I’ve been trying to come up with something else nice to say about 5E. I don’t think it’s a bad system, I just think it took away a lot of the things I like about running D&D games like agency and accomplishment. It still did several things right, like backgrounds (though the playtest version of them was much more interesting, closer to themes instead of “choose your life story from a dropdown list”), inspiration (though the rule as written invalidates its stated purpose and I vastly prefer the Angry GM’s version), and simple multiclassing (there’s no caveat here; I actually really like the multiclass spellcasting). There’s another quiet change of which I approve, more an absence of a rule than a rule itself: there are no alignment restrictions.
I didn’t even notice this until I went looking for it to see how badly it would hurt me, and I was pleasantly surprised to find few places where alignment even mattered. Monks don’t have to be lawful, because you don’t need a rigid code of ethics to be good at punching and running. Paladins don’t have to be lawful good, because a character can commit to evil just as easily as to goodness. Druids don’t have to be neutral, because “to follow nature, you have to be nature” sounds like the sort of statement one can only follow with “…you feel me, man?”. Even spells like detect evil and good only care about creature types, not evil or good itself. Character building in 5E has limitations and hard-coded assumptions, but none of them hinge on your alignment, binding you to a specific side in a specific war by virtue of your class. Which is good, because alignment restrictions don’t just bind the character you’re building. They bind other players too, and possibly the whole campaign.