# Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft Review Round-Up – What the Critics Say



## imagineGod (May 24, 2021)

To be honest this is one of the best splat-books that is not a traditional splat book.


----------



## imagineGod (May 24, 2021)

Basically, if you have the original Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Ravenloft sets, or even the Sword and Sorcery 3rd Edition Ravenloft, this new 5th Edition Ravenloft has more than half the book still useful, which is more than many traditional splat books offer, because those get too bogged down into system specific games mechanics.

The lack of Star blocks for Darklords also makes the book more open for use by other older Ravenloft editions.


----------



## Tonguez (May 24, 2021)

After having read the Create a Domain chapter, Id say its not only a great Horror toolkit; its a great Adventure Design toolkit across any genre - indeed its a better guide than the DMG


----------



## R_J_K75 (May 24, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> Id say its not only a great Horror toolkit; its a great Adventure Design toolkit across any genre - indeed its a better guide than the DMG



I browsed the book and read some of the first chapter, so I agree it looks like a good toolkit.  One could easily read a small portion, pick a domain and create a good game. 

One of my players started playing in June 2018 with 5E. I've been hoping that he'll take over DMing for awhile. Lately hes been DMing for a small group of other people, sort of a test run for our larger group. I gave him my original copy of CoS after I picked up the CoS Revamped.  I looked through it Tuesday, and after thatI bought him a copy of this book too. Those 2 book seem perfect for a new DM and someone could easily run a campaign for years and need nothing else except the PHB, DMG and MM.


----------



## Aaron L (May 24, 2021)

I very much like the book, with a few big caveats.  For one thing, I _greatly _dislike how the Domains are now floating islands in the Mists with no physical connections nor roads between them for common people to travel from Domain to Domain.  This eliminates far more story possibilities and play opportunities than it creates.  No native travel or trade, no inter-Domain political intrigue, no more plotting of one Darklord over another.  Each Domain is its own little world isolated from all the others, and it just makes the setting _far _more bland.

I saw no mention of _The Morninglord_ anywhere, which is rooted in another great dislike I have, that Strahd is now supposed to be the very first vampire in existence.  That is just stupid.  Jander Sunstar was several centuries older than Strahd, both as an Elf and as a Vampire, and Strahd even used him as a tutor in vampiric abilities.  But I suppose in order to retcon Strahd into being the _First Vampire_ something that was never true before (when Strahd said that it was either an empty boast or it was related to his preeminence, not to his literal chronological existence.)  Jander's story therefore apparently had to be retconned from existence, which also meant retconning away _The Morninglord_, which was a fascinatingly skewed Ravenloft-filtered splinter of Lathander. Again, it is just taking away fascinating elements from the setting and making it more bland.

I do like how they have dealt with Ezra.  Ezra was one of the best additions to the Ravenloft setting from the late-2E Domains of Dread setting book.

I actually liked the Dhampyr and Hexspawn, not being actual races but rather things that characters can be altered into... although the Dhampyr does make far more sense as an actual race; Dhampyrs are actual real-world mythology, and it was something you were born as, not made into (as recently as the late 1800s there were still people in Eastern Europe claiming to be Dhampyrs and offering their services as Vampire Hunters.)  But I will never be able to wrap my head around Dragonborn, or especially Teiflings, walking around free in the Land of the Mists.  Ravenloft has always been 99% Human, frightened and xenophobic, and even Elves and Dwarves were considered frightening alien things; blatant Dragonpeople and Devilpeople showing up in a place like Barovia would be immediately hunted down with torches and pitchforks and burnt at the stake.  

And before anyone says "the xenophobia was eliminated because xenophobia is bad and we are more enlightened about such things today" the xenophobia was _always _presented as being bad; this is a Horror setting (Vampires and Werewolves are _also _bad.)  Xenophobia is a product of fear, which is heightened in the Land of the Mists, and frightened, clannish, xenophobic people are a long-established element of many types of Horror.  When people are frightened they tend to clan up and stigmatize outsiders... it's unpleasant but it is a truth about humanity, and it would be _especially _prevalent among all the Ravenloft P-Zombies. Horror is about confronting awful things and the way fear affects people, and if try to whitewash out all the underlying social problems that arise as symptoms of the fear only to concentrate on the literal monsters then you eliminate most of the Horror, and instead you just end up with a fascile cartoon version of "Horror."


----------



## imagineGod (May 24, 2021)

Aaron L said:


> I very much like the book, with a few big caveats.  For one thing, I _greatly _dislike how the Domains are now floating islands in the Mists with no physical connections nor roads between them for common people to travel from Domain to Domain.  This eliminates far more story possibilities and play opportunities than it creates.  No native travel or trade, no inter-Domain political intrigue, no more plotting of one Darklord over another.  Each Domain is its own little world isolated from all the others, and it just makes the setting _far _more bland.
> 
> I saw no mention of _The Morninglord_ anywhere, which is rooted in another great dislike I have, that Strahd is now supposed to be the very first vampire in existence.  That is just stupid.  Jander Sunstar was several centuries older than Strahd, both as an Elf and as a Vampire, and Strahd even used him as a tutor in vampiric abilities.  But I suppose in order to retcon Strahd into being the _First Vampire_ something that was never true before (when Strahd said that it was either an empty boast or it was related to his preeminence, not to his literal chronological existence.)  Jander's story therefore apparently had to be retconned from existence, which also meant retconning away _The Morninglord_, which was a fascinatingly skewed Ravenloft-filtered splinter of Lathander. Again, it is just taking away fascinating elements from the setting and making it more bland.
> 
> ...



Nobody stops you adding the things you love.

Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft is literally the best toolbox that looks like a Campaign Setting because of the Van Richten and allies letters within, but still, this book is more a toolbox than anything.

Nobody stops you linking the domains. The roads and pathways are considered wrapped in most for those who want them separate , there is that, and for those wanting them linked, no problem, go ahead


----------



## R_J_K75 (May 24, 2021)

Aaron L said:


> I very much like the book, with a few big caveats. For one thing, I _greatly _dislike how the Domains are now floating islands in the Mists with no physical connections nor roads between them for common people to travel from Domain to Domain. This eliminates far more story possibilities and play opportunities than it creates. No native travel or trade, no inter-Domain political intrigue, no more plotting of one Darklord over another. Each Domain is its own little world isolated from all the others, and it just makes the setting _far _more bland.



I thought the Vistani were the only people that could freely cross domain borders in previous editions?  I think I'd make the domains separate doesnt means they cant drift next to one another and touch for a period of time as the DM needed .  I kind of like the idea that the setting is fluid.


----------



## Prakriti (May 24, 2021)

Have any of the reviewers listed here ever given a negative review to a 5E hardcover? Honest question.


----------



## Istbor (May 24, 2021)

Aaron L said:


> I very much like the book, with a few big caveats.  For one thing, I _greatly _dislike how the Domains are now floating islands in the Mists with no physical connections nor roads between them for common people to travel from Domain to Domain.  This eliminates far more story possibilities and play opportunities than it creates.  No native travel or trade, no inter-Domain political intrigue, no more plotting of one Darklord over another.  Each Domain is its own little world isolated from all the others, and it just makes the setting _far _more bland.
> 
> I saw no mention of _The Morninglord_ anywhere, which is rooted in another great dislike I have, that Strahd is now supposed to be the very first vampire in existence.  That is just stupid.  Jander Sunstar was several centuries older than Strahd, both as an Elf and as a Vampire, and Strahd even used him as a tutor in vampiric abilities.  But I suppose in order to retcon Strahd into being the _First Vampire_ something that was never true before (when Strahd said that it was either an empty boast or it was related to his preeminence, not to his literal chronological existence.)  Jander's story therefore apparently had to be retconned from existence, which also meant retconning away _The Morninglord_, which was a fascinatingly skewed Ravenloft-filtered splinter of Lathander. Again, it is just taking away fascinating elements from the setting and making it more bland.
> 
> ...



I mean... you can still run Ravenloft as you'd like. (Barring any AL stuff as that is the only time I can think you'd HAVE to be true to whatever meta is going on).

Personally, the isolated domains is always how I pictured and ran Ravenloft. When I first discovered that lore that people could just travel between them, I was like... "Well that's dumb, aren't these eternal prisons or torment?". I won't hate on anyone that prefers it that way, but I find that isolation as pretty terrifying.


----------



## Morrus (May 24, 2021)

Prakriti said:


> Have any of the reviewers listed here ever given a negative review to a 5E hardcover? Honest question.



No idea!


----------



## Aaron L (May 24, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> I thought the Vistani were the only people that could freely cross domain borders in previous editions?  I think I'd make the domains separate doesnt means they cant drift next to one another and touch for a period of time as the DM needed .  I kind of like the idea that the setting is fluid.



Nope; the _Darklords _couldn't leave their Domains, but the Land of the Mists was mostly one big landmass, with roads and trade and everything, and the common people could freely move from one Domain to another.  There were a few "Islands of Terror" that were small isolated Domains buried deep in the Mists, but anyone could take the road from Kartakass to Barovia to Mordent to Dementlieu to Darkon.  Unless the Darklord _sealed _his Domain, which they were able to do at will and then _no one could cross_; each had a different sealing effect (Barovia was surrounded with choking Mist, Darkon was surrounded with a towering wall of zombies, etc.)  But normally there was _plenty _of travel and political interaction between Darklords, with emissaries and ambassadors sent back and fourth between them seeking favors, and in fact several of the Darklord's punishments actually *depended *on their proximity to other Domains and their ability to interact with other Darklords.  

For example, Vlad Drakov was originally a mercenary leader from Taladas who craved respect and fear as a conqueror and recognition as a legitimate ruler more than anything... so the Dark Powers placed his Domain of Falcovnia right smack dab next to Darkon.  Every time Drakov sent armies into Darkon to try to invade they were simply killed with a gesture by its ruler, the archmage Lich Azalin Rex, turned into an army of zombies, and sent right back into Falcovnia, making Drakov look like an insignificant fool and letting him understand that he would never earn _*any *_respect nor fear from Azalin. 

The Vistani were the only ones who could travel through and navigate _The Mists_, and if anyone else tried they would just end up coming out in a random location... if they ever came out again at all, that is.


----------



## Aaron L (May 24, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Nobody stops you adding the things you love.



Except if I actually want to _play _and the DM insists on using the newly retconned isolated Domains instead of the classic interconnected setting.


----------



## R_J_K75 (May 24, 2021)

Aaron L said:


> Nope; the _Darklords _couldn't leave their Domains, but the Land of the Mists was mostly one big landmass, with roads and trade and everything, and the common people could freely move from one Domain to another.  There were a few "Islands of Terror" that were small isolated Domains buried deep in the Mists, but anyone could take the road from Kartakass to Barovia to Mordent to Dementlieu to Darkon.  Unless the Darklord _sealed _his Domain, which they were able to do at will and then _no one could cross_; each had a different sealing effect (Barovia was surrounded with choking Mist, Darkon was surrounded with a towering wall of zombies, etc.)  But normally there was _plenty _of travel and political interaction between Darklords, with emissaries and ambassadors sent back and fourth between them seeking favors, and in fact several of the Darklord's punishments actually *depended *on their proximity to other Domains and their ability to interact with other Darklords.
> 
> For example, Vlad Drakov was originally a mercenary leader from Taladas who craved respect and fear as a conqueror and recognition as a legitimate ruler more than anything... so the Dark Powers placed his Domain of Falcovnia right smack dab next to Darkon.  Every time Drakov sent armies into Darkon to try to invade they were simply killed with a gesture by its ruler, the archmage Lich Azalin Rex, turned into an army of zombies, and sent right back into Falcovnia, making Drakov look like an insignificant fool and letting him understand that he would never earn _*any *_respect nor fear from Azalin.
> 
> The Vistani were the only ones who could travel through and navigate _The Mists_, and if anyone else tried they would just end up coming out in a random location... if they ever came out again at all, that is.



I see what youre saying now, youre right.


----------



## Aaron L (May 24, 2021)

Istbor said:


> Personally, the isolated domains is always how I pictured and ran Ravenloft. When I first discovered that lore that people could just travel between them, I was like... "Well that's dumb, aren't these eternal prisons or torment?". I won't hate on anyone that prefers it that way, but I find that isolation as pretty terrifying.




The Domains are prisons crafted by the Dark Powers for the _Darklords_, yes, but the common people are just pawns to enact their torment.  And the Darklords knowing that those "meaningless pawns" were freely able to travel between the Domains while the Darklords themselves were _not _was just one more way of tormenting them.

Besides, playing an actual Ravenloft campaign that was entirely restricted to a _single Domain_ would seem to be extremely and needlessly... restricted.  It would just serve to make things more bland, like being restricted to a single city on Oerth or Toril.  It's the difference between being able to use Ravenloft as an actual setting for a _campaign _vs just a bunch of individual locations for isolated adventures, which is something that I find to be very boring and that _greatly _detracts from the original setting.

By the way, the hidden identity of those mysterious *Dark Powers? * The _Dark Powers_ are _*US,*_ the writers, DMs, and players who torment these poor doomed souls for our own amusement!


----------



## Istbor (May 24, 2021)

Aaron L said:


> The Domains are prisons crafted by the Dark Powers for the _Darklords_, yes, but the common people are just pawns to enact their torment.  And the Darklords knowing that those "meaningless pawns" were freely able to travel between the Domains while the Darklords themselves were _not _was just one more way of tormenting them.
> 
> Besides, playing an actual Ravenloft campaign that was entirely restricted to a _single Domain_ would seem to be extremely and needlessly... restricted.  It would just serve to make things more bland, like being restricted to a single city on Oerth or Toril.  It's the difference between being able to use Ravenloft as an actual setting for a _campaign _vs just a bunch of individual locations for isolated adventures, which is something that I find to be very boring and that _greatly _detracts from the original setting.
> 
> By the way, the hidden identity of those mysterious *Dark Powers? * The _Dark Powers_ are _*US,*_ the writers, DMs, and players who torment these poor doomed souls for our own amusement!



I guess that is a to each their own type of thing then. I don't at all mind playing in a campaign or adventure that is intended to be wholly in one city/fief/country/domain. If I bought into that premise, then yeah.

But again, run it how you feel. And if you are offered a game that doesn't play that way, and you find you won't get enjoyment out of playing it as such, then don't play in it. I learned long ago, that not playing in an adventure you don't like the premise of is far better than playing it.


----------



## Aaron L (May 24, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> I see what youre saying now, youre right.



Now don't get me wrong, I _do _very much like the book, overall.  I just have a few big problems with it, in that it seems they intentionally decided to change Ravenloft into a bunch of isolated pockets only good for running individual adventures rather than the actual total setting it used to be in which you could run full campaigns, which to me only reduces its overall utility and eliminates a great deal of what made it interesting. And I just can't understand why they would decide to make a change like that, as it destroys many more possibilities than it creates.


----------



## Stefano Rinaldelli (May 24, 2021)

Aaron L said:


> Now don't get me wrong, I _do _very much like the book, overall.  I just have a few big problems with it, in that it seems they intentionally decided to change Ravenloft into a bunch of isolated pockets only good for running individual adventures rather than the actual total setting it used to be in which you could run full campaigns, which to me only reduces its overall utility and eliminates a great deal of what made it interesting. And I just can't understand why they would decide to make a change like that, as it destroys many more possibilities than it creates.



You can place an entire campaign in every single domain they describe. And travelling is not impossible.
I defend the isolation choice because I find it way more realistic in comparison to the previous theme park continent. And more, isolation and segregation are great booster for horror.


----------



## Aaron L (May 24, 2021)

Istbor said:


> But again, run it how you feel. And if you are offered a game that doesn't play that way, and you find you won't get enjoyment out of playing it as such, then don't play in it. I learned long ago, that not playing in an adventure you don't like the premise of is far better than playing it.



But you see, that's my problem and why it makes me upset.  "Like it or lump it" is hardly a great choice.

If I want to play a Ravenloft campaign (which I very much do) but the DM will only use this new retconned setting, then the changes made by the new designers have basically taken Ravenloft away from me.  But they _didn't need _to make these changes because they only _detract_, without _adding _anything.  For those people who are fine with playing an entire campaign in an individual city, they would have lost nothing if Ravenloft had remained a fully interconnected campaign setting because they could always just choose to stay in a single Domain.  But for those of us who _would _like to have full access to the entire old Ravenloft setting they have _eliminated _that possibility while _adding _nothing.

It was just a very poor choice by the designers, and it upsets me.  I do like the book, but this major choice greatly saddens me.


----------



## Aaron L (May 24, 2021)

Stefano Rinaldelli said:


> You can place an entire campaign in every single domain they describe. And travelling is not impossible.



Isolated locations floating in Ethereal Mist is more "realistic?"  :/  I don't think "realism" is ever going to be something that matters much in Ravenloft.  There were plenty of ways that the classic setting created isolation between Domains, but the new _forcing _of all of the Domains to be _permanently _isolated without any alternative only removes possibilities without adding anything in return.

Traveling to other Domains by haphazardly wandering into the Mists and hoping you come out where you want is hardly the same as being able to take the road from Barovia to Darkon.  Playing an entire campaign in Cormyr is entirely possible, but to make traveling to Waterdeep basically a dangerous matter of random chance would be a laughably restrictive bad idea.  And all inter-Domain political intrigue is gone, inter-Domain trade is gone as the common people are said to never try to leave their home Domains now, intrigue between Darklords is now gone... for no good reason and with nothing in return for all these losses. 

I understand that a DM can decide to handwave things and change it, but you only get to make that decision if you are the DM.  If I want to play I do not get to make those decisions, the new book has just taken all of those possibilities away from me.


----------



## R_J_K75 (May 24, 2021)

Aaron L said:


> Traveling to other Domains by haphazardly wandering into the Mists and hoping you come out where you want is hardly the same as being able to take the road from Barovia to Darkon.  Playing an entire campaign in Cormyr is entirely possible, but to make traveling to Waterdeep basically a dangerous matter of random chance would be a laughably restrictive bad idea.  And all inter-Domain political intrigue is gone, inter-Domain trade is gone as the common people are said to never try to leave their home Domains now, intrigue between Darklords is now gone... for no good reason and with nothing in return for all these losses.
> 
> I understand that a DM can decide to handwave things and change it, but you only get to make that decision if you are the DM.  If I want to play I do not get to make those decisions, the new book has just taken all of those possibilities away from me.



Look at it this way, if you started a Ravenloft campaign as a 1st level character chances of your PC having any knowledge outside of the Domain they are native to is probably pretty limited if they have any at all.  In the grand scheme I wouldn't think its going to make much difference one way or the other.  As a player Im sure most of us here are OK with DMs changing things to suit their campaigns I dont see how WotC changing this is much different.  OTOH if this book was a re-hash of previous editions whole cloth someone would still cry foul.


----------



## TheSword (May 24, 2021)

Aaron L said:


> The Domains are prisons crafted by the Dark Powers for the _Darklords_, yes, but the common people are just pawns to enact their torment.  And the Darklords knowing that those "meaningless pawns" were freely able to travel between the Domains while the Darklords themselves were _not _was just one more way of tormenting them.
> 
> Besides, playing an actual Ravenloft campaign that was entirely restricted to a _single Domain_ would seem to be extremely and needlessly... restricted.  It would just serve to make things more bland, like being restricted to a single city on Oerth or Toril.  It's the difference between being able to use Ravenloft as an actual setting for a _campaign _vs just a bunch of individual locations for isolated adventures, which is something that I find to be very boring and that _greatly _detracts from the original setting.
> 
> By the way, the hidden identity of those mysterious *Dark Powers? * The _Dark Powers_ are _*US,*_ the writers, DMs, and players who torment these poor doomed souls for our own amusement!



So the ability for non-darklords to freely travel unless stopped by a Darklord has been officially retconned. It was back in Curse of Strahd when we were told... 



Spoiler: Barovians



the majority of Barovians were just empty husks without souls, kept alive by Strahds will alone. They were creations of the domain and bound to it forever



There’s nothing about the campaign book that says heroes or 



Spoiler: Secret



Other denizens with souls


 can’t travel around freely. Having adventures in different realms while trying to escape/avoid/defeat a darklord or two.


----------



## Von Ether (May 24, 2021)

Aaron L said:


> But you see, that's my problem and why it makes me upset.  "Like it or lump it" is hardly a great choice.
> 
> If I want to play a Ravenloft campaign (which I very much do) but the DM will only use this new retconned setting, then the changes made by the new designers have basically taken Ravenloft away from me.  But they _didn't need _to make these changes because they only _detract_, without _adding _anything.  For those people who are fine with playing an entire campaign in an individual city, they would have lost nothing if Ravenloft had remained a fully interconnected campaign setting because they could always just choose to stay in a single Domain.  But for those of us who _would _like to have full access to the entire old Ravenloft setting they have _eliminated _that possibility while _adding _nothing.
> 
> It was just a very poor choice by the designers, and it upsets me.  I do like the book, but this major choice greatly saddens me.




