I dunno, older editions were big on restrictions. There were restrictions for just about everything.
Anyhow, I may have missed a thread of the conversation - when folks were talking about alignment, I read it as talking about it being removed from 5e, not about it being removed from the game, since, as you say, it was never in the game (at least not visibly) at all... so it wouldn't make much sense for anyone to be talking about removing it from BG3 specifically... so I felt the need to pop in and note that the common refrain about alignment being 'gone' from 5e, which I see from various sources more frequently than I care for, is quite markedly untrue ^.^ If I'm off-topic further than I realise, just ignore me!
Though I will add that any future edition that comes out where entities such as celestials are not inherently and innately good, capital 'g', and entities such as devils and demons are not inherently and innately evil, capital 'e', and these are no longer such potent absolute truths of their respective beings that they don't physically and tangibly cease to be celestials/devils/demons if they change enough to no longer be considered 'Good' or 'Evil' respectively.... it will not be a step forward or an improvement, it will just be a much blander, less interesting multiverse.
You got a example? If not I'm just going to guess its to each there own.
Gotcha, the thread started off as clerics in the game feeling the same, 1varangian started talking about spells being related to deities and having to much spells period. I mentioned they were actually related to domains associated with deities. So ya we started branching towards 5e. I could see where the confusion is coming from and it could of been just my typing also, no big Niara.
Ya I agree, curious to see if they go full stupid though.
