Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8537433" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Alright. I was trying to use non-game terms that...are more like how people generally speak, rather than game jargon, but if game jargon is what you want, "DMs should not employ races that have inherent alignment."I had no intent to put in "wiggle room." Pretty much every word was very carefully chosen. I used "human-like," for example, because proximity to human-ness is a very serious component. Nobody really seems to care much that Beholders (for example) are always evil, because beholders are radically unlike human beings physiologically, psychologically, and socially. They have little to no relationship to any real-world ways that human beings have been (sometimes literally) demonized. They aren't coded with any characteristics that evoke real-world cultures or caricatures thereof.I used "sapient" because sapience is a critical concern, as reflected in most science fiction regarding robots. We don't feel bad about a perfectly ordinary assembly line robot having a malfunction and needing to be replaced. It is clearly a tool, not even possessing the minimal awareness of a beast of burden. But when a robot can genuinely and spontaneously ask questions like, "Does this unit have a soul?" we pretty much instantly recognize that that being can no longer be treated as a tool, and is instead a person. Similarly, fiction where ordinary animals are featured, such as pets or named horses, is perfectly acceptable. While these creatures are sentient, aware of their surroundings and capable of feeling, they are not sapient. So long as they are treated with appropriate kindness and respect, humans keeping them domesticated (and possibly extracting labor from them) is acceptable. However, if one were awakened somehow, it would not be acceptable to continue doing that, as with the aforementioned robot demonstrating their sapience. (See, for instance, the Talking Animals of Narnia.)I absolutely do disagree with "In D&D, the DM gets to decide a race's alignment," because, as stated, I oppose the idea of "races" having inherent alignment. Players getting to decide their own character's alignment is fine, because that has zero intersection with inherent alignment (and, at least in principle, is a rejection thereof; if the player can always decide their alignment, then anything they're permitted to play cannot have inherent alignment, which is what I was going for to begin with.) I would grant, "The DM gets to decide each NPC's alignment," because that does not invoke the specter of "this is a fully sapient being, by sight and by generic actions equivalent to an actual human....except that it is just axiomatically evil and therefore morally okay to kill on sight no matter what."I find most "lore" justifications for this to be, as noted, merely fig-leaf excuses--particularly because a lot of it just looks like being really really insistent that "no these guys actually ARE just soulless monsters that happen to look humanoid, we pinky-swear this time!" Character motive reasons may be appropriate, since (again) characters are individuals  who make their own decisions.So long as something is a "race," it should not have inherent alignment, and vice-versa. Races, as D&D uses the term, are almost always sapient and human-like (hence why 3e referred to them as subtypes of "humanoid.") Things that are not races are, in general, either non-sapient or very non-human-like--and even among them there are some areas that it might be better to not use inherent alignment (such as dragons, which other than physiology, are a bit too much like humans to be comfortable as inherently aligned.)There are ways around some of this that aren't nearly as problematic and aren't just fig-leaf excuses, too, though as with all of this they require a little thought in use. My oft-mentioned explanation for fiends being Always Evil is one, best used for very supernatural beings. Another is where evil behavior becomes physically reflected in the body of the being. This is best used for beings that are already at least a little non-human-like, such as dragons; e.g. in order for a dragon to have gold scales, it has to have a certain kind of personality and have sustained commitment to certain kinds of action, and falling short of that standard would directly lead to looking like something else. (In effect, it makes these dragons not actually having "race" at all, because their "race" IS in some sense a choice, or a series of choices, whereas "race" is usually understood to not be something a person is capable of choosing for herself.)Or, if you prefer a TL;DR:I reject the statement, "In D&D, the DM gets to decide a race's alignment, the player decides their PC's" as unacceptable. I reject it because "race" is not a choice, but alignment with regard to "races" is in principle a choice, as it is about moral behavior, and entities which cannot make moral choices cannot have moral behavior. As a result, I see clear and serious issues with "races" that have inherent alignment. If a class of beings is a "race," as D&D uses the term, then it should have the freedom to choose (so that the player may decide their PC's alignment). If it is not a "race," then it may be acceptable for it to have inherent alignment. Various means (true and thorough alienness, "team jersey" approach) can get you there. The vast majority of actual "races" that are presented as inherently aligned look like elaborate fig-leaf excuses.</blockquote>

Verification