Really sorry that happened, that really sucks. I really feel for you. Those sorts of jabs can really hurt. But I think that the situation is a little different than what you described. It isn't that the creators of DnD made a jab at black people unintentionally and are now trying to fix that. It is that the creators made a reference to something that had nothing to do with race and everything to do with mythology (Which can easily backed up as pretty much everything in DnD comes from mythology) which then got SEEN as something to do with race. THEN after the Devs saw what people saw the reference as, they tried to say 'no, that really isn't what it is' by changing the colour of their skin. The creators of DnD were no more racist than the ancient Norse were when they thought up a race of dark skinned elves (Tbh they may have been pretty racist, but we have nothing to back that on).
The Norse dökkálfar are mentioned in one sentence of the Prose Edda (the Dark-Elves dwell down in the earth, and they are unlike in appearance, but by far more unlike in nature. The Light-Elves are fairer to look upon than the sun, but the Dark-Elves are blacker than pitch), and also in an obscure poem with no description at all. They may have been the same thing as svartálfar, which in turn may have been the same thing as dwarves. As such, the Drow in D&D were pretty much made up by EGG.
Dark elves have been a thing far longer than DnD has. Svartálfar are the stem of both dwarves (Which have other roots as well) AND drow (Even if the correlation is name only)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
It doesn't make the choice racist. However, just because they choice wasn't racist doesn't mean that the result isn't.
Taking a silly example, let's say I am cooking a bunch of pastries. A load of them near the back come out burnt black. In frustration, I yell at the top of my voice, "get rid of all the blacks, they are useless!"
Now, what I said has no connection to humanity, let alone race. I was not being racist when I spoke. However, that comment is likely to have upset many people who heard it. My intent, my choice, want racist, but the resulting words were because of the effect they have on others. They were discriminatory towards black people, whether that's what I intended or not.
Except that, and this has already been pointed out numerous times, something can be racist even without the intent of racism.
From the Oxford dictionary:
racist
/ˈreɪsɪst/
adjective
prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
"we are investigating complaints about racist abuse"
noun
a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
"he has been targeted by vicious racists online"
Yes, something can be unintentionally racist. No, I don't think "let's model these evil elves from D&D after evil elves from Norse mythology" is covered even by that wider umbrella. There'd have to be some kind of reference, intentional or otherwise, to real life people of colour for that to be true. To be clear, that doesn't make it ok that drow and PoC can be interpreted as linked through skin colour. It doesn't, and should be (and is being) addressed by WotC. But that doesn't make the choice to model drow after svartálfar a racist choice.
Thank you. Your eloquence has restated what I was trying to say beautifully. (I just need to point out, the Svartálfar were not always bad. THAT is a DnD canon choice,)
It doesn't make the choice racist. However, just because they choice wasn't racist doesn't mean that the result isn't.
Taking a silly example, let's say I am cooking a bunch of pastries. A load of them near the back come out burnt black. In frustration, I yell at the top of my voice, "get rid of all the blacks, they are useless!"
Now, what I said has no connection to humanity, let alone race. I was not being racist when I spoke. However, that comment is likely to have upset many people who heard it. My intent, my choice, want racist, but the resulting words were because of the effect they have on others. They were discriminatory towards black people, whether that's what I intended or not.
However if you then go out of your way to make sure everyone knows that you were not being racist and change your statement to be 'Get rid of all the burned pastries, they are useless', you are not being racist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Yes, something can be unintentionally racist. No, I don't think "let's model these evil elves from D&D after evil elves from Norse mythology" is covered even by that wider umbrella. There'd have to be some kind of reference, intentional or otherwise, to real life people of colour for that to be true. To be clear, that doesn't make it ok that drow and PoC can be interpreted as linked through skin colour. It doesn't, and should be (and is being) addressed by WotC. But that doesn't make the choice to model drow after svartálfar a racist choice.
The svartalfar in Norse mythology are not a race of evil dominatrixes who literally emasculate men. Personality-wise, drow are depicted more like villains from blaxplotation films, just without the afros or funny speech patterns.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It doesn't make the choice racist. However, just because they choice wasn't racist doesn't mean that the result isn't.
