But of course, if you have really arguments beyond the "it would make the game more accepting" (which it does not need anyway, I've run extremely accepting tables for more than 40 years, it's all in the attitude of the PEOPLE playing the game, not in the rules of the game that you are playing)
Hmm ... you don't get to decide what the community as a whole needs, your perspective is limited and when it comes to needs for safety and acceptance it is, as a general principle, better to err on the side of more accepting and more compassionate. Otherwise you're basically saying "me and mine are comfortable therefore no more consideration should be given to those who don't feel as comfortable or as accepted" or in other words, "I got mine, screw you." Never a good look.
First, please explain why the removal of alignment makes the game more accepting and compassionate. Second, while I don't decide anything, neither do you. The designers did make some choices, which I happen to approve.
If you'll notice, I was addressing a general point (making the game more accepting is not needed) which is tangential to the alignment discussion, so I don't have to explain how removing alignment would make the game more of anything. Your original statement there still reeks of "I've been playing this game for 40 years and I don't think it needs to change therefore it should be good enough for everyone" in other words, "I got mine, screw you."
It's never a bad thing to have values stated openly and followed through with actions. If there are things in the material that make people feel unsafe or unwelcome, which there were and this is coming from direct personal statements from people on this forum not just some hypothetical, then those things should be changed if Wizards is trying to walk the walk.
And here we go again. Why do they have to "walk the walk" ? Simply because, like for so many companies (and actually, as far as I know, only in the US), they get their arms twisted to "walk the walk" by people using complete fantasy elements as part of their crusade. But only some companies, mind you, others who are below the radar for the desired visibility of the crusaders themselves can continue to have evil orcs forever.
That you frame this as a company having their arms twisted is .. disingenuous at best. You're basically saying that the values statement they made is not sincere. Is this not insulting and a bad faith argument? To tell someone that the statement they made about their values and principles going forward is an insincere cash grab?
Again, it's really amusing. I'm not pushing for any change, so what they are doing now is fine, they are not changing anything except some token gestures to seem like they are "walking the walk" and quiet the rabid SJWs. So there is no need for feedback from me, alignement in the PH is unchanged.
Ok so we're in agreement that them declining to label creature alignments in Van Richten's is fine. The only thing you're protesting is the people who are saying alignment should be removed. Ok, that's fine, I take no issue with that.
I do, however, think that portraying it as a "crusade" is you somehow trying to victimize your purist notion of D&D. If alignment gets removed sometime down the line, it was a creative decision that was made that you won't like, you're not being persecuted.
I also take issue with you using the term "rabid SJW" as well. You're portraying an opinion you don't like as "rabid" which is a personal attack against someone who just has an opinion that you don't agree with. Disagreement is fine, but portraying people as being rabid just because they disagree with you is the definition of bad faith arguments. You're not attacking anyone's ideas on their merits, you are attacking people personally.
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!
Alignment encourages stereotyping. That's the problem.
How does alignment in a fantasy game with fantasy species encourage stereotyping in the Real World?
That's not what 6thLyranGuard's post said, which makes this post a strawman (which is a bit ironic, given your previous post in this thread). 6thLyranGuard's last post in this thread is exactly 6 words, and two short sentences. It never mentions "the real world", it just says that it encourages stereotyping, and that that's a problem.
Please site actual examples of this effect, and provide links to reliable non biased sources.
Okay. It depends on what you very specifically count as "non-biased", but here you go:
To simplify this, how the media depicts something (and D&D is a part of the media, and becomes a larger part of it as it becomes more popular) influences how people think about it, and how people think about something influences how people respond to it. If the media/D&D depicts stereotypes as good and/or acceptable parts of life, that could have harmful effects. That's what @6thLyranGuard is saying. Stereotyping overall is bad, because people are diverse and no stereotypes are perfect (by their nature), so depicting whole cultures of people (even fantasy people) in the media has the potential to negatively influence the real world.
Of course he meant the stereotyping in D&D translates into real world stereotyping. Otherwise, why would it matter if it didn't have an impact on the real world?
Your links don't mention D&D specifically causing stereotyping....
I want a specific example of Orcs and Drow (or other "problematic" species) in D&D causing stereotyping in the real world.
The discourse around D&D and racism, specifically but not limited to real-world implications around orcs and drow, centers on how aspects of the game are influenced by wider trends of racism, bias, prejudice, etc., from the real world.
Alignment encourages stereotyping. That's the problem.
How does alignment in a fantasy game with fantasy species encourage stereotyping in the Real World?
Please site actual examples of this effect, and provide links to reliable non biased sources.
Lemme turn this totally unreasonable request around on you: please cite a scientifically proven and validated source that unequivocally states that D&D stereotyping - specifically D&D stereotyping, you can't use any source that doesn't explicitly talk about D&D - doesn't have an impact in real life.
Surely you are aware of the issues of proving a negative, right? The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
And here we go again. Why do they have to "walk the walk" ? Simply because, like for so many companies (and actually, as far as I know, only in the US), they get their arms twisted to "walk the walk" by people using complete fantasy elements as part of their crusade. But only some companies, mind you, others who are below the radar for the desired visibility of the crusaders themselves can continue to have evil orcs forever.
