The D&D thread

Dashel said:

I've just been surprised by a lot of the stuff I'm seeing in the DnD world since coming back. It's not a matter of a different take on Orcs it's more like ... giving Orcs a negative to intelligence is racist. Or they're not warlike. Or they're the oppressed. It's just bizarre.

Click to expand...

It's actually kind of a funny transition D&D is going through, and if you really analyze it, you can go pretty deep. I think Wizard's ultimate goal is to try not to categorize any race of humanoids (in its entirety) as "evil." RIght now they seem to be limiting it to orcs and drow- which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you are going to go with the moral ambiguity argument that orcs aren't really "evil," then why wouldn't that apply to all humanoid races? What about gnolls? Goblins? How come orcs aren't evil but those races are? Maybe only monstrous creatures of animal intelligence or lower can be truly "evil?" But then, if they lack the self-awareness of humanoids, can you even consider "monsters" sentient enough to be evil? Maybe evil doesn't even exist? But that would mean good doesn't exist. Now we are getting into Nietzsche territory...

Honestly, I don't think it's Wizard's intent to be sensitive to a race of fictitious creatures, I think it's a ham-handed and pandering attempt to try and show how "diverse" and racially tolerant Wizards is... to show how "woke" they are to the current trends. To me, that's actually worse. While I have zero issue with making a fictitious world realistic and morally ambiguous (those are the best worlds, after all), I find the idea of trying to use a game to ride the current trend of imposing some kind of universal value system on people pretty fucking repugnant. If Wizards were to just say, "Hey, I think we should add some depth and moral ambiguity to our world because it's much more fun and realistic," I could definitely get behind that. But instead the press release comes off as some kind of weird apology to orcs and drow (and gypsies), and a way to pander to a younger generation (Z). I suppose it makes sense from a marketing standpoint, considering how popular D&D is with the younger generations (those kids are Wizard's cash cow and their future), but I still find that kind of pandering repugnant. I also have a really hard time with the current trend of fighting bigotry and intolerance with a different kind of intolerance.

this is where it starts... but someday (and at this rate, someday soon) we are going to get an official write up on how mindflayers aren't evil, they are just reacting to the other races oppressing them onto the endangered species list.

j00t said:

this is where it starts... but someday (and at this rate, someday soon) we are going to get an official write up on how mindflayers aren't evil, they are just reacting to the other races oppressing them onto the endangered species list.

Click to expand...

That would be a shame, but I am willing to sacrifice them if we get information on their background. They had an interplanar empire at one point. The only race that is older/was more powerful than them are the Aboleths.

j00t said:

this is where it starts... but someday (and at this rate, someday soon) we are going to get an official write up on how mindflayers aren't evil, they are just reacting to the other races oppressing them onto the endangered species list.

Click to expand...

Funny you say that, the mindflayers are opressed onto the endangered species list by the Githyanki after they broke free from their slavery, tore down their Empire and chased them all into hiding. This one all depends on your perspective tho, if you see needing to eat the brains of intelligent creatures for your survival as evil, then so be it.

Dashel said:

I've just been surprised by a lot of the stuff I'm seeing in the DnD world since coming back. It's not a matter of a different take on Orcs it's more like ... giving Orcs a negative to intelligence is racist. Or they're not warlike. Or they're the oppressed. It's just bizarre.

Click to expand...

Definitely agree with you here, this is where the line between pandering and more logical changes becomes a bit blurred. The racial bonuses give different, and usually kind of inconsequential, flavours to the class. Depending on how they implement the custom aspect it could be an interesting change - one thing I dislike about the set racial bonuses is that there are optimal race/class combos that make it feel a bit shitty to take the combo you want from an RP perspective but be less effective as a result. It ends up funnelling a lot of players down certain routes, making for a blander experience. However, making it a blanket "pick a race, then spend your three ability points on whatever stats you like" will lead to the opposite problem - there are no particular advantages to picking one race over the other beyond the physical abilities, like the dragonborn breath ability. That then leads to a new imbalance from that perspective however - why the hell wouldn't you pick the race that can breath fire if the ability scores are inconsequential?

Arden said:

Honestly, I don't think it's Wizard's intent to be sensitive to a race of fictitious creatures, I think it's a ham-handed and pandering attempt to try and show how "diverse" and racially tolerant Wizards is... to show how "woke" they are to the current trends. To me, that's actually worse. While I have zero issue with making a fictitious world realistic and morally ambiguous (those are the best worlds, after all), I find the idea of trying to use a game to ride the current trend of imposing some kind of universal value system on people pretty fucking repugnant. If Wizards were to just say, "Hey, I think we should add some depth and moral ambiguity to our world because it's much more fun and realistic," I could definitely get behind that. But instead the press release comes off as some kind of weird apology to orcs and drow (and gypsies), and a way to pander to a younger generation (Z). I suppose it makes sense from a marketing standpoint, considering how popular D&D is with the younger generations (those kids are Wizard's cash cow and their future), but I still find that kind of pandering repugnant. I also have a really hard time with the current trend of fighting bigotry and intolerance with a different kind of intolerance.

