D&D 5E Recent Errata clarifications

[Oofta]

But it's the chicken and the egg situation. They're described thusly, because they are evil and are evil because they're described thusly.

Also, once we get rid of alignment, it is easier to add nuance and shades of grey to the situation. Instead of childish "are they good or bad?" we can actually explore why creatures behave how they do, what sort of beliefs and drives they have. And then it is up to the reader to decide what they think of that. I'm sure many real human groups have been described in a manner similar to the description of the orcs, yet the reality behind such generalisations tends to be far more nuanced than simplistic good or evil.

And I think this is why alignment is just bad. Not only is it vague, you have to make all these things to get something that looks even close to alright. And even then, it doesn't really provide you the definition you want because the definitions are so wide open to interpretation. Instead of creating clarity, it causes confusion.



Yeah, but in simplifying something you want to increase clarity, not lessen it. I'd rather a system that works well with simpler ideas as well as complex ones, rather than one that only kind-of works with simple ones and falls apart with any sort of nuance.

Most monsters don't need a lot of nuance at their core, orcs already have more lore and thought but into them than the vast majority of villains in mass media. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from changing the default behavior and many settings do and have always done so. The tail is not wagging the dog.

I'm not trying to be rude, I just disagree and don't see any reason to continue because this never goes anywhere.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Most monsters don't need a lot of nuance at their core, orcs already have more lore and thought but into them than the vast majority of villains in mass media. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from changing the default behavior and many settings do and have always done so. The tail is not wagging the dog.

But the point is not just the nuance, but actually working as advertised: alignment is just terrible at what it sets out to do. It's not good at providing nuance, but when it comes to simplicity it doesn't work either because it uses concepts that have very individualized meanings and are argued over constantly.

I'm not trying to be rude, I just disagree and don't see any reason to continue because this never goes anywhere.

Sure, and I'm not going to hound you or tag you into a continuation. But I'm gonna post a response because I'm interested in putting my view out there.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yo, we talking Animorphs in this thread? Hell yeah

I think I've realised after re-reading that Animorphs is also the reason why I hate alignment so much because it very much goes into the "Individuals are evil, not entire races thing". The Yeerks we encountered are forced into a hostile regime that's basically gone "Either do this thing, enslave these free-thinking people, or we're going to kill you", and the Yeerks we encounter run the entire gamit from "True believer in this cause", "Forced into this and resisting when they can", and of course "Wants to take over the entire dang thing rest of the universe be damned". And these are the brain slugs that mind control you, having this nuance to them

The only specifically Evil things are characters who are very much that way after time

This 100%!

If a race of mind-controlling alien-slugs that are the major antagonists from a kids sci-fi book series can have good individuals because they have free will, so should every sentient species in fiction. If that means that Demons stop being Demons if they turn good (like Naviask from Exandria), that's perfectly fine by me. However, sentient creatures have free will and there can/will always be the possibility of an outlier individual (or even group of individuals).

#NotAllYeerks, I guess.

 

[Charlaquin]

There's nothing stopping DMs or WOTC from creating new orcs. I do think we should go back to a frequency qualifier to alignment.

We have done, as of Witchlight.

As far as abstract good and evil ... it's a game. It oversimplifies everything, why would anyone expect morality to be any different? Why is it held to a higher standard than 99% of mass media TV, movies or video games?

Umm… We’re holding other mass media to the same standard…

Last, but not least, I'm done with this conversation. Have a good one.

You as well!

 

[Charlaquin]

Yo, we talking Animorphs in this thread? Hell yeah

I think I've realised after re-reading that Animorphs is also the reason why I hate alignment so much because it very much goes into the "Individuals are evil, not entire races thing". The Yeerks we encountered are forced into a hostile regime that's basically gone "Either do this thing, enslave these free-thinking people, or we're going to kill you", and the Yeerks we encounter run the entire gamit from "True believer in this cause", "Forced into this and resisting when they can", and of course "Wants to take over the entire dang thing rest of the universe be damned". And these are the brain slugs that mind control you, having this nuance to them

The only specifically Evil things are characters who are very much that way after time

Animorphs was part of a trend of children’s media at the time increasingly being willing to respect the emotional intelligence of its audience. Creators were willing to show moral nuance to kids, to not paint everything in black and white terms. Anti-heroes, anti-villains, gray vs. gray morality all exploded in children’s media of the 90s and 00s. And it definitely impacted our tastes as adults.

Interestingly, children’s media of the 10s and 20s has pushed back against that trend to a certain extent. There’s still a lot of nuance on display, but the sympathetic villain has become kind of passé. “Cool backstory. Still murder.” was a popular phrase for a while, though with the pace of internet discourse I imagine that’s old hat by now.

 

[Charlaquin]

You know, Animorphs could make for a great source of inspiration for adventures involving mind flayers, now that I think about it. Maybe worth a re-read.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

There's nothing stopping DMs or WOTC from creating new orcs. I do think we should go back to a frequency qualifier to alignment.

As far as abstract good and evil ... it's a game. It oversimplifies everything, why would anyone expect morality to be any different? Why is it held to a higher standard than 99% of mass media TV, movies or video games?

Last, but not least, I'm done with this conversation. Have a good one.

I am waiting for people to boycott a sci-fi movie because most or all of the aliens are bad.

I presume the same people excoriating D&D are lapping up the other media.

too bad—-with a little more angsty hand wringing we could make people feel uncomfortable for watching alien invasion movies too.

Wookiees are strong? Too much stereotyping. Not enough depictions of short weak ones. Haha oh well.

 

[Oofta]

I am waiting for people to boycott a sci-fi movie because most or all of the aliens are bad.

I presume the same people excoriating D&D are lapping up the other media.

too bad—-with a little more angsty hand wringing we could make people feel uncomfortable for watching alien invasion movies too.

Wookiees are strong? Too much stereotyping. Not enough depictions of short weak ones. Haha oh well.

If we got rid of everything in D&D that was constantly debated I'm not sure there would be anything left.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

If we got rid of everything in D&D that was constantly debated I'm not sure there would be anything left.

Correct. It would be interesting to know what most appeals to the vocal critics and compile a list. Then build a game with only the elements that are approved of and see what it would look like.

there are tons of rpg products and systems. If we went with their wish/hit list would the game look as much like D&D as it did some other game?

 

[guachi]

if they are going to remove alignment from PC races can we get more flavour for the races as they feel just slightly too bland especially dwarves and halflings?

When WotC does their surveys and a question about favorite races is included I always choose Dwarf and Halfling because they are criminally under utilized in many of the supplements going back to 1e. A million subraces of elf but what I'd love is more interesting dwarfs and halfling. I know it can be done!

I'd love if 5.5e or 6e did like Level Up has done (plug for the books!) as I really like it. I backed it sight unseen and I think species, culture, background is a great way to build a PC and how I've tried to do it (poorly) as a DM so far. Being a human from here is different from a human from here and these are how we can simulate it for your PC. Plus, in Level Up many of the cultures are named right after the species indicating what the default is.

The Level Up book highlights what I find missing from so many 5e official supplements. We get new species after new species, but what I really want are loads of new cultures and backgrounds with mechanical fiddly-bobs that I can graft onto my home game. Doesn't matter to me if it's a generic supplement with generic cultures and backgrounds or a setting book with specific ones.

Too much of D&D seems to lean on the race itself to provide depth by rolling culture directly into the race description and I think that does D&D a disservice. I don't think Tasha's and other changes by WotC have done an effective job of moving away from that and instead have left what I considering a dissatisfying mix that's neither fish nor fowl.