"But the simple truth is that there is no curse of ruin. No supernatural power drives orcs to kill. Rather, they are simply victims of the same selfish, violent impulses that corrupt all mortal beings"
So no....they just like any other race. And yes this is infinitely better.
"But the simple truth is that there is no curse of ruin. No supernatural power drives orcs to kill. Rather, they are simply victims of the same selfish, violent impulses that corrupt all mortal beings"
So no....they just like any other race.
LOL I was just going to point that out as well. It is right there plain as day.
I will simply say this: D&D is real. The worlds of Faerun, Exandria, Eberron, Athas, and all the rest are fictional - your adventures in those worlds are not. Grog'n'ale the Bartending Barbarian is a fictional character - your experiences behind the wheel of Grog'n'ale are not. The memories you make, the bonds you forge, and the emotions you experience playing D&D are just as real as the memories, bonds, and emotions you create doing anything else. If those experiences are harmful? That harm is as real as anything else.
The "it's just a fantasy, fantasy can't be hurtful because it's not real!!" argument is absolute bullshit, it's been absolute bullshit for the entire year-ish people have been throwing it around since Tasha's Cauldron and the new direction for D&D was announced, it will never stop being absolute bullshit, and anyone who continues to use it is being increasingly disingenuous and arguing in ever-worsening bad faith. They bloody know better, and if they honestly, legitimately don't by now? Then there's no point in further discussions with that person because their rejection of reality in an attempt to preserve lazy storytelling and unnecessary traditions is beyond salvaging.
"It's fiction, therefor it can't possibly hurt anyone" is a bad argument. Please stop using it. Even if a player's experiences playing D&D were not just as real as their experiences playing football, watching a movie, or gfoing about their workday? People have said - hundreds of times, by now - in this thread and many others that they've experienced pain from D&D's portrayal of "subhuman" species.
So please. Let's dispense with "It's fiction, therefor it can't possibly hurt anyone."
"But the simple truth is that there is no curse of ruin. No supernatural power drives orcs to kill. Rather, they are simply victims of the same selfish, violent impulses that corrupt all mortal beings"
So no....they just like any other race. And yes this is infinitely better.
And still :"Orcs and half-orcs do feel a certain pull toward violence and anger." It's incredible, this power of selective reading. Yes, despite "Rather, they are simply victims of the same selfish, violent impulses that corrupt all mortal beings.", they still feel the pull which is not noted for any other race. So, no, not like any other race. :p
"Rather, they are simply victims of the same selfish, violent impulses that corrupt all mortal beings"
I am not sure how you can read that and interpret it as "Yeah but they are different..."
because it literally says otherwise.....the pull he talks about exists in ALL mortal creatures.... that's literally the whole point they are making.
They are not human people (I thought I should make the precision clear in my post, but decided - wrongly it seems - that people would interpret it the proper way).
They're not true scotsmen, got it.
Ignore the makers' words all you want, they are writing orcs as people.
"Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. Despite our conscious efforts to the contrary, we have allowed some of those old descriptions to reappear in the game. We recognize that to live our values, we have to do an even better job in handling these issues. If we make mistakes, our priority is to make things right."
followed by
"In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples. We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do."
So yes WotC sees them as people just like humans or any other humanoid race....AND that their depictions DO think "compared to real life abuse or racism"....its very clear they see it as a problem and are working towards a solution. Drow have already received a change...Orcs are probably coming once they actually take a moment to sit and think on how to make it work.
This was not just about orcs, you made a blanket statement about fantasy "races" in total and I told you that I found this language personally hurtful and demeaning. I brought up nothing about human rights or anything. I said that this language mirrored abuse that I have experienced in real life as an explanation. I was pretty sure you didn't intentionally set out to say hurtful things. One would think that if someone did something hurtful accidentally and then had it explained to them, one would be contrite? But I guess not. It seems you're just doubling down.
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!
"Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. Despite our conscious efforts to the contrary, we have allowed some of those old descriptions to reappear in the game. We recognize that to live our values, we have to do an even better job in handling these issues. If we make mistakes, our priority is to make things right."
followed by
"In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples. We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do."
So yes WotC sees them as people just like humans or any other humanoid race....
Again, very selective reading, did you read the words that I've put in red above ? No change about orcs in general, no change in the MM and the PH. Clear ?
"But the simple truth is that there is no curse of ruin. No supernatural power drives orcs to kill. Rather, they are simply victims of the same selfish, violent impulses that corrupt all mortal beings"
So no....they just like any other race. And yes this is infinitely better.
And still :"Orcs and half-orcs do feel a certain pull toward violence and anger." It's incredible, this power of selective reading. Yes, despite "Rather, they are simply victims of the same selfish, violent impulses that corrupt all mortal beings.", they still feel the pull which is not noted for any other race. So, no, not like any other race. :p
"Rather, they are simply victims of the same selfish, violent impulses that corrupt all mortal beings"
I am not sure how you can read that and interpret it as "Yeah but they are different..."
because it literally says otherwise.....the pull he talks about exists in ALL mortal creatures.... that's literally the whole point they are making.
The sentence in read is clear, and applies to no other race.
And, once more, that was one year ago, they did changes in the promised two books, end of story, the 5e orcs stay the same.
Yes they feel a pull....but that pull is in all races not just Orcs. Its right there....its the entire point of the comment thread you keep referring to. They are people and suffer the same struggles with violence and anger that all people do.
Moving forward yes they will make Orcs different and forgo alignment....that is an accurate description of what will happen.
"We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do... When every D&D book is reprinted, we have an opportunity to correct errors that we or the broader D&D community discovered in that book. Each year, we use those opportunities to fix a variety of things, including errors in judgment... We will continue this process, reviewing each book as it comes up for a reprint and fixing such errors where they are present."
I'm not sure what the reprint schedule is on every book, nor just how much editing work they can put into this. But, again, their intent is clear.
"We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do... When every D&D book is reprinted, we have an opportunity to correct errors that we or the broader D&D community discovered in that book. Each year, we use those opportunities to fix a variety of things, including errors in judgment... We will continue this process, reviewing each book as it comes up for a reprint and fixing such errors where they are present."
I'm not sure what the reprint schedule is on every book, nor just how much editing work they can put into this. But, again, their intent is clear.
Exactly....its abundantly clear what they think about the whole thing and what they want to do to rectify it. There is no debate there.
Who is saying that humanoids can't be regarded as fictional people? :D
I mean people literally means "the members of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group." I don't think anyone is contesting that.
But to get into it - I'm ready to pick up some pitchforks for the Gnolls today.
My god how have they suffered in 5e.... poor bastards. Such nice people in older editions.
Thirst for Blood. No goodness or compassion resides in the heart of a gnoll. Like a demon, it lacks anything resembling a conscience, and can’t be taught or coerced to put aside its destructive tendencies. The gnolls’ frenzied bloodlust makes them an enemy to all, and when they lack a common foe, they fight among themselves. Even the most savage orcs avoid allying with gnolls.
Who is saying that humanoids can't be regarded as fictional people? :D
I mean people literally means "the members of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group." I don't think anyone is contesting that.
But to get into it - I'm ready to pick up some pitchforks for the Gnolls today.
My god how have they suffered in 5e.... poor bastards. Such nice people in older editions.
Thirst for Blood. No goodness or compassion resides in the heart of a gnoll. Like a demon, it lacks anything resembling a conscience, and can’t be taught or coerced to put aside its destructive tendencies. The gnolls’ frenzied bloodlust makes them an enemy to all, and when they lack a common foe, they fight among themselves. Even the most savage orcs avoid allying with gnolls.
I agree....especially since Eberron has them as humanoids too that are not just mindless killing machines. So much better than just some slapped on lore about blood soaked nightmare that is only good for killing.