I feel your pain. I mostly end up running the games I’d rather be playing. You may have have a conversation with your GM and explain the benefits that you see in that version. Or make a deal and run a game that they would love play in.

OTH, I wouldn’t go so far as to say the current choice of isolated realms is a bad design choice , just one that run counter to your wishes.

You could also retcon a hybrid setting where some paths in the mist exist for smuggling, underground railroads, etc.

Of  course there is a catch.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (May 24, 2021)

I bet the change to domains being isolated from each other was done so that WotC wouldn't have any need to print a big fold-out map of the entire Domains of Dread.


----------



## Faolyn (May 24, 2021)

@Aaron L, while I know this won't help if someone _else _is running the game, just include Roads between the domains. But not just mundane roads; more like Mistways. As long as you stay on the Road, you will get from Point A in one domain to Point B in another domain. Most of the time. 

Yes, I agree that this, or something like this, should have been in the book--along with the Morninglord, Hala, and the Lawgiver, all of whom should have had at least a couple of paragraphs. 



Aaron L said:


> But I will never be able to wrap my head around Dragonborn, or especially Teiflings, walking around free in the Land of the Mists. Ravenloft has always been 99% Human, frightened and xenophobic, and even Elves and Dwarves were considered frightening alien things; blatant Dragonpeople and Devilpeople showing up in a place like Barovia would be immediately hunted down with torches and pitchforks and burnt at the stake.



Neither can I. But monstrous lineages are pretty normal these days, and not many people want to have their monstrous PC get brought into Ravenloft only to be burned at the stake. It's not actually fun for anyone involved, after all. And I've read enough gaming horror stories to know that there would be some nasty DMs who would say "Oh no, _I'm _not singling you out for punishment; it's these NPCs who are doing it!"

I just solve it by making my Ravenloft humans-only (and human-adjacent: "fey-touched" half-elves and home-brew caliban, and I had recently decided on shifters and changelings as well, and now these three). If you want to someone from another world, that's OK as well.


----------



## Aaron L (May 24, 2021)

Von Ether said:


> I feel your pain. I mostly end up running the games I’d rather be playing. You may have have a conversation with your GM and explain the benefits that you see in that version. Or make a deal and run a game that they would love play in.



Man, I've been _desperately _wanting to play _*Call of Cthulhu - Delta Green*_ since I first got the book in _*'98* _but no one else would ever run it, so instead _I've_ had to run it since then... and they all like my games so much that now none of them _ever _will run their own game because they all want to keep playing mine. 

And I still can't decide if that's a *good *thing or a _*bad *_thing.


----------



## Aaron L (May 24, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> @Aaron L, while I know this won't help if someone _else _is running the game, just include Roads between the domains. But not just mundane roads; more like Mistways. As long as you stay on the Road, you will get from Point A in one domain to Point B in another domain. Most of the time.
> 
> Yes, I agree that this, or something like this, should have been in the book--along with the Morninglord, Hala, and the Lawgiver, all of whom should have had at least a couple of paragraphs.
> 
> ...




That's a very cool idea, and it *is *something they should have included.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (May 24, 2021)

In regard to Gaming Trend's pondering on "what other genres D&D could tackle next, like comedy adventures."

In my D&D Genre Books webpage, I lay out what a D&D Comedy sourcebook could look like. I'd suggest that WotC base the book on Garweeze Wurld of Aldrazar (since it was specifically licensed by WotC to serve as the "joke" version of the D&D Multiverse), including GreyHack, HackJammer, HackWurld of Mystaros, Robinloft, and the Fading Realms. Though there are other comedy-themed locales in various other D&D worlds, such as the Whamite Isles in the Forgotten Realms.

And also the Un-Set of _Magic: The Gathering_ planes:

_Unglued_
_Unhinged_
_Unstable_
_Unsanctioned_


----------



## Remathilis (May 24, 2021)

Aaron L said:


> I very much like the book, with a few big caveats. For one thing, I _greatly _dislike how the Domains are now floating islands in the Mists with no physical connections nor roads between them for common people to travel from Domain to Domain. This eliminates far more story possibilities and play opportunities than it creates. No native travel or trade, no inter-Domain political intrigue, no more plotting of one Darklord over another. Each Domain is its own little world isolated from all the others, and it just makes the setting _far _more bland.




Part of the issue here was that Ravenloft always was at war with itself because the Weekend in Horror was the initial design intent. For most of 2e (up to Domains of Dread), the interplay between domains as minimal and superficial; there was no large scale faiths, no common languages, no stats for population, trade or the like. There wasn't even a sea until the Grand Conjunction. Sure, Barovia touched borders with Invidia, but that barely influenced anything between the domains until Gabrielle killed one of Strahd's Vistani servants. Even then, it's not like Strahd could march an army to punish her. For most domains, their neighbors mattered little and in some cases interconnection hindered Domain design (Valachan was a temperate forest filled with panthers... Ok.)

You can still have intrigue and interplay though. I don't think people have paid enough attention to Mist Talismans. They allow fairly reliable inter-domain travel. PCs and Mist Wanderers can use them, why not servants of a dark lord engaging in espionage? All your losing is some mundane trade, which the Vistani can now corner the market on. 

Finally, the end of the core means Domains aren't set in some hierarchy of importance where a domain like Har'Akir is ignored for not being a Core domain by Keening gets a Gazetteer detailing it despite being nothing but a mountain, a banshee and a town of skeletons.



Aaron L said:


> I saw no mention of _The Morninglord_ anywhere, which is rooted in another great dislike I have, that Strahd is now supposed to be the very first vampire in existence. That is just stupid. Jander Sunstar was several centuries older than Strahd, both as an Elf and as a Vampire, and Strahd even used him as a tutor in vampiric abilities. But I suppose in order to retcon Strahd into being the _First Vampire_ something that was never true before (when Strahd said that it was either an empty boast or it was related to his preeminence, not to his literal chronological existence.) Jander's story therefore apparently had to be retconned from existence, which also meant retconning away _The Morninglord_, which was a fascinatingly skewed Ravenloft-filtered splinter of Lathander. Again, it is just taking away fascinating elements from the setting and making it more bland.




The Morninglord is mentioned in Curse of Strahd. It would be very easy to assume Jandar reawoke interest in an old Barovian faith.



Aaron L said:


> I do like how they have dealt with Ezra. Ezra was one of the best additions to the Ravenloft setting from the late-2E Domains of Dread setting book.




Agreed. Wish Hala also made it.



Aaron L said:


> But I will never be able to wrap my head around Dragonborn, or especially Teiflings, walking around free in the Land of the Mists. Ravenloft has always been 99% Human, frightened and xenophobic, and even Elves and Dwarves were considered frightening alien things; blatant Dragonpeople and Devilpeople showing up in a place like Barovia would be immediately hunted down with torches and pitchforks and burnt at the stake.
> And before anyone says "the xenophobia was eliminated because xenophobia is bad and we are more enlightened about such things today" the xenophobia was _always _presented as being bad; this is a Horror setting (Vampires and Werewolves are _also _bad.) Xenophobia is a product of fear, which is heightened in the Land of the Mists, and frightened, clannish, xenophobic people are a long-established element of many types of Horror. When people are frightened they tend to clan up and stigmatize outsiders... it's unpleasant but it is a truth about humanity, and it would be _especially _prevalent among all the Ravenloft P-Zombies. Horror is about confronting awful things and the way fear affects people, and if try to whitewash out all the underlying social problems that arise as symptoms of the fear only to concentrate on the literal monsters then you eliminate most of the Horror, and instead you just end up with a fascile cartoon version of "Horror."




This comes back to a major issue I've had with Ravenloft since time out of mind: it forgot it was a D&D setting in it's rush to mimic precisely the source material it was apeing. Old Ravenloft punished demihumans and spellcasters needlessly because there are no elf wizards in Frankenstein and no other reason. It often meant that the only PCs that could enter towns were the ones that could pass as humans and didn't obviously look like they used arcane magic (witchcraft!) Worshipped foreign gods (blasphemy!) Or were going to rob the joint (thieves!). In the era of play what you want, there was no way they could justify torches and pitchforks for elves and wizards or keep half a team hiding on the outskirts of town unable to engage in urban adventures or even buy rations and a warm bed. Many domains are still very human filled, but the "burn the elf" part is gone and good riddance![/QUOTE]


----------



## Remathilis (May 24, 2021)

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> I bet the change to domains being isolated from each other was done so that WotC wouldn't have any need to print a big fold-out map of the entire Domains of Dread.



It also allows a DM to only focus on the domains with the horror they wants to feature rather than having to travel though Domains they don't.


----------



## Marandahir (May 24, 2021)

Read also the Carnival domain description in the book. It's a travelling domain of dread that moves between domains and even between planes (can cross over to the Feywild from the demiplanes of dread within the Shadowfell). 

The carnival also specifically states that the Dark Powers do not allow Dark Lords to escape their domains by entering the carnival. If the carnival comes to their domain, they can enter but once it leaves they'll be left in an empty location where the carnival had set up, unable to travel with it. If they had gotten into the carnivals carriage and tried to ride away they'd find the carriage vanish around them. 

The road etc can still exist. Remember that 4e created a whole domain of this function - The Endless Road. But the domains are not just in a singular space, travelling through the mists can distort space and time, just like any travel in the Shadowfell could (hence why one could use a spell to access the shadowfell to fast travel through the material plane).


----------



## Prakriti (May 24, 2021)

Dungeonosophy said:


> In regard to Gaming Trend's pondering on "what other genres D&D could tackle next, like comedy adventures."



They kind of already did this with the _Acquisitions, Inc._ book.


----------



## Marandahir (May 24, 2021)

Prakriti said:


> They kind of already did this with the _Acquisitions, Inc._ book.



Stranger Things Starter Set and Dungeons & Dragons vs. Rick and Morty, too.


----------



## Remathilis (May 24, 2021)

Marandahir said:


> Read also the Carnival domain description in the book. It's a travelling domain of dread that moves between domains and even between planes (can cross over to the Feywild from the demiplanes of dread within the Shadowfell).
> 
> The carnival also specifically states that the Dark Powers do not allow Dark Lords to escape their domains by entering the carnival. If the carnival comes to their domain, they can enter but once it leaves they'll be left in an empty location where the carnival had set up, unable to travel with it. If they had gotten into the carnivals carriage and tried to ride away they'd find the carriage vanish around them.
> 
> The road etc can still exist. Remember that 4e created a whole domain of this function - The Endless Road. But the domains are not just in a singular space, travelling through the mists can distort space and time, just like any travel in the Shadowfell could (hence why one could use a spell to access the shadowfell to fast travel through the material plane).



The Mourning Rail and the Horseman's Bridge both serve similar functions.


----------



## Tonguez (May 24, 2021)

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> I bet the change to domains being isolated from each other was done so that WotC wouldn't have any need to print a big fold-out map of the entire Domains of Dread.



The Domains were  originally isolated from each other with the Core being thought up later by those wanting to play native PCs, I like modular approach to things, it fits the whole design of the book and tool kit and it means I get to choose which domains I can use - full disclosure I dont play in Ravenloft instead I take Ravenloft domains and use them in my own prime world,

After reading the Create a Domain Chapter, my mind immediately switched to analysing other adventures to see how they fit as Domains, Rime of the Frostmaiden is an obvious fit, Saltmarsh with a Undead Pirate Darklord works




Remathilis said:


> This comes back to a major issue I've had with Ravenloft since time out of mind: it forgot it was a D&D setting in it's rush to mimic precisely the source material it was apeing. Old Ravenloft punished demihumans and spellcasters needlessly because there are no elf wizards in Frankenstein and no other reason. It often meant that the only PCs that could enter towns were the ones that could pass as humans and didn't obviously look like they used arcane magic (witchcraft!) Worshipped foreign gods (blasphemy!) Or were going to rob the joint (thieves!). In the era of play what you want, there was no way they could justify torches and pitchforks for elves and wizards or keep half a team hiding on the outskirts of town unable to engage in urban adventures or even buy rations and a warm bed. Many domains are still very human filled, but the "burn the elf" part is gone and good riddance!




Ive got no problem with in game xenophobia and already have games were NPCs refuse to let Dragonfolk, Orcs or Pixies enter town unless they are performers in the carnival;

For Ravenloft I could see Tieflings passing for Hexbloods and Orcs as calibans/Mongrelfolk but yeah Dragons are going to be hard to justify


----------



## Urriak Uruk (May 24, 2021)

Prakriti said:


> Have any of the reviewers listed here ever given a negative review to a 5E hardcover? Honest question.




@brimmels has done review roundups before, and gave Candlekeep Mysteries and average rating of an A+, but gave Tasha's an average review of only B.









						Review Roundup: Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
					

Now that Tasha's Cauldron of Everything has been out a bit, we wanted to take a look at the overall reactions to D&D's latest compilation of rule options, subclasses, DM advice, etc. So let's see how other sites rank the new book in comparison to our review.    Please note that when a site did...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Remathilis (May 24, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> Ive got no problem with in game xenophobia and already have games were NPCs refuse to let Dragonfolk, Orcs or Pixies enter town unless they are performers in the carnival;
> 
> For Ravenloft I could see Tieflings passing for Hexbloods and Orcs as calibans/Mongrelfolk but yeah Dragons are going to be hard to justify




A DM can, of course, change that as they want. But I'm very happy that WotC hasn't dictated such restrictions in a setting that can pull anyone from the multiverse into it. I'm content though that dwarves, elves and wizards can focus on the plot and not constantly hiding from the very people they are supposed to "help".


----------



## Professor Murder (May 24, 2021)

The xenophobia and social restrictions based on PC race are just a 2nd ed holdover to times when there were very few options. in 5th ed, there are literally dozens in official material. I'm happy to see this relic phased out.  Better to have it be an aspect of the horror of a specific domain, to make it special, that a pervasive limitation to the setting as a whole.


----------



## The Glen (May 24, 2021)

Prakriti said:


> Have any of the reviewers listed here ever given a negative review to a 5E hardcover? Honest question.



That's a very good question. Just thumbing back from a few of them the answer seems to be no.  Even the products considered average or below- average by many fans like Dragon Heist got glowing reviews. Independent reviewers tend to run from not bad to bad.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 24, 2021)

Having read through most of the new Ravenloft, it does seem pretty clear that it is the best 5E book so far, on quite a number of levels. Even the way it is arranged and the general reading flow is better than most, and the contents and DM advice are particularly distinctly superior. There's nothing it it that made me yawn or flip forward, and not a Ravenloft obsessive. Combine that with more and better art than most (esp. if we note Theros was mostly cribbing art from MtG, which is cool but...), and it honestly looks like 5E is in a kind of "vertical climb" in terms of quality.

What's also interesting to me is that this isn't a bunch of highly-experienced super-veteran designers or something, this is a diverse crew of mostly-younger designers, so pretty much new to designing for D&D (AFAICT), and the guy in charge is younger than me (40!), but they've managed to put out a book that is pretty much unquestionably better put-together than a lot of stuff that had vets on it. This should certainly put paid to any notions that going younger or more diverse might in some way reduce quality. The direct contrary appears (unsurprisingly to me) to have happened.


----------



## Erdric Dragin (May 24, 2021)

What if the PCs *do* seek out a Darklord? What if the story involves a confrontation with one? 

The notion that "If it has stat blocks, the PCs will go to kill it" sounds like an underhanded way of saying,"A lot of Dungeon Masters are crap and don't really know what they're doing, so let's make the game Dummy Proof for DMs so their Players don't (apparently) sabotage the game." (And who's to say it's sabotaging the game if a PC has a life goal of hunting down and defeating a Darklord? Isn't the story what matters?) 

I'm completely stupified when I think about the game designer's circular logic with some of their decisions. They should learn to embrace the supposed "flaws" of earlier editions and realize not all of them were bumblingly haphazard writing. Some of what is being technically called "trash" was actually just diamonds in the rough. 

And the 5th Edition game as a whole is just as circular. Those of us from the Golden Days of the game are going to gripe at many of the unnecessary and blatantly terrible changes while the newbs and casuals to the game (of which is the only business the company cares about, they don't care about the rest of us from the 70s-early 2000s) will give these products amazingly grand reviews and find it such a great addition to the game with the pure ignorance of what it was before, and if you educate these same people, then they'll come to realization of how utterly watered down the game truly is.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 24, 2021)

Aaron L said:


> Except if I actually want to _play _and the DM insists on using the newly retconned isolated Domains instead of the classic interconnected setting.



Figuring out whether you and the DM's vision (and the vision of the rest of the group) align is always part of the D&D social dynamic. Frankly, asking how old school the table wants the Ravenloft setting to be is a pretty straightforward question, compared to some of the more nebulous questions about gameplay.


----------



## R_J_K75 (May 24, 2021)

Erdric Dragin said:


> What if the PCs *do* seek out a Darklord? What if the story involves a confrontation with one?
> 
> The notion that "If it has stat blocks, the PCs will go to kill it" sounds like an underhanded way of saying,"A lot of Dungeon Masters are crap and don't really know what they're doing, so let's make the game Dummy Proof for DMs so their Players don't (apparently) sabotage the game." (And who's to say it's sabotaging the game if a PC has a life goal of hunting down and defeating a Darklord? Isn't the story what matters?)
> 
> ...



So youre a fan of 5E then?


----------



## Faolyn (May 24, 2021)

Erdric Dragin said:


> What if the PCs *do* seek out a Darklord? What if the story involves a confrontation with one?
> 
> The notion that "If it has stat blocks, the PCs will go to kill it" sounds like an underhanded way of saying,"A lot of Dungeon Masters are crap and don't really know what they're doing, so let's make the game Dummy Proof for DMs so their Players don't (apparently) sabotage the game." (And who's to say it's sabotaging the game if a PC has a life goal of hunting down and defeating a Darklord? Isn't the story what matters?)



I don't really see how you go from "it has stat blocks, so PCs will try to kill it" to "lots of DMs are crap." I mean, while you can run an RL game where your party's purpose is to go around killing Darklords, sure--but not only do you not have to, there's almost no point if you accept that the Dark Powers (i.e., the DM) are the ones who make the final decision as to whether or not a Darklord is finally dead or not. There's lots of other horror that can be explored without involving the Darklords as enemies.

It seems to me that, if it _doesn't _have stat blocks, and the DM wants it to, they can easily make them up, either whole-cloth or based on the suggestion in the book. If the DM hasn't done so, and one of the PCs has decided that they're going to suddenly jump up and try to kill the DL (maybe they met at a party or something), then the DM can use the MM suggestion and if the player wins, then the Darklord "dies" only temporarily. 

It _also _seems to me that the designers were forced into a page count that is far smaller than it should have been, and so they opted out of creating a bunch of statblocks for the Darklords, many of whom have never been particularly powerful in the first place.



Erdric Dragin said:


> I'm completely stupified when I think about the game designer's circular logic with some of their decisions. They should learn to embrace the supposed "flaws" of earlier editions and realize not all of them were bumblingly haphazard writing. Some of what is being technically called "trash" was actually just diamonds in the rough.



Such as?



Erdric Dragin said:


> And the 5th Edition game as a whole is just as circular. Those of us from the Golden Days of the game are going to gripe at many of the unnecessary and blatantly terrible changes while the newbs and casuals to the game (of which is the only business the company cares about, they don't care about the rest of us from the 70s-early 2000s) will give these products amazingly grand reviews and find it such a great addition to the game with the pure ignorance of what it was before, and if you educate these same people, then they'll come to realization of how utterly watered down the game truly is.



I've been playing since '90 or '91. Is that Golden Days enough? Am I too old to be allowed to like the new stuff, andto find it better? Or am I still too young to be allowed that privilege? 

Stop gatekeeping the hobby. You aren't required to like the new stuff, but at the same time, other people aren't required to like the old stuff.


----------



## Tonguez (May 24, 2021)

Erdric Dragin said:


> What if the PCs *do* seek out a Darklord? What if the story involves a confrontation with one?
> 
> The notion that "If it has stat blocks, the PCs will go to kill it" sounds like an underhanded way of saying,"A lot of Dungeon Masters are crap and don't really know what they're doing, so let's make the game Dummy Proof for DMs so their Players don't (apparently) sabotage the game." (And who's to say it's sabotaging the game if a PC has a life goal of hunting down and defeating a Darklord? Isn't the story what matters?)
> 
> ...




Seriously? FYI When I play D&D I’m still playing 3.5e but Van Richtens Guide has made me actually consider taking up 5e. 

