D&D 5E I thought WotC was removing biological morals?

[DarkCrisis]

It seems to me that people take the PHB and MM as set in stone when races have always been “the majority of”.

Good Drow existed in large #s before 5E. Why WotC doesn’t expand on those instead of making whole new High Drow and Wood Drow….? Good Goblinkin too. Heck even good demons.

People want to complain that you can’t be a good orc or use one in a campaign when in fact you always could and they weren’t unique.

 

[Oofta]

The idea that a horrible murder creates a horrible murder creature seems like a metaphor for murder being a bad thing.

Where as Orcs and Drow can be seen as a metaphor for dark skin = evil.

Now, if only there was a real world group of psychopaths that all wear red hats and try to overthrow gover…. actually never mind

Shriners?

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Well, yes and no. 4e went very much out of its way to provide non-combat xp awards. Spent a considerable amount of time on it in the DMG and whatnot.

The reason we don't have the 2e style one in 5e is because everyone is supposed to have the same XP. Additionally, in 2e, all classes advanced at different rates, so, the bonuses they got for doing their class stuff had greater or lesser effects. I remember that the clerics in the games I played in 2e gained the lions share of their xp from casting cure light wounds. 100xp every casting? Yes please.

The thing people tend to ignore in all this is that the game has become less and less combat focused over time. AD&D was pretty much all combat all the time. Why wouldn't you? Killing stuff netted treasure and that netted you xp. I've never understood this story that gets put out that AD&D wasn't about clear cutting the dungeon and stripping it down to the paint. Why would you ever leave a monster if you had the choice? 2e tried to become more about "story" but it was clumsily done and tended to lean very much on the heavy handedness of AD&D resulting in all sorts of problems. If your DM is "Always right!" then you can never complain about railroading and being sidelined. 3e spent some time trying to award xp for non-combat, but, it was mostly lip service and the adventures certainly didn't push in a non-violent direction. 4e was really the first honest attempt at trying to make a viable D&D game where you actually didn't have to kill anything. Heck, every single PC in 4e could, after something hit bloodied, end the fight with a single skill check. At least in 5e, you can declare that you're not killing something after you've done damage and put it down.

Combat in AD&D was much more dangerous than 5e. You got XP for the treasure, not the fighting. The AD&D games I ran were super heavy on RP to get treasure without fighting and any fighting was planned well in advance.

3e to 5e very heavily emphasizes XP for killing monsters (the rule is actually overcoming and I still DM some of my friends from AD&D days and they still try to avoid fights). You can see the biggest difference in wandering monsters. AD&D you avoided those encounters the best you could. 5e they are more XP.

 

[Steampunkette]

I think your view on them being unaligned is a good way to handle it.

Though, I'm not sure if that may be construed to mean that anything (or anyone) considered "other" doesn't really count.

Personally, I prefer how some other games I play handle that sort of thing. But I think, if I view D&D alignment as something akin to the morals in a 4-Color Superhero comic, it's usually good enough.

I have run more nuanced campaigns. My biggest hurdle is figuring out how abilities such as "detect evil" work in a world that has more shades of gray.

Simple: Detect Evil works normally, but Evil isn't indicative of Antagonism.

If you have Evil Characters who are on your side they're willing to commit terrible acts on your behalf. You can ask them not to, and stress that it is a condition of your continued cooperation. They -may- do evil, or they may just do what needs to be done without dipping toes into evil acts, just like in a Four Color Comic when Doom and the Fantastic Four -have- to work together and set aside their differences to fight some greater evil.

But also: Evil alignment isn't self-sacrificing or automatically violent.

An evil accountant working in a good kingdom might be a spiteful, rude, difficult to work with cuss who -gleefully- audits people because he knows it screws them over and wrecks them, emotionally and mentally. But he's not gonna -kill- someone. That could result in a backlash on him. His evil is true, and deep, but nonviolent.

The last important thing to consider is that evil people and good people are pretty much the same. They still have emotions and ideals and things they desire. The difference lies in their Value System. A Good Person values Life above all things and is willing to die for it. But an evil person might value the Continuation of the Kingdom above even Life. That good person is willing to kill in defense of life, even die to protect people. The evil person is willing to kill to ensure the Crown continues ruling. Even die to see that happen... And it's in the many horrors he commits against Life, Liberty, and other important ideals in service to the Crown that makes him a villainous or evil person.

So if someone cast Detect Evil on the Accountant he shows up as Evil, but, like, a petty lesser evil, perhaps. The kind of evil that isn't -dangerous- even if it is frustrating and occasionally harmful. While the "Crown above All" evil person will show up as a stronger example of evil. A truly dangerous person.

But depending on your goals, that Crown Above All character might be your best ally in a given situation.

 

[Scott Christian]

If you choose to keep the racist tropes, sure. But they’re fictional. You can choose to have them be a different way. To me, it’s far more interesting to not simply regurgitate the same old tired racist tropes.

This is a comment I do not understand. The depth at which one can build, play, replay, and architect is so deep in an RPG that I fail to see how it gets old or tired. I understand if you find them racist and want to change them. That's fine. But old and tired? How?

 

[Scott Christian]

What about "always good"? For some reason that always seems to get a pass.

It really does depend on how you use alignment and what the definitions mean to you. I mean, I am sure there are 100 page threads arguing exactly which alignment is representative of what definition.
We all know alignment is an imperfect system if you keep digging and digging. Just like attributes and skills and proficiency and spells and armor... Yet, as has been pointed out a thousand times, we could all probably sit and play at each others' table and wouldn't notice a thing. It's an odd thing when you discuss alignment.
But to your question - good, in societal terms, probably mean the majority of the members follow rules, don't try to hurt each other, have empathy, and are able to work together towards larger goals than just the individual.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

If I were to summarize my feelings on this thread’s original post and the framework it comes with, it is sadness on the finding problems where there are already solutions or where there is a reasonable argument that the problem is not direct but from sin of origin.

