Changes to alignment (RE: Van Richten's Guide)?

[SpikeFightwicky]

Howdy folks,

I was flipping through the new Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, and noticed the new star spawn creatures didn't have any alignment listing. At first I thought "That could make sense... many Lovecraftian entities were neither evil or malevolent, just indiferent". Then I remembered that "unaligned" was their usual "go to" for that. I looked up other monsters, and it looks like none of them have any alignment listing. Did I miss an announcement? It looks like they're scrapping alignment maybe? Just kind of took me as a surprise. It seemed like they were moving away from it as a relevant feature, but I figure that would come in something like a PHB2.

Then again, alignment detection never worked as expected in Ravenloft. Is that kind of their way of conveying that?

I feel like I missed an announcement or something in the book that explains its lack. I figure at least the new fiends "Relentless Killers" would lean toward the evil side of the alignment wheel.

[Unoriginal]

Well now I'm angry.


I figure at least the new fiends "Relentless Killers" would lean toward the evil side of the alignment wheel.

Fiends stay fiends, so...

[SpikeFightwicky]

Fiends stay fiends, so...

Yet they lack any alignment :p

There's no MM style writeup for "how to read a stat block". I figure that would be where they would address that.

[RogueJK]

Yep. That's been the case over the two previous releases as well: Tasha's Cauldon of Everything and Candlekeep Mysteries.

WotC has done away with alignment in monster/companion/summon/NPC stat blocks.

[Unoriginal]

Yet they lack any alignment :p

There's no MM style writeup for "how to read a stat block". I figure that would be where they would address that.

Refer to the relevant entry in the MM about which sub-group of Fiend they belong.


Yep. It's been the trend over the two previous releases too, Tasha's and Candlekeep Mysteries. WotC has done away with monster/companion/summon/NPC alignment.

It's sad whoever is in charge now has failed reading the PHB.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Yep. That's been the case over the two previous releases as well: Tasha's Cauldon of Everything and Candlekeep Mysteries. WotC has done away with alignment in monster/companion/summon/NPC stat blocks.

Was there any kind of post made about it (by WOTC)? Just seems odd, as the fluff for a few abilities specifically state interactions with "strong evil and powerful good" (like in Divine Sense) or the spell "Protection from Evil and Good". Did they say if they were going to refluff those reference?

[SpikeFightwicky]

Refer to the relevant entry in the MM about which sub-group of Fiend they belong.


The ones in the Ravenloft book don't have a subtype, just "Fiend".

[Amnestic]

the spell "Protection from Evil and Good".

The name is the only thing that references alignment, the spell refers to creature types. It's mostly called that because of D&D history rather than its actual effects.

[RogueJK]

Was there any kind of post made about it (by WOTC)?

Kind of. It was mentioned in several interviews by WotC staff like Jeremy Crawford in 2020, but there wasn't any formal, official announcement that I can recall. Just repeated statements along the lines of "alignment is not going to be used as a broad brush to describe an entire group of creatures any more; it only describes specific individuals' motivations", and then its subsequent quiet disappearance from stat blocks.


Just seems odd, as the fluff for a few abilities specifically state interactions with "strong evil and powerful good" (like in Divine Sense) or the spell "Protection from Evil and Good".

To be fair, mechanically, neither of those have anything to do with alignment in 5E. They key off creature type, not alignment. And the new monster stat blocks include creature types. So you still know where you can Divine Sense them, or be protected from them with Protection from Evil and Good. Alignment isn't necessary for that.

But I don't know of any intent to delete/alter flavor text in existing materials.

[Unoriginal]

Just to note: In Candlekeep Mysteries, while the alignment isn't written on the statblock, the adventures do mention "X is a [Y alignment] [Z statblock]".

Seems like the typical WotC-let's-have-our-cake-and-eat-it-too nonsense to me.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Alignment has been vestigial for a while. I can count on one hand the amount of game mechanics that actually explicitly use it and those can easily be changed. Alignment is entirely subjective so it isn't terribly helpful on its own, and often times just serves to have encounters play out in a boring fashion where the players instantly trust or distrust a creature simply because they know the alignment for that creature type, or in fact, killing every creature of a certain type simply because of their "standard" alignment which is...bad for a lot of reasons.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Just so we're clear, I'm very much aware of the discussions on the issues with alignment. My main surprise is that I feel like I missed something where there might have been an official "no more alignment" statement. And I find it weird that they remove if from non-players when it's just as clunky on a character sheet as on an NPC stat block. I feel as though they should either keep or get rid of it everywhere. "I kill it because I'm chaotic" can be just as frustrating as "I kill it because I metagame".

Does this change how the D&D afterlife cosmology works? As far as I know, the spirit/soul of someone who dies goes to whoever they worshiped, or whichever afterlife zone matched their alignment if they didn't worship anyone (I think this was in Mordenkainen's book?). I envision there would have be some kind of new arbitration system in place.

[Warder]

Just so we're clear, I'm very much aware of the discussions on the issues with alignment. My main surprise is that I feel like I missed something where there might have been an official "no more alignment" statement. And I find it weird that they remove if from non-players when it's just as clunky on a character sheet as on an NPC stat block. I feel as though they should either keep or get rid of it everywhere. "I kill it because I'm chaotic" can be just as frustrating as "I kill it because I metagame".

Does this change how the D&D afterlife cosmology works? As far as I know, the spirit/soul of someone who dies goes to whoever they worshiped, or whichever afterlife zone matched their alignment if they didn't worship anyone (I think this was in Mordenkainen's book?). I envision there would have be some kind of new arbitration system in place.

I doubt they've done much thinking about how it affects anything in the afterlife and cosmology. But then again, they quietly removed mention of the Wall of the Faithless for the same reasons they made these changes, so who knows...

[MoiMagnus]

With a quick google search, I found this article (https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/03/dd-candlekeep-confirms-alignment-axed-for-new-monsters-2.html), which states that early 2020, the designers said that they were planning on removing the "alignment" part of the stat blocks for humanoids.

Later in 2020, I've found this tweet from JC (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1276274436056903680?s=20) that says "We know that those rules are insufficient and have changes coming in future products. [...] We are working to remove racist tropes from D&D. Alignment is only one part of that work, and alignment will be treated differently in the future."

Looking at that tweet, I'm surprised that Tasha didn't have a paragraph about it. I guess it didn't insert well in the structure of the book.

[Unoriginal]

Does this change how the D&D afterlife cosmology works? As far as I know, the spirit/soul of someone who dies goes to whoever they worshiped, or whichever afterlife zone matched their alignment if they didn't worship anyone (I think this was in Mordenkainen's book?). I envision there would have be some kind of new arbitration system in place.

People still have alignments, it's just not on the statblock anymore.

Nothing changes in practice, WotC was just afraid that declaring "the average X is Y" would be bad for their public image.


Doesn't change if a bandit tries to kill you in a raid and you kill them to defend yourself their soul is still getting sent to the afterlife that fits their worship or alignment the most.

[Telwar]

Having it not attached to the generic stat block makes sense with their new outlook. Specific individual stat blocks, though, like for (say) Humpty the Pit Fiend, should have the alignment attached with that specific block.

Not having the book, and not getting it, do they at least cover particular creature behavior in descriptions?

[Unoriginal]

Not having the book, and not getting it, do they at least cover particular creature behavior in descriptions?

From the previews I saw, yes.

[Millstone85]

But then again, they quietly removed mention of the Wall of the Faithless for the same reasons they made these changes, so who knows...Excuse me but could you elaborate? Is page 20 of the SCAG different in recent printings?

Edit: Wait, yes, it is coming back to me. The change was mentioned in the errata file.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Having it not attached to the generic stat block makes sense with their new outlook. Specific individual stat blocks, though, like for (say) Humpty the Pit Fiend, should have the alignment attached with that specific block.

Not having the book, and not getting it, do they at least cover particular creature behavior in descriptions?

I quick glance says yes, I don't see an entry without a few paragraphs describing the monster, and descriptors including their "viciousness" "bitterness" or "aggressiveness" are common in the handful I read.

[SpikeFightwicky]

People still have alignments, it's just not on the statblock anymore.

Nothing changes in practice, WotC was just afraid that declaring "the average X is Y" would be bad for their public image.


Doesn't change if a bandit tries to kill you in a raid and you kill them to defend yourself their soul is still getting sent to the afterlife that fits their worship or alignment the most.

Ah, ok. I wasn't sure if they were doing away with alignment altogether, or making piecemeal adjustments.

When they say: "[...]alignment will be treated differently in the future.", do they have any additional information? It seems pointless to keep it as a mechanic if there are no mechanics attached to it.

[Unoriginal]

When they say: "[...]alignment will be treated differently in the future.", do they have any additional information? It seems pointless to keep it as a mechanic if there are no mechanics attached to it.

Alignment is a roleplaying information, it is as pointless as a NPC description saying "this person never admits they're wrong" or "this person will fight to the death to protect their family from harm. Which is to mean it is not pointless.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Alignment is a roleplaying information, it is as pointless as a NPC description saying "this person never admits they're wrong" or "this person will fight to the death to protect their family from harm. Which is to mean it is not pointless.

(FYI, I'm not trying to derail my thread, just curious about this discussion :P)
For sure, though it could be argued that it's not necessary to roleplay by alignment. Not once have I ever thought "My character won't do this because my alignment forbids it." I just think "this isn't something my character would do." YYMV I guess? I've never been in a game where alignment came up in role playing situations and most of the time don't even reference it after character creation.

[Unoriginal]

(FYI, I'm not trying to derail my thread, just curious about this discussion :P)
For sure, though it could be argued that it's not necessary to roleplay by alignment. Not once have I ever thought "My character won't do this because my alignment forbids it." I just think "this isn't something my character would do." YYMV I guess? I've never been in a game where alignment came up in role playing situations and most of the time don't even reference it after character creation.

For info: do you think the same about Bonds, Flaws and the like?

Alignment only describe the typical tendencies of a person. Nothing stops a Demon from doing a genuinely nice thing with no ill intent. It's just rare because Demons tend to act with arbitrary violence spurned by anger, hatred or greed, but that doesn't mean it's the only thing they can do.

[SpikeFightwicky]

For info: do you think the same about Bonds, Flaws and the like?

Alignment only describe the typical tendencies of a person. Nothing stops a Demon from doing a genuinely nice thing with no ill intent. It's just rare because Demons tend to act with arbitrary violence spurned by anger, hatred or greed, but that doesn't mean it's the only thing they can do.

Sort of. My Bonds, Flaws, etc... are derived from the character I already have in my head, so I don't reference it after creation, but I do see it as good info for the DM if they want to reference them later on, like if my flaw is gambling and it comes up during play, or if an NPC figures it out and tempts the character with a brutal wager.

In the MM (unless that got errata'd), Demons are described as beings of pure Chaos and Evil, engines of destruction, and having no mercy, compassion, etc... That being said, I agree with your comment, and having different behaving demons adds more interesting world building. It reminds me of Disgaea 3, where a demon at a kind of boarding school for demons wants to be the "bad boy", so he decides to arrive on time for every class, answer questions properly, and do everything to be a model student, which makes him the outcast that the teachers hate.

[LudicSavant]

I am of much the same opinion as Rich Burlew in this post from 2012 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120), and thus am happy to see racial alignments go.

There is no need for races, rather than individuals, to be given alignments.

[SpikeFightwicky]

I am of much the same opinion as Rich Burlew in this post from 2012 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120), and thus am happy to see racial alignments go.

There is no need for races, rather than individuals, to be given alignments.

Yeah for sure, and it shows that Rich was/is ahead of the times. I'm still iffy on individual alignments as well (at least from the D&D alignment wheel), but I'm a stickler.

On that note, I also like that alignment detecting and affecting spells and abilities are gone (though I'd prefer a better name for "Protection from Good and Evil").

[Unoriginal]

There is no need for races, rather than individuals, to be given alignments.

Each statblock represents an individual, though, not a species.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Probably the most telling part of the the UA Gothic Lineage Designer Note, taking the new changes for PCs and extended them further as it concerns things like Ability Scores, Alignment, and Languages. Take a look at the NPC stat blocks and you'll notice lots of changes as well. In the end it's going to be some more work for DMs, but methinks it will be better for the game.


I'm actually surprised it took this long for them to separate a monster's proficiency bonus. I don't think it'll much more work in general. Except for stuff like fiends and celestials or unaligned, I just used monsters and NPCs as I needed them, regardless of alignment. I don't pay attention to UA or Twitter stuff so it took me by surprise.

[Millstone85]

I am of much the same opinion as Rich Burlew in this post from 2012 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120)A disappointing look into what drives The Giant. Or at least, it puts our author/fan connection in a negative light.

To me, a story about coexisting with non-human beings has little to say about how we dehumanize our neighbour. As an allegory, it is fundamentally self-defeating. So if, according to Rich Burlew's later post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=12718655&postcount=132), "Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism", I must conclude that I am enjoying OotS for all the wrong reasons.

[Theodoxus]

I quick glance says yes, I don't see an entry without a few paragraphs describing the monster, and descriptors including their "viciousness" "bitterness" or "aggressiveness" are common in the handful I read.

I'm a bit confused. Are these individual monsters or describing the species as a whole? Because if you say "orcs are vicious, bitter and aggressive, easily provoked into a killing rage", how is that better than "orcs are chaotic evil"?

Instead of using a coordinate system of 3x3 descriptors that are somehow wrongbadfun because reasons of IRL racism, you're using other descriptors that mean the exact same thing... that doesn't actually change anything other than simple-minded aesthetics.

I hope I'm wrong.

[Luccan]

Not including alignments for groups of free-willed creatures makes sense, but fiends really should be in the top five creature categories you can give a guilt-free butt-kicking to. Not including it on individuals is just bizarre if they aren't gonna come out and say alignment is being removed. They just really don't want to have to reformat the PHB, huh?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Each statblock represents an individual, though, not a species.

While technically true...the 5e MM, on page 7, under the Humanoid sections states:
"Almost as numerous but far more savage and brutal, and almost uniformly evil, are the races of goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears), ores, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds."

So if nigh, uniformly, Orcs all use the same stat block and alignments, aren't all Orcs just evil, as a whole?

I understand, that some like alignment as a concept. I personally don't, and have never really have. Alignment doesn't jive with the Banality of Evil....most of the wickedness done in the world, is done by "normal" persons...not people who are "Chaotic Evil".

Alignment categories are too broad to provide much in the way of Roleplaying hooks. Flaws, Ideals, etc provide a much more grounded approach, and give a player something concrete to build off of.

If a monster stat block is the base of an individual, then alignment is better left off, so nothing prejudices the reactions of the PCs, once the DM has decided how to portray the individual.

[greenstone]

There is no need for races, rather than individuals, to be given alignments.

I disagree a bit. I want to see something at the top of the stat block which tells me, a GM, how these monsters should generally behave.

I look at Boggle (https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/boggle) and see "Chaotic Neutral." Now I know I should be GMing one as random, untrustworthy, unpredictable, but not particularly malicious (or particularly virtuous either).

Removing alignment, with no replacement, is making my job harder. I now have to decide for each monster, whether it can be trusted, whether it is solitary or social, what its moral code is, what its motivations are, what might happen if the PCs attempt to negotiate, and so on. Some guidance for this should be in the book, at the top of the page (not buried in paragraphs of text at the bottom).

WOTC should have replaced it with some better system. For example, tags? "Boggle (solitary, unpredictable)", or "Ghast (hungry, cunning, amoral)" or "Dragon (greedy, possessive)".

[MaxWilson]

WotC already leaves off important monster information that 2nd edition monsters have, e.g. Frequency (Common, Rare, etc.), Diet (Omnivorous?), Activity cycle (Nocturnal?), Organization (Solitary or tribal?), Number appearing (1-2 or 3-300?), Ecology, Morale, etc.

Leaving off alignment is, well, honestly less bothersome to me than some of the other omissions. Alignment is useful info sometimes, but it's relatively easy to recreate from behavioral descriptions. If WotC was leaving it off to provide more room for useful info because they've been putting a lot of thought into monster ecology and psychology and they want the room to add tags to every monster (e.g. Neothelid: moist environments only, brain eater, never sleeps, groups of 2-5, feels no pain and fights to the death), I would rejoice. But it sounds like they're just deleting it so we can have even less useful information about each monster. Hurrah.

I'm increasingly unlikely to buy (let alone read and use) any more products made by the current WotC design team.

[Thunderous Mojo]

.
I'm increasingly unlikely to buy (let alone read and use) any more products made by the current WotC design team.

I just read Chapter 5: Monsters of Ravenloft of the new book ..and the advice in that section is solid, and useful for DMs. I'm cautiously optimistic that Ray Winninger lead D&D might provide good, imaginative, and useful products.

2E's Monstrous Compendium was the high water point for "creature catalogues"; every entry attempted to read like an Ecology article from Dragon Magazine.

Realistically, there is a segment of the D&D player base that is very literal minded. The "Number of Appearing" catergory was removed from monster stat blocks, as, (I think), many DMs just got tired of feeling like their hands were tied creatively by the "Rules as Written".

"Manticores are solitary, and don't live with their mates...so why are there two manticores here...it should only be one...." these types of comments were made back in the AD&D days by some players....(myself included).

[MaxWilson]

To me, a story about coexisting with non-human beings has little to say about how we dehumanize our neighbour. As an allegory, it is fundamentally self-defeating. So if, according to Rich Burlew's later post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=12718655&postcount=132), "Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism", I must conclude that I am enjoying OotS for all the wrong reasons.

Recent OOTS strips certainly are anvilicious, to the point where they make sense ONLY as a statement about the real world, and not in context within the fantasy world. Durkon's reaction to Fenris creating goblins as a fast-breeding zerg horde designed to win through quantity ("quantity has a quality of its own") is... interpreted by Durkon as some kind of fundamental unfairness towards goblins, not towards humans? What in the world? How did Durkon get from there (reproductive advantage) to here (poor goblins)? How is "horde strategy designed to win" connected to "humans will always beat goblins because they're better equipped and that's unfair to goblins"?

Maybe it's just because I never played 3E, because in 5E the zerg/goblin strategy is fantastic. At most Durkon should be like, "poor goblins, created by an idiot who didn't think through the ruleset before choosing a (poor) strategy," if it really is a poor strategy in 3E terms (?), but of course the only real world implications there would be e.g. pity for extinct theropod dinosaurs, Neanderthals and Denisovans.

TL;DR: Durkon and Roy's unhappiness don't make any sense in-character, only as an OOC analogy. That's weird to read about because it means the story can't be understood without referencing a metacontext.

[Sigreid]

I'd just take it as a sign they're getting tired of getting yelled at for assigning a default alignment and being called horrible things for having creatures have tendencies in a game of make believe.

[Greywander]

I'm getting real sick of them trying to make our hobbies political.

First of all, we all know the alignment system is borked. I'd love to see the Good-Evil axis replaced with something else that allows for good and evil characters on both sides (e.g. Light and Dark, Harmony and Dominion, Nature and Technology, etc.), but the alignment system is tied too heavily into the lore, particularly with the Great Wheel. You'd either need to come up with a completely new setting, or make some drastic changes to the existing settings. Love it or hate it, alignment is here to stay.

Second, I don't need anyone to tell me that I can change a creature's alignment from what's listed in the stat block, and removing alignment entirely is completely unnecessary. As a DM, I can make a Lawful Good orc if I want to. As a player, I wouldn't be fazed if the kindly mayor all the townsfolk have been telling me about is an orc. I already implicitly understand that every creature is different and can have their own personality and motivation. D&D has always been a game about heroes fighting monsters, so it actually makes a lot of sense to have stock monsters you can throw at the heroes without creating a moral dilemma. If we want to deviate from that, the DM has the power to do so within their own discretion. Removing stock evil creatures is actually working against the core design of the game.

Thirdly, when 99.9% of orcs will try to kill you, you're going to end up dead very quickly if you give them the benefit of the doubt on the off chance that you happened to encounter the one good orc. No, pragmatically you have to assume by default that any orc you encounter is hostile and will need to be killed if it can't be avoided, your own survival depends on this. Circumstances might make it more likely that this orc in particular might be friendly, but you're risking your life by investigating this. You're like a firefighter running into a burning building on the off-chance that someone might be inside; it's up to you to weigh the risks, and it's a completely understandable choice to prioritize your own survival instead of sticking your neck out for a stranger.

Fourthly, not every hostile creature necessarily needs to be "evil" (alignment notwithstanding). Mind flayers need to eat humanoid brains to survive; they'll die if they don't. It's not that mind flayers are mustache-twirling villains, they're just trying to insure their own survival. Essentially, the reason they're killing us is the same reason we're killing them: survival. A lot of the creatures labeled with an evil alignment are usually in a position where they want or need something that puts them in direct conflict with the humanoid races that usually make up adventuring parties. They're not "evil" for no reason, they have goals and motivations that that contradict the goals and motivations of the players, making mutual hostility inevitable. It's less "Good vs. Evil" and more "Two Enter, One Leaves".

Fifth, orcs are not black people. I play to be entertained, and to escape for a moment the myriad of troubles that plague Real Life™. The last thing I want to be thinking about while playing D&D is real life political issues. Fantasy can be a great tool for exploring a variety of themes, such as philosophy, morality, theology, politics, and much more, but nobody likes to be preached at. It takes skill and subtlety to weave a lesson into a story without diminishing its enjoyment, and all too often those who try have all the finesse of a beached whale*. These are really things that should be left to the DMs to handle, as they know their own tables best and if and how to implement such topics into their campaigns.

*Case in point: Warcraft 3 managed to depict orcs as slaves overthrowing their human oppressors and later experiencing discrimination at the hands of the night elves, only for all three to put aside their differences and work together for a common goal. And it did this without ever drawing any kind of parallel to real life. They didn't set out to make some kind of propaganda piece, they just made a fun game with an interesting story, and it happens to have some useful lessons hidden within.

Sixth... yeah, the alignment system is probably the biggest issue here. If not for the Good and Evil labels, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Nobody cares that hobgoblins are Lawful, or that orcs are Chaotic. But, as mentioned in the first point above, alignment isn't going anywhere. The best they can do is to downplay it, which is what they've been doing. The thing is, alignment does still have its uses, namely to act as a shorthand for how the DM should RP an NPC or monster. Removing it without providing a suitable replacement is only going to make things harder for the DM. Personally, I'm a fan of the Four Temperaments (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FourTemperamentEnsemble) (likely with a primary and secondary temperament for each character), but I don't know that that covers as much as alignments do.

[Unoriginal]

I'm a bit confused. Are these individual monsters or describing the species as a whole? Because if you say "orcs are vicious, bitter and aggressive, easily provoked into a killing rage", how is that better than "orcs are chaotic evil"?

It isn't, it's just WotC trying to have its cake and eat it too.


I disagree a bit. I want to see something at the top of the stat block which tells me, a GM, how these monsters should generally behave.

I look at Boggle (https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/boggle) and see "Chaotic Neutral." Now I know I should be GMing one as random, untrustworthy, unpredictable, but not particularly malicious (or particularly virtuous either).

Removing alignment, with no replacement, is making my job harder. I now have to decide for each monster, whether it can be trusted, whether it is solitary or social, what its moral code is, what its motivations are, what might happen if the PCs attempt to negotiate, and so on. Some guidance for this should be in the book, at the top of the page (not buried in paragraphs of text at the bottom).

Agreed. It's just a shorthand so we don't have to read the entire entry whenever we forget a detail.

I've seen people who played different D&D editions for decades and who still don't remember if the Devils are the lawful evil ones or the chaotic evil ones.


Recent OOTS strips certainly are anvilicious, to the point where they make sense ONLY as a statement about the real world, and not in context within the fantasy world. Durkon's reaction to Fenris creating goblins as a fast-breeding zerg horde designed to win through quantity ("quantity has a quality of its own") is... interpreted by Durkon as some kind of fundamental unfairness towards goblins, not towards humans? What in the world? How did Durkon get from there (reproductive advantage) to here (poor goblins)? How is "horde strategy designed to win" connected to "humans will always beat goblins because they're better equipped and that's unfair to goblins"?

Maybe it's just because I never played 3E, because in 5E the zerg/goblin strategy is fantastic. At most Durkon should be like, "poor goblins, created by an idiot who didn't think through the ruleset before choosing a (poor) strategy," if it really is a poor strategy in 3E terms (?), but of course the only real world implications there would be e.g. pity for extinct theropod dinosaurs, Neanderthals and Denisovans.