Taking a silly example, let's say I am cooking a bunch of pastries. A load of them near the back come out burnt black. In frustration, I yell at the top of my voice, "get rid of all the blacks, they are useless!"
Now, what I said has no connection to humanity, let alone race. I was not being racist when I spoke. However, that comment is likely to have upset many people who heard it. My intent, my choice, want racist, but the resulting words were because of the effect they have on others. They were discriminatory towards black people, whether that's what I intended or not.
However if you then go out of your way to make sure everyone knows that you were not being racist and change your statement to be 'Get rid of all the burned pastries, they are useless', you are not being racist.
No, you are not, but the words you said still are. And if you continue going around repeating them even after being made aware that they are racist, whether or not you intend to be you are being so at that point.
And no, something cannot be anything other than what it was intended to be, it can only be viewed as something else.
You are mistaken. You think that the essence of something said or written is based wholly upon the intention of the creator, and I used to think that way, too, but the truth is that a creation set loose upon the world has unintended consequences and those are also valid, intrinsic, and essential parts of the reality of a thing as well. It doesn't matter if you intend to use a swastika to represent it's Hindu or Buddhist origins in concept, you are going to be bringing up some very nasty associations along with it. And you are responsible for that because a thing is not just it's intentions, it is also it's consequences.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
And no, something cannot be anything other than what it was intended to be, it can only be viewed as something else.
You are mistaken. You think that the essence of something said or written is based wholly upon the intention of the creator, and I used to think that way, too, but the truth is that a creation set loose upon the world has unintended consequences and those are also valid, intrinsic, and essential parts of the reality of a thing as well. It doesn't matter if you intend to use a swastika to represent it's Hindu or Buddhist origins in concept, you are going to be bringing up some very nasty associations along with it. And you are responsible for that because a thing is not just it's intentions, it is also it's consequences.
I think we can agree to disagree there. I would continue to discuss it, as this sort of talk really interests me, however we are REALLY getting off topic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
And no, something cannot be anything other than what it was intended to be, it can only be viewed as something else.
You are mistaken. You think that the essence of something said or written is based wholly upon the intention of the creator, and I used to think that way, too, but the truth is that a creation set loose upon the world has unintended consequences and those are also valid, intrinsic, and essential parts of the reality of a thing as well. It doesn't matter if you intend to use a swastika to represent it's Hindu or Buddhist origins in concept, you are going to be bringing up some very nasty associations along with it. And you are responsible for that because a thing is not just it's intentions, it is also it's consequences.
I think we can agree to disagree there. I would continue to discuss it, as this sort of talk really interests me, however we are REALLY getting off topic.
I think this comes down to ignorance and/or negligence.
If you do not know that what you have said/written/done has strong racist interpretations, then you have said/written/done something racist through ignorance. You are not racist yourself for saying/writing/doing it, but what you have said/written/done still is.
This is like if someone was smoking near something flammable without realising it was flammable, that thing catching fire and burning down someone's house: You didn't know, you didn't do it on purpose. The amount of blame which can be pinned on you is limited, but the consequences are still down to your actions. You burned the house down.
If you are informed of the racist message in what you have said/written/done, but you continue to do so anyway (possibly by still claiming that is not how it was intended), this would be on a level with negligence. You can no longer plead ignorance, and you continue to do something which you have been informed is damaging, so you are causing that damage through negligence at best.
Back to the example, this would be like if someone say you smoking near the flammable object, and told you that it was flammable and what you were doing was dangerous. You then continue to smoke there, claiming you will be careful or that you don't believe it is actually that flammable. If that house now burns down, it is through your wilful, gross negligence. It doesn't matter that you never intended to burn the house down, or that you thought you could be careful enough, or that you didn't believe that the object was that flammable. You were warned, you ignored that warning and now you are much more responsible for the consequences than when you could plead ignorance.
Except that, and this has already been pointed out numerous times, something can be racist even without the intent of racism.
