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.
Um.... personality traits (which is what alignment is, in 5e) exist to give the DM a hint when roleplaying the monster, and roleplaying the monsters is most certainly something every DM is expected to to for him/her self. It's the opposite of foundational.
Can I remind everyone who chooses to participate in this thread of the following:
Stay on topic
Be respectful of each other
Do not stray into topics inappropriate for this forum
If a user violates site rules, the acceptable recourse is to report them, not attack or harass them. If you do not wish to use the report system, that is your prerogative, but that does not exempt you from the site rules
Volo's Guide to Monsters where the Playable Orc race is described:
"Roleplaying an Orc
Most orcs have been indoctrinated into a life of destruction and slaughter. But unlike creatures who by their very nature are evil, such as gnolls, it’s possible that an orc, if raised outside its culture, could develop a limited capacity for empathy, love, and compassion.
No matter how domesticated an orc might seem, its blood lust flows just beneath the surface. With its instinctive love of battle and its desire to prove its strength, an orc trying to live within the confines of civilization is faced with a difficult task."
They are saying they are indoctrinated due to culture and that its their "nature" that brings out the problematic aspects of their personality.
So there you go...that is the advice for players for when they play an Orc.....pretty terrible IMO.
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.
It is NEVER that simple. Do you have experience in dealing with actual safety and accidents
Even if you get to a "No Blame Error" it is still perceived as a "System Failure" which means you have opportunities to improve your process which yes I would expect a company to be able to speak to as to how they will move forward with a safer approach.
Even outside of that it has literally no bearing in this discussion. The two are not comparable and its odd that you would even begin to entangle them.
That's what I thought. How can I say that I have a lot of difficulty taking seriously a single post of that nature which, for some reason, focusses only on "half-races" and only takes a look at the half-orc and not at the half-elf, which is exactly the contrary (and which is, might I say, BEFORE in the book)? When the "I can't be a people person" conclusion is exactly reversed in the half-elf ("+2 racial bonus on Diplomacy and Gather Information checks: Half-elves get along naturally with all people.") ? When all the example of orcs in literature are of low intellect brutish murderers who barely grunt ? And when, despite that, a lot of people at the time including myself proudly played half-orcs including heroes and war leaders because they were proud to be great warriors of their tribes ? And despite the fact that, technically, it was a really strong race for a fighter or barbarian, probably one of the very best. Seriously...
Also, back on the subject of this thread, how does this relate to alignment ?
Moreover, this is from an edition which is about 20 years in the past. We all know that previous editions were not the most diplomatically phrased, in particular in terms of negatives to ability scores. "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."
Now, back on track, is there anyone who has seriously been hurt by the current edition, and in particular by alignment, as it is the subject of this thread ?
If all Orcs are "Chaotc Evil" because they only have a "Limted capacity for emotion" despite "Domesitcation" efforts.....I could see how somebody might be hurt by that....asking for someone to expose trauma they have experienced to try to "prove" they have been hurt is a callous act in itself.
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.
It is NEVER that simple. Do you have experience in dealing with actual safety and accidents
And this goes to show that, as very often, you have zero actual experience of the subject that you are trying to discuss. I have, personally, in terms of transportation systems and in particular air traffic control accidents that actually cost lives. If you think that it's that simple and are truly interested by the subject, I really suggest getting some life experience before discussing it seriously.
Even if you get to a "No Blame Error" it is still perceived as a "System Failure" which means you have opportunities to improve your process which yes I would expect a company to be able to speak to as to how they will move forward with a safer approach.
... honestly, get some experience of real life about this ...
Even outside of that it has literally no bearing in this discussion. The two are not comparable and its odd that you would even begin to entangle them.
Well, at this stage, just read the posts and try to apply a company's perspective and experience about dealing with this. But for that, you probably need some experience of it as well. Have you been involved in company management of crisis and the associated PR ?
How WotC deals with alignment and races, from my perspective, has everything to do with this, as WotC is owned by Hasbro and then Disney and you honestly cannot find a more corporative way of dealing with these issues.
I showed you an entire industry's approach to safety errors (Just Culture is used by pretty much every healthcare system in the US) so I feel that I have adequately displayed knowledge of the area and you have provided a wikipedia article about an incident from 21 years ago....I am not sure why you would assume I have no experience in the area or why I should believe you do.
Again this off topic so I will not address this further as it does not have any bearing on the alignment discussion of which you have yet to address the concerns presented from Orc's inherent "chaotic evil" alignment and "nature" as described in Volo's and the inhuman nature by which they are described yet are a playable race.
Volo's Guide to Monsters where the Playable Orc race is described:
"Roleplaying an Orc
Most orcs have been indoctrinated into a life of destruction and slaughter. But unlike creatures who by their very nature are evil, such as gnolls, it’s possible that an orc, if raised outside its culture, could develop a limited capacity for empathy, love, and compassion.
