"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Thats a kinda cool homebrew, but the fact that the way you've needed to make this in order to avoid the issue is "self-replicating robots which inherit their alignment" should tell you why they have removed the "inherit their alignment" part from the races!
As long as the cultural histories and tendencies continue to be mentioned in the sources, alignment will be unnecessary. A 3x3 grid of vague personality categories is as restrictive as it is inaccurate, but a history—even brief or summarized—tells more about a culture than trying to use 9 labels to describe them.
I mean, look at Dragonborn. The sections titled Proud dragon kin, Self-sufficient clans, Dragonborn names, and Dragonborn traits say so much more than any alignment and have far more freedom than any alignment.
I see it less as removing alignments and more moving alignments out of the way of what's already there and what probably should supersede alignments anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
The person that wrote that article is an absolute idiot responsible for writing other idiotic articles such as "We shouldn't take School Shooting threats that seriously, because kids are kids", "Is being Transgender contagious, like this Transphobic POS says it is? I think it is something worth considering.", and "Are Ghosts Real? No, but I really wish they were." I wouldn't take the advice/opinion of that guy if my life depended on it.
Furthermore, the history of racist depictions of Orcs in D&D is much more complicated than he paints. This thread about the older setting Mystara proves that D&D's Orcs have had absolutely racist depictions in the past.
That article (and the person that wrote it) is absolutely full of BS. Facts absolutely do not agree with him.
Thats a kinda cool homebrew, but the fact that the way you've needed to make this in order to avoid the issue is "self-replicating robots which inherit their alignment" should tell you why they have removed the "inherit their alignment" part from the races!
Exactly... Is why I'm not sure why they would post that and then also post the oft cited (but not well understood) "orcs aren't racist" article.
Which is like the only article I've ever heard that states that by the way.... I've not seen many more have that take.
Where has the alignment trait gone? I know it isn't binding for player characters (often the reason for adventuring is that one is an outcast whose morals don't align with the community), but it was very useful both for DMs and players for knowing how the community/culture is.
The horrible, loud, aggressive minority of the community (most of whom don't play or DM, but only want to cause trouble) have been ruling what WotC produce since TCoE. They need to stop, and it needs to be realised that FANTASY races are NOT human, and the people who try to compare them to real-world groups of humans are actually being racist themselves (by comparing the real-world humans to the fantasy races).
(I've put my rant about it in spoiler tags. If you were previously having a good day, don't read it.)
Case in point: Orcs. Orcs basically are the answer to the question "what happens if innately good creatures like elves are corrupted to the extent that they almost become demons". Because warmongering is something that Tolkien considered evil (and the orcs were supposed to be as evil as a mortal creature could be), then he took inspiration from the Mongols at around the time of first European contact, a society that seemed to promote war for its own sake. Tolkien also took a bit of inspiration from the evils of all other human societies of history.
HOWEVER!!!! Orcs do not represent any real-world racial group, but are, rather, the "subversion" or "corruption" of the good elves (who also don't represent any real-world group, other than insofar as they represent the Christian values of love, peace, etc.). This "subversion", "inversion", or "corruption" is a common theme of what evil does to good things. It turns everything good about them into bad.
Those people who try to say "hey but they took some inspiration from ancient Mongols and Africans, so therefore they must represent present-day Mongols and Africans, so therefore they cannot be made to be evil" are basically saying "present-day Mongols and Africans are like orcs", which... if anything sounds like a racist comment, it's that.
I could not agree more. It's sad really when such a vital concept for society - morality - is seen by some as offensive. The torturous logic required to make it so is almost frightening.
I, for one, wholeheartedly support the change to remove listed/recommended alignment from player races, and have absolutely no objections to the concept of morality. Because that would be idiotic and morally bankrupt. So, unless you're fine calling literally everyone that disagrees with you a morally bankrupt idiot, I suggest that you stop this line of "debating".
The "torturous logic" at use here is whatever "logic" you used to label people that don't want alignment listed in the racial statistics of sentient player races as somehow objecting to the very concept of "morality". There is absolutely no logic behind that accusation, and you would have to be deranged in order to believe it. So, either you're lying in order to support your viewpoint, or your real name is Don Quixote.