TL;DR: Durkon and Roy's unhappiness don't make any sense in-character, only as an OOC analogy. That's weird to read about because it means the story can't be understood without referencing a metacontext.

What Durkon is unhappy about is more that the goblins were given hard-to-survive-in territories. The zerg rush aspect doesn't really come into play aside from Thor explaining how the goblins ended up in this situation.



I'm increasingly unlikely to buy (let alone read and use) any more products made by the current WotC design team.

The new monsters of the book are pretty neat, though. I would encourage you to read them and decide if they're worth using.

I think you'd enjoy the Star Spawn Emissary at least.

[MoiMagnus]

I'm a bit confused. Are these individual monsters or describing the species as a whole? Because if you say "orcs are vicious, bitter and aggressive, easily provoked into a killing rage", how is that better than "orcs are chaotic evil"?

Instead of using a coordinate system of 3x3 descriptors that are somehow wrongbadfun because reasons of IRL racism, you're using other descriptors that mean the exact same thing... that doesn't actually change anything other than simple-minded aesthetics.

I hope I'm wrong.

The probable answer is that WotC is trying to have its cake and eat it. But if one want to give them the benefits of the doubt, here is a reasonable explanation:
+ Alignment as part of a monster stat block can easily be read as an absolute and intrinsic property of every monster of this race. This coupled with the widely spread prescriptive vision of the alignments ("orcs must do bad things because their alignment is evil", instead of the descriptive vision of "orcs are evil because they do bad things") pushes player to think that orcs being evil is as unavoidable as demons and other beings made of pure cosmical evil are evil.
+ The paragraph describing the monster behaviours and the culture are more widely considered as being setting-dependant, and not applying to every single individual of the race. More peoples understand them of mere description of "how things are currently", instead of saying that "things cannot be different".

[Unoriginal]

The probable answer is that WotC is trying to have its cake and eat it. But if one want to give them the benefits of the doubt, here is a reasonable explanation:
+ Alignment as part of a monster stat block can easily be read as an absolute and intrinsic property of every monster of this race. This coupled with the widely spread prescriptive vision of the alignments ("orcs must do bad things because their alignment is evil", instead of the descriptive vision of "orcs are evil because they do bad things") pushes player to think that orcs being evil is as unavoidable as demons and other beings made of pure cosmical evil are evil.
+ The paragraph describing the monster behaviours and the culture are more widely considered as being setting-dependant, and not applying to every single individual of the race. More peoples understand them of mere description of "how things are currently", instead of saying that "things cannot be different".

Issue is, the PHB's section on alignment already dispel both misconceptions in an explicit manner.

[MoiMagnus]

Issue is, the PHB's section on alignment already dispel both misconceptions in an explicit manner.

It does for peoples who read it. [If one want to give the benefits of the doubt to WotC,] By removing this section of the stat block, they are also trying to make it visible to peoples who skipped over this paragraph of the PHB.

[Theodoxus]

Sixth... yeah, the alignment system is probably the biggest issue here. If not for the Good and Evil labels, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Nobody cares that hobgoblins are Lawful, or that orcs are Chaotic. But, as mentioned in the first point above, alignment isn't going anywhere. The best they can do is to downplay it, which is what they've been doing. The thing is, alignment does still have its uses, namely to act as a shorthand for how the DM should RP an NPC or monster. Removing it without providing a suitable replacement is only going to make things harder for the DM. Personally, I'm a fan of the Four Temperaments (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FourTemperamentEnsemble) (likely with a primary and secondary temperament for each character), but I don't know that that covers as much as alignments do.

Probably an unpopular opinion, but the Palladium alignment system has always been my favorite:

Good: Principled and Scrupulous
Selfish: (not neutral!) Unprincipled and Anarchist
Evil: Miscreant, Aberrant and Diabolic

Even with only 7 alignments, it does a better job of detailing what most people think of in terms of alignment as an ideal state, rather than current state. Really, my only issue is with the use of 'always', 'never' and the like:

Principled (Good)
Principled characters are, generally, the strong, moral character — the "Boy Scout" or do-gooder paladin of the group. He or she is usually compassionate, caring, cooperative and sincere.
Principled Characters Will.. .
1. Always keep his word.
2. Avoid lies.
3. Never kill or attack an unarmed foe.
4. Never harm an innocent.
5. Never torture for any reason.
6. Never kill for pleasure.
7. Always help others.
8. Work well in a group.
9. Respect authority, law, self-discipline and honor.
10. Never betray a friend.
11. Never break the law unless conditions are desperate.
This means no breaking and entry, theft, torture, unprovoked assaults, etc.

But if taken to mean the ideal Principled character will... then it works better for my own headcannon. YMMV.

[Xervous]

5e being about appearances and feel this doesn’t strike me as odd. They continue to promise a lot while only providing a still frame of stepping in that direction, letting their audience assume it’s part of a sequence of motion. Alignment was already a rather vestigial feature that can easily be replaced, assuming they do a good or better job of capturing what it could convey at every turn. It’s the intent behind the changes that is more disturbing, a worship of the minority veto that demonstrates how mass appeal and sales are the main concern, to the exclusion of anything that gets in the way.

[Unoriginal]

Nobody cares that hobgoblins are Lawful, or that orcs are Chaotic.

I do.


10 characters.

[Xervous]

I do.

Well I must say the title does flow with your username. Unoriginal Nobody

In absence of greater detail I too find the alignment labels helpful.

[Sigreid]

Well I must say the title does flow with your username. Unoriginal Nobody

In absence of greater detail I too find the alignment labels helpful.

That's really what they're mostly supposed to be used for from a DM perspective. An alignment for a creature gives the DM a quick 2 word description of general rules of engagement and behavior for a typical sample of that kind of being.

[hamishspence]

While technically true...the 5e MM, on page 7, under the Humanoid sections states:
"Almost as numerous but far more savage and brutal, and almost uniformly evil, are the races of goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears), orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds."

So if nigh, uniformly, Orcs all use the same stat block and alignments, aren't all Orcs just evil, as a whole?

I understand, that some like alignment as a concept. I personally don't, and have never really have. Alignment doesn't jive with the Banality of Evil....most of the wickedness done in the world, is done by "normal" persons...not people who are "Chaotic Evil".

This really doesn't gel well with the whole "Lizardfolk are Neutral " thing that their own actual entry gives.

Just goes to show how inconsistent 5e can be.

[JonBeowulf]

That's really what they're mostly supposed to be used for from a DM perspective. An alignment for a creature gives the DM a quick 2 word description of general rules of engagement and behavior for a typical sample of that kind of being.
This.

In previous editions, alignment was a label for the general behavior of PCs and NPCs. Now PCs have bonds, flaws, etc. that give a much better description of the PCs motivations. 3x3 alignment is a DM tool. It's a flag that quickly describes an NPCs general behavior.

Jokkar, captain of the town militia, will be played differently based on this flag.

Same is true for the monster-types out there. I don't want to memorize the intricacies of the specific wording used to describe the bog-standard <monster> -- I want a flag that lets me know how they generally behave so I can get on with running the game.

[Imbalance]

Such changes to conform to the new moral outrage make it feel as if the fiends are winning by propaganda: "we're not bad, see? Look, there's no such thing as evil, says so right here."

[KorvinStarmast]

Refer to the relevant entry in the MM about which sub-group of Fiend they belong.
It's sad whoever is in charge now has failed reading the PHB. Yeah, WoTC needs to RTFM. Fiends are not humanoids. Different creature type. MM ought to also be read.

Just to note: In Candlekeep Mysteries, while the alignment isn't written on the statblock, the adventures do mention "X is a [Y alignment] [Z statblock]". Yes, and that's good role play info to use for the DM.
[QUOTE=MoiMagnus;25053167]With a quick google search, I found this article (https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/03/dd-candlekeep-confirms-alignment-axed-for-new-monsters-2.html), which states that early 2020, the designers said that they were planning on removing the "alignment" part of the stat blocks for humanoids. I bolded the important bit: fiends are not humanoids. They are fiends. (I personally don't mind leaving humanoid stat blocks fluid; fits how I run NPCs / Orcs / Hobgoblins anyway)

Not including alignments for groups of free-willed creatures makes sense, but fiends really should be in the top five creature categories you can give a guilt-free butt-kicking to. Yeah, unless WoTC wants to be accused, 40 years later, of promoting Satanism like in the bad old days of a certain rabid anti D&Der did back in the TSR era.

[SpikeFightwicky]

So here's another question: what are they doing with Volo's and Mordenkainen's books? Both of them describe the races in the "old" way. This is literally a line from Volo's section about orcs:
"Savage and fearless, orc tribes are ever in search of elves, dwarves, and humans to destroy." There's no nuance in that statement... chapters 1 and 2 of Volo's and probably 1 through 5 of Mordenkainen's would need rewrites under their new approach to alignment.
Like... shouldn't they be doing rewrites and reprints if they're heading in a direction to remove alignment connotations? I know they did with Curse of Strahd (rewrites for Vistani fluff I think?). It just feels like they're doing half measures (have their cake and eat it too, as Unoriginal mentioned).

[Sigreid]

Yeah, WoTC needs to RTFM. Fiends are not humanoids. Different creature type. MM ought to also be read.
[QUOTE=Unoriginal;25053132]Just to note: In Candlekeep Mysteries, while the alignment isn't written on the statblock, the adventures do mention "X is a [Y alignment] [Z statblock]". Yes, and that's good role play info to use for the DM.
I bolded the important bit: fiends are not humanoids. They are fiends. (I personally don't mind leaving humanoid stat blocks fluid; fits how I run NPCs / Orcs / Hobgoblins anyway)
Yeah, unless WoTC wants to be accused, 40 years later, of promoting Satanism like in the bad old days of a certain rabid anti D&Der did back in the TSR era.

Still don't see what the problem was with humanoid alignments personally. Even in 1e the alignment in the MM was presented as any random group you're likely to encounter is going to be oriented this way, but the DM can have a particular group be oriented however he wants. You could even have taken it as the group is perceived by the main character races as being like X. Funnily enough, if you treat someone like they're evil consistently enough they may act hostile toward you if just out of preemptive self defense.

[hamishspence]

As a DM, I can make a Lawful Good orc if I want to. As a player, I wouldn't be fazed if the kindly mayor all the townsfolk have been telling me about is an orc. I already implicitly understand that every creature is different and can have their own personality and motivation. D&D has always been a game about heroes fighting monsters, so it actually makes a lot of sense to have stock monsters you can throw at the heroes without creating a moral dilemma. If we want to deviate from that, the DM has the power to do so within their own discretion. Removing stock evil creatures is actually working against the core design of the game.

Thirdly, when 99.9% of orcs will try to kill you, you're going to end up dead very quickly if you give them the benefit of the doubt on the off chance that you happened to encounter the one good orc. No, pragmatically you have to assume by default that any orc you encounter is hostile and will need to be killed if it can't be avoided, your own survival depends on this. Circumstances might make it more likely that this orc in particular might be friendly, but you're risking your life by investigating this. You're like a firefighter running into a burning building on the off-chance that someone might be inside; it's up to you to weigh the risks, and it's a completely understandable choice to prioritize your own survival instead of sticking your neck out for a stranger.

When these two are combined - the DM putting a "kindly orc" in a town and at the same time the players assuming that the orc is hostile and attacking it "to protect the innocents in the orc's vicinity" (or just themselves) - the result will be the players being extremely upset that their characters are being treated as murderers.

Telling the players that it is morally safe to attack all orcs on sight and then including "harmless orc citizens" is a recipe for disaster.

[Sigreid]

When these two are combined - the DM putting a "kindly orc" in a town and at the same time the players assuming that the orc is hostile and attacking it "to protect the innocents in the orc's vicinity" (or just themselves) - the result will be the players being extremely upset that their characters are being treated as murderers.

Telling the players that it is morally safe to attack all orcs on sight and then including "harmless orc citizens" is a recipe for disaster.

Except that an orc in town and no one is freaking out and running for their lives is what military intelligence would call a key indicator that this is not the normal orc you meet in the bad lands.

[Xervous]

So here's another question: what are they doing with Volo's and Mordenkainen's books? Both of them describe the races in the "old" way. This is literally a line from Volo's section about orcs:
"Savage and fearless, orc tribes are ever in search of elves, dwarves, and humans to destroy." There's no nuance in that statement... chapters 1 and 2 of Volo's and probably 1 through 5 of Mordenkainen's would need rewrites under their new approach to alignment.
Like... shouldn't they be doing rewrites and reprints if they're heading in a direction to remove alignment connotations? I know they did with Curse of Strahd (rewrites for Vistani fluff I think?). It just feels like they're doing half measures (have their cake and eat it too, as Unoriginal mentioned).

Vistani were a whole different matter. You didn’t see anyone arguing they were anything but a real world stereotype. The general responses I saw on the topic were “about time” or “how did they keep that in for so long?”

Edit:

Funnily enough, if you treat someone like they're evil consistently enough they may act hostile toward you if just out of preemptive self defense.
I think this summarizes one half of the typical thread locking conflict nicely given we are straying in that direction again.

[KorvinStarmast]

gratuitous funny alignment thing
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/97/0c/3d/970c3d3b7f5ed0a2e26bfd1becffa2a1.jpg


Still don't see what the problem was with humanoid alignments personally. There isn't one, for gamers who understand that they are playing a game, but they have gotten a variety of public pushback on Twitter (not gonna say further than that) and this is their chosen corporate response.

[Unoriginal]

When these two are combined - the DM putting a "kindly orc" in a town and at the same time the players assuming that the orc is hostile and attacking it "to protect the innocents in the orc's vicinity" (or just themselves) - the result will be the players being extremely upset that their characters are being treated as murderers.

Telling the players that it is morally safe to attack all orcs on sight and then including "harmless orc citizens" is a recipe for disaster.

The game never says that it is "morally safe" to attack all orcs on sight.

Adventurers in modules fight orcs when those orcs are engaging in activities such as banditry, slavery, attempted murder or open warfare. Just like any other individual engaging in such activities. That's what make it "morally safe".

Someone who typically attack all orcs on sight is likely of an evil alignment. Even in cases where most of the orcs they attack are chaotic evil.


Except that an orc in town and no one is freaking out and running for their lives is what military intelligence would call a key indicator that this is not the normal orc you meet in the bad lands.

Even if you meet a typical orc in the bad lands, murdering them on sight is a sign your character should have a "e" as the second letter of their alignment.

[Morty]

Removing alignments from statblocks is a pretty good step, but it seems that as usual, it's done awkwardly and without offering anything in exchange. So pretty par for the course for D&D. Hopefully making alignment less and less relevant continues, though. Even without replacing it, lack of alignment is better than its presence.

[hamishspence]

The game never says that it is "morally safe" to attack all orcs on sight.

Adventurers in modules fight orcs when those orcs are engaging in activities such as banditry, slavery, attempted murder or open warfare. Just like any other individual engaging in such activities. That's what make it "morally safe".

Someone who typically attack all orcs on sight is likely of an evil alignment. Even in cases where most of the orcs they attack are chaotic evil.

I'm talking about this:


when 99.9% of orcs will try to kill you, you're going to end up dead very quickly if you give them the benefit of the doubt on the off chance that you happened to encounter the one good orc. No, pragmatically you have to assume by default that any orc you encounter is hostile and will need to be killed if it can't be avoided, your own survival depends on this. Circumstances might make it more likely that this orc in particular might be friendly, but you're risking your life by investigating this. You're like a firefighter running into a burning building on the off-chance that someone might be inside; it's up to you to weigh the risks, and it's a completely understandable choice to prioritize your own survival instead of sticking your neck out for a stranger.

The argument being made is that "assuming all orcs you encounter need to be killed if they can't be avoided" is pragmatic rather than evil.


And I'm saying that if the players are told this, and at the same time the DM includes a harmless orc mayor or two, the inevitable consequence is that the mayor will be attacked, the characters will be seen as murderers by the population of the mayor's town, and that the players will end up upset at the DM for the combination of the two things.

[Unoriginal]

I'm talking about this:

I apologize.



The argument being made is that "assuming all orcs you encounter need to be killed if they can't be avoided" is pragmatic rather than evil.

That argument doesn't hold water. Beside, pragmatism and evil aren't mutually exclusive.



And I'm saying that if the players are told this, and at the same time the DM includes a harmless orc mayor or two, the inevitable consequence is that the mayor will be attacked, the characters will be seen as murderers by the population of the mayor's town, and that the players will end up upset at the DM for the combination of the two things.

I agree, yes.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Vistani were a whole different matter. You didn’t see anyone arguing they were anything but a real world stereotype. The general responses I saw on the topic were “about time” or “how did they keep that in for so long?”

For sure, and I don't disagree.
When I see those tweets that state how they feel like alignment in a stat block can cause a race to be stereotyped as evil so they're changing the stat blocks, it sounds a bit hollow when they have entire fluff books that default those same races to being evil and there's no mention of changing those books (note, this is just FR default. I feel Wildemount and Eberron have much better fluff, but if the default D&D realm is FR, they may want to address that as well). Maybe they mentioned they'll be changing racial fluff from those books already, I don't know. If so I'd be interested in a link to that tweet or interview. The entirety of Faerun's fluff needs an overhaul under these new approaches so I find it odd they've never mentioned that FR is currently fluffed in opposition of their new approach.

[Unoriginal]

For sure, and I don't disagree.
When I see those tweets that state how they feel like alignment in a stat block can cause a race to be stereotyped as evil so they're changing the stat blocks, it sounds a bit hollow when they have entire fluff books that default those same races to being evil and there's no mention of changing those books (note, this is just FR default. I feel Wildemount and Eberron have much better fluff, but if the default D&D realm is FR, they may want to address that as well). Maybe they mentioned they'll be changing racial fluff from those books already, I don't know. If so I'd be interested in a link to that tweet or interview. The entirety of Faerun's fluff needs an overhaul under these new approaches so I find it odd they've never mentioned that FR is currently fluffed in opposition of their new approach.

Default D&D lore isn't FR lore. There are many differences, which are highlighted in the Sword Coast's guide.

Also just to say, the Wildemount lore on orcs is a thousand times worse than any other D&D lore about them.

And the Wildemount lore on goblinoid alignment is on thin ice.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Default D&D lore isn't FR lore. There are many differences, which are highlighted in the Sword Coast's guide.

Also just to say, the Wildemount lore on orcs is a thousand times worse than any other D&D lore about them.

And the Wildemount lore on goblinoid alignment is on thin ice.

Honestly I thought that now the default D&D was FR and not Greyhawk for 5e (though that source was a thread on the forums a few years back, so suspect at best :P ). That helps. Though it also makes me a bit miffed that the book releases are so FR based.

I will unabashedly admit that I'm wrong on Wildemount lore. I seem to recall them being more chill, but now I'm going to reread it. ...Ok I just took a quick glance and OUCH! Yeah that's not better fluff at all. I will admit I'm wrong on this, I think I was confusing Eberron orcs for Wildemount orcs.

[KorvinStarmast]

Honestly I thought that now the default D&D was FR Man, that would be horrible. FR has some serious issues, besides being full of Mary Sue characters like Elminster and Drizzle ... :smalltongue:

[Sigreid]

Honestly I thought that now the default D&D was FR and not Greyhawk for 5e (though that source was a thread on the forums a few years back, so suspect at best :P ). That helps. Though it also makes me a bit miffed that the book releases are so FR based.

I will unabashedly admit that I'm wrong on Wildemount lore. I seem to recall them being more chill, but now I'm going to reread it. ...Ok I just took a quick glance and OUCH! Yeah that's not better fluff at all. I will admit I'm wrong on this, I think I was confusing Eberron orcs for Wildemount orcs.

In classic Grayhawk there was an orc kingdom that had been tamed by their leader and dealt more or less as a normal nation.

[hamishspence]

In Faerun, in late 3e and 4e and the very beginning of 5e, there was the orc kingdom Many-Arrows, which was on diplomatic terms with its neighbours.


Then it got destroyed in the novels, around the time that the 5e Sword Coast splatbook came out.

[Unoriginal]

Honestly I thought that now the default D&D was FR and not Greyhawk for 5e

Well it's not Greyhawk either.

Official lore is more similar to Planescape for the planar stuff and to Spelljammer for the Material Plane, but changed for the edition.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Fifth, orcs are not black people.

It doesn't take a literal correspondence of truth, for empathy to apply.
If I have been treated unfairly, and later I see someone else being treated unfairly, in the same manner...should I just not care because it isn't me?

People that want to see a broadening of the roles possible for the various options available to be Player Characters see the difference between fictional Orcs and the experiences of actual people on Earth. What they also see, is that a certain commonality of underlying ideas seems to underpin both occurrences.


I play to be entertained, and to escape for a moment the myriad of troubles that plague Real Life™.

Cool. I'm a big fan of Pretzel and Beer games. You are free to run your home game as you like. WotC as a company that serves the approximately 50 million D&D players that exist right now, has an obligation to make a game that is widely palatable to all.

If you want always evil Orcs....run the game that way. Not having Alignment frees you up to do so, while the D&D game ran by your neighbor is free to run it differently.



There isn't one, for gamers who understand that they are playing a game,
Games and play is how animals learn to interact with the world.

I think you are a little older than myself Korvin, but I suspect we both remember a childhood game that was called (trigger warning): Smear the Queer.

Games matter. I'm all for some escapism...but I am more for Naked Lunches...where we see what exactly is on the end of our fork, and what we may be swallowing without realizing it.

Of course that is just, my point of view.✌️

This really doesn't gel well with the whole "Lizardfolk are Neutral " thing that their own actual entry gives.

Just goes to show how inconsistent 5e can be.

Historically, Lizardfolk were somewhat neutral, but Lizard Kings,(the separate creature) were Chaotic Evil. In this way one could argue that Lizardfolk are not inherently evil, but have wicked leadership. 🤷🏻

No two games are going to run a shared setting in the exact same way. Variance is the name of the game, and the reason why people have been discussing D&D online since Baud Rate Modems.😆 Clearly the handful of people that wrote the rules had one perspective....but a sizable enough group of players have a different perspective...enough people that WotC felt a change was warranted.

Paradigm shifts happen, and people feel uncomfortable when "the world changes". I empathize, sympathize, and understand, personally and directly, how difficult change can be.

I just hope people can have an open mind, and try to step away from their own conceptions and try to understand where someone else is coming from.

[Xervous]

WotC as a company that serves the approximately 50 million D&D players that exist right now, has an obligation to make a game that is widely palatable to all.


A financial obligation to daddy Hasbro. I applaud the fact that speaking with money is impacting these corporate giants but let’s not suggest it’s benevolence rather than fear and self preservation that drive these business decisions. Though part of the package is in selling the feeling of benevolence the same as 5e sells the feel of D&D. It’s the right business decision for the product in the current environment but that doesn’t mean it’s the point for point the right decision for the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

A financial obligation to daddy Hasbro. I applaud the fact that speaking with money is impacting these corporate giants but let’s not suggest it’s benevolence rather than fear and self preservation that drive these business decisions. Yeah, money talks and BS walks. :smallcool:

[Dr. Cliché]

WotC already leaves off important monster information that 2nd edition monsters have, e.g. Frequency (Common, Rare, etc.), Diet (Omnivorous?), Activity cycle (Nocturnal?), Organization (Solitary or tribal?), Number appearing (1-2 or 3-300?), Ecology, Morale, etc.

Glad I'm not the only one who misses having this sort of information.



I'm getting real sick of them trying to make our hobbies political.

First of all, we all know the alignment system is borked. I'd love to see the Good-Evil axis replaced with something else that allows for good and evil characters on both sides (e.g. Light and Dark, Harmony and Dominion, Nature and Technology, etc.), but the alignment system is tied too heavily into the lore, particularly with the Great Wheel. You'd either need to come up with a completely new setting, or make some drastic changes to the existing settings. Love it or hate it, alignment is here to stay.

Second, I don't need anyone to tell me that I can change a creature's alignment from what's listed in the stat block, and removing alignment entirely is completely unnecessary. As a DM, I can make a Lawful Good orc if I want to. As a player, I wouldn't be fazed if the kindly mayor all the townsfolk have been telling me about is an orc. I already implicitly understand that every creature is different and can have their own personality and motivation. D&D has always been a game about heroes fighting monsters, so it actually makes a lot of sense to have stock monsters you can throw at the heroes without creating a moral dilemma. If we want to deviate from that, the DM has the power to do so within their own discretion. Removing stock evil creatures is actually working against the core design of the game.