I would say if they truly wanted to keep them as lacking a soul then make them Fiends and be done with it....but since they are listed as humanoid in the books I would say they deserve the same treatment as Orcs and Drow personally.
"Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. Despite our conscious efforts to the contrary, we have allowed some of those old descriptions to reappear in the game. We recognize that to live our values, we have to do an even better job in handling these issues. If we make mistakes, our priority is to make things right."
followed by
"In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples. We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do."
So yes WotC sees them as people just like humans or any other humanoid race....
Again, very selective reading, did you read the words that I've put in red above ? No change about orcs in general, no change in the MM and the PH. Clear ?
"But the simple truth is that there is no curse of ruin. No supernatural power drives orcs to kill. Rather, they are simply victims of the same selfish, violent impulses that corrupt all mortal beings"
So no....they just like any other race. And yes this is infinitely better.
And still :"Orcs and half-orcs do feel a certain pull toward violence and anger." It's incredible, this power of selective reading. Yes, despite "Rather, they are simply victims of the same selfish, violent impulses that corrupt all mortal beings.", they still feel the pull which is not noted for any other race. So, no, not like any other race. :p
"Rather, they are simply victims of the same selfish, violent impulses that corrupt all mortal beings"
I am not sure how you can read that and interpret it as "Yeah but they are different..."
because it literally says otherwise.....the pull he talks about exists in ALL mortal creatures.... that's literally the whole point they are making.
The sentence in read is clear, and applies to no other race.
And, once more, that was one year ago, they did changes in the promised two books, end of story, the 5e orcs stay the same.
Yes they feel a pull....but that pull is in all races not just Orcs. Its right there....its the entire point of the comment thread you keep referring to. They are people and suffer the same struggles with violence and anger that all people do.
Only for them, it's strong enough that it's specifically noted in their race description. And in any case, it's only the orcs of Wildemount.
Moving forward yes they will make Orcs different and forgo alignment....that is an accurate description of what will happen.
You have zero proof of this. It was the future one year ago. Now, it's the past, the changes, as demonstrated, have already happened. Otherwise, just prove it. But no statement for one full year...
One year is nothing in a publishing world...they have barely put out the books they had planned well before this statement even was made....plus you know....COVID-19.
Its abundantly clear what they think on the matter even if you do not personally like it.
Ye know what? Never mind. it's not worth it. Y'all have fun committing war crimes on as many orcs as your DM lets you find. I'll do better at my own-assed personal table, and that will have to be good enough for me.
Who is saying that humanoids can't be regarded as fictional people? :D
I mean people literally means "the members of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group." I don't think anyone is contesting that.
But to get into it - I'm ready to pick up some pitchforks for the Gnolls today.
My god how have they suffered in 5e.... poor bastards. Such nice people in older editions.
Thirst for Blood. No goodness or compassion resides in the heart of a gnoll. Like a demon, it lacks anything resembling a conscience, and can’t be taught or coerced to put aside its destructive tendencies. The gnolls’ frenzied bloodlust makes them an enemy to all, and when they lack a common foe, they fight among themselves. Even the most savage orcs avoid allying with gnolls.
I agree....especially since Eberron has them as humanoids too that are not just mindless killing machines. So much better than just some slapped on lore about blood soaked nightmare that is only good for killing.
I would say if they truly wanted to keep them as lacking a soul then make them Fiends and be done with it....but since they are listed as humanoid in the books I would say they deserve the same treatment as Orcs and Drow personally.
So why draw a line at fiends? Why should fiends not be humanized as well? Why not humanize everything and blurr the lines completely. Let it everything have a "soul", everything be humanized and everyone is responsible for his own actions and no one is able to blame any power, deity, calling or whatever you might come up with. Its your action - deal with it skeleton, ooze, zombie, dragon, Mindflayer or you little oak tree.