No matter how domesticated an orc might seem, its blood lust flows just beneath the surface. With its instinctive love of battle and its desire to prove its strength, an orc trying to live within the confines of civilization is faced with a difficult task."
They are saying they are indoctrinated due to culture and that its their "nature" that brings out the problematic aspects of their personality.
So there you go...that is the advice for players for when they play an Orc.....pretty terrible IMO.
That's interesting, I don't remember seeing that but for me, it's still not a problem. Indoctrination is a real world problem, and as demonstrated by the PH extract, orcs do not really have free will. So if, on purpose, you choose to roleplay a race that does not have its complete free will, isn't it the right thing to point that out ?
And, by the way, for me it's a fantastic opportunity for roleplaying to roleplay an orc who somehow gains his free will, shakes himself from the yoke of the evil gods, maybe tries to redeem his entire race from that yoke ? In that case, being evil at start, and having all the racial stigma makes your struggle even more heroic, no ? Even more worth telling ?
Have you read the incredible Malazan Book of the Fallen ? Amongst the fantastic collection of heroic figures in there (and honestly the collection is among the top one in many many books of the genre), there is a favourite of mine, Karsa Orlong, who follows exactly that path, from being a tool in the schemes of his bloodthirsty racial gods, is enslaved by many but always shakes it off and becomes an unbelievable force in the world, still a contrasted one, but a very heroic and endearing one.
You can use that as a story for ANY humanoid race (human who left a cult, goliath who was a pit fighter, etc...) and not have to rely on demonizing an entire race to justify it.
Volo's Guide to Monsters where the Playable Orc race is described:
"Roleplaying an Orc
Most orcs have been indoctrinated into a life of destruction and slaughter. But unlike creatures who by their very nature are evil, such as gnolls, it’s possible that an orc, if raised outside its culture, could develop a limited capacity for empathy, love, and compassion.
No matter how domesticated an orc might seem, its blood lust flows just beneath the surface. With its instinctive love of battle and its desire to prove its strength, an orc trying to live within the confines of civilization is faced with a difficult task."
They are saying they are indoctrinated due to culture and that its their "nature" that brings out the problematic aspects of their personality.
So there you go...that is the advice for players for when they play an Orc.....pretty terrible IMO.
That's interesting, I don't remember seeing that but for me, it's still not a problem. Indoctrination is a real world problem, and as demonstrated by the PH extract, orcs do not really have free will. So if, on purpose, you choose to roleplay a race that does not have its complete free will, isn't it the right thing to point that out ?
And, by the way, for me it's a fantastic opportunity for roleplaying to roleplay an orc who somehow gains his free will, shakes himself from the yoke of the evil gods, maybe tries to redeem his entire race from that yoke ? In that case, being evil at start, and having all the racial stigma makes your struggle even more heroic, no ? Even more worth telling ?
Have you read the incredible Malazan Book of the Fallen ? Amongst the fantastic collection of heroic figures in there (and honestly the collection is among the top one in many many books of the genre), there is a favourite of mine, Karsa Orlong, who follows exactly that path, from being a tool in the schemes of his bloodthirsty racial gods, is enslaved by many but always shakes it off and becomes an unbelievable force in the world, still a contrasted one, but a very heroic and endearing one.
" But unlike creatures who by their very nature are evil, such as gnolls, it’s possible that an orc, if raised outside its culture, could develop a limited capacity for empathy, love, and compassion."
They are literally saying the Orc is not evil by nature...just stupid and violent by nature I guess....which is VERY problematic.
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.
It is NEVER that simple. Do you have experience in dealing with actual safety and accidents
And this goes to show that, as very often, you have zero actual experience of the subject that you are trying to discuss. I have, personally, in terms of transportation systems and in particular air traffic control accidents that actually cost lives. If you think that it's that simple and are truly interested by the subject, I really suggest getting some life experience before discussing it seriously.
Even if you get to a "No Blame Error" it is still perceived as a "System Failure" which means you have opportunities to improve your process which yes I would expect a company to be able to speak to as to how they will move forward with a safer approach.
... honestly, get some experience of real life about this ...
Even outside of that it has literally no bearing in this discussion. The two are not comparable and its odd that you would even begin to entangle them.
Well, at this stage, just read the posts and try to apply a company's perspective and experience about dealing with this. But for that, you probably need some experience of it as well. Have you been involved in company management of crisis and the associated PR ?
How WotC deals with alignment and races, from my perspective, has everything to do with this, as WotC is owned by Hasbro and then Disney and you honestly cannot find a more corporative way of dealing with these issues.
I showed you an entire industry's approach to safety errors (Just Culture is used by pretty much every healthcare system in the US) so I feel that I have adequately displayed knowledge of the area and you have provided a wikipedia article about an incident from 21 years ago....I am not sure why you would assume I have no experience in the area or why I should believe you do.
Because, instead of showing me that you actually have experience, you have given me the result of a two minutes google/wikipedia search ?