Thirdly, when 99.9% of orcs will try to kill you, you're going to end up dead very quickly if you give them the benefit of the doubt on the off chance that you happened to encounter the one good orc. No, pragmatically you have to assume by default that any orc you encounter is hostile and will need to be killed if it can't be avoided, your own survival depends on this. Circumstances might make it more likely that this orc in particular might be friendly, but you're risking your life by investigating this. You're like a firefighter running into a burning building on the off-chance that someone might be inside; it's up to you to weigh the risks, and it's a completely understandable choice to prioritize your own survival instead of sticking your neck out for a stranger.

Fourthly, not every hostile creature necessarily needs to be "evil" (alignment notwithstanding). Mind flayers need to eat humanoid brains to survive; they'll die if they don't. It's not that mind flayers are mustache-twirling villains, they're just trying to insure their own survival. Essentially, the reason they're killing us is the same reason we're killing them: survival. A lot of the creatures labeled with an evil alignment are usually in a position where they want or need something that puts them in direct conflict with the humanoid races that usually make up adventuring parties. They're not "evil" for no reason, they have goals and motivations that that contradict the goals and motivations of the players, making mutual hostility inevitable. It's less "Good vs. Evil" and more "Two Enter, One Leaves".

Fifth, orcs are not black people. I play to be entertained, and to escape for a moment the myriad of troubles that plague Real Life™. The last thing I want to be thinking about while playing D&D is real life political issues. Fantasy can be a great tool for exploring a variety of themes, such as philosophy, morality, theology, politics, and much more, but nobody likes to be preached at. It takes skill and subtlety to weave a lesson into a story without diminishing its enjoyment, and all too often those who try have all the finesse of a beached whale*. These are really things that should be left to the DMs to handle, as they know their own tables best and if and how to implement such topics into their campaigns.

*Case in point: Warcraft 3 managed to depict orcs as slaves overthrowing their human oppressors and later experiencing discrimination at the hands of the night elves, only for all three to put aside their differences and work together for a common goal. And it did this without ever drawing any kind of parallel to real life. They didn't set out to make some kind of propaganda piece, they just made a fun game with an interesting story, and it happens to have some useful lessons hidden within.

Sixth... yeah, the alignment system is probably the biggest issue here. If not for the Good and Evil labels, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Nobody cares that hobgoblins are Lawful, or that orcs are Chaotic. But, as mentioned in the first point above, alignment isn't going anywhere. The best they can do is to downplay it, which is what they've been doing. The thing is, alignment does still have its uses, namely to act as a shorthand for how the DM should RP an NPC or monster. Removing it without providing a suitable replacement is only going to make things harder for the DM. Personally, I'm a fan of the Four Temperaments (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FourTemperamentEnsemble) (likely with a primary and secondary temperament for each character), but I don't know that that covers as much as alignments do.

Couldn't agree more.

Honestly, I think a great many problems could be solved by companies staying off the cesspool that is Twitter.




The argument being made is that "assuming all orcs you encounter need to be killed if they can't be avoided" is pragmatic rather than evil.

I can't speak for Greywander but think the point is less 'you should kill every orc you see on sight' and more 'you should expect to have to kill every orc you meet'.

Obviously if the orcs are actually engaged in a raid or such, then killing them on sight is understandable.

But if they're not engaged in a raid, the point is that players shouldn't let their guards down. Even if the orcs aren't acting aggressively, it's generally wise to assume that they're armed and potentially hostile. If the PCs see them first and aren't looking for a fight, they'd probably be better off trying to slip by or go around the orcs, rather than hoping they aren't hostile.

There is also a degree of context involved, as the players' perception will likely be influenced by the world the DM has built. For example, if the players see orcs leading a caravan down a road, their reaction may depend on what's been happening in that area. Is there known to be non-hostile orc settlements? Have there been recent attacks and stolen caravans?

And here's the kicker - this will still apply, regardless of whether or not you give orcs a typical alignment.




And I'm saying that if the players are told this, and at the same time the DM includes a harmless orc mayor or two, the inevitable consequence is that the mayor will be attacked, the characters will be seen as murderers by the population of the mayor's town, and that the players will end up upset at the DM for the combination of the two things.

Players attacking an orc mayor isn't an inevitable consequence at all. Again, context matters. meeting a tribe of armed orcs on the road is quite different from going into a human town and being calmly introduced to an orc mayor.

Now, they players might not trust the orc mayor. Maybe they suspect he's controlling the town somehow or has threatened them or that he has more nefarious motives in mind, but even then they're far more likely to look for proof of such, rather than just drawing swords and attacking the town mayor.

Hell, the players might be very interested as to how an orc ended up as mayor (especially if most other orcs in the area are hostile) and want to hear his story.

[MaxWilson]

What Durkon is unhappy about is more that the goblins were given hard-to-survive-in territories. The zerg rush aspect doesn't really come into play aside from Thor explaining how the goblins ended up in this situation.

That would make sense, but it's not how the conversation with Thor actually goes. Durkon says something weird about goblins being "food", and only later makes an unexplained jump to the topic of humans having better gear and better nutrition. It's a bizarre conversation.

Side note: it's hard for me to believe that territorial boundaries have apparently never changed in the history of the world, except for Azure City getting conquered. Is that really supposed to be the intent, that various peoples just got plopped down somewhere and NEVER MOVED? And if so, then why is there still so much wilderness? The "goblins got stuck with bad land forever" argument falls apart on a different level when you notice that the gameworld is not even close to running out of agricultural real estate apparently under the control of goblins and ogres. (Early OOTS doesn't just take place in a national park owned by humans.)

Don't get me wrong, there are definitely hard moral questions involved in the concept of "territory", and it would make total sense for Roy or Durkon to say, "Hey, maybe there's no real need to re-take Azure City--nothing gives Hinjo's people an inherently better right to that land than the goblins have." But, they're not on a crusade to re-take Azure City right now anyway, so what's the difference and why the sudden guilt? (If someone pointed out that you left Tarquinn's people enslaved by a mad tyrant, would you feel a sudden rush of guilt on that topic too?) And why does Durkon even mention Thor to Roy when it turns out that Thor's explanation (Fenris made a fast-breeding race, expecting them to outcompete the others) isn't relevant to land ownership in the first place?

Durkon's concerns are incoherent: internally inconsistent; not logically connected to each other.

[Amnestic]

They should slam humans with the evil tag.

Violent, brutal, expansionist? Constantly going to war at the drop of a hat? Frequently militarised society? What else could they be?

[JackPhoenix]

Well, I guess that's no more money to WotC from me. I very much don't support dragging politics into a hobby in a hope it could sell the product to a new crowd of people. Not that I care about alignment specifically, but if they want to change how the system works, they should release a new edition, they shouldn't awkwardly erase parts of the game mid-edition as part of some political statement.

[KorvinStarmast]

They should slam humans with the evil tag.

Violent, brutal, expansionist? Constantly going to war at the drop of a hat? Frequently militarised society? What else could they be? All nine alignments. Says so right in the book. :smallyuk:

[MaxWilson]

They should slam humans with the evil tag.

Violent, brutal, expansionist? Constantly going to war at the drop of a hat? Frequently militarised society? What else could they be?

That's just survivor bias, because the humans who aren't like that died off to or are now ruled by the ones that are, except for a few small groups like the Bushmen I guess.

[Amnestic]

All nine alignments. Says so right in the book. :smallyuk:

Yeah but that's just because it's written by humans. If you got a devil-written book that said "actually, devils cover a wide variety of alignments and don't easily fall into any specific categories" would you trust it? No!

[Greywander]

And I'm saying that if the players are told this, and at the same time the DM includes a harmless orc mayor or two, the inevitable consequence is that the mayor will be attacked, the characters will be seen as murderers by the population of the mayor's town, and that the players will end up upset at the DM for the combination of the two things.
Give your players some credit. An orc mayor of a (friendly) human town is highly unusual, enough so that it warrants some investigation before you jump to conclusions. In addition, it should be easy to understand that killing the well-liked mayor is a quick way to turn the entire town against you, so you probably shouldn't do that. Also, the fact that the orc is surrounded by lots of other friendly humanoids that they haven't killed is a big indicator that the situation isn't that dangerous.

No, what I was talking about was more along the lines of: You're going through a cave and encounter a lone orc sentry. You can't sneak past, and you need to travel down this passage to get where you're going. If you talk the the orc, there's a strong chance they'll sound an alarm and call for nearby reinforcements. The simplest option is to take them down quickly and quietly and move on. It's not the only option, of course, and if you're feeling merciful you might be able to immobilize them and get away before they're able to call for reinforcements. Again, this is based on the assumption that 99.9% of orcs will try to kill you (based on all the previous interactions that have occurred between orcs and other races); if this isn't the case, then it will change the equation.

Honestly, just encountering an orc traveling with another humanoid, e.g. an elf, would be unusual enough that you might want to stop and ask questions first before fighting them. Of course, evil elves also exist, so you should be ready to defend yourselves at a moment's notice just in case. But this is basically what an adventuring party with an orc player would look like to other people.

Actually, this is a very similar issue that non-evil undead face as well. I've done a lot of work creating a playable undead race, and having to deal with people who immediately assume that undead = evil is a base assumption of the undead experience. And my feeling there is that there's a justified fear of the undead, as most other undead are indeed evil and dangerous, and so this non-evil undead race needs to put a lot more effort into differentiating themselves from other undead and demonstrating that they're not automatically hostile. By forming friendly relationships with people, and making those relationships known, it will cause other people to question the assumption that you're a monster that should be killed. Basically, making an effort not to act like a monster, but more like a civilized person. You'd likely always be treated with fear and caution by people you don't know, not unlike, say, a half-orc, but it's still a massive improvement. And eventually, over many centuries, this undead race would become more broadly known to they point that they'd be treated pretty much the same as any other humanoid race, capable of both evil and good, with no more reason to be wary of them than of a human.

But to get there they have to act that way first. The reason people don't feel that way about orcs is because orcs don't act that way, they act like monsters. Because that's what the default D&D orcs are: monsters. You can totally create your own setting where orcs aren't monsters, maybe they're more like the Warcraft orcs, but that wouldn't be the same as the default orcs. IIRC, there's a setting (Eberron, I think?) where gnolls are more neutral and very different from the cannibalistic murder machines that the default gnolls are.

[Damon_Tor]

I for one am glad to see alignment removed from stat blocks. Casting judgement on other cultures is eurocentric, bigoted, and problematic. Should we call gnolls evil for eating people? Of course not, that's just a part of their rich and beautiful culture. Do goblins "steal" or do they simply come from a beautiful advanced culture which is beyond the concept of ownership and property? The so-called "death traps" built by kobolds are actually a form of artistic expression, and by disarming them you're erasing their cultural identity and forcing them to confirm to eurocentric norms.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah but that's just because it's written by humans. If you got a devil-written book OK, time to step away from the table and understand the difference between real life, which is where the books are written, and the land of make believe, where devils are real and they publish first. :smallyuk:

[Sorinth]

Because that's what the default D&D orcs are: monsters. You can totally create your own setting where orcs aren't monsters, maybe they're more like the Warcraft orcs, but that wouldn't be the same as the default orcs. IIRC, there's a setting (Eberron, I think?) where gnolls are more neutral and very different from the cannibalistic murder machines that the default gnolls are.

So if all they are doing is changing the default orc so that they are setting agnostic then why is there an uproar?

[MaxWilson]

I for one am glad to see alignment removed from stat blocks. Casting judgement on other cultures is eurocentric, bigoted, and problematic. Should we call gnolls evil for eating people? Of course not, that's just a part of their rich and beautiful culture. Do goblins "steal" or do they simply come from a beautiful advanced culture which is beyond the concept of ownership and property? The so-called "death traps" built by kobolds are actually a form of artistic expression, and by disarming them you're erasing their cultural identity and forcing them to confirm to eurocentric norms.

I failed my Perception check on this one, started writing a reply interrogating the notion of a Tarrasque "culture" before realizing Damon_Tor's post was already tongue-in-cheek.

Nicely played, you got me.


So if all they are doing is changing the default orc so that they are setting agnostic then why is there an uproar?

Because they're removing useful information from the stat block for no good reason: eliminating "chaotic evil" from the stat block but replacing it with "brutal" and "vicious" in the fluff text serves only to obfuscate the same old ideas. It's mildly annoying in the same way as the PHB's terrible index is, only in this case it's like they used to have a good index and deliberately scrapped it for the current index.

If they'd eliminated alignment in order to have more space for something useful like Size (actual, not just size category) or Spoor or Morale, I wouldn't complain.

[Amnestic]

OK, time to step away from the table and understand the difference between real life, which is where the books are written, and the land of make believe, where devils are real and they publish first. :smallyuk:

Perhaps my point was ill explained. Humans, despite being a frequently aggressive race in D&D lore which has probably, on average, started more wars for ill-conceived reasons vs. orcs, gets to enjoy their "9 alignments" while orcs are given the evil tag.

This is because the people writing and playing the game are humans, and don't want to give humans the evil tag, even though by rights their cultures absolutely deserve it, frequently, in exactly the same way orcs (supposedly) do.

[Morty]

So if all they are doing is changing the default orc so that they are setting agnostic then why is there an uproar?

People are very upset that their preferred way of approaching the topic is no longer the default and unquestioned one.

[Sorinth]

I for one am glad to see alignment removed from stat blocks. Casting judgement on other cultures is eurocentric, bigoted, and problematic. Should we call gnolls evil for eating people? Of course not, that's just a part of their rich and beautiful culture. Do goblins "steal" or do they simply come from a beautiful advanced culture which is beyond the concept of ownership and property? The so-called "death traps" built by kobolds are actually a form of artistic expression, and by disarming them you're erasing their cultural identity and forcing them to confirm to eurocentric norms.

Kobolds trap their home to prevent adventurers from coming and stealing everything they own and yet the Kobolds are the bad guys for building death traps?

And in D&D where every potatoe has it's own unique personality that you can discover by casting Speak with Plants where do you draw the line between what is/isn't acceptable to eat?

[Greywander]

So if all they are doing is changing the default orc so that they are setting agnostic then why is there an uproar?
If all they were doing was changing the default orcs, they'd still be given an alignment of some kind. Also, the default orcs are setting agnostic... as long as your setting contains evil orcs. If you made orcs neutral, they wouldn't be setting agnostic for settings with evil orcs.

The problem people have with this is that saying, "Orcs can be any alignment," isn't helpful. We already know this. We can decide to make orcs good in our setting if we want to, we don't need to have alignment stripped from the stat block for us to do this. In fact, this actually makes more work for the DM, who now has to either come up with their own behavior patterns for every creature, or has to do extra research to find out how a particular group of creatures normally behaves, whereas before alignment served as a quick-and-dirty guide to NPC and monster behavior.

This would be like if they removed ability scores from stat blocks, because "any creature can have any ability scores, they'll not all identical and each one is unique." It's the exact same logic, and now DMs are forced to do more work by needing to come up with the ability scores themselves. It's much easier to have a set of default ability scores and then tweak them for individual creatures that are noticeably different from their peers, e.g. a giant goblin who is totally jacked, and has a higher STR score than the default goblin as a result.


I for one am glad to see alignment removed from stat blocks. Casting judgement on other cultures is eurocentric, bigoted, and problematic. Should we call gnolls evil for eating people? Of course not, that's just a part of their rich and beautiful culture. Do goblins "steal" or do they simply come from a beautiful advanced culture which is beyond the concept of ownership and property? The so-called "death traps" built by kobolds are actually a form of artistic expression, and by disarming them you're erasing their cultural identity and forcing them to confirm to eurocentric norms.
They had us in the first half two sentences, not gonna lie.

The disheartening thing is that there are actually people who think like this. You might think it's an exaggeration, but we're living in times where satirical news sites are struggling because real news is actually even more outrageous than the satire. There's definitely someone, somewhere, who would say this unironically and mean every word of it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Kobolds trap their home to prevent adventurers from coming and stealing everything they own and yet the Kobolds are the bad guys for building death traps?

And in D&D where every potatoe has it's own unique personality that you can discover by casting Speak with Plants where do you draw the line between what is/isn't acceptable to eat?

Adopt the Goodberry diet.

[Amnestic]

If all they were doing was changing the default orcs, they'd still be given an alignment of some kind. Also, the default orcs are setting agnostic... as long as your setting contains evil orcs. If you made orcs neutral, they wouldn't be setting agnostic for settings with evil orcs.

The problem people have with this is that saying, "Orcs can be any alignment," isn't helpful. We already know this. We can decide to make orcs good in our setting if we want to, we don't need to have alignment stripped from the stat block for us to do this. In fact, this actually makes more work for the DM, who now has to either come up with their own behavior patterns for every creature, or has to do extra research to find out how a particular group of creatures normally behaves, whereas before alignment served as a quick-and-dirty guide to NPC and monster behavior.

How is this different to humans, elves, etc.?

Because DMs seem to have managed making those races have a diverse set of personalities, attitudes, behaviour patterns, etc. despite the "they can be any alignment" that they've held.

[Sorinth]

Because they're removing useful information from the stat block for no good reason: eliminating "chaotic evil" from the stat block but replacing it with "brutal" and "vicious" in the fluff text serves only to obfuscate the same old ideas. It's mildly annoying in the same way as the PHB's terrible index is, only in this case it's like they used to have a good index and deliberately scrapped it for the current index.

If they'd eliminated alignment in order to have more space for something useful like Size (actual, not just size category) or Spoor or Morale, I wouldn't complain.

It's debatable that the information was useful, but regardless why isn't making things setting agnostic not considered a good reason? To me that's a very good reason to get rid of things, the less setting specific material in non-setting specific books the better.

[Sorinth]

If all they were doing was changing the default orcs, they'd still be given an alignment of some kind. Also, the default orcs are setting agnostic... as long as your setting contains evil orcs. If you made orcs neutral, they wouldn't be setting agnostic for settings with evil orcs.

Agreed if they gave an alignment then it wouldn't be setting agnostic. So I'm not seeing your point. They changed the default orc from one that comes from a specific setting to one that isn't specific to a setting.


The problem people have with this is that saying, "Orcs can be any alignment," isn't helpful. We already know this. We can decide to make orcs good in our setting if we want to, we don't need to have alignment stripped from the stat block for us to do this.

In fact, this actually makes more work for the DM, who now has to either come up with their own behavior patterns for every creature, or has to do extra research to find out how a particular group of creatures normally behaves, whereas before alignment served as a quick-and-dirty guide to NPC and monster behavior.

Yes the DM can change whatever he wants. But why is more work for you the DM to go through and add alignments to monster a worse situation then there being more work for me the DM to go through and remove alignments? Either way they are making some DMs do more work. I would also argue that situation is better without alignment because of player expectations. The DM changing things is breaking expectations, by not setting those expectations to begin with there's nothing to break.



This would be like if they removed ability scores from stat blocks, because "any creature can have any ability scores, they'll not all identical and each one is unique." It's the exact same logic, and now DMs are forced to do more work by needing to come up with the ability scores themselves. It's much easier to have a set of default ability scores and then tweak them for individual creatures that are noticeably different from their peers, e.g. a giant goblin who is totally jacked, and has a higher STR score than the default goblin as a result.

The difference is ability scores impact the game in a mechanical way, alignment doesn't.

[MaxWilson]

It's debatable that the information was useful, but regardless why isn't making things setting agnostic not considered a good reason? To me that's a very good reason to get rid of things, the less setting specific material in non-setting specific books the better.

Based on what's been said in this thread, it isn't setting agnostic at all. Quote:


I quick glance says yes, I don't see an entry without a few paragraphs describing the monster, and descriptors including their "viciousness" "bitterness" or "aggressiveness" are common in the handful I read.

So regardless of whether or not possibly-friendly-and-peaceful-depending-on-setting monsters are a good thing or not, it seems that Van Richten's Guide isn't going that route. It's going with the same old "monsters are going to try to kill you" approach as the rest of 5E, it's just obfuscating that decision for some reason, which is why I liken it to deliberately replacing a good index with a bad one. Same information, now slightly harder to find.

[Sorinth]

Based on what's been said in this thread, it isn't setting agnostic at all. Quote:



So regardless of whether or not possibly-friendly-and-peaceful-depending-on-setting monsters are a good thing or not, it seems that Van Richten's Guide isn't going that route. It's going with the same old "monsters are going to try to kill you" approach as the rest of 5E, it's just obfuscating that decision for some reason, which is why I liken it to deliberately replacing a good index with a bad one. Same information, now slightly harder to find.

I would probably argue that it's WotC so they likely just bungled it. A half-step/faulty step in a direction doesn't really mean that they weren't going in a specific direction.

[Greywander]

How is this different to humans, elves, etc.?

Because DMs seem to have managed making those races have a diverse set of personalities, attitudes, behaviour patterns, etc. despite the "they can be any alignment" that they've held.
Because orcs are a designated evil race that can be used as dungeon fodder without raising questions of morality. You could move orcs and other monsters over to the same category with humans and elves and such, but you'd need to fill the void left behind with other/new monsters. Stock evil monsters are a useful thing for DMs, so you can't get rid of them entirely without making the game worse. It doesn't have to be orcs, but it needs to be something, and if it's not orcs then we'll just end up having the same discussion about some other kind of monster.

Yes, you could make a game/setting with no explicitly evil monsters, where there is no clear Good and Evil and there's a lot of nuance to the motivations of different factions. D&D isn't really a suitable system for this, however. Dungeons and Dragons is, unsurprisingly, built for delving into dungeons and fighting dragons, not for exploring morality and philosophy. A lot of people who play D&D want those stock evil monsters to throw in as random encounters, so while you wouldn't need to include them in a specific campaign, it makes zero sense to not include them in the base system.

It's so much easier to not use something that the rules have provided than it is to fill in something that's missing. If I don't want any evil monsters in my campaign, I can just not use them. But if I want evil monsters in my campaign and none are provided, now I have to do the extra legwork to create them myself.

[Sorinth]

Because orcs are a designated evil race that can be used as dungeon fodder without raising questions of morality. You could move orcs and other monsters over to the same category with humans and elves and such, but you'd need to fill the void left behind with other/new monsters. Stock evil monsters are a useful thing for DMs, so you can't get rid of them entirely without making the game worse. It doesn't have to be orcs, but it needs to be something, and if it's not orcs then we'll just end up having the same discussion about some other kind of monster.

Yes, you could make a game/setting with no explicitly evil monsters, where there is no clear Good and Evil and there's a lot of nuance to the motivations of different factions. D&D isn't really a suitable system for this, however. Dungeons and Dragons is, unsurprisingly, built for delving into dungeons and fighting dragons, not for exploring morality and philosophy. A lot of people who play D&D want those stock evil monsters to throw in as random encounters, so while you wouldn't need to include them in a specific campaign, it makes zero sense to not include them in the base system.

It's so much easier to not use something that the rules have provided than it is to fill in something that's missing. If I don't want any evil monsters in my campaign, I can just not use them. But if I want evil monsters in my campaign and none are provided, now I have to do the extra legwork to create them myself.

Isn't this entirely up to the players though? If the players go in and kill everything in sight it doesn't really matter whether the orcs were evil or whether they were nuanced.

And I'm questioning how much legwork you really have to do. You've already decided that they are evil obstacles that the player should just kill on sight. So really you are just deciding between Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil, which for an adventure where the players simply go around and kill all monsters on sight seems irrelevant.

[stoutstien]

I am very anti alignment and have been so for a very long time. At the same time I don't see the removals of alignment from npc stat blocks to be beneficial unless they replaced them with common motivations and ideals.

[Sorinth]

I am very anti alignment and have been so for a very long time. At the same time I don't see the removals of alignment from npc stat blocks to be beneficial unless they replaced them with common motivations and ideals.

My understanding is that specific NPCs have alignments, generic creature types do not. But I haven't seen the book.

[Unoriginal]

Because orcs are a designated evil race that can be used as dungeon fodder without raising questions of morality.

No. That is not what they are in 5e.

Orcs are a species which, due to socio-cultural and economical factors, has its individual members often engaging in hostile operations against others for their own benefits. Just like many others do regardless of their species or background.

An orc is not any more "designated evil" than any human soldier pillaging a neighboring settlement, and just as "raising questions of morality" as sai human soldier.

[Greywander]

Agreed if they gave an alignment then it wouldn't be setting agnostic. So I'm not seeing your point. They changed the default orc from one that comes from a specific setting to one that isn't specific to a setting.
My point was that they weren't just changing the default orcs. The default orcs are still evil, it just no longer tells you that they're evil.