This ultra humanization of everything sounds very inclusive. Although more like Monsterhearts compared to Dungeons&Dragons. ;)
Who is saying that humanoids can't be regarded as fictional people? :D
I mean people literally means "the members of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group." I don't think anyone is contesting that.
But to get into it - I'm ready to pick up some pitchforks for the Gnolls today.
My god how have they suffered in 5e.... poor bastards. Such nice people in older editions.
Thirst for Blood. No goodness or compassion resides in the heart of a gnoll. Like a demon, it lacks anything resembling a conscience, and can’t be taught or coerced to put aside its destructive tendencies. The gnolls’ frenzied bloodlust makes them an enemy to all, and when they lack a common foe, they fight among themselves. Even the most savage orcs avoid allying with gnolls.
I agree....especially since Eberron has them as humanoids too that are not just mindless killing machines. So much better than just some slapped on lore about blood soaked nightmare that is only good for killing.
I would say if they truly wanted to keep them as lacking a soul then make them Fiends and be done with it....but since they are listed as humanoid in the books I would say they deserve the same treatment as Orcs and Drow personally.
So why draw a line at fiends? Why should fiends not be humanized as well? Why not humanize everything and blurr the lines completely. Let it everything have a "soul", everything be humanized and everyone is responsible for his own actions and no one is able to blame any power, deity, calling or whatever you might come up with. Its your action - deal with it skeleton, ooze, zombie, dragon, Mindflayer or you little oak tree.
This ultra humanization of everything sounds very inclusive. Although more like Monsterhearts compared to Dungeons&Dragons. ;)
Fiends are not playable characters so there is that....plus you know the whole "Slippery Slope" fallacy is pretty clear here as well.
Ye know what? Never mind. it's not worth it. Y'all have fun committing war crimes on as many orcs as your DM lets you find. I'll do better at my own-assed personal table, and that will have to be good enough for me.
We should completely remove any possibility of conflict and necessity for cooperation, engagement and sacrifice out of Dungeons&Dragons and make sure all conflicts are always settled dipomatically and with all parties to a mutual consent to the terms of things going forward.
I don't have an issue with people upholding/cherishing tradition, Nightbinder. At least, I assume you're speaking to me and the point I made earlier concerning tradition when you bring it up. I imagine any reasonable person wouldn't have an issue with people simply enjoying their traditions
I wasn't addressing my statement to you in particular. I have seen the same argument made by others. I was addressing in general to those who hold the same school of thought. That being said I appreciate your discourse
My issue is specifically with those weaponizing capital-T Tradition and using it to either beat new players into line or beat them out of the hobby. "These are our traditions - abide by them or leave" deals are never really okay, especially when one fails to examine one's traditions to see if they still hold up. Note that in the entirety of Critical Role's second campaign, alignment never came up once. Not in the game itself. There were a few jokes about Fjord the 'Lawful Good' hexblade warlock of Uk'otoa summoning demons in a couple of Talks episodes, but that was the sum totality of alignment's impact on the second campaign of the most popular/successful D&D streaming show by a country mile.
I can understand not wanting to weaponize alignment. I think everyone would agree with you. If I am honest however and I like to think of myself a a reasonable and fair person the most vehement side of this discussion as I scroll back through the numerous pages seems to come from the side that wants alignment removed. Here and in other threads regarding alignment those who oppose it have said statements like "It serves now useful purpose and is outdated" have used the term grognard, have accused people of not being able sympathize with others when I think the people have given reasonable arguments for it being made it the game. In fairness, I think is the pro-alignment removers that have been on the offensive and could be construed as saying that belittles the otherside. That being said, which side did what more is a distraction. I will say I agree with you the alignments should not be weaponized indeed I live by the 2E model of alignment should be a tool not a straightjacket. So we agree on that.