And because I was actually working on the air traffic systems of switzerland at that time, and part of the investigation, and without going into the details, I can assure you that it had NOTHING to do with the diagram that you provided. And neither do the other accidents that I was involved in. And that the management of the company policy and statement have, of course, nothing to do with that diagram. Absolutely nothing.
Again this off topic so I will not address this further as it does not have any bearing on the alignment discussion of which you have yet to address the concerns presented from Orc's inherent "chaotic evil" alignment and "nature" as described in Volo's and the inhuman nature by which they are described yet are a playable race.
And as shown in the other posts, I see absolutely nothing at all wrong with this. It's just a playable FANTASY race in a ROLEPLAYING game. And nothing prevents you from roleplaying this, or not doing it because it's just an option. Even if the race is described as evil. How does this hurt anyone ? Who does it hurt ?
No I showed you the tool behind an entire philosophy of safety culture....since you do not seem to understand the significance I will let that be my guide on your familiarity with it and safety culture in healthcare in general.
And if you cannot see why someone may not like that a race is "domesticated" yet struggles with their violent/savage "nature" then that just shows a lack of understanding in the pain of others and non-empathetic approach to the subject that obviously WotC no longer wises to endorse.
If all Orcs are "Chaotc Evil" because they only have a "Limted capacity for emotion" despite "Domesitcation" efforts.....I could see how somebody might be hurt by that....asking for someone to expose trauma they have experienced to try to "prove" they have been hurt is a callous act in itself.
I have honestly no idea how someone might be hurt by that. Please elaborate how you think someone might be hurt by such a statement.
And that even if it was taken in isolation, without all the other explanations about the creation myth of the orc by their evil, savage deities. There are thousands of cases of races with limited or no capacity for emotion in the genre, so many of them that I have trouble understanding all that fuzz about the orcs.
That's interesting, I don't remember seeing that but for me, it's still not a problem. Indoctrination is a real world problem, and as demonstrated by the PH extract, orcs do not really have free will. So if, on purpose, you choose to roleplay a race that does not have its complete free will, isn't it the right thing to point that out ?
And, by the way, for me it's a fantastic opportunity for roleplaying to roleplay an orc who somehow gains his free will, shakes himself from the yoke of the evil gods, maybe tries to redeem his entire race from that yoke ? In that case, being evil at start, and having all the racial stigma makes your struggle even more heroic, no ? Even more worth telling ?
Have you read the incredible Malazan Book of the Fallen ? Amongst the fantastic collection of heroic figures in there (and honestly the collection is among the top one in many many books of the genre), there is a favourite of mine, Karsa Orlong, who follows exactly that path, from being a tool in the schemes of his bloodthirsty racial gods, is enslaved by many but always shakes it off and becomes an unbelievable force in the world, still a contrasted one, but a very heroic and endearing one.
You can use that as a story for ANY humanoid race (human who left a cult, goliath who was a pit fighter, etc...) and not have to rely on demonizing an entire race to justify it.
And what exactly is the problem in demonizing an entire FANTASY race ? There are thousands like this in the genre.
And why that focus on the orc ? Because there are other fantasy races that are much, much worse, I cited the neogi before, for example.
And in the end, the saga above is way better in a heroic sense if it's a struggle against gods, much more appropriate for high fantasy like D&D - and the Malazan Book of the Fallen. Karsa Orlong would not be as grand if he had not started so low and so bad. The writer made it a point to let the reader think that he was slaughtering children at the start (it's not a big reveal that it's because his race is of a large stature than men, and he calls "children" the men he is slaughtering, because of his gods influence and his own racial prejudices).
" But unlike creatures who by their very nature are evil, such as gnolls, it’s possible that an orc, if raised outside its culture, could develop a limited capacity for empathy, love, and compassion."
They are literally saying the Orc is not evil by nature...just stupid and violent by nature I guess....which is VERY problematic.
Again, why is that ? It's a FANTASY race. And it's explained by the fact that the races was literally created by evil gods to serve them and do their purpose.
I cannot teach you how to empathetic to how others might view this as problematic and could relate to their own experiences in life....you will have to learn this for yourself.
At this point I really don't see a way you will accept that people have different life experiences than you that could be affected by these descriptions so I'm not sure what anyone could say to "prove" anything to you. It's about having empathy for people and their life experiences and I cannot give that to you.
At this point I really don't see a way you will accept that people have different life experiences than you that could be affected by these descriptions so I'm not sure what anyone could say to "prove" anything to you. It's about having empathy for people and their life experiences and I cannot give that to you.
Ther question remains as to people like this actually exist (again, claiming that their race has been created to be evil by evil gods planning to use them). Who knows, I might be a bit more empathic if I could be sure that they are real and not figment of imagination conjured to try and make an argument against alignment.
Such people are not, and never have been, the subject of this thread. This thread is about D&D races, especially playable ones, no longer being given alignment in new books. That's all.