<snip>
Again, it's really amusing. I'm not pushing for any change, so what they are doing now is fine, they are not changing anything except some token gestures to seem like they are "walking the walk" and quiet the rabid SJWs. So there is no need for feedback from me, alignement in the PH is unchanged.
Actually, I prefer the "social justice rogue" or "social justice artificer" classes. Though, really, "social justice monk" is much better at all this arm-twisting that's supposedly going on.
And there are multiple people here telling you that it's not irrelevant, from character building, to avoiding/favorising evil parties, to supporting the cosmology of some of the most favourite settings of players, to being perfectly in line with the epic vision of the game.
Alignment in 5e doesn't have any mechanical effects -- it's purely descriptive. Some people may find that description useful, but nothing in the game will break if you don't bother to include it on a character sheet. That's what I mean by irrelevant.
As far as alignment encouraging stereotyping: any description in the form of "All/Most Xs behave like Y" is a stereotype. This is not always bad, and might even be true, but it's something to be careful about, particularly when applied to a clear value judgment, such as good/evil.
And there are multiple people here telling you that it's not irrelevant, from character building, to avoiding/favorising evil parties, to supporting the cosmology of some of the most favourite settings of players, to being perfectly in line with the epic vision of the game.
Alignment in 5e doesn't have any mechanical effects -- it's purely descriptive. Some people may find that description useful, but nothing in the game will break if you don't bother to include it on a character sheet. That's what I mean by irrelevant.
You may be right, but if we're going by that then ideals, bonds, flaws, backstory, heck the entire back page of a character sheet is irrelevant. Just because something doesn't have mechanical uses in the game doesn't mean it should be removed.
And there are multiple people here telling you that it's not irrelevant, from character building, to avoiding/favorising evil parties, to supporting the cosmology of some of the most favourite settings of players, to being perfectly in line with the epic vision of the game.
Alignment in 5e doesn't have any mechanical effects -- it's purely descriptive. Some people may find that description useful, but nothing in the game will break if you don't bother to include it on a character sheet. That's what I mean by irrelevant.
You may be right, but if we're going by that then ideals, bonds, flaws, backstory, heck the entire back page of a character sheet is irrelevant. Just because something doesn't have mechanical uses in the game doesn't mean it should be removed.
This is the point. The mechanics are there to give a foundation from which DMs can understand the base concept of the game/genre and then modify it to fit the specific way they want to run their setting. If we try to mod the foundation itself to fit what each DM wants in his own setting, we strive for the impossible. There can be only one foundation or it will crumble.
And there are multiple people here telling you that it's not irrelevant, from character building, to avoiding/favorising evil parties, to supporting the cosmology of some of the most favourite settings of players, to being perfectly in line with the epic vision of the game.
Alignment in 5e doesn't have any mechanical effects -- it's purely descriptive. Some people may find that description useful, but nothing in the game will break if you don't bother to include it on a character sheet. That's what I mean by irrelevant.
You may be right, but if we're going by that then ideals, bonds, flaws, backstory, heck the entire back page of a character sheet is irrelevant. Just because something doesn't have mechanical uses in the game doesn't mean it should be removed.
This is the point. The mechanics are there to give a foundation from which DMs can understand the base concept of the game/genre and then modify it to fit the specific way they want to run their setting. If we try to mod the foundation itself to fit what each DM wants in his own setting, we strive for the impossible. There can be only one foundation or it will crumble.
Why? none of our games are interconnected. This isn't an MMPORG, if I do something different with the alignment of a group of hobgoblins than you, I promise you that it in no way affects your game.
Personally, I only feel like flexible alignment is important for potentially playable races and other humanoid creatures (both for DM/player flexibility and for being empathetic to other's experiences. For extraplanar creatures like devils, angels, modrons, elementals, fey, etc I have no issues at all having strict and consistent alignments.
That was my point. The game was designed a certain way and play tested. So why call to change things in the game the way it is? We can each just change our own. Oddly, it seems to me what people are talking about are elements that were in 4E, which already exists. Much like the original AD&D or 2E, I can always go back and play those versions or incorporate some elements into my 5E games, but I wouldn't ask the designers to change 5E because I like the other versions.
Ah but, my friend, this is the root of so many problems on these forums. Some people here do not like 5e, in particular because they are powergamers who want more crunch in the game, more powergaming options, and especially many more clearer rules that they can manipulate to enforce their power on others at their tables. They don't like the fact that 5e was designed along much simpler paradigms of simpler english rules with a DM arbitrating everything. And they hate the fact that 5e is so successful when they want to play a different game still called D&D. They want to be part of the trend, but THEIR trend and they will stop at nothing to criticise the game as designed (not that it does not have a few flaws).
......
The end point here is that D&D is just a game system for friends to play with, it's not a "media", and I'm sorry, it's really hypocritical of some people to voluntarily turn a blind eye on specific major types of "-isms" (see above, or the black, all evil orcs of Jackson's LotR) because they are "cool", but rant on very minor ones to push their personal (and sometimes political) agenda.
From what I have seen during my two years here, toxic roleplayers are the ones who are enforcing their views and play styles on others far more often than powergamers. Powergamers are not the boogeyman to be wary of, toxic roleplayers are. There is also nothing wrong with pushing political objectives in any hobby, whether it be games, sports, art, or anything else out there.
