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

[Scribe]

You would infer very incorrectly, especially since I've said many times, including in this thread, that I don't use alignments. Which means that I have already made changes. Just like you can take a creature with no alignment and give it one, if you like.

Well then I'm glad you have used the solution hard wired into the rule set.

 

[Faolyn]

lol, i'm honestly confused because your screenshot doesnt line up with what you are claiming it does. I said what you mentioned, but the insinuation came from a quote off a different piece, like I said.

So here you are, either outright lying or really not even bothering to read your own posts before you reply. Which is it.

I linked to two different posts. Along with the second link, I screenshotted the part you mentioned. You only referred to the first link and ignored the screenshot altogether.

 

[Faolyn]

Well then I'm glad you have used the solution hard wired into the rule set.

Just like you can, since alignments haven't been included for a couple of books and will likely continue to not be included.

Edit: and you failed to actually address the points I made.

 

[Scribe]

I linked to two different posts. Along with the second link, I screenshotted the part you mentioned. You only referred to the first link and ignored the screenshot altogether.

Honestly the screenshot reflects what I said. I honestly am misunderstanding you.

 

[JEB]

3e did a great job with that. Alignment for the "evil" races was listed as, "Usually evil" or "Often evil." There were numbers for that as well. "Usually chaotic evil," which orcs were, just meant that more than half were chaotic evil. So 50.01% qualified if the DM wanted it to. That left a great deal of room for every other alignment including Lawful Good.

Actually, the 3E orc was "often chaotic evil", not "usually chaotic evil". Meaning 40-50% of orcs were chaotic evil, "but exceptions are common". So it was even more likely in 3E that a given orc was some other alignment.

 

[Maxperson]

The strength-related difference between goliaths and halflings is represented by the goliath's Powerful Build trait, which accounts for size.

Not accurately, though. People who are MUCH bigger and can lift, carry and drag more, are also STRONGER. To represent that goliaths need to on average have a higher strength score than halflings. That requires a strength bonus.

 

[Maxperson]

D&D races aren't aliens; they didn't evolve under vastly different circumstances.

They didn't evolve at all. They were created much the same as they are now.

 

[Cadence]

Not accurately, though. People who are MUCH bigger and can lift, carry and drag more, are also STRONGER. To represent that goliaths need to on average have a higher strength score than halflings. That requires a strength bonus.

Next thing you'll be trying to argue more force causes more damage or something silly like that.

But seriously, I wonder if having different STR ranges for different creatures would be less of a problem if the damage mod (strength) was split from the to hit (which feels like a dex thing, while ac or init feel like an agility thing).

 

[Maxperson]

So why should we assume that all games are going to have races being made for Always Evil purposes?

We don't. The MM covers that by encouraging the DM to depart from the listed alignments. The DMs can do whatever they feel like for their games.

 

[JEB]

We don't. The MM covers that by encouraging the DM to depart from the listed alignments. The DMs can do whatever they feel like for their games.

It seems pretty clear at this point that D&D needs to do more than just include that bit about alignment, though, considering how many people appear to have missed it and assume that a listed alignment means every single member of the species has that alignment. Maybe a whole section on varying monster portrayals (plus more nuance and options in monster listings generally).

I'm hoping Fizban's demonstrates a viable path forward...