D&D General No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures

[Scribe]

Way to ignore everything else I wrote.

But yes, you've certainly implied that by saying "just for the sake of being as inoffensive and safe and 'bleh' as possible." You seem to think that giving a monster a reason to attack (such as being) that isn't just "they're mean" is "bleh." I'm pretty sure I've seen you write that you prefer racial alignments in general. That would suggest that you prefer monsters that are just evil. Why? You either have a grand world concept in mind, with true Good Versus Evil, or perhaps Evil Entity Corrupts Good Beings. Or you just prefer to kill things without a moral conundrum involved.

I do find it interesting that you like Fizban's for telling you what the dragons are like--when the Ideals section for each dragon has both good and evil traits in it! Even gold dragons can be evil if you roll for their Ideal and roll a 6 for Sovereignty, according to Fizban's! This is literally the same as for the Level Up monsters, except it's in a table, not in the body of the flavor text.

No, I don't think giving a creature beyond 'its mean' is the issue. The issue is couching everything said about a subject to in essence say nothing at all.

Pick something for the yeti. 'They are generally docile, but a blizzard enrages them.'

Maybe they are always helpful. Great.

As to the Gold Dragon? Certainly, exceptions exist. That's been true forever and ever. Because the DM is always free to change things.

The question of evil beings, has also had me confront the nature of Gods in my settings, because I feel a setting like FR does actually remove agency from certain races.

Gruumsh is an evil God who factually created Orcs. If Gruumsh created Orcs to be bloodthisty reavers then that's what they are. The clerics enforce that, because God is real and can demonstrably be proven, spoken to, channelled, and even SEEN.

That's an issue. That is something I believe Eberron and other settings have correctly changed, and a move D&D will embrace fully in 5.5.

Now if you want to make a setting where the dominant goblin culture is friendly? Go nuts.

You want a setting where Succubi are just hippies and all about free love? Go nuts.

Devils are really just lawyers, undead are just afraid of leaving their loved ones, and Halflings are body builders?

Great.

But yes, please say something.

Amethyst dragons are Neutral, and contemplative.
Crystal are Chaotic (Positive)
Topaz are Chaotic (Negative)
Emerald are Lawful and reclusive.
Sapphire are Lawful and regimented.

Are there exceptions? Of course.

Are their typical traits, behaviors, attitudes and preferences?

Yes. That's why I like Fizbans.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, I don't think giving a creature beyond 'its mean' is the issue. The issue is couching everything said about a subject to in essence say nothing at all.

Pick something for the yeti. 'They are generally docile, but a blizzard enrages them.'

Maybe they are always helpful. Great.

As to the Gold Dragon? Certainly, exceptions exist. That's been true forever and ever. Because the DM is always free to change things.

The question of evil beings, has also had me confront the nature of Gods in my settings, because I feel a setting like FR does actually remove agency from certain races.

Gruumsh is an evil God who factually created Orcs. If Gruumsh created Orcs to be bloodthisty reavers then that's what they are. The clerics enforce that, because God is real and can demonstrably be proven, spoken to, channelled, and even SEEN.

That's an issue. That is something I believe Eberron and other settings have correctly changed, and a move D&D will embrace fully in 5.5.

Now if you want to make a setting where the dominant goblin culture is friendly? Go nuts.

You want a setting where Succubi are just hippies and all about free love? Go nuts.

Devils are really just lawyers, undead are just afraid of leaving their loved ones, and Halflings are body builders?

Great.

But yes, please say something.

Amethyst dragons are Neutral, and contemplative.
Crystal are Chaotic (Positive)
Topaz are Chaotic (Negative)
Emerald are Lawful and reclusive.
Sapphire are Lawful and regimented.

Are there exceptions? Of course.

Are their typical traits, behaviors, attitudes and preferences?

Yes. That's why I like Fizbans.

Yeah, I have to agree. Say what a creature is generally like in the lore, and then make sure that readers understand that exceptions exist. That last bit apparently needs to be said really, really loudly, because some people persist in not noticing it.

 

[Scribe]

Yeah, I have to agree. Say what a creature is generally like in the lore, and then make sure that readers understand that exceptions exist. That last bit apparently needs to be said really, really loudly, because some people persist in not noticing it.

I get it, that it helps to be 'setting agnostic' these days, but look, Fizban's did it great. Its not setting defined. Its just saying these are the attributes and behaviors of these types of dragons, roll with it, or dont.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yeah, I have to agree. Say what a creature is generally like in the lore, and then make sure that readers understand that exceptions exist. That last bit apparently needs to be said really, really loudly, because some people persist in not noticing it.