The creators of 5e want to bring more awareness to social and political issues via D&D, and toxic roleplayers do not like the fact that D&D's simplicity means that it can accomodate different players with different playstyles and worldviews. They also hate the fact that 5e is so successful due to its ability to appeal to a wide audience. They want D&D to stagnate and will stop at nothing to to criticise the evolution of the game.
D&D is just like any other hobby and medium, and if singers, writers, athletes, etc. can promote their own political views in their own works, the creators of D&D can promote whatever their political views are via D&D. It is really hypocritical to think that it is okay to promote your own political views via D&D but discouraging the creators from doing so at the same time.
If you are going to talk smack about liberals and social justice warriors, leave powergamers out of it, they have nothing to do with the topic on hand. I do not know why you are so butthurt over powergamers, but scapegoating them for all the ills of 5e is just silly. Also, companies promoting their political views via their own business, products, and services is far better than promoting their political views by lobbying politicians via bribes and Super PACs. For a corporation to put money where their mouth is, I think that is something to be encouraged, not discouraged.
But of course, if you have really arguments beyond the "it would make the game more accepting" (which it does not need anyway, I've run extremely accepting tables for more than 40 years, it's all in the attitude of the PEOPLE playing the game, not in the rules of the game that you are playing)
Hmm ... you don't get to decide what the community as a whole needs, your perspective is limited and when it comes to needs for safety and acceptance it is, as a general principle, better to err on the side of more accepting and more compassionate. Otherwise you're basically saying "me and mine are comfortable therefore no more consideration should be given to those who don't feel as comfortable or as accepted" or in other words, "I got mine, screw you." Never a good look.
First, please explain why the removal of alignment makes the game more accepting and compassionate. Second, while I don't decide anything, neither do you. The designers did make some choices, which I happen to approve.
If you'll notice, I was addressing a general point (making the game more accepting is not needed) which is tangential to the alignment discussion, so I don't have to explain how removing alignment would make the game more of anything.
Then why are you arguing, in a thread about alignment, that acceptance is crucial ?
Let me clarify again. I was addressing a general point which YOU brought up. You are the one who said that the game does not need to be more accepting, please keep up with the conversation at hand. Again, I say that the attitude that something doesn't need to be improved simply because it suits you just fine is elitist and bad for just about any community. "I got mine, screw you" is a bad attitude most especially because you have had personal testimony on these forums that the problems you dismiss as nothing have actually turned people away from the game.
It can be played in a myriad of different ways, millions of people enjoy it as it is, but still it's your way of saying "but I'm offended (on principle, because I can't really point the finger at something specific especially in terms of alignment), it has to change !".
If you'll scan back over the conversation, you'll find that I said no such thing. I have said on multiple occasions that I'm fine with alignment.
And yes, there has been slavery in our games, because neogis are slavers of the spelljamming world, but thankfully, no-one is making any link there because it's just ridiculous.
Your continued dismissal of other people's pain does not paint a good picture of you, as a person.
That you frame this as a company having their arms twisted is .. disingenuous at best. You're basically saying that the values statement they made is not sincere. Is this not insulting and a bad faith argument? To tell someone that the statement they made about their values and principles going forward is an insincere cash grab?
Hmm, talking about insulting, you should really look at the epithets that you throw at me, but well... If there are REALLY things that make people unsafe or unwelcome, yes, it's normal to remove them from the game.
1) Have you heard the phrase, "I know you are, but what am I?" It's a silly, childish phrase coined by a silly, childish comedian to respond to an insult. This is what you just did, except what you're doing is even more silly and childish because it's not even like I insulted you. I posed a legitimate question about your statements and instead of addressing that question, you tried to turn it back on me in a juvenile character attack. Shouldn't you know better?
2) Where, in any conversation, in any thread on this forum, have I ever thrown any sort of epithet at you? Do I call you names? Or do I address your ideas on their merits and you just take offense at that?
3) My question still stands, by the way. When you take a statement of values made by Wizards and dismiss it as insincere to its face, is that not insulting and a bad faith argument?
About Van Richten, I think it's a bit too much, because most of the creatures described there are, in their mast majority, much more evil (and actually unsafe, some are really made to create nightmares) than orc, orcs are still (rightly, IMHO, just from their description in the books) evil, so it really proves that this is just for show.
But it's the decision of WotC, one in which they were pushed by the rabid crowd that we are talking about, and if they need this to survive, that's good, at least the game will continue to be supported. I regret that climate of pressure on companies, especially in the US, because instead of genuine good will and progress, it creates resentment and bad faith actions, that's all.
So not only do you think WOTC is insincere in their values statement you also think that the people who are advocating those values are "rabid." It sounds like you are saying that WOTC is lying about what they believe to pacify people who are irrational when expressing their hurts and their needs. Instead of making arguments based on merit you are still making character attacks. Furthermore, calling people irrational simply because you don't like their opinions is gaslighting at its worst. It is an attempt to discredit someone without doing the work of addressing their ideas, but rather just portraying them as mentally deficient. As a rhetorical technique it is very weak.
I do, however, think that portraying it as a "crusade" is you somehow trying to victimize your purist notion of D&D. If alignment gets removed sometime down the line, it was a creative decision that was made that you won't like, you're not being persecuted.