That is happening, and has happened, and cannot be denied. The writers and designers of D&D have stated why they are doing it (more or less; posts in this very thread address this; see https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/diversity-and-dnd). There are players in the market who prefer the game this way (for many reasons, that I see no reason to repeat for you), and WotC has listened and changed. Hell, if the change hadn't already happened, this thread wouldn't have happened, and you wouldn't have complained about it.
You still have your core books, and you probably still will well after they go out of print, get revised, or get replaced by a new edition. Who knows if and when those things will happen; more than enough threads on that very topic have also happened.
Finally, please explain to me how the "alignment evil" is worse than "int 7", since this thread is about alignment.
It's literally the same argument, so no real reason to. There are really two separate issues
Is alignment a good way to describe personality?
Is it problematic to associate a personality with a creature
Bonus: does it matter if the personality traits are positive, negative, or neutral?
Bonus: does it matter how humanlike the creature is?
Either a No on (1) or a Yes on (2) is adequate reason to remove alignment. My answer is an unequivocal No on 1. For 2, it's a more complicated issue -- it's mostly a problem when the creature can plausibly been seen as a caricature of something in the real world. This doesn't strictly mean humanoid, Jar-Jar Binks managed to be offensive despite being obviously inhuman, but things like giant spider-eels aren't terribly obvious caricature of anything so Neogi are far less of a problem than Orcs and Drow.
I'm thrilled to see alignments go *Poof*. Lets be honest, its an antiquated system. Nine alignments? Simple two axis plot. As is anything in life is that easy. You believe in law or in chaos? Or choose not to choose? Why not have a 1-9 *how committed to Law/Chaos are you*? Why? Why even bother. Actions speak louder than words. And it's your world to populate as you see fit. Me, I had a whole village of Orc, Humans, and Half-orcs who were 'unaligned' trying to fit in against the rest of the world. Twas fun!
Look, the flavor text in the descriptions give you all the context you need. Even without a "Chaotic Evil" moniker, nearly every member of the Sword Coast will still view Orc's as a threat at 1st. A band of heavily armed orcs will be dealt with as hostile if they march up to Neverwinter and demand entry, if not attacked outright. But even in several Forgotten Realms books there have been people willing to parley with orcs. And of course plenty of races who have members who break a cultural mold (We all know a particular dark skinned elf who just might be famous). Alignment as a stat like HP or AC is antiquated. Its old, its pointless to most of us, and it just adds nothing. You want orcs to all be evil in your game. Great. Do it. Will orcs be monsters (or at least adversaries) in many of our games. Sure. But are they evil by nature. Do they -need- to be evil by nature. No. Not for most of us.
So do what you do with your races. Its your game. Just don't feel the need to burden the rest of us with what once was... no off with you and go calculate your THAC0! After you apply the halberd's speed factor, and hit modifier against splint mail. Enjoy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
I'm thrilled to see alignments go *Poof*. Lets be honest, its an antiquated system. Nine alignments? Simple two axis plot. As is anything in life is that easy.
Except alignments haven't gone poof. They have made alignments so that it has less of an impact on the game (ex. detect evil detects certain creature types vs an alignment) but alignment still exists in the game. In fact, 5E has more alignments than existed in 4E. I agree that life perhaps can't be broken down into neat little columns of good vs. evil and law vs chaos. Thankfully, I am not playing real life I am playing a fantasy game and fantasy games can be broken down into good vs evil and law vs chaos as reflected in much of fantasy fiction Tolkien and Moorcock would be two examples.
At this point I really don't see a way you will accept that people have different life experiences than you that could be affected by these descriptions so I'm not sure what anyone could say to "prove" anything to you. It's about having empathy for people and their life experiences and I cannot give that to you.
I applaud you being a person who seems good intentioned and socially conscious of the plight of others. All that being said, to Lyxen's point I do think there comes a stage where stuff can be taken to the extreme in the opposite direction. I am a member of racial minority (within the U.S) and if it matters a self-described Liberal. I don't presume to speak for any other members of the various social demographics I belong to but I will say for me D&D alignments have never made me feel stereotyped nor has the depiction of MOST fantasy races. Yes. There were some problematic races. For example, all drow being evil and back in 2E D&D there was supplement called Monster Mythology that talked about Drow's skin turning black to reflect the evil nature in their hearts. Stuff like that I can see as problematic especially because it almost verbatim reflects the real world fallacious idealogy of the Hamitic Curse/Hamitic Race theory concept. If you don't know that is you can Google it.
Yet, completely fantastical races especially those not even based on any real world skin color (Orcs are described as green and gray-skinned and I have never encountered a human of that complexion) I quite frankly find ridiculous for anyone to be offended by including in the description you gave of orcs in Volo's guide. I would consider it offensive IF the company as a whole dog whistled that a specific fantastical race was reflective of a real word race. To use orcs as an example in the Warhammer miniatures game Orks are present in both their 40k and fantasy universe. In those world some of the Ork units are in in the official products called Ork Spearchukkas, Ork Boyz, Lootas, Shootas (Shooters). etc. SO, in that context with Orks using Z at the end of words (like the Z often used in Rap music i.e. boyz, the a at the end in place of the letters "e" and "r"), the term spear chukka, etc. I would definitely be on your side that this is an issue but as portrayed in DnD books I have never felt Orcs were a parody on any real world racial group but again if in an official DnD product an Orc Warlord was wearing a thick gold chain and had a name like Big Banga or something I would fully be behind you 100 percent.