Of course some of those pushing for the change say "Its about options, not racism" .And why does THAT particular OPTION in THIS particular place and time in the game's history need to change?
That absolutely is the reason. It is 100% about options. There are a ton of different versions of the standard D&D races in published D&D worlds. There is absolutely no reason why a race that exists in multiple different versions across multiple different D&D settings should have any listed cultural traits as major as a listed alignment attached to them. There is no justification for that beyond "tradition", which is just about the flimsiest justification one could give for any point of discussion.
It doesn't "need" to change, but the game is better off with this change. It's just better.
Is it also coincidental that the same people are pushing to remove ASIs for races too?
You've got this backwards. Is there a reason why the same people that seem to oppose removing racial ASIs are also the same people that oppose removing racial Alignment and racial cultural features? To that, the answer is obvious: these same people are largely the ones that have been members of the hobby for a decades. The people that don't want this to change are the ones that would oppose any changes to the core of D&D, because of TRADITION!
So, no, it's not a coincidence that there seem to be "two sides" to this issue; those that feel that the game should be beholden to its past to the extent that nothing about it (except for minor rule updates) should ever change and those that want D&D to change for the better no-matter how it existed in the past.
And their assertion is that it has nooootthhhing to do with real world race issues...or Wokeness......OK. Sure. Just a coincidence. My bad :)
Ah. "Wokeness". There it is, guys. Before, I didn't think that the use of a single word could completely discredit the entirety of a person's argument, but now I've been proven wrong. Using that word in this context as if it has any meaning or relevance really didn't seem to accomplish what you thought it would.
Anyone that uses "Wokeness" unironically is automatically discredited of any sort of legitimacy that they or their argument previously had. And given that your argument already had no legitimacy . . . I just want to congratulate you on somehow being able to make it even more full of BS than it was already.
My general opinion on alignment in D&D is that it ranges somewhere between uselessly vague and nonsense. My villains don't do things because they're "evil", they do things because it gives them something they want at a cost they're willing to pay, and what makes them villains is sometimes what they want, more often what they're willing to do to get what they want.
I see people against the ASIs complaining that it's done for 'wokeness' yet whenever I see people actually defending or celebrating to shift away from pre set racial ASIs, they're always arguing in favor of character options. I never see people celebrating this change because of 'wokeness.' Is it just me and I'm not seeing the people doing this, or is this another instance of people complaining about something more than the thing is actually happening?
"Wokeness" is as fictional as orcs, so that's not surprising
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Most people who hate alignment just can't (or don't) understand it. It's merely an extra roleplaying aid (you know, in a role playing game) meant to help new players understand who their character is, opposed to the old system where it barred you within certain races/classes. I agree with you, wizards should stop making every race into piles of moldable putty with no basic defining cultural traits. They're meant only to be suggestions but far too many people treat them as rules. the easiest solution is to keep races as they were pre Tasha's (fixed racial modifiers, culture, lore, etc.) but VERY clearly show that these are merely optional.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards should bring back old settings and try to stop neglecting the other continents of the Forgotten Realms.
Yes I like realmslore, why do you ask?
I like dragon quest and deltarune. Yes I realize this invalidates both me and my opinion.
I hate how Fantasy words like Mezoberainian get the little red spellcheck line.
I believe in TORTLE SUPREMECY
"Hey all Scott here and this is bad, real bad"- Scott Wozniak (also every session I seem to run)
Most people who hate alignment just can't (or don't) understand it.
Now, that's just completely unfounded. I understand alignment, but still hate it. I understand the difference between Good and Evil and Law and Chaos. I understand the Great Wheel Cosmology, Planescape, and the Blood War.
So, you're preemptively assuming that literally everyone on the face of the Earth that knows about and understands D&D's alignment system is mandated to like it. I understand a ton of things that I don't like. I understand bigotry. I understand League of Legends. I understand avocados. That doesn't mean that I like any of that stuff. The same thing applies to Alignment.
It's merely an extra roleplaying aid (you know, in a role playing game) meant to help new players understand who their character is, opposed to the old system where it barred you within certain races/classes.