It's really not possible to have fully setting agnostic anything, because any setting can decide to go for a different take on something. Maybe elves in one setting are tall, immortal creatures of magic living in harmony with the world, and in a different setting they're short and live at the North Pole making toys. If you're shooting for something that is mostly setting agnostic, that means using the most common depiction of that thing, and for orcs that's green-skinned brutes that raid and pillage human settlements. The default assumption for orcs in a generic fantasy setting is that they're monsters, and if orcs are not monsters then your setting is not generic (which is probably a good thing, we need more interesting and unique settings).


Yes the DM can change whatever he wants. But why is more work for you the DM to go through and add alignments to monster a worse situation then there being more work for me the DM to go through and remove alignments? Either way they are making some DMs do more work. I would also argue that situation is better without alignment because of player expectations. The DM changing things is breaking expectations, by not setting those expectations to begin with there's nothing to break.

Because 9 times out of 10 you're just going to go with what's in the stat block anyway.
It's easier for me to decide not to eat a cake that's been offered to me than it is for me to bake my own cake from scratch. Switching orcs to have a varied alignment like humans is easy. Switching, say, elves to have a specific alignment is hard. Are elves Chaotic Good? Or True Neutral? Or any of the other possible options? This requires actual consideration, which takes away from the time the DM can spend planning other parts of the session/campaign.
It's trivial enough for the DM to say one or two sentences that informs the player what their character knows about a particular race of creatures, especially to point out that it deviates from the generic fantasy tropes. "The orcs' aprons are splattered with blood, and their chef's hats are pristine white. One of them holds a steaming bowl aloft, mockingly offering to let you taste their cuisine, if your weak pinkskin stomach can handle real cooking, that is." Or, "Orc culture is centered around cooking, including hunting and killing dangerous and exotic creatures for their meat. They're a rough-and-tumble lot, but so long as you don't insult their cooking you should be able to get along with them."
If you're worried about player expectations, then copy the stat block and rename the creature to something else the players aren't familiar with. Make something up if you have to. Instead of orcs, maybe you call them urgiks. I really don't think this is necessary most of the time, but if it's a problem for you then this is an option.
Sometimes you just need a quick monster or NPC. The less work you have to do on the spot, the better.


The difference is ability scores impact the game in a mechanical way, alignment doesn't.
And alignment impacts the roleplay. Unless you only play D&D like a tactical war game where roleplay never occurs, in which case you're probably leaning even more heavily on having stock evil creatures.


Isn't this entirely up to the players though? If the players go in and kill everything in sight it doesn't really matter whether the orcs were evil or whether they were nuanced.
Exactly. Removing "evil" from the stat block isn't going to stop players from treating them as evil monsters. Nothing has been solved or fixed.

It's up to the DM to communicate with their players. If the DM doesn't give me any clear indication that orcs might not be monsters in this setting, I'm not out of line to assume they're monsters and treat them as such. If this isn't what the DM wants, they need to give me some kind of indication otherwise. It can even be something as simple as sprinkling some orcs into the crowded marketplace as part of the area description. But it's not just D&D, any time orcs show up in fiction, the default assumption is that they're monsters, and players/the audience needs to be told otherwise if that isn't the case.

Like, imagine that the party encounters a giraffe. Much roleplay is had interacting with this giraffe, and at the end of it all the DM describes the giraffe as spreading its wings and screeching off into the sky. Whether we're talking about orcs or giraffes, every player is going to have some kind of preconception of what a creature is based on other fictional (or real, for giraffes) works they've experienced. The only time this doesn't happen is when the creature is a totally original creation. And even then, they're going to get a first impression based on the DM's description of the creature.


And I'm questioning how much legwork you really have to do. You've already decided that they are evil obstacles that the player should just kill on sight. So really you are just deciding between Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil, which for an adventure where the players simply go around and kill all monsters on sight seems irrelevant.
Yes, if all you're doing is slaughtering monsters and taking their loot, alignment isn't that useful. You know where alignment is useful? Roleplay. And Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil creatures will behave in wildly different ways. Even during combat, you can sprinkle some roleplay into your description of the monsters' actions, as they coordinate with each other or act independently, and this can even have an actual impact on the way combat plays out, as some types of creatures might not care about harming their allies or getting in each other's way.


I am very anti alignment and have been so for a very long time. At the same time I don't see the removals of alignment from npc stat blocks to be beneficial unless they replaced them with common motivations and ideals.
Exactly. They're taking something away without giving anything else in return. Alignment has a lot of problems, but it can still be used for something. As bad as the alignment system is, taking it away with no replacement is a net loss. Give us something better and we'll have no complaints.

It's like complaining that you've been given a fork to eat soup, so they respond by taking away the fork.


No. That is not what they are in 5e.

Orcs are a species which, due to socio-cultural and economical factors, has its individual members often engaging in hostile operations against others for their own benefits. Just like many others do regardless of their species or background.

An orc is not any more "designated evil" than any human soldier pillaging a neighboring settlement, and just as "raising questions of morality" as sai human soldier.
I probably should have said "stock monster" rather than "designated evil". I just meant it's something the DM can throw out that the players can know they're supposed to fight. Random encounter fodder. You know they're bad guys without the DM needing to tell you so.

[Thunderous Mojo]

A financial obligation to daddy Hasbro. I applaud the fact that speaking with money is impacting these corporate giants but let’s not suggest it’s benevolence rather than fear and self preservation that drive these business decisions.

Nowhere did I imply that WotC was acting out of benevolence. According to fellow poster, Jaapelton, Ray Winninger was given the mandate to increase sales, when he was made the Creative Director. According to business press, WotC accounted for something like 70% of Hasbro's profit last year.

A quick perusal of D&D's user base demographic base with a quick cross reference with a Pew report detailing differences of opinion, based off age, would quickly show, that 40+ year old gamers, (like myself), are only 12% of the D&D market.

Public Attitudes change.


Well, I guess that's no more money to WotC from me. I very much don't support dragging politics into a hobby in a hope it could sell the product to a new crowd of people.

When Dark Elves became a playable race, introduced in 1e Unearthed Arcana, (prior to the creation of Drizzt, and RA Salvatore's novels), it was possible that a DM might have a party made up of Drow characters, whom were not evil in alignment.

Reality supersedes theory. If the adventuring group playing through a campaign consists entirely of "evil" races, that are not evil...then either the Theory changes or the races allowed to PC's has to change, otherwise the individual game doesn't make much sense, does it?

If 6 PCs are good, then there may be more 'aberrant' Dark Elves...and logically, not ALL Dark Elves are evil....this is why you saw the introduction of the "Good Gods" of the Dark Elf Pantheon in various versions of D&D.

The AD&D games, (as systems), assumed that high level players would go off into the wilderness to kill, subjugate, or ally with whatever else was in the area and build a town. This set of assumptions, also include a 'political' viewpoint.

Every person, should adjust their consumption to match their conscience...so if some desire not to purchase D&D products...I support your right to make such a determination, for yourself. ✌️



And in D&D where every potatoe has it's own unique personality that you can discover by casting Speak with Plants where do you draw the line between what is/isn't acceptable to eat?

You don't have to go to D&D, many people and belief systems around the 'Real' world presume that plants have souls. {Scrubbed}

If you think Stock Markets are complex, look at the trade that happens under the surface with trees in a forrest, between root systems.

Trees might be better traders than humans, and Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a creature with a prodigious record of trade in resources.

There might, just, be more under heaven and earth, than you currently are accounting for. (Then again, maybe not)🕊


I am very anti alignment and have been so for a very long time. At the same time I don't see the removals of alignment from npc stat blocks to be beneficial unless they replaced them with common motivations and ideals.

I agree with this...(which I stated before). The Cypher RPG system does not have Alignment, yet the system clearly conveys motivations and ideals, in a far more economical manner, (in terms of space and thought), than Alignment ever did.

I'm not opposed to RP, and tactical guidance in D&D books...just towards Alignment. Alignment has been a huge source of confusion, and consternation going back to AD&D at least.

[MaxWilson]

I am very anti alignment and have been so for a very long time. At the same time I don't see the removals of alignment from npc stat blocks to be beneficial unless they replaced them with common motivations and ideals.

You mean something like:

Purple worm: desires food, moist earth, Pleistocene alluvials

Orc: desires leisure, weaponry, respect

Giant: desires obedience, respect, magic items, domination

That would be a huge step up and I would applaud it if they deleted alignment to give us that. Unfortunately they didn't think that far ahead....

[Sorinth]

My point was that they weren't just changing the default orcs. The default orcs are still evil, it just no longer tells you that they're evil.

Not true, the orcs are no longer evil by default but just hidden, they are whatever the DM decides is the default is.


It's really not possible to have fully setting agnostic anything, because any setting can decide to go for a different take on something. Maybe elves in one setting are tall, immortal creatures of magic living in harmony with the world, and in a different setting they're short and live at the North Pole making toys. If you're shooting for something that is mostly setting agnostic, that means using the most common depiction of that thing, and for orcs that's green-skinned brutes that raid and pillage human settlements. The default assumption for orcs in a generic fantasy setting is that they're monsters, and if orcs are not monsters then your setting is not generic (which is probably a good thing, we need more interesting and unique settings).

And I would also disagree that in a generic fantasy orcs are monsters. This WAS the case in the past, but I don't think it's the case anymore (Largely thanks to Warcraft).



Because 9 times out of 10 you're just going to go with what's in the stat block anyway.
It's easier for me to decide not to eat a cake that's been offered to me than it is for me to bake my own cake from scratch. Switching orcs to have a varied alignment like humans is easy. Switching, say, elves to have a specific alignment is hard. Are elves Chaotic Good? Or True Neutral? Or any of the other possible options? This requires actual consideration, which takes away from the time the DM can spend planning other parts of the session/campaign.
It's trivial enough for the DM to say one or two sentences that informs the player what their character knows about a particular race of creatures, especially to point out that it deviates from the generic fantasy tropes. "The orcs' aprons are splattered with blood, and their chef's hats are pristine white. One of them holds a steaming bowl aloft, mockingly offering to let you taste their cuisine, if your weak pinkskin stomach can handle real cooking, that is." Or, "Orc culture is centered around cooking, including hunting and killing dangerous and exotic creatures for their meat. They're a rough-and-tumble lot, but so long as you don't insult their cooking you should be able to get along with them."
If you're worried about player expectations, then copy the stat block and rename the creature to something else the players aren't familiar with. Make something up if you have to. Instead of orcs, maybe you call them urgiks. I really don't think this is necessary most of the time, but if it's a problem for you then this is an option.
Sometimes you just need a quick monster or NPC. The less work you have to do on the spot, the better.


And alignment impacts the roleplay. Unless you only play D&D like a tactical war game where roleplay never occurs, in which case you're probably leaning even more heavily on having stock evil creatures.

1) Moe then 9 times out of 10 the alignment is irrelevant.
2) This is nonsensical, the DM ignoring the stat block and choosing an alignment is not more difficult then the DM simply choosing an alignment. It's exactly the same, you are choosing the alignment you want.
3) Except if it's not a major theme of the campaign it's easy to forget to mention since it's not all that important. And it's even more trivial to say in my world orcs are evil.
4) Sure I can do that, but it goes back to work. Why should the game be catered to your viewpoint or mine? They are obviously going to want to go with the broadest audience possible no?
5) And alignment matters and isn't trivial? I have my doubts.

If they changed Orcs from Chaotic Evil to Neutral Evil and left everything else the same, would it really change how you roleplayed the Orcs?


Exactly. Removing "evil" from the stat block isn't going to stop players from treating them as evil monsters. Nothing has been solved or fixed.

It's up to the DM to communicate with their players. If the DM doesn't give me any clear indication that orcs might not be monsters in this setting, I'm not out of line to assume they're monsters and treat them as such. If this isn't what the DM wants, they need to give me some kind of indication otherwise. It can even be something as simple as sprinkling some orcs into the crowded marketplace as part of the area description. But it's not just D&D, any time orcs show up in fiction, the default assumption is that they're monsters, and players/the audience needs to be told otherwise if that isn't the case.

You assume they're monsters, and a big reason you do that is because Orcs are evil, it says it right there in the stat block. And again I disagree that the default situation in fiction is orcs are evil. That was true years ago, but it's far from true today. We could also substitute Vampires, or Werewolves, they used to always be monsters, nowadays not so much they are more likely to be a love interest then a monster.


Like, imagine that the party encounters a giraffe. Much roleplay is had interacting with this giraffe, and at the end of it all the DM describes the giraffe as spreading its wings and screeching off into the sky. Whether we're talking about orcs or giraffes, every player is going to have some kind of preconception of what a creature is based on other fictional (or real, for giraffes) works they've experienced. The only time this doesn't happen is when the creature is a totally original creation. And even then, they're going to get a first impression based on the DM's description of the creature.


Yes, if all you're doing is slaughtering monsters and taking their loot, alignment isn't that useful. You know where alignment is useful? Roleplay. And Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil creatures will behave in wildly different ways. Even during combat, you can sprinkle some roleplay into your description of the monsters' actions, as they coordinate with each other or act independently, and this can even have an actual impact on the way combat plays out, as some types of creatures might not care about harming their allies or getting in each other's way.

And a Chaotic Evil Orc will roleplay wildly different compared to a Chaotic Evil Sea Hag. Alignment tells you nothing about how to roleplay the creature

[greenstone]

If they changed Orcs from Chaotic Evil to Neutral Evil and left everything else the same, would it really change how you roleplayed the Orcs?

For me, yes.

PCs walking into a village of generally-Chaotic creatures will see something quite different to that of generally-Neutral creatures (and different again for generally-Lawful creatures).

Chaotic creatures are unpredictable. Social hierarchies are temporary, based on shows of strength and intimidation. Neutral characters are more predictable. Social hierarchies are long-lived, based on a mixture of merit and intimidation.

Alignment is a shorthand for social behaviour. Describing behaviours in one of only nine boxes is a limitation, but so is any shorthand (Myers-Briggs, for example).

TO me, a monster book that doesn't contain any clues to behaviours of monsters is a sourcebook for a wargame, not a roleplaying game.

Sure, I could go through and invent this stuff, but I paid money for the book so I wouldn't have to do that work myself. :smallsmile:

[Toadkiller]

Sure it is shorthand - but it is also super limiting and can be dull. My party loved the drow priestess of Lloth they encountered. They ended up temporarily on the same side due to circumstances. It was almost certainly not a good idea to actually trust her. But she cast heal spells on them and told the elf cleric an entirely different story about the causes of the rift between their peoples than the one he had been taught. Maybe… maybe she’s actually telling the truth?

She was ethically obscure. It wasn’t clear in-story if she was “evil” or just likely really dangerous. Really dangerous is good if they are helping you. Not so much if they aren’t. The players “knew” she was supposed to be evil. The characters just knew that an object from the scary stories was helping them survive a dungeon. It made them uncomfortable when she gave them a healing potion. Should they drink it? It wasn’t clear cut.

[Unoriginal]

Sure it is shorthand - but it is also super limiting and can be dull. My party loved the drow priestess of Lloth they encountered. They ended up temporarily on the same side due to circumstances. It was almost certainly not a good idea to actually trust her. But she cast heal spells on them and told the elf cleric an entirely different story about the causes of the rift between their peoples than the one he had been taught. Maybe… maybe she’s actually telling the truth?

She was ethically obscure. It wasn’t clear in-story if she was “evil” or just likely really dangerous. Really dangerous is good if they are helping you. Not so much if they aren’t. The players “knew” she was supposed to be evil. The characters just knew that an object from the scary stories was helping them survive a dungeon. It made them uncomfortable when she gave them a healing potion. Should they drink it? It wasn’t clear cut.

Was the Drow Priestess the kind to do whatever she can get away with, without compassion or qualms?

[ProsecutorGodot]

So regardless of whether or not possibly-friendly-and-peaceful-depending-on-setting monsters are a good thing or not, it seems that Van Richten's Guide isn't going that route. It's going with the same old "monsters are going to try to kill you" approach as the rest of 5E, it's just obfuscating that decision for some reason, which is why I liken it to deliberately replacing a good index with a bad one. Same information, now slightly harder to find.

In some cases it's barely obfuscated at all. Wereravens are the best example.

In Curse of Strand, they are labeled lawful good. In the description given here, it says that they follow local laws and generally strive to do good whenever possible.

The stereotypically "evil" creature types in this book don't really fair much better. Carrionettes are labeled "bloodthirsty, murderous, malicious and deceitful" and even goes so far as to say they are prone to stealing the body and soul of their creators.

[stoutstien]

You mean something like:

Purple worm: desires food, moist earth, Pleistocene alluvials

Orc: desires leisure, weaponry, respect

Giant: desires obedience, respect, magic items, domination

That would be a huge step up and I would applaud it if they deleted alignment to give us that. Unfortunately they didn't think that far ahead....

Exactly. I personally use a pool of traits I mix and match to give individual NPCs slightly different motivations in place of alignment. even if their goals are still individuals and should act as such.

[stoutstien]

For me, yes.

PCs walking into a village of generally-Chaotic creatures will see something quite different to that of generally-Neutral creatures (and different again for generally-Lawful creatures).

Chaotic creatures are unpredictable. Social hierarchies are temporary, based on shows of strength and intimidation. Neutral characters are more predictable. Social hierarchies are long-lived, based on a mixture of merit and intimidation.

Alignment is a shorthand for social behaviour. Describing behaviours in one of only nine boxes is a limitation, but so is any shorthand (Myers-Briggs, for example).

TO me, a monster book that doesn't contain any clues to behaviours of monsters is a sourcebook for a wargame, not a roleplaying game.

Sure, I could go through and invent this stuff, but I paid money for the book so I wouldn't have to do that work myself. :smallsmile:
The issue is that alignments don't actually do what you think they do. Lizard folk are neutral and the lizard folk king is chaotic evil so a tribe being lead by a king will act completely differently than one without. Same could happen with any NPC group and does happen regularly when motivations overlap but ideals don't. Some NPCs have truly alien natures but we can still recognize thier goals without comprehending why. Staying with lizard folk understanding that the difference between them looking at you as a friend, foe, or food is purely geographical is something the word neutral fails to elaborate where territorial, survivalist, and cunning.
The lizard king could be corrupted, wicked, and infectiously aggressive.

That is a starting point to build off of that is a easy to read but actually useful.

[Warder]

In some cases it's barely obfuscated at all. Wereravens are the best example.

In Curse of Strand, they are labeled lawful good. In the description given here, it says that they follow local laws and generally strive to do good whenever possible.

The stereotypically "evil" creature types in this book don't really fair much better. Carrionettes are labeled "bloodthirsty, murderous, malicious and deceitful" and even goes so far as to say they are prone to stealing the body and soul of their creators.

Hmmm... it's almost as if alignment is useful shorthand after all! :smallwink:

At least for some people. As usual with these threads on alignment, everyone speaks in absolutes. ALIGNMENT IS BAD; ALIGNMENT IS USELESS - and its opposing counterparts. None of that is, of course, true. People have used alignment for decades, so obviously it's not useless. Others have despised alignment for decades, so obviously it's not perfect. But like with many (most?) other aspects of D&D, it doesn't suit every table. What I find interesting about alignment is that arguments about it seem to devolve into how people want all other players of D&D to treat it the same way they do, whether it's for good or bad.

I like alignment! I intend to keep using it no matter what WotC says, because I find it to be useful in stat blocks and evocative as a cosmic force. If someone else doesn't like it, that's also fine and none of my business. When WotC tries to get rid of it because the people who say including it is immoral, that probably would've slid it into "my business" territory except it's pretty obvious that the D&D devs and I have different opinions on what makes for a fun game since a few years back, so instead of arguing for my position I'll just accept it and take my money to third party publishers instead.

[huttj509]

I am very anti alignment and have been so for a very long time. At the same time I don't see the removals of alignment from npc stat blocks to be beneficial unless they replaced them with common motivations and ideals.

Sounds like that's exactly what they did. Removed "Alignment: X" and added descriptive text as to general behaviors.

Note, this is for general creature statblocks. Statblocks for a specific named NPC could well have their alignment listed. I may be wrong in that, dunno how many specific named NPC statblocks are in Tasha's and Van Richten's.

[Morty]

Alignment is a shorthand for social behaviour. Describing behaviours in one of only nine boxes is a limitation, but so is any shorthand (Myers-Briggs, for example).

Myers-Briggs is a pretty good comparison for alignment, given that it's basically horoscope for nerds that's useless at best and actively misleading at worst, because some recruiters apparently get the bright idea to use it to measure candidates. Neither of those "shorthands" deserve any serious consideration.

[stoutstien]

Sounds like that's exactly what they did. Removed "Alignment: X" and added descriptive text as to general behaviors.

Note, this is for general creature statblocks. Statblocks for a specific named NPC could well have their alignment listed. I may be wrong in that, dunno how many specific named NPC statblocks are in Tasha's and Van Richten's.

But did they? The point of a stat block is to be a quick reference tool and if someone has to read 1-4 pages of text everytime they want to use a NPC it would add a lot more leg work on top of the one person that already has the most prep work. I'm all for simplified stat blocks but they need some references to how to use them at least halfway proficiently.

[huttj509]

But did they? The point of a stat block is to be a quick reference tool and if someone has to read 1-4 pages of text everytime they want to use a NPC it would add a lot more leg work on top of the one person that already has the most prep work. I'm all for simplified stat blocks but they need some references to how to use them at least halfway proficiently.

Where are you getting 1-4 pages of text from? What I've seen is more like "5-8 words instead of 2 vague ones."

[stoutstien]

Where are you getting 1-4 pages of text from? What I've seen is more like "5-8 words instead of 2 vague ones."

But those 5-8 words are not in the stat block. There in the description text which are very inconsistent in format and location. The new juvenile mimics and mimic colonies in Tasha's us a good example. It's states that as a collective they would have the same goal of survival which is the same as any individual mimic but they have a completely different way of going about it. It also means you would have had to read the complete mimic text in the MM to understand that they are cunning hunters but are usually only considered intelligent in a predatorial nature. OTOH they are capable of rationalizing sharing hunting territory with others and may even be able to learn to communicate in spoken language(s).

All the frameworks of giving a DM the tools to turn a mimic into more than a mindless bag of HP or a "got ya" encounter is there but it's diluted and scattered across the source books. One thing's for sure, neither the alignment presented in the monster manual nor the absence of the alignment in Tasha's helps whatsoever. The fact the individual NPC and a group of the same or similar NPCs changing behavior but not necessarily changing their goals or motivations is something overlooked often in the basic design principle of setting up the game world.

What's important is the creatures motivations and how they might conflict with somebody else's.

There is a secondary issue i have within the descriptions of NPCs. They tend to focus on actions rather than actual traits so it makes it confusing for some who are trying to up their DM game. Violence isn't evil bit malicious is and so on.

[Rafaelfras]

Hardly surprising, they're a company trying to make money, that was forced to respond due to an internet furor in Apr 2020. This is no different from the 80s. Except that it blew up faster, because internet yo.

I still hate it, and refuse to purchase, nor will I allow use of in any games I run, any new WotC products until they stop. I will not support this with my money.

It's only disappointing if you put creators or participants of things you like on a pedestal. It certainly does explain some of the less entertaining aspects of the comic, especially recently.

It is frustrating. But it's nothing new. This happened in the 80s too, but the game crested the wave, and we have our Demons and Devils back.


I'm arguing it. I went through the Ravenloft adventure path after the WotC announcement in response to the Apr 2020 internet furor, and I just don't see it.

Preach man. I am 100% with you. The politicization of a make believe fantasy game, by people who don't even play it by the way, is just stupid. It intoxicates everything.

For my part I like aligment very much and don't intend to stop using it

[Unoriginal]

Sounds like that's exactly what they did. Removed "Alignment: X" and added descriptive text as to general behaviors.

What do you mean by "added"? Those were in the game all along.

[Sorinth]

For me, yes.

PCs walking into a village of generally-Chaotic creatures will see something quite different to that of generally-Neutral creatures (and different again for generally-Lawful creatures).

Chaotic creatures are unpredictable. Social hierarchies are temporary, based on shows of strength and intimidation. Neutral characters are more predictable. Social hierarchies are long-lived, based on a mixture of merit and intimidation.

Alignment is a shorthand for social behaviour. Describing behaviours in one of only nine boxes is a limitation, but so is any shorthand (Myers-Briggs, for example).