Honestly, believe me, I'm not using it in that sense at all. I certainly don't feel victimised in any way.
Then kindly stop using such language. All it is doing is making it look like you're exaggerating the argument to win points.
I also take issue with you using the term [REDACTED] as well. You're portraying an opinion you don't like as "rabid" which is a personal attack against someone who just has an opinion that you don't agree with. Disagreement is fine, but portraying people as being rabid just because they disagree with you is the definition of bad faith arguments. You're not attacking anyone's ideas on their merits, you are attacking people personally.
Just to be clear, this is not describing anyone on these forums, it never was if you read me clearly (and I did not make too many mistakes in my posts). I'm really targeting the authors of some blogs out there, which unfortunately sometimes get a reference back in these forums, as if their rants could in any way be considered a justification for anything.
Making general character attacks is not really any better than making specifically targeted character attacks. You painted your attacks in very broad strokes. I applauded the Diversity and Dragons initiative and everything you've been saying about "[REDACTED]" applies to me. So yes, you have been attacking me because you made very sweeping statements. Ideally you should stop making character attacks instead of, you know, making legitimate arguments, but at the very least you should not be so broad and sweeping.
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” ~Carl Sandburg
Sounds to me like both the facts and the 'law', insofar as 'law' applies to a tabletop RPG's ruleset and design precepts, are against a certain position some arguers take in this thread. I see a whole heap of yelling and table-pounding, but not a lot of either law or facts here.
In particular, they published 5e as it was with the PH and the DMG and the MM, prove to me that they had such a social and political agenda. I don't see the faintest trace in there, they wanted to publish the best D&D game ever, and they did. That's all."
I mean a lot has changed since 2014....
Of course they may look at the PH, DMG, and MM and make changes moving forward that do better than their previous efforts. Even Disney/WB no long censors their old timey racist cartoons but has commentary before the movie stating:
"While these cartoons do not represent today's society, they are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed"
So I would rather they recognize that alignment is not the greatest thing, address it openly, and move forward without it.
In particular, they published 5e as it was with the PH and the DMG and the MM, prove to me that they had such a social and political agenda. I don't see the faintest trace in there, they wanted to publish the best D&D game ever, and they did. That's all."
I mean a lot has changed since 2014....
Of course they may look at the PH, DMG, and MM and make changes moving forward that do better than their previous efforts. Even Disney/WB no long censors their old timey racist cartoons but has commentary before the movie stating:
"While these cartoons do not represent today's society, they are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed"
This is actually a great example of the initial wave of revisionism swinging way too far one way and being readjusted once the furor has died and people can start being a bit more rational about it all.
So I would rather they recognize that alignment is not the greatest thing, address it openly, and move forward without it.
I would rather to as the above, saying "alignment might have been misinterpreted in the past, but we have now made it optional so that people may use it or not depending on their sensibilities and the type of campaign that they are playing". Which is, coincidentally exactly what WotC has been doing, and which suits me just fine.
They have also discussed how orcs and drow are represented in the setting and have made adjustments to lore to be better as well. In this case they are actively adding lore to combat problematic isssues.
So your statement about DnD not wanting to use DnD to address social issues is obviously incorrect.
They have also discussed how orcs and drow are represented in the setting and have made adjustments to lore to be better as well. In this case they are actively adding lore to combat problematic isssues.
So your statement about DnD not wanting to use DnD to address social issues is obviously incorrect.
Uh, no. Have you been reading the thread ? They are only lighting counterfires in preparation for the upcoming game of this summer, like any good corporate team does in a difficult period. They are certainly not addressing any real social issues by adding new types of drows to the lore. They are just addressing the [REDACTED] out there by cutting the grass under their feet before they can go up in flames about WotC still being the same unashamed racist company for having evil dark-skinned humanoids.
Believe me, I have played that game for many years at executive level, including some serious accidents where lives were endangered. These were just accidents, real ones due to an unforeseeable combination of circumstances and real human errors well beyond the safety hazards that had been computed in agreement with our customer. And it certainly did not prevent at least some of us from feeling really, really wretched about what had happened. But I can also tell you that the steps that the company took were exactly the ones that were decided in perfect cold blood at executive level in conjunction with our customer to prevent immense media damage to everyone involved, which would certainly not have helped anyone and would actually have been really detrimental to a lot of people. And I can also tell you that although some people felt as above, others clearly thought more along the lines of "these idiots did an idiotic thing, now we must just prevent other idiots from believing the stories that non-idiots but with a nasty agenda will spin".
.....what?
I am not sure how DnD alignment has any connection with industrial accidents?
They have also discussed how orcs and drow are represented in the setting and have made adjustments to lore to be better as well. In this case they are actively adding lore to combat problematic isssues.
So your statement about DnD not wanting to use DnD to address social issues is obviously incorrect.
Uh, no. Have you been reading the thread ? They are only lighting counterfires in preparation for the upcoming game of this summer, like any good corporate team does in a difficult period. They are certainly not addressing any real social issues by adding new types of drows to the lore. They are just addressing the [REDACTED] out there by cutting the grass under their feet before they can go up in flames about WotC still being the same unashamed racist company for having evil dark-skinned humanoids.
