He plays D&D but hates alignments

>he plays D&D but hates alignments
Then play something else you fucking retard

D&D hasn't made a big deal about alignments since 3.PF edition.
>4e lumped LG/NG/LN into LG, turned TN into "unaligned," and lumped CE/NE/CN into CE
>5e removed the bulk of abilities and restrictions that depended on what alignment you were.
Honestly, the only reason alignment exists still is because WotC doesn't want to make the grog's booty hurt.

It's a relatively small part of the game.
Even in 3.PF alignment isn't that big a deal. Kill Paladin, and like a handful of spells no one uses anyway.

>Even in 3.PF alignment isn't that big a deal.
At least four classes that I can recall off my head (Druid, Monk, Paladin, Barbarian) had alignment restrictions, certain spells under had the [good] or [evil] tag attached to them, and even certain feats were locked out to you depending on your alignment.

Compare to 4e and 5e where the amount of alignment restrictions are practically non-existent and have no quantifiable effect on gameplay, which honestly is for the best since it feels more like it works better as flavor than as an actual mechanic.

>he plays mtg but hates one card
then play something else you fucking retard. don't you know you can only enjoy things you think are perfection?

>certain spells under had the [good] or [evil] tag attached to them
Those tags do nothing mechanically.
>alignment restrictions
Do nothing mechanically if removed.

Alignments effect in 3.5 is literally just "it exists because we say so" treating it like it isn;t there would have no real effects on gameplay and if you think otherwise you haven't actually played 3.5.

>Those tags do nothing mechanically.
They prevent you from using specific spells depending on what alignment Cleric you were and using them too much could cause an alignment shift as well.
>there would have no real effects on gameplay and if you think otherwise you haven't actually played 3.5.
You obviously never played a Paladin, especially when the GM was one of those "it's my duty to make the Paladin fall through any means necessary" types who ruined Paladins for an entire generation of roleplayers.

Bard as well

>They prevent you from using specific spells depending on what alignment Cleric you were and using them too much could cause an alignment shift as well.
And this matters in a game where you're ignoring alignment because...
>You obviously never played a Paladin, especially when the GM was one of those "it's my duty to make the Paladin fall through any means necessary" types who ruined Paladins for an entire generation of roleplayers.
Because people are totally going to be playing Paladins in 3.5 when the Crusader and Warblade exist and in a game where alignments aren't being used.

And finally and 3.5 game worth a shit is going to have all of the Core classes banned anyway.
And there is no significance behind this though. There are no features on a bard that "break" if you lift the alignment restriction on it. Not to mention bards don't have a restriction in PF anyway. None of their mechanics are dependent on alignment.

>At least four classes that I can recall off my head (Druid, Monk, Paladin, Barbarian) had alignment restrictions
personally none of my groups actually used these.

The restrictions seemed like a terrible design choice. I get classes generally having some flavour but why would you *restrict* them? What's the point of *not* letting someone play what they want to.

>any 3.5 game worth a shit is going to have all of the Core classes banned anyway.
???

>assblasted little kid wants to have his cake and eat it too
You're what is wrong with dungeons and dragons

Ok.

The idea is for people to come up with characters who would then be described by options the rules give you.
You wouldn't stat out the law-abiding champion of goodness as a barbarian, even though maybe his righteous fury manifesting as rages as opposed to smites might feel better mechanically.

>You wouldn't stat out the law-abiding champion of goodness as a barbarian, even though maybe his righteous fury manifesting as rages as opposed to smites might feel better mechanically.
Why not?

Because then the mechanical differences imposed onto the character archetypes are no longer enforced and you could much more easily have a party of 4 or 5 characters who are completely different on the surface level using the exact same system-level rules to represent what they do. (See: "homogeneity" criticisms of 4th ed)

The connection between the mechanical rules and what they represent was a deliberate design decision.

It can be frustrating when you want to customize your character or shoehorn a "character build" to fit a character concept (which is exactly backwards from the designer's intent) but that's the way it is.

I'm personally not convinced it's better one way or another, but I'm just saying that's why it's like that. A different approach might well be more fun, but D&D went the direction they did for a reason.

But didn't one of the Post-PHB2 (or maybe it was Unearthed Arcana) things for the Pally in essence make him someone who could rage?

Probably but even if you use those options you're still saddled by whatever baggage comes along with being a Paladin. (as opposed to casually being a Barbarian that just happens to have the trappings of a Paladin)

>The connection between the mechanical rules and what they represent was a deliberate design decision.
I guess I've never been that much of a fan of mechanics being inextricably linked to flavour. Always preferred them to be separate, so that you can think of a character and give them the closest mechanics you can find. The idea of basing your character's personality on pre-set rules has always seemed unnecessarily rulesy and un-fun. Felt like they were just adding in rules for the sake of adding rules.
>you could much more easily have a party of 4 or 5 characters who are completely different on the surface level using the exact same system-level rules to represent what they do.
I honestly don't see anything wrong with that.

That's cool, man. I've met players who would strongly disagree with you. (sometimes just *knowing* the characters are mechanically identical gets under their skin for some reason.) But I definitely get where you're coming from, and most of my players think similarly.

You ever tried playing a more generic system, maybe Savage Worlds or GURPS?

>um sweetie stop making like rules that like make me like have to roleplay um ok?
soy did this

No, but I quite like the direction 5e went in.

Always saw the monk class as "can punch people good" and the barbarian class as "unarmoured fighter that sometimes gets stronger x times per day. The rest is flavour.

I just want to roleplay a guy who can punch good who also has loose morals, or a nature magic guy who has opinions.
There's nothing about these unnecessary restrictions that really require you to roleplay beyond forcing you to play a more generic character.

i don't get this soy meme, if you can't exercise your dietary freedom are you even a fucking man?

um sweetie I wouldn't worry about it too much you are obviously already way too far gone

>Oh I'm not a big fan of the drapes personally!
>Get the fuck out of my house
>Dear I don't like how our son plays with sharp objects
>I knew this day would come; I'll get the shotgun.