dave2008
Legend
Didn't @Ruin Explorer ask for a moratorium on hyperbole?
D&D 5E Evolution of D&D, and choices
- Thread starter Sacrosanct
- Start date
Ruin Explorer
Legend
People really love that hyperbole, huh?
Not having racial stat bonuses is obviously not remotely the same as "everyone playing a human". You pick strength an example, but you do that because it's the only example where it seems safe. And 5E already doesn't really go with races being "stronger because of biology". A human and a halfling both have the same STR range, for example. Being a 7' Goliath still limits you to the same 20 STR as said Halfling, you just get there sooner. So you're essentially closing the barn door about six years after the horses bolted.
Strength-wise, you can still have stuff like the increased carry/lift/drag capacity of Goliaths and the like, it's just that players can now choose their race without having to sort through all the modifiers. By and large, I expect players will hew to the same standards - most people who want to play agile characters will pick traditionally agile races, and so on. You're not losing anything.
Bagpuss
Legend
Which is why I wonder why anyone has a problem with bonuses.
The DM introducing NPCs that don't have the same alignment as that listed in their statblock has always been a thing. That is not the same as "all monsters have no alignment".
It might have just been a really unfortunate misstatement when what you actually meant to complain about was just the default alignment simply being less default and WotC reiterating that all monsters don't have fixed alignments. However what we have to judge you and your position on is what you actually said.
"Saying orcs are evil is racist" is not the same as "telling me I'm a racist because I don't have an issue with evil monsters. "
In fact I don't think that anyone has been telling you that you're a racist because you don't have an issue with evil monsters.
I'm pretty sure that no one has an issue with evil monsters. The main issue seems to be having an entire race of independently-thinking beings being evil, combined with some really unfortunate phrases and tropes used in their description that mirror historical racist rhetoric (and some still used by racists today.)
You can allow exceptions to MM alignment and remove the direct parallels to racist/colonialist language without eroding anything too fundamental to D&D.
First, let me state that I agree that some imagery and wording should be changed. I think the paragraph in the MM about the alignments being a default should have been called out more. Perhaps a section in the DMG where they discuss alternative versions. I'd be perfectly fine with that. I use orcs (or other evil humanoids) so rarely in my game it doesn't really matter much to me.
However "I'm not saying you're racist, but having that orcs* as always evil in your campaign is racist" is in fact calling someone a racist.
That and off and on with other threads the accusation has been direct and explicit. Add in people who don't have a problem with evil orcs have also been called various derogatory things in the name of "jokes".
This is from the post that got me sucked into this whole stupid debate:
I love it when regressive elements of a community are left behind in the dust, waving their angry, bitter little fist in the air like when I say no to a second dessert to my son 
. They think they look like they are making a grand, noble stand-off, while they just look like Abe Simpson yelling at clouds while history forget about them.
. They think they look like they are making a grand, noble stand-off, while they just look like Abe Simpson yelling at clouds while history forget about them.
I may make jokes about how I yell at the kids to get off my lawn, but to paint anyone who disagrees with me as regressive children? Never. But it's something that happened repeatedly on the other threads. So, yeah, maybe I'm a bit over sensitive. Now get off my lawn. If you want to continue this line of discussion, there's a separate thread.
*As a reminder orcs are a fictional creature that does not an can not exist.
Neonchameleon
Legend
For me the main thing the game loses by taking away alignment is the same sort of thing I lose when I go to the bathroom. As for "simple categorisation" - you mean like challenge rating?
I find alignment to be a quick, easy descriptor that packs a lot of info into 2 characters. If you don't, ignore it. But there's a whole other thread to discuss that.
Helldritch
Hero
I have the same feeling as Oofta on that one. Comparing his stance to what you lose in the bathroom is rude and unbefitting.
I too have been thinly accused of being "unsensitive" and "racist". All this because we want to keep our evil, evil...
I too have been thinly accused of being "unsensitive" and "racist". All this because we want to keep our evil, evil...
Neonchameleon
Legend
I find that what it packs into two characters is confusing and frequently misleading. For example I would consider the act of throwing a warhammer at a child stealing a loaf of bread to stop them to be a lawful evil act or possibly outright chaotic evil. From memory you seem to think it's consistent with being lawful good. With such a discrepancy the two characters serve to obscure as much as inform.
Evil that is actively evil speaks for itself. No one is saying that a cult committing human sacrifice isn't an evil cult and would stay evil whether or not the game had alignment rules.
But if the only thing keeping something evil is the alignment rules then it was probably never evil in the first place.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
I think because most people play in the 1-10 range. So it's a practical issue. Whereas the "but some races are stronger than others" (which gets a bit more dubious when you apply it to other stats, particularly) is an argument based on a principal - a principal which demonstrably isn't true in 5E. Practicality > Non-existent principal.
I strongly suspect they'll retain descriptions which indicate certain races are prone to be particularly agile or whatever, but 5E's 20 cap and ASIs have already moved away from the idea that your race will forever be limited to some lower number (in fact, last time that was clearly true was in what, 2E?). This is just making that more obvious and more practical at lower levels. You're going to end up with a 20 in your primary stat anyway, if you play to at least 12, regardless of race, so making it more even here is going to smooth out and diversify lower-level play.
(As an aside, some people say "Well certain races will still be optimal!", and that's true, but most players aren't high-effort optimizers, but they do realize that they need a good primary stat, so avoid races which don't give that. And racial abilities lead to a lot more argument over what is actually optimal than stats. Obviously, +2 to your primary stat, and +1 to your secondary is pretty great, and most players will select from races which offer that (it's slightly more complex but that's another thread), take that out, and suddenly we're going to see a much wider selection of choices. Some people will insist Mountain Dwarves or whatever are "optimal", but somehow I don't think most players are going to go pick them, even though they can now have whatever stats people want.)