Believe me, I have played that game for many years at executive level, including some serious accidents where lives were endangered. These were just accidents, real ones due to an unforeseeable combination of circumstances and real human errors well beyond the safety hazards that had been computed in agreement with our customer. And it certainly did not prevent at least some of us from feeling really, really wretched about what had happened. But I can also tell you that the steps that the company took were exactly the ones that were decided in perfect cold blood at executive level in conjunction with our customer to prevent immense media damage to everyone involved, which would certainly not have helped anyone and would actually have been really detrimental to a lot of people. And I can also tell you that although some people felt as above, others clearly thought more along the lines of "these idiots did an idiotic thing, now we must just prevent other idiots from believing the stories that non-idiots but with a nasty agenda will spin".
.....what?
I am not sure how DnD alignment has any connection with industrial accidents?
I'm talking about the value of company statements compared to the reality of what a company is doing and for which reason. The parallel is obvious...
Not in the slightest....are you equating wanting to have better examples of social progression is tantamount to loss of life in industrial accidents?
Are you saying they invoke the same level of outrage and are addressed the same?
But of course, if you have really arguments beyond the "it would make the game more accepting" (which it does not need anyway, I've run extremely accepting tables for more than 40 years, it's all in the attitude of the PEOPLE playing the game, not in the rules of the game that you are playing)
Hmm ... you don't get to decide what the community as a whole needs, your perspective is limited and when it comes to needs for safety and acceptance it is, as a general principle, better to err on the side of more accepting and more compassionate. Otherwise you're basically saying "me and mine are comfortable therefore no more consideration should be given to those who don't feel as comfortable or as accepted" or in other words, "I got mine, screw you." Never a good look.
First, please explain why the removal of alignment makes the game more accepting and compassionate. Second, while I don't decide anything, neither do you. The designers did make some choices, which I happen to approve.
If you'll notice, I was addressing a general point (making the game more accepting is not needed) which is tangential to the alignment discussion, so I don't have to explain how removing alignment would make the game more of anything.
Then why are you arguing, in a thread about alignment, that acceptance is crucial ?
Let me clarify again. I was addressing a general point which YOU brought up. You are the one who said that the game does not need to be more accepting, please keep up with the conversation at hand.
Yes, the game itself does not need to be more accepting, it's possibly the people playing it who need to be more so (and then, I've never found them to be not accepting, probably more than a lot of communities I've had the opportunity to frequent).
Ok so you just ignored everything and repeated the original statement without addressing my criticism of it at all. Like I said, you don't get to decide what the community as a whole needs, your perspective is limited and when it comes to needs for safety and acceptance it is, as a general principle, better to err on the side of more accepting and more compassionate. Otherwise you're basically saying "me and mine are comfortable therefore no more consideration should be given to those who don't feel as comfortable or as accepted" or in other words, "I got mine, screw you." Never a good look.
And again, you have failed to prove how doing anything about alignment would make it more so
What do you mean "again?" This is literally the first time you have asked me this. Are you confusing me with someone else? Is this why you can't keep up in the conversation? Because you think I'm someone else? I will repeat myself: I'm fine with alignment as long as it is not applied to anything portrayed as free willed people.
Again, I say that the attitude that something doesn't need to be improved simply because it suits you just fine is elitist and bad for just about any community. "I got mine, screw you" is a bad attitude most especially because you have had personal testimony on these forums that the problems you dismiss as nothing have actually turned people away from the game.
And I'm still waiting for cases where people were turned away BY THE GAME rather than by the attitude of some people playing it. Still waiting.
Please don't act impatient with me like this isn't the first time you've asked it of me, but since I did say there were actual personal testimonies: HERE is one of them.
Your continued dismissal of other people's pain does not paint a good picture of you, as a person.
Again, please show me some real examples of people who have been pained BY THE GAME rather than by people. I'm dismissing something because, as far as I know, it does not exist.
You know, what's terrible is that you participated in the very thread I linked where someone expressed how the game's portrayal was hurtful. You ignored them then and I'm guessing you're going to find some sort of justification to dismiss them now. Probably either by shifting the goalpost (oh that's not what I was talking about, I meant specifically how does alignment hurt people) or literally calling them a liar about their own experience. I sincerely hope you prove me wrong by taking that account seriously and giving it's due.
That you frame this as a company having their arms twisted is .. disingenuous at best. You're basically saying that the values statement they made is not sincere. Is this not insulting and a bad faith argument? To tell someone that the statement they made about their values and principles going forward is an insincere cash grab?
Hmm, talking about insulting, you should really look at the epithets that you throw at me, but well... If there are REALLY things that make people unsafe or unwelcome, yes, it's normal to remove them from the game.
1) Have you heard the phrase, "I know you are, but what am I?" It's a silly, childish phrase coined by a silly, childish comedian to respond to an insult. This is what you just did, except what you're doing is even more silly and childish because it's not even like I insulted you.
I'm sorry, but how is "disingenuous" not an insult ?
Hmm ... I will admit after checking the definition of "disingenuous" that I made a mistake in word choice. I apologize for that mistake. I still meant to critique your words, but not that particular criticism. Please allow me to retract that word and replace it with "cynical."
I'm sorry, but how is "disingenuous" not an insult ? How about the "bad faith" that you serve in almost every post ? How about "silly, childish" ? How about "does not paint a good picture of you, as a person" ?