Which we already have an entirely different system for in D&D 5e. We already have Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws in D&D 5e that accomplish exactly that goal, but to an even greater extent than what alignment grants.
So, in 5e, Alignment is both redundant and inferior to the Personality Traits system that we have built into the character creation system.
I agree with you, wizards should stop making every race into piles of moldable putty with no basic defining cultural traits. They're meant only to be suggestions but far too many people treat them as rules. the easiest solution is to keep races as they were pre Tasha's (fixed racial modifiers, culture, lore, etc.) but VERY clearly show that these are merely optional.
No. Just plain no. That way is not better. Keeping cultural traits out of races is one of the best developments to D&D 5e that has happened since the start of this edition. If it's not a biological trait (Dwarven Resilience, Natural Armor, Wings, Innate Spellcasting) it should absolutely not be included in the racial mechanics. Dwarven Weapon Training, Language and Tool Proficiencies, listed alignment, and so on all should be kept out of racial mechanics and moved to their own thing (which 2024's revision of the Core Rules is almost guaranteed to do).
And it's more immersive and realistic than the previous version. There's absolutely no reason why literally every Dwarf on every D&D world should speak Dwarven, be proficient in Axes and Hammers, and somehow know how to use Mason's Tools. If that Dwarf was raised by Goblins or Goliaths, their cultural proficiencies should echo that. If they were like Tarzan and grew up in the wilds away from civilization and other sentient humanoids, they shouldn't get those proficiencies.
This new version is just way better. Culture isn't genetic, and anything that isn't genetic shouldn't be included in racial mechanics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Most people who hate alignment just can't (or don't) understand it.
If that was the case, they would change their mind when someone explained it, which manifestly doesn't happen. People hate alignment because it's garbage.
I've never had much use for alignment, and ignore it almost entirely (traits, bonds, ideals, flaws and backstory are far more useful). As a DM, I don't even look at the alignments my players pick. As for monster races, I mostly create my own sense of their morality, values, beliefs and behaviors to fit the world/story/campaign/session and so I ignore alignment there as well.
I guess my point is, I have yet to play D&D with someone who doesn't have a pretty good imagination and/or creative side. So I have difficulty believing that people who want orcs to be 100% big, bad, evil, evil, evil won't just make it so in their game, just as I have little doubt that there have probably always been people who choose to run orcs as nearly every other possible combination, including near saints who show up and save the day. I do think that creating monsters/races/creatures/beings that are more diverse, dynamic and potentially morally ambiguous is far more interesting and exciting. Also, whether or not it makes sense to you (or me or whomever) freeing up alignment definitely seems more inclusive. Personally, I'll choose inclusivity over tradition six ways to Sunday every time.
I'm ok with them returning alignment to races, but only if Humans are set to be Chaotic Evil. I mean, seriously, have you seen those people lately? What a disaster.
On a serious note, the current system is better for players, DM's, and worlds. The world is a far more interesting place when Orcs can be shopkeepers and Drow can be Dancers and so on and so forth. If it's just "I see a goblin, therefore I kill it", that's super unexciting. I cannot tell you how many "bad" creatures my players have saved and adopted into their party because they are adorable and fun! Droop the Goblin, Larry the Kobold, they adored those characters. If I had to stick with the alignment on the page, those characters wouldn't have happened.
It's a good thing to not give people the impression that "all of this type of people are bad." While you would think that people can separate games from real life, if you start people off with that kind of thinking for a game, it can transfer into everyday life. It's much better to say "beings are complicated. They are what they are because of choice, upbringing, and circumstance." If you choose to have all the orcs in your game be evil, at least have a good reason why. Indoctrination from an early age, subjugation by an extra-planar being, etc. Things that can be changed or maybe even fixed by the party, at least for some groups/clans/towns/etc.
While you would think that people can separate games from real life, if you start people off with that kind of thinking for a game, it can transfer into everyday life.
Gee where have we heard this before? Not only conservatives and the media railing against violent video games making kids into school shooters, but the entire satanic panic of the 70s and 80s! Seriously. I lived through those decades where adults seriously thought that playing D&D would make you kill people in real life.