Lastly, as an addendum I don't define Critical Role as the gold standard of role-playing. Alignment never came up in CR that is great. I have said previously that 5E disassociated class mechanics and game mechanics in 5E so unless a player does something that is really eye-brow raising or possibly egregious to their alignment it should not have come up in a standard DnD game. If alignment is not distracting in Critical Role as you say then why remove it? It is far easier to ignore a rule then to an implement a rule in general.
Alignment is a useful tool for DMs who want a clear-cut, black-and-white, Good vs. Evil campaign where nobody ever questions Good, nor ever forgives Evil. Alignment is also a useful tool for meme makers who have long since treated it as a ready-made, easily laughed-at meme format for organizing characters in popular media franchises. Alignment is actively counterproductive in shades-of-grey games, or games more focused on survival in a vicious world than on Heroes Saving the Day from Evil. It is a tool, little more, and the fact that players are violently protesting its removal from a handful of monster stat blocks in a horror book worries me. D&D has long been the "give a man a fish" sort of game, publishing expensive pre-written adventures for DMs to buy without ever actually doing much to teach a Game Master how to actually Master their Games. It's always fallen to third parties to teach a man to fish.
The removal of alignment from critter stat blocks should honestly be a nothingburger because a proper GM can look at a critter's stat block and what that critter is doing in the game the GM is running and assign it an alignment, if they need to, within seconds. A GM should not need Wizards to tell them the alignment of every single critter in D&D - a GM should know how the alignment tool (tee hee) works well enough to simply use it.
So I am actual a fan of Sword & Sorcery fiction within fantasy versus standard high fantasy. My favorite writers are people like Robert E. Howard (Conan, Kull, etc.) Michael Moorcock (Elric), Fritz Leiber (Fafhrd & The Gray Mouser), and Charles R. Saunders (Imaro) versus Tolkien and Arthurian Myths, etc. I prefer shades of gray games. Alignment has not been a distraction at all in terms of the morally gray games I play or run.
The removal of alignment from critter stat blocks should honestly be a nothingburger because a proper GM can look at a critter's stat block and what that critter is doing in the game the GM is running and assign it an alignment, if they need to, within seconds. A GM should not need Wizards to tell them the alignment of every single critter in D&D - a GM should know how the alignment tool (tee hee) works well enough to simply use it.
Except it is not a big nothing burger. Yes, it maybe a nothing burger in terms of removing alignment from the standard playable races like drow and goblinoids. I would say most people either don't mind this per se or are at least neutral (no pun intended) towards it even if they think it is a bit overkill. It is not a nothing burger when you consider the Great Wheel cosmology which is the default cosmology of DnD. It is not a nothing burger when you consider that Planescape along with Dark Sun and Ravenloft got the most votes for the most popular campaign worlds to be realized (not Planescape revolved very heavily around alignment and philosophy). It is not a nothing burger in the context of The Blood War and the interaction between the Demons, Devils, and Yugoloth and the distinction between them and their battle over the definition of evil which has impacted all the Outer Planes (and beyond to a lesser extent). Again, if in the Ravenloft book WOTC has made the non-sentient races neutral or left blank but kept the blatantly evil and sentient monsters as having some alignments I don't think this would have been as big an issue.
in 4e, they simplified alignment and (iirc) reduced the mechanics that leveraged alignment.
No, they completely removed them, as far as I know.
Well, to help inform your thoughts moving forward, you are wrong. 4E both simplified alignment and still had a handful of mechanics that cared, though to a much lesser degree from previous editions. I know this because I played 4E through its entire seven year run, and interacted with those mechanics.
I also played 4e for years and do not remember any mechanic, can you please elaborate ?
At bare minimum, I remember there being a small handful of magic items that cared about the attuner's alignment, a few artifact-level items or sentient items that players would rarely come across. There were also a very small number of monsters who had certain powers that technically cared about character alignment, but again, they were very few and far between. It is quite believable that a person could play 4E and never come across alignment mechanics that affect them if the DM wasn't interested in using those exceptions to the design philosophy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
We could also just try to understand that its a work of fiction in a world filled with magic and fictional gods that created them with a mind and a purpose thats all over the place for a lot of races. Nothing of which holds true in our scientific minds and views of today and nothing we call reality. But maybe we should give all sentient beings a complete human mindset and diverse nature. So that all races are basically just different clothes we put on with no real meaning and zero edges.