Yes, something can be unintentionally racist. No, I don't think "let's model these evil elves from D&D after evil elves from Norse mythology" is covered even by that wider umbrella. There'd have to be some kind of reference, intentional or otherwise, to real life people of colour for that to be true. To be clear, that doesn't make it ok that drow and PoC can be interpreted as linked through skin colour. It doesn't, and should be (and is being) addressed by WotC. But that doesn't make the choice to model drow after svartálfar a racist choice.
Yeah, there are many different kinds of racism and arguing semantics does nothing to help solve the problem. If you want to learn more about intentional and unintentional racism and how it effects society there are literally dozens of essays on the subject. The Drow are clearly not only modeled on svartalver since there are numerous things about the Drow society that has nothing to do what so ever with Norse mythology. These intentional choices on how to write Drow society can be racist or have racist overtones and implications even if it's unintentional.
Really sorry that happened, that really sucks. I really feel for you. Those sorts of jabs can really hurt. But I think that the situation is a little different than what you described. It isn't that the creators of DnD made a jab at black people unintentionally and are now trying to fix that. It is that the creators made a reference to something that had nothing to do with race and everything to do with mythology (Which can easily backed up as pretty much everything in DnD comes from mythology) which then got SEEN as something to do with race. THEN after the Devs saw what people saw the reference as, they tried to say 'no, that really isn't what it is' by changing the colour of their skin. The creators of DnD were no more racist than the ancient Norse were when they thought up a race of dark skinned elves (Tbh they may have been pretty racist, but we have nothing to back that on).
What you just described is unintentionally racist themes. Yes, they didn't mean it that way. Yes, it still comes off that way. You might be able to shrug it off and not be hurt by that, but that is a very nice privilege to have. Not everyone has that privilege. One is still responsible to deal with the fallout of one's actions even if they were unintentional. If you accidentally stepped on someone's foot, it still hurts even if it wasn't a deliberate attack. And you're still responsible for at least saying sorry, and then taking care not to do it again.
I never said that people weren't or shouldn't be hurt. All I am saying is that the act itself was not racist - it was an act with no connection to race in the slightest. Because of the unfortunate nature of the act, it has been MISCONSTRUED as racism, and because of that misunderstanding the devs have tried to change things to make sure that that misconception goes away.
Except that, and this has already been pointed out numerous times, something can be racist even without the intent of racism.
The devs didn't accidentally step on someone's foot, they were talking about something completely separate and people watching it THOUGHT that the devs stepped on someones foot. The devs then said to the people watching 'no, I really did not step on his foot, we were talking about how much our significant others stub their toes however to people watching it looked like I stepped on his foot. To remove any future confusion, I have decided to stop talking about feet in general'.
Can you see the difference there, or am I not explaining it well?
The difference is irrelevant and the comparison is a false equivalent.
Either way, I think we should get back on topic. I am happy to continue to discuss this in one of the many threads dedicated to drow :)
There's isn't much to discuss, really. You're arguing your opinions against facts.
I love how you rebutted my arguments without offering a single piece of rebuttal.
I did. [REDACTED] It's a literal fact that things can be unintentionally racist.
HOW is the difference irrelevant, HOW is the comparison a false equivalent....you get the gist. This post was very lazy.
If you want to learn more about how society works I sugegst higher education. I am not the person who needs to educate you. If you want to participate in a discussion on a specific subject it is your responsibility to educate yourself on that subject.
And no, something cannot be anything other than what it was intended to be, it can only be viewed as something else.
Again, this is clearly not true. All actions can have unintentional consequences. You are basically arguing against how reality works here. And frankly, if that's the best you can do I see no reason why I should elaboate any further than I already did.
The devs made a dark elf based on norse mythology. They were evil. People thought that they were making a correlation to IRL issues. The devs said they were not and went out of their way to make sure everyone else KNEW that there was no correlation by CHANGING their original correlation. If the original similarities were hurtful, that is completely understandable, and the devs tried to 'say sorry' by changing their stance. Now that you KNOW that their original stance is not anything to do with racism, if you are still hurt it is probably because of the IRL issue and not the game, no?