THIS is why I hate this argument about alignment and "evil races" in D&D. It is just a game, and if you think people can't tell the difference then you are as bad as the fundamentalist conservatives of the satanic panic or the video game backlash.
And in the end, if we make Orcs or Goblins "complicated people who are more than just evil" we'll just end up replacing them with another "evil race" to kill. Like, I don't know... Devils, Demons, Illithids, etc.
We are talking about a make believe world were all powerful gods can exist with the power to create an entire race of creatures in any fashion they want, so yes, it is possible for there to be an entirely evil race in D&D, and no, it won't make me kill people in real life.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
It is just a game, and if you think people can't tell the difference then you are as bad as the fundamentalist conservatives of the satanic panic or the video game backlash.
This is an irrelevant point. It isn't and never has been about people's inability to tell the different between a game and reality. I wish people would stop repeating that. The portrayal of entire peoples with certain tropes and stereotypes has the potential and the demonstrated history of causing actual and direct harm to people. I've provided links already to first hand accounts from people on these forums, including me, talking about how the portrayal of fictional races can hurt us. Please believe us and take our stories seriously.
While you would think that people can separate games from real life, if you start people off with that kind of thinking for a game, it can transfer into everyday life.
Gee where have we heard this before? Not only conservatives and the media railing against violent video games making kids into school shooters, but the entire satanic panic of the 70s and 80s! Seriously. I lived through those decades where adults seriously thought that playing D&D would make you kill people in real life.
THIS is why I hate this argument about alignment and "evil races" in D&D. It is just a game, and if you think people can't tell the difference then you are as bad as the fundamentalist conservatives of the satanic panic or the video game backlash.
And in the end, if we make Orcs or Goblins "complicated people who are more than just evil" we'll just end up replacing them with another "evil race" to kill. Like, I don't know... Devils, Demons, Illithids, etc.
We are talking about a make believe world were all powerful gods can exist with the power to create an entire race of creatures in any fashion they want, so yes, it is possible for there to be an entirely evil race in D&D, and no, it won't make me kill people in real life.
I'm not suggesting that if you have all Orcs be evil that players will start slaughtering innocent real-life people in the street, and I have never agreed that violent video games make people more violent. I'm merely suggesting that having a way of thinking that is "All this one type of being are bad" is not only lazy, but doesn't do much to stretch people's thought processes away from thinking similarly about other groups of people.
You can always make your world however you want, and if you want a specific group to all be one thing, then go for it. I don't think it's necessary to have an all-evil or all-kill-on-sight race at all. There's no reason all Devils, Demons, or Illithids have to be murdered the second you see them. Hell, people make deals with Devils all the time, so not everyone is murdering them the second they get within Melee range.
Again, you can always make your games however you want. The rule changes don't do anything to stop that. In general I like my games to have more nuance than "That thing doesn't look human, guess I'll chop its head off."
I see people against the ASIs complaining that it's done for 'wokeness' yet whenever I see people actually defending or celebrating to shift away from pre set racial ASIs, they're always arguing in favor of character options. I never see people celebrating this change because of 'wokeness.' Is it just me and I'm not seeing the people doing this, or is this another instance of people complaining about something more than the thing is actually happening?
So I don't claim to be woke because I don't think it's something you can label yourself. It's something to strive for constantly, but calling yourself woke is presumptuous. No matter aware you are of inequality, you could probably always be more so and should be learning more every day. That said, I personally do celebrate the change to ASI's as step to make D&D more inclusive and representative in their portrayals of people of different backgrounds. I don't know if it makes a difference, but here's my experience of it from THIS OLD THREAD:
So weird as it might seem after all the digital ink I've spilled on this topic, but I don't hate fixed racial ASI's. Or at least, I didn't.