The whole ethos of new Ravenloft seems more to be ‘give DMs the tools and trust them to create their own game’ rather than be spoon fed the _canon_ 

I saw one youtube video that discussed the creation of the Bagman - taking a standard Troll and giving it an Oozes amorphous quality, then overlaying it with story as a thief who abandoned his adventure party by hiding in a bag of holding and becoming lost - it was a good example of DMs mashing together a hybrid stat-block to create an interesting story to haunt adventurers


----------



## Professor Murder (May 24, 2021)

There is a mechanical benefit to the Darklords being effectively unstated. It makes them much more flexible in terms of level to encounter. A party that is say 9th level could steamroll many of the old Darklords in terms of stats if run as written. By giving instead a general themes and concepts, yes it is more work for a DM, but in a good way. 

Honestly I don't get what is gained by people who clearly resent a given game/edition even commenting. I dont waste everyone's time by complaining on OSR threads. 

Do you know what the most legit complaint about this book is? This is the only official one we will be getting. 2nd and 3rd edition Ravenloft has 20+ books EACH worth of material. If you want to run those editions, you are already well served. 

Hate to break it to the gatekeepers. The walls have already fallen. The vast majority of DnD players are under 30. People younger than the time I have been playing are taking the ball and running with it. I love it. More players is better than less. 

Find your fun and play that.


----------



## TwiceBorn2 (May 24, 2021)

Here are well articulated but far from glowing reviews of the book:



			Review thread of VRGtRL 5e - Café de Nuit
		




			Jester's Review of Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft - Café de Nuit
		










						Review: Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft
					

Review: Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft In the fall of 2020, Ray Winninger—the new Executive Producer of D&D—teased that three classic campaign settings were being updated to 5th Edition. The first of these is Ravenloft with the newly released van […] <a class="more-link"...




					www.5mwd.com
				




My favourite Ravenloft material was the stuff published by White Wolf/Arthaus for 3.5.

I do have everything published for the line from AD&D 1e all the way through 5e except for VRGttM... so I'll reserve my comments for the time being.


----------



## R_J_K75 (May 24, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> people aren't required to like the old stuff.



I agree some of the older stuff was terrible.  Today I was looking for a short adventure to run for our group of level 3 PCs through.  I figured Id get some ideas, that didnt work out too well.  I know 2E and 5E are worlds apart when scaling adventures but regardless I picked the 2E (might've even been 1E), "Bride of Mordenheim" from I think book of lairs or Chilling Tales.  After reading halfway through the first page and it says and I'm paraphrasing, "...if the party doesn't do "x" the adventure is over before it even begins".    Thats some top-notch stellar golden age adventure design right there that I cant wait to revisit.  Needless to say I stopped reading after that.  I rolled on the random tables under the body horror section of VRGtR and even though its random and still requires me to give it some thought to put it together into a cohesive session, its better than the alternative I was considering.


----------



## dave2008 (May 24, 2021)

Erdric Dragin said:


> The notion that "If it has stat blocks, the PCs will go to kill it" sounds like an underhanded way of saying,"A lot of Dungeon Masters are crap and don't really know what they're doing, so let's make the game Dummy Proof for DMs so their Players don't (apparently) sabotage the game." (And who's to say it's sabotaging the game if a PC has a life goal of hunting down and defeating a Darklord? Isn't the story what matters?)



That idea started with the 1e Deities and Demigods.  Gary thought gods with 400 HP would appear so out reach as to discourage people from trying to kill gods.  It had the opposite effect.


Erdric Dragin said:


> I'm completely stupified when I think about the game designer's circular logic with some of their decisions. They should learn to embrace the supposed "flaws" of earlier editions and realize not all of them were bumblingly haphazard writing. Some of what is being technically called "trash" was actually just diamonds in the rough.



No idea what your talking about.


Erdric Dragin said:


> And the 5th Edition game as a whole is just as circular. Those of us from the Golden Days of the game are going to gripe at many of the unnecessary and blatantly terrible changes while the newbs and casuals to the game (of which is the only business the company cares about, they don't care about the rest of us from the 70s-early 2000s) will give these products amazingly grand reviews and find it such a great addition to the game with the pure ignorance of what it was before, and if you educate these same people, then they'll come to realization of how utterly watered down the game truly is.



Speak for yourself.  I started playing in the 80s and my idea of "real" D&D lore is what is printed in the 1e MM, MM2 and Deities & Demigods.  However, I've never cared for Ravenloft and this is the first Ravenloft / Domians of Dread product I have purchased. You don't have to be newb to enjoy new things.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 24, 2021)

Erdric Dragin said:


> What if the PCs *do* seek out a Darklord? What if the story involves a confrontation with one?



Does a confrontation with a Darklord require trying to fight/kill them? Remember, a major part of Ravenloft is that the Dark Powers have control over who lives and who dies when it comes to the Darklords of Ravenloft. A confrontation can be entirely social interaction, and turning to combat is discouraged not because the designers of the book were lazy or some nonsense like that, but because they wanted to give the DM guidance on how to deal with it and personalize it to their own campaign instead of saying "here are the official stats, players must be X-level high to fight X-Darklord". The book at least gives guidance for stats of the darklords, which, IMO, takes more work than just creating a new official stat block.


Erdric Dragin said:


> I'm completely stupified when I think about the game designer's circular logic with some of their decisions. They should learn to embrace the supposed "flaws" of earlier editions and realize not all of them were bumblingly haphazard writing. Some of what is being technically called "trash" was actually just diamonds in the rough.



Changes to something don't mean that the previous thing was bad, and they don't mean that you have to like the changes or even use them. Maybe they were trying to turn some of the "diamonds in the rough" into actual diamonds? In order to change a "diamond in the rough" into an actual diamond, one has to change certain parts of that "diamond in the rough", ne?


Erdric Dragin said:


> And the 5th Edition game as a whole is just as circular.



I have absolutely no idea what this is even saying or how it is relevant.


Erdric Dragin said:


> Those of us from the Golden Days of the game



_Checks stats on how many people are playing D&D ever since 5e started_
Oh, right. Now is the "Golden Age of D&D". Not anytime in the past.


Erdric Dragin said:


> are going to gripe at many of the unnecessary and blatantly terrible changes



Yes you will. However, complaining about something doesn't mean that it's "unnecessary or blatantly terrible". By no means am I saying that 5e is perfect, but the vast majority of the changes were for the better. There's a reason 5e is the most popular edition in D&D history. It's mostly due to the simplification of needlessly complex rules, and being more user-friendly than previous editions.


Erdric Dragin said:


> while the newbs and casuals to the game



_Raises hand_
I have been playing D&D for just over 4 and a half years now. I guess that makes me count as a "newb" in comparison to most of the active posters here, but I'm definitely not "casual to the game" and don't know anyone that I have introduced to D&D that enjoy it that are (which are 6 of my cousins, 6 of my friends ) "casuals to the game". Everyone that I have introduced to the game has either been "eh, it's not my thing/takes too long" or "I love this, this is now my favorite hobby". I have seen no in-between. Granted, this is my anecdotal evidence, but it certainly trumps your assertion that is completely unsupported by any evidence.


Erdric Dragin said:


> (of which is the only business the company cares about, they don't care about the rest of us from the 70s-early 2000s)



Yes, they do care about the younger generation more, because unfortunately, people die, and older people die more quickly than younger people. This is like complaining that no young kids listen to 70's music anymore. Duh. That's how the world works.


Erdric Dragin said:


> will give these products amazingly grand reviews



Is it just me, or does this make absolutely no sense? Because the consumers of the products (which are the average 5e players that buy these books) won't be the ones making these reviews. These reviews are someone's job, not most players', especially not the "newbs and casuals to the game".


Erdric Dragin said:


> and find it such a great addition to the game with the pure ignorance of what it was before,



Actually, before I bought Eberron: Rising from the Last War, Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, Mythic Odysseys of Theros, Guildmaster's Guide to Ravenloft, and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, I did research on what the settings were like in whatever other platform/edition they were a part of before. I know many people who do the same. I've even done research into Spelljammer (which I have a campaign in), Dark Sun, Planescape, Greyhawk, and Dragonlance, despite them not having any official 5e books.

So, yeah. I'm very much not "purely ignorant of what it was before", and neither are my players or friends that play D&D at other tables. We're well aware, and we tend to prefer what it is like now, not what it was before.


Erdric Dragin said:


> and if you educate these same people, then they'll come to realization of how utterly watered down the game truly is.



Not just absolute BS, but also absolutely unfounded and unwarranted.


----------



## Kurotowa (May 24, 2021)

Remathilis said:


> The Mourning Rail and the Horseman's Bridge both serve similar functions.



One of the two character ideas I've got shortlisted for any future Ravenloft campaign is an Undead Pact Warlock who committed dark betrayals to pay the Headless Rider's toll for passage across his bridge and out of Falkovnia. Afterwards the Rider would be a mostly distant Patron, with the Warlock's power already bought and paid for, but his bridge might still turn up in dire moments to offer passage for the right price.

You could probably premise an entire campaign where the party has been pressed into service of the Headless Rider to help him collect a set of McGuffins. Each adventure starts with them walking off his bridge into a different Domain, or even one of the realms beyond. It'd be like Ravenloft Stargate.


----------



## Faolyn (May 24, 2021)

Professor Murder said:


> Do you know what the most legit complaint about this book is? This is the only official one we will be getting. 2nd and 3rd edition Ravenloft has 20+ books EACH worth of material. If you want to run those editions, you are already well served.



Sadly, you're almost certainly right. They haven't really put out a second official book for any setting so far, except possibly the Realms. And they will likely continue that trend and assume that fans will take up the slack on DMsguild.

Fortunately, for Ravenloft at least, it's not that hard to convert old material to 5e. There's relatively few rules for this setting that haven't been addressed.


----------



## Azzy (May 24, 2021)

Erdric Dragin said:


> And the 5th Edition game as a whole is just as circular. Those of us from the Golden Days of the game are going to gripe at many of the unnecessary and blatantly terrible changes while the newbs and casuals to the game (of which is the only business the company cares about, they don't care about the rest of us from the 70s-early 2000s) will give these products amazingly grand reviews and find it such a great addition to the game with the pure ignorance of what it was before, and if you educate these same people, then they'll come to realization of how utterly watered down the game truly is.



Um, I hate to break it to you, but I'm 47 and have been playing since '86. I've played BECMI, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, D&D 3e, and D&D 3.5. I've played/DMed in Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, and countless homebrew settings. I have/had setting material for all of these, plus Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Kara-Tur, and the Known World/Mystara. You do not speak for me. I think 5e is the best version of D&D yet (it has its flaws, but I'd still rather play and DM it than any other edition). I also think the new Ravenloft book is in many way superior to the 2e boxed sets. You do not speak for me.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 24, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Sadly, you're almost certainly right. They haven't really put out a second official book for any setting so far, except possibly the Realms. And they will likely continue that trend and assume that fans will take up the slack on DMsguild.
> 
> Fortunately, for Ravenloft at least, it's not that hard to convert old material to 5e. There's relatively few rules for this setting that haven't been addressed.



DMs Guild already has conversions of almost everything as-is. I'd expect the remaining gaps to get filled in soon. Between this book and PDFs, pretty much every version of Ravenloft is available for play now.


----------



## Mercador (May 25, 2021)

As someone that buys books only for fluff (as I don't play these days), would you recommend it nonetheless?


----------



## Davies (May 25, 2021)

Mercador said:


> As someone that buys books only for fluff (as I don't play these days), would you recommend it nonetheless?



Yes, it's an entertaining read, particularly if you have familiarity with the earlier versions of the setting.


----------



## Mercador (May 25, 2021)

Davies said:


> Yes, it's an entertaining read, particularly if you have familiarity with the earlier versions of the setting.



Not really, never been an horror fan. But it gets so much praise, I'm curious. I would love a good Forgotten Realms lore book though but I guess it's overdone by now.


----------



## R_J_K75 (May 25, 2021)

Mercador said:


> Not really, never been an horror fan. But it gets so much praise, I'm curious. I would love a good Forgotten Realms lore book though but I guess it's overdone by now.



I stopped reading FR novels and RPG books almost 20 years ago and even then the metaplot was so detailed it was hard to keep track of.  I can only imagine what its like now?


----------



## Mercador (May 25, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> I stopped reading FR novels and RPG books almost 20 years ago and even then the metaplot was so detailed it was hard to keep track of.  I can only imagine what its like now?



No idea, the last FR novel I read was The Cleric Quintet so I'm quite behind as well. But I purchased the FR Boxed Set of the 2nd, I'm just nostalgic of that period. Funny that at that time, I had all the time of the world to read that kind of content but not the money to purchase it. Almost 30 years later, I purchase tons of books but never read them. 

I would like to have the time to sink in all those 5ed content but even when I do have free time, I don't. Not too sure why though...


----------



## Tonguez (May 25, 2021)

Mercador said:


> As someone that buys books only for fluff (as I don't play these days), would you recommend it nonetheless?



Theres not much in the way of solid lore in the book, its very much a toolkit giving a whole lot of suggestions, hints and questions for players and DMs use in creating their own adventures with Horror elements.

I can see why the Fraternity of Shadows crew might be upset that the old lore in the Domains is largely ignored in favour of a build-your-own kitset. 

However as a kit set it is a great tool that pushes DnD to the narratavist end of the spectrum and relies heavily on Dms and Players pulling in their own ideas to create the adventure .


----------



## R_J_K75 (May 25, 2021)

Mercador said:


> No idea, the last FR novel I read was The Cleric Quintet so I'm quite behind as well. But I purchased the FR Boxed Set of the 2nd, I'm just nostalgic of that period. Funny that at that time, I had all the time of the world to read that kind of content but not the money to purchase it. Almost 30 years later, I purchase tons of books but never read them.
> 
> I would like to have the time to sink in all those 5ed content but even when I do have free time, I don't. Not too sure why though...



I just find that all the reading and adherence to canon never really meant much to players if they didnt keep up on setting lore so I just started making up my own storylines.  I found that from 1E through 3E in parts you could read up on a certain area between the 3 editions and find whole sections reprinted verbatim.  Thats when I stopped caring.  Then when they did change things it was so radical I didnt really want to implement any of it into my game.


----------



## UnsounderGnome (May 25, 2021)

Overall I like the book.  One thing that really jumped out at me as very off-putting was the Subvert Cliches section on pg. 189.



> If your favorite horror story features outdated tropes, your fondness doesn't redeem them.




Badwrongfun from WotC...  Yikes.


----------



## God (May 25, 2021)

I found the book bland and, with a few exceptions, uninspiring.

It's hard to put a finger on what was especially underwhelming. The cultural updates are a mixed bag: many of them much-needed and overdue, while others seem to serve no useful purpose. Viktra and Vladeska are the two gender-swaps that stand out as particularly lazy, down to the no-effort name changes. Others offer something fresh -- even if the loss is bittersweet. I have a soft spot for Urk von Karhov's Vallachan, due to past experience playing through the Felkovic's Cat adventures from Dungeon mag. Chakuna's domain is a great, alternate take on The Most Dangerous Game ... but could as well have been its own thing, rather than forcing it into the vaguely-recognizable corpse of the original.

Other gripes are common to most 5E products. The pages and pages of Bonds and Ideals, etc., strike me as a shallow substitute for real description and plot hooks usable at the table. The art (with a handful of exceptions, including several of the darklords and Eleni's albino worm) uniformly is too colorful and generic high fantasy, and the graphic design is the same boring 5E template -- a missed opportunity to set a foreboding tone, as Stephen Fabian's black-and-white artwork did in the early 2E products.

Which was all quite a disappointment because I had been excited for this release. Luckily, I have all my Golden Age campaign settings on the shelf (the real, actual Golden Age, ie. the 90s, for all the confused grognards and noobs  ) and can play the game that I like, as others are free to do. And if VRGtR gets the youngsters playing something, anything but FR, it will have served a useful purpose.


----------



## Von Ether (May 25, 2021)

Aaron L said:


> Man, I've been _desperately _wanting to play _*Call of Cthulhu - Delta Green*_ since I first got the book in _*'98* _but no one else would ever run it, so instead _I've_ had to run it since then... and they all like my games so much that now none of them _ever _will run their own game because they all want to keep playing mine.
> 
> And I still can't decide if that's a *good *thing or a _*bad *_thing.



Ah, a close friend who recently passed away had an answer for that. "_That means you a good GM. A really *great* GM, though, would inspire his players to become GMs themselves._"

I just started running again after a 2 year break where I was playing in all of their games.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 25, 2021)

UnsounderGnome said:


> Overall I like the book.  One thing that really jumped out at me as very off-putting was the Subvert Cliches section on pg. 189.
> 
> 
> 
> Badwrongfun from WotC...  Yikes.



They're not wrong. Fun can only be wrong if it hurts another person. If outdated tropes are outdated because they're offensive, they're completely correct.


----------



## Kurotowa (May 25, 2021)

UnsounderGnome said:


> Overall I like the book.  One thing that really jumped out at me as very off-putting was the Subvert Cliches section on pg. 189.




It makes total sense to me. If someone said, "I don't care if you say your appreciation for blackface minstrel shows is purely artistic and historical, it's still not cool to be including them in a game" would you accuse that person of hating on badwrongfun? Or would they have a very valid point about what is or is not appropriate to still be actively using in 2021?

Because some of the traditional horror tropes are almost as old and just as nasty. Stuff that gets into pretty mean spirited mockery of certain ethnicities, or the mentally or physically handicapped. That stuff doesn't get a pass just because it's old, same with how you can't do classic mystery stories with the 1920's era Chinese servant caricatures intact, even if it's a period piece.

You can't use the "Just because it's not your fun doesn't mean it's badwrongfun" defense for stuff that's actively malicious towards people who might be players at the table. That's all that passage is saying.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2021)

UnsounderGnome said:


> Badwrongfun from WotC...  Yikes.



They're calling out racism and sexism. To say that's them accusing gamers of "badwrongfun" is a very peculiar hill to die on.


----------



## Tonguez (May 25, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> They're calling out racism and sexism. To say that's them accusing gamers of "badwrongfun" is a very peculiar hill to die on.



And ableism

The old Caliban description refered to them being human but being cursed from the womb and of monstrous appearance due to hunchbacks or deformed, crippled limbs and dull senses.

The likes of Igor, Qusaimodo and Sloth might be beloved characters but the disability tropes are definitely bad


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> They're not wrong. Fun can only be wrong if it hurts another person. If outdated tropes are outdated because they're offensive, they're completely correct.



Does it still hurt people if it's at your own table, and no one there is offended by it?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> Does it still hurt people if it's at your own table, and no one there is offended by it?



You can unintentionally and unknowingly harm yourself. You can harm your ability to be objective about those topics if you're having fun because of the offensive content you're using (not in spite of, that's a different matter, _but because of it_). Consuming and participating in offensive content can desensitize you to it, which can (and does) end up harming people. If your fun is based off of someone else's harm, that is objectively badwrongfun, even if you didn't intend it, and even if you didn't know you were doing it. See my linked thread for more specific examples (most specifically the racial stereotypes and derogatory terms examples, and the sexism example). 

It applies to D&D, it applies to blackface, and it applies to other examples. 

Also, something doesn't have to offend someone in order to be _offensive_. A group of racist white people won't be offended by the use of the n-word or blackface, but that doesn't mean that the use of it isn't offensive and isn't harmful. It's the perpetuation of it that is harmful, not the presence of someone who is being offended by it.


----------



## Kurotowa (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> Does it still hurt people if it's at your own table, and no one there is offended by it?



I mean, there's less immediate harm, but it's still not a good idea you know? Indulging in racism/sexism/ableism/whatever just because your table is all healthy bodied white men who can laugh at it is a good way to both poison your own attitudes and ensure that your table is never going to be welcoming to anyone who doesn't fit that mold. Because believe me, once people get used to cutting loose with those things, they're not going to want to put them away when someone new shows up.

"Do no harm" is the _bare minimum_ to be expected, not the target goal to aim for.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> You can unintentionally and unknowingly harm yourself. You can harm your ability to be objective about those topics if you're having fun because of the offensive content you're using (not in spite of, that's a different matter, _but because of it_). Consuming and participating in offensive content can desensitize you to it, which can (and does) end up harming people. If your fun is based off of someone else's harm, that is objectively badwrongfun, even if you didn't intend it, and even if you didn't know you were doing it. See my linked thread for more specific examples (most specifically the racial stereotypes and derogatory terms examples, and the sexism example).
> 
> It applies to D&D, it applies to blackface, and it applies to other examples.
> 
> Also, something doesn't have to offend someone in order to be _offensive_. A group of racist white people won't be offended by the use of the n-word or blackface, but that doesn't mean that the use of it isn't offensive and isn't harmful. It's the perpetuation of it that is harmful, not the presence of someone who is being offended by it.