Except that the Drow are clearly not only based on Norse mythology and even that connection is vague at the very best as Pantagruel has pointed out. Or do you know about any previously unknown sources of Norse mythology that talks about dark elves being a matriarchal society who worship the spider goddess Lolth?
And yes, of course IRL issues affect game issues just as the game affects IRL issues. That goes without saying, no? Again, I think you'd really benefit form educating yourself on how systemic racism and detrimental stereotypes affect the society we live in. Just like movies, books or comics, RPGs is a form of entertainment that exists in a vacuum comepletely seperate from the rest of the world.
Notes: Please remember to be respectful of other users
I like Alignments in D&D because it helps with world building and structure. I'd rather know who the players potential opponents are, rather than making that all up by myself.
And the occasional exception is fine with me. (The "good" goblin")
That being said, good and evil is in the eye of the beholder. In the Star Wars universe, the rebels view themselves as the good guys whereas the Empire sees itself as such. And this applies in the RL as well.
I feel that the removal of alignment from stat blocks is trying to solve a problem that never was a problem with a solution that is its own problem.
The DMG often points out ways to alter stat blocks to one's needs, meaning what is presented is just an offering of one possible way of handling "creatures". It's a useful tool even if alignments took a back seat in 5e. The presence of an alignment in a stat block was nothing more than that. It never was a problem.
People who dogmatically decide that "what's written is what's what" cannot be helped. The new alignment void causes them more problems rather than freeing them from their own stereotyping. It's like WotC wants to shift responsibility of stereotyping to the DMs when adhering to a stereotype was always upon the DM. Some of the best campaigns broke or subverted stereotypes, but WotC seems to want to say that they don't exist.
That's like saying there can be equal amounts of Worgs that are peaceful, grazing vegan and can be cattle that are carnivorous hunters because a creature's natural habits are just stereotypes.
It seems like a lot of what WotC is doing lately (possibly by Hasbro mandate) is trying to avoid any slight reference to something that could be construed as impolite in even the most remote means.
The destination of something like can easily become everyone dressed in dark leotards, prancing around randomly, chanting some weird tune composed by Philip Glass, and nobody enjoying anything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Personally, I find that alignments tend to be misunderstood or abused by the players at the table. Tends to lead to some confusion, debates in what a character would do with X alignment or how they would react to a situation in the game because of said X alignment.
I would prefer keeping alignments on monsters either way just so I can just glance at them instead of holding up a hand to the players saying "one sec! Just got to read two paragraphs of this creature and determine what drives them!"
Tends to lead to some confusion, debates in what a character would do with X alignment or how they would react to a situation in the game because of said X alignment.
That mattered in earlier editions, when alignment restrictions and mechanics that targeted specific alignments were a thing. In 5E it really doesn't, in practice. Maybe my DM thinks my character's recent actions have been fairly chaotic while I think he was being mostly neutral and for some reason one of the other players feels he was a really upstanding and law-abiding citizen over the last few sessions - obviously my DM and the other player are dead wrong [/s] but who cares? It doesn't change anything anymore. My character's not going to fall from grace as a paladin because my DM thinks I've not been lawful enough. My evil co-player's character's sword won't do extra damage if he decides to stab my character in the back on account of being a goody-two-shoes.
There is no reason to have such debates in 5E. The player decides, and that's all there's to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There is no reason to have such debates in 5E. The player decides, and that's all there's to it.
There is a fellow player in my tabletop group that has a tendency of choosing an alignment that fits the purposes of getting something out of it; quite literally the epitome of power gaming. Love the guy and we get on proper well. Except in this circumstance, he will choose an alignment and flip the tables on it when it suits him the most because he says "the character BELIEVES he is doing some good!" while going in to a violent rampage and killing someone in cold blood.
Personally, my DM changed my character's alignment from Chaotic Good to Chaotic Neutral because my PC wanted revenge against a Thieves Guild for stealing a legendary artifact and 10,000 gold from the party. Apparently that was a "rather evil" thing to do and in such circumstances all I could do really was shrug my shoulders and go "okey-dokey!"
There's no reason to have such debates, sure, but they happen anyway whether we like it or not. I would rather not have the debates all-together because I just want to play the damn game by the end of a day, instead of doing an action and then being asked "what's your alignment?"