I was ... used to them. It was just kind of the default in fantasy gaming. And then the blinders were taken off and I could see what things could be like without them and things were so much better. It's almost like I didn't realize the burden I was carrying until it was lifted. Through discussions here on the forums I got stories about how other gamers, mostly gamers of color, had had negative experiences with racialized stats and I remembered how I've run into stereotypes irl that were irritating and othering in ways that's hard to explain, like the seemingly positive stereotypes, "Oh you're Asian, you're good at math, right?" that made me feel like even my friends didn't really see me they just saw some cookie cutter movie archetype that looked like me. It kind of clicked something and thinking about playing with racialized ASI's, even the mostly all positive ones in 5E started to feel like when someone cracks a joke and you don't quite know what it means but it kinda feels like they're making fun of you but you just laugh along with them because you don't want to spoil the mood.
After that I internally just came to the conclusion that, "Nope, racial ASI's shouldn't be a thing." The thing is I honestly think the game is better and healthier without them. If I were to develop chargen suggestions for the different peoples of D&D I would probably make them very specific. Maybe some lore blurbs in the writeups that go something like: "The gnomish communities of Lantan pride themselves on producing highly skilled engineers and artificers." You get a feel of what kind of reputation the people have in a particular world without the developers telling you this is how these people are.
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!
It is just a game, and if you think people can't tell the difference then you are as bad as the fundamentalist conservatives of the satanic panic or the video game backlash.
This is an irrelevant point. It isn't and never has been about people's inability to tell the different between a game and reality. I wish people would stop repeating that. The portrayal of entire peoples with certain tropes and stereotypes has the potential and the demonstrated history of causing actual and direct harm to people. I've provided links already to first hand accounts from people on these forums, including me, talking about how the portrayal of fictional races can hurt us. Please believe us and take our stories seriously.
Monstrous races in D&D are not, and do not have to be, analogues for Humans! Orcs are not Humans! Drow are not humans!
This idea that EVERY sentient race in D&D must be equal, and an analogue for humans is absurd. Some creatures evolve differently than others. Gorillas are not humans, but they are all stronger than humans. That's how they evolved!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
It is just a game, and if you think people can't tell the difference then you are as bad as the fundamentalist conservatives of the satanic panic or the video game backlash.
This is an irrelevant point. It isn't and never has been about people's inability to tell the different between a game and reality. I wish people would stop repeating that. The portrayal of entire peoples with certain tropes and stereotypes has the potential and the demonstrated history of causing actual and direct harm to people. I've provided links already to first hand accounts from people on these forums, including me, talking about how the portrayal of fictional races can hurt us. Please believe us and take our stories seriously.
Monstrous races in D&D are not, and do not have to be, analogues for Humans! Orcs are not Humans! Drow are not humans!
This idea that EVERY sentient race in D&D must be equal, and an analogue for humans is absurd. Some creatures evolve differently than others. Gorillas are not humans, but they are all stronger than humans. That's how they evolved!
Yeah no, stop bringing evolution into this. That's a bad point for a number of reasons: 1) Bioessentialism is bad for gaming. 2) Fictional races don't have to be analogues for humans in order for people to identify with them and be identified with them, they just have to be direct analogues for people. 3) Fiction is fiction, that we can agree, but where you have some sort of need to maintain some sort of fictional biological "realism" I see a chance for fiction to truly portray a fantasy where people are not inherently unequal from each other. If you're going to make a fantastical world, why not take that opportunity to make that fantastical world freeing and diverse and frankly more fun than the real world? Why is biological inequality so important to you that you need to defend it so? And most importantly ... 4) You literally just ignored me telling you how a portrayal of a fictional race hurt me, personally. And there are plenty of other personal stories on this forum alone. This isn't some story I'm making up for points, this isn't a hypothetical, this isn't unrelated. Can you not see that?
From Psychology Today "No, Orcs aren't racist" https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/checkpoints/202004/no-orcs-arent-racist
And for those who want it, I've made an alternative to Orcs that no one can complain about because they aren't orcs.
I give you... the Crona. https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/2241093-crona
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Thats a kinda cool homebrew, but the fact that the way you've needed to make this in order to avoid the issue is "self-replicating robots which inherit their alignment" should tell you why they have removed the "inherit their alignment" part from the races!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here
As long as the cultural histories and tendencies continue to be mentioned in the sources, alignment will be unnecessary. A 3x3 grid of vague personality categories is as restrictive as it is inaccurate, but a history—even brief or summarized—tells more about a culture than trying to use 9 labels to describe them.