Likewise I could understand your point IF the game had a human race that was based after a real world culture and depicted that cultural in negative ways. An example, of this would be with the original Curse of Strahd and the way the Vistani, who are openly equivalent to the Roma people, were depicted with all the men being drunkards, etc. WOTC noted this depiction was wrong and changed it but when someone can't say a FANTASY race that is not human equivalent (Orcs, Goblins, Certain groups of giants ) is evil I think that is kind of ridiculous. In the end though I really don't mind them shifting away from humanoid sentient races having alignments as within the given game world you can say the orcs were not influenced by Gruumsh overall and so their is diversity of culture within orcish society. The goblin culture as depicted in Eberron with goblins being part of an ancient advanced civilization that has since fallen but some trying to hold onto the old ways, and some degenerating into warbands, and so forth is a great example of this.
So, while I can see how some people would feel taking away those alignments is overboard I can live with it and I even see it as an opportunity to create good moral conflicts within the game. When it gets the point like in Van Richten's Guide though where monsters that are fiendish or sentient but exist only to cause harm and pain such as vengeful undead like the Jiangshi or the Relentless Killer , and so forth can't be labeled as evil out of fear of offending someone I don't consider that a SJW crusade because agree with them or not SJWs usually have some some degree of validity to their arguments. What WOTC did with monster alignments in the newest Ravenloft product (which I love overall) is a well-intentioned but not a well thought out attempt at social pacification. Essentially instead of removing the alignments of some things that cause harm but are not sentient like constructs or things with animal intelligences they just removed it for every monster all together even the ones that are sentient and exist solely to inflict malice. That is not social justice that is just lazy design actually.
I'm thrilled to see alignments go *Poof*. Lets be honest, its an antiquated system. Nine alignments? Simple two axis plot. As is anything in life is that easy.
Except alignments haven't gone poof. They have made alignments so that it has less of an impact on the game (ex. detect evil detects certain creature types vs an alignment) but alignment still exists in the game. In fact, 5E has more alignments than existed in 4E. I agree that life perhaps can't be broken down into neat little columns of good vs. evil and law vs chaos. Thankfully, I am not playing real life I am playing a fantasy game and fantasy games can be broken down into good vs evil and law vs chaos as reflected in much of fantasy fiction Tolkien and Moorcock would be two examples.
Amongst many. But life, and most fantasy is far more complicated than a simple scale. Game of Thrones is a great example. Who is good and who is evil? Who is lawful and who is chaotic? Go read some reddit boards and whoa... its all over the map.
As for your 'Detect' spells, they don't actually detect alignment, so that point is moot too: "For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located. Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated." So yes, certain holy and unholy energies can be detected. Certain 'types' of things can be detected. But not actually if a creature is 'Good' or 'Evil'.
Again, if you are playing a game of Epic Good vs Epic Evil, with clear cut lines drawn, more power to you. Sometimes the unambiguous of straightforward can be fun and refreshing. But a great many games aren't so easily broken down. Watch a number of the popular streams (take Critical Role) and the whole concept of 'Alignment' is rarely brought up. Its not shades of grey. Its spectrums. I've been doing that for decades.
I get it. It's hard to break from what one is used to. But this has been coming a long time. It's just getting codified now. Many RPG systems have been successful over the years without any alignment system at all. Players make choices, and those choices have consequences. A good DM has the same thing for the NPC's. Bad guys get beat up, but redeem themselves and often become allies all the time. So flavor text is where you make your generalizations ('Orcs tend to raid and ravage the civilized lands, are a blight to most in the North'), but just saying Evil is a waste of story telling potential, and adds very little.
Time for some fun stories!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
I'm thrilled to see alignments go *Poof*. Lets be honest, its an antiquated system. Nine alignments? Simple two axis plot. As is anything in life is that easy.
Except alignments haven't gone poof. They have made alignments so that it has less of an impact on the game (ex. detect evil detects certain creature types vs an alignment) but alignment still exists in the game. In fact, 5E has more alignments than existed in 4E. I agree that life perhaps can't be broken down into neat little columns of good vs. evil and law vs chaos. Thankfully, I am not playing real life I am playing a fantasy game and fantasy games can be broken down into good vs evil and law vs chaos as reflected in much of fantasy fiction Tolkien and Moorcock would be two examples.
Amongst many. But life, and most fantasy is far more complicated than a simple scale. Game of Thrones is a great example. Who is good and who is evil? Who is lawful and who is chaotic? Go read some reddit boards and whoa... its all over the map.