Click to expand...

You have the right of it here and it ultimately comes down to money. There'll have been a meeting, they'll have decided which side of the debate the majority of their demographic falls in and will be making product decisions accordingly. The problem with the debate now is that both sides are so polarised and inflexible in their views and if companies/brands choose to sit on the fence on it they'll end up being hated by both sides, so might as well pick one.

j00t said:

this is where it starts... but someday (and at this rate, someday soon) we are going to get an official write up on how mindflayers aren't evil, they are just reacting to the other races oppressing them onto the endangered species list.

Click to expand...

And what is this issue with that? I give all my villains some motivation.

I also don't use alignment in my games. It should be a helping hand to guide your actions but too often it becomes a rigid structure you must adhere to. Role-playing should be about the journey not something you put on a paper session one. Same for the antagonist.

Fyff said:

And what is this issue with that? I give all my villains some motivation.

I also don't use alignment in my games. It should be a helping hand to guide your actions but too often it becomes a rigid structure you must adhere to. Role-playing should be about the journey not something you put on a paper session one. Same for the antagonist.

Click to expand...

I agree that alignment is problematic as each action a player takes can fall somewhere within the grid. If you treat it more like a goal the character aspires to it can be useful but it still doesn't have a built in growth mechanic like stats or experience levels.

The simple issue with what is going on here though is the word "race". Its a super charged trigger word nowadays and so in order to be more woke they are treating anything related to race in dnd with a massive dose of pure equality.

Racial bonuses are next I am sure. Can't have any race have an inherent bonus over another one, that would be unequal.

It's pushing unrealistic values into a space that doesn't need them.

In a fantasy world full of life, death and magic there is going to be paranoia, hatred, ignorance and fear. Especially towards groups that have perpetrated attacks on one another.

Now they are saying it's wrong for in game groups to experience natural emotions given the extreme nature of the world. This is leading them to remove the sources of conflict which will lead to a very unnatural strange space where logical reactions are artificially suppressed in order to create a more inclusive environment.

In other words, it's bullshit.

Static alignments made perfect sense in the early days of D&D and they were a useful construct to help guide players toward roleplaying a character who might be much different than the player. They were like guide rails to give players an RP goal and help them stay between the lines. Tabletop RPGs have evolved a lot over the years, but strangely, alignments haven't evolved with them (at least in D&D).

In the game I play, everyone starts with an alignment of Neutral. Then, as you adventure you either earn positive reputation points, or negative reputation points. Save the local farmer's daughter from a band of bad guys? Maybe you earn 1 Rep Point. Save an entire town from a much larger threat? Maybe you earn 2 Rep Points. Kill a hostage trying to get information from them? Maybe that earns you -1 Rep Point.

Rep Points are cumulative, so you could play the same character for years and always hover around a "neutral" reputation if you do things that are viewed as both "bad" and "good." At character gen, you start out with Zero Rep Points. Here's the scale:

+25: Paragon
+20: Saintly
+15: Heroic
+10: Valorous
+5: Brave and/or Reliable
0: Neutral
-5: Dangerous and/or Unreliable
-10: Sinister
-15: Villainous
-20: Wicked
-25: Demonic

Arden said:

Static alignments made perfect sense in the early days of D&D and they were a useful construct to help guide players toward roleplaying a character who might be much different than the player. They were like guide rails to give players an RP goal and help them stay between the lines. Tabletop RPGs have evolved a lot over the years, but strangely, alignments haven't evolved with them (at least in D&D).

In the game I play, everyone starts with an alignment of Neutral. Then, as you adventure you either earn positive reputation points, or negative reputation points. Save the local farmer's daughter from a band of bad guys? Maybe you earn 1 Rep Point. Save an entire town from a much larger threat? Maybe you earn 2 Rep Points. Kill a hostage trying to get information from them? Maybe that earns you -1 Rep Point.

Rep Points are cumulative, so you could play the same character for years and always hover around a "neutral" reputation if you do things that are viewed as both "bad" and "good." At character gen, you start out with Zero Rep Points. Here's the scale:

+25: Paragon
+20: Saintly
+15: Heroic
+10: Valorous
+5: Brave and/or Reliable
0: Neutral
-5: Dangerous and/or Unreliable
-10: Sinister
-15: Villainous
-20: Wicked
-25: Demonic

Click to expand...

That's a cool system. It lets the player keep track of their own behavior in a way.

I tend to do a much more freeform reputation system that isn't even numerically represented.

The players actions illicit reactions on an npc by npc basis. I just roleplay out to best of my ability how that npc would react.