I mean, look at Dragonborn. The sections titled Proud dragon kin, Self-sufficient clans, Dragonborn names, and Dragonborn traits say so much more than any alignment and have far more freedom than any alignment.
I see it less as removing alignments and more moving alignments out of the way of what's already there and what probably should supersede alignments anyway.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
The person that wrote that article is an absolute idiot responsible for writing other idiotic articles such as "We shouldn't take School Shooting threats that seriously, because kids are kids", "Is being Transgender contagious, like this Transphobic POS says it is? I think it is something worth considering.", and "Are Ghosts Real? No, but I really wish they were." I wouldn't take the advice/opinion of that guy if my life depended on it.
Furthermore, the history of racist depictions of Orcs in D&D is much more complicated than he paints. This thread about the older setting Mystara proves that D&D's Orcs have had absolutely racist depictions in the past.
That article (and the person that wrote it) is absolutely full of BS. Facts absolutely do not agree with him.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Exactly... Is why I'm not sure why they would post that and then also post the oft cited (but not well understood) "orcs aren't racist" article.
Which is like the only article I've ever heard that states that by the way.... I've not seen many more have that take.
I, for one, wholeheartedly support the change to remove listed/recommended alignment from player races, and have absolutely no objections to the concept of morality. Because that would be idiotic and morally bankrupt. So, unless you're fine calling literally everyone that disagrees with you a morally bankrupt idiot, I suggest that you stop this line of "debating".
The "torturous logic" at use here is whatever "logic" you used to label people that don't want alignment listed in the racial statistics of sentient player races as somehow objecting to the very concept of "morality". There is absolutely no logic behind that accusation, and you would have to be deranged in order to believe it. So, either you're lying in order to support your viewpoint, or your real name is Don Quixote.
That absolutely is the reason. It is 100% about options. There are a ton of different versions of the standard D&D races in published D&D worlds. There is absolutely no reason why a race that exists in multiple different versions across multiple different D&D settings should have any listed cultural traits as major as a listed alignment attached to them. There is no justification for that beyond "tradition", which is just about the flimsiest justification one could give for any point of discussion.
It doesn't "need" to change, but the game is better off with this change. It's just better.
You've got this backwards. Is there a reason why the same people that seem to oppose removing racial ASIs are also the same people that oppose removing racial Alignment and racial cultural features? To that, the answer is obvious: these same people are largely the ones that have been members of the hobby for a decades. The people that don't want this to change are the ones that would oppose any changes to the core of D&D, because of TRADITION!
So, no, it's not a coincidence that there seem to be "two sides" to this issue; those that feel that the game should be beholden to its past to the extent that nothing about it (except for minor rule updates) should ever change and those that want D&D to change for the better no-matter how it existed in the past.
Ah. "Wokeness". There it is, guys. Before, I didn't think that the use of a single word could completely discredit the entirety of a person's argument, but now I've been proven wrong. Using that word in this context as if it has any meaning or relevance really didn't seem to accomplish what you thought it would.
Anyone that uses "Wokeness" unironically is automatically discredited of any sort of legitimacy that they or their argument previously had. And given that your argument already had no legitimacy . . . I just want to congratulate you on somehow being able to make it even more full of BS than it was already.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
My general opinion on alignment in D&D is that it ranges somewhere between uselessly vague and nonsense. My villains don't do things because they're "evil", they do things because it gives them something they want at a cost they're willing to pay, and what makes them villains is sometimes what they want, more often what they're willing to do to get what they want.
"Wokeness" is as fictional as orcs, so that's not surprising
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Most people who hate alignment just can't (or don't) understand it. It's merely an extra roleplaying aid (you know, in a role playing game) meant to help new players understand who their character is, opposed to the old system where it barred you within certain races/classes. I agree with you, wizards should stop making every race into piles of moldable putty with no basic defining cultural traits. They're meant only to be suggestions but far too many people treat them as rules. the easiest solution is to keep races as they were pre Tasha's (fixed racial modifiers, culture, lore, etc.) but VERY clearly show that these are merely optional.