I know what fiction is, but speaking about people like they are less than people is an abuse that I and other people have suffered in real life. However it is meant in intention, this kind of language is hurtful as a consequence. I'm letting you know that I find it personally demeaning and hurtful, so please stop.
It is also something that WOTC has explicitly said they are going to change, so your suggestion contradicts the official statement of Wizards of the Coast.
I guess my question is at what point does it become nonsensical not to print something because someone might get triggered? I am telling as a Liberal Black dude that Dark Sun for example is one of my all time favorite worlds. So, now because of this what I consider overkill on sensitivity do we not publish that world because slavery was so prevalent in it? If so doe we print it with the quite frankly ridiculous amounts of trigger and safeword warnings that existed in Ravenloft (a horror product). I mean Stephen King books which are made for the same age range as Ravenloft and heck even R.L. Stine did not come with the number of safety warnings. This seems to be phenomena specific to the DnD gaming audience. Do we not have adventures with violence in them....in a fantasy game because MANY people in life have experienced some form of physical violence or the threat there of and can suffer episodes when exposed to it like soldiers who have PTSD (and many people in the military also game btw). So like should an adventure ever show a town or village getting burn to the ground and violence done to the residents by villains (I am sorry I mean misunderstood morally complex people)?
YES I fully admit some people can be triggered by a host of things but in general in fiction it has never been the norm in literature that through vague and circuitous associations (big gray skin humans w/tusk that don't look like any humanoid race or have cultural proclivities of any existing IRL race but because they are shown as evil could possibly offend people of an IRL race) could cause harm to others. If we did Shakespeare would be removed from high school curriculums due to the fact that it could glorify suicide. BTW Romeo Juliet didn't come with a warning even in the new editions (that I have seen) but Ravenloft did LOL. I find it laughable.
Then LITERALLY right after that:
"But the simple truth is that there is no curse of ruin. No supernatural power drives orcs to kill. Rather, they are simply victims of the same selfish, violent impulses that corrupt all mortal beings"
So no....they just like any other race. And yes this is infinitely better.
LOL I was just going to point that out as well. It is right there plain as day.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
"It's fiction, therefor it can't possibly hurt anyone" is a bad argument. Please stop using it. Even if a player's experiences playing D&D were not just as real as their experiences playing football, watching a movie, or gfoing about their workday? People have said - hundreds of times, by now - in this thread and many others that they've experienced pain from D&D's portrayal of "subhuman" species.
So please. Let's dispense with "It's fiction, therefor it can't possibly hurt anyone."
Please do not contact or message me.
"Rather, they are simply victims of the same selfish, violent impulses that corrupt all mortal beings"
I am not sure how you can read that and interpret it as "Yeah but they are different..."
because it literally says otherwise.....the pull he talks about exists in ALL mortal creatures.... that's literally the whole point they are making.
They're not true scotsmen, got it.
Ignore the makers' words all you want, they are writing orcs as people.
"Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. Despite our conscious efforts to the contrary, we have allowed some of those old descriptions to reappear in the game. We recognize that to live our values, we have to do an even better job in handling these issues. If we make mistakes, our priority is to make things right."
followed by
"In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples. We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do."
So yes WotC sees them as people just like humans or any other humanoid race....AND that their depictions DO think "compared to real life abuse or racism"....its very clear they see it as a problem and are working towards a solution. Drow have already received a change...Orcs are probably coming once they actually take a moment to sit and think on how to make it work.