What I'm saying is, xenophobia, fear of the other, is a historically accurate reaction to certain circumstances, including many of the statuses quo in the domains.  If you're not depicting it as right, but rather an unfortunate cultural reality that should be fought against, and its existence doesn't specifically offend those you're playing with, is it still unacceptable to include it?  The issue of slavery's depiction in RPGs raises the same issue.  It's a kind of evil, more real than vampires and werewolves.  As long as it is seen as evil, why can't it be in the game?


----------



## Kurotowa (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> What I'm saying is, xenophobia, fear of the other, is a historically accurate reaction to certain circumstances, including many of the statuses quo in the domains.  If you're not depicting it as right, but rather an unfortunate cultural reality that should be fought against, and its existence doesn't specifically offend those you're playing with, is it still unacceptable to include it?  The issue of slavery's depiction in RPGs raises the same issue.  It's a kind of evil, more real than vampires and werewolves.  As long as it is seen as evil, why can't it be in the game?



That's not what's at issue here. The trouble isn't the _existence_ of xenophobia, but the product of it in the form of highly prejudiced and denigrating beliefs of yesteryear that became foundational tropes of some genres because they were commonly held at the time of the genre's inception.

Tackling xenophobia isn't the same as being xenophobic. Confronting racism isn't the same as being racist. What's being asked is that you put a little through into, for example, the elements of Dracula that were about "dirty dark skinned foreigners coming here to steal our women!" and adjusting your vampire stories to not recycle those parts. Which is not the same as saying "No More Vampires", just that you should use a little self awareness and reflection.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> What I'm saying is, xenophobia, fear of the other, is a historically accurate reaction to certain circumstances, including many of the statuses quo in the domains.



That's something to clear at a session 0 and using safety tools. Including Xenophobia in a campaign is not inherently harmful, but it can be to certain players and can be depending on how you implement it. Most of people in Khorvaire are Xenophobic against Warforged in Eberron, but it doesn't draw obvious parallels between the real world and that example, makes it absolutely clear that the xenophobia is bad, and tells DMs to include as much or as little of the xenophobia as they want in their campaigns. 


Micah Sweet said:


> If you're not depicting it as right, but rather an unfortunate cultural reality that should be fought against, and its existence doesn't specifically offend those you're playing with, is it still unacceptable to include it?



Depicting it as "unfortunate cultural reality" can be problematic, especially when that's the default. One could easily see parallels between that and the real life excuses used to try and justify racism. However, I'm not saying that is always going to be harmful, and I'm not saying it's bad to include that in your campaign. Again, clear this at your table with a Session 0, and most of these possible issues will not be issues. I gave an example above on how to handle xenophobia better than "that's just how the world works, sorry  ".


Micah Sweet said:


> The issue of slavery's depiction in RPGs raises the same issue.  It's a kind of evil, more real than vampires and werewolves.  As long as it is seen as evil, why can't it be in the game?



Again, another thing to bring up at Session 0 and handle with safety tools. Most of the time it won't be a problem if your players don't have any sensitivity with stuff like this, especially if you handle it with care. A common issue I've had with slavery in D&D is that a ton of the time it comes across as blaming the victim, such as the Duergar's capture by the Mind Flayers, and similar examples. I can imagine others would have similar issues with stuff like that. 

The first and most important step is to try to avoid harm and make it clear that you're doing that to your players. People are much more sympathetic towards that attitude than the "It's not harming you if you're not at my table, so get over it!" attitude that I've seen dozens too many times (I'm not saying you're doing that, but your argument certainly sounds like it's trying to support that stance).


----------



## UnsounderGnome (May 25, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> They're not wrong. Fun can only be wrong if it hurts another person. If outdated tropes are outdated because they're offensive, they're completely correct.



Hmm, well I guess I see your point.  Kind of seemed like they were just taking a jab at old Ravenloft or classic horror stories.  Like if why not say offensive tropes instead of outdated?  I mean, Ravenloft is full of outdated tropes but many of those are not offensive.  And yes, some of the points in that section do directly talk about avoiding stereotypes and cliche accents.  But the first bullet point:



> Avoid drawing inspiration from stock characters in fiction or film.




Just seems a bit judgmental to me...


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> That's something to clear at a session 0 and using safety tools. Including Xenophobia in a campaign is not inherently harmful, but it can be to certain players and can be depending on how you implement it. Most of people in Khorvaire are Xenophobic against Warforged in Eberron, but it doesn't draw obvious parallels between the real world and that example, makes it absolutely clear that the xenophobia is bad, and tells DMs to include as much or as little of the xenophobia as they want in their campaigns.
> 
> Depicting it as "unfortunate cultural reality" can be problematic, especially when that's the default. One could easily see parallels between that and the real life excuses used to try and justify racism. However, I'm not saying that is always going to be harmful, and I'm not saying it's bad to include that in your campaign. Again, clear this at your table with a Session 0, and most of these possible issues will not be issues. I gave an example above on how to handle xenophobia better than "that's just how the world works, sorry  ".
> 
> ...



Fair enough.  I apologize for the way my complaint was worded.  I just don't want certain subjects to be removed entirely from gaming, regardless of how carefully they could be handled, and when the official material ignores those subjects and/or pretends they don't exist, I worry they are implicitly saying these issues should never be addressed at all.  Like you, I believe that these things can be included if you're respectful of real world implications, and your players' feelings.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 25, 2021)

UnsounderGnome said:


> Hmm, well I guess I see your point.  Kind of seemed like they were just taking a jab at old Ravenloft or classic horror stories.



I don't know why they would be taking a jab at either of those things. New Ravenloft and Curse of Strahd (the most popular 5e adventure) wouldn't have existed without Old Ravenloft. WotC has also made it clear that they love classic horror stories, they mentioned it several times in interviews about Rime of the Frostmaiden that the writers of the adventure watched a ton of classic horror movies to draw inspiration from them. (Which, I know seems hypocritical due to that warning they provided, but I read that as more a warning to avoid ripping off characters instead of just drawing inspiration from them. Being inspired by It to have a creepy clown monster is completely different from making your villain be a complete rip-off of Pennywise.)


UnsounderGnome said:


> Like if why not say offensive tropes instead of outdated? I mean, Ravenloft is full of outdated tropes but many of those are not offensive.



I'm not speaking for WotC, but I would imagine that it's because "outdated" is often a more bleached term than "offensive". It's a way to say, "certain outdated tropes may be problematic" instead of "the people who made this were bigots". It's politer and more respectful, while also getting their guidance across that most outdated tropes are better left undisturbed in their dusty graves. 

A ton of outdated tropes are offensive, and the rest of the bunch are mostly clichés that have been overdone. They're trying to recommend how to run unique and fun horror adventures, which is difficult when you're using clichés, and it's completely counteracted if you genuinely offend someone. 


UnsounderGnome said:


> And yes, some of the points in that section do directly talk about avoiding stereotypes and cliche accents.  But the first bullet point:
> 
> Just seems a bit judgmental to me...



It could be judgmental, but as none of us have the ability to speak for WotC, we probably won't know what they were specifically meaning in that case. It could have been "Strahd is/was just a boring copy of Dracula in D&D, make him and your characters more interesting", or it could have been something "horror tropes are typically one-and-done. Once people experience a horror trope, they typically know what's coming if something similar to it happens another time, which completely negates the fear of the unknown factor of horror. Avoid these tropes because horror doesn't work if you know what's going to happen". I'm guessing they were thinking more of the latter than the former, but both are fairly valid interpretations of that reading.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> Fair enough.  I apologize for the way my complaint was worded.






Micah Sweet said:


> I just don't want certain subjects to be removed entirely from gaming, regardless of how carefully they could be handled, and when the official material ignores those subjects and/or pretends they don't exist, I worry they are implicitly saying these issues should never be addressed at all.



And I agree. However, it does need to be acknowledged that some topics are inherently touchy, and need to be handled with care. See my post above about how to handle slavery and xenophobia in D&D campaigns/settings in less potentially problematic ways for an idea of how they can be scaled back/addressed more sensitively without being completely removed. I don't think anyone is saying "Slavery/Xenophobia can never be included in D&D, and you're a bad person/having badwrongfun if you do include it", but are instead saying "these are sensitive topics and should be treated with more care than they have been in the past". That's certainly what I'm trying to say and get across, and it's what others I agree with have been saying, too, on topics similar to this. 


Micah Sweet said:


> Like you, I believe that these things can be included if you're respectful of real world implications, and your players' feelings.



Full agreement here. That's the goal.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> And I agree. However, it does need to be acknowledged that some topics are inherently touchy, and need to be handled with care. See my post above about how to handle slavery and xenophobia in D&D campaigns/settings in less potentially problematic ways for an idea of how they can be scaled back/addressed more sensitively without being completely removed. I don't think anyone is saying "Slavery/Xenophobia can never be included in D&D, and you're a bad person/having badwrongfun if you do include it", but are instead saying "these are sensitive topics and should be treated with more care than they have been in the past". That's certainly what I'm trying to say and get across, and it's what others I agree with have been saying, too, on topics similar to this.
> 
> Full agreement here. That's the goal.



I do think that's what we should be saying.  I just don't know if that's what WotC is trying to say.  Their work recently seems very, very concerned about addressing their critics, and I'm not certain that should be their highest priority.


----------



## Older Beholder (May 25, 2021)

Aaron L said:


> Each Domain is its own little world isolated from all the others, and it just makes the setting _far _more bland.




By having them unconnected, each domain can have it's own unique identity instead of having to squeeze everything into the Gothic horror genre. To me that's the opposite of bland.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2021)

ModestModernist said:


> By having them unconnected, each domain can have it's own unique identity instead of having to squeeze everything into the Gothic horror genre. To me that's the opposite of bland.



I know that "weekend in hell" was the original conception of 2nd ed Ravenloft, despite the presence of a core.  Even so, the work they did over the course of 2nd and especially the Kargatane's 3rd ed contributions really added an enormous amount to making it a campaign setting, and the amazing world-building really spoke to me (my favorite part of being a DM).  Reversing that to go back to the old model (with a lot of details changed) feels like an attack against something I love, even though I know it really isn't.


----------



## Older Beholder (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> I know that "weekend in hell" was the original conception of 2nd ed Ravenloft, despite the presence of a core.  Even so, the work they did over the course of 2nd and especially the Kargatane's 3rd ed contributions really added an enormous amount to making it a campaign setting, and the amazing world-building really spoke to me (my favorite part of being a DM).  Reversing that to go back to the old model (with a lot of details changed) feels like an attack against something I love, even though I know it really isn't.




I can see how that might leave people disappointed. I remember appreciating that element when it was introduced (or built upon after the initial box set) I just thought bland was a bad description for things no longer all being the same.

I like the flexibility in being able to pick my favourite domains and stitch them together however I like, I think it makes sense from a design point of view and I can understand why they went this way given the tool box approach to the 5E books.


----------



## Jiggawatts (May 25, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Nobody stops you adding the things you love.
> 
> Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft is literally the best toolbox that looks like a Campaign Setting because of the Van Richten and allies letters within, but still, this book is more a toolbox than anything.
> 
> Nobody stops you linking the domains. The roads and pathways are considered wrapped in most for those who want them separate , there is that, and for those wanting them linked, no problem, go ahead



Canon matters. Pretending that it doesn't is disingenuous.


----------



## imagineGod (May 25, 2021)

Jiggawatts said:


> Canon matters. Pretending that it doesn't is disingenuous.



Canon matters? Seriously, in Dungeons and Dragons products that keep getting retconed each edition, sometimes even within the same edition. 

Even strong canon products like Warhammerr Fantasy struggle yo keep their lore sacred. Though it  is significant  to note that in the current 4th Edition did not alter the population of elves in the human Imperium above a percentage point.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> I know that "weekend in hell" was the original conception of 2nd ed Ravenloft, despite the presence of a core. Even so, the work they did over the course of 2nd and especially the Kargatane's 3rd ed contributions really added an enormous amount to making it a campaign setting, and the amazing world-building really spoke to me (my favorite part of being a DM). Reversing that to go back to the old model (with a lot of details changed) feels like an attack against something I love, even though I know it really isn't.



Ravenloft, true to it's genre, was an unholy mashup of two play styles: weekend in hell and living world. They designed a bunch of individual domains that obeyed thier own logic, then stitched a bunch together with not a lot of thought as to thier neighbors. Tepest would kill demihumans for being "fey" yet it's northern neighbor is Darkon. How do those nations conduct trade? The moon changed in number, size, color and phase simply by crossing the border. The Sea of Sorrows disappeared when you were walking the coast from Mordent to Valachan. Things like this made the idea of a living world difficult. Even if you were iron out these inconsistencies, you still have dozens of domains that are floating in the Mists that don't connect to anything and don't have any of the trade or intrigue access. Often, those Domains were second class citizens as far the setting was concerned. 

Ravenloft had two choices: rebuild it like a real campaign setting with fixed nations, trade, commerce and faiths akin to a spooky Forgotten Realms, or break it apart and make each it's own haunted playground. _I_ would have loved the former (borrowing the design from Masque of the Red Death but making it a fantasy world rather than Earth) I respect the fact they went back to weekend in hell with nods to the interconnected settings.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2021)

Remathilis said:


> Ravenloft, true to it's genre, was an unholy mashup of two play styles: weekend in hell and living world. They designed a bunch of individual domains that obeyed thier own logic, then stitched a bunch together with not a lot of thought as to thier neighbors. Tepest would kill demihumans for being "fey" yet it's northern neighbor is Darkon. How do those nations conduct trade? The moon changed in number, size, color and phase simply by crossing the border. The Sea of Sorrows disappeared when you were walking the coast from Mordent to Valachan. Things like this made the idea of a living world difficult. Even if you were iron out these inconsistencies, you still have dozens of domains that are floating in the Mists that don't connect to anything and don't have any of the trade or intrigue access. Often, those Domains were second class citizens as far the setting was concerned.
> 
> Ravenloft had two choices: rebuild it like a real campaign setting with fixed nations, trade, commerce and faiths akin to a spooky Forgotten Realms, or break it apart and make each it's own haunted playground. _I_ would have loved the former (borrowing the design from Masque of the Red Death but making it a fantasy world rather than Earth) I respect the fact they went back to weekend in hell with nods to the interconnected settings.



As I mentioned, much of the world building that made it make sense occurred in the Kargatane material for 3rd edition.  They added mistways, somewhat reliable trade routes that allow trade with several of the islands of terror.  Connections between the domains are explained and expanded, although you could certainly do more.  All the domains had a way to feed themselves, either through growing food or trade (the original Falkovnia was the bread basket of the core, for example).  It was enough to work with and, as I said, worldbuilding is my thing.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> As I mentioned, much of the world building that made it make sense occurred in the Kargatane material for 3rd edition. They added mistways, somewhat reliable trade routes that allow trade with several of the islands of terror. Connections between the domains are explained and expanded, although you could certainly do more. All the domains had a way to feed themselves, either through growing food or trade (the original Falkovnia was the bread basket of the core, for example). It was enough to work with and, as I said, worldbuilding is my thing.



3e did the best it could with what it had, but it still felt torn between logical world building (where do people get thier food from?) and nightmare logic (where did the coast go?) In a choice, I'd have preferred a more logical design with flourishes of nightmare (a larger and more complicated Innistrad) but at least the 5e version is consistent in embracing nightmare logic completely.


----------



## Shardstone (May 25, 2021)

This is a new version of Ravenloft. I get that you guys miss your old versions, but you have two editions of books of those. I've read all the 2E and 3E Ravenloft books, and I still love Van Richten's, because it lets me play Ravenloft in a new style.

I don't understand why you guys basically want reprints of the same material for yet another edition. Ideas are allowed to change and morph; they aren't static things, forever locked in one form.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2021)

Remathilis said:


> 3e did the best it could with what it had, but it still felt torn between logical world building (where do people get thier food from?) and nightmare logic (where did the coast go?) In a choice, I'd have preferred a more logical design with flourishes of nightmare (a larger and more complicated Innistrad) but at least the 5e version is consistent in embracing nightmare logic completely.



I suppose there's something to that, but I still find the direction they went very disappointing.  At least my version of Ravenloft is now entirely in the hands of those fans who really care about it.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2021)

Shardstone said:


> This is a new version of Ravenloft. I get that you guys miss your old versions, but you have two editions of books of those. I've read all the 2E and 3E Ravenloft books, and I still love Van Richten's, because it lets me play Ravenloft in a new style.
> 
> I don't understand why you guys basically want reprints of the same material for yet another edition. Ideas are allowed to change and morph; they aren't static things, forever locked in one form.



WotC updated the Realms and Ebberon to 5th ed without making major, incompatible changes with older material.  They could have done the same with Ravenloft if they wanted to.  If this had come out a couple years ago, I think they would have.


----------



## Morrus (May 25, 2021)

Shardstone said:


> I don't understand why you guys basically want reprints of the same material for yet another edition. Ideas are allowed to change and morph; they aren't static things, forever locked in one form.



D&D fans: WotC! Make new D&D stuff.

_wotc makes new D&D stuff_

D&D fans: No, not like that. The same as the old stuff!


----------



## God (May 25, 2021)

Morrus said:


> D&D fans: WotC! Make new D&D stuff.
> 
> _wotc makes new D&D stuff_
> 
> D&D fans: No, not like that. The same as the old stuff!



Fans: Man, I love your hamburgers! Make me a new one and surprise me with some creative toppings!

WotC: <serves a mushroom on a bun>


----------



## dytrrnikl (May 25, 2021)

Shardstone said:


> I don't understand why you guys basically want reprints of the same material for yet another edition. Ideas are allowed to change and morph; they aren't static things, forever locked in one form.



Nostalgia. I started playing in the 80s, heavily with 2E. While Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft is a decent supplement, I'll still take the 2E material over it...it hits all the marks for horror for me. A new version doesn't always equate to better. Of course, with all the criticism being leveled at older material for it's "insensitvities", opinions vary.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2021)

Ideas can expand and grow, building on the past (like with the Realms and Eberron).  They don't have to be wholesale replacements, and they've proved that on several occasions. 

Anyway, I'm over it.  I going to take the bits that I like (like the updates to Har'akir and I'Cath) and move forward with the old stuff for the rest.  There's still a great community for that, and it's not going to stop keeping the old Ravenloft alive.  As a horror toolkit for D&D, the book's actually decent.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> WotC updated the Realms and Ebberon to 5th ed without making major, incompatible changes with older material. They could have done the same with Ravenloft if they wanted to. If this had come out a couple years ago, I think they would have.



I don't think so. The DMG already set up the isolated domains in the Shadowfell system; we were never getting the Core back. Curse of Strahd adjusted and rebooted Barovia. The 4e Domains were designed in a similar style. They were never going to bring back the gypsy class or Calibans.

If this had come out when Ravnica had, the best would have been more domains would have been evolutions rather then reboots. Gender swapped Darklords might have been descendants. You might have seen a few more core domains like Forlorn over ICath. The Vistani keeping their evil eye and curse powers. Stuff like that. I don't think you'd see DoD 2.0. Even among the fandom, certain domains and tropes were becoming radioactive, like Souragne for example. 

Unlike Eberron, there was a lot of design elements that didn't match WotC's design aesthetic. Forgotten Realms is facing this kind of change in tone in real time. (See the drow thread). Ravenloft is stark because it's been oop since the early aughts; it is a radical jump rather than the gradual shift Faerun got.


----------



## Prakriti (May 25, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> You can unintentionally and unknowingly harm yourself.



You could just as easily argue that sheltering yourself and your players is causing unintentional harm. 

Wizards could have said, "It's wrong to *shelter* your players from outdated beliefs." Instead they said, "It's wrong to *subject* your players to outdated beliefs." 

Both statements go against the long-held tradition of letting people enjoy the game as they see fit, without shaming them or judging them for it. 

For better or worse, Wizards has broken with the past and decided it is now okay to tell players that their fun is wrong.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2021)

Prakriti said:


> You could just as easily argue that sheltering yourself and your players is causing unintentional harm.
> 
> Wizards could have said, "It's wrong to *shelter* your players from outdated beliefs." Instead they said, "It's wrong to *subject* your players to outdated beliefs."
> 
> ...



I think you're reading a lot into a CYA.

Most people experience D&D though an experienced DM. I don't need to tell you how many "bad first DM" stories there are. This is WotC advising that DMs who do use harmful or offensive material doesn't reflect WotC's views how the game should be played. It's basically "The views and opinions expressed by your Dungeon Master are those of the DM and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Wizards of the Coast".


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> I know that "weekend in hell" was the original conception of 2nd ed Ravenloft, despite the presence of a core.  Even so, the work they did over the course of 2nd and especially the Kargatane's 3rd ed contributions really added an enormous amount to making it a campaign setting, and the amazing world-building really spoke to me (my favorite part of being a DM).  Reversing that to go back to the old model (with a lot of details changed) feels like an attack against something I love, even though I know it really isn't.



