D&D (2024) Does the concept of subspecies of Elves come across as racist to you

[jmartkdr2]

Lemon curry: it can be kinda racist (and has been at times) but doesn’t have to be (and I think the 5e version isn’t intrinsically).

 

[Clint_L]

Because D&D is D&D based on a shared language and set of common well known traditions surrounding it. If traditional alignment can accomplish the simple indicator task with very few characters (and it can) then it's best to use it. I agree, you could use those descriptors. But if you need to read the description anyway, and you're chewing up word count with your method (which you are - it's one reason that adventure had issues, as a lot was edited out to reduce word count) a traditional alignment listing is as effective (or more) but accomplishes more for the lasting popularity of D&D than another method.

Good isn't meaningless for me, and a lot of other DMs who have voiced that they find utility in it. If the creature presents as a typically evil creature and you list their alignment as good, that's a super useful short way of communicating "You need to read this description for sure before continuing with this encounter." It's just a simple indicator for DMs, which often takes up a total of two characters (like "LG" or whatever).

I don’t look at alignment and don’t miss it, and almost no modern TTRPGs use it, and it is no more difficult to RP in them as compared to D&D. I find it easier, TBH, because the words “chaotic evil” could mean anything, whereas if I glance at Baphomet’s description I have a good idea what to do with him.

And anyway, let’s say I interpret him to be a heroic ally for the party. So what? I would probably be coming up with an interesting story.

Of all the writing prompts I could come up with to help a student start building a character, alignment seems like the worst.

 

[Cadence]

I don’t look at alignment and don’t miss it, and almost no modern TTRPGs use it, and it is no more difficult to RP in them as compared to D&D. I find it easier, TBH, because the words “chaotic evil” could mean anything, whereas if I glance at Baphomet’s description I have a good idea what to do with him.

And anyway, let’s say I interpret him to be a heroic ally for the party. So what? I would probably be coming up with an interesting story.

Of all the writing prompts I could come up with to help a student start building a character, alignment seems like the worst.

I will definitely agree it doesn't give tons of detail, that not everyone finds them that useful, and that a full paragraph certainly gives more information than two words (each chosen from a list of three) - but it feels either facetious or insipid to say Chaotic Evil "could mean anything". And if that's the worst you could imagine coming up with it feels like you need to work more on your imagination and less on your hyperbole. ;-). Which is not to say it is the two word writing prompt I would give either or that I like where message boards go when people argue over their usefulness.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I will definitely agree it doesn't give tons of detail, that not everyone finds them that useful, and that a full paragraph certainly gives more information than two words (each chosen from a list of three) - but it feels either facetious or insipid to say Chaotic Evil "could mean anything". And if that's the worst you could imagine coming up with it feels like you need to work more on your imagination and less on your hyperbole. ;-). Which is not to say it is the two word writing prompt I would give either or that I live where message boards go when people argue over their usefulness.

I think the AD&D alignments are slightly odd breakdowns of morality if you want to apply them to the real world, but I also find them handy tags for a fantasy setting. I don't think they are really there for characterization (definitely you would't want to use alignment as a foundation for making your characters in a modern novel) but for a game, alignment definitely helps the GM see a monsters general morality at a glance, and it it is a useful guideline for PCs trying to remain within their alignment (particularly if you are a paladin or something). One thing I like about alignment is it is infused in the settings of D&D pretty well so that it can impact things like how a magic item functions in the hands of an individual character.

Law and chaos can in fact get a bit wonky in a couple of the alignment descriptions (the line between CG, NG and LG can get fuzzy----but I think N is more of a problem than C). Chaotic Evil is probably the easiest alignment to grasp at a glance though.

That said, I also like how Ravenloft handled alignment, which was things like Detect Alignment only worked for law and chaos.

 

[Horwath]

Yeah I hope they change the entry for each one which is something like "Typical Alignment" instead of just "Alignment".

Didn't 3.5e had:
Always X alignment
Usually X
Often X
Any

Or something like that?

Always X was pretty much reserved for extraplanar creatures, celestials, demons, devils, elementals and similar.

 

[Corinnguard]

Didn't 3.5e had:
Always X alignment
Usually X
Often X
Any

Or something like that?

Always X was pretty much reserved for extraplanar creatures, celestials, demons, devils, elementals and similar.

Always covered any creature with a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or came from a plane that predetermines it. Usually covered the majority (more than 50%) of creatures that had the given alignment, and was due to a strong cultural influence or a legacy of the creature's origin. Ex. Elves being CG because of their creator, Corellon Larethian. Often had a plurality of individuals having the given alignment, but there were exceptions.

I liked it when 3e Eberron made alignments fuzzy and less of a straitjacket.

 

[Horwath]

Always covered any creature with a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or came from a plane that predetermines it. Usually covered the majority (more than 50%) of creatures that had the given alignment, and was due to a strong cultural influence or a legacy of the creature's origin. Ex. Elves being CG because of their creator, Corellon Larethian. Often had a plurality of individuals having the given alignment, but there were exceptions.

I liked it when 3e Eberron made alignments fuzzy and less of a straitjacket.

often with plurality out of 9 alignments meant that could be as little as 12%

 

[Alzrius]

Didn't 3.5e had:
Always X alignment
Usually X
Often X
Any

Or something like that?

They did; the qualifiers were defined in the glossary of the Monster Manual (would that they had put them in the SRD).

 

[Horwath]

They did; the qualifiers were defined in the glossary of the Monster Manual (would that they had put them in the SRD).

View attachment 296342

then it should be OK to represent some races with Usually or Often,
that would be 1/2 or 1/3rd of those alignment, that leaves lots of room for most other alignments and all sorts of adventurers from that race.

As I said, Always should be reserved for planar creatures, or unintelligent creatures.

 

[aco175]

Wish granted! The new terminology is "any alignment," "typically [alignment]," or "unaligned."

Edit: Except in the case of some singular entities, which are still given a specific alignment (e.g. Baphomet).

I'd like to see alignment excised completely, of course, but this seems like a good compromise for those who still want it.

then it should be OK to represent some races with Usually or Often,
that would be 1/2 or 1/3rd of those alignment, that leaves lots of room for most other alignments and all sorts of adventurers from that race.

As I said, Always should be reserved for planar creatures, or unintelligent creatures.

I can still see this being a problem (mostly online) where a player picks a race that is 'mostly' evil or 'sorta' evil and walks into the village. Now, the DM can just be whatever and treat them like another human or dwarf that walked into town or can go and have the villagers get their pitchforks and such to chase the PC from town. Seems a bit like the old thread of not letting a Nazi come to your bar and sit for a drink.

As much as people do not like the Drizzt books, I recall him having a problem getting into town and being accepted. Over time, his fame spread and it led to less shoot first and ask later or another drow being mistaken for him, but it took time. Maybe the new 5e is supposed to take that time and have orcs and goblins and such having already gone through that mistrust and become just another whatever waling into town. Likely what Wizards is going for, but individual tables may vary.