As for your 'Detect' spells, they don't actually detect alignment, so that point is moot too: "For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located. Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated." So yes, certain holy and unholy energies can be detected. Certain 'types' of things can be detected. But not actually if a creature is 'Good' or 'Evil'.
Again, if you are playing a game of Epic Good vs Epic Evil, with clear cut lines drawn, more power to you. Sometimes the unambiguous of straightforward can be fun and refreshing. But a great many games aren't so easily broken down. Watch a number of the popular streams (take Critical Role) and the whole concept of 'Alignment' is rarely brought up. Its not shades of grey. Its spectrums. I've been doing that for decades.
I get it. It's hard to break from what one is used to. But this has been coming a long time. It's just getting codified now. Many RPG systems have been successful over the years without any alignment system at all. Players make choices, and those choices have consequences. A good DM has the same thing for the NPC's.
Yeah, I used the detect evil spell as an example of how alignment has been de-emphasized in 5E while still an option. I specifically even stated that it does not detect creatures. Did you read what wrote? It is right there in the part of my statement you quoted. I put it in bold for you. The thing is you are speaking in certain terms like something is set in stone and it is not. DnD didn't list alignments for monsters in ONE product. A product that in all honesty didn't even have that many monsters and you are acting as if that is the de facto. WOTC stated they are removing alignments from sentient playable races like drow, orcs, etc. To be specific they said they are removing a race being of a single alignment (not removing alignment all together) which is something most people don't have a problem with.
Game of Thrones is one specific type of fantasy that some people enjoy. That fantasy fits DnD fine and so does the fantasy of Robert E. Howard, Moorcock, Tolkien, and a hosts of others. That type of fantasy my note be your cup of tea. It is to others. I don't think people have a problem with change. I think people have a problem with an option being taken away.....which again is something you are presuming that has not been done. I think the current alignment system in 5E where it is present been has minimal impact on game mechanics is the right design choice by WOTC.
And I[ve played the game for 30+ years and whenever I play D&D we use Alignment. It has its uses, if as nothing else, then as a guideline for things that a PC would and would not do.
In the decades I've been playing, I've seen far, far to many cases of players trying to justify all sorts of BS as being alignment-appropriate actions, from lawful monks randomly trying to pickpocket other party members to "good" characters attempting to murder helpless prisoners.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Um.... personality traits (which is what alignment is, in 5e) exist to give the DM a hint when roleplaying the monster, and roleplaying the monsters is most certainly something every DM is expected to to for him/her self. It's the opposite of foundational.
Can I remind everyone who chooses to participate in this thread of the following:
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Volo's Guide to Monsters where the Playable Orc race is described:
"Roleplaying an Orc
Most orcs have been indoctrinated into a life of destruction and slaughter. But unlike creatures who by their very nature are evil, such as gnolls, it’s possible that an orc, if raised outside its culture, could develop a limited capacity for empathy, love, and compassion.
No matter how domesticated an orc might seem, its blood lust flows just beneath the surface. With its instinctive love of battle and its desire to prove its strength, an orc trying to live within the confines of civilization is faced with a difficult task."
They are saying they are indoctrinated due to culture and that its their "nature" that brings out the problematic aspects of their personality.
So there you go...that is the advice for players for when they play an Orc.....pretty terrible IMO.
Its exactly that simple and is defined by a Just Culture approach...
Even if you get to a "No Blame Error" it is still perceived as a "System Failure" which means you have opportunities to improve your process which yes I would expect a company to be able to speak to as to how they will move forward with a safer approach.
Even outside of that it has literally no bearing in this discussion. The two are not comparable and its odd that you would even begin to entangle them.
If all Orcs are "Chaotc Evil" because they only have a "Limted capacity for emotion" despite "Domesitcation" efforts.....I could see how somebody might be hurt by that....asking for someone to expose trauma they have experienced to try to "prove" they have been hurt is a callous act in itself.
I showed you an entire industry's approach to safety errors (Just Culture is used by pretty much every healthcare system in the US) so I feel that I have adequately displayed knowledge of the area and you have provided a wikipedia article about an incident from 21 years ago....I am not sure why you would assume I have no experience in the area or why I should believe you do.
Again this off topic so I will not address this further as it does not have any bearing on the alignment discussion of which you have yet to address the concerns presented from Orc's inherent "chaotic evil" alignment and "nature" as described in Volo's and the inhuman nature by which they are described yet are a playable race.
You can use that as a story for ANY humanoid race (human who left a cult, goliath who was a pit fighter, etc...) and not have to rely on demonizing an entire race to justify it.
" But unlike creatures who by their very nature are evil, such as gnolls, it’s possible that an orc, if raised outside its culture, could develop a limited capacity for empathy, love, and compassion."
They are literally saying the Orc is not evil by nature...just stupid and violent by nature I guess....which is VERY problematic.
No I showed you the tool behind an entire philosophy of safety culture....since you do not seem to understand the significance I will let that be my guide on your familiarity with it and safety culture in healthcare in general.