I figure, It doesn't matter how nice they were to the previous npc if the next one only sees them act like a bastard.

This changes as their renown in an area increases. If a campaign goes on for long enough and the players elevate their tier of play and influence in the world then people might start to react differently. I try to keep track of whether or not anyone was around to see what they did and if they were able to tell others.

Like a party could pretend to be good, but really be terrible and just murder all the witnesses and maintain a sterling reputation that eventually reinforces itself.

Meanwhile some groups have shitty PR instincts and if they aren't careful or care others could take credit for their deeds. Comes down to how much I feel like messing with people really.

Main thing I try to do is always have an honest motivation for each npc action taken against the group and definitely not just resort to throwing wrenches at them for the sake of generating conflict.

Pancreas said:

I agree that alignment is problematic as each action a player takes can fall somewhere within the grid. If you treat it more like a goal the character aspires to it can be useful but it still doesn't have a built in growth mechanic like stats or experience levels.

The simple issue with what is going on here though is the word "race". Its a super charged trigger word nowadays and so in order to be more woke they are treating anything related to race in dnd with a massive dose of pure equality.

Racial bonuses are next I am sure. Can't have any race have an inherent bonus over another one, that would be unequal.

It's pushing unrealistic values into a space that doesn't need them.

In a fantasy world full of life, death and magic there is going to be paranoia, hatred, ignorance and fear. Especially towards groups that have perpetrated attacks on one another.

Now they are saying it's wrong for in game groups to experience natural emotions given the extreme nature of the world. This is leading them to remove the sources of conflict which will lead to a very unnatural strange space where logical reactions are artificially suppressed in order to create a more inclusive environment.

In other words, it's bullshit.

Click to expand...

Your games must be boring as fuck.

Fyff said:

Your games must be boring as fuck.

Click to expand...

Because I try to display the full range of emotion people might experience including the really horrible and terrible parts like racism, greed, malice, and ignorance?

If one of my players wants to play an orc they are getting fucked with if they just stroll into a human settlement that doesn't like orcs. I am not going to just skip past generations of distrust and hatred because wizards is now telling me that orcs are really a deep and complicated race. No shit, that's not the issue, the issue is how are they percieved, and what culture does this orc adhere to? Are they warlike raiders or what? And if not why?

If this player wants to be seen differently, they have to earn it. Wizards is trying to tell me that orcs deserve a fair shake at being seen in a more favorable light. And I am telling wizards, fuck you. No one deserves shit. They either make it happen through their actions or they don't.

Overcoming racial bias against orcs is part of playing one against the archetype.

Pancreas said:

That's a cool system. It lets the player keep track of their own behavior in a way.

I tend to do a much more freeform reputation system that isn't even numerically represented.

The players actions illicit reactions on an npc by npc basis. I just roleplay out to best of my ability how that npc would react.

I figure, It doesn't matter how nice they were to the previous npc if the next one only sees them act like a bastard.

This changes as their renown in an area increases. If a campaign goes on for long enough and the players elevate their tier of play and influence in the world then people might start to react differently. I try to keep track of whether or not anyone was around to see what they did and if they were able to tell others.

Like a party could pretend to be good, but really be terrible and just murder all the witnesses and maintain a sterling reputation that eventually reinforces itself.

Meanwhile some groups have shitty PR instincts and if they aren't careful or care others could take credit for their deeds. Comes down to how much I feel like messing with people really.

Main thing I try to do is always have an honest motivation for each npc action taken against the group and definitely not just resort to throwing wrenches at them for the sake of generating conflict.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's just a guide. If a GM's style is to wing it more, then you could just use this system as a general idea. Also, it specifically mentions that having negative reputations points isn't necessarily a bad thing:

"When Being Bad is Good: There is nothing inherently “bad” about having a negative reputation. While many players view negative reputation points as detrimental, some characters may revel in a sinister reputation. Getting an NPC to do what you want because they are terrified of you can be just as useful as having them do it out of admiration."

Also funny you should mention Renown. Reputation is just one half of the system. The other half is Renown. You gain Renown automatically as you gain total XP. Once you reach a certain number of XP points, your Renown expands.

Less than 50 XP- Unknown
200 XP- Local Personality
400 XP- Local Celebrity/ Regional Personality
600 XP- Local Icon/ Regional Celebrity
800 XP- Local Legend/ Regional Celebrity
1,000 XP- Local Legend/ Regional Icon/ National Personality
1,300 XP- Local Legend/ Regional Icon/ National Celebrity
1,600 XP- Local Legend/ Regional Legend/ National Celebrity
1,900 XP- Local Legend/ Regional Legend/ National Icon
2,200 XP- Universal Legend

And your Renown level has a quantifiable impact on roleplaying:

Personality- When your name is mentioned, there is about a 50% chance people will say something like “Oh yeah, I think I’ve heard the name…”, however, you are unlikely to be recognized by appearance alone. Upon learning your identity, there is a chance of some minor special treatment, but most people will probably treat you like anyone else.