Third edition was a licensed work. WotC wouldn't be the first or last company to view such a work as unofficial and not counting. Not a view I hold myself, but I know that inside corporate office walls, the view often looks very different.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2021)

Jiggawatts said:


> Canon matters. Pretending that it doesn't is disingenuous.



The majority of D&D play occurs in homebrewed world. The people who love canon and feel it's important at the table are a minority, even if they make up 100% of the people who buy and use published settings. In a mutable setting like Ravenloft, if the designers have the goal of "fixing it," they're not going to worry about it too much, since the canon answer could easily be "stuff happened since last time we visited Ravenloft, but the Dark Powers erased everyone's memories of it." We know explicitly that something happened, because of the write-up of the 5E Darkon.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> WotC updated the Realms and Ebberon to 5th ed without making major, incompatible changes with older material.  They could have done the same with Ravenloft if they wanted to.



Right, and they didn't want to.  It is, in fact, theirs.

And they _did_ make giant changes to the Forgotten Realms in fourth edition and decided "whoa, this was a bad idea" based on a large portion of the fandom basically screaming in their face and then spent years having to reverse it.

It takes a Realm Shattering Event to change the Forgotten Realms or to change it back (which is weird, since it seems to happen so frequently -- maybe the Forgotten Realms is in the DC Universe). It takes a whim of the Dark Powers to change Ravenloft.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 25, 2021)

Prakriti said:


> For better or worse, Wizards has broken with the past and decided it is now okay to tell players that their fun is wrong.



Breaking from the past is how you move on from outdated beliefs.

If you don't want to move on, that's fine.  But to expect the rest of the society to not do so or keep quiet as you remain set in your ways just doesn't happen.  It never has and it never will.

But if that person who doesn't move on feels like they are in the right... they should be so comfortable with their choices that even WotC saying "Your fun is wrong!" shouldn't bother them in the least.  Because who is WotC?  Just some business that makes stuff.  Nothing that need impact anyone's life in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> I suppose there's something to that, but I still find the direction they went very disappointing.  At least my version of Ravenloft is now entirely in the hands of those fans who really care about it.



If anyone who disagrees with you on something doesn't_ really_ care about it, you live in a pretty grim world.

There are two big ways to go with Ravenloft. WotC went the direction you don't like. To say that means the folks involved -- who have repeatedly made public declarations of their love for the setting -- don't really care about Ravenloft is petty.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2021)

dytrrnikl said:


> Nostalgia. I started playing in the 80s, heavily with 2E. While Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft is a decent supplement, I'll still take the 2E material over it...it hits all the marks for horror for me. A new version doesn't always equate to better. Of course, with all the criticism being leveled at older material for it's "insensitvities", opinions vary.



There were already a ton of conversion documents and updates to 5E for older Ravenloft material on DMs Guild before this book was even announced. If that's the product you want, there's a ton of options.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2021)

Prakriti said:


> You could just as easily argue that sheltering yourself and your players is causing unintentional harm.
> 
> Wizards could have said, "It's wrong to *shelter* your players from outdated beliefs." Instead they said, "It's wrong to *subject* your players to outdated beliefs."
> 
> ...



They are a publicly held company that intends to stay in business. You are going to find few businesses in a similar position saying that past works that are widely seen today as racist, sexist and ableist are the direction they're going to keep going. WotC in particular made this clear when they slapped a warning on nearly all the TSR products posted to DMs Guild/DriveThruRPG.

They are not creating works for edgelords who want to sit down with their 12 year old cousin and subject them to sex trafficking, racism and telling them that disabled people are inherently monsters, under the guise of "I don't want to shelter her."

You are, of course, free to do that yourself, and always have been. But the publicly held company won't be putting out the books to support that by default. It's irrational to expect them to do so, based on their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2021)

DEFCON 1 said:


> But if that person who doesn't move on feels like they are in the right... they should be so comfortable with their choices that even WotC saying "Your fun is wrong!" shouldn't bother them in the least.  Because who is WotC?  Just some business that makes stuff.  Nothing that need impact anyone's life in any way, shape, or form.



Truly old school gamers remember laughing at Gary Gygax writing in Dragon magazine that, unless you were doing things exactly his way, _you weren't actually playing Dungeons & Dragons_. We then flipped further through the magazine and rolled up a new PC using an explicitly for-NPCs-only gonzo class that they were always printing at that point. (Hell, yes, I rolled up and played a Jester.)

Everyone is free to play D&D as they wish, and a sentence that offends them in a WotC book should be ignored. Worst case scenario, black it out of your copy of your book. (Don't use a Sharpie, though: That'll bleed through to other pages.)


----------



## Stormonu (May 25, 2021)

I’m still reading through the book - and this is the first one I’ll likely read cover to cover in a long time.  So far, I’m enjoying what I find in the book - though I’ve had a couple minor grievances with some of the content.  Nothing I can’t easily rectify for my own games, usually be drawing on the prior lore.  Overall, I see more good than bad and I find myself more likely to run a native-born campaign instead of the “weekend in hell” games I’ve primarily used in the past, and that makes me happy.

I’m really glad to see the xenophobia of the prior editions being played down.  It always bothered me that the  PHB demihuman races got such a bad rap in the campaign world.  I’m not going to be inserting teiflings and Dragonborn as native races, but I might think @Snarf Zagyg ’s dead-eyed, soulless elves might be seen as acceptable now.

Best of all, the shadow rift is gone!


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 25, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> (Don't use a Sharpie, though: That'll bleed through to other pages.)



Sounds like something spoken from experience... LOL!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 25, 2021)

Stormonu said:


> but I might think @Snarf Zagyg ’s dead-eyed, soulless elves might be seen as acceptable now.









WELCOME TO OUR ELVEN VILLAGE. PLEASE, FEEL FREE TO TAKE OFF YOUR ARMOR AND GO TO SLEEP.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> If anyone who disagrees with you on something doesn't_ really_ care about it, you live in a pretty grim world.
> 
> There are two big ways to go with Ravenloft. WotC went the direction you don't like. To say that means the folks involved -- who have repeatedly made public declarations of their love for the setting -- don't really care about Ravenloft is petty.



I meant really care about the version I liked.  You can care about Ravenloft and make a bunch of changes to it (in fact, they can do that whether they care or not), but I'm talking about the segment of fans who care about the version from previous editions.  Nothing has changed for them except they have a stumbling block for new fans of the old setting to get over.


----------



## Alzrius (May 25, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Third edition was a licensed work. WotC wouldn't be the first or last company to view such a work as unofficial and not counting. Not a view I hold myself, but I know that inside corporate office walls, the view often looks very different.



They don't seem to have any problem selling Ravenloft 3E books (affiliate link). Admittedly, not all of them are there, but given how they're still releasing more products for every edition of D&D, I suspect we'll see them in time.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2021)

Alzrius said:


> They don't seem to have any problem selling Ravenloft 3E books (affiliate link). Admittedly, not all of them are there, but given how they're still releasing more products for every edition of D&D, I suspect we'll see them in time.



Gold pieces are gold pieces, man, whether or not you intend to use any of the material from those licensed works.


----------



## Prakriti (May 25, 2021)

DEFCON 1 said:


> But if that person who doesn't move on feels like they are in the right... they should be so comfortable with their choices that even WotC saying "Your fun is wrong!" shouldn't bother them in the least.  Because who is WotC?  Just some business that makes stuff.  Nothing that need impact anyone's life in any way, shape, or form.



I wonder if you would feel the same way, and still buy their products, if Wizards consistently put out the message that you and your beliefs weren't welcome in the D&D community.


----------



## dytrrnikl (May 25, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> There were already a ton of conversion documents and updates to 5E for older Ravenloft material on DMs Guild before this book was even announced. If that's the product you want, there's a ton of options.



I'm aware, but admittedly bypassed them. I guess for me, a clearer turn of phrasing would be, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 2E source material...specifically lore and the like, is fantastic as is. Doesn't need updating, morphing, changes, or any kind of alteration. Don't mess with perfection.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2021)

Prakriti said:


> I wonder if you would feel the same way, and still buy their products, if Wizards consistently put out the message that you and your beliefs weren't welcome in the D&D community.



Which views are they consistently putting down? They don't seem to have much of an overall message other than "racism and sexism are bad and please preorder all our stuff."


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2021)

dytrrnikl said:


> I'm aware, but admittedly bypassed them. I guess for me, a clearer turn of phrasing would be, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 2E source material...specifically lore and the like, is fantastic as is. Doesn't need updating, morphing, changes, or any kind of alteration. Don't mess with perfection.



Why do you need or care about a 5E version, then? If you've reached perfection, you're all set.


----------



## dytrrnikl (May 25, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Why do you need or care about a 5E version, then? If you've reached perfection, you're all set.



I was responding to why some people would care about changes made to something they love and gave my reasonings for why I prefer the older material. For instance, for me, it doesn’t matter whether or not DC is setting up Clark and Lois’ son to take over the mantle of Superman or that it appears we will getting another Superman reboot with some form of Calvin Ellis, for me, Clark Kent will always be Superman, with everything else being a sad imitation at best. But that’s me. I don’t agree with many of today’s perspectives regarding previous versions of D&D, but also recognize that no matter what I think, the world moves on. All in all, I’m good with things changing, but not if it’s solely for the sake of change. Change for the sake of change is pointless. As I said, Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft is a decent supplement. New doesn’t mean better, just means new. 10 or 20 years from now, fans will be decrying whatever gets presented for Ravenloft compared to “their” version of it in Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft. The more things change the more they stay the same.


----------



## King Babar (May 25, 2021)

Jiggawatts said:


> Canon matters. Pretending that it doesn't is disingenuous.



Your Ravenloft May Vary?


----------



## Faolyn (May 25, 2021)

UnsounderGnome said:


> Overall I like the book.  One thing that really jumped out at me as very off-putting was the Subvert Cliches section on pg. 189.
> 
> Badwrongfun from WotC...  Yikes.



Pretty sure what they mean, going by the rest of that section is, _don't use bigoted tropes, even if you really like them._


----------



## Faolyn (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> WotC updated the Realms and Ebberon to 5th ed without making major, incompatible changes with older material.  They could have done the same with Ravenloft if they wanted to.  If this had come out a couple years ago, I think they would have.



To be fair, Toril and Ebberon are both legitimate _worlds_. As in, planets. Ravenloft not only isn't an actual world--it's a demiplane, or collection of demiplanes--it has always been totally mutable. Half of the domains were brought from other worlds, and half were created whole-cloth. Even in the black box, IIRC, they talked about Conjunctions that added and removed domains and changed the face of the world. 

Over the years, they caused two domains (Borca, Dorvinia) to join together and caused another two domains (Gundarak and Arkandale) to get absorbed into its surrounding lands. They ripped multiple domains out of the Core, flung two of them (G'Henna, Bleutspur) into the Mists, turned one (Markovia) into a literal island at sea (and kept it as a _tropical jungle _island, right by Switzerland-style Lamordia), and turned the resulting space into the Shadow Rift, which is a legitimate world-wound--and if you enter the Rift in one way, you wind up in Faerieland, but if you enter it another way, you vanish completely. Valachan was positioned on a completely different part of the map, to the point that "S" noted how that change altered the architecture of the country. New domains and even _oceans _magically appeared at points, and the Nightmare Lands completely _disappeared _in 3x, as far as I can tell.

Ravenloft is all about making major changes.


----------



## Faolyn (May 25, 2021)

Stormonu said:


> Best of all, the shadow rift is gone!



I always felt it should be a Shadow _Forest_. Which is what it will continue to be in my world, as it's own little floaty domain. I like me some creepy fae (to the point that one of my players has asked me to maybe have some non-creepy fae at times).


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 25, 2021)

Prakriti said:


> I wonder if you would feel the same way, and still buy their products, if Wizards consistently put out the message that you and your beliefs weren't welcome in the D&D community.



I... wouldn't care at all?  Because I'm not buying the company or asking it to be my friend or aligning its existence to my sense of self or seeing it as anything more than what it is... a business that makes something I may wish to buy.

Yes, some people boycott companies because one or more views from people within the company goes against what they believe in.  They're giving up on something they might want because they don't want to deal with the company.  That's fine. That's their choice.  But then again... some people don't care what other people's views are within that company because it doesn't impact or affect them in the least.  The whole "love the art not the artist" debate.

I happen to be one of the latter.  I don't give a rat's ass what anyone in WotC believes in... nor what "messages" are in the books they make.  For me, it's


I look at a book...
I decide if the book has things in it I'd like to own...
I buy the book if it does, and don't buy it if it doesn't.

It's as simple as that. But the one thing I _don't_ do is complain about any of the stuff that is or isn't in it.  Because WotC is not required to cater to me... nor do I need them to pat me on the head and say "Oh... thanks for buying my book!  Here... let me make you feel all warm inside by writing some platitudes in it so you know how much we care about you and how you feel!"

No thanks.  Not necessary.  You write the book and then maybe I'll buy it.  Couldn't be any simpler than that.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> To be fair, Toril and Ebberon are both legitimate _worlds_. As in, planets. Ravenloft not only isn't an actual world--it's a demiplane, or collection of demiplanes--it has always been totally mutable. Half of the domains were brought from other worlds, and half were created whole-cloth. Even in the black box, IIRC, they talked about Conjunctions that added and removed domains and changed the face of the world.
> 
> Over the years, they caused two domains (Borca, Dorvinia) to join together and caused another two domains (Gundarak and Arkandale) to get absorbed into its surrounding lands. They ripped multiple domains out of the Core, flung two of them (G'Henna, Bleutspur) into the Mists, turned one (Markovia) into a literal island at sea (and kept it as a _tropical jungle _island, right by Switzerland-style Lamordia), and turned the resulting space into the Shadow Rift, which is a legitimate world-wound--and if you enter the Rift in one way, you wind up in Faerieland, but if you enter it another way, you vanish completely. Valachan was positioned on a completely different part of the map, to the point that "S" noted how that change altered the architecture of the country. New domains and even _oceans _magically appeared at points, and the Nightmare Lands completely _disappeared _in 3x, as far as I can tell.
> 
> Ravenloft is all about making major changes.



Every one of those changes added to the world.  Not one of them rewrote history.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2021)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I... wouldn't care at all?  Because I'm not buying the company or asking it to be my friend or aligning its existence to my sense of self or seeing it as anything more than what it is... a business that makes something I may wish to buy.
> 
> Yes, some people boycott companies because one or more views from people within the company goes against what they believe in.  They're giving up on something they might want because they don't want to deal with the company.  That's fine. That's their choice.  But then again... some people don't care what other people's views are within that company because it doesn't impact or affect them in the least.  The whole "love the art not the artist debate".
> 
> ...



Does WotC often make things that you don't like?  Because, if you've been happy with what they've done so far, then your stance on what you would do loses a little bite.


----------



## imagineGod (May 25, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Pretty sure what they mean, going by the rest of that section is, _don't use bigoted tropes, even if you really like them._



Except bigotry is subjective and differs from culture to culture in the real world and especially fantasy 

This is why session zero is important for each play group to decide what tropes are okay for play purposes, irrespective of WoTC suggests, who are not a police enforcement team, just a business.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> Does WotC often make things that you don't like?  Because, if you've been happy with what they've done so far, then your stance on what you would do loses a little bite.



Well, let me count...

...of the 28(?) or so hardcover books they have produced for 5E thus far, I have bought I believe 13 of them.  So less than half.  Why only 13?  Cause the other books didn't have anything in them that I cared about owning.  I mean most of the adventure path books I don't own because I have had no desire to run them.

But I also don't care that WotC produced them.  I'm not mad at them for making an Underdark adventure involving demons... two things that don't really float my boat when playing D&D.  They wanted to make it... they made it... and I didn't buy it.  Which is fine!  Why in the world would I get upset at them for it?  Even if they had gone ahead and wrote within the pages of the book "The Underdark and the Demon Lords are two of the *most iconic* and important facets of Dungeons & Dragons, and you'd be a *FOOL *for not embracing that fact!".

If I read that, I'd simply smirk, roll my eyes, and then wait to see what the next book they made was.  That's it.

Because that's all my concern for WotC the company is-- are they making anything I wish to have?  To think anything further is in my opinion a waste of my mental energy and time.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 25, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Except bigotry is subjective and differs from culture to culture in the real world and especially fantasy



Evidence? Based on the definition of bigotry, you're completely incorrect. Prejudice against someone can't be subjective, it's always objective. 


imagineGod said:


> This is why session zero is important for each play group to decide what tropes are okay for play purposes, irrespective of WoTC suggests, who are not a police enforcement team, just a business.



Which is why WotC gave advice on Session 0's in TCoE, warned against using bigoted tropes in VRGtR, and are _*not *_coming to your doors to force you to to play the game any certain way.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 25, 2021)

Prakriti said:


> You could just as easily argue that sheltering yourself and your players is causing unintentional harm.
> 
> Wizards could have said, "It's wrong to *shelter* your players from outdated beliefs." Instead they said, "It's wrong to *subject* your players to outdated beliefs."



You could just as easily argue that, but should you? Should you be telling people that protecting yourself from racist/sexist/ableist language is just as bad as being targeted by it, or just as bad as spreading racist/sexist/ableist language?

The obvious answer is no. There is absolutely no reason to say that, unless one wants to use bigoted language with a phony excuse for including instead of just saying "I want to include bigoted language/content in my games".

And keep in mind that "subject" means to force that language upon them. If they're fine with including themes where their player could be discriminated against, that's A-Okay as long as you clear that with them beforehand. However, that's not what "subject" means in this context.


Prakriti said:


> Both statements go against the long-held tradition of letting people enjoy the game as they see fit, without shaming them or judging them for it.
> 
> For better or worse, Wizards has broken with the past and decided it is now okay to tell players that their fun is wrong.



It's for the better. They're embracing the truth that fun cannot be wrong unless it hurts someone else, which is incredibly important advice to include in a cooperative-social hobby such as D&D. IMO, they should include information like this in the DMG, not just a setting book 7 years after 5e is released.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 25, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> I always felt it should be a Shadow _Forest_. Which is what it will continue to be in my world, as it's own little floaty domain. I like me some creepy fae (to the point that one of my players has asked me to maybe have some non-creepy fae at times).



It's a shadow forest INSIDE a shadow rift . . . the best of both (mutable) worlds!


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> Every one of those changes added to the world. Not one of them rewrote history.



So would another RSE/Grand Conjunction, with a bit of subtle recons and some explantation of how descendants or replacement Darklords took over have worked? Azalin's Hour of Ascension breaks the demiplane into islands, Van Richten escaped a Bleak House, several domains like Verbrek or Sithicus disappear and a the VGR comes out mostly the same but with large chunks of lore explaining how we got there? How many pages of the book do you want this explanation to take up? 

I'm being mildly cheeky, but I always feel when these discussions come up, is it the actual changes that annoy people or the fact they changed it. If the had set this version of Ravenloft after the Time of Unparalleled Darkness rather than resetting everything to 735 have made it palatable?


----------



## Faolyn (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> Every one of those changes added to the world.  Not one of them rewrote history.



And since the Dark Powers themselves rewrite and create history all the time, sometimes quite blatantly (memory changes in Darkon, for one), you can easily assume that's what they did this time around as well. All that stuff in the 2e and 3x books happened. The Core once existed. But now the domains are Islands and Falkovnia has always been at war with Zombasia.


----------



## Necrozius (May 25, 2021)

Ruin Explorer said:


> This should certainly put paid to any notions that going younger or more diverse might in some way reduce quality. The direct contrary appears (unsurprisingly to me) to have happened.



This isn't wholly surprising to me. Newer generations of writers and designers are connected to a far wider group of peers than ever before. It is vastly easier to learn and gain inspiration from others, by example or dialogue thanks to the internet and availability of material (physical and digital).

I'd also argue that game design has evolved too (just as desktop publishing, illustration and typography). Combined with a greater awareness of Accessibility (in the sense of a greater awareness of how humans cognitively interpret things, with or without barriers or disabilities), newer generations have found ways to make content more usable to greater audiences.

Some will say otherwise, but we've come a long way from the AD&D Game Master's Guide or the Rules Cyclopedia. Sacred cows of course, but damn it, they were a mess, objectively, compared to what we have now. Nostalgia is a nice thing, cut c'mon people, be real.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2021)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, let me count...
> 
> ...of the 28(?) or so hardcover books they have produced for 5E thus far, I have bought I believe 13 of them.  So less than half.  Why only 13?  Cause the other books didn't have anything in them that I cared about owning.  I mean most of the adventure path books I don't own because I have had no desire to run them.
> 
> ...