The fear of Redcaps being stereotyped because they are humanoid shaped and the adding on that plenty of other intelligent monsters like dragons also have culture coupled with the fear of racial stereotyping will slowly remove some of the black and white that much of fantasy literature has built in as a base. Beowulf set out to defeat the “dragon” because the dragon was preying on his people. This is built into the Appendix N books that provided a lot of the fodder for the game.

It has been explicit in the rules for a long time that alignment is a guide not an absolute. It is non-humanoids that are more 100% something from creation. Humanoids were portrayed as having variety from the earliest days. Even the Steading of the Hill Giants gave the stark moral choice of what do you want to do about the Orc young that were there and that is a really early and influential module by one of the main authors of the book.

Yes, academic studies show the link of racial stereotypes to many classic monsters, but fear of darkness and the night is very common and being excessively pale like ghosts and vampires is a sign of evil as well.

In the natural world, the much paler skin tones that many humans have is pretty rare except for arctic or creatures from extremely dark areas. Even for humans, darker skin tones are actually more prevalent. Humanoid races reflecting that seems appropriate to me.

The most egregious example is Drow are black elves and they are the evil ones, but they are jet black. They are not humans and their skin color is not a human skin tone. That is the one choice that always jarred me when I first encountered them in the D series decades ago - the underground sunlight avoiding elves were black? But other than that original sin of Black bad, they were really powerful, had a hero Drow that was not evil in novels that was black colored and had to overcome prejudice for his race (and did so), and were ruled by women.

I am fine with the even more explicit decoupling of alignment for humanoid creatures (the rules already have that and alignment in 5e is already mechanically hollow). The harm the current assumptions could have is abstract, but enough people I have encountered over the years (mainly online) have expressed their honest views of harm (mainly blacks that love heroic fantasy and RPG and are hurt/disappointed at the default dark always seems to be evil).

But I like the good vs. evil theme and the discussion of the individual murder fey with bright red hats from blood really should be treated as people just loses me. The division for good and evil dragons based on color works in the game. Is it really needed to keep extending the looking for problems until everything is one?

 

[ReshiIRE]

An evil accountant working in a good kingdom might be a spiteful, rude, difficult to work with cuss who -gleefully- audits people because he knows it screws them over and wrecks them, emotionally and mentally. But he's not gonna -kill- someone. That could result in a backlash on him. His evil is true, and deep, but nonviolent.

Forgive me for being nitpicky, but theoretically depending on how that is done you could classify the accountant's actions as a form of violence, just non-physical. Emotional, societal or organizational violence. You could say, in a way, that all evil is violent in some way - it just doesn't have to be physical.

That might be overthinking it though.

 

[Scott Christian]

If a creature possesses the ability to reason, then it can make the choice to resist instinct; they can choose to understand other conscious beings and find accord.

Sorry for all the questions, but this is something else I do not understand.
A society can have the ability to reason and make choices. But their worldview can be evil when described by others. We all know that the entire thing is grey; a society can do horrible things, yet have empathy and feel the pain of others.
So it is always the lens at which you apply the alignment. To say everyone acts as an individual, when they are raised by their societal norms, seems as big a fallacy as saying everyone in a society acts the same.

 

[Steampunkette]

Sorry for all the questions, but this is something else I do not understand.
A society can have the ability to reason and make choices. But their worldview can be evil when described by others. We all know that the entire thing is grey; a society can do horrible things, yet have empathy and feel the pain of others.
So it is always the lens at which you apply the alignment. To say everyone acts as an individual, when they are raised by their societal norms, seems as big a fallacy as saying everyone in a society acts the same.

Societies do not have a morality. Societies do not reason or make choices.

Only individuals are capable of doing this. Now a society can be directed by it's people either collectively (Voting) or by a singular will (Ruler). But it retains no moral element. Only the people who make that decision have a moral culpability for the decision. You don't try Germany for War Crimes, you try the people who committed those war crimes on behalf of Germany.

Societal and Cultural norms influence a person's Values, however. What they consider to be important or valuable to place into a moral framework. For example in some African cultures the idea of Family is so highly valued that the idea of hiring a babysitter, rather than having one of your own family members tend your kid(s) while you're away, is considered insane and possibly evil or at least irresponsible. That babysitter has no filial relationship with your kids and with only a fiduciary responsibility is able to take the money and run.

But that doesn't mean every member of that culture holds that ideal above others to the same degree, or even at all, based on their individual experiences and ideals. Nor does it mean America is Evil because hiring babysitters is common, here, or that people of that culture think America is evil on that basis. Though they likely think Americans who do hire babysitters are foolish.

But. This is all a Red Herring when discussing D&D morality.

D&D Morality is not individually subjective to a given society within the setting. It's based on an external moral authority, both the writers and the players. A given character can thus be declared to be evil from outside the narrative based on the value system that is imposed by the game. A "Cosmic Morality" that also allows for things like Heaven and Hell or Detect Evil and Good to sensibly exist and function.

Further: The presence or absence of Empathy has nothing to do with Good or Evil. That's just a question of psychopathy, as psychopaths usually lack the ability to feel empathy. Many psychopaths are still loving parents, good members of society, and moral individuals. Their morality just tends to be much more based on an externalized structure rather than an internal emotional guide.