All of those were criticisms of things that you actually said or did, they were not personal attacks. How have you grown into an adult without knowing the difference? Oh ... actually a lot of things make sense now, in that light. You do seem to get very defensive about people criticizing your ideas and you conflate that with attacks against you, so everything just kind of devolves into personal attacks because you can't tell the difference between arguing with a topic and attacking a person. Wow that's ... enlightening.
I'm not reporting this because, contrary to some people here, I hate that the reporting system is used by some as a weapon in discussions, but if you want, I can show you specific examples of me getting strong warnings just for using that kind of language towards other contributors.
I don't think I want to take the time it would need to educate a grown adult on the difference between attacking an idea and attacking a person, so I will pass.
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!
In a safety situation that someone lost their life to is a terrible comparison to the systematic racism placed in a TTRPG.....and these situations do not require the same response.
A safety event is related to: was the process at fault? or was there human inattention to the process? Its about identifying safety issues in the process....and if someone knowingly avoided safety issues for whatever reason. Its about having safety standards that, without question, are followed less you be held liable for the action. If someone knowingly does not follow the safety procedures and someone dies that is very clear cut who is at fault and should be addressed.
How in any sense is this related to systemic racism in a game though?
We are talking about systemic racism in a game where playable orcs are described as "domesticated" and "could develop a limited capacity for empathy, love, and compassion".
There is no need for this to be in the book at all...why say an orc (a humanoid capable of thoughts and feelings) needs to be discussed like a pet? This was never required for the game to be about adventure...there was never a need for creatures to be held in such contempt if given free will and ability to think/feel like any other person.
I will say, Ophidimancer has the dead right of it in at least one respect. All the "that example isn't specific enough, find a more specific example" arguments are incredibly tiresome, annoying, and increasingly in bad faith. A clearer example of moving the goalposts would be difficult to find - "those articles are all talking about the general cases of stereotyping in media. I want something that mentions orcs, drow, and D&D 5e by name, and then talks specifically about how those things hurt a specific person by name, and I want a first-hand account from that person about why it was alignment specifically that hurt them." The request is unreasonably over-specific and clearly designed to be impossible to fulfill, acting as a flyswatter the requestor is using to smack down perfectly reasonable evidence that any reasonable individual would at least consider, rather than rejecting out of hand.
Such arguments are obviously intended to silence the arguer's opponents and eliminate discourse rather than to improve understanding whilst offering the appearance of a reasonable request and argument, which is largely the definition of 'bad faith'. So please - may we dispense with those arguments?
As for the "paint a picture" comment notice that the entire sentence was "Your continued dismissal of other people's pain does not paint a good picture of you, as a person." which is still a comment about your actions.
If you think any of what I said constitutes a personal attack, please use the tools which the forum has provided you and I will explain myself to the moderators. I feel I have been abiding by all the rules, but if I have inadvertently violated any of them, I should be held accountable
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you'll notice, I was addressing a general point (making the game more accepting is not needed) which is tangential to the alignment discussion, so I don't have to explain how removing alignment would make the game more of anything. Your original statement there still reeks of "I've been playing this game for 40 years and I don't think it needs to change therefore it should be good enough for everyone" in other words, "I got mine, screw you."
That you frame this as a company having their arms twisted is .. disingenuous at best. You're basically saying that the values statement they made is not sincere. Is this not insulting and a bad faith argument? To tell someone that the statement they made about their values and principles going forward is an insincere cash grab?
Ok so we're in agreement that them declining to label creature alignments in Van Richten's is fine. The only thing you're protesting is the people who are saying alignment should be removed. Ok, that's fine, I take no issue with that.
I do, however, think that portraying it as a "crusade" is you somehow trying to victimize your purist notion of D&D. If alignment gets removed sometime down the line, it was a creative decision that was made that you won't like, you're not being persecuted.
I also take issue with you using the term "rabid SJW" as well. You're portraying an opinion you don't like as "rabid" which is a personal attack against someone who just has an opinion that you don't agree with. Disagreement is fine, but portraying people as being rabid just because they disagree with you is the definition of bad faith arguments. You're not attacking anyone's ideas on their merits, you are attacking people personally.
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!
The discourse around D&D and racism, specifically but not limited to real-world implications around orcs and drow, centers on how aspects of the game are influenced by wider trends of racism, bias, prejudice, etc., from the real world.
https://www.wired.com/story/dandd-must-grapple-with-the-racism-in-fantasy/
https://www.polygon.com/2020/6/23/21300653/dungeons-dragons-racial-stereotypes-wizards-of-the-coast-drow-orcs-curse-of-strahd
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/29/884824236/dungeons-dragons-tries-to-banish-racist-stereotypes
Media that's been percolating in our society's broken systems and ideas around race recursively normalize those broken ideas.
Surely you are aware of the issues of proving a negative, right? The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
Actually, I prefer the "social justice rogue" or "social justice artificer" classes. Though, really, "social justice monk" is much better at all this arm-twisting that's supposedly going on.
Alignment in 5e doesn't have any mechanical effects -- it's purely descriptive. Some people may find that description useful, but nothing in the game will break if you don't bother to include it on a character sheet. That's what I mean by irrelevant.
As far as alignment encouraging stereotyping: any description in the form of "All/Most Xs behave like Y" is a stereotype. This is not always bad, and might even be true, but it's something to be careful about, particularly when applied to a clear value judgment, such as good/evil.