Fair enough.  Cheerfully withdrawn.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2021)

Remathilis said:


> So would another RSE/Grand Conjunction, with a bit of subtle recons and some explantation of how descendants or replacement Darklords took over have worked? Azalin's Hour of Ascension breaks the demiplane into islands, Van Richten escaped a Bleak House, several domains like Verbrek or Sithicus disappear and a the VGR comes out mostly the same but with large chunks of lore explaining how we got there? How many pages of the book do you want this explanation to take up?
> 
> I'm being mildly cheeky, but I always feel when these discussions come up, is it the actual changes that annoy people or the fact they changed it. If the had set this version of Ravenloft after the Time of Unparalleled Darkness rather than resetting everything to 735 have made it palatable?



Actually, while I still wouldn't have liked many of the actual changes they made, I would have been happier if they had provided explanations that advanced the world rather than rewrote it, thank you.


----------



## Mercador (May 25, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> I just find that all the reading and adherence to canon never really meant much to players if they didnt keep up on setting lore so I just started making up my own storylines.  I found that from 1E through 3E in parts you could read up on a certain area between the 3 editions and *find whole sections reprinted verbatim*.  Thats when I stopped caring.  Then when they did change things it was so radical I didnt really want to implement any of it into my game.



Wow, that's so bad... I wouldn't liked buying books with my limited budget at that time to see only verbatim sections... Thank you for letting me know, I didn't know that.


----------



## Faolyn (May 25, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> What I'm saying is, xenophobia, fear of the other, is a historically accurate reaction to certain circumstances, including many of the statuses quo in the domains.  If you're not depicting it as right, but rather an unfortunate cultural reality that should be fought against, and its existence doesn't specifically offend those you're playing with, is it still unacceptable to include it?  The issue of slavery's depiction in RPGs raises the same issue.  It's a kind of evil, more real than vampires and werewolves.  As long as it is seen as evil, why can't it be in the game?



It can be, but _why_? 

Don't forget, you're playing a game, not writing a historical novel. What *fun *does it bring to the table to tell a player "if your character goes in to that location, they will be discriminated against or possibly harmed because of who they are"? I've done that: I homebrewed caliban for 5e, and in another game I run, had discrimination against tieflings, and I now regret both of those because, well, it doesn't bring anything fun to the table. 

Bigotry is an evil, yes, but not an evil that can be stopped like you can stop a vampire. Yeah, you can easily do the thing where the character proves that they're as worthy as any non-discriminated-race/sex/class/caste/whatever, but that's something the character would have to keep on doing, with each new group of bigoted people they meet, and it's exhausting. 

And often, the player may have to do that in real life as well. I know people who never play humans because they have to be one in real life. In the same vein, who would want to play someone who's a member of a disliked group if they are already in one in the real one.


----------



## R_J_K75 (May 25, 2021)

Mercador said:


> Wow, that's so bad... I wouldn't liked buying books with my limited budget at that time to see only verbatim sections... Thank you for letting me know, I didn't know that.



Unfortunate but its true.  Usually the material was expanded on but a paragraph here and a paragraph here would crop up again and again, in more than one place.  The one that comes to mind is Waterdeep and the North, the 2E City of Splendors Boxed Set and the 3E City of Splendors: Waterdeep hardback.  If I had to guess probably City Systems too.  They all dealt with the same location. Don't get me wrong, there was value in purchasing the products but a little disappointing when I came to the realization, "Hey didn't I just read that last night"?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 25, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Don't forget, you're playing a game, not writing a historical novel. What *fun *does it bring to the table to tell a player "if your character goes in to that location, they will be discriminated against or possibly harmed because of who they are"? I've done that: I homebrewed caliban for 5e, and in another game I run, had discrimination against tieflings, and I now regret both of those because, well, it doesn't bring anything fun to the table.



I think the "everything has to be 100% fun all the time" and "admitting the existence of any kind of bigotry is bad" is a very 2010 attitude, and one that is a bit unhelpful and shortsighted.

It also depends whether the bigots are good guys or bad or neutral or w/e.

I'm not saying that the older Ravenloft situation was good - it wasn't - it was mostly "pointless bigotry", that didn't serve to characterise the bigots, nor define the setting, nor really added anything. The more recent "don't care" or "used to it" attitude in the new Ravenloft obviously works better as a base.

So I think it helps to draw a distinction between pointless society-wide bigotry and the specific bigotries of certain groups and communities and individuals. And also between stuff that mirrors real-world bigotry and stuff that doesn't.


----------



## Kurotowa (May 26, 2021)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think the "everything has to be 100% fun all the time" and "admitting the existence of any kind of bigotry is bad" is a very 2010 attitude, and one that is a bit unhelpful and shortsighted.
> 
> It also depends whether the bigots are good guys or bad or neutral or w/e.



It also also depends on what the player finds fun. Sometimes the player rolls a tiefling because they want to play out an uplifting tale of overcoming societal prejudice through heroism, and sometimes it's because they want cool demon powers. The first is going to feel cheated if no one bats an eye at them and the second is going to feel stifled if they're always getting kicked out of taverns for no reason.

Once again, the key is to _talk to your players_ and _find out what they're interested in playing out_.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 26, 2021)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think the "everything has to be 100% fun all the time" and "admitting the existence of any kind of bigotry is bad" is a very 2010 attitude, and one that is a bit unhelpful and shortsighted.
> 
> It also depends whether the bigots are good guys or bad or neutral or w/e.
> 
> ...



I include bigotry in my campaigns. I've included it in Eberron against Warforged, but kept it light and mostly implied instead of explicit, I've included it in my Wildemount campaign with the war between the Kryn Dynasty and Dwendalian Empire, and I've included it in my own homebrew world to be a story hook for many adventures in the world. My world's example is in the spoiler below. 



Spoiler: The Felshen and the Yikkan Goblinoids



In my homebrew world, there's a race of people that were created hundreds of years ago by mages, alchemists, and fleshweavers to be a fully reproducing and sentient humanoid race. They started our basically as sentient Flesh Golems, but eventually evolved into a psionic race of people, the Felshen, who have their own culture and settlements dependent on their psionic abilities and innovations. However, the goblinoids of my world (excluding the Verdan) worship the "deity" of Magic, the Yikare, being called the Yikkan Goblinoids, and they despise the practice of psionics and are completely against the meddling/creations of life/souls. From their belief system, the goblinoids see the Felshen as soulless abominations practicing a dark art that is destroying the world, so they persecuted them, originally trying to eradicate them from the world, but when that failed they settled for other forms of discrimination. The Felshen see the Goblinoids as bigoted oppressors that have always sought after the destruction their people when they did nothing to provoke them except for existing. The wars between the Felshen and the Goblinoids is a long and messy one, with neither side coming out of the conflicts with their hands clean. Though the Goblinoids and Felshen are currently bound by a peace-deal that other races forced them to agree to due to their wars' effects on the bystanders and the world around them, these two groups of people still hate each other and have extreme rivalries. 

The Yikkan Goblinoids don't acknowledge the Felshen's right to exist, and the Felshen rightfully have a less than favorable opinion of the Yikkan Goblinoids. The most extreme Yikkan Goblinoids essentially want to commit genocide, with the most common attitude from the Yikkan Goblinoids on the matter now being "Okay, you get to live, but you don't get to use your inherent psionic abilities". The most extreme Felshen want to destroy the Yikkan Goblinoids' society, and some even want to enslave/kill them for what they've done to their people, but the most common attitude from the Felshen is that the Yikkan Goblinoids need to stop discriminating against them and make up in some way for the atrocities that they have committed against the Felshen people.



Neither side is completely in the right in my world's example, and there's no easy way to solve the conflict. This is what bigotry is like in the real world. It's messy, it's complicated, and there's no easy solution. The most respectful way to include bigotry in campaigns/worlds is to have it be realistic and not just a fact of life that people have to live with or leave the table. My world's example of bigotry is made clear to my players when starting a campaign in that world. They can choose to involve themselves in the conflict as much or as little as they want, and they don't have to be a Felshen or Goblinoid if they don't want to have it included in the campaign. IMO, that's a better way to deal with bigotry in worlds and campaigns. If they don't want to deal with it, they can ignore it. If they want to get involved in it, they can. Even if they choose to be a Felshen or Goblinoid, they won't automatically become involved in the conflict unless they choose to go to a Goblinoid/Felshen settlement/NPC. It gives the players the power to choose if the campaign deals with this topic if they want to, and also the power to ignore it if they would rather not deal with it (another upside of this is, unlike real world bigotry, this conflict is completely made up and there aren't any bad real world consequences for doing so).


----------



## imagineGod (May 26, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Evidence? Based on the definition of bigotry, you're completely incorrect. Prejudice against someone can't be subjective, it's always objective.
> 
> Which is why WotC gave advice on Session 0's in TCoE, warned against using bigoted tropes in VRGtR, and are _*not *_coming to your doors to force you to to play the game any certain way.



Exactly where is this universal objective definition of bigotry that is not just a theoretical exercise and is  agreeable to the whole world or even just all Americans?

Because what I see are different people across different cultures unable to even agree upon the tropes of evil Monstrous races within Dungeons and Dragons.

Hence, there is no objectivity only subjectivity on who sits round your table.

And Dungeons and Dragons is designed around each individual table with the Dungeon Master final arbiter. And no two DMs are the sane nor do they pass a universal degree course in Dungeon Mastering, hence, even more subjectivity driven by the makeup of each different table.


----------



## imagineGod (May 26, 2021)

Basically, one of the biggest contradictions I see in modern writers for D&D products I that they first state  that there is "no bad wrong fun by consensus" which basically gives a greenlight to a table to play anything by consensus. They even go so far as to say if a rule in the book ruins your fun, then change it or just ignore it.

This encourages each games table to be subjective by default . Hence, if one table plays in a totally bigoted way from the perspective of another table, neither is having bad wrong fun if neither table comes into contact with the other. Universally definitions of bigotry cannot exist in such islands of subjectivity.

And interestingly mirrors the Islands of Dread of Ravenloft separated by the mists. Each is its own thing,, a perfectly valid domain.


----------



## MGibster (May 26, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> And Dungeons and Dragons is designed around each individual table with the Dungeon Master final arbiter. And no two DMs are the sane nor do they pass a universal degree course in Dungeon Mastering, hence, even more subjectivity driven by the makeup of each different table.



You're certainly correct about no DM being sane.


----------



## Faolyn (May 26, 2021)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think the "everything has to be 100% fun all the time" and "admitting the existence of any kind of bigotry is bad" is a very 2010 attitude, and one that is a bit unhelpful and shortsighted.



But this isn't about "admitting the existence of any kind of bigotry." This is about actually using bigoted tropes against your players. This is about things like having NPCs actively discriminating against or trying to harm your PC because you decided to play "the wrong type of character." 

Yes, of course, you can have bigots in a game, but a lot of the times it was, as you say, pointless bigotry. It wasn't something that allowed the players to explore the issue, or to find interesting ways to get around it or hide from it. It didn't add anything to the game.


----------



## Stormonu (May 26, 2021)

Perhaps it can be done as consensual bigotry - the character accepts a penalty to reactions in return for some advantage in another way.  This wouldn't be something the DM simply imposes, but instead a pact where the player chooses to accept the stigma in return for other advantages.

Example:  The player of the Caliban agrees that in this region, his character is shunned for his appearance.  In return, he gains a +1d4 bonus to Stealth checks as the character becomes more adept at avoiding the locals.  When the character moves on to the next town, the player decides they're tired of the penalty for a while and informs the DM they wish to negate the stigma for the next few adventures.  Later, after some events or moving to a new region, the player may want to choose to initiate the ability again.  This time, the character decides to gain a +1d4 bonus to Wisdom saves, his mind stiffened from the insults and ill treatment suffered by the locals.


----------



## MGibster (May 26, 2021)

When I worked at a museum, we had a theater upstairs we'd show to kids as part of the tour that was a little mini-biography of the man born in the building.  Sometimes we'd get really little kids taking tours and that movie was no good for them so we used to show them old Disney and Warner Brothers cartoons from WWII.  Propaganda cartoons.  If any of you are familiar with some of those cartoons you know where this story is headed.  

I was the guy who talked to the kids about Civil War medicine and showed off our amputation kit and our jeep (kids love Jeeps), but one day I had to sit through the cartoons with a group of children.  They were funny but the racism and xenophobia was completely inappropriate for the audience that day.  Thankfully most of the jokes went over the heads of the young children but on more than one occasion I swear a teacher about came out of her skin.  And she was right to have that reaction.   Later that afternoon I spoke with the director telling him I thought the cartoons were inappropriate for younger children and only appropriate in the context of teaching visitors about wartime propaganda.  Some of you who have seen me post here might be surprised that I was the one who complained about inappropriate content.  

To his dying day, Mickey Rooney couldn't understand why younger people had such a hard time with his offensive portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi.  But let's face facts, standards for what is or isn't socially acceptable changes from decade to decade.  I must admit that sometimes I'm like Mickey Rooney in that I find what younger people complain about to be silly.  However, I sometimes recognize that they're absolutely right.  I sure can't watch _Revenge of the Nerds_ these days without thinking how creepy the nerds were.  But regardless of how I might personally feel, I usually have no problem accepting the changes.  

While I haven't read the VRGR yet, I haven't been particularly upset about any of the changes I've heard about.  I'm not sure if I'll buy it but I probably will.  Even if I knew I wasn't going to purchase it, I'd be happy the game existed for a younger generation of players to enjoy.


----------



## Electryc (May 26, 2021)

Wow came on here to see if this book's worth buying from customer testimonials.  Instead I'm reading mostly about debates about bigotry.  Who derailed this train?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 26, 2021)

Electryc said:


> Wow came on here to see if this book's worth buying from customer testimonials.  Instead I'm reading mostly about debates about bigotry.  Who derailed this train?



I think it started in this post.


----------



## Prakriti (May 26, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> They're embracing the truth that fun cannot be wrong unless it hurts someone else



Sure, but your definition of "hurts someone else" includes "a group of consenting adults getting together to play a game they all enjoy." 

You're essentially using the same argument that the Christian fundamentalists used in the 80s, which is that playing a game with distasteful elements in it will corrupt people's morals. You and the fundamentalists disagree on what those distasteful elements are, but you both resort to the same tactic of shaming and scolding people for engaging in a fun, consensual activity together.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 26, 2021)

Prakriti said:


> Sure, but your definition of "hurts someone else" includes "a group of consenting adults getting together to play a game they all enjoy."
> 
> You're essentially using the same argument that the Christian fundamentalists used in the 80s, which is that playing a game with distasteful elements in it will corrupt people's morals. You and the fundamentalists disagree on what those distasteful elements are, but you both resort to the same tactic of shaming and scolding people for engaging in a fun, consensual activity together.



False equivalency. 

If the thing that can corrupt them are the inclusion of demons in a TTRPG where most parties will be killing those demons, that's BS, especially because, get this, demons aren't real in the real world (I'm not going into the religious part of this, I'm just saying that demons aren't a real danger in the real world, so that concern is invalid). However, racism, sexism, and ableism are real, and the perpetuation of tropes that harm those people can be harmful, even if it isn't directly/immediately harmful to the people having fun at the table. You're using the Hitler Ate Sugar fallacy. That's not a valid support for your argument, because, primarily, I'm not advocating for the destruction of D&D like those Christian Fundamentalists in the Satanic Panic were, I'm advocating for the removal of harmful and offensive terms that are actually harmful and offensive.


----------



## Remathilis (May 26, 2021)

Electryc said:


> Wow came on here to see if this book's worth buying from customer testimonials. Instead I'm reading mostly about debates about bigotry. Who derailed this train?



Most of the Ravenloft discussions here (and in other internet forums) end up mired in the "they destroyed the old setting because WotC is trying to appease the woke crowd" rhetoric. It's a continuation of the comments made about Tasha's (racial changes) and Candlekeep (alignment removal). 

Basically, the people trying to discuss the content of said books are drowned out by the people who want to complain about WotC's moves towards inclusivity. I suspect this will be the case for all books coming in 2021 and possibly beyond.


----------



## Prakriti (May 26, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> False equivalency.
> 
> If the thing that can corrupt them are the inclusion of demons in a TTRPG where most parties will be killing those demons, that's BS, especially because, get this, demons aren't real in the real world (I'm not going into the religious part of this, I'm just saying that demons aren't a real danger in the real world, so that concern is invalid). However, racism, sexism, and ableism are real, and the perpetuation of tropes that harm those people can be harmful, even if it isn't directly/immediately harmful to the people having fun at the table. You're using the Hitler Ate Sugar fallacy. That's not a valid support for your argument, because, primarily, I'm not advocating for the destruction of D&D like those Christian Fundamentalists in the Satanic Panic were, I'm advocating for the removal of harmful and offensive terms that are actually harmful and offensive.



You're still scolding people for playing a game where all the participants are consenting adults. Throw in a few "immortal souls" and "eternal damnations" and your argument could easily have come out of the mouth of a Christian preacher during the Satanic Panic. 

So while I appreciate your concern for my immortal soul, I must inform you that my friends and I are going to keep playing our game the way we want to. Sorry if that offends you.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 26, 2021)

Prakriti said:


> You're still scolding people for playing a game where all the participants are consenting adults. Throw in a few "immortal souls" and "eternal damnations" and your argument could easily have come out of the mouth of a Christian preacher during the Satanic Panic.
> 
> So while I appreciate your concern for my immortal soul, I must inform you that my friends and I are going to keep playing our game the way we want to. Sorry if that offends you.



I'm an atheist, btw, so I'm not worried about your soul.

I'm not scolding anyone, drop the ad hominems and strawmen, please. I'm saying that including offensive content can be harmful, even if no one directly at the table sees a problem with it. Like I said above, no one in a group of racist white people would see anything wrong with using the n-word or blackface. Does that make it okay to use those things if no one there is being offended? Of course it doesn't!!! How is this even in question? Racist/Sexist/Ableist content is harmful whether or not it obviously hurts someone that sees it.

How the media (including D&D) depicts something affects how people think of and respond to that thing. That's a fact. If D&D/other media depicts racism as a fact of life that people just have to get over, that can be harmful. If it depicts one gender/sex inherently lesser than the other, than can be harmful. If it depicts people with disabilities as monsters/dangerous/evil, that can be harmful.

Got it? Do I need to prove my innocence about not being a Christian Fundamentalist D&D-book-burner any further? (You know, besides the fact that I wasn't even born yet when that was happening.)


----------



## Cadence (May 26, 2021)

Erdric Dragin said:


> And the 5th Edition game as a whole is just as circular. Those of us from the Golden Days of the game are going to gripe at many of the unnecessary and blatantly terrible changes while the newbs and casuals to the game (of which is the only business the company cares about, they don't care about the rest of us from the 70s-early 2000s) will give these products amazingly grand reviews and find it such a great addition to the game with the pure ignorance of what it was before, and if you educate these same people, then they'll come to realization of how utterly watered down the game truly is.






Azzy said:


> Um, I hate to break it to you, but I'm 47 and have been playing since '86. I've played BECMI, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, D&D 3e, and D&D 3.5. I've played/DMed in Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, and countless homebrew settings. I have/had setting material for all of these, plus Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Kara-Tur, and the Known World/Mystara. You do not speak for me. I think 5e is the best version of D&D yet (it has its flaws, but I'd still rather play and DM it than any other edition). I also think the new Ravenloft book is in many way superior to the 2e boxed sets. You do not speak for me.




50 and been playing since '81 and have played B/X, 1e, 2e, 3.5, 4, 5, PF 1e, and 13th age, and DM'ed most of those.  When I first read 5e it seemed... ok, but I thought I still clearly liked PF/3.5 as the best edition followed by 2e.  Having played and DMed more, if I were to cobble together my own "best of" rules it would sure have a lot of 5e things in with the PF.


----------



## Malmuria (May 26, 2021)

Prakriti said:


> You're still scolding people for playing a game where all the participants are consenting adults. Throw in a few "immortal souls" and "eternal damnations" and your argument could easily have come out of the mouth of a Christian preacher during the Satanic Panic.
> 
> So while I appreciate your concern for my immortal soul, I must inform you that my friends and I are going to keep playing our game the way we want to. Sorry if that offends you.



Are you running a Ravenloft game?  What specific elements of your game would be affected by the guidelines in the new book?


----------



## Minigiant (May 26, 2021)

Just watched the video review of VRGR by DungeonCraft and he says the book doesn't go far enough to escape heroic fantasy and doesn't itself give the tools to really invoke fear in the players.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 26, 2021)

Minigiant said:


> Just watched the video review of VRGR by DungeonCraft and he says the book doesn't go far enough to escape heroic fantasy and doesn't itself give the tools to really invoke fear in the players.



I completely disagree with that. Two words: *The Bagman*.


----------



## Minigiant (May 26, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I completely disagree with that. Two words: *The Bagman*.



Meh.
The monster they sampled from for it is too weak to invoke isn't that scary. Especially how it usually will be used (solo).