This was not just about orcs, you made a blanket statement about fantasy "races" in total and I told you that I found this language personally hurtful and demeaning. I brought up nothing about human rights or anything. I said that this language mirrored abuse that I have experienced in real life as an explanation. I was pretty sure you didn't intentionally set out to say hurtful things. One would think that if someone did something hurtful accidentally and then had it explained to them, one would be contrite? But I guess not. It seems you're just doubling down.
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!
Yes they feel a pull....but that pull is in all races not just Orcs. Its right there....its the entire point of the comment thread you keep referring to. They are people and suffer the same struggles with violence and anger that all people do.
Moving forward yes they will make Orcs different and forgo alignment....that is an accurate description of what will happen.
"We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do... When every D&D book is reprinted, we have an opportunity to correct errors that we or the broader D&D community discovered in that book. Each year, we use those opportunities to fix a variety of things, including errors in judgment... We will continue this process, reviewing each book as it comes up for a reprint and fixing such errors where they are present."
I'm not sure what the reprint schedule is on every book, nor just how much editing work they can put into this. But, again, their intent is clear.
Exactly....its abundantly clear what they think about the whole thing and what they want to do to rectify it. There is no debate there.
Who is saying that humanoids can't be regarded as fictional people? :D
I mean people literally means "the members of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group." I don't think anyone is contesting that.
But to get into it - I'm ready to pick up some pitchforks for the Gnolls today.
My god how have they suffered in 5e.... poor bastards. Such nice people in older editions.
Thirst for Blood.
No goodness or compassion resides in the heart of a gnoll. Like a demon, it lacks anything resembling a conscience, and can’t be taught or coerced to put aside its destructive tendencies. The gnolls’ frenzied bloodlust makes them an enemy to all, and when they lack a common foe, they fight among themselves. Even the most savage orcs avoid allying with gnolls.
I agree....especially since Eberron has them as humanoids too that are not just mindless killing machines. So much better than just some slapped on lore about blood soaked nightmare that is only good for killing.
I would say if they truly wanted to keep them as lacking a soul then make them Fiends and be done with it....but since they are listed as humanoid in the books I would say they deserve the same treatment as Orcs and Drow personally.
One year is nothing in a publishing world...they have barely put out the books they had planned well before this statement even was made....plus you know....COVID-19.
Its abundantly clear what they think on the matter even if you do not personally like it.
Plus they just literally put out new drow lore last month: https://dnd.wizards.com/story/legend-of-drizzt
[Redacted By self]
Ye know what? Never mind. it's not worth it. Y'all have fun committing war crimes on as many orcs as your DM lets you find. I'll do better at my own-assed personal table, and that will have to be good enough for me.
Please do not contact or message me.
So why draw a line at fiends? Why should fiends not be humanized as well? Why not humanize everything and blurr the lines completely. Let it everything have a "soul", everything be humanized and everyone is responsible for his own actions and no one is able to blame any power, deity, calling or whatever you might come up with. Its your action - deal with it skeleton, ooze, zombie, dragon, Mindflayer or you little oak tree.
This ultra humanization of everything sounds very inclusive. Although more like Monsterhearts compared to Dungeons&Dragons. ;)
Fiends are not playable characters so there is that....plus you know the whole "Slippery Slope" fallacy is pretty clear here as well.
We should completely remove any possibility of conflict and necessity for cooperation, engagement and sacrifice out of Dungeons&Dragons and make sure all conflicts are always settled dipomatically and with all parties to a mutual consent to the terms of things going forward.
I wasn't addressing my statement to you in particular. I have seen the same argument made by others. I was addressing in general to those who hold the same school of thought. That being said I appreciate your discourse
I can understand not wanting to weaponize alignment. I think everyone would agree with you. If I am honest however and I like to think of myself a a reasonable and fair person the most vehement side of this discussion as I scroll back through the numerous pages seems to come from the side that wants alignment removed. Here and in other threads regarding alignment those who oppose it have said statements like "It serves now useful purpose and is outdated" have used the term grognard, have accused people of not being able sympathize with others when I think the people have given reasonable arguments for it being made it the game. In fairness, I think is the pro-alignment removers that have been on the offensive and could be construed as saying that belittles the otherside. That being said, which side did what more is a distraction. I will say I agree with you the alignments should not be weaponized indeed I live by the 2E model of alignment should be a tool not a straightjacket. So we agree on that.