Wizards should bring back old settings and try to stop neglecting the other continents of the Forgotten Realms.
Yes I like realmslore, why do you ask?
I like dragon quest and deltarune. Yes I realize this invalidates both me and my opinion.
I hate how Fantasy words like Mezoberainian get the little red spellcheck line.
I believe in TORTLE SUPREMECY
"Hey all Scott here and this is bad, real bad"- Scott Wozniak (also every session I seem to run)
I think I made this a bit too long.
Now, that's just completely unfounded. I understand alignment, but still hate it. I understand the difference between Good and Evil and Law and Chaos. I understand the Great Wheel Cosmology, Planescape, and the Blood War.
So, you're preemptively assuming that literally everyone on the face of the Earth that knows about and understands D&D's alignment system is mandated to like it. I understand a ton of things that I don't like. I understand bigotry. I understand League of Legends. I understand avocados. That doesn't mean that I like any of that stuff. The same thing applies to Alignment.
Which we already have an entirely different system for in D&D 5e. We already have Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws in D&D 5e that accomplish exactly that goal, but to an even greater extent than what alignment grants.
So, in 5e, Alignment is both redundant and inferior to the Personality Traits system that we have built into the character creation system.
No. Just plain no. That way is not better. Keeping cultural traits out of races is one of the best developments to D&D 5e that has happened since the start of this edition. If it's not a biological trait (Dwarven Resilience, Natural Armor, Wings, Innate Spellcasting) it should absolutely not be included in the racial mechanics. Dwarven Weapon Training, Language and Tool Proficiencies, listed alignment, and so on all should be kept out of racial mechanics and moved to their own thing (which 2024's revision of the Core Rules is almost guaranteed to do).
And it's more immersive and realistic than the previous version. There's absolutely no reason why literally every Dwarf on every D&D world should speak Dwarven, be proficient in Axes and Hammers, and somehow know how to use Mason's Tools. If that Dwarf was raised by Goblins or Goliaths, their cultural proficiencies should echo that. If they were like Tarzan and grew up in the wilds away from civilization and other sentient humanoids, they shouldn't get those proficiencies.
This new version is just way better. Culture isn't genetic, and anything that isn't genetic shouldn't be included in racial mechanics.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If that was the case, they would change their mind when someone explained it, which manifestly doesn't happen. People hate alignment because it's garbage.
I've never had much use for alignment, and ignore it almost entirely (traits, bonds, ideals, flaws and backstory are far more useful). As a DM, I don't even look at the alignments my players pick. As for monster races, I mostly create my own sense of their morality, values, beliefs and behaviors to fit the world/story/campaign/session and so I ignore alignment there as well.
I guess my point is, I have yet to play D&D with someone who doesn't have a pretty good imagination and/or creative side. So I have difficulty believing that people who want orcs to be 100% big, bad, evil, evil, evil won't just make it so in their game, just as I have little doubt that there have probably always been people who choose to run orcs as nearly every other possible combination, including near saints who show up and save the day. I do think that creating monsters/races/creatures/beings that are more diverse, dynamic and potentially morally ambiguous is far more interesting and exciting. Also, whether or not it makes sense to you (or me or whomever) freeing up alignment definitely seems more inclusive. Personally, I'll choose inclusivity over tradition six ways to Sunday every time.
Just my two cents.
I'm ok with them returning alignment to races, but only if Humans are set to be Chaotic Evil. I mean, seriously, have you seen those people lately? What a disaster.
On a serious note, the current system is better for players, DM's, and worlds. The world is a far more interesting place when Orcs can be shopkeepers and Drow can be Dancers and so on and so forth. If it's just "I see a goblin, therefore I kill it", that's super unexciting. I cannot tell you how many "bad" creatures my players have saved and adopted into their party because they are adorable and fun! Droop the Goblin, Larry the Kobold, they adored those characters. If I had to stick with the alignment on the page, those characters wouldn't have happened.
