why was the alignment system left out?

[Grink "V.F" da Boy]

part of the roleplaying aspect in d&d is playing your character the way you want and they will usually fall under some alignment, youve got the lawful good (inflexible idiots that mostly play stupid good), chaotic good (for your batman vigilantes), neutral good (reasonable people), chaotic neutral (most people pick this, the fencesitter alignment), lawful evil (the thinking man's evil alignment), neutral evil (the opportunists), and last but not least chaotic evil (the murderhobo's choice for people who would behead a commoner for being slighted and then raze their village to the ground in retribution)

i think it would also have been useful for party members so you can get a feel of what theyre about at a glance

[Dank Sidious]

Автор сообщения: Punished Jeremy

Автор сообщения: Dank Sidious

I don't care what you think should happen to the label. You hate it because of some silly emotional hurt caused by meanie CRPG fans. As long as other people find it useful it will stay whether you like it or not. You don't have to find it useful. If you don't personally use the label then ignore it, no one who uses it is going to care about your opinion on the matter.

That’s a really lame argument. Nobody cares that you don’t care about my opinion. I can’t keep repeating myself if you don’t want to listen

It's you who isn't listening. You keep pushing your angle to this without understanding that things exists despite you, not because of you and your worthless opinion doesn't change anything as the term will be continued to be used despite your protestations There's a reason for that, a reason that you are seemingly incapable of comprehending despite it being repeated to you multiple times through the simplest of explanations.

[lailaamell]

Aligment is what made bg 1 and 2 better it gives a framework for yout character to follow but it also gets boring for your character dont really have any free will if you lawfull good you must stay lawfull good or your class will debuff you but aligment would not really function all that well in bg 3 you are fighting to not die a lawfull good would do it fast way. Shadowheart would be for example a killer and danger so killing her would be mandatory for a lawfull good character since she would be evil and wyll also would lean yo evil side for devil worship and all that so poof half your roster would be gone becuse but we wouldnt see them grow from their wicked side . But aligment s downside also is there arent alot of room for grey. Heck i do think warlock and cleric should have penalties based on patron and gods a selune cleric wouldnt approve of a shar cleric in same camp and so on or warlock patron whos no great old one wouldnt approve of breach of contracts

[Doctor Zalgo]

Автор сообщения: scott2978

I think the real reason Larian removed Alignments is because players would be pissed at how morally black 75% of all the NPCs in this game are. That's also why there is no Paladin companion. They could never, ever stay in a party with all the base evil garbage personalities in your camp.

There's no conspiracy or 'real reason' here. Alignment is gone from the source rules so its gone from the game.

[krugg.the.gamer]

I think if they were going to use it, it should be something revealed at the end of the game. You make your decisions, ect... and at the end of the game it'll let you know where you fell on the alignment. Doesn't make a huge difference, but it would be neat as an afterthought.

[Firelock]

Автор сообщения: Mazovian Socio-Economist

Автор сообщения: scott2978

I think the real reason Larian removed Alignments is because players would be pissed at how morally black 75% of all the NPCs in this game are. That's also why there is no Paladin companion. They could never, ever stay in a party with all the base evil garbage personalities in your camp.

There's no conspiracy or 'real reason' here. Alignment is gone from the source rules so its gone from the game.

LOL! What version of D&D are you playing? EVERY edition of D&D, including 5th edition, has Alignment rules.

[lailaamell]

Автор сообщения: scott2978

Автор сообщения: Mazovian Socio-Economist

There's no conspiracy or 'real reason' here. Alignment is gone from the source rules so its gone from the game.

LOL! What version of D&D are you playing? EVERY edition of D&D, including 5th edition, has Alignment rules.

Like would it even be d&d without aligment

[Noctoculus]

Because there is no flexibility in the story to really allow an evil playthrough. Choosing evil options in BG3 doesn't open up an evil storyline, it just removes certain quests and content piece by piece.

[ZombieKidzRule!]

Автор сообщения: scott2978

Автор сообщения: Mazovian Socio-Economist

There's no conspiracy or 'real reason' here. Alignment is gone from the source rules so its gone from the game.

LOL! What version of D&D are you playing? EVERY edition of D&D, including 5th edition, has Alignment rules.

Exactly. I have said this numerous times, but for some reason, it is a hard concept for some people to accept.

You can go out today, pick up a brand new 5e rule book (see Player's Handbook & Monster Manual for best references), and you will still see references to alignment.

If you then go to the WoTC website and view the official errata for those same rule books, the errata does NOT eliminate alignment.

So, therefore, alignment still exists in D&D 5e.

It can be applied however the player's in the group want, but it exists. And it will exist until the last reference to it is removed.

A new player who picks up the rule books wouldn't have a clue what people are talking about when someone says alignment is gone from the game.

No, no it isn't.

The question of whether it should be or if all references will eventually be eliminated are the topics of the rest of the debate in this thread.

[GrandMajora]

Автор сообщения: lailaamell95

Aligment is what made bg 1 and 2 better it gives a framework for yout character to follow but it also gets boring for your character dont really have any free will if you lawfull good you must stay lawfull good or your class will debuff you

The only class which had to remain Lawful Good was the Paladin.

Druids had to stay True Neutral, which could potentially make them difficult to play.

Clerics had to be closely aligned with their deity, such as being Good for Lathander, or evil for Talos.

Neither the Bards, nor Barbarians could be Lawful.

Monks could not be anything other than Lawful.

And I don't remember, but I think Rangers needed to be either Lawful or Neutral. I practically never used them, so I'm not entirely sure.

[Doctor Zalgo]

Автор сообщения: scott2978

Автор сообщения: Mazovian Socio-Economist

There's no conspiracy or 'real reason' here. Alignment is gone from the source rules so its gone from the game.