How many other tabletop RPG systems even bother having alignment systems at all anymore? If you're going to play a game of Shadowrun, Mutants & Masterminds, or GURPS, alignment isn't even a thing. None of those games ever seem to have any issues due to its lack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I feel that the removal of alignment from stat blocks is trying to solve a problem that never was a problem with a solution that is its own problem.
The DMG often points out ways to alter stat blocks to one's needs, meaning what is presented is just an offering of one possible way of handling "creatures". It's a useful tool even if alignments took a back seat in 5e. The presence of an alignment in a stat block was nothing more than that. It never was a problem.
People who dogmatically decide that "what's written is what's what" cannot be helped. The new alignment void causes them more problems rather than freeing them from their own stereotyping. It's like WotC wants to shift responsibility of stereotyping to the DMs when adhering to a stereotype was always upon the DM. Some of the best campaigns broke or subverted stereotypes, but WotC seems to want to say that they don't exist.
That's like saying there can be equal amounts of Worgs that are peaceful, grazing vegan and can be cattle that are carnivorous hunters because a creature's natural habits are just stereotypes.
It seems like a lot of what WotC is doing lately (possibly by Hasbro mandate) is trying to avoid any slight reference to something that could be construed as impolite in even the most remote means.
The destination of something like can easily become everyone dressed in dark leotards, prancing around randomly, chanting some weird tune composed by Philip Glass, and nobody enjoying anything.
I don't think this is really a problem unless they stop giving flavor text to creatures.
Since you use worg as an example, the description of how they act in their flavor text is far more useful and interesting to me than the 'neutral evil' label stamped onto it.
I would rather not have the debates all-together because I just want to play the damn game by the end of a day, instead of doing an action and then being asked "what's your alignment?"
The question is inconsequential though.
"What's your alignment?" - "Lawful Good" - "I think you're more of a True Neutral at this point" - "Ok."
At which point you proceed to play your character in whatever way you see fit.
I mean, what does this other player get out of his chosen alignment? In previous editions there were consequences - paladins needed to be LG, barbarians needed to be Chaotic anything, Protection from Good affected you if you were Good-aligned, etc - but in this edition that's not really the case unless your DM makes it so.
Did he pick a Good alignment because the DM doesn't allow Evil PCs, then behaves as if he were Evil? Then the DM can explain that his character's actions have consequences regardless of how the player feels about how they line up on the Good-Evil spectrum and let those consequences follow. Or just say "I'm not going to argue about this, it doesn't matter what your delusional character thinks, the things he's doing are evil and the rules for the campaign are no Evil".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Dark elves have been a thing far longer than DnD has. Svartálfar are the stem of both dwarves (Which have other roots as well) AND drow (Even if the correlation is name only)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
It doesn't make the choice racist. However, just because they choice wasn't racist doesn't mean that the result isn't.
Taking a silly example, let's say I am cooking a bunch of pastries. A load of them near the back come out burnt black. In frustration, I yell at the top of my voice, "get rid of all the blacks, they are useless!"
Now, what I said has no connection to humanity, let alone race. I was not being racist when I spoke. However, that comment is likely to have upset many people who heard it. My intent, my choice, want racist, but the resulting words were because of the effect they have on others. They were discriminatory towards black people, whether that's what I intended or not.
Thank you. Your eloquence has restated what I was trying to say beautifully. (I just need to point out, the Svartálfar were not always bad. THAT is a DnD canon choice,)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
However if you then go out of your way to make sure everyone knows that you were not being racist and change your statement to be 'Get rid of all the burned pastries, they are useless', you are not being racist.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The svartalfar in Norse mythology are not a race of evil dominatrixes who literally emasculate men. Personality-wise, drow are depicted more like villains from blaxplotation films, just without the afros or funny speech patterns.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No, you are not, but the words you said still are. And if you continue going around repeating them even after being made aware that they are racist, whether or not you intend to be you are being so at that point.
