignoring the alignment tag that came with monster races. And that is exactly what I'm protesting against. At least the racial stats made some sort of sense, as well as the different types of vision in previous editions, it gave at least an edge. As for the mindset, this is much more about roleplaying, and there have been intersting strong mindsets, although some were quite tolkienish, there were already fairly different takes on them even in previous editions, see the Elfes of Alfheim or those of Spelljammer. [/QUOTE]

Verification