It's a good thing to not give people the impression that "all of this type of people are bad." While you would think that people can separate games from real life, if you start people off with that kind of thinking for a game, it can transfer into everyday life. It's much better to say "beings are complicated. They are what they are because of choice, upbringing, and circumstance." If you choose to have all the orcs in your game be evil, at least have a good reason why. Indoctrination from an early age, subjugation by an extra-planar being, etc. Things that can be changed or maybe even fixed by the party, at least for some groups/clans/towns/etc.
Gee where have we heard this before? Not only conservatives and the media railing against violent video games making kids into school shooters, but the entire satanic panic of the 70s and 80s! Seriously. I lived through those decades where adults seriously thought that playing D&D would make you kill people in real life.
THIS is why I hate this argument about alignment and "evil races" in D&D. It is just a game, and if you think people can't tell the difference then you are as bad as the fundamentalist conservatives of the satanic panic or the video game backlash.
And in the end, if we make Orcs or Goblins "complicated people who are more than just evil" we'll just end up replacing them with another "evil race" to kill. Like, I don't know... Devils, Demons, Illithids, etc.
We are talking about a make believe world were all powerful gods can exist with the power to create an entire race of creatures in any fashion they want, so yes, it is possible for there to be an entirely evil race in D&D, and no, it won't make me kill people in real life.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
This is an irrelevant point. It isn't and never has been about people's inability to tell the different between a game and reality. I wish people would stop repeating that. The portrayal of entire peoples with certain tropes and stereotypes has the potential and the demonstrated history of causing actual and direct harm to people. I've provided links already to first hand accounts from people on these forums, including me, talking about how the portrayal of fictional races can hurt us. Please believe us and take our stories seriously.
Here's me talking about how a portrayal of a fictional race was hurtful.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I'm not suggesting that if you have all Orcs be evil that players will start slaughtering innocent real-life people in the street, and I have never agreed that violent video games make people more violent. I'm merely suggesting that having a way of thinking that is "All this one type of being are bad" is not only lazy, but doesn't do much to stretch people's thought processes away from thinking similarly about other groups of people.
You can always make your world however you want, and if you want a specific group to all be one thing, then go for it. I don't think it's necessary to have an all-evil or all-kill-on-sight race at all. There's no reason all Devils, Demons, or Illithids have to be murdered the second you see them. Hell, people make deals with Devils all the time, so not everyone is murdering them the second they get within Melee range.
Again, you can always make your games however you want. The rule changes don't do anything to stop that. In general I like my games to have more nuance than "That thing doesn't look human, guess I'll chop its head off."
So I don't claim to be woke because I don't think it's something you can label yourself. It's something to strive for constantly, but calling yourself woke is presumptuous. No matter aware you are of inequality, you could probably always be more so and should be learning more every day. That said, I personally do celebrate the change to ASI's as step to make D&D more inclusive and representative in their portrayals of people of different backgrounds. I don't know if it makes a difference, but here's my experience of it from THIS OLD THREAD:
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!
Monstrous races in D&D are not, and do not have to be, analogues for Humans! Orcs are not Humans! Drow are not humans!
This idea that EVERY sentient race in D&D must be equal, and an analogue for humans is absurd. Some creatures evolve differently than others. Gorillas are not humans, but they are all stronger than humans. That's how they evolved!
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Yeah no, stop bringing evolution into this. That's a bad point for a number of reasons:
1) Bioessentialism is bad for gaming.
2) Fictional races don't have to be analogues for humans in order for people to identify with them and be identified with them, they just have to be direct analogues for people.
3) Fiction is fiction, that we can agree, but where you have some sort of need to maintain some sort of fictional biological "realism" I see a chance for fiction to truly portray a fantasy where people are not inherently unequal from each other. If you're going to make a fantastical world, why not take that opportunity to make that fantastical world freeing and diverse and frankly more fun than the real world? Why is biological inequality so important to you that you need to defend it so?
And most importantly ...
4) You literally just ignored me telling you how a portrayal of a fictional race hurt me, personally. And there are plenty of other personal stories on this forum alone. This isn't some story I'm making up for points, this isn't a hypothetical, this isn't unrelated. Can you not see that?
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!