TO me, a monster book that doesn't contain any clues to behaviours of monsters is a sourcebook for a wargame, not a roleplaying game.

Sure, I could go through and invent this stuff, but I paid money for the book so I wouldn't have to do that work myself. :smallsmile:

What better describes a goblin social hierarchies. Something temporary based on shows of strength and intimidation or long-lived based on a mixture of merit and intimidation? Because I've never seen a merit based system for goblins beyond "I killed the last King that makes me King" which is equally valid for Orcs.


I just find it strange that on the one hand Orcs are evil because you have all these sources of fiction telling you exactly what they are and how they behave, but at the same time unless it says it on the stat block you simply have no idea what to do and have to spend all this time inventing stuff.

[Amnestic]

Preach man. I am 100% with you. The politisation of a make believe fantasy game, by people who don't even play it by the way, is just stupid.

Politics has always been here. This isn't "adding politics". It's adding politics you don't like. Which is fine, I guess, to each their own, but don't pretend it's anything other than that. It's not suddenly become political. It has always been so.


Because I've never seen a merit based system for goblins beyond "I killed the last King that makes me King" which is equally valid for Orcs.

And humans...

[Dr. Cliché]

Hardly surprising, they're a company trying to make money, that was forced to respond due to an internet furor in Apr 2020.

Except they weren't forced. At all.

Hell, they could have called the complainant out on their obvious racism.

But no, instead we get this nonsense.

[Morty]

Politics has always been here. This isn't "adding politics". It's adding politics you don't like. Which is fine, I guess, to each their own, but don't pretend it's anything other than that. It's not suddenly become political. It has always been so.

Moreover, the opinion that "always evil" races are pretty messed up has been around for years, or even decades. It wasn't made up in year 2020 by people who don't play the game, as I see it claimed here.

[Unoriginal]

Politics has always been here. This isn't "adding politics". It's adding politics you don't like. Which is fine, I guess, to each their own, but don't pretend it's anything other than that. It's not suddenly become political. It has always been so.

Very true.


Moreover, the opinion that "always evil" races are pretty messed up has been around for years, or even decades. It wasn't made up in year 2020 by people who don't play the game, as I see it claimed here.

The thing is, it was already addressed back in 2014, when the PHB made clear no sapient beings are "always evil" or inherently evil outside of those who are literally incarnations of the concept (well, except the Gnolls, due to basically being mortal demons, but the writers admitted they messed up and should have made them Fiends).

[Millstone85]

Hell, they could have called the complainant out on their obvious racism.I have entertained the thought of using the "Corporate needs you to find the differences" meme template, but with Jeremy Crawford being presented pictures of an orc and a black man.

[Morty]

The thing is, it was already addressed back in 2014, when the PHB made clear no sapient beings are "always evil" or inherently evil outside of those who are literally incarnations of the concept (well, except the Gnolls, due to basically being mortal demons, but the writers admitted they messed up and should have made them Fiends).

Then what's the problem with going a step further and a) not labeling them as evil in the rules and b) not spending 90% of wordcount devoted to them on how violent and savage they are?

[Unoriginal]

Then what's the problem with going a step further and a) not labeling them as evil in the rules and b) not spending 90% of wordcount devoted to them on how violent and savage they are?

Because a) "not always evil" or "not inherently evil" doesn't mean the persons can't be evil, alignment is just a roleplaying indicator and b) most orcs in the default setting are part of a society that rewards such behavior and punishes deviations, as decided by Gruumsh.


Now, let me ask you: according to you, is the problem that the orc society is described as encouraging arbitrary violence as the mean to acquire enjoyment, power and wealth, or is the problem that *any* society is described as encouraging arbitrary violence as the mean to acquire enjoyment, power and wealth?

[Rafaelfras]

Politics has always been here. This isn't "adding politics". It's adding politics you don't like. Which is fine, I guess, to each their own, but don't pretend it's anything other than that. It's not suddenly become political. It has always been so.


Politics and politization are not the same thing. A portions of the game is world building, you will have to not just deal with politics, but sometimes build your own. "What is the current regime in this country? How this society views x y and z? How x country deal with outsiders and why?" Are all part of building a world.
The politization on the other hand is a totally different topic. And "orcs are evil thus it's racism" is the current version of the 80s "there is demons in there you are a demon worshiper". Both carry the same amount of truth and hysteria


I have entertained the thought of using the "Corporate needs you to find the differences" meme template, but with Jeremy Crawford being presented pictures of an orc and a black man.

It's funny because it's true


Because a) "not always evil" or "not inherently evil" doesn't mean the persons can't be evil, alignment is just a roleplaying indicator and b) most orcs in the default setting are part of a society that rewards such behavior and punishes deviations, as decided by Gruumsh.

This.
And I fail to see why is removing the aligment is an step ahead. For me is a step backward, you are ashamed to call it what it is, hiding info from a stat block, because the mob will come and call you names.

[Amnestic]

No. It is very much adding politics.

If you think D&D was an apolitical game prior to November 17th 2020 when Tasha's came out, then you're just...wrong. I'm sorry to say it so straightforwardly but that's the way of it.

[Amnestic]

People have tried to bring politics into the game before, as they did in April 2020. And the company has made changes in response before.

That's not the same as D&D being political or apolitical. The issue is people trying to push their politics into the game.

What does "pushing politics" mean? Saying the quiet part out loud? You're fine with all the political assertions being made by the settings on offer just as long as no one draws attention to them?

[Warder]

Politics has always been here. This isn't "adding politics".

I agree with this...


It's adding politics you don't like.

...but disagree with this!

I'm 100% for shining a light on problematic depictions in fiction. I think diversity and representation are important in any medium. I've spent a not-insignificant portion of my life in pursuit of a more progressive society, and firmly believe that this includes reexamining the way we approach entertainment media as well. I'm in almost complete agreement with WotC's intent, but almost as completely oppose the way they're going about it. I say almost as completely, because I think that a few of their changes - like the Vistani stuff - were right and necessary, but almost everything else has been a complete miss, and that both 5e D&D and the inclusive values they want to promote suffer for it.

[MaxWilson]

What does "pushing politics" mean? Saying the quiet part out loud? You're fine with all the political assertions being made by the settings on offer just as long as no one draws attention to them?

I believe we've already established that WotC is still in fact saying the same things about species, just more quietly (highlighting malignant species as "aggressive" and "bitter", just not in the stat block where it's easy to see).

If the stat block said: "alignment: malignant and aggressive", that would be about the same amount of information as before, so the only issue here is their choice to obfuscate to appease a certain market segment. Now we wait to see if Tanari'i is right about the hysteria blowing over...

[Xervous]

If you're finding political assertions that aren't explicitly being made as part of the setting, you're pushing your politics into the game.

Ooh ooh I know this one, Shadowrun is political! Oh wait that’s part of the design intent.

What do you view as D&Ds design intent and how does that allow for the inclusion of politics or call for its exclusion?

[Morty]

Because a) "not always evil" or "not inherently evil" doesn't mean the persons can't be evil, alignment is just a roleplaying indicator and b) most orcs in the default setting are part of a society that rewards such behavior and punishes deviations, as decided by Gruumsh.


I'm not seeing a meaningful distinction between "orcs are always evil" and "orcs aren't always evil, but but the game focuses almost exclusively on those that are and their role is to be low-level evil speedbumps". I'm also not convinced that their evil is only cultural. All descriptions of their depredations in their stat blocks are stated as facts. Even if I agreed otherwise, though, once again their role in the game is what it is. Even if I can come up with something else. So, no, I don't think this was addressed in 2014.



I'm 100% for shining a light on problematic depictions in fiction. I think diversity and representation are important in any medium. I've spent a not-insignificant portion of my life in pursuit of a more progressive society, and firmly believe that this includes reexamining the way we approach entertainment media as well. I'm in almost complete agreement with WotC's intent, but almost as completely oppose the way they're going about it. I say almost as completely, because I think that a few of their changes - like the Vistani stuff - were right and necessary, but almost everything else has been a complete miss, and that both 5e D&D and the inclusive values they want to promote suffer for it.

I can agree with this, though. WotC's response seems to have been haphazard and clumsy.

[Amnestic]

If you're finding political assertions that aren't explicitly being made as part of the setting, you're pushing your politics into the game.

How explicit does it need to be?

Waterdeep literally has illegal slavery, yet makes slavery a punishment for certain crimes. I think that's pretty explicit, personally, for the City of Splendours, Crown Jewel of the North.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not seeing a meaningful distinction between "orcs are always evil" and "orcs aren't always evil, but but the game focuses almost exclusively on those that are and their role is to be low-level evil speedbumps".

The distinction is between "the orcs are evil, period, and don't have a choice" and "the orcs you're fighting right now are choosing to do what they're doing". What you're bringing up now is a separate question.


You also did not answer my question.


How explicit does it need to be?

Waterdeep literally has illegal slavery, yet makes slavery a punishment for certain crimes. I think that's pretty explicit, personally, for the City of Splendours, Crown Jewel of the North.

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "that's pretty explicit"? What is pretty explicit?

[MoiMagnus]

There is already a lengthy (and recent) conversation on whether everything is political, and if apolitical works can even exists. (Somewhere around here: OOTS-1234-The-Discussion-Thread/page23 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?631667-OOTS-1234-The-Discussion-Thread/page23&p=25053076#post25053076))

[Argument which stopped when the thread was closed for review by the moderators]

While the situation is somewhat different here, I don't think it will be that productive to reiterate the argument here.

[Morty]

The distinction is between "the orcs are evil, period, and don't have a choice" and "the orcs you're fighting right now are choosing to do what they're doing". What you're bringing up now is a separate question.

So if we want make that distinction, what's the problem with not unilaterally describing orcs/goblins/whatever as evil and just letting the GM give players opponents of any race who actively choose to do what they're doing? As opposed to the current situation, where some races are described as evil and rapacious and any other interaction with them has to be made up from scratch.


You also did not answer my question.

Because your question is a false dilemma with little bearing on the topic. I saw no reason to accept it.

[MaxWilson]

Lol good example. :smallbiggrin:

Bash enemies, take their stuff?

Of course, nowadays the meme is that you were supposed to circumvent enemies and take their stuff.

I thought it was "run away from enemies, dropping food or gold behind you so they wouldn't kill you and take the rest of your stuff".

[Unoriginal]

So if we want make that distinction, what's the problem with not unilaterally describing orcs/goblins/whatever as evil and just letting the GM give players opponents of any race who actively choose to do what they're doing? As opposed to the current situation, where some races are described as evil and rapacious and any other interaction with them has to be made up from scratch.

The current situation is that the GM gives opponents of any species who actively choose to do what they're doing, including the orcs/goblins/whatever. The opponents the PCs face aren't even automatically evil.



Well aside from the times you fight people who have been coerced or controlled into doing it, of course. Or when you're fighting monsters without free will like an animated armor.

[Morty]

The current situation is that the GM gives opponents of any species who actively choose to do what they're doing, including the orcs/goblins/whatever. The opponents the PCs face aren't even automatically evil.

But some species are only ever depicted as doing evil, having a natural inclination to do so and a conspicuous lack of any redeeming traits. What, then, is the problem with not doing that, because it's icky, and going back to what we're apparently already doing?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Preach man. I am 100% with you. The politicization of a make believe fantasy game, by people who don't even play it by the way, is just stupid. It intoxicates everything.
For my part I like aligment very much and don't intend to stop using it

I find the part in bold to be a patently dismissive response. Rather than grapple with the fact, that other D&D players have a different opinion, that is also valid, the statement evades this reality, and instead elects to state that anyone whom doesn't agree with the opinion expressed in the statement...is fugazi...a fake.

I find it incredibly, poor form, to just label anyone whom disagrees with you as "pretend players"....might as well have used the term "D&D Crises Actors".


No. It is very much adding politics.

Tanarii, respectful, the same datum, leads me to the opposite conclusion...it takes "politics" out of the game.

Alignment hasn't been excised from the game. To my knowledge, there is no errata stating to ignore the alignment sections from the PHB, MM, DMG or any other previously published book.

Alignment, as of today, is still in the game. The Monster Manual states:
"Feel Free to depart from the monster's stat block and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of the campaign".....(note away from books quote is from memory and might not be 100% accurate).

Nothing, substantially has been altered...the DM is the final arbiter of their game world...and still is even after TCoE.

Tanarii..is your objection that this is somehow removing Moral Certitude from the game and instead substituting Moral Relativism...and this constitutes "Adding Politics"?

The conflict between views of Moral Certitude and Moral Realtivism, certainly predates D&D, to my mind. Gary Gygax wrote editorials about the topic of Alignment.

Gary Gygax thought a Lawful Good Paladin that performed conversions by the sword, and then slew the 'convert' to prevent a "backslide" in their faith...was a Lawful Good holy knight.

I would argue such a view is inherently morally relativistic. It implies the ends justify the means....and undercuts the idea that Alignment translates to moral certitude.


I believe we've already established that WotC is still in fact saying the same things about species, just more quietly (highlighting malignant species as "aggressive" and "bitter", just not in the stat block where it's easy to see).

If the stat block said: "alignment: malignant and aggressive", that would be about the same amount of information as before, so the only issue here is their choice to obfuscate to appease a certain market segment. Now we wait to see if Tanari'i is right about the hysteria blowing over...

Max, we often agree, but I think the use of the word "Hysteria" is a tad hyperbolic, in this instance, and inflames impassioned responses.

Saying German Shepherd dogs as a breed tend to be Intelligent, Suspicious, and Anxious..and thus sometimes prone to bite those that appear threatening...contains much more information than stating in a Stat Block: Alignment: Unaligned (with evil tendencies).

(Some people do just assume all German Shepherd dogs, or Pit Bulls are vicious, including institutional actors such as Insurance Companies.)

Sometimes nuance requires reading. As more people play the game, as more people want to play different styles of game, with the same ruleset....nuance has to be a factor that is permitted to be explored.

If people do indeed just read the stat blocks, and ignore the rest of the text...then the one paragraph on page 7 of the Monster Manual is not getting equal viewing as "Tiny Fey, neutral good",
such as is found in a Pixie's stat block.

Options for games that want Moral Certitude and games that want Moral Relativism in D&D should be equal, and ideally that should include visibility.

5e had 7 years of alignment in stat blocks, now it seems 5e is going to have a few years where it does not. It is the 'wisdom' of Solomon.🃏

My take away from these sorts of conversations is that there is still quite a few issues that need to be discussed, and Alignment is anything but 'settled' as a system...other than "Your table, your choice".

[MaxWilson]

Max, we often agree, but I think the use of the word "Hysteria" is a tad hyperbolic, in this instance, and inflames impassioned responses.

Saying German Shepherd dogs as a breed tend to be Intelligent, Suspicious, and Anxious..and thus sometimes prone to bite those that appear threatening...contains much more information than stating in a Stat Block: Alignment: Unaligned (with evil tendencies).

At the risk of beating a dead horse, if they replaced "Alignment: Unaligned (with evil tendencies)" with something like "Traits: Intelligent, Suspicious, and Anxious" I would do nothing but applaud.

[Dr. Cliché]

With regard to the question of 'what counts as inserting politics into a game?', I would suggest that any changes which clearly haven't been implemented with the primary intention of improving the game but instead with the intent of appeasing a political crowd or movement clearly fall under this banner.

As in, replacing alignment with a different mechanic that provides the same or more information at a glance would be a perfectly reasonable change and (probably) not a political one.

On the other hand, removing alignment and replacing it with nothing at all has clearly been done for no other reason than to appease a bunch of Verified Check-Marks on Twitter.

[Rafaelfras]

I find the part in bold to be a patently dismissive response. Rather than grapple with the fact, that other D&D players have a different opinion, that is also valid, the statement evades this reality, and instead elects to state that anyone whom doesn't agree with the opinion expressed in the statement...is fugazi...a fake.

I find it incredibly, poor form, to just label anyone whom disagrees with you as "pretend players"....might as well have used the term "D&D Crises Actors".



I don't mind different opinions and I love to debate those on their merit just fine. I was talking about a broader scene that I am seeing on the mainstream, usually encamped by game "journalists" or the twitter mob, who are in my experience (or perception that might wrong) are not players themselves, I see WOTC pandering to those people and I don't find it healthy for game.
But I was talking on broader terms, that's why I was not responding to anyone in specific, I was agreeing with tanaari and imputing my general feel.
Here in this forum on the other hand most of, if not all people, are fellow players (it's a sub forum on a ded comic page after all) so when addressing a specific opinion I avoid generalizations.


With regard to the question of 'what counts as inserting politics into a game?', I would suggest that any changes which clearly haven't been implemented with the primary intention of improving the game but instead with the intent of appeasing a political crowd or movement clearly fall under this banner.

As in, replacing alignment with a different mechanic that provides the same or more information at a glance would be a perfectly reasonable change and (probably) not a political one.

On the other hand, removing alignment and replacing it with nothing at all has clearly been done for no other reason than to appease a bunch of Verified Check-Marks on Twitter.

Agreed

[Thunderous Mojo]

👍 Max

Supplying Keywords makes sense...in fact supplying a few evocative keywords to inspire the DM's own creativity, is the best course, in my opinion.

I want to say that I am disappointed that WotC didn't figure that out, before publishing....but I am not surprised.

D&D as a whole, has rarely made easy to use, and informative Stat Blocks, compared to many other games. Apparently no one in D&D Design compares their products to others, which is a dangerous level of arrogance.

[Pex]

When Outsider Influence caused D&D to get rid of Demons and Devils and rename them Tanarii and Baatezu people yelled and raged how dare they and the gaming community applauded. Now, Outsider Influence once again causes D&D to change their ways, getting rid of monster alignments. However, now when people yell and rage, instead of applauding the gaming community says how dare they! What's the difference? How dare we criticize Outsider Influence now? Must we be silent, question nothing?

[Morty]

When Outsider Influence caused D&D to get rid of Demons and Devils and rename them Tanarii and Baatezu people yelled and raged how dare they and the gaming community applauded. Now, Outsider Influence once again causes D&D to change their ways, getting rid of monster alignments. However, now when people yell and rage, instead of applauding the gaming community says how dare they! What's the difference? How dare we criticize Outsider Influence now? Must we be silent, question nothing?

Considering this is yet another thread on the subject on this forum alone, being silenced and forced to question nothing is clearly not an issue.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I don't mind different opinions and I love to debate those on their merit just fine. I was talking about a broader scene that I am seeing on the mainstream, usually encamped by game "journalists" or the twitter mob, who are in my experience (or perception that might wrong) are not players themselves, I see WOTC pandering to those people and I don't find it healthy for game.
But I was talking on broader terms, that's why I was not responding to anyone in specific, I was agreeing with tanaari and imputing my general feel.
Here in this forum on the other hand most of, not all people, are fellow players (it's a sub forum on a ded comic page after all) so when addressing a specific opinion I avoid generalizations.

Thank you for the clarification and explanation!

I'm not on Twitter, but I agree, that I find most of the 'journalism' about D&D is rather cringeworthy.

Most of the authors seem to be stenographers, rather than journalists that ask questions. Many of the articles, I've read, I've considered poorly written.

[Millstone85]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, if they replaced "Alignment: Unaligned (with evil tendencies)" with something like "Traits: Intelligent, Suspicious, and Anxious" I would do nothing but applaud.My solution would be to capitalize on the ideal/bond/flaw system and the fact that example ideals come with an alignment tag (unless that's also no longer the case in Van Richten's).

Instead of presenting creature X as being typically YZ in alignment, a statblock would say that creature X typically holds these Y and Z ideals.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm very meh about this. I did away with racial alignments for everybody, including fiends and celestials for my setting back when I transitioned to 5e. Individuals and organizations may get descriptive alignments (not even limited to the 9 stock ones, such as "Neutral Beautiful" or "Furious Good"), but those are entirely aides for me, and I don't require or even request players to specify an alignment for themselves. Sure, they can if they want. But they're the only one who will ever look at it and I don't care what it says (if anything). One major theme is that every race is made up of individuals--there are no strongly-typical behaviors based on race. Only on culture, and that's not 1:1 or even strongly correlated with race.

Haven't missed formal alignments since.

[MaxWilson]

When Outsider Influence caused D&D to get rid of Demons and Devils and rename them Tanarii and Baatezu people yelled and raged how dare they and the gaming community applauded. Now, Outsider Influence once again causes D&D to change their ways, getting rid of monster alignments. However, now when people yell and rage, instead of applauding the gaming community says how dare they! What's the difference? How dare we criticize Outsider Influence now? Must we be silent, question nothing?

I don't remember the gaming community applauding baatezu and tanar'ri (even though I myself quite like them) but if so it seems possible that it's a matter of execution: there's enough thoughtfully-written material on baatezu organization, promotion criteria, goals, etc. (especially relating to the Blood War) that the net effect was to make them more interesting and useful for gaming than before. I'm not as familiar with tanar'ri because honestly I find them less interesting, but at least they serve a function in the Blood War too as the Great Adversary.

If TSR had simply crossed out "Type V Demon" in favor of "Type V Tanar'ri" without doing any hard thinking about what role these creatures need to serve in the game, and without inventing any societies or conflicts or themes for them beyond the name change--that kind of superficial thinking would have been similar to what WotC has been doing with race and alignment recently, and might have been received with similar disdain.

[Millstone85]

When Outsider Influence caused D&D to get rid of Demons and Devils and rename them Tanarii and Baatezu people yelled and raged how dare they and the gaming community applauded.
I don't remember the gaming community applauding baatezu and tanar'riIt took me a moment, but I think what Pex meant is that the gaming community applauded the backlash against the censorship of the words demons and devils.

[Sigreid]

I'd say the argument for the alignments staying as they have been traditionally in the book would be new players. It doesn't really matter to me with all my time playing what the book says about a wide variety of things, I can confidently bend and handle things how I want for the world/campaign/adventure/scenario I want. The new group is losing some quick guidance for "Until you have your own ideas you want to flesh out on your own world, here are some traditional opponents and how they act for your heroes to beat up and take their stuff."

I think most of us here have fairly significant backgrounds in D&D and RPGs in general and can forget what it's like when you're first starting out and trying to define things for the very first time without help. I'm really confused every time people make claims of comparisons between various races and real life peoples because it's always been understood to me to be nothing more than doing the old cowboy movie thing of putting black hats on the bad guys so you and your players can easily identify who you can beat up for their stuff and it still be heroic.

And frankly, comparing any of those races to any group is a level of disturbing and insulting that would never have occurred to me. I know this because it never even once did in more than 40 years.

[MaxWilson]

It took me a moment, but I think what Pex meant is that the gaming community applauded the backlash against the censorship of the words demons and devils.

Ah, you're probably right, that is consistent with my memory.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ah, you're probably right, that is consistent with my memory.
Same here. It was annoying that the whingers (who were mostly non gamers) got that kind of leverage.

[MaxWilson]

Same here. It was annoying that the whingers (who were mostly non gamers) got that kind of leverage.

Personally I like the results though. If the complaints were lemons, TSR sure made them into good lemonade.

I also like that it lets me play D&D without having to check my religious beliefs at the door or retcon the universe to eliminate the factual inconsistencies. I can just treat baatezu and tanar'ri as just two more kinds of extraplanar monsters. AFAICT it's a win-win, although I'm open to hearing complaints from anyone who liked the 1st edition Type I through VI demons/devils better. (Anyone? If so, why?)

[Millstone85]

Personally I like the results though. If the complaints were lemons, TSR sure made them into good lemonade.At the very least, it gave us a name for daemons that isn't so similar to demons. The yugoloth appellation has stuck.

[Damon_Tor]

I'm 100% for shining a light on problematic depictions in fiction. I think diversity and representation are important in any medium. I've spent a not-insignificant portion of my life in pursuit of a more progressive society, and firmly believe that this includes reexamining the way we approach entertainment media as well. I'm in almost complete agreement with WotC's intent, but almost as completely oppose the way they're going about it. I say almost as completely, because I think that a few of their changes - like the Vistani stuff - were right and necessary, but almost everything else has been a complete miss, and that both 5e D&D and the inclusive values they want to promote suffer for it.

The problem here is with the assumption that orcs are people of color. Orcs in D&D have more in common with how the Romans saw Germanics. Hell, they even have them worshipping a one-eyed god with a name suspiciously close to "Grimnir". But because in another popular setting owned by different publisher (Warcraft) a deliberate PoC analogy was explored, WotC felt like they had to bow to that depiction.