And if you cannot see why someone may not like that a race is "domesticated" yet struggles with their violent/savage "nature" then that just shows a lack of understanding in the pain of others and non-empathetic approach to the subject that obviously WotC no longer wises to endorse.
I cannot teach you how to empathetic to how others might view this as problematic and could relate to their own experiences in life....you will have to learn this for yourself.
At this point I really don't see a way you will accept that people have different life experiences than you that could be affected by these descriptions so I'm not sure what anyone could say to "prove" anything to you. It's about having empathy for people and their life experiences and I cannot give that to you.
Such people are not, and never have been, the subject of this thread. This thread is about D&D races, especially playable ones, no longer being given alignment in new books. That's all.
That is happening, and has happened, and cannot be denied. The writers and designers of D&D have stated why they are doing it (more or less; posts in this very thread address this; see https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/diversity-and-dnd). There are players in the market who prefer the game this way (for many reasons, that I see no reason to repeat for you), and WotC has listened and changed. Hell, if the change hadn't already happened, this thread wouldn't have happened, and you wouldn't have complained about it.
You still have your core books, and you probably still will well after they go out of print, get revised, or get replaced by a new edition. Who knows if and when those things will happen; more than enough threads on that very topic have also happened.
It's literally the same argument, so no real reason to. There are really two separate issues
Either a No on (1) or a Yes on (2) is adequate reason to remove alignment. My answer is an unequivocal No on 1. For 2, it's a more complicated issue -- it's mostly a problem when the creature can plausibly been seen as a caricature of something in the real world. This doesn't strictly mean humanoid, Jar-Jar Binks managed to be offensive despite being obviously inhuman, but things like giant spider-eels aren't terribly obvious caricature of anything so Neogi are far less of a problem than Orcs and Drow.
I'm thrilled to see alignments go *Poof*. Lets be honest, its an antiquated system. Nine alignments? Simple two axis plot. As is anything in life is that easy. You believe in law or in chaos? Or choose not to choose? Why not have a 1-9 *how committed to Law/Chaos are you*? Why? Why even bother. Actions speak louder than words. And it's your world to populate as you see fit. Me, I had a whole village of Orc, Humans, and Half-orcs who were 'unaligned' trying to fit in against the rest of the world. Twas fun!
Look, the flavor text in the descriptions give you all the context you need. Even without a "Chaotic Evil" moniker, nearly every member of the Sword Coast will still view Orc's as a threat at 1st. A band of heavily armed orcs will be dealt with as hostile if they march up to Neverwinter and demand entry, if not attacked outright. But even in several Forgotten Realms books there have been people willing to parley with orcs. And of course plenty of races who have members who break a cultural mold (We all know a particular dark skinned elf who just might be famous). Alignment as a stat like HP or AC is antiquated. Its old, its pointless to most of us, and it just adds nothing. You want orcs to all be evil in your game. Great. Do it. Will orcs be monsters (or at least adversaries) in many of our games. Sure. But are they evil by nature. Do they -need- to be evil by nature. No. Not for most of us.
So do what you do with your races. Its your game. Just don't feel the need to burden the rest of us with what once was... no off with you and go calculate your THAC0! After you apply the halberd's speed factor, and hit modifier against splint mail. Enjoy.
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
Except alignments haven't gone poof. They have made alignments so that it has less of an impact on the game (ex. detect evil detects certain creature types vs an alignment) but alignment still exists in the game. In fact, 5E has more alignments than existed in 4E. I agree that life perhaps can't be broken down into neat little columns of good vs. evil and law vs chaos. Thankfully, I am not playing real life I am playing a fantasy game and fantasy games can be broken down into good vs evil and law vs chaos as reflected in much of fantasy fiction Tolkien and Moorcock would be two examples.
I applaud you being a person who seems good intentioned and socially conscious of the plight of others. All that being said, to Lyxen's point I do think there comes a stage where stuff can be taken to the extreme in the opposite direction. I am a member of racial minority (within the U.S) and if it matters a self-described Liberal. I don't presume to speak for any other members of the various social demographics I belong to but I will say for me D&D alignments have never made me feel stereotyped nor has the depiction of MOST fantasy races. Yes. There were some problematic races. For example, all drow being evil and back in 2E D&D there was supplement called Monster Mythology that talked about Drow's skin turning black to reflect the evil nature in their hearts. Stuff like that I can see as problematic especially because it almost verbatim reflects the real world fallacious idealogy of the Hamitic Curse/Hamitic Race theory concept. If you don't know that is you can Google it.