LOL! What version of D&D are you playing? EVERY edition of D&D, including 5th edition, has Alignment rules.

They were removed from 5ed in an errata in 2022.

[Doctor Zalgo]

Автор сообщения: ZombieKidzRule!

Автор сообщения: scott2978

LOL! What version of D&D are you playing? EVERY edition of D&D, including 5th edition, has Alignment rules.

So, therefore, alignment still exists in D&D 5e.

Whoops sorry, I should have just said 'It decoupled it from every single game mechanic so now its just a field on your character sheet that doesn't mean anything.'

But, you do you I suppose.

[ZombieKidzRule!]

Автор сообщения: Mazovian Socio-Economist

Автор сообщения: scott2978

LOL! What version of D&D are you playing? EVERY edition of D&D, including 5th edition, has Alignment rules.

They were removed from 5ed in an errata in 2022.

So post the applicable content of the errata because I haven't been able to find that. I certainly don't read the Player's Handbook and Monster Manual errata that way.

[ZombieKidzRule!]

Автор сообщения: Mazovian Socio-Economist

Автор сообщения: ZombieKidzRule!

So, therefore, alignment still exists in D&D 5e.

Whoops sorry, I should have just said 'It decoupled it from every single game mechanic so now its just a field on your character sheet that doesn't mean anything.'

But, you do you I suppose.

Well, I haven't checked this entire list, but I did spot check some of the entries and every one I checked does NOT have an associated errata that I could find that would change the alignment reference or alignment affect/effect.

So saying that alignment is decoupled from 5e for every single game mechanic doesn't appear to be accurate.

What am I missing here?

Monsters

Demilich: first time a non-evil creature enters the demilich's lair they take 3d10 necrotic damage (MM 49)

Lemure: returns to life in 1d10 days unless killed by a good creature under effects of bless or sprinkled with holy water (MM 76)

Night Hag: evil creatures killed by Nightmare Haunting have soul trapped in bag (MM 178)

Lycanthrope: PC becoming lycanthrope has alignment changed to appropriate alignment (MM 207)

Rakshasa: vulnerability to piercing damage from magic weapons wielded by good creatures (MM 257)

Shadow: non-evil humanoids killed by Strength Drain become shadows in 1d4 days (MM 269)

Sprite: can detect creature's alignment on failed DC 10 cha save (MM 283)

Unicorn: regional affects maximize healing and suppress curses on good creatures (MM 293)

Vampire: PC becoming vampire has alignment changed to lawful evil (MM 295)

Gold Dragon: regional mist assumes ominous shapes to warn non-evil creatures of evil creatures present (PHB 115) u/Quastors

Magic Items

Candle of Invocation: creatures with same alignment as candle's deity have advantage on attack rolls, saving throws and ability checks, clerics or druids with same alignment can cast 1st level spells at-will (DMG 157)

Book of Vile Darkness: non-evil make DC17 cha save or alignment change to neutral evil (DMG 222)

Book of Exalted Deeds: requires attunement by a good creature, evil creatures take 24d6 unavoidable radiant damage (DMG 222)

Blackrazor: requires attunement by a non-lawful creature (DMG 216)

Deck of Many Things: Balance card reverses alignment (DMG 162)

Talisman of Pure Good: requires attunement by a good creature, neutral/unaligned creatures take 6d6 radiant damage, evil creatures take 8d6 radiant damage (DMG 207) u/Joaquin27488

Talisman of Ultimate Evil: requires attunement by an evil creature, neutral/unaligned creatures take 6d6 necrotic damage, good creatures take 8d6 necrotic damage (DMG 207) u/Joaquin27488

Robe of the Archmage: requires attunement by a character of the appropriate alignment (DMG 194)

Moonblade: requires attunement by a neutral good elf or half elf (DMG 217) u/Bobsplosion

Classes

Oathbreaker Paladin: must be evil (DMG 97)

Death Cleric: "an additional option for evil clerics" (DMG 96) u/BluePragmatic

Planar Travel

Mount Celestia: good creatures gain effects of bless while on plane and lesser restoration on long rest, optional (DMG 59)

Bytopia: DC 10 wis save or non-lawful/neutral good creatures changed to one of these alignments, optional (DMG 59-60)

The Abyss: DC 10 cha save or become corrupted, corrupted creatures become chaotic evil after 1d4+2 days, optional (DMG 62)

The Nine Hells: DC 10 cha save or become lawful evil, optional (DMG 64)

Mechanus: DC 10 wis save or become lawful neutral, optional (DMG 66) u/Souperplex

Spells

Spirit Guardians: good and neutral casters do radiant damage, evil do necrotic (PHB 278)

Glyph of Warding: can trigger based on alignment (PHB 245)

Nystul's Magic Aura: masks alignment to magical effects that sense alignment (PHB 263) u/MaXimillion_Zero

Ceremony: Atonement restores alignment of creature that has had alignment change (XGTE 151)

[GrandMajora]

Автор сообщения: Mazovian Socio-Economist

Whoops sorry, I should have just said 'It decoupled it from every single game mechanic so now its just a field on your character sheet that doesn't mean anything.'

But, you do you I suppose.

Same could be said for race and deity. Since the gods in 5th edition don't seem to have a clearly defined list of what Domains they grant access to, and you're free to assign your ability scores wherever you want.

I was really excited to get the chance to finally test out 5th edition when I heard BG3 would be taking place in it. But the more exploring I do, the more I'm convinced that... 5th edition sucks.

There's no sense of identity to these character concepts. Anybody can be anything, and it all comes across as feeling hollow and underwhelming.

[Darkaiser]

Many D&D players and DMs have gotten away from it so they saw little reason to put it in the game.

If you do something good specifically for a reward, you're being bought off.