If anything, these actions encourage the conflation between orcs and PoC, they acknowledge that D&D fantasy races are indeed analogous to real-life peoples and cultures. Why? Why not take a firm and clear stance that orcs are not PoC in D&D, were never meant to be PoC in D&D, and are in fact a closer analogy to how two different tribes of white people saw each other two thousand years ago.

[DeadMech]

I feel like this thread is full of uncharitably and leaping to conclusions and like... comparing apples to oranges.

Alignment has always been a weak mechanical element of dnd and one that for at least a decade they have been moving away from. Would it be nice if monster entries were better written ecology entries in it's absence. Sure. Of course I'd also be happy if they would at least make better efforts to illustrate every monster they print an entry for.

If I had my way at least a third of 5e would have hit the trash and gotten rewritten for mechanical reasons but that's an argument that I don't think anyone really wants.

Should they reprint old books to be more in line with the current standards. Sure but if they aren't going to do it to replace obviously trash core mechanics like the ranger or to insert errata updates then the chances that they will go and issue reprints for the ph, dmg, and mm now is basically non-existent.

I'm also unaware how people expressing opinions you disagree with on twitter or in blogs is remotely the same thing as an organized effort by world wide religious organizations to convince parents to steal their kids belongings and ritualistically burn them in public effigy before punishing said kids by shipping them off for indoctrination at "summer camp".

Claiming the two are related is laughably hyperbolic. Also the insinuation that people with jobs writing about games or that people on twitter don't count as actual players is the the sort of gatekeeping I thought we were past. Dnd is the biggest it's ever been, that includes audience from demographics that weren't really accounted for when the game was first out. Pretty sure I wasn't even born when the first games of dnd were being played.

[MaxWilson]

Unfortunately, this change is the opposite. You have to buy in and bring your beliefs with you.

It's an interesting contrast, isn't it? And yet, it's not clear why WotC reacted differently than TSR.

TSR: "People are complaining that our games resemble real-world religious beliefs. Let's make the monsters in our game clearly and unambiguously DIFFERENT from any in real-world religious beliefs."

WotC: "People are complaining that our games make a negative statement about real-world racial groups. Let's make the monsters in the game more similar to real-world humans."

[Unoriginal]

It's an interesting contrast, isn't it? And yet, it's not clear why WotC reacted differently than TSR.

TSR: "People are complaining that our games resemble real-world religious beliefs. Let's make the monsters in our game clearly and unambiguously DIFFERENT from any in real-world religious beliefs."

WotC: "People are complaining that our games make a negative statement about real-world racial groups. Let's make the monsters in the game more similar to real-world humans."

Making the monsters clearly and unambiguously different requires thinking ahead and some amount of effort.

[MaxWilson]

What Durkon is unhappy about is more that the goblins were given hard-to-survive-in territories. The zerg rush aspect doesn't really come into play aside from Thor explaining how the goblins ended up in this situation.

BTW, the thought occurs that Durkon's problem is trivially solvable.

Redcloak has a grievance about not having enough good territories to live in.
Somebody desperately wants a favor from Redcloak and the Dark One.
Said somebody can create new planets.
Planets have territory to live on.

The ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement) looks pretty large, if lack of good territories is truly Redcloak's grievance. If his real goal is something else of course, like revenge and inflicting humiliation on those whom he resents for past insults, the ZOPA is much smaller and maybe nonexistent, depending.

[JackPhoenix]

BTW, the thought occurs that Durkon's problem is trivially solvable.

Redcloak has a grievance about not having enough good territories to live in.
Somebody desperately wants a favor from Redcloak and the Dark One.
Said somebody can create new planets.
Planets have territory to live on.

The ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement) looks pretty large, if lack of good territories is truly Redcloak's grievance. If his real goal is something else of course, like revenge and inflicting humiliation on those whom he resents for past insults, the ZOPA is much smaller and maybe nonexistent, depending.

Eh. My impression is that all the gods need to work together to create a new planet, which won't happen until the current one gets eaten (especially considering the different agendas of various gods and the 50:50 split on the issue of pulling the switch on this reality). And that's not viable, because the Dark One may not live to the next version.

[Unoriginal]

BTW, the thought occurs that Durkon's problem is trivially solvable.

Redcloak has a grievance about not having enough good territories to live in.
Somebody desperately wants a favor from Redcloak and the Dark One.
Said somebody can create new planets.
Planets have territory to live on.

The ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement) looks pretty large, if lack of good territories is truly Redcloak's grievance. If his real goal is something else of course, like revenge and inflicting humiliation on those whom he resents for past insults, the ZOPA is much smaller and maybe nonexistent, depending.

Redcloak's grievances and goals are far different from his god's and goblinoids' in general. He probably wouldn't agree to help even if every living goblinoid asked him to.

Also worth noting, there is no indication the gods in OotS can have more than one planet running at the same time. The in-comic dialogues suggest that the deities use the huge influx of power they get from receiving a ton of worshippers' souls at once to create the new world, and both Thor and Loki indicated at different points that gods who are too weak at the time disappear in the transition between the end of one world and the creation of another.

I'm not saying I agree with Durkon, to be clear.

[Pex]

Considering this is yet another thread on the subject on this forum alone, being silenced and forced to question nothing is clearly not an issue.

Tell that to those who say me must accept it.


IMO it's because of how the complaints are being framed politically this time. Unfortunately we can't dig into that without talking about politics.

It was political then too. It was politically correct to yell at those Outside Influencers, not for the current Outside Influencers.


It's Tanar'ri btw :smallwink: understandable mistake :smallamused:

<whistling innocently>

[Rafaelfras]

TL;DR: Durkon and Roy's unhappiness don't make any sense in-character, only as an OOC analogy. That's weird to read about because it means the story can't be understood without referencing a metacontext.





I'm not saying I agree with Durkon, to be clear.

Oh my God I just came to a realization that is filling me with dread.
If the comic already devolved into an endless spree of page after page with just babling, do you imagine what will be when read cloak and Durkon agree to talk again and then summon their gods to talk?

Good Lord they will talk FOR EVER

[Sigreid]

Oh my God I just came to a realization that is filling me with dread.
If the comic already devolved into an endless spree of page after page with just babling, do you imagine what will be when read cloak and Durkon agree to talk again and then summon their gods to talk?

Good Lord they will talk FOR EVER

To be fair, it's always been a comic with a wall of text tendency.

[Greywander]

Redcloak's grievances and goals are far different from his god's and goblinoids' in general. He probably wouldn't agree to help even if every living goblinoid asked him to.
Oddly enough, this also eerily parallels real life. TV Tropes refers to this as the Well-Intentioned Extremist (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist), and gives a more thorough breakdown of that trope than I can give here. But as with many activists in real life, I think Redcloak is so caught up in the pursuit of his goals that he's lost sight of what he's actually fighting for. If he really cared about the goblin race, he should jump at the chance to make peace; and after all, he has a very strong position at the negotiation table, so he can get almost anything he wants so long as it's a reasonable request.

Basically, he's too focused on "fixing" the past, and not the future. He has the opportunity to build a bright future for goblinkind, but he'd rather throw that away in order to exact justice for past wrongs against goblins. Now where have I heard that before...? Redcloak will need to learn to forgive the other races if he wants to save his people, and this will probably require coming to the realization that the goblins aren't exactly innocent, either, and that they, too, require forgiveness for their past sins. In fact, this is pretty much the core of what forgiveness as a concept is: leaving the past behind so that you can make a better future.

[ventoAureo]

{Scrubbed}

[Greywander]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Gee, I wonder if this might have something to do with the forum rules that ban discussion of politics?

[Pixel_Kitsune]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Because they'd be factually wrong and no such evidence exists. Al'Qaddim back in 2nd Edition went the route of "All X are not stereotypes" Instead the few "patterns" were things that made sense from a physical stand point. A lot of jobs that required patience and wisdom often had numerous elf members because living a millennia tends to give you some of that. Not because "All Elves are.."

Rich is quoted in 2012 speaking pretty much the same point about Fantasy culture not being racist. Eberron came out in 2004 I think? And immediately stabbed the idea of always evil anything.

None of this is new. The only difference is that the core books are following suit instead of leaving it in the side books.

[Unoriginal]

Rich is quoted in 2012 speaking pretty much the same point about Fantasy culture not being racist. Eberron came out in 2004 I think? And immediately stabbed the idea of always evil anything.

None of this is new. The only difference is that the core books are following suit instead of leaving it in the side books.

Again, the core books *already* did that, in 2014.


Removing alignments from statblocks changes nothing to the fact that orcs are still described to be in majority violent, angry people who want to kill and enslave the rest of the world's sapient species. All it changes is that now you have to read the whole entry instead of looking at the statblock.

[Millstone85]

Truth be told, there are a number of creatures I would gladly shift away from villainy.

For instance, dark elves. I see great appeal in the concept of subterranean elves, and it is a shame the good ones are expected to long for the surface (notably under the credo of the moon goddess Eilistraee). Instead, I would depict powerful Underdark elven cities that place their faith in Vandria Gilmadrith (elven goddess of mourning and vigilance; and another child of Lolth who can't stand mommy) or Darahl Tilvenar (the most dwarven of elven gods).

But I would do it to open character and campaign options, not out of the shame WotC tried to sell me in this article (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/diversity-and-dnd).
Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. Despite our conscious efforts to the contrary, we have allowed some of those old descriptions to reappear in the game.

No, just no. I am not apologizing for expecting my character to fight off raids of anthromorphic pigs and pointy-eared shadows. And if WotC continues to write about the greed of winged fire-breathing lizards, or the paranoid megalomania of floating eyeballs, just because those look even less human, that's hypocrisy.

[Theodoxus]

Because orcs are a designated evil race that can be used as dungeon fodder without raising questions of morality. You could move orcs and other monsters over to the same category with humans and elves and such, but you'd need to fill the void left behind with other/new monsters. Stock evil monsters are a useful thing for DMs, so you can't get rid of them entirely without making the game worse. It doesn't have to be orcs, but it needs to be something, and if it's not orcs then we'll just end up having the same discussion about some other kind of monster.

Yes, you could make a game/setting with no explicitly evil monsters, where there is no clear Good and Evil and there's a lot of nuance to the motivations of different factions. D&D isn't really a suitable system for this, however. Dungeons and Dragons is, unsurprisingly, built for delving into dungeons and fighting dragons, not for exploring morality and philosophy. A lot of people who play D&D want those stock evil monsters to throw in as random encounters, so while you wouldn't need to include them in a specific campaign, it makes zero sense to not include them in the base system.

It's so much easier to not use something that the rules have provided than it is to fill in something that's missing. If I don't want any evil monsters in my campaign, I can just not use them. But if I want evil monsters in my campaign and none are provided, now I have to do the extra legwork to create them myself.


Again, the core books *already* did that, in 2014.


Removing alignments from statblocks changes nothing to the fact that orcs are still described to be in majority violent, angry people who want to kill and enslave the rest of the world's sapient species. All it changes is that now you have to read the whole entry instead of looking at the statblock.

Exactly. It seems most of us, at least in this thread, are far less concerned about the non-existence of the Alignment grid being absent in stat blocks, and more the fact that you have to read into the monster text to get WotC's take on the critter, and then decide if you want your orcs to be aggressive Viking-like raiders or peacenik drum circle druid wannabes.

It's like WotC is secretly thumbing their noses at these virtue warriors. "Look! we removed all the bad things you were complaining about!" while whispering to themselves 'they're not actually going to read the monster text, right, where we say the orcs are still uber evil.?' And smiling all the way to the bank, sans Tanarii's money.

[Unoriginal]

No, just no. I am not apologizing for expecting my character to fight off raids of anthromorphic pigs and pointy-eared shadows. And if WotC continues to write about the greed of winged fire-breathing lizards, or the paranoid megalomania of floating eyeballs, just because those look even less human, that's hypocrisy.



It's like WotC is secretly thumbing their noses at these virtue warriors. "Look! we removed all the bad things you were complaining about!" while whispering to themselves 'they're not actually going to read the monster text, right, where we say the orcs are still uber evil.?' And smiling all the way to the bank, sans Tanarii's money.

Do note that WotC made literally no move to remove the "those reptilian people are disguising themselves as humans and infiltrating human society, particularly the spheres of power" parts of the D&D lore, and that is literally something said by some groups of real-life, currently-still-existing racists.

[MaxWilson]

Rich is quoted in 2012 speaking pretty much the same point about Fantasy culture not being racist. Eberron came out in 2004 I think? And immediately stabbed the idea of always evil anything.

Does Eberron have non-evil daelkyr or even non-evil mind flayers?

[hamishspence]

The daelkyr's listed alignment is usually neutral evil.

Explorer's Handbook had a non-evil yugoloth (Always NE fiend) actually statted out. So if Eberron can do that with Always NE, it can do that with Usually NE.

[MaxWilson]

The daelkyr's listed alignment is usually neutral evil.


Interesting. In 5E there are no non-individualized daelkyr stat blocks at all but all of the daelkyr stat blocks given are are evil (two chaotic evil, one neutral evil). What 3E book was the "usually neutral evil" stat block in?

[hamishspence]

Interesting. In 5E there are no non-individualized daelkyr stat blocks at all but all of the daelkyr stat blocks given are are evil (two chaotic evil, one neutral evil). What 3E book was the "usually neutral evil" stat block in?The 3.5 Eberron Campaign Setting book (page 278). It's true that one could say "All the exceptions are LE or CE" but that doesn't mean that the rules require it.


The quori have exactly the same combo of Evil subtype, outsider, and "usually X evil" in their statblocks - yet many quori became nonevil and founded the kalashtar.

That'd be because in 5e all alignment in stat blocks are the equivalent of 3e's "usually", per the MM.


A lot of 3.5's alignments were "Often" Such as orcs, which were Often Chaotic evil (with the most common alignment after that being CN). 5e's making them "Almost always evil" (MM) was a major retcon.

[MaxWilson]

The 3.5 Eberron Campaign Setting book (page 278). It's true that one could say "All the exceptions are LE or CE" but that doesn't mean that the rules require it.


I'm trying to interrogate the claim that Eberron "immediately stabbed the idea of always evil anything", and it doesn't seem to be true of daelkyr. Eberron has "always evil" stuff to the same degree D&D has always had it (meaning: anomalies like Large Luigi the Lawful Neutral Beholder bartender exist but are just that, anomalies not archetypes), they just don't happen to be orcs and color-coded dragons.

But there are D&D settings where "hostile" and "evil" are not synonymous, and Eberron is clearly one of those, as is Spelljammer, and Dark Sun. Maybe all nontrivial settings in fact, but definitely those ones.

[hamishspence]

Planescape I'd rate as one of the more notable on the "even fiends are not all evil" front.

Pretty much all D&D has hostile, intelligent, nonevil monsters. Nonhostile, evil NPCs are also pretty common in most settings.

[hamishspence]

The phrasing "almost uniformly evil" is used on page 7 of the 5e MM, to describe many "monstrous races" - including orcs.

It's reasonable to conjecture that 5e has changed orcs from "usually chaotic, often chaotic evil" to "almost uniformly evil" based on that phrasing.

[hamishspence]

And on exactly the same page:

"Almost as numerous but far more savage and brutal, and almost uniformly evil, are the races of goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears), orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds."

[Unoriginal]

And on exactly the same page:

"Almost as numerous but far more savage and brutal, and almost uniformly evil, are the races of goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears), orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds."


And on the same page:

"True dragons, including the good metallic dragons and the evil chromatic dragons, are highly intelligent and have innate magic."

I guess it means that the "Feel free to depart from it and change a monster' s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there's nothing stopping you" part of the Alignment description is either a lie or a mistake that must be ignored.

[hamishspence]

It means that the "feel free to depart from it" statement is close to being the equivalent of 3.5's (in the Always X alignment section) statement:


"It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions".


Especially when the example given is of green dragons, which were "always LE" in 3.5.


So players are likely to conclude that "the default" really means the vast majority, rather than "a slight majority" as was possible with "Usually X alignment".


Hence people arguing in this very thread that 99.9% of orcs will attack the player.

[Unoriginal]

They spoke a few words and now we're stuck waist-deep in a swamp. I guess they're not called Wizards of the Coast for nothing.

[hamishspence]

I am of much the same opinion as Rich Burlew in this post from 2012 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120), and thus am happy to see racial alignments go.

There is no need for races, rather than individuals, to be given alignments.

Yeah for sure, and it shows that Rich was/is ahead of the times. I'm still iffy on individual alignments as well (at least from the D&D alignment wheel), but I'm a stickler.

On that note, I also like that alignment detecting and affecting spells and abilities are gone (though I'd prefer a better name for "Protection from Good and Evil").

Yup. And he agreed with the idea "statblocks with no alignment entry" as well:


Hmm- how do we retain the alignment system (as per the much earlier post about liking some of it) while jettisoning all "unfortunate implications"?

Maybe, for all Monster Manuals, leave out the alignment line in a statblock entirely?

Leave it up to the DM what alignment to assign a particular monster (based on its personality and actions as determined by the same DM).Yeah, I think that would take care of 90% of the problem. I mean, you can still describe the goblins' place in the world and how they usually live by raiding civilized nations without passing a personal moral judgment on all of them. Let alignment be something assigned by the DM when he places that creature in his campaign. If he wants them to be amoral slavers, he gives them and Evil alignment; if he wants them to be scrappy survivors making the best out of their lot in life, he might give them True Neutral or even Chaotic Good (especially if the civilized nations are Evil Empires). DMs already do that for every human that appears, is it so difficult to imagine doing it for the other races, too? Leave inborn alignment to the overtly supernatural—if it exists at all—and away from biological creatures.

[Damon_Tor]

Do note that WotC made literally no move to remove the "those reptilian people are disguising themselves as humans and infiltrating human society, particularly the spheres of power" parts of the D&D lore, and that is literally something said by some groups of real-life, currently-still-existing racists.

I'm not defending racists or conspiracy loons, but the two belief sets don't actually tend to overlap much in my experience. The guys who believe that the world is secretly run by reptilians and the guys who believe that the world is secretly run by a particular ethno-religious minority have similar foundational beliefs (ie, an "illuminati" shadow government) but it's difficult to describe the guys who believe it's aliens as "racists".

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Does Eberron have non-evil daelkyr or even non-evil mind flayers?

Oddly enough yes. Though it's buried in numerous places and the book was published before WotC started their change.

Daelkyr are seen as evil because of how they interact with us, but they're essentially elder god cosmic horror things that function on blue and orange morality. They're not inherently selfish, they just genuinely don't see or understand our concerns with their mutating things into other things. I'll also point out that there's only two Daelkyr actually statted, both are individuals, not "Here's a generic X."

Same with Mind Flayers, they inherently must eat and destroy sapient beings to live, that's going to paint them evil in the eyes of the people who are being attacked.

So given that Keith is not the sole voice of Eberron, given that the book published before the changes, and given that no article, fluff text or answer Keith has ever given has been "Daelkyr are evil" I'd say yes.


Planescape I'd rate as one of the more notable on the "even fiends are not all evil" front.

Pretty much all D&D has hostile, intelligent, nonevil monsters. Nonhostile, evil NPCs are also pretty common in most settings.

The thing to remember about Planescape is that in that era the alignments were the sliding scale of Community vs the Individual (Law vs Chaos) and Selflessness vs Selfishness (Good vs Evil).

So through the lens of Planescape, someone like Shemeska who is NE is inherently selfish and out for themselves, and doesn't have a strong opinion on rather individual freedoms should trump or be trumped by the Strength of society. Nothing in that prevents her from being helpful, kind, having friends.

Similarly one of the most dangerous antagonists on my current Planescape game is a Solar. Because I ripped off Baldur's Gate and the PCs are all children of various demon princes. The Solar in question thinks they need to be destroyed to stop whatever plans they're created to fullfill and sees their deaths as tragic but for the best. He's 100% LG. But in this case, Selflessness and valuing the safety and structure of society means these few individuals must be ended to prevent greater evil.

[hamishspence]

I'm thinking more of the fact that redeemed fiends are common enough to have their own general, one K'rand Vahlix:


https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AscendedDemon


K'rand Vahlix is a general of the Risen Fiends who have fled to the various Upper Planes, organizing them into the Celestial Hosts, and is so powerful and good-aligned that he is completely unafraid of any Deep Cover Agents that might assassinate him, which is the main obstacle to most Risen Fiends associating with each other.


Even in 5e, in Descent to Avernus you can redeem the archfiend Zariel.

[MaxWilson]

Oddly enough yes. Though it's buried in numerous places and the book was published before WotC started their change.

Daelkyr are seen as evil because of how they interact with us, but they're essentially elder god cosmic horror things that function on blue and orange morality. They're not inherently selfish, they just genuinely don't see or understand our concerns with their mutating things into other things. I'll also point out that there's only two Daelkyr actually statted, both are individuals, not "Here's a generic X."

Same with Mind Flayers, they inherently must eat and destroy sapient beings to live, that's going to paint them evil in the eyes of the people who are being attacked.

So given that Keith is not the sole voice of Eberron, given that the book published before the changes, and given that no article, fluff text or answer Keith has ever given has been "Daelkyr are evil" I'd say yes.

I asked for non-evil daelkyr but you haven't given any examples, and since all three of Keith's daelkyr are evil (there's a neutral evil insect daelkyr in Exploring Eberron) and it's strongly implied that ALL daelkyr possess the same traits which lead these daelkyr to be labeled evil (lack of benevolence, amoral curiosity) it seems the answer to "are there non-evil daelkyr" must be "not unless your DM invents some", which nearly disproves the claim that Eberron put a stake through the heart of "always evil," or however it was phrased.

[Millstone85]

K'rand Vahlix is a general of the Risen Fiends who have fled to the various Upper Planes, organizing them into the Celestial Hosts, and is so powerful and good-aligned that he is completely unafraid of any Deep Cover Agents that might assassinate him, which is the main obstacle to most Risen Fiends associating with each other.Makes sense to me, although I think proper worldbuilding would have to answer whether there is any lasting difference between such a fully risen fiend and a celestial. For example, if someone did manage to assassinate him, would K'rand Vahlix reform in one of the Lower Planes?

[P. G. Macer]

I'm not defending racists or conspiracy loons, but the two belief sets don't actually tend to overlap much in my experience. The guys who believe that the world is secretly run by reptilians and the guys who believe that the world is secretly run by a particular ethno-religious minority have similar foundational beliefs (ie, an "illuminati" shadow government) but it's difficult to describe the guys who believe it's aliens as "racists".

As a member of said ethno-religious minority, all I can say is that the two conspiracies share a source, and overlap between the two is more common than you have encountered.

[langal]

As a minority, non-white, I have to admit that I used to find it a bit cringe to blanket label entire species as Evil.

For example, all non-white/Xtians such Native Americans, indigenous South Americans, Jews,
Muslims, Africans, etc. would have been given the blanket "evil" tag if DnD were around 200 hundred years ago. For those of you who are threatening boycott or really mad about this, just relax and try to gain some perspective. You can still have Evil orcs, and kill-on-sight enemies in your game. That sort of moral clarity does make the game funner sometimes.

[Theodoxus]

So players are likely to conclude that "the default" really means the vast majority, rather than "a slight majority" as was possible with "Usually X alignment".

That's just evidence that players shouldn't be reading the MM...

Seriously though, the whole clause about evil humanoids is before the Alignment section. All that means is that WotC is noting the histrionic nature of said humanoids and then, in the very next section gives DMs the explicit permission and freedom (because some rules-lawyers need that) to change it however you'd like for your campaign.

Both claims are true. Though I am leaning closer to 'WotC f'd up'. They had the perfect response already in their codified rules. This is just change for change sake... no wonder little good has come of it.

[OldTrees1]

As a minority, non-white, I have to admit that I used to find it a bit cringe to blanket label entire species as Evil.

I too would find it cringle to blanket label entire species as <alignment X>. However D&D 3E and 5E (I did not read 4E MM) do not blanket label entire species as <alignment X>. With these "changes" they still don't blanket label entire species as <alignment X>.

What has actually changed?
1: The messaging / communication of alignment variation has been tweaked. Instead of the nuance being on page 7 of the Monster Manual, the stat blocks just won't mention alignment at all.

2: Usability has been tweaked. Previously one would read the alignment and the lore to get an idea about the tendencies and the diversity that bucks that those generalities. Now one would read the lore to get an idea about the tendencies and the diversity that bucks that those generalities.