----------



## Kurotowa (May 26, 2021)

Minigiant said:


> Just watched the video review of VRGR by DungeonCraft and he says the book doesn't go far enough to escape heroic fantasy and doesn't itself give the tools to really invoke fear in the players.



That's always been the tension of Ravenloft, hasn't it? Is Ravenloft still fundamentally a D&D game or is it trying to be a dedicated horror RPG. Some versions have tried very hard to escape being D&D and rewrite the rules towards that end. This book leans more towards still being D&D, with everything that goes with that.

That's not a quality issue, it's a design choice. One that won't satisfy everyone, because no choice ever does, but personally I think it's the right one. If I want to play a dedicated horror RPG, rather than a heroic fantasy hero in a horror setting, I'd break out CoC or WoD.


----------



## Umbran (May 26, 2021)

Prakriti said:


> Both statements go against the long-held tradition of letting people enjoy the game as they see fit, without shaming them or judging them for it.
> 
> For better or worse, Wizards has broken with the past and decided it is now okay to tell players that their fun is wrong.




*Mod Note:*
Let us set aside the fact that some 10% or so of players are not, in fact, adults.

WotC, and more importantly for the moment, EN World, have recognized that silently allowing intolerance to stand results in normalizing, and thus perpetuating, intolerance.  Nobody can stop you from engaging in it at your table, but neither is there call for them to support such.

Your repeated assertions that there is something wrong with standing up against intolerance is problematic, and if it has not already, it is very apt to make people uncomfortable.  So, you've reached the limit of what we'll allow in this discussion.  Please find a discussion that doesn't run you up against our site's inclusivity policy.


----------



## JEB (May 26, 2021)

Remathilis said:


> Most of the Ravenloft discussions here (and in other internet forums) end up mired in the "they destroyed the old setting because WotC is trying to appease the woke crowd" rhetoric. It's a continuation of the comments made about Tasha's (racial changes) and Candlekeep (alignment removal).
> 
> Basically, the people trying to discuss the content of said books are drowned out by the people who want to complain about WotC's moves towards inclusivity. I suspect this will be the case for all books coming in 2021 and possibly beyond.



While I have seen the occasional comment online deploring how "woke" the recent changes are (such as references to "Wokenloft"), the majority of the comments I've seen (particularly on ENWorld) on the changes to character races, the removal of alignment, and the changes to Ravenloft are not objecting to it on "wokeness" grounds or a desire to keep the game from being inclusive. Mostly it seems to come from folks who thought the old things had value, and don't think they had to be changed or swept aside so completely to appeal to modern audiences.

I do agree, however, that if Wizards continues making changes that feel alienating to some veteran gamers, you will continue to see complaints. Not about the game becoming more inclusive for new players... but because those older gamers feel the game is no longer inclusive for them.

The funny thing is, the idea that the game either has to change very little, or change significantly, to keep some elusive majority of players isn't how things operated for six years of 5E - Wizards did a pretty good job of making a game that appealed equally well to the majority of old and new players, and struck a balance between inclusive changes and respecting the game's roots. So this new strategy doesn't seem necessary. But I guess we'll see how it works out, especially when they try the Ravenloft treatment on their next classic setting...


----------



## Minigiant (May 26, 2021)

Kurotowa said:


> That's always been the tension of Ravenloft, hasn't it? Is Ravenloft still fundamentally a D&D game or is it trying to be a dedicated horror RPG. Some versions have tried very hard to escape being D&D and rewrite the rules towards that end. This book leans more towards still being D&D, with everything that goes with that.
> 
> That's not a quality issue, it's a design choice. One that won't satisfy everyone, because no choice ever does, but personally I think it's the right one. If I want to play a dedicated horror RPG, rather than a heroic fantasy hero in a horror setting, I'd break out CoC or WoD.




Not to really bring other discussion here but I don't think it's an either or thing. They could have easily added variant rules to tone down the power of PCs and pull them down from herioc (new class HD, reprint slow resting rules, combat horror).

Doing Ravenloft as only dark heroic fantasy was a choice. It worked. But personally I think there were better ones.


----------



## Kurotowa (May 26, 2021)

Minigiant said:


> Not to really bring other discussion here but I don't think it's an either or thing. They could have easily added variant rules to tone down the power of PCs and pull them down from herioc (new class HD, reprint slow resting rules, combat horror).




Good news. They did! There's a section on playing Survivors with lower stats and less heroic scale abilities. There's also optional rules for fear and stress, too. It's just these sections are not the main focus of the book. They have limited page count and aren't presented as the default. The default focus is on Ravenloft as a D&D game, and good for them.


----------



## Minigiant (May 26, 2021)

Kurotowa said:


> Good news. They did! There's a section on playing Survivors with lower stats and less heroic scale abilities. There's also optional rules for fear and stress, too. It's just these sections are not the main focus of the book. They have limited page count and aren't presented as the default. The default focus is on Ravenloft as a D&D game, and good for them.



It's not playing your character and their abilities. They could have squeezed a table and a paragraph in there.

Heroic fantasy should be the default but if you are selling me on playing my character in dark scary fantasy in Ravenloft, you should provide it as an option. Sure "your DM can do it". However I can't be a newbie DM and anexperienced DM at the same time. Cater to both.


----------



## Malmuria (May 26, 2021)

JEB said:


> Mostly it seems to come from folks who thought the old things had value,



The changes people seem to be objecting to are things like changes to the gender of various NPCs, and the changes to alignment and races are exactly the things that are being done to make the game less essentialist and less inherently manichean in its morality.  Those are the exact changes made to try to make the game more inclusive.



JEB said:


> and don't think they had to be changed or swept aside so completely to appeal to modern audiences.



"swept aside" seems like hyperbole.  But yes it seems like the Vistani are no longer awful stereotypes




JEB said:


> Wizards did a pretty good job of making a game that appealed equally well to the majority of old and new players, and struck a balance between inclusive changes and respecting the game's roots. So this new strategy doesn't seem necessary.



there are plenty of older gamers who also want the game to be more inclusive (and actually wotc has struggled and continues to struggle on that front...)


----------



## Democratus (May 26, 2021)

Dungeon Craft (youtube channel) gives a very good and balanced review of the new book. And I largely agree with it.

There's great stuff in there. But 5e D&D is poorly suited for many types of horror. 

YMMV


----------



## Helldritch (May 26, 2021)

I just finished reading the book my self this evening. After about 6 read through, I too agree with PDM of dungeoncraft. It is almost as if I would have made the vid myself...

But, contrary to PDM, I still do like the book. It just did not went far enough on the horror genre as character in 5ed are on the super heroe side . 

Also, Ravenloft has always been the most human centric of all the settings in D&D. So playing a demi, a non human character should have drawbacks that should be felt by the player. Ravenloft is about the darkside of humans, it should have been more prominent.  

Of course I realize that this book will be used by younger audiences as well, but putting a warning on the cover and making a much darker book could have been a good choice. Just like they had done with the Book of Vile Darkness. 

Still, I do find the book to be quite useful, especially the tables and monsters. It just dis not went far enough in the genre.


----------



## JEB (May 26, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> The changes people seem to be objecting to are things like changes to the gender of various NPCs, and the changes to alignment and races are exactly the things that are being done to make the game less essentialist and less inherently manichean in its morality. Those are the exact changes made to try to make the game more inclusive.



I suggest you go back and read through the various threads on these subjects (races, alignment, Ravenloft), and try to take in the full range of complaints. Most of said threads are very long, admittedly, but they indicate there's more to the objections than stuff like "they made Victor Mordenheim a woman".

Also, not everyone agrees that those elements need to be removed or replaced entirely in order to make the game more inclusive. For example...



Malmuria said:


> But yes it seems like the Vistani are no longer awful stereotypes



The Vistani appear to be a good example of how you can fix something problematic while still tying it in with past portrayals. They're different from the old stereotypes, thankfully, but not so different than they're unrecognizable.



Malmuria said:


> there are plenty of older gamers who also want the game to be more inclusive (and actually wotc has struggled and continues to struggle on that front...)



Agreed! And that includes folks who like the recent changes, and folks who don't. Whether or not you want the game to keep your favorite old Ravenloft domains doesn't reflect on how inclusive you are...


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 26, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> But this isn't about "admitting the existence of any kind of bigotry." This is about actually using bigoted tropes against your players. This is about things like having NPCs actively discriminating against or trying to harm your PC because you decided to play "the wrong type of character."
> 
> Yes, of course, you can have bigots in a game, but a lot of the times it was, as you say, pointless bigotry. It wasn't something that allowed the players to explore the issue, or to find interesting ways to get around it or hide from it. It didn't add anything to the game.



Yeah I just think it's important to draw the distinction because I've seen people literally suggest you can't even have bigoted characters or societies in the game. I agree though it's both boring, annoying and potentially upsetting to have "We don't like your kind round here..." bigotry re: PCs. It also tends to be weirdly directed only at certain characters who fit classical tropes for being hated, when realistically, the behaviour and nature of a much larger portion of PCs would attract contempt/bigotry from people who are like that.


----------



## Espadadelaaurora (May 26, 2021)

After a couple of readings I have to admit that I'm very happy with this update of a classical setting, hope this trend continues in the near future. What I miss are the alignment entries in the monsters stat blocks, imho they were a good starting point in how to portray a typical individual of that kind. I know the reasons behind that omission, but I hate when things are ruled out instead of use it as you see fit.


----------



## Stefano Rinaldelli (May 26, 2021)

Remathilis said:


> Most of the Ravenloft discussions here (and in other internet forums) end up mired in the "they destroyed the old setting because WotC is trying to appease the woke crowd" rhetoric. It's a continuation of the comments made about Tasha's (racial changes) and Candlekeep (alignment removal).
> 
> Basically, the people trying to discuss the content of said books are drowned out by the people who want to complain about WotC's moves towards inclusivity. I suspect this will be the case for all books coming in 2021 and possibly beyond.



This is a proof of how the choice between freedom of speech and protection of susceptibility can be hard to balance. And this hardness is due to the extreme variability of individual susceptibility specially when boosted by the intrinsecal turbo charger effect of social media. Like satanic panic even this cultural movement will end up in coming back from fondamentalistic approach toward a more reasonable dimensions. But not before reaching some paradoxical parossism. 
Given that, Ravenloft is a good book with some point of eccellence. Sure there are some hypocritical and non sense concessions to sensitivity issue but nothing we can cope with some common sense.

In regard to "this cannot be included regardless could be consensual" this is undoubtfully a censorship approach.  Wotc is simply trying to find a balance considering its customers wide base.


----------



## imagineGod (May 26, 2021)

Page 190 "Ask Permission" is a great update to play styles, but also means that rules mechanics are no longer canon in play.

I quote:
"Players put considerable thought and investment into their characters. Don't impose rules on characters that might make players not want to play them anymore". 

To me the above, while a great acceptance of consent also nerfs those old fashioned spells like Charm Person and Feeble Mind, especially, Feeble Mind, which is curse-type spell  that lasts beyond the single encounter for up to 30 days on a failed saving throw. 

For a game like Ravenloft that includes curses (Page 192), this updated WoTC advice basically removes all the unwanted horror. Every Player is now in full control of what fantasy horror to voluntarily experience, which is a good thing, but definitely removes the full extent of horror, since horror is experiencing things that scare, shock or thrill. Br default, 5e Ravenloft is horror light done right focused on the thrill.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (May 26, 2021)

Minigiant said:


> Just watched the video review of VRGR by DungeonCraft and he says the book doesn't go far enough to escape heroic fantasy and doesn't itself give the tools to really invoke fear in the players.



This is an intrinsic problem with D&D, as DungeonCraft pointed out. Probably less so with 1/2e as characters were more fragile. 

D&D characters are, on the whole, heroic and 5e more than any previous edition. This is an issue with the horror genre in D&D.


----------



## Minigiant (May 26, 2021)

Helldritch said:


> I just finished reading the book my self this evening. After about 6 read through, I too agree with PDM of dungeoncraft. It is almost as if I would have made the vid myself...
> 
> But, contrary to PDM, I still do like the book. It just did not went far enough on the horror genre as character in 5ed are on the super heroe side .
> 
> ...




I agree. I looked at my friend's copy and liked what I saw. My only gripe is like yours and PDM, it doesn't do far enough.

It plays a bit too safe and relies on the DM to create the horror. I get it's a book tilted more for a younger audience but that's exactly why you need the tools. *They are new to D&D.*


----------



## imagineGod (May 26, 2021)

Also, removing the alignment from the stat blocks, leaves monsters like the  Relentless Killer (Page 242) without guidance on its moral outlook The text just says Relentless killers are hateful, revenge obsessed creatures. 

Yet, by skipping alignment in the stat block, nothing to say if the above are lawfully good actions. Basically, 5e since Tasha's  encourages all rules to be read subjectively. 

The good news is that no more rules lawyers arguments. Everything is subjective now, and even that Relentless Killer could basically be a lawful good paladin in training, if your table so chooses.


----------



## Kodiak3D (May 26, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> there are plenty of older gamers who also want the game to be more inclusive



This.


----------



## Delazar (May 26, 2021)

I would love a one-shot scenario for each domain, a 30-something sessions campaign through Ravenloft!


----------



## wicked cool (May 26, 2021)

Any mention of Soth (Dragonlance) Domain. At one point in the novels he got his own domain?

If you were a new DM and you were running Curse of Strahd  does this book enhance the base adventure in any way other than removing stereotypes. If it does what information do you wish was included in curse


----------



## imagineGod (May 26, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> Any mention of Soth (Dragonlance) Domain. At one point in the novels he got his own domain?
> 
> If you were a new DM and you were running Curse of Strahd  does this book enhance the base adventure in any way other than removing stereotypes. If it does what information do you wish was included in curse



Two obvious enhancements, dhampir lineage and Dark Gifts.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 26, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> Any mention of Soth (Dragonlance) Domain. At one point in the novels he got his own domain?



Kinda...


wicked cool said:


> If you were a new DM and you were running Curse of Strahd  does this book enhance the base adventure in any way other than removing stereotypes.



Yes. The fear and stress rules are useful, and dark gifts, and there are places where new monsters could be used (such as carionettes).


----------



## Delazar (May 26, 2021)

did anyone notice the mention of Estavan, the ogre mage merchant from Sigil? Planescape confirmed!


----------



## Remathilis (May 26, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> Any mention of Soth (Dragonlance) Domain. At one point in the novels he got his own domain?
> 
> If you were a new DM and you were running Curse of Strahd does this book enhance the base adventure in any way other than removing stereotypes. If it does what information do you wish was included in curse



Page 170. 

Also, in addition to what the others have said, most of the Barovia stuff is 100% usable in CoS. If you're looking for more plot hooks, it will help.


----------



## Shardstone (May 26, 2021)

I'm amazed no one has talked about the absolutely stellar Survivor Rules. Tht gives you a 2E feel to play Ravenloft with, and is, IMO, the best way to play this supplement. Use ALL the optional rules + Dark Gifts for your Survivors and you have a good trilogy (three-shot) or potentially a 10-shot going on.


----------



## Tonguez (May 26, 2021)

Delazar said:


> I would love a one-shot scenario for each domain, a 30-something sessions campaign through Ravenloft!



The adventures already exist, the Mordent adventures list explicitly mentions bog hounds of Wescote Manor ie the Howls in the Night Module


----------



## Voadam (May 26, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> The* Some *adventures already exist, the Mordent adventures list explicitly mentions bog hounds of Wescote Manor ie the Howls in the Night Module



There are a lot of domains. I can't think of any modules specifically set in Dementlieu, Richemulot, or Forlorn for example.


----------



## Faolyn (May 26, 2021)

Minigiant said:


> Meh.
> The monster they sampled from for it is too weak to invoke isn't that scary. Especially how it usually will be used (solo).



Don't have it go 1vParty. A monster like this climbs out when it's alone with one one person, or _maybe_ two.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 26, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> Actually, while I still wouldn't have liked many of the actual changes they made, I would have been happier if they had provided explanations that advanced the world rather than rewrote it, thank you.



The Darkon section explicitly says there was a big event that no one can remember.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 26, 2021)

Remathilis said:


> Basically, the people trying to discuss the content of said books are drowned out by the people who want to complain about WotC's moves towards inclusivity. I suspect this will be the case for all books coming in 2021 and possibly beyond.



At some point, for everyone's sake, I hope these people discover the OSR movement and grab the PDFs of the versions of D&D they like, combine the two and create the game of their dreams.


----------



## Morrus (May 26, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Also, removing the alignment from the stat blocks, leaves monsters like the  Relentless Killer (Page 242) without guidance on its moral outlook The text just says Relentless killers are hateful, revenge obsessed creatures.



What?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 26, 2021)

Morrus said:


> What?



Morrus, you know there are tons of Neutral Good hateful, revenge-obsessed creatures.


----------



## Shadowedeyes (May 26, 2021)

Yah, that whole thing is a bit confusing.


----------



## Azzy (May 26, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Also, removing the alignment from the stat blocks, leaves monsters like the  Relentless Killer (Page 242) without guidance on its moral outlook The text just says Relentless killers are hateful, revenge obsessed creatures.
> 
> Yet, by skipping alignment in the stat block, nothing to say if the above are lawfully good actions. Basically, 5e since Tasha's  encourages all rules to be read subjectively.
> 
> The good news is that no more rules lawyers arguments. Everything is subjective now, and even that Relentless Killer could basically be a lawful good paladin in training, if your table so chooses.



If you can get "lawful good" out of the description of the relentless killer, you must have expertise in acrobatics.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 26, 2021)

Azzy said:


> If you can get "lawful good" out of the description of the relentless killer, you must have expertise in acrobatics.



Minor correction: Expertise in Intelligence (Acrobatics) checks.


----------



## Tonguez (May 26, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The Darkon section explicitly says there was a big event that no one can remember.




Yeah the book is full of nods to old Ravenloft progressed on to a contemporary state.
New Darkon is quite explicit about it and allows for Azalin to still be a factor. I think the ‘new’ look of Darkon is my favourite domain, in my mind it works as a mini-Core, provides a choice of different Darklords and adventure sites and allows PCs to fully immerse themselves and aim to instal/become the new Darklord. 

I’ve used Mordent a lot in the past but in the new future would be happy to be based in Darkon and do a campaign there


----------



## imagineGod (May 26, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Minor correction: Expertise in Intelligence (Acrobatics) checks.



No need to be sarcastic.. 

The situation with modern 5e since Tasha's, is the obvious shirking of responsibility by Wizards of the Coast to call out that Relentless Killer as evil, by offering a wink and a nod to edgy Dungeon  Masters to label that creature Lawful Good, since no alignment guidance exists on creature stat blocks nowadays.


----------



## BookTenTiger (May 26, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> No need to be sarcastic..
> 
> The situation with modern 5e since Tasha's, is the obvious shirking of responsibility by Wizards of the Coast to call out that Relentless Killer as evil, by offering a wink and a nod to edgy Dungeon  Masters to label that creature Lawful Good, since no alignment guidance exists on creature stat blocks nowadays.



So you think DMs will make Relentless Killers lawful good and then... what?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 26, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> No need to be sarcastic..
> 
> The situation with modern 5e since Tasha's, is the obvious shirking of responsibility by Wizards of the Coast to call out that Relentless Killer as evil, by offering a wink and a nod to edgy Dungeon  Masters to label that creature Lawful Good, since no alignment guidance exists on creature stat blocks nowadays.



I am a strong believer that sarcasm is warranted when the other side of the argument is being purposefully dense (like not being able to tell just that Relentless Killers are supposed to be evil because it doesn't have two words explicitly describing it as "chaotic/neutral evil"). 

Also, I don't think it's correct to call it a "responsibility" for WotC to give monsters alignments. Just the opposite, in fact. It's their job to listen to the community, and they have here.


----------



## Faolyn (May 26, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> No need to be sarcastic..
> 
> The situation with modern 5e since Tasha's, is the obvious shirking of responsibility by Wizards of the Coast to call out that Relentless Killer as evil, by offering a wink and a nod to edgy Dungeon  Masters to label that creature Lawful Good, since no alignment guidance exists on creature stat blocks nowadays.



There is no "wink and nod," nor did they shirk any responsibility because the writers did a good job explaining how evil the Relentless Killer is. Any DM will look at the creature's description and realize that. Nobody is going to play the Relentless Killer as good just because there's no line that says "Alignment: Chaotic Evil". And any DM "edgy" enough to do that probably also does some awful things to their players anyway that putting an alignment there wouldn't mean anything.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 26, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> The situation with modern 5e since Tasha's, is the obvious shirking of responsibility by Wizards of the Coast to call out that Relentless Killer as evil, by offering a wink and a nod to edgy Dungeon  Masters to label that creature Lawful Good, since no alignment guidance exists on creature stat blocks nowadays.



What a weird strawman.

Easy solution: Don't play with edgelord DMs.

