D&D 5E Evolution of D&D, and choices

[Oofta]

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.

You think that stopping a crime that happens to be perpetrated by a juvenile using nonlethal force is evil. So be it, I couldn't disagree more.

We can argue all day what alignment means, it's meaningful to me. If it's not meaningful to you, ignore it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You think that stopping a crime that happens to be perpetrated by a juvenile using nonlethal force is evil. So be it, I couldn't disagree more.

I think your DM was incredibly generous to let you use a thrown warhammer (whether Marvel Thor style or real style) to not cause injury especially as you don't have full control over a thrown weapon. And using lethal weaponry you do not have full control over to assault someone who was attempting to steal a loaf of bread is committing a far worse act than stealing to survive.

We can argue all day what alignment means, it's meaningful to me. If it's not meaningful to you, ignore it.

It's meaningful to me. It means stereotyping and using labels to replace characterisation and actions. Its presence makes things worse.

 

[Oofta]

I think your DM was incredibly generous to let you use a thrown warhammer (whether Marvel Thor style or real style) to not cause injury especially as you don't have full control over a thrown weapon. And using lethal weaponry you do not have full control over to assault someone who was attempting to steal a loaf of bread is committing a far worse act than stealing to survive.

I'm not re-litigating this. The DM approved an improvised action, my PC didn't think being a juvenile gave you a get out of jail free card.

It's meaningful to me. It means stereotyping and using labels to replace characterisation and actions. Its presence makes things worse.

All I can say is that I disagree. Most of the time I only need a 10,000 foot level overview of a monster and it's handy to know that demons are generally CE while devils are LE.

Considering how well 5E is selling, it hardly seems to be an issue for most people.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm not re-litigating this. The DM approved and improvised action, my PC didn't think being a juvenile gave you a get out of jail free card.

In your own words "Everybody at the table was aghast." And I don't think there was one single person in the thread who agreed with you. Your PC however did think that being an adventurer gave him a get out of jail free card to break out lethal weaponary and break the peace in the town with no consequences.

The overwhelming majority of people seem to have a very different understanding of goodness than you do, meaning that it as a shorthand seems ot be of limited use.

All I can say is that I disagree. Most of the time I only need a 10,000 foot level overview of a monster and it's handy to know that demons are generally CE while devils are LE.

What I need to know is that devils want to corrupt and take over and demons want to destroy and burn. It's a useful system but not one that requires 9 point alignment.

 

[Oofta]

In your own words "Everybody at the table was aghast." And I don't think there was one single person in the thread who agreed with you. Your PC however did think that being an adventurer gave him a get out of jail free card to break out lethal weaponary and break the peace in the town with no consequences.

The overwhelming majority of people seem to have a very different understanding of goodness than you do, meaning that it as a shorthand seems ot be of limited use.

Again, done with this.

What I need to know is that devils want to corrupt and take over and demons want to destroy and burn. It's a useful system but not one that requires 9 point alignment.

Sure you could come up with other systems that do exactly the same thing in a lot more verbose fashion. That's why we have the flavor text and description if you need that level of detail. Most of the time I don't need or want all that detail, alignment is just a quick and easy way of identifying one trait.

But there's already many threads on alignment, if you want to discuss it over there feel free.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Again, done with this.

Except the core point here isn't your actions. It is that you, Oofta, are clearly out of step with the mainstream understanding of alignment. As such when you use the term LG you are not communicating with most other people - and when other people use LG they are not communicating with people like you because the understandings are too different.

This lack of shared understanding on its own and without the toxic impact of writing off races as a certain alignment would make the two characters worse than useless because it facilitates miscommunication.

The original L/N/C alignments representing a metaphysical clash between the wilderness and civilization made sense. Nine point alignment does not because there are too many understandings so it loses most of its value as a shared shorthand.

 

[Oofta]

Except the core point here isn't your actions. It is that you, Oofta, are clearly out of step with the mainstream understanding of alignment. As such when you use the term LG you are not communicating with most other people - and when other people use LG they are not communicating with people like you because the understandings are too different.

This lack of shared understanding on its own and without the toxic impact of writing off races as a certain alignment would make the two characters worse than useless because it facilitates miscommunication.

The original L/N/C alignments representing a metaphysical clash between the wilderness and civilization made sense. Nine point alignment does not because there are too many understandings so it loses most of its value as a shared shorthand.

Okely dokely. Oh, wait I already used that one. How about this. I don't agree, my players don't disagree with me, nobody I've ever had an in-person discussion with has much of an issue with my viewpoint.

Everybody I've ever actually played with has a decent grasp on what alignment means or doesn't. If you want more detail, I posted my thoughts on what alignment means over in the other thread.

It always feels rude to ignore direct questions, but I'm done. Have a good one.

 

[Remathilis]

Personally, I fear that a lot of the recent discussion is striking at the heart, the identity, of the game. The discussion of inclusion goes beyond x or y setting or A, B, and C options, but to things iconic to the game. Races. Classes. Alignment. Ability Scores. The very description of elves, orcs, and other creatures. And while complaints about said things have existed for quite a while, the current climate we find ourselves in has raised the volume and forced WotC to have to respond to these complaints in a much more vocal manner. For now, WotC will play damage control; point to Wildemount or Eberron as examples of PC orcs, pull alignment from generic humanoid stat-blocks, clean up some problematic text via errata, or add an optional rule in a new tome (only $49.99!) to fix ability score complaints. And that will work, in the short run. but 5e was supposed to be thier "evergreen" edition and increasingly, while the mechanics of 5e might more-or-less be evergreen, I think there will be significant pressure to "update" the game to remove the problematic elements entirely, and that will mean a new edition with a different tone.

And it's what that will look like that gives me pause. D&D has changed before (I can recall the days dwarves couldn't be wizards), but the core components have remained. What will "race" look like once the term is gone and the concept revised? Will classes like monk and barbarian remain or are they too problematic? Will WotC change ability scores to be less ableist? Will Alignment as a concept survive? Do orcs, goblinoids, and the like enter the PHB? If they do too much, they risk alienating their base (like 4e did), change too little we'll be doing this again in five years. It's not an envious position to be in.

Perhaps it is the fear of the unknown that causes these fears. I like 5e as it stands. I personally see little wrong with it. But my opinion as a hetero-white-male isn't what is being considered. The game will grow and evolve, but I can't help but worry that it will grow past me...

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yep... the game will move away from its identity as a game set up to be "D&D" to hetero-white-males and will evolve into something past it. Will it no longer seem like "D&D" to hetero-white-males at that point? No idea. But seeing as how we've had what... 7 to 10 different "editions" of basic and advanced D&D all based upon the foundation of hetero-white-males, the idea that a single new one would move away from us and towards all the non-hetero-white-males out there who wish to join us in the pool is not something I personally lose sleep over.

 

[Oofta]

Yep... the game will move away from its identity as a game set up to be "D&D" to hetero-white-males and will evolve into something past it. Will it no longer seem like "D&D" to hetero-white-males at that point? No idea. But seeing as how we've had what... 7 to 10 different "editions" of basic and advanced D&D all based upon the foundation of hetero-white-males, the idea that a single new one would move away from us and towards all the non-hetero-white-males out there who wish to join us in the pool is not something I personally lose sleep over.

Since when did the game become only for hetero white males? Because I missed that memo and need to drop half my group.