Yet, completely fantastical races especially those not even based on any real world skin color (Orcs are described as green and gray-skinned and I have never encountered a human of that complexion) I quite frankly find ridiculous for anyone to be offended by including in the description you gave of orcs in Volo's guide. I would consider it offensive IF the company as a whole dog whistled that a specific fantastical race was reflective of a real word race. To use orcs as an example in the Warhammer miniatures game Orks are present in both their 40k and fantasy universe. In those world some of the Ork units are in in the official products called Ork Spearchukkas, Ork Boyz, Lootas, Shootas (Shooters). etc. SO, in that context with Orks using Z at the end of words (like the Z often used in Rap music i.e. boyz, the a at the end in place of the letters "e" and "r"), the term spear chukka, etc. I would definitely be on your side that this is an issue but as portrayed in DnD books I have never felt Orcs were a parody on any real world racial group but again if in an official DnD product an Orc Warlord was wearing a thick gold chain and had a name like Big Banga or something I would fully be behind you 100 percent.
Likewise I could understand your point IF the game had a human race that was based after a real world culture and depicted that cultural in negative ways. An example, of this would be with the original Curse of Strahd and the way the Vistani, who are openly equivalent to the Roma people, were depicted with all the men being drunkards, etc. WOTC noted this depiction was wrong and changed it but when someone can't say a FANTASY race that is not human equivalent (Orcs, Goblins, Certain groups of giants ) is evil I think that is kind of ridiculous. In the end though I really don't mind them shifting away from humanoid sentient races having alignments as within the given game world you can say the orcs were not influenced by Gruumsh overall and so their is diversity of culture within orcish society. The goblin culture as depicted in Eberron with goblins being part of an ancient advanced civilization that has since fallen but some trying to hold onto the old ways, and some degenerating into warbands, and so forth is a great example of this.
So, while I can see how some people would feel taking away those alignments is overboard I can live with it and I even see it as an opportunity to create good moral conflicts within the game. When it gets the point like in Van Richten's Guide though where monsters that are fiendish or sentient but exist only to cause harm and pain such as vengeful undead like the Jiangshi or the Relentless Killer , and so forth can't be labeled as evil out of fear of offending someone I don't consider that a SJW crusade because agree with them or not SJWs usually have some some degree of validity to their arguments. What WOTC did with monster alignments in the newest Ravenloft product (which I love overall) is a well-intentioned but not a well thought out attempt at social pacification. Essentially instead of removing the alignments of some things that cause harm but are not sentient like constructs or things with animal intelligences they just removed it for every monster all together even the ones that are sentient and exist solely to inflict malice. That is not social justice that is just lazy design actually.
Amongst many. But life, and most fantasy is far more complicated than a simple scale. Game of Thrones is a great example. Who is good and who is evil? Who is lawful and who is chaotic? Go read some reddit boards and whoa... its all over the map.
As for your 'Detect' spells, they don't actually detect alignment, so that point is moot too: "For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located. Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated." So yes, certain holy and unholy energies can be detected. Certain 'types' of things can be detected. But not actually if a creature is 'Good' or 'Evil'.
Again, if you are playing a game of Epic Good vs Epic Evil, with clear cut lines drawn, more power to you. Sometimes the unambiguous of straightforward can be fun and refreshing. But a great many games aren't so easily broken down. Watch a number of the popular streams (take Critical Role) and the whole concept of 'Alignment' is rarely brought up. Its not shades of grey. Its spectrums. I've been doing that for decades.
I get it. It's hard to break from what one is used to. But this has been coming a long time. It's just getting codified now. Many RPG systems have been successful over the years without any alignment system at all. Players make choices, and those choices have consequences. A good DM has the same thing for the NPC's. Bad guys get beat up, but redeem themselves and often become allies all the time. So flavor text is where you make your generalizations ('Orcs tend to raid and ravage the civilized lands, are a blight to most in the North'), but just saying Evil is a waste of story telling potential, and adds very little.
Time for some fun stories!
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
Yeah, I used the detect evil spell as an example of how alignment has been de-emphasized in 5E while still an option. I specifically even stated that it does not detect creatures. Did you read what wrote? It is right there in the part of my statement you quoted. I put it in bold for you. The thing is you are speaking in certain terms like something is set in stone and it is not. DnD didn't list alignments for monsters in ONE product. A product that in all honesty didn't even have that many monsters and you are acting as if that is the de facto. WOTC stated they are removing alignments from sentient playable races like drow, orcs, etc. To be specific they said they are removing a race being of a single alignment (not removing alignment all together) which is something most people don't have a problem with.
Game of Thrones is one specific type of fantasy that some people enjoy. That fantasy fits DnD fine and so does the fantasy of Robert E. Howard, Moorcock, Tolkien, and a hosts of others. That type of fantasy my note be your cup of tea. It is to others. I don't think people have a problem with change. I think people have a problem with an option being taken away.....which again is something you are presuming that has not been done. I think the current alignment system in 5E where it is present been has minimal impact on game mechanics is the right design choice by WOTC.
And I[ve played the game for 30+ years and whenever I play D&D we use Alignment. It has its uses, if as nothing else, then as a guideline for things that a PC would and would not do.
In the decades I've been playing, I've seen far, far to many cases of players trying to justify all sorts of BS as being alignment-appropriate actions, from lawful monks randomly trying to pickpocket other party members to "good" characters attempting to murder helpless prisoners.
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.