I'm going to disagree here. Everyone I have ever played with understands this. Even when we were kids, we understood this. The difference is, some players don't want the exceptions. I haven't really seen anyone ever say: I want it clear cut (such as orcs are evil), and that is the only way they should be. It has always been: I want it clear cut that orcs are evil in my world, and I would like WotC to make it clear that their Eberron orcs don't exist in my world.
There is a huge difference between those two.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"That one must be one of the good ones."

Wait. No.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why discussions about general trends and tendencies of species always comes back to the inane arguments about evil? Please nuke alignment from the orbit, delete the word 'evil' from your dictionary. I can come up with myriad of ways to describe how a species is without 'evil' entering into it. "Bears, good or evil?" "If bears aren't evil, they're basically just furry humans."

 

[Scribe]

Everyone I have ever played with understands this. Even when we were kids, we understood this.

Me too, its only online I run into people who need 'typically' or whatever type qualifiers added.

I haven't really seen anyone ever say: I want it clear cut (such as orcs are evil), and that is the only way they should be. It has always been: I want it clear cut that orcs are evil in my world, and I would like WotC to make it clear that their Eberron orcs don't exist in my world.
There is a huge difference between those two.

Exactly. It doesn't have to be 1 way only, nobody is asking for that.

Why discussions about general trends and tendencies of species always comes back to the inane arguments about evil? Please nuke alignment from the orbit, delete the word 'evil' from your dictionary. I can come up with myriad of ways to describe how a species is without 'evil' entering into it. "Bears, good or evil?" "If bears aren't evil, they're basically just furry humans."

Because people get hung up on it for some reason. I've had someone argue, over days, that Wasps are evil. I just had to /shrug.

Good/Evil and Law/Chaos are not that difficult to use or understand, unless one over complicates things. Evil does not need to be outright insane, and Lawful Good doesnt need to be 'Lawful Dumb' or whatever people claim.

 

[Scott Christian]

Why discussions about general trends and tendencies of species always comes back to the inane arguments about evil? Please nuke alignment from the orbit, delete the word 'evil' from your dictionary. I can come up with myriad of ways to describe how a species is without 'evil' entering into it. "Bears, good or evil?" "If bears aren't evil, they're basically just furry humans."

Maybe I can add a different perspective.

Fantasy, for the longest time, has been about good vs evil. To be dismissive of it, might be viewed as dismissive of the fantasy genre.

Tales of heroics, often dictate a good vs evil mentality. To insist that all is gray depending on the viewpoint dismisses the heroes.

Players often want to be one or the other. Good heroes. Murdering hoboes. To declare they are neither seems to be dismissive of the players.

And, everyone gets it. Morality can be grey. It can also be black and white. So the fact that the game, based on fantasy, heroes, and players, went with black and white, shouldn't be a shock. In fact, it should be embraced. There are many other games out there that don't use it. And, DMs and players even have a choice to disregard the alignment.

So I guess what I am saying is, it shouldn't be a problem when an integral part of the game comes up during these discussions. It should be viewed as one's side viewpoint.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe I can add a different perspective.

Fantasy, for the longest time, has been about good vs evil. To be dismissive of it, might be viewed as dismissive of the fantasy genre.

Tales of heroics, often dictate a good vs evil mentality. To insist that all is gray depending on the viewpoint dismisses the heroes.

Players often want to be one or the other. Good heroes. Murdering hoboes. To declare they are neither seems to be dismissive of the players.

And, everyone gets it. Morality can be grey. It can also be black and white. So the fact that the game, based on fantasy, heroes, and players, went with black and white, shouldn't be a shock. In fact, it should be embraced. There are many other games out there that don't use it. And, DMs and players even have a choice to disregard the alignment.

So I guess what I am saying is, it shouldn't be a problem when an integral part of the game comes up during these discussions. It should be viewed as one's side viewpoint.

Except it only comes up for a reason to label entire species as acceptable kill targets. Even Tolkien realised that it was problematic to label orcs as outright evil. Perhaps all these decades later we should finally get a clue?

Hell, if you want to have good versus evil, then have an order of paladins in shining armour wanting to eradicate the local orcs that they consider to be spawns of evil, and let the characters join the orc freedom fighters that want to save their people from this racist genocide.

 

[Scribe]

Hell, if you want to have good versus evil, then have an order of paladins in shining armour wanting to eradicate the local orcs that they consider to be spawns of evil, and let the characters join the orc freedom fighters that want to save their people from this racist genocide.

You could.

But then why are the Paladin's doing this? Its not a very 'Good' act.