Cap'n Kobold
Hero
Has this been a serious suggestion by someone? Was it in a thread here or one of the D&D writers?
Who told you that you were?
D&D 5E Evolution of D&D, and choices
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
It's been suggested a bunch of times in threads here at least (and maybe by one or more WotC folk elsewhere, I'm not sure any more) that blanket default-alignment descriptions e.g. Orcs are Evil, Elves are Good, etc. be taken off some (or many?) relatively common Prime-Material creatures.
Thus, monsters would still have alignments but it'd be on an individual-by-individual basis, with less (or no) creature-type default to fall back on.
Oofta
Legend
Yes. "If you want evil orcs you can still have them, just have them be part of an evil organization or individual evil orcs." They then point to Eberron where orcs are any alignment because that's the "correct" way to do it.
Maybe I've just heard it so often I've become over sensitive. Basically it's become a mantra. "Saying orcs are evil is racist".
Reading this and other threads has me thinking that the evolution of D&D needs to be total - a new edition will come sooner than later.
The preferred default system in 5e of determining ability point shoehorn players who want a “strong, long lasting” character into stereotypical PCs - the Dwarven fighter, the Elven bard or sorcerer, the Halfling rogue, the Half-Orc barbarian. Mountain Dwarf Sorceror? Possible, complicated, but a weaker character.
If WotC is honest in saying we are diverse and inclusive, it will mean changing ability increases from being linked the current genus / family / ancestry (or “race” in the PHB) to a class and skill system.
I tend to play 3.5 more. This too has issues given the race based bonus / penalty system. I’ll admit I may be subjective here but the mechanics were different because of its extensive skill system and the use of class (not “Race”) to determine proficiency and saves. That is a critical element that will help reduce stereotypes.
So long as WotC says 5e is about reconnecting to the D&D roots in 1e, 2e, BECMI, there’ll be a problem because each of those editions emphasise race over class
The preferred default system in 5e of determining ability point shoehorn players who want a “strong, long lasting” character into stereotypical PCs - the Dwarven fighter, the Elven bard or sorcerer, the Halfling rogue, the Half-Orc barbarian. Mountain Dwarf Sorceror? Possible, complicated, but a weaker character.
If WotC is honest in saying we are diverse and inclusive, it will mean changing ability increases from being linked the current genus / family / ancestry (or “race” in the PHB) to a class and skill system.
I tend to play 3.5 more. This too has issues given the race based bonus / penalty system. I’ll admit I may be subjective here but the mechanics were different because of its extensive skill system and the use of class (not “Race”) to determine proficiency and saves. That is a critical element that will help reduce stereotypes.
So long as WotC says 5e is about reconnecting to the D&D roots in 1e, 2e, BECMI, there’ll be a problem because each of those editions emphasise race over class
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
They’ve mentioned that an upcoming unannounced product will include rules for customizing ability score increases from “race.” I think it’s far more likely that they will print updated core books that include these optional rules, and possibly some of the player options that get frequently reprinted, such as the spells from the EEPG and XGTE, the underdark variants of gnomes and dwarves, possibly Eladrin, maybe the Tiefling variants, etc. and likely playable Goblinoids and Orcs.
I’m not sure that an optional rule system for playing classes will cut it. From my perspective, it simply bakes in the race issue and it nods and winks at those who want to persist with questionable D&D origins. (Talk about digging a hole for oneself!)
If WotC claims to be inclusive and diverse, they can only do so by drawing a line under 5e and introducing a new edition. Sure, they might claim “5.5e”, but a shift to a class based system is a big difference for 5e. For instance, a class system means ability bonuses, saving throws, proficiencies are class based, not racial. There’s no being proficient with an Dwarven axe merely because you are a dwarf or a Longsword or fey ancestry allowing acces to bonus spells because you’re an elf.
Perhaps, counterintuitively, a system of “alignment” is still needed. It might be called motivation, ethos, or some such. I could see this working if it was given the sort of detail that alignment was given in 3.xe and inspiration in 5e. This motivation / ethos / attitude would be the means to guide and define classes, such as ranger or paladin from fighter, a warlock from wizard, etc.
Differences between each genus / family / ancestry could be restricted to DNA - darkvision, low light vision, movement speed or special features (dragon breath).
There might also be preferred classes. It might also involve skill modifiers and feats, but this would need to be handled REALLY carefully. For instance, like in 3.5e, I can see that humans life spans might allow them access to an additional feat. But, suggesting a rogue nimble fingers feat for a Halfling or an innate rage for a Half-Orc is irresponsible.
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
That was my understanding as well: the recent reminder of the rules that WotC released pointing out that the MM listed alignments were subject to DM change etc. That even if you're not playing Eberron, a DM could have CG orcs or neutral werewolves etc.
Hence why I was querying the insinuation that one side of the debate wants "all monsters have no alignment". It seemed a rather sweeping distortion of the position and so I was interested to know whether it had been a serious suggestion, standard forum warrior hyberbole, or a complete fabrication.
Why is having darkvision because of biology ok but not being stronger because of biology?
What you propose is basically removing races entirely and everyone playing a human.
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
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.
Similar Threads