Celebrity- There is a 75% chance people have heard of you, although only a 50% chance you are actually recognized on sight. As a celebrity, it is not uncommon to receive at least a small amount of special treatment from those that have heard of you, though it is certainly not a given.

Icon- People have very likely heard of you (90%) and you are more likely than not to be recognized on sight (65%). As an Icon, you are used to being treated differently, and have come to expect it. Those who are themselves not of the Icon level or higher and who like the bent of your reputation will probably show you a certain level of deference. Those who are offended by the nature of your reputation may (or may not) fear to confront you directly, but will likely feel compelled to thwart you when possible.

Legend- Everyone has heard of you (“Of course I know who you are- you’re a legend around here!”). They are even very likely to recognize you on sight (75%). You will almost certainly be treated differently by those not of your same level of fame. In short, most legends are hated or loved, but very few people will be indifferent toward you.

Personally I just really have always found MindFlayers and Psionics to be one of the more creative aspects of D&D world building. This is why Baldurs Gate 3 has me rather excited.

honestly i don't have a problem with wizards trying to redefine the alignment system... it's something that has no real world parallel. i also think that describing a race as "evil" is sort of silly. what's evil to humans isn't evil to orcs or drow. drow don't twirl their moustaches while worshiping dark and evil lloth.

i'd be happy if they just outright did away with alignment all together. if someone says they are lawful good, we AUTOMATICALLY assume they are a paladin and if someone says they are chaotic evil, we AUTOMATICALLY assume they can't be trusted and must be killed. obviously there's a lot more nuance to that and i know plenty of people who understand that, but the point is that alignment is probably something that a player should use as a vague kind of guide and never actually divulge (because a character wouldn't ever use those terms anyway)

if you want to describe orcs as being focused on war and strength, that's absolutely fine. if you want to describe drow like they are playing game of thrones, that's great. just don't say "these races aren't evil" unless you're going to completely reword every OTHER race's description as well. because every race has a predilection for one alignment over another.

Yeah see that's crazy to me. It's all trending towards mud, no distinctions. Drow are most certainly evil. That's what allows Drizzt to be distinctive.

j00t said:

what's evil to humans isn't evil to orcs or drow. drow don't twirl their moustaches while worshiping dark and evil lloth.

Click to expand...

I mean... what? They live in the underdark and worship a demon. Kill people, take slaves, blood sacrifice. That's first ballot hall of fame evil. It's not a cultural difference.

If you wanted to explain how they got this way and say more are using Drizzt as a model and trying to break away or something sure.

They tried to make a distinction in the novels between the Drow that CHOSE to become evil, mingling their bloodline with demons and those that were tricked/forced underground when the rest of their people betrayed the elvish pantheon in the Forgotten Realms. It ended with them being granted the ability to return to the surface, with their skin turning brown, rather than black/purple.

Dashel said:

Yeah see that's crazy to me. It's all trending towards mud, no distinctions. Drow are most certainly evil. That's what allows Drizzt to be distinctive.



I mean... what? They live in the underdark and worship a demon. Kill people, take slaves, blood sacrifice. That's first ballot hall of fame evil. It's not a cultural difference.

If you wanted to explain how they got this way and say more are using Drizzt as a model and trying to break away or something sure.

Click to expand...

oh, i definitely think it's evil. i was just saying that THEY don't refer to themselves as evil. what THEY are doing, they think is normal and proper. just like how an orc thinks raiding and pillaging is normal and proper. it's absolutely evil, but what does the villian see when he looks in the mirror?

that's all i was saying about it. if they want to go THAT route with it, i'm absolutely fine with it. but if they decide that, oh, orcs and drow and vistani are all completely trustworthy and righteous and it's US who has the problem... yeah i'm not buying that.

Ehhh the Vistani changes due to cultural stereotypes is understandable as they were all gypsies(which is also a racist word or whatever but who cares?) under a different name.

Orcs and Drow being less dumb less evil less brutish is nothing new them making it official isn’t going to matter.

Alignment will never go away as it is tied to the various gods. It can be simplified or made more complex and nuanced but it is here to stay.

I like alignments, but it's never been set in stone that I've seen. It's there if you want it for RP I suppose.
Similar to favored enemy. If your Ranger HATES Giants... you could always come across one you need to cooperate with. Or conversely have a situation where it makes sense to not attack the Giant, but... you just can't help yourself! Makes it more interesting.

I always looked at favored enemy being the type you are most adept at killing. Studied all their weaknesses and anatomy etc. Hate is the easiest way to explain why you did so but in the few times I rolled a ranger it was more science then anything else.

Or you could be a lizardman ranger and select your favored enemy based on which one you think is the tastiest.