D&D 5E Orcs and Drow in YOUR game (poll */comments +)

[Burnside]

Could you select Any Alignment?

The intention of Any Alignment is no predisposition.

If you don't use capital A Alignment, would that be equivalent?

"Any Alignment" implies that there are alignments, though. Just that you're not restricted to any one in particular. But yeah, I guess "Any" would be the best option. I'm just surprised that the poll doesn't anticipate not using alignment at all, because a large and growing number of tables don't use it. I expect that in the 50th anniversary core books, it'll be explicitly relegated to an optional rule.

 

[DarkMantle]

"Any Alignment" implies that there are alignments, though. Just that you're not restricted to any one in particular. But yeah, I guess "Any" would be the best option. I'm just surprised that the poll doesn't anticipate not using alignment at all, because a large and growing number of tables don't use it. I expect that in the 50th anniversary core books, it'll be explicitly relegated to an optional rule.

I wasn't aware of that. If you feel really strongly about this, I could add "Not applicable (we don't use Alignments in our game setting)"

But if people chose the "Not applicable" option for alignment, they would be precluded from choosing the other options.

And it won't let me edit the questions that are already there in the survey, it only allows for adding net new ones. For example, I can't change it to "In our game setting, orcs and drow will continue to be Any Alignment (or not have alignment)"

 

[Burnside]

I wasn't aware of that. If you feel really strongly about this, I could add "Not applicable (we don't use Alignments in our game setting)"

But if people chose the "Not applicable" option for alignment, they would precluded from choosing the other options.

And it won't let me edit the questions that are already there in the survey, it only allows for adding net new ones. For example, I can't change it to "In our game setting, orcs and drow will continue to be Any Alignment (or not have alignment)"

Thanks, I went with any.

An entirely separate poll to see how many folks are still using alignment might be an interesting one.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The thing is that we might do such changes as part of one campaign, for example for our Eberron campaign, but that does not mean that we would be making the change forever for whatever reasons. For example, we have an undergoing Eberron campaign in which orcs are of any alignment in parallel with another campaign where orcs are typically evil, and another one where there are simply no orcs. And that will go on, we will not be making changes overall due to ethics or whatever, but there might be local changes just because of the nature of some
campaigns.

I might actually start a campaign based on @AcererakTriple6's idea of Maglubiyet being at the center of fey goblins corruption. In the end, if freed from that influence, the goblins might become less typically evil (I'm putting "less" because it might take a long time for cultures to change). But I would be doing it for the story, not for any other reason.

I was thinking the best way (for my groups) would be: a group of epic-tier heroes defeated the Evil Gods about ten years ago, and goblinoids are no longer forced to be evil (any more than humans.)

Why ten years? Long enough for word to have gotten around - goblins are no longer kill-on-sight - but not long enough for a new normal to have really established itself. Goblins don't have a morality or religion anymore; some have embraced one or another, but as a group they're a bit aimless. Older goblins default to the old ways of being, younger ones actively seek new ways. Older non-goblins still have the same gut reaction (though they generally know better than to act on it), younger non-goblins don't have a stereotype to fall back on.

So if anyone's playing a goblin: it's about defining what they are, because right now no one knows.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Then just to avoid discussion, have the drows be of distinctive color (not brownish dark), and orcs be their original color, and you should be OK. But if you don't have alignment, at least no-one can accuse you of having evil dark races. Not that it has caused me any problems around the world...

And that's fine, you are left with the options of creatures being genetically evil like the WH orcs, or of any alignment, just be careful of the combination of genetically evil and dark skin...

I think that's the general perspective in most settings/games, ever since 3e started to use probabilistic alignment descriptors. But as demonstrated with D&D orcs and drows where no-one ever said that they were genetically evil, it was not sufficient to avoid criticism.

Lyxen I feel like adding these little tags to your post is going to shift this conversation away from the OP's original purpose and the + nature of this thread.

 

[DarkMantle]

I was thinking the best way (for my groups) would be: a group of epic-tier heroes defeated the Evil Gods about ten years ago, and goblinoids are no longer forced to be evil (any more than humans.)

Why ten years? Long enough for word to have gotten around - goblins are no longer kill-on-sight - but not long enough for a new normal to have really established itself. Goblins don't have a morality or religion anymore; some have embraced one or another, but as a group they're a bit aimless. Older goblins default to the old ways of being, younger ones actively seek new ways. Older non-goblins still have the same gut reaction (though they generally know better than to act on it), younger non-goblins don't have a stereotype to fall back on.

So if anyone's playing a goblin: it's about defining what they are, because right now no one knows.

There could be a neat time travel twist there.

The PCs go off into the Feywild, where time is funny. They thought they left the Material Plane for a week. Whey they come back, they encounter some goblins that they may or may not insta-kill. Then they learn that 10 years have passed, some evil gods were slain and goblins aren't the same as they were. Like a Witcher-esque morality twist.

 

[Lyxen]

Now, I'd really like to run an adventure where the heroes tries to analyze the link between the God's voice and a biological race, estimate that actually killing Lolth would be a solution, learn (just when facing her) that killing her would kill the drow and leave them catatonic as only her presence make them awake, only for the heroes to have to embark into a very Gloranthan God Learner quest to change the true nature of Lolth in order to have the drow freed. If you wanted a result to this discussion, thank you because you just got me an overarching campaign idea.

I was actually planning to do something of the kind with Maglubiyet, and of course a Gloranthan God Learner Heroquest is always at the centre of the way I think when thinking mythology. It's a bit harder with D&D, because the settings don't have the marvelous distinction of God Time, but it can always be resolved by a good old-fashioned time-travelling.

 

[DarkMantle]

I was actually planning to do something of the kind with Maglubiyet, and of course a Gloranthan God Learner Heroquest is always at the centre of the way I think when thinking mythology. It's a bit harder with D&D, because the settings don't have the marvelous distinction of God Time, but it can always be resolved by a good old-fashioned time-travelling.

Jinx!

 

[Lyxen]

Lyxen I feel like adding these little tags to your post is going to shift this conversation away from the OP's original purpose and the + nature of this thread.

Hmmm... Honestly, seeing that the OP also said "This is on purpose merely to show a high level of sensitivity to those who might/would expect to see change, in lieue of WoTC's statement. Just being extra-careful here." I think it's absolutely at the centre of this thread already. That being said, for once, it has stayed absolutely cordial and I will do my utmost to keep it this way in the spirit of a + thread. My comments were about improving the questionnaire, which has already been done by the OP in particular to mention the possibility of not changing.

 

[Lyxen]

Jinx!

Indeed, you beat me to it.