D&D 5E I thought WotC was removing biological morals?

[DarkCrisis]

And there it is.

It was always going to get to this point. It wasn't enough to say "there are also good orcs" but also how many good orcs there are and where they are. There has to be villages of good orcs, goblin shopkeepers, gnoll city guards, hobgoblin farmers, etc. Expand that beyond humanoids and you suddenly have harpy postal delivery, minotaur dock laborers, medusa stonemasons, gargoyle priesthoods, vampire innkeepers and ogre teamsters. At best, you have Ravnica or Droaam from Eberron. At worst, you have made every race basically humans in outlook. Either way, you have put a stake in the heart of classic "Keep on the Borderlands" style play and will force every classic setting back to redesign.

It was never going to be about removing alignment from the stat block, it was always going to end with a massive rewrite of the game design and its settings.

They are in the exact same place as the evil Orc village. They dont exist until you make them. Always have been. You don't need a stat block in a monster manual of mostly antagonists to do the work for you.

 

[Scribe]

But when they are saying that their view of how the races are treated should be the way that races are treated in D&D, that removing alignment from them is a horrible thing to do because then those races can't be treated the way they are in Scribe's game, then yes, I think it's fair to call out the problematic aspects of their game.

At what point did I say you must adhere to Alignment as presented with no deviation possible.

Alignment makes no difference in how things are treated, that's player choice.

You are reading whatever you wish to read when I've said no such thing.

 

[Oofta]

I've already explained this, in this thread, I believe. But: in D&D, fiends are made of literal distilled evil. They aren't shown to have any sort of free will. So, in typical D&D, yes. I think it's perfectly fine for fiends--and other supernatural beings--to be always evil.

Which to me is just "fluff makes it okay". I mean, it's fine. You do what makes sense to you and your game. Different people draw the line at different places. If any particular creature has been created by a malevolent being and not naturally evolved I see no reason they can't be just as inherently evil. For that matter, I don't think that a species that has evolved under different circumstances or different origin than humans would think like humans or share our sense of morality.

 

[Oofta]

No, Scribe's personal game doesn't need to meet my approval. But when they are saying that their view of how the races are treated should be the way that races are treated in D&D, that removing alignment from them is a horrible thing to do because then those races can't be treated the way they are in Scribe's game, then yes, I think it's fair to call out the problematic aspects of their game.

I read what Scribe said. While they want something defined, they also want it clear that it's open to change. The only problem I see is the implication that someone else is racist because they don't want every creature in the book to have human morals and outlook.

 

[mrpopstar]

It always feels bizarre to me that someone would be upset that Goliaths are stronger than Halflings. Maybe that can just be a size thing though (S/M/L have different ranges of Str and Dex?). I do understand why having that for PC races can take away the fun for some people. But if there was a race of rock elementals, intelligent gorillas, or quicklings, it kind of feels like they should get a higher con, str, and dex, respectively, to me... Are there no differences in PC race choices that are far enough apart that they should have different physical stat ranges (what if we allow pixies and hill giants?).

The strength-related difference between goliaths and halflings is represented by the goliath's Powerful Build trait, which accounts for size.

 

[Faolyn]

At what point did I say you must adhere to Alignment as presented with no deviation possible.

You've repeatedly said that removing alignment would somehow be really really horrible.

 

[Scribe]

You've repeatedly said that removing alignment would somehow be really really horrible.

To me.

I've also repeatedly said everyone is free to do whatever they wish at their own table. Feel free to look, and then provide the quote where I tell you that you literally MUST adhere to the alignment as provided.

Spoilers: You wont find it.

Instead, how about we just nod and move on from the fact you insinuate I'm a racist, because its perfectly ok for you to label someone because they like something you deem 'problematic'.

 

[jgsugden]

D&D is an RPG. A role playing game. Characters play roles in a story. Stories are full of problematic characters, views and actions.

I think the answer here is to think critically of what you have in place, and if you decide it is problematic, address it. Don't sweep it under the rug and forget it, but consider how to address the problem within the story you're telling.

 

[Faolyn]

To me.

I've also repeatedly said everyone is free to do whatever they wish at their own table. Feel free to look, and then provide the quote where I tell you that you literally MUST adhere to the alignment as provided.

Spoilers: You wont find it.

Instead, how about we just nod and move on from the fact you insinuate I'm a racist, because its perfectly ok for you to label someone because they like something you deem 'problematic'.

I never claimed you said that alignment must be adhered to. Oofta made that claim.

Nor did I say that you were racist. I said that your argument (that racial ASIs and alignments shouldn't be seen as racist because anyone can change or subvert them) sounded bad, even though I didn't think that you meant it in that manner. You also announced that other people had said you were racist for those claims.

 

[Faolyn]

I read what Scribe said. While they want something defined, they also want it clear that it's open to change. The only problem I see is the implication that someone else is racist because they don't want every creature in the book to have human morals and outlook.

Scribe specifically said that it was ridiculous to say that ASIs and racial alignments were racist because they were "foundational aspects" of D&D that people could change or subvert if they wanted to.

This is not the same as saying "I want non-humans to have non-human morals and outlooks."