Sounds like a good change to make it more clear.

[MaxWilson]

For example, all non-white/Xtians such Native Americans, indigenous South Americans, Jews,
Muslims, Africans, etc. would have been given the blanket "evil" tag if DnD were around 200 hundred years ago.

Wow. Shakespeare would disagree. (Otherwise Othello the Moor would end the play laughing maniacally about his deeds while deceived by Iago, instead of killing himself in remorse at what Iago tricked him into doing.)

I can't give specifically-Christian examples from 200 years ago because forum rules forbid it, but... you're wrong.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I asked for non-evil daelkyr but you haven't given any examples, and since all three of Keith's daelkyr are evil (there's a neutral evil insect daelkyr in Exploring Eberron) and it's strongly implied that ALL daelkyr possess the same traits which lead these daelkyr to be labeled evil (lack of benevolence, amoral curiosity) it seems the answer to "are there non-evil daelkyr" must be "not unless your DM invents some", which nearly disproves the claim that Eberron put a stake through the heart of "always evil," or however it was phrased.

I pointed out that Keith has never given alignment descriptors or labled Daelkyr as evil at all. You do realize he answers to other people that do things to push the game into their vision of D&D, right?

To quote Keith at one point about Daelkyr outlook:
"Imagine that you are immortal. You are aware of the flow of time over tens of thousands of years. From that perspective, a human is essentially an ant… the tiniest blip on your radar, present only for the briefest moment of existence. Beyond this, it’s an ant with no understanding of the true nature of reality. Daelkyr feel no more remorse killing or twisting mortal lives than we do working with fruit flies; you have to experiment on something. What they DO recognize are civilizations. The daelkyr didn’t care about individual goblins, but they recognized the Empire of Dhakaan itself as an entity – massive thing that lasted for thousands of years. And even though we see the Daelkyr as having been defeated, they succeeded in transforming and destroying Dhakaan. In my opinion, they don’t see individual humans as sentient creatures; what they recognize is human civilizations. What they do to you personally is again, like a scientist breeding fruit flies or an artist who uses insects as part of their work."

That other game designers slapped "Chaotic Evil" or whatever on them does not have any relevance to how he pushes the idea or my original point. My original point is that Baker doesn't define the Daelkyr as evil, rather or not the game under the design of others kept his vision doesn't really change the point. Essentially it's moving the goalposts. I said Baker had a certain take, you asked for example, I pointed out that in his eyes NONE of the Daelkyr are actually "Evil" and your response was to insist on a statblock with N or G on it.

[MaxWilson]

I pointed out that Keith has never given alignment descriptors or labled Daelkyr as evil at all. You do realize he answers to other people that do things to push the game into their vision of D&D, right?

To quote Keith at one point about Daelkyr outlook:
"Imagine that you are immortal. You are aware of the flow of time over tens of thousands of years. From that perspective, a human is essentially an ant… the tiniest blip on your radar, present only for the briefest moment of existence. Beyond this, it’s an ant with no understanding of the true nature of reality. Daelkyr feel no more remorse killing or twisting mortal lives than we do working with fruit flies; you have to experiment on something. What they DO recognize are civilizations. The daelkyr didn’t care about individual goblins, but they recognized the Empire of Dhakaan itself as an entity – massive thing that lasted for thousands of years. And even though we see the Daelkyr as having been defeated, they succeeded in transforming and destroying Dhakaan. In my opinion, they don’t see individual humans as sentient creatures; what they recognize is human civilizations. What they do to you personally is again, like a scientist breeding fruit flies or an artist who uses insects as part of their work."

That other game designers slapped "Chaotic Evil" or whatever on them does not have any relevance to how he pushes the idea or my original point. My original point is that Baker doesn't define the Daelkyr as evil, rather or not the game under the design of others kept his vision doesn't really change the point. Essentially it's moving the goalposts. I said Baker had a certain take, you asked for example, I pointed out that in his eyes NONE of the Daelkyr are actually "Evil" and your response was to insist on a statblock with N or G on it.

Nothing in what you quoted says 'in his eyes NONE of the Daelkyr are actually "Evil"'. That's putting your own ideas in his mouth. Based on the fact that Exploring Eberron, made by Keith without input from WotC, still labels its daelkyr as neutral evil, I think it's pretty safe to say that Keith's view of what Keith believes and your view of what Keith believes are not the same thing.

Regardless of what you THINK you were trying to prove, the quote that I was responding to was this:


Rich is quoted in 2012 speaking pretty much the same point about Fantasy culture not being racist. Eberron came out in 2004 I think? And immediately stabbed the idea of always evil anything.

The Keith quote which you yourself quote above neatly illustrates that no, Eberron is not "stabbing the idea of always evil anything." If a DM considers amoral curiosity and not considering individual humans as significant as evil, guess what? All of the daelkyr are then evil. Eberron has an agenda but it has nothing to do with wiping out real-world racism by proxy in the gameworld, and more to do with deeply thinking about what other species want and why they do what they do, even if that makes them all evil from an alignment perspective.

Rich's perspective and Eberron's perspective are almost diametric opposites. Rich thinks fantasy is interesting only inasmuch as it relates to the real world. Eberron thinks a fantasy world is interesting enough to explore for its own sake.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Max, I'm aware of my initial point. Did I say anywhere that Eberron has no creatures labled by alignment? I'm pretty sure I didn't. What I DID says was, as you quoted, was that Eberron stabbed the idea of always evil anything. Given that it repeatedly and often says that alignments are not set or required or even particularly important in the 3.5 first Campaign setting supports that. The quote from Keith further clarifies that Baker doesn't see any Daelkyr as evil.

You then use a weird subjective argument that has no place in the point. "If A DM considering amoral curiosity and not considering individual humans as significant." Actually, no, that would simply mean that That individual DM is using that label and being far more simplistic with Daelkyr than they actually are. Which is fine for their table because it's theirs. You can't apply that logic everywhere because it quickly slides into everything is evil. Daelkyr don't understand humanity as significant, that's not evil, that's alien. We don't consider Ants significant. To the Ant we're evil, to us we're just doing what's necessary to keep them from harming our house and pets and people.

Then you side tangent into Rich's thoughts on fantasy as allegory vs your claim that Eberron just goes with Fantasy for fun (Something I haven't seen Baker ever claim or deny, for the record). Which is a weird way to try and drag the conversation off topic.

[Greywander]

Honestly, the core issue here seems to be the labeling of the Good-Evil axis as "Good" and "Evil". While some people might take issue with labeling creatures with an alignment at all, the biggest objection seems to be coming from labeling a group of creatures as "Evil". And although I think this is a bunch of BS, I also don't care for the Good-Evil axis. It's not that I have an issue with referring to a group of fictional creatures as "evil", but rather more along the lines of...

(a) The Good-Evil axis just feels like a way of codifying who's a good guy and who's a bad guy. Which makes sense for certain kinds of high fantasy, but seems kind of boring, and limits your options. I'd rather see the Good-Evil axis replaced with something where a player could be the Evil-equivalent and still get along with the rest of the party, and a villain could be the Good-equivalent. Basically, allow the narrative or circumstances to define who is good and who is bad, and use alignment to describe different types of good and bad people.
(b) The Good-Evil axis has some weird philosophical implications about the place of Good and Evil in the world of D&D. For example, it would seem to me that destroying a number of the lower planes would get rid of a lot of Evil, and thus make life easier for mortals who no longer have to deal with things like demonic invasions or whatever. But I'm certain there's some argument about upsetting the cosmic balance or some such that would make it a bad idea to cause such large scale destruction, even against Evil. See also discussions about destroying the souls of fiends (e.g. as a lich feeding them into your phylactery). It just... makes it seem like evil is a valid option.

I think the best thing that could have come out of this was a reworking of the alignment system to replace the Good-Evil axis with something else. But, as I said in a previous post, this is nearly impossible to pull off due to how heavily ingrained alignment is into the lore. Perhaps the closest you could get is something like a Light-Dark axis, where Light usually corresponds to Good, but here are some exceptions, and Dark usually corresponds to Evil, but here are some exceptions. You might be able to pull this off if you sat down and figured out just what, exactly, Good and Evil as alignments represent in D&D, then came up with an alternate set of alignments that are defined in such a way that they cover about 90% of the same things, but don't have that moral judgement implicit in them. The best time to do this would be at the start of a new edition, though, not in the middle of an edition.

Alternatively, they can continue to downplay alignment, but give us something else to use in its place. This honestly seems more realistic. Again, I'll advocate for the Four Temperaments (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FourTemperamentEnsemble).

Honestly, if we're just talking about having stock monsters you can throw at a party, a Friendly-Neutral-Hostile pseudo-alignment listed in the stat block would work a lot better. Obviously it would depend on the circumstances, so the stat block would probably be defining it in terms of a random encounter. A random encounter with an orc will almost always be hostile, but a "scripted" encounter could be anything, and should be properly framed by the DM.

If we combined this with something like the Four Temperaments, then it could serve as a nearly complete alignment replacement. The temperaments tell you how the creature behaves, and the Friendly-Hostile spectrum tells you if it's a "bad guy" or not (unless the DM frames the encounter to indicate something else).

[RossN]

Truth be told, there are a number of creatures I would gladly shift away from villainy.

For instance, dark elves. I see great appeal in the concept of subterranean elves, and it is a shame the good ones are expected to long for the surface (notably under the credo of the moon goddess Eilistraee). Instead, I would depict powerful Underdark elven cities that place their faith in Vandria Gilmadrith (elven goddess of mourning and vigilance; and another child of Lolth who can't stand mommy) or Darahl Tilvenar (the most dwarven of elven gods).

But I would do it to open character and campaign options, not out of the shame WotC tried to sell me in this article (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/diversity-and-dnd).

No, just no. I am not apologizing for expecting my character to fight off raids of anthromorphic pigs and pointy-eared shadows. And if WotC continues to write about the greed of winged fire-breathing lizards, or the paranoid megalomania of floating eyeballs, just because those look even less human, that's hypocrisy.

Honestly that's exactly why I'm so pessimistic about 6th edition whenever it arrives.

People in this thread have spoken about options and diverse views but it is hard to read that in any other way than WotC taking the view that having 'traditional' orcs or drow in your game makes you at best an unintentional racist.

[MaxWilson]

Perhaps the closest you could get is something like a Light-Dark axis, where Light usually corresponds to Good, but here are some exceptions, and Dark usually corresponds to Evil, but here are some exceptions.

Despite your good intentions, I would expect people to scream "racism" about Dark = usually evil even quicker and louder than they do about Evil = usually evil.

[Rafaelfras]

Honestly that's exactly why I'm so pessimistic about 6th edition whenever it arrives.

People in this thread have spoken about options and diverse views but it is hard to read that in any other way than WotC taking the view that having 'traditional' orcs or drow in your game makes you at best an unintentional racist.

I hope 6th ed is at least a decade away, and this hysteria has passed by time it comes



(b) The Good-Evil axis has some weird philosophical implications about the place of Good and Evil in the world of D&D. For example, it would seem to me that destroying a number of the lower planes would get rid of a lot of Evil, and thus make life easier for mortals who no longer have to deal with things like demonic invasions or whatever. But I'm certain there's some argument about upsetting the cosmic balance or some such that would make it a bad idea to cause such large scale destruction, even against Evil. See also discussions about destroying the souls of fiends (e.g. as a lich feeding them into your phylactery). It just... makes it seem like evil is a valid option.


In a lore perspective, as I understand it, destroying the plane to get rid of the Evil is not possible, they exist because Evil exist. You have to go the other way around. When you get rid of Evil, the plane in question ceases to be. so when the Universe is purged from all Evil then you get rid of the lower planes because the ideas and concepts that originated then no longer exist. I dont know what would happen to the cosmic balance but we can speculate.
For example the Abyss is from another reality where Evil won. That universe collapsed in and into itself into a shard, that was planted in our reality.
I find the cosmology fascinating and this lore alone make the alignment system worth it in my view

[Greywander]

I would expect people to scream "racism" about Dark = usually evil even quicker and louder than they do about Evil = usually evil.
I mean, don't they already have this with literally the dark skinned elves being the "evil" ones while the fair skinned elves are "good"? (Which is hilarious, by the way, because I'm 99.9% certain this has nothing to do with real life skin tones and everything to do with light and dark being thematic metaphors for good and evil.)

But yeah, it would be difficult to make a convincing argument that Light and Dark aren't necessarily Good and Evil when literally almost every celestial is Light and almost every fiend is Dark. This is why it would be so difficult to change the alignment system. If they were starting from scratch, they could make some celestials be Light and some be Dark, while some fiends are Light and others are Dark, and celestials generally embody the positive/benevolent aspects of those alignments (in the same way they do Law and Chaos) while fiends embody the negative/malevolent aspects.

But I don't see that happening. I think the best we can realistically hope for is some kind of substitute system, such as the Four Temperaments, or some other personality system. But even then, I'm not expecting them to really do anything. Now, maybe in 6e we might see a change to the alignment system, but I feel like it's anyone's guess if it would be for the better or for the worse. Seeing how things have been trending at WotC, I'm not especially hopeful that the eventual 6e would be any good, but a lot could happen between now and then. Maybe 5e will get some kind of 3rd party OGL spinoff like what Pathfinder was for 3.5e.

I should just learn to play Fudge and/or build my own Fudge system.


In a lore perspective, as I understand it, destroying the plane to get rid of the Evil is not possible, they exist because Evil exist. You have to go the other way around. When you get rid of Evil, the plane in question ceases to be. so when the Universe is purged from all Evil then you get rid of the lower planes because the ideas and concepts that originated then no longer exist. I dont know what would happen to the cosmic balance but we can speculate.
For example the Abyss is from another reality where Evil won. That universe collapsed in and into itself into a shard, that was planted in our reality.
I find the cosmology fascinating and this lore alone make the alignment system worth it in my view
It sounds like the implication here is to send missionaries of Good into the Lower Planes to evangelize the fiends so they turn from their evil ways. What's so funny about this is that it runs so counter to what D&D is designed for, and yet at the same time I could actually see something like this happening in an actual campaign (and it being the players' idea, not the DM's!).

[Rafaelfras]

It sounds like the implication here is to send missionaries of Good into the Lower Planes to evangelize the fiends so they turn from their evil ways. What's so funny about this is that it runs so counter to what D&D is designed for, and yet at the same time I could actually see something like this happening in an actual campaign (and it being the players' idea, not the DM's!).

As I picture, it would be like an immense purifying beam of light purging the evil from the souls bound to hell with angels descending fighting with a ever weakening wave of devils ( as Evil as a concept is taken out of universe) until a showdown with Asmodeus against the strongest angel (or Jazirian), while Asmodeus screech in fear for the first time in ever "No this cannot be, I am Eternal, as long as Evil exists in the harts of mortals I will be forever!!!" as Jazirian retorts. The mortals are free from your sway Evil is no more YOU ARE NO MORE!" As its sword pierces trough the devils heart he is engulfed by holly light, every soul bound to Hell slowly leaves, free from the bounds and the weight of their sins slowly ascends to Heaven. The light fades and Asmodeus itself was purified, his form of an angelic beauty never seen in the cosmos, the place itself shrinks as Hell slowly ceases to be. They leave and Evil is no more, Hell is no more, a flawed universe is no more and all is fine.

That campaign setting can now be removed from the host because there is nothing more to do there, lets play Darksun now :smallbiggrin: (I also have a Good ending for this one as well :smallwink:)

[Millstone85]

For example the Abyss is from another reality where Evil won. That universe collapsed in and into itself into a shard, that was planted in our reality.
I find the cosmology fascinating and this lore alone make the alignment system worth it in my viewWhich is ironic, because you are referencing lore in which the Abyss is part of the Elemental Chaos (where Tharizdun planted the shard) and the alignment system is completely out of whack.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

It sounds like the implication here is to send missionaries of Good into the Lower Planes to evangelize the fiends so they turn from their evil ways. What's so funny about this is that it runs so counter to what D&D is designed for, and yet at the same time I could actually see something like this happening in an actual campaign (and it being the players' idea, not the DM's!).

That's how the great wheel works. There's parts of Arcadia that have fallen into Mechanism because they stopped being LG and became LN.

There's a constant struggle with most of Outland's Gate Towns to keep them from sliding into their respective planes.

If you sent enough good people into Avernus that they settled and made the place better it'd slide to Archeron.

Similar with Androlynne where Pale Night trapped a thousand young Eladrin in a layer of the abyss. The place warped good and started getting floods of celestial showing up to defend the kids. If not for the swarms of Tanar'ri constantly attacking the place would slide until it hits Aborea.

[Unoriginal]

That's how the great wheel works. There's parts of Arcadia that have fallen into Mechanism because they stopped being LG and became LN.

There's a constant struggle with most of Outland's Gate Towns to keep them from sliding into their respective planes.

If you sent enough good people into Avernus that they settled and made the place better it'd slide to Archeron.

Similar with Androlynne where Pale Night trapped a thousand young Eladrin in a layer of the abyss. The place warped good and started getting floods of celestial showing up to defend the kids. If not for the swarms of Tanar'ri constantly attacking the place would slide until it hits Aborea.

That's how the Great Wheel worked, in a different edition. In 5e it isn't the case.

By all accounts if you sent enough good people into Avernus they would either die tragically, become evil, or both.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

That's how the Great Wheel worked, in a different edition. In 5e it isn't the case.

By all accounts if you sent enough good people into Avernus they would either die tragically, become evil, or both.

You're confusing the likely outcome with the possible multiple outcomes available. But, in the interest of fairness, can you tell me the book and page number where it says it's impossible to alter or change things in the great wheel?

Androlynne hasn't slid to Aborea. Because there's SO many Demons there keeping it in check. There's never been a unified effort to advance on Avernus. The new backstory for Zariel is the closest and she was focused on attacking something else entirely, not converting or improving Avernus. Even then, her army was how small?

In older editions when things like the slide to Mechanus happened it was dedicated effort over a LONG period of time. 5e has only had a handful of centuries pass in any place that I know of.

[Unoriginal]

You're confusing the likely outcome with the possible multiple outcomes available. But, in the interest of fairness, can you tell me the book and page number where it says it's impossible to alter or change things in the great wheel?

I've never said it was impossible to alter or change things in the Great Wheel. We know that Avernus once was a luxurious realm meant to tempt people in Hell, before it was turned into the battlefield for the Blood War, and that Limbo used to be even more chaotic, before becoming more lawful due to Primus's Stone, allowing many beings to establish footholds there, and now it's somewhere in the middle because the Slaad created by the Stone destroyed all of Mechanius's settlements.

I'm saying the method you're describing doesn't work in 5e. DMG p. 43 says:


The various planes of existence are realms of myth and mystery. They're not simply other worlds, but dimensions formed and governed by spiritual and elemental principles.

The Outer Planes are realms of spirituality and thought. They are the spheres where celestials, fiends, and deities exist. The plane of Elysium, for example, isn't merely a place where good creatures dwell, and not even simply the place where spirits of good creatures go when they die. It is the plane of goodness, a spiritual realm where evil can't flourish. It is as much a state of being and of mind as it is a physical location.

Which to me means that no matter how many evil people are sent to Elysium to turn it evil (or even neutral), it wouldn't work.

That being said it could/would be changed if you changed all the mortal creatures' goodness.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I'm saying the method you're describing doesn't work in 5e. DMG p. 43 says:
(Removed to not bloat)
Which to me means that no matter how many evil people are sent to Elysium to turn it evil (or even neutral), it wouldn't work.

I'd point out that's your interpretation. It doesn't actually rule out the way it explicitly used to work. "Evil cannot flourish in the good realms" can translate as "It's impossible for evil to get a real foothold" or it can translate as "If evil gets a foothold it gets expelled."

It's not like the planes are finite. That section of Arcadia that the Harmonium and/or the Formians drug into Mechanus wasn't significant in the grand scheme. Arcadia only notices it's gone because specific cities are gone, not because they lost land. If you went into Avernus and started turning whole sections into bastions of Goodness, then those whole sections would jetteson to Archeron or into the Outlands and then there's still the Infinite first level of Avernus minus that section.

I do realize I was vague enough in my initial statement that you could read it as my saying the entire Layer Avernus moves, that was not my intent and I apologize for my error in communication.

[Unoriginal]

I'd point out that's your interpretation. It doesn't actually rule out the way it explicitly used to work. "Evil cannot flourish in the good realms" can translate as "It's impossible for evil to get a real foothold" or it can translate as "If evil gets a foothold it gets expelled."

It's not like the planes are finite. That section of Arcadia that the Harmonium and/or the Formians drug into Mechanus wasn't significant in the grand scheme. Arcadia only notices it's gone because specific cities are gone, not because they lost land. If you went into Avernus and started turning whole sections into bastions of Goodness, then those whole sections would jetteson to Archeron or into the Outlands and then there's still the Infinite first level of Avernus minus that section.

I do realize I was vague enough in my initial statement that you could read it as my saying the entire Layer Avernus moves, that was not my intent and I apologize for my error in communication.

Ah, I see, we're in agreement then. I apologize as well for my error in communication.

[Rafaelfras]

Which is ironic, because you are referencing lore in which the Abyss is part of the Elemental Chaos (where Tharizdun planted the shard) and the alignment system is completely out of whack.

On 4th edition yes
On 5th edition they retained that lore but the Abyss is still its own thing
Tharizdun itself is from 1st Ed and even there he was already an imprisoned deity from Oerth

[Unoriginal]

On 4th edition yes
On 5th edition they retained that lore but the Abyss is still its own thing
Tharizdun itself is from 1st Ed and even there he was already an imprisoned deity from Oerth

They did not retain that lore. Nothing in 5e says that the Abysses cimes from a Collapse reality. The Abysses is the realmification of malevolent chaos and chaotic malevolence,nothing more and nothing less.

[Misery Esquire]

I think the best thing that could have come out of this was a reworking of the alignment system to replace the Good-Evil axis with something else.

We could finally fulfill the old 3e/WotC takeover doomsaying and have a set of "personality" scales. Say, five of them in a pentagonal chart, to which we can assign colours... :smalltongue:

[Rafaelfras]

They did not retain that lore. Nothing in 5e says that the Abysses cimes from a Collapse reality. The Abysses is the realmification of malevolent chaos and chaotic malevolence,nothing more and nothing less.

Are you sure? I didn't play 4th ed so my memory maybe is tricking me, but isn't there some of it on 5th material? Or is t just the wiki?
Also is important to note that unless new lore replaces or contradicts old lore you can still apply it.
They don't have for example to go deep on the war of order and chaos because it's explained in old lore and nothing has changed since then so just referring to the wand of seven parts or the oberyth is enough.
I know there are references for Tharizdun as warlock patron, so if his lore hasn't changed its still valid

[Unoriginal]

Are you sure? I didn't play 4th ed so my memory maybe is tricking me, but isn't there some of it on 5th material? Or is t just the wiki?

The wiki has not been updated for more than a decade, in many places.



Also is important to note that unless new lore replaces or contradicts old lore you can still apply it.
They don't have for example to go deep on the war of order and chaos because it's explained in old lore and nothing has changed since then so just referring to the wand of seven parts or the oberyth is enough.

The 5e lore does contradict the idea that the Abyss is different than the other planes in term of origins.

At the very least, the 5e lore's stance is "there is no way of knowing if any explanation is the true one", meaning that any of the pre-5e lore could be considered "it's a legend/myth/rumor about that subject, but it can't be confirmed".

Also while the War of Law and Chaos is mentioned (as well as the Wand of Seven Parts), the Oberyths likely aren't canon anymore. The Sibriexes are mentioned to be supposedly "as old as the Abyss itself", and they're firmly Demons (well, as firm as a Sibriex can be).


I know there are references for Tharizdun as warlock patron, so if his lore hasn't changed its still valid

Tharizdun is the only being that has been explicitly described as being a god, a Great Old One, and an Elder Evil, but they've never mentioned any tie with the Abyss.

[Millstone85]

Also is important to note that unless new lore replaces or contradicts old lore you can still apply it.Even so, it is complicated.

In 4e Forgotten Realms, the presence of the Abyss in the Elemental Chaos had nothing to do with Tharizdun or a shard from an obyrith universe. It was explained by something much harder to swallow: that Asmodeus, after stealing Azuth's divinity sometime during the Spellplague, was somehow able to throw the Abyss out of the Astral Sea and into the Elemental Chaos. Now, 5e Forgotten Realms makes no reference to demons being or having ever been elemental creatures. Does that mean this particular event was undone during the Second Sundering, or that we are expected to pretend it never happened? I have a feeling it is the latter.