You may be right, but if we're going by that then ideals, bonds, flaws, backstory, heck the entire back page of a character sheet is irrelevant. Just because something doesn't have mechanical uses in the game doesn't mean it should be removed.
This is the point. The mechanics are there to give a foundation from which DMs can understand the base concept of the game/genre and then modify it to fit the specific way they want to run their setting. If we try to mod the foundation itself to fit what each DM wants in his own setting, we strive for the impossible. There can be only one foundation or it will crumble.
Pallutus
Why? none of our games are interconnected. This isn't an MMPORG, if I do something different with the alignment of a group of hobgoblins than you, I promise you that it in no way affects your game.
Personally, I only feel like flexible alignment is important for potentially playable races and other humanoid creatures (both for DM/player flexibility and for being empathetic to other's experiences. For extraplanar creatures like devils, angels, modrons, elementals, fey, etc I have no issues at all having strict and consistent alignments.
That was my point. The game was designed a certain way and play tested. So why call to change things in the game the way it is? We can each just change our own. Oddly, it seems to me what people are talking about are elements that were in 4E, which already exists. Much like the original AD&D or 2E, I can always go back and play those versions or incorporate some elements into my 5E games, but I wouldn't ask the designers to change 5E because I like the other versions.
Pallutus
From what I have seen during my two years here, toxic roleplayers are the ones who are enforcing their views and play styles on others far more often than powergamers. Powergamers are not the boogeyman to be wary of, toxic roleplayers are. There is also nothing wrong with pushing political objectives in any hobby, whether it be games, sports, art, or anything else out there.
The creators of 5e want to bring more awareness to social and political issues via D&D, and toxic roleplayers do not like the fact that D&D's simplicity means that it can accomodate different players with different playstyles and worldviews. They also hate the fact that 5e is so successful due to its ability to appeal to a wide audience. They want D&D to stagnate and will stop at nothing to to criticise the evolution of the game.
D&D is just like any other hobby and medium, and if singers, writers, athletes, etc. can promote their own political views in their own works, the creators of D&D can promote whatever their political views are via D&D. It is really hypocritical to think that it is okay to promote your own political views via D&D but discouraging the creators from doing so at the same time.
If you are going to talk smack about liberals and social justice warriors, leave powergamers out of it, they have nothing to do with the topic on hand. I do not know why you are so butthurt over powergamers, but scapegoating them for all the ills of 5e is just silly. Also, companies promoting their political views via their own business, products, and services is far better than promoting their political views by lobbying politicians via bribes and Super PACs. For a corporation to put money where their mouth is, I think that is something to be encouraged, not discouraged.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Let me clarify again. I was addressing a general point which YOU brought up. You are the one who said that the game does not need to be more accepting, please keep up with the conversation at hand. Again, I say that the attitude that something doesn't need to be improved simply because it suits you just fine is elitist and bad for just about any community. "I got mine, screw you" is a bad attitude most especially because you have had personal testimony on these forums that the problems you dismiss as nothing have actually turned people away from the game.
If you'll scan back over the conversation, you'll find that I said no such thing. I have said on multiple occasions that I'm fine with alignment.
Your continued dismissal of other people's pain does not paint a good picture of you, as a person.
1) Have you heard the phrase, "I know you are, but what am I?" It's a silly, childish phrase coined by a silly, childish comedian to respond to an insult. This is what you just did, except what you're doing is even more silly and childish because it's not even like I insulted you. I posed a legitimate question about your statements and instead of addressing that question, you tried to turn it back on me in a juvenile character attack. Shouldn't you know better?
2) Where, in any conversation, in any thread on this forum, have I ever thrown any sort of epithet at you? Do I call you names? Or do I address your ideas on their merits and you just take offense at that?
3) My question still stands, by the way. When you take a statement of values made by Wizards and dismiss it as insincere to its face, is that not insulting and a bad faith argument?
So not only do you think WOTC is insincere in their values statement you also think that the people who are advocating those values are "rabid." It sounds like you are saying that WOTC is lying about what they believe to pacify people who are irrational when expressing their hurts and their needs. Instead of making arguments based on merit you are still making character attacks. Furthermore, calling people irrational simply because you don't like their opinions is gaslighting at its worst. It is an attempt to discredit someone without doing the work of addressing their ideas, but rather just portraying them as mentally deficient. As a rhetorical technique it is very weak.
Then kindly stop using such language. All it is doing is making it look like you're exaggerating the argument to win points.
Making general character attacks is not really any better than making specifically targeted character attacks. You painted your attacks in very broad strokes. I applauded the Diversity and Dragons initiative and everything you've been saying about "[REDACTED]" applies to me. So yes, you have been attacking me because you made very sweeping statements. Ideally you should stop making character attacks instead of, you know, making legitimate arguments, but at the very least you should not be so broad and sweeping.
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!
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
~Carl Sandburg
Sounds to me like both the facts and the 'law', insofar as 'law' applies to a tabletop RPG's ruleset and design precepts, are against a certain position some arguers take in this thread. I see a whole heap of yelling and table-pounding, but not a lot of either law or facts here.
Please do not contact or message me.
"Prove it.