You are mistaken. You think that the essence of something said or written is based wholly upon the intention of the creator, and I used to think that way, too, but the truth is that a creation set loose upon the world has unintended consequences and those are also valid, intrinsic, and essential parts of the reality of a thing as well. It doesn't matter if you intend to use a swastika to represent it's Hindu or Buddhist origins in concept, you are going to be bringing up some very nasty associations along with it. And you are responsible for that because a thing is not just it's intentions, it is also it's consequences.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think we can agree to disagree there. I would continue to discuss it, as this sort of talk really interests me, however we are REALLY getting off topic.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I think this comes down to ignorance and/or negligence.
If you do not know that what you have said/written/done has strong racist interpretations, then you have said/written/done something racist through ignorance. You are not racist yourself for saying/writing/doing it, but what you have said/written/done still is.
This is like if someone was smoking near something flammable without realising it was flammable, that thing catching fire and burning down someone's house: You didn't know, you didn't do it on purpose. The amount of blame which can be pinned on you is limited, but the consequences are still down to your actions. You burned the house down.
If you are informed of the racist message in what you have said/written/done, but you continue to do so anyway (possibly by still claiming that is not how it was intended), this would be on a level with negligence. You can no longer plead ignorance, and you continue to do something which you have been informed is damaging, so you are causing that damage through negligence at best.
Back to the example, this would be like if someone say you smoking near the flammable object, and told you that it was flammable and what you were doing was dangerous. You then continue to smoke there, claiming you will be careful or that you don't believe it is actually that flammable. If that house now burns down, it is through your wilful, gross negligence. It doesn't matter that you never intended to burn the house down, or that you thought you could be careful enough, or that you didn't believe that the object was that flammable. You were warned, you ignored that warning and now you are much more responsible for the consequences than when you could plead ignorance.
Yeah, there are many different kinds of racism and arguing semantics does nothing to help solve the problem. If you want to learn more about intentional and unintentional racism and how it effects society there are literally dozens of essays on the subject. The Drow are clearly not only modeled on svartalver since there are numerous things about the Drow society that has nothing to do what so ever with Norse mythology. These intentional choices on how to write Drow society can be racist or have racist overtones and implications even if it's unintentional.
I did. [REDACTED] It's a literal fact that things can be unintentionally racist.
If you want to learn more about how society works I sugegst higher education. I am not the person who needs to educate you. If you want to participate in a discussion on a specific subject it is your responsibility to educate yourself on that subject.
Again, this is clearly not true. All actions can have unintentional consequences. You are basically arguing against how reality works here. And frankly, if that's the best you can do I see no reason why I should elaboate any further than I already did.
Except that the Drow are clearly not only based on Norse mythology and even that connection is vague at the very best as Pantagruel has pointed out. Or do you know about any previously unknown sources of Norse mythology that talks about dark elves being a matriarchal society who worship the spider goddess Lolth?
And yes, of course IRL issues affect game issues just as the game affects IRL issues. That goes without saying, no? Again, I think you'd really benefit form educating yourself on how systemic racism and detrimental stereotypes affect the society we live in. Just like movies, books or comics, RPGs is a form of entertainment that exists in a vacuum comepletely seperate from the rest of the world.
Let's keep things on the topic of alignment not being featured on recent stat blocks.
Any further off topic posts beyond this point are subject to being removed, hit with rules reminders, or potentially warnings and infractions
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I like Alignments in D&D because it helps with world building and structure. I'd rather know who the players potential opponents are, rather than making that all up by myself.
And the occasional exception is fine with me. (The "good" goblin")
That being said, good and evil is in the eye of the beholder. In the Star Wars universe, the rebels view themselves as the good guys whereas the Empire sees itself as such. And this applies in the RL as well.
Moral Relativism.
https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#:~:text=Moral relativism is the view,uniquely privileged over all others.
I feel that the removal of alignment from stat blocks is trying to solve a problem that never was a problem with a solution that is its own problem.
The DMG often points out ways to alter stat blocks to one's needs, meaning what is presented is just an offering of one possible way of handling "creatures". It's a useful tool even if alignments took a back seat in 5e. The presence of an alignment in a stat block was nothing more than that. It never was a problem.