4e Nentir Vale, that's where the story of the shard is from. And NV has not yet been adapted to 5e, except it sort of has in the form of Critical Role. And sure enough, the book contains something that resembles but isn't quite the story of the shard:
Tharizdun, the Chained Oblivion [...] is darkness unending, less like a god and more like another world. [...] In its endless imprisonment, Tharizdun dreams the infinite depths of the Abyss into reality, along with all its demonic legions.

So what is canon? Like, from a Sigil bird's eye view? No clue.

[Unoriginal]

4e Nentir Vale, that's where the story of the shard is from. And NV has not yet been adapted to 5e, except it sort of has in the form of Critical Role. And sure enough, the book contains something that resembles but isn't quite the story of the shard:

So what is canon? Like, from a Sigil bird's eye view? No clue.

Do note that Sigil's bird eye's view is explicitly not *the* canon explanation, just an explanation people in-setting have for the events.

Furthermore, what is canon for 5e is that the gods have a sort-of-ubiquity that makes them different depending which Crystal Sphere of the Material Plane you're in (since each Crystal Sphere has different planar and divine influences). Corellon in FR is not the same as Corellon in Greyhawk or Nentir Vale or the Critical Role setting, but they're Corellon always.

So in the end the answer to "what is canon?" is "no answer". And honestly it's probably smarter of the writers that way. It's all myths dreamed by other myths.

[Millstone85]

Furthermore, what is canon for 5e is that the gods have a sort-of-ubiquity that makes them different depending which Crystal Sphere of the Material Plane you're inIs that from Tasha's or something? I have only just started reading it.

[noob]

And on the same page:

"True dragons, including the good metallic dragons and the evil chromatic dragons, are highly intelligent and have innate magic."

I guess it means that the "Feel free to depart from it and change a monster' s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there's nothing stopping you" part of the Alignment description is either a lie or a mistake that must be ignored.

Or it means a chromatic dragon that becomes good stops being a true dragon (because they stop being racist and discriminating on "being a true dragon" right after being ousted by the other chromatics at which point they realise that distinction was pointless and working against them) and whenever a metallic dragon becomes evil nearly no dragon will accept their company and they end up being called false dragons by all the discriminating dragons.

[Rafaelfras]

The 5e lore does contradict the idea that the Abyss is different than the other planes in term of origins.

At the very least, the 5e lore's stance is "there is no way of knowing if any explanation is the true one", meaning that any of the pre-5e lore could be considered "it's a legend/myth/rumor about that subject, but it can't be confirmed".

Also while the War of Law and Chaos is mentioned (as well as the Wand of Seven Parts), the Oberyths likely aren't canon anymore. The Sibriexes are mentioned to be supposedly "as old as the Abyss itself", and they're firmly Demons (well, as firm as a Sibriex can be).

How can the oberyth be not cannon anymore if they are the central point of the war of law and chaos and why the wand of seven parts has seven parts in the first place? If the war happened then they are cannon because the queen of chaos and her wolf spider prince who the wand was shattered on are both oberyths. You also have Pazuzu rulling the very first layer of the Abyss witch is pazunia.
Does tome of foes changed that?



Tharizdun is the only being that has been explicitly described as being a god, a Great Old One, and an Elder Evil, but they've never mentioned any tie with the Abyss.
Got it I know that wiki is outdated, I was just wondering where I got the shard bit.


Even so, it is complicated.

In 4e Forgotten Realms, the presence of the Abyss in the Elemental Chaos had nothing to do with Tharizdun or a shard from an obyrith universe. It was explained by something much harder to swallow: that Asmodeus, after stealing Azuth's divinity sometime during the Spellplague, was somehow able to throw the Abyss out of the Astral Sea and into the Elemental Chaos. Now, 5e Forgotten Realms makes no reference to demons being or having ever been elemental creatures. Does that mean this particular event was undone during the Second Sundering, or that we are expected to pretend it never happened? I have a feeling it is the latter.

4e Nentir Vale, that's where the story of the shard is from. And NV has not yet been adapted to 5e, except it sort of has in the form of Critical Role. And sure enough, the book contains something that resembles but isn't quite the story of the shard:

So what is canon? Like, from a Sigil bird's eye view? No clue.
Yes I know. As a forgotten realms player I am fully aware to what they did to the setting on 4th Ed and it's one of the prime reasons I skipped it all together.
They butchered forgotten realms to fit in their new vision and that should never happened. The point of settings is that they are different from the default.




Furthermore, what is canon for 5e is that the gods have a sort-of-ubiquity that makes them different depending which Crystal Sphere of the Material Plane you're in (since each Crystal Sphere has different planar and divine influences). Corellon in FR is not the same as Corellon in Greyhawk or Nentir Vale or the Critical Role setting, but they're Corellon always.

So in the end the answer to "what is canon?" is "no answer". And honestly it's probably smarter of the writers that way. It's all myths dreamed by other myths.
Which is fine by me it let people adhere to the lore they like the most without having to get rid of everything that came before.

Asmodeus has 5 different origins and it just add the the mystery behind the character and make him more interesting in the long run for example

[Segev]

Good to know that we can now assume that there e likely as many good fiends as evil ones, now. :smallsigh:

[Unoriginal]

How can the oberyth be not cannon anymore if they are the central point of the war of law and chaos and why the wand of seven parts has seven parts in the first place? If the war happened then they are cannon because the queen of chaos and her wolf spider prince who the wand was shattered on are both oberyths.

Species/creature categories can change between the editions. Shadar-kai weren't elves before this edition, and the Raven Queen wasn't a mad demigoddess using ravens to steal souls either.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How can the oberyth be not cannon anymore if they are the central point of the war of law and chaos and why the wand of seven parts has seven parts in the first place? If the war happened then they are cannon because the queen of chaos and her wolf spider prince who the wand was shattered on are both oberyths. You also have Pazuzu rulling the very first layer of the Abyss witch is pazunia.
Does tome of foes changed that?


There is no cross-edition canon. At all. Anything not mentioned in a 5e product is not canon. Period.

Of course, I'd push back against the idea of canon at all...but that's just me.

[Rafaelfras]

There is no cross-edition canon. At all. Anything not mentioned in a 5e product is not canon. Period.

Of course, I'd push back against the idea of canon at all...but that's just me.

Disagree. Everything not changed remains the same.
They don't have to use book space to shown again something that is already established

[PhoenixPhyre]

Disagree. Everything not changed remains the same.
They don't have to use book space to shown again something that is already established

That way lies madness and incompatibility.

And has been rejected by 5e's writers. Their guidance to authors is "avoid using old editions for lore, as it's not usually relevant. Ask us instead."

[Trafalgar]

I actually have more problems with the idea of a default "Good" race than a default "Evil" one.

The idea that goblins were corrupted towards evil by a supernatural being sounds like something I learned in Sunday school. But why are elves normally good (excepting the drow of course)?. They are generally portrayed as isolationist which seems more neutral to me. Often, they attack people who enter their borders on sight and don't care about the why. If the humans are starving to death, you never hear about elves sending boatloads of lembas to help out. There is generally a smell of racism about them in that they don't seem to accept half-elves into their families.

In the real world, often really messed up stuff is done by powerful people who believe they are doing the right thing.

[t209]

I actually have more problems with the idea of a default "Good" race than a default "Evil" one.

The idea that goblins were corrupted towards evil by a supernatural being sounds like something I learned in Sunday school. But why are elves normally good (excepting the drow of course)?. They are generally portrayed as isolationist which seems more neutral to me. Often, they attack people who enter their borders on sight and don't care about the why. If the humans are starving to death, you never hear about elves sending boatloads of lembas to help out. There is generally a smell of racism about them in that they don't seem to accept half-elves into their families.

In the real world, often really messed up stuff is done by powerful people who believe they are doing the right thing.

Hence why Crown Wars happened in Forgotten Realms.
Do note that perpetrators include High Elves--Sun to be precise--and became less loved as a result.
That or Warhammer Fantasy where Dark Elves are descended from High Elves, who are just as prone to corruption by Chaos that Ulthuan had Swordmasters patrolling to deal with pleasure cult. Also Finubar, Tyrion, and Teclis realizing that isolationism isn't ideal and started helping mortal empire (Humans still can't do more than one magic or they'll explode)--even Dwarves--to deal with Chaos.

[Damon_Tor]

As a minority, non-white, I have to admit that I used to find it a bit cringe to blanket label entire species as Evil.

For example, all non-white/Xtians such Native Americans, indigenous South Americans, Jews, Muslims, Africans, etc. would have been given the blanket "evil" tag if DnD were around 200 hundred years ago.

You have been misinformed.

[Sigreid]

I think all this controversy comes from reality/realism pushing more into D&D when it used to be mythology with everything very archetypical and black and white. The original alignments system literally represented the struggles between Good and Evil, Law and Chaos and those who actively worked to maintain the balance in the middle. That idea was so ingrained in the basis of alignment everyone of a particular alignment, thus on the same side, had a mystical/spiritual ability to communicate with each other in the form of an alignment language usable only by adherents to that alignment.

[Segev]

I think all this controversy comes from reality/realism pushing more into D&D when it used to be mythology with everything very archetypical and black and white. The original alignments system literally represented the struggles between Good and Evil, Law and Chaos and those who actively worked to maintain the balance in the middle. That idea was so ingrained in the basis of alignment everyone of a particular alignment, thus on the same side, had a mystical/spiritual ability to communicate with each other in the form of an alignment language usable only by adherents to that alignment.
You know, adapting the alignment languages back in without making them a universal thing could create interesting mythically resonant tools.

What if Celestial is, indeed, a language, but while it takes the same training to learn as any other, you can only speak it if you are Good. Furthermore, even without knowing it, any Good creature can automatically understand it (to the limit of their intelligence, at least), spoken or written, even if illiterate.

Same for Fiendish and Evil creatures.

[Sigreid]

You know, adapting the alignment languages back in without making them a universal thing could create interesting mythically resonant tools.

What if Celestial is, indeed, a language, but while it takes the same training to learn as any other, you can only speak it if you are Good. Furthermore, even without knowing it, any Good creature can automatically understand it (to the limit of their intelligence, at least), spoken or written, even if illiterate.

Same for Fiendish and Evil creatures.

It was more than that though. I've said this in another thread, but things were all architypical. Orcs, goblins and the other humanoid races weren't really people but the forces of entropy embodied and coming for your home and family. Drow were the reason you fear the darkness. etc.

[MaxWilson]

It was more than that though. I've said this in another thread, but things were all architypical. Orcs, goblins and the other humanoid races weren't really people but the forces of entropy embodied and coming for your home and family. Drow were the reason you fear the darkness. etc.

Dungeon as mythic underworld: doors that open easily for monsters require forcing by PCs because PCs don't belong here, and those orcs guarding treasure don't necessarily COME from anywhere (don't have parents or an ecology), they're just malice incarnate.

It's certainly one way to run a gameworld, or even just a portion of a gameworld a la the Bermuda Triangle.

[Sigreid]

Dungeon as mythic underworld: doors that own easily for monsters require forcing by PCs because PCs don't belong here, and those orcs guarding treasure don't necessarily COME from anywhere (don't have parents or an ecology), they're just malice incarnate.

It's certainly one way to run a gameworld, or even just a portion of a gameworld a la the Bermuda Triangle.

As simplistic as that is, it's really the foundation on which all the rest of it was built.

Edit: And I think it's good to point out so those who weren't here at the beginning or near the beginning understand better where we came from instead of assuming hostility that wasn't there. I mean, the original D&D orcs were literally just humanoid boars, pig heads and all.

[MaxWilson]

As simplistic as that is, it's really the foundation on which all the rest of it was built.

Edit: And I think it's good to point out so those who weren't here at the beginning or near the beginning understand better where we came from instead of assuming hostility that wasn't there. I mean, the original D&D orcs were literally just humanoid boars, pig heads and all.

Oh yeah. I'm definitely not saying you SHOULDN'T use mythic underworlds or monsters without ecologies.

I think there's also a reason we don't play exclusively within mythic underworlds for the same reason most of us don't watch exclusively horror movies (desire for greater variety of experience) but it's certainly a valid mode of play, and for those who hate the "zero to archmage in just eighteen months" vibe it can certainly provide the necessary aura of mystique to make it more tolerable to one's suspension of disbelief and explain why everybody doesn't just "become an adventure" instead of working a day job.


"Eighteen months ago, a farmhand named Cassius Long walked into the Tower of Time, and like so many others was never seen again... until yesterday, when Cassius, or something wearing his face, walked out of the tower, loaded with gold and displaying all manner of powerful magical abilities. Now he's meeting with the king himself, suggesting how to reshape our political alliances with the dwarves and hobgoblins. Does this make anyone here feel uneasy?"

[Unoriginal]

"Eighteen months ago, a farmhand named Cassius Long walked into the Tower of Time, and like so many others was never seen again... until yesterday, when Cassius, or something wearing his face, walked out of the tower, loaded with gold and displaying all manner of powerful magical abilities. Now he's meeting with the king himself, suggesting how to reshape our political alliances with the dwarves and hobgoblins. Does this make anyone here feel uneasy?"

I now have an intense desire to read the Cassius Long Chronicles.

[langal]

Wow. Shakespeare would disagree. (Otherwise Othello the Moor would end the play laughing maniacally about his deeds while deceived by Iago, instead of killing himself in remorse at what Iago tricked him into doing.)

I can't give specifically-Christian examples from 200 years ago because forum rules forbid it, but... you're wrong.

I don't think I am wrong. Shakespeare did not dictate or necessarily reflect the societal norms of his times. One fictional example does not eliminate actual events that happened. I'm just saying if attributing "evil" to races makes some uncomfortable, I can understand that.

These disagreements can actually make interesting to situations. My neutral half orc does NOT condone the killing of child goblins, for example. Being a half orc raised by an Orc tribe led him to believe that goblins are often victims of a toxic culture. The other player's Good paladin has very different feelings on the matter - considering the goblins to be inherently evil.

[Rafaelfras]

I now have an intense desire to read the Cassius Long Chronicles.

Indeed. Also we should be provided better time skip tools in our adventures ><

[MaxWilson]

I now have an intense desire to read the Cassius Long Chronicles.

Like, his adventures in the Tower of Time, or what he does afterwards in normal space, or both?


I don't think I am wrong. Shakespeare did not dictate or necessarily reflect the societal norms of his times. One fictional example does not eliminate actual events that happened. I'm just saying if attributing "evil" to races makes some uncomfortable, I can understand that.

There's very real differences though between real world, planet Earth historical suspicion of foreigners (whether it be between American and Chinese, English and French, Danish and African, whatever) and the level of suspicion that would exist between fantasy humans and a race which literally kills and casually eats human beings in a regular basis. Sometimes a reputation for evil is deserved, based on behavior.

Now, sometimes it's not deserved, and I think you're saying that there are specific races that you like to view as not doing horrific things even though other people run them as doing horrific things. It's not even really a debate about the words "good" and "evil" and "alignment", it's more like "do orcs eat still-beating human hearts on holidays as a conspicuous display of wealth and bravery?" and "are children in githyanki-occupied territories routinely worked to death in atium mines?" and "what percentage of human beings typically remain alive and free-willed 12 months after mind flayers take over their city or village?"

The original Conan stories by Robert E. Howard feature lots of evil people/cults/creatures doing terrible things, and D&D often follows suit, because it lets the players be heroes by contrast who END the terrible things.

In a universe where mind flayers really did eat your entire family alive, "mind flayers are evil" isn't an irrational prejudice the way it would be in real life if you had similar thoughts about, say, Maori. (In real life even piranhas aren't nearly as bad as their reputation.)

[Unoriginal]

Like, his adventures in the Tower of Time, or what he does afterwards in normal space, or both?

What he does afterward, mostly.

Though I think the most interesting would be a series of reports by different people in the world writing what is going on for them, referencing Cassius Long's involvements.

Like one is a soldier's personal journal, the other is a spy's report to their employer, the next a song, etc.

[MaxWilson]

What he does afterward, mostly.

Though I think the most interesting would be a series of reports by different people in the world writing what is going on for them, referencing Cassius Long's involvements.

Like one is a soldier's personal journal, the other is a spy's report to their employer, the next a song, etc.

Haha, it sounds interesting because it's mysterious and you want to know what Cassius's master plan is, but little do the spies know that Cassius is just a 20th level wizard played by a fairly new player who HAS no special insights into dwarven or hobgoblin society, or how to run a kingdom, and he has no master plan now that he has finally found his way back to his own time.

In order to make this situation entertaining in a game, I think someone still needs to have a plan, even if it's the bad guy, covertly reacting to Cassius's effects on his own plan (like Dispelling a long-term Mass Suggestion on a certain accountant, basically by accident, or mind-reading a suborned noble role looking for social gossip and discovering a blackmail plot) despite Cassius not really being able to see the whole picture.

[KorvinStarmast]

I also like that it lets me play D&D without having to check my religious beliefs at the door or retcon the universe to eliminate the factual inconsistencies. I can just treat baatezu and tanar'ri as just two more kinds of extraplanar monsters. AFAICT it's a win-win, although I'm open to hearing complaints from anyone who liked the 1st edition Type I through VI demons/devils better. (Anyone? If so, why?) I sure do, but that's because I was introduced to them in Eldritch Wizardry before the two axis alignment went official, and it was law, neutrality, and chaos. That three sphere construction was a whole lot more flexible than the two axis, gamist choice that Gary made.

At the very least, it gave us a name for daemons that isn't so similar to demons. The yugoloth appellation has stuck. OK, fine, I'll agree that sliding in yet another kind of demon/daemon wasn't that bad of an idea.
Alignment has always been a weak mechanical element of dnd and one that for at least a decade they have been moving away from. It was a lot less of a mess when you had Law, Neutrality and Chaos. There's a comment somewhere from Arneson's notes (kobold press interview? Maybe?) about how he had to arrive at "the first chaotic characters" when some of his players got to be real back stabbers.

TSR: "People are complaining that our games resemble real-world religious beliefs. Let's make the monsters in our game clearly and unambiguously DIFFERENT from any in real-world religious beliefs."

WotC: "People are complaining that our games make a negative statement about real-world racial groups. Let's make the monsters in the game more similar to real-world humans." Yeah, but the reason that did that is that the fans have decided that they want to play monsters as PCs. This has been an issue since day 1, and is something Gygax addresses in the DMG for 1e on why this is generally a bad idea. (Granted, a whole lot of work has gone into trying to make it work better, so that Ted the Kobold runs the local septic tank business in City X, but Gygax wasn't wrong - it adds complexity without adding value (yes, YMMV).

To be fair, it's always been a comic with a wall of text tendency. As Thog might say: :thog: talkie man talk too much!

That'd be because in 5e all alignment in stat blocks are the equivalent of 3e's "usually", per the MM.

It doesn't need to be specified, nor does the "usually" alignment need to be removed from the stat block to make it so that not all of a race are that alignment.

WotC made a meaningless gesture, and it's one that just makes it harder for DMs that actually used monster alignments to see what's going on at a glance. Yeah; people who complain seem to forget that the DM has agency, and the MM provides some guidance on how to apply that.

Disagree. Everything not changed remains the same.
They don't have to use book space to shown again something that is already established Sorry, that's incorrect.

That way lies madness and incompatibility.

And has been rejected by 5e's writers. Their guidance to authors is "avoid using old editions for lore, as it's not usually relevant. Ask us instead." This.

[MaxWilson]

I sure do, but that's because I was introduced to them in Eldritch Wizardry before the two axis alignment went official, and it was law, neutrality, and chaos. That three sphere construction was a whole lot more flexible than the two axis, gamist choice that Gary made.

Huh. As someone who also learned Lawful / Neutral / Chaotic first (much later than you though - - I learned from the Basic set) I can certainly see the appeal of using L/N/C as actual factions, which the two-axis alignment system doesn't really do well.

But I still don't see a connection yet between that and disliking baatezu vs. "Type N Devils", since two-axis alignment came along almost a decade before the baatezu/tanar'ri rename + lore expansion.


Yeah, but the reason that did that is that the fans have decided that they want to play monsters as PCs. This has been an issue since day 1, and is something Gygax addresses in the DMG for 1e on why this is generally a bad idea. (Granted, a whole lot of work has gone into trying to make it work better, so that Ted the Kobold runs the local septic tank business in City X, but Gygax wasn't wrong - it adds complexity without adding value (yes, YMMV).

"Adds complexity without adding value" is a good summary of my perspective too. If you want a world without monsters, a world of all humans is simpler and lets you tell the same stories. I recognize that some people apparently see value in distinguishing between humans and human-like kobolds and orcs and mind flayers, but I don't grok their viewpoint yet.

[KorvinStarmast]

But I still don't see a connection yet between that and disliking baatezu vs. "Type N Devils", since two-axis alignment came along almost a decade before the baatezu/tanar'ri rename + lore expansion.
Because demon is easier to pronounce, for one. :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Because demon is easier to pronounce, for one. :smallbiggrin:

If they made that same change these days, it'd be for the same reasons that Games Workshop made sure to rename all their races something new-and-different. IP preservation. Can't set "demon" or "devil" as protected identity material, but "tanar'ii"? Sure.

[MaxWilson]

Because demon is easier to pronounce, for one. :smallbiggrin:

Heh. I use the term "demon" freely for pretty much anything with nasty pointed teeth, no matter what plane it comes from. I'll totally describe an MM Oni as a big angry-faced tusked demon-thing with armor and a halberd.

[quindraco]

I don't think I am wrong. Shakespeare did not dictate or necessarily reflect the societal norms of his times. One fictional example does not eliminate actual events that happened. I'm just saying if attributing "evil" to races makes some uncomfortable, I can understand that.

These disagreements can actually make interesting to situations. My neutral half orc does NOT condone the killing of child goblins, for example. Being a half orc raised by an Orc tribe led him to believe that goblins are often victims of a toxic culture. The other player's Good paladin has very different feelings on the matter - considering the goblins to be inherently evil.

That's not how alignment works in D&D. Your alignment isn't what you think of yourself (if it were, literally everyone would be good). It's essentially what the universe/gods think of you, by spiritual accord.

In this case, it has a lot to do with how correct the paladin is. If goblins lack free will and are literally, genuinely born evil - as is the case with zombies, for example - the paladin is fine and you're just mistaken. Good paladins smite undead all the time. If goblins are genuinely sapient and capable of free will, the paladin is probably some flavor of neutral, but certainly doesn't qualify as good. 5E paladins are powered by their own belief, so the paladin is unlikely to lose class abilities for murdering innocent children, but if they encounter a situation where alignment matters, like fighting a rakshasa, things might go sideways for them. There are some genuine weeds here in terms of why the paladin thinks goblins are inherently evil - being an idiot won't necessarily disqualify you from being good, or alignments would change every time a good person was duped into committing evil - but if you've explained to them that they're wrong, then without some exception going on, their adherence to dogmatic belief in the face of evidence isn't good, it's the definition of lawful neutral.

[Rafaelfras]

.

"Adds complexity without adding value" is a good summary of my perspective too. If you want a world without monsters, a world of all humans is simpler and lets you tell the same stories. I recognize that some people apparently see value in distinguishing between humans and human-like kobolds and orcs and mind flayers, but I don't grok their viewpoint yet.

Yeah, it's mine as well
They all become humans in funny hats in the end

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, it's mine as well
They all become humans in funny hats in the end

I've come around to this as well, which is why, outside of some very distinct exceptions (like anthropomorphic humanoids), the primary race in my campaign are essentially human+, where they gain one of 12 random traits at creation that were taken from the 'funny hat' crowd. Unless you REALLY REALLY want to play a Loxodon or Ratkin or Tabaxi, you're gonna look relatively human and have human like attributes... But you can have blue or green skin, if you'd like. :smallbiggrin:

[Rafaelfras]

. Unless you REALLY REALLY want to play a Loxodon or Ratkin or Tabaxi, you're gonna look relatively human and have human like attributes... But you can have blue or green skin, if you'd like. :smallbiggrin:

There is one tabaxi at my table, the rest of the group is human, elf and half-elf
It's a funny contrast.
We already said he was a sick, cursed by a witch, a deformed human and our enchanted pet.
Fun fact he got the sun card on the deck of many things and became 2 levels above the whole party. Which obviously make him our natural leader... He changed the group name to cat gang... Not kidding