In particular, they published 5e as it was with the PH and the DMG and the MM, prove to me that they had such a social and political agenda. I don't see the faintest trace in there, they wanted to publish the best D&D game ever, and they did. That's all."
I mean a lot has changed since 2014....
Of course they may look at the PH, DMG, and MM and make changes moving forward that do better than their previous efforts. Even Disney/WB no long censors their old timey racist cartoons but has commentary before the movie stating:
"While these cartoons do not represent today's society, they are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed"
So I would rather they recognize that alignment is not the greatest thing, address it openly, and move forward without it.
They have also discussed how orcs and drow are represented in the setting and have made adjustments to lore to be better as well. In this case they are actively adding lore to combat problematic isssues.
So your statement about DnD not wanting to use DnD to address social issues is obviously incorrect.
.....what?
I am not sure how DnD alignment has any connection with industrial accidents?
Not in the slightest....are you equating wanting to have better examples of social progression is tantamount to loss of life in industrial accidents?
Are you saying they invoke the same level of outrage and are addressed the same?
Ok so you just ignored everything and repeated the original statement without addressing my criticism of it at all. Like I said, you don't get to decide what the community as a whole needs, your perspective is limited and when it comes to needs for safety and acceptance it is, as a general principle, better to err on the side of more accepting and more compassionate. Otherwise you're basically saying "me and mine are comfortable therefore no more consideration should be given to those who don't feel as comfortable or as accepted" or in other words, "I got mine, screw you." Never a good look.
What do you mean "again?" This is literally the first time you have asked me this. Are you confusing me with someone else? Is this why you can't keep up in the conversation? Because you think I'm someone else? I will repeat myself: I'm fine with alignment as long as it is not applied to anything portrayed as free willed people.
Please don't act impatient with me like this isn't the first time you've asked it of me, but since I did say there were actual personal testimonies: HERE is one of them.
You know, what's terrible is that you participated in the very thread I linked where someone expressed how the game's portrayal was hurtful. You ignored them then and I'm guessing you're going to find some sort of justification to dismiss them now. Probably either by shifting the goalpost (oh that's not what I was talking about, I meant specifically how does alignment hurt people) or literally calling them a liar about their own experience. I sincerely hope you prove me wrong by taking that account seriously and giving it's due.
Hmm ... I will admit after checking the definition of "disingenuous" that I made a mistake in word choice. I apologize for that mistake. I still meant to critique your words, but not that particular criticism. Please allow me to retract that word and replace it with "cynical."
All of those were criticisms of things that you actually said or did, they were not personal attacks. How have you grown into an adult without knowing the difference? Oh ... actually a lot of things make sense now, in that light. You do seem to get very defensive about people criticizing your ideas and you conflate that with attacks against you, so everything just kind of devolves into personal attacks because you can't tell the difference between arguing with a topic and attacking a person. Wow that's ... enlightening.
I don't think I want to take the time it would need to educate a grown adult on the difference between attacking an idea and attacking a person, so I will pass.
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!
In a safety situation that someone lost their life to is a terrible comparison to the systematic racism placed in a TTRPG.....and these situations do not require the same response.
A safety event is related to: was the process at fault? or was there human inattention to the process? Its about identifying safety issues in the process....and if someone knowingly avoided safety issues for whatever reason. Its about having safety standards that, without question, are followed less you be held liable for the action. If someone knowingly does not follow the safety procedures and someone dies that is very clear cut who is at fault and should be addressed.
How in any sense is this related to systemic racism in a game though?
We are talking about systemic racism in a game where playable orcs are described as "domesticated" and "could develop a limited capacity for empathy, love, and compassion".
There is no need for this to be in the book at all...why say an orc (a humanoid capable of thoughts and feelings) needs to be discussed like a pet? This was never required for the game to be about adventure...there was never a need for creatures to be held in such contempt if given free will and ability to think/feel like any other person.
I will say, Ophidimancer has the dead right of it in at least one respect. All the "that example isn't specific enough, find a more specific example" arguments are incredibly tiresome, annoying, and increasingly in bad faith. A clearer example of moving the goalposts would be difficult to find - "those articles are all talking about the general cases of stereotyping in media. I want something that mentions orcs, drow, and D&D 5e by name, and then talks specifically about how those things hurt a specific person by name, and I want a first-hand account from that person about why it was alignment specifically that hurt them." The request is unreasonably over-specific and clearly designed to be impossible to fulfill, acting as a flyswatter the requestor is using to smack down perfectly reasonable evidence that any reasonable individual would at least consider, rather than rejecting out of hand.
Such arguments are obviously intended to silence the arguer's opponents and eliminate discourse rather than to improve understanding whilst offering the appearance of a reasonable request and argument, which is largely the definition of 'bad faith'. So please - may we dispense with those arguments?
Please do not contact or message me.
Weird, that link was supposed to go to https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/95854-design-direction-changes-for-race-in-d-d-5e?comment=398
As for the "paint a picture" comment notice that the entire sentence was "Your continued dismissal of other people's pain does not paint a good picture of you, as a person." which is still a comment about your actions.
If you think any of what I said constitutes a personal attack, please use the tools which the forum has provided you and I will explain myself to the moderators. I feel I have been abiding by all the rules, but if I have inadvertently violated any of them, I should be held accountable
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!