Lastly, as an addendum I don't define Critical Role as the gold standard of role-playing. Alignment never came up in CR that is great. I have said previously that 5E disassociated class mechanics and game mechanics in 5E so unless a player does something that is really eye-brow raising or possibly egregious to their alignment it should not have come up in a standard DnD game. If alignment is not distracting in Critical Role as you say then why remove it? It is far easier to ignore a rule then to an implement a rule in general.
So I am actual a fan of Sword & Sorcery fiction within fantasy versus standard high fantasy. My favorite writers are people like Robert E. Howard (Conan, Kull, etc.) Michael Moorcock (Elric), Fritz Leiber (Fafhrd & The Gray Mouser), and Charles R. Saunders (Imaro) versus Tolkien and Arthurian Myths, etc. I prefer shades of gray games. Alignment has not been a distraction at all in terms of the morally gray games I play or run.
Except it is not a big nothing burger. Yes, it maybe a nothing burger in terms of removing alignment from the standard playable races like drow and goblinoids. I would say most people either don't mind this per se or are at least neutral (no pun intended) towards it even if they think it is a bit overkill. It is not a nothing burger when you consider the Great Wheel cosmology which is the default cosmology of DnD. It is not a nothing burger when you consider that Planescape along with Dark Sun and Ravenloft got the most votes for the most popular campaign worlds to be realized (not Planescape revolved very heavily around alignment and philosophy). It is not a nothing burger in the context of The Blood War and the interaction between the Demons, Devils, and Yugoloth and the distinction between them and their battle over the definition of evil which has impacted all the Outer Planes (and beyond to a lesser extent). Again, if in the Ravenloft book WOTC has made the non-sentient races neutral or left blank but kept the blatantly evil and sentient monsters as having some alignments I don't think this would have been as big an issue.
At bare minimum, I remember there being a small handful of magic items that cared about the attuner's alignment, a few artifact-level items or sentient items that players would rarely come across. There were also a very small number of monsters who had certain powers that technically cared about character alignment, but again, they were very few and far between. It is quite believable that a person could play 4E and never come across alignment mechanics that affect them if the DM wasn't interested in using those exceptions to the design philosophy.
I guess my question is at what point does it become nonsensical not to print something because someone might get triggered? I am telling as a Liberal Black dude that Dark Sun for example is one of my all time favorite worlds. So, now because of this what I consider overkill on sensitivity do we not publish that world because slavery was so prevalent in it? If so doe we print it with the quite frankly ridiculous amounts of trigger and safeword warnings that existed in Ravenloft (a horror product). I mean Stephen King books which are made for the same age range as Ravenloft and heck even R.L. Stine did not come with the number of safety warnings. This seems to be phenomena specific to the DnD gaming audience. Do we not have adventures with violence in them....in a fantasy game because MANY people in life have experienced some form of physical violence or the threat there of and can suffer episodes when exposed to it like soldiers who have PTSD (and many people in the military also game btw). So like should an adventure ever show a town or village getting burn to the ground and violence done to the residents by villains (I am sorry I mean misunderstood morally complex people)?
YES I fully admit some people can be triggered by a host of things but in general in fiction it has never been the norm in literature that through vague and circuitous associations (big gray skin humans w/tusk that don't look like any humanoid race or have cultural proclivities of any existing IRL race but because they are shown as evil could possibly offend people of an IRL race) could cause harm to others. If we did Shakespeare would be removed from high school curriculums due to the fact that it could glorify suicide. BTW Romeo Juliet didn't come with a warning even in the new editions (that I have seen) but Ravenloft did LOL. I find it laughable.