People who dogmatically decide that "what's written is what's what" cannot be helped. The new alignment void causes them more problems rather than freeing them from their own stereotyping. It's like WotC wants to shift responsibility of stereotyping to the DMs when adhering to a stereotype was always upon the DM. Some of the best campaigns broke or subverted stereotypes, but WotC seems to want to say that they don't exist.
That's like saying there can be equal amounts of Worgs that are peaceful, grazing vegan and can be cattle that are carnivorous hunters because a creature's natural habits are just stereotypes.
It seems like a lot of what WotC is doing lately (possibly by Hasbro mandate) is trying to avoid any slight reference to something that could be construed as impolite in even the most remote means.
The destination of something like can easily become everyone dressed in dark leotards, prancing around randomly, chanting some weird tune composed by Philip Glass, and nobody enjoying anything.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I don't mind its removal and prefer to understand the nature of the creature instead and just let it speak to the players how they want it to.
Personally, I find that alignments tend to be misunderstood or abused by the players at the table. Tends to lead to some confusion, debates in what a character would do with X alignment or how they would react to a situation in the game because of said X alignment.
I would prefer keeping alignments on monsters either way just so I can just glance at them instead of holding up a hand to the players saying "one sec! Just got to read two paragraphs of this creature and determine what drives them!"
That mattered in earlier editions, when alignment restrictions and mechanics that targeted specific alignments were a thing. In 5E it really doesn't, in practice. Maybe my DM thinks my character's recent actions have been fairly chaotic while I think he was being mostly neutral and for some reason one of the other players feels he was a really upstanding and law-abiding citizen over the last few sessions - obviously my DM and the other player are dead wrong [/s] but who cares? It doesn't change anything anymore. My character's not going to fall from grace as a paladin because my DM thinks I've not been lawful enough. My evil co-player's character's sword won't do extra damage if he decides to stab my character in the back on account of being a goody-two-shoes.
There is no reason to have such debates in 5E. The player decides, and that's all there's to it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There is a fellow player in my tabletop group that has a tendency of choosing an alignment that fits the purposes of getting something out of it; quite literally the epitome of power gaming. Love the guy and we get on proper well. Except in this circumstance, he will choose an alignment and flip the tables on it when it suits him the most because he says "the character BELIEVES he is doing some good!" while going in to a violent rampage and killing someone in cold blood.
Personally, my DM changed my character's alignment from Chaotic Good to Chaotic Neutral because my PC wanted revenge against a Thieves Guild for stealing a legendary artifact and 10,000 gold from the party. Apparently that was a "rather evil" thing to do and in such circumstances all I could do really was shrug my shoulders and go "okey-dokey!"
There's no reason to have such debates, sure, but they happen anyway whether we like it or not. I would rather not have the debates all-together because I just want to play the damn game by the end of a day, instead of doing an action and then being asked "what's your alignment?"
How many other tabletop RPG systems even bother having alignment systems at all anymore? If you're going to play a game of Shadowrun, Mutants & Masterminds, or GURPS, alignment isn't even a thing. None of those games ever seem to have any issues due to its lack.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't think this is really a problem unless they stop giving flavor text to creatures.
Since you use worg as an example, the description of how they act in their flavor text is far more useful and interesting to me than the 'neutral evil' label stamped onto it.
The question is inconsequential though.
"What's your alignment?" - "Lawful Good" - "I think you're more of a True Neutral at this point" - "Ok."
At which point you proceed to play your character in whatever way you see fit.
I mean, what does this other player get out of his chosen alignment? In previous editions there were consequences - paladins needed to be LG, barbarians needed to be Chaotic anything, Protection from Good affected you if you were Good-aligned, etc - but in this edition that's not really the case unless your DM makes it so.
Did he pick a Good alignment because the DM doesn't allow Evil PCs, then behaves as if he were Evil? Then the DM can explain that his character's actions have consequences regardless of how the player feels about how they line up on the Good-Evil spectrum and let those consequences follow. Or just say "I'm not going to argue about this, it doesn't matter what your delusional character thinks, the things he's doing are evil and the rules for the campaign are no Evil".
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].