No one has alignment labels on their foreheads in real life. You can still tell the good guys from the bad guys.

Alignment in D&D is moving away from being rigid codes of behavior to a descriptor for outsiders, undead and the like.


----------



## cmad1977 (May 26, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> No need to be sarcastic..
> 
> The situation with modern 5e since Tasha's, is the obvious shirking of responsibility by Wizards of the Coast to call out that Relentless Killer as evil, by offering a wink and a nod to edgy Dungeon Masters to label that creature Lawful Good, since no alignment guidance exists on creature stat blocks nowadays.




When “hot takes” go wrong…


----------



## imagineGod (May 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> What a weird strawman.
> 
> Easy solution: Don't play with edgelord DMs.
> 
> ...



Reality alert, Dungeons and Dragons is a game not real life. 

Besides, no one in real life has Hit Points or Character Class levels either. Other games do not have those, so is D&D moving away from both those unreal options too? Why stop at alignment if you are trying to be simulationist instead of just a game?

Alignment was a simple game too in a most star block to help guide DMs. 

What a strawman argument to compare D&D to real life. Seriously, even WoTC still considers D&D just a game.


----------



## imagineGod (May 27, 2021)

Let us even assume that Character Class Levels are years of experience in a profession and Hit Points are health and well being. Has anyone in real life trained in the cleric profession sudden gained more health with more years of study and life experiences so that a Level 5 cleric has more than double the health of a level 1? "Or has an injured fighter with only 1 HP just as health in combat as a non-" injured 10 HP fighter?


Other games do not use this system, because if you are looking at real life for examples, D&D does not make sense. So removing alignment just makes the DM's job harder on the fly (glancing up a stat block), yet still does not bring  D&D any closer to real life simulation.


----------



## Mecheon (May 27, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Why stop at alignment if you are trying to be simulationist instead of just a game?



HP serves the function of how long your characters can continue to fight. Character class levels serve the purpose of abstracting your various experience in your class.

Alignment served the purpose of making thousands upon thousands of complain posts of some DM mis-interpreting to screw over players because they're not playing the alignment the way they think it should be. Or edgelord players using "Its my alignment!" to screw over the party and end up on r/rpghorrorstories because their True Neutral character decided you needed an artibary act of dickishness today to fulfil their view of 'balance'. Or my own complaining posts about Dragonlance morality and how killing the gods and shattering their thrones is the morally good choice in Dragonlance and their so-called 'goodness', given they have as much 'good' to them as one could ascribe morality to your choice in Team Fortress 2 team.

Alignment has had its time and I welcome its funeral.


----------



## Faolyn (May 27, 2021)

Mecheon said:


> Alignment served the purpose of making thousands upon thousands of complain posts of some DM mis-interpreting to screw over players because they're not playing the alignment the way they think it should be. Or edgelord players using "Its my alignment!" to screw over the party and end up on r/rpghorrorstories because their True Neutral character decided you needed an artibary act of dickishness today to fulfil their view of 'balance'. Or my own complaining posts about Dragonlance morality and how killing the gods and shattering their thrones is the morally good choice in Dragonlance and their so-called 'goodness', given they have as much 'good' to them as one could ascribe morality to your choice in Team Fortress 2 team.



Also, it allowed PCs to kill creatures without risking their own alignment changing, even if those creatures weren't actually doing anything wrong.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I am a strong believer that sarcasm is warranted when the other side of the argument is being purposefully dense (like not being able to tell just that Relentless Killers are supposed to be evil because it doesn't have two words explicitly describing it as "chaotic/neutral evil").
> 
> Also, I don't think it's correct to call it a "responsibility" for WotC to give monsters alignments. Just the opposite, in fact. It's their job to listen to the community, and they have here.



Correct me if I am wrong, but way back when were you not advocating for more crunch and options content, and contending if people didn't want those things all they had to do was not use it?


----------



## lexpo (May 27, 2021)

brimmels said:


> Now that you've had time to read my review of Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, and the book officially arrived in game stores on May 18, it's time to take a look at what other RPG reviewers thought of this guide to horror.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i just can agree with this decision to not give dark lord stats and the fact they did´t give very domain at lest two or three pages of info, In the end dnd is a table top RPG where you play classes with abilities build primarily around confrontation, the games aspect of dnd is build mainly around combat/dungeon crawling and interacting with creatures by using you stats/ability´s against the creatures stats/ability's, RPG is great and is the main reason i play dnd But the game is not mainly build around RP. Strahd is cr 15 But it is No problem to start cures of Strahd at lv1 and if you wanted the dark lords to work for any lv of player party there is a much better solution then no stats,  that being scalable stats, like in tashas they introduce the new type of summon monster spells, this creatures Scale depending on the lv of spell you summon them with, so i think That if you want Dark Lords for any lv then why not try to something in a similar concept to That, where you Have a low lv base stat with basic abilities for the different Dark lords That you then Have ways to Scale up depending on the players lv and grupp Size. I sincerely think That this type of mentality in monster design would not only be much friendlier to new DM But also created something for high level and low lv groups to enjoy. I think this type of monster designee could be good to try in a upcoming book, like instead of creating 4 types of dragons at different ages why not try to create one and then give DMs the Tool’s and instructions for how to scale the dragons Hp/Size/Damage depending on the players lv and Size of their party. the entire Idea of the domains and their Dark lords is That you can Have an entire adventure build around one domain and its lord even if they are strong. what they did in this book, to offer potential stats for some of the Dark lord by directing folk to monsters in the monster Manuel make it so you can beat them up with eas ends up make their argument fall flat right when it comes to the lets not give dark lords stat idea. 

in the end This is how i see it, in the Ravnica setting book you get the stats for the guild masters as the setting is build around the guilds and their guild master, Having them Have stats help massively when it come to understand what they can do and how they act, If a character is essential to a setting like Dark lords and their domains then giving them stats make just sens as it is better to give them the option for proper confrontation as most tools the players have is spells and ability's that need the dm to know a monsters stats to know if the thing the player try will work. 

i Have to say this entire problem feels more like it was born from they being rushed and didn't get to finish the book the way they wanted or That WotC wanted the book to stay at a certain page count in order to keep the price with in a certain range and as such they was forced to scrap Dark lords.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 27, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but way back when were you not advocating for more crunch and options content, and contending if people didn't want those things all they had to do was not use it?



Sure, I always advocate for more content in D&D. However, IMHO, "alignment" is a whole different matter. I have already ignored alignment in my campaigns way before this change was made, so I did exactly what I have recommended others to do. However, I still am pleased to see this change made. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, if that's what you are trying to paint me as.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Sure, I always advocate for more content in D&D. However, IMHO, "alignment" is a whole different matter. I have already ignored alignment in my campaigns way before this change was made, so I did exactly what I have recommended others to do. However, I still am pleased to see this change made. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, if that's what you are trying to paint me as.



Alignment isn't a whole different matter. It's just content you personally didn't happen to like, for a variety of reasons which are essentially the same reasons others didn't like content you did like.

Most made arguments that the impact additional content they didn't want (like some subclasses, spells, etc.) in the game had on their games was negative because it changed the culture of the game, changed player expectations about how the game worked or should work, change their expectations about what other players might choose to use, expectations about possible NPCs which might use those things, etc..

Most importantly, every time some new ability was introduced in expansion material it pigeon holed that type of ability to requiring that thing. So before a PC or NPC could try that thing with a skill check or tool use or some other ability, but now they would be "stepping on the toes" of that new material and that wouldn't be fair. So new content constrained behaviors for those who didn't choose that content.  It reduced the flexibility of players and DMs, and forced them into a more narrow range of behavior, simply because that other content existed. 

Those are the identical reasons you have for wanting alignment out. It's just now the shoe is on the other foot, so suddenly your reasons are "special" relative to their reasons for not wanting additional content which you told them they could simply ignore.

So yeah, pretty hypocritical. You should just ignore alignment like you always did and not worry about content others might like which you are ignoring. It's not like alignment was hurting your games because it existed, right?


----------



## BookTenTiger (May 27, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> So yeah, pretty hypocritical. You should just ignore alignment like you always did and not worry about content others might like which you are ignoring. It's not like alignment was hurting your games because it existed, right?



Why are you making this personal? It's not like @AcererakTriple6 works at WotC and personally struck out alignment.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

BookTenTiger said:


> Why are you making this personal? It's not like @AcererakTriple6 works at WotC and personally struck out alignment.



I am not making it personal. He's one of the guys for years who has championed "just ignore content you don't like because I like additional content." I am responding to his argument. It's not like what he said to others here, for years, happened in a vacuum. How better to persuade him to reconsider his position than to remind him that when the shoe was on the other foot, he agreed with the dissenting view?


----------



## Mecheon (May 27, 2021)

lexpo said:


> If a character is essential to a setting like Dark lords and their domains then giving them stats make just sens as it is better to give them the option for proper confrontation as most tools the players have is spells and ability's that need the dm to know a monsters stats to know if the thing the player try will work.



This ties into a problem I have with Ravenloft and how its been presented in the past as "Kill the Dark Lord to escape!"

Like, no, the horror is these things going on. Just killing the person shouldn't be stopping the problem. The goal should be resolving whatever caused it in the first place so the train of suffering doesn't continue. Some of them are combat encouters like ol' Strahd. Others, shouldn't be that

Pardon me terribly mis-quoting from Bogleech, but while you could have just, y'know, killed the baby from Eraserhead, it wouldn't have made it good horror. Mind, I like my horror more Silent Hill-esque


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 27, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> Alignment isn't a whole different matter. It's just content you personally didn't happen to like, for a variety of reasons which are essentially the same reasons others didn't like content you did like.



Alignment already is practically nonexistent in 5e. Taking out 1-2 words from every stat block is by no means the same thing as me advocating for a Psion class, more Class Feature Variants, or a Customize Your Origin system. Those are mechanical, while alignment only has a handful of mechanics attached to it throughout the whole game.


Mistwell said:


> Most made arguments that the impact additional content they didn't want (like some subclasses, spells, etc.) in the game had on their games was negative because it changed the culture of the game, changed player expectations about how the game worked or should work, change their expectations about what other players might choose to use, expectations about possible NPCs which might use those things, etc..



I don't remember those arguments. They may have been made, but I don't remember partaking in a discussion where those arguments were made (feel free to correct me if you can find an example of someone saying that when I was actively participating in that same discussion. A better example would be of me responding to someone saying that, if you can). 

I feel that Alignment has a negative impact on the game, primarily due to its oversimplification of a complicated topic. I feel that it doesn't have a place in most D&D campaigns, barring Planescape because it depends on alignment (I even championed to continue to include alignment in the game in Planescape material). I feel the same way about this that I feel about including the Piety system from Mythic Odysseys of Theros or the Survivor mechanics from Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft in other campaigns that don't take place in those settings. Include alignment in Planescape, but not by default outside of it. Include the Piety system in Theros, but not by default outside of it. Include Survivors in Ravenloft, but not by default in other campaign settings. 

It's one thing to include Class Feature Variants or Customize Your Origin mechanics in an optional book (TCoE), and another to include alignment in every book that contains deities, racial stats, and/or monster stat blocks. One is systematic, alignment, and another is optional, CFVs/Customize-Your-Origin (or, at least, it Customize Your Origin was supposed to be optional. I never advocated for it to not be optional in 5e). 


Mistwell said:


> Most importantly, every time some new ability was introduced in expansion material it pigeon holed that type of ability to requiring that thing. So before a PC or NPC could try that thing with a skill check or tool use or some other ability, but now they would be "stepping on the toes" of that new material and that wouldn't be fair. So new content constrained behaviors for those who didn't choose that content.  It reduced the flexibility of players and DMs, and forced them into a more narrow range of behavior, simply because that other content existed.



I never advocated for anything to be pigeonholed in anything else or to take away the power of the DM to allow or disallow whatever content they want in their campaigns. I don't allow the official Kenku at my table, I don't allow Piety in my Eberron campaigns, and I don't allow Order of the Scribes Wizards at any of my campaigns. 

I have no idea what you're talking about for the "stepping on the toes of new material" or "skill checks", so I'm going to ignore that as I am certain I had no part in any discussion about that. 


Mistwell said:


> Those are the identical reasons you have for wanting alignment out. It's just now the shoe is on the other foot, so suddenly your reasons are "special" relative to their reasons for not wanting additional content which you told them they could simply ignore.



Like I addressed above, alignment is different from Class Feature Variants, Customize Your Origin mechanics, and new subclasses. Any DM that doesn't want mechanics from Tasha's doesn't have to buy that book, but alignment was automatically a part of practically every D&D 5e book before Candlekeep Mysteries. I didn't advocate for the removal of alignment in 5e, I wanted that in a 5.5e/6e, but I'm not particularly upset that the direction shift came early. My reasons for disliking alignment are mainly because it's a pervasive system that was included in every D&D 5e book whether or not I wanted it. I couldn't just not buy the books with alignment included in it, because every book had alignment included. However, the people who don't want to use the content in Tasha's can just not buy/use Tasha's. It's a different situation. There's a difference between pulling out weeds sprinkled throughout a field and making a fence between an area containing all weeds and an area containing the field. 


Mistwell said:


> So yeah, pretty hypocritical. You should just ignore alignment like you always did and not worry about content others might like which you are ignoring. It's not like alignment was hurting your games because it existed, right?



Excuse me, but as I said above, I never advocated for this change. My being happy because of it didn't motivate WotC to make it, and I don't work for WotC and personally make this change. Stop attacking me over something I never did or advocated for. Sure, I don't like alignment. I have never hidden my dislike for it. However, I didn't ask for this, and it's not hypocritical for me to embrace a change that I like even if I didn't ask for it. If someone you know gives you ice cream without you asking, you eat the goddam ice cream. 

Are we done here, or must I move on from proving that I'm not a D&D-book-burner to not being a Hypocritical Alignment-Destroyer?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 27, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> I am not making it personal.



Yeah, you are. You're going after me to try to call me a hypocrite. That's the definition of "making it personal". 


Mistwell said:


> He's one of the guys for years who has championed "just ignore content you don't like because I like additional content." I am responding to his argument. It's not like what he said to others here, for years, happened in a vacuum.



The "other guys" were advocating to not add something to D&D because they didn't like it, and I was advocating for eventually removing a vestigial "system" from D&D sometime in the future. Big difference. I personally didn't like Dhampir before Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft came out, most likely due to my burning hatred for Twilight, but I never advocated for them to never be added to D&D because I didn't like them. If I had advocated for them to not be added, that would have made me a hypocrite. However, I didn't do that.


----------



## Shadowedeyes (May 27, 2021)

Yay, another debate on Alignment! Even when it's gone, the mechanic still ends up doing what it always did, which is cause people to argue over it.

Really, though, do we need it for the Relentless Killer? It pretty much describes what it does in the description.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 27, 2021)

Shadowedeyes said:


> Yay, another debate on Alignment! Even when it's gone, the mechanic still ends up doing what it always did, which is cause people to argue over it.
> 
> Really, though, do we need it for the Relentless Killer? It pretty much describes what it does in the description *name*.



Fixed that for you.


----------



## Pauper (May 27, 2021)

Voadam said:


> There are a lot of domains. I can't think of any modules specifically set in Dementlieu, Richemulot, or Forlorn for example.



Castles Forlorn was an adventure box set published in 1993 and focused entirely on the domain of Forlorn, particularly the time-entangled Castle Tristenoira.

I'm not aware of any TSR or SSS published adventures set in Dementlieu or Richemulot, but that doesn't mean a DM couldn't set adventures there -- a number of monster-hunting expeditions described in the Van Richten's Guides, for instance, are set in Dementlieu, including the hunt for the fiend Drigor recounted in Van Richten's Guide to Fiends as well as the discovery of a pair of 'baatezu' in Chateaufaux added to Van Richten's Monster Hunter's Compendium vol. III.

--
Pauper


----------



## Faolyn (May 27, 2021)

For what it's worth, the Fraternity of Shadows has tons of plot hooks. Even if they're specifically for the older-style domains, probably all can be used for the new edition with a few tweaks.


----------



## Espadadelaaurora (May 27, 2021)

Does anybody else miss the old Ravenloft logo? Back in the day it looked really cool and even nowadays I think it's awesome.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 27, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Also, it allowed PCs to kill creatures without risking their own alignment changing, even if those creatures weren't actually doing anything wrong.



It never _actually_ did that. Using it as a "kill me" flag was just as much an abuse as using it as a "be a jerk" flag. But that both of those abuses not only existed, but where fairly common, is a reason to get rid of it. I never saw that kind of behaviour in _Traveller_, or _Trek_, or any of the other RPGs I played that got by just fine without alignment.


----------



## Azzy (May 27, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> No need to be sarcastic..
> 
> The situation with modern 5e since Tasha's, is the obvious shirking of responsibility by Wizards of the Coast to call out that Relentless Killer as evil, by offering a wink and a nod to edgy Dungeon  Masters to label that creature Lawful Good, since no alignment guidance exists on creature stat blocks nowadays.



Holy mother of unrealistic scenarios, Batman!

Most TTRPGs don't even have alignments and don't have this issue. This is beyond silly.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 27, 2021)

Isn't a lawful good relentless killer just your typical player character paladin?

Seriously, the relentless killer doesn't need an alignment. It kills, relentlessly, is reason enough for the PCs to kill it.


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 27, 2021)

BookTenTiger said:


> So you think DMs will make Relentless Killers lawful good and then... what?



$$$PROFIT!


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 27, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Also, it allowed PCs to kill creatures without risking their own alignment changing, even if those creatures weren't actually doing anything wrong.



In two of my games, a so-called “lawful good” character executed an enemy prisoner who was unarmed, on the reasoning that leaving an evil creature alive led to an overall increase of evil the the world.

I don’t play with alignment any more (when I DM).

Hey, I found @imagineGod ‘s lawful good Relentless Killer!


----------



## Voadam (May 27, 2021)

Pauper said:


> Castles Forlorn was an adventure box set published in 1993 and focused entirely on the domain of Forlorn, particularly the time-entangled Castle Tristenoira.



Yeah I flipped Forlorn and Keening in my head. There are adventures in some domains.

There are also probably a couple in Dungeon magazine that I am not familiar with that could be in other domains.



> I'm not aware of any TSR or SSS published adventures set in Dementlieu or Richemulot,



me either, or in Hazlan, or Keening, or a lot of island domains.



> but that doesn't mean a DM couldn't set adventures there -- a number of monster-hunting expeditions described in the Van Richten's Guides, for instance, are set in Dementlieu, including the hunt for the fiend Drigor recounted in Van Richten's Guide to Fiends as well as the discovery of a pair of 'baatezu' in Chateaufaux added to Van Richten's Monster Hunter's Compendium vol. III.




Well yeah, you can set your own adventures in the ravenloft D&D adventure setting.   

We had been discussing existing adventures to conceptually explore the 30 or so current domains in one campaign though.

A number of the old published adventures would not be consistent with the current campaign setting either, like the Cat of Falkovnic from Dungeon involving the former Baron darklord of Verbrek or the Darkon adventures involving Azalin's then active schemes for the Grand Conjunction and pre-Necropolis shenanigans.


----------



## Alzrius (May 27, 2021)

Pauper said:


> I'm not aware of any TSR or SSS published adventures set in Dementlieu or Richemulot, but that doesn't mean a DM couldn't set adventures there -- a number of monster-hunting expeditions described in the Van Richten's Guides, for instance, are set in Dementlieu, including the hunt for the fiend Drigor recounted in Van Richten's Guide to Fiends as well as the discovery of a pair of 'baatezu' in Chateaufaux added to Van Richten's Monster Hunter's Compendium vol. III.



The baatezu in Chateaufaux are a reference to "The Taskmaster's Leash," an adventure from _Chilling Tales_ (affiliate link). Likewise, while not technically an adventure (it's more like an extended adventure hook), "The Cult of Simon Audaire," from _Dragon_ #264, is set in Richemulot.

EDIT: Also, _The Beast Within_, one of the Adventurer's Guild modules, was set in Dementlieu as well.


----------



## Alzrius (May 27, 2021)

Voadam said:


> me either, or in Hazlan, or Keening, or a lot of island domains.



Actually, a fair amount of _Servants of Darkness_ (affiliate link) takes place in Keening. In fact, it ends with a face-to-face encounter with Tristessa.


----------



## Voadam (May 27, 2021)

Alzrius said:


> Actually, a fair amount of _Servants of Darkness_ (affiliate link) takes place in Keening. In fact, it ends with a face-to-face encounter with Tristessa.



Huh, I got that module, started reading it and didn't really care for the Celtic witch hunting inquisition that much and put it aside before finishing it. I might go back to it to see how they deal with Tristessa.

I am sure there are others I am not aware of too.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It never _actually_ did that. Using it as a "kill me" flag was just as much an abuse as using it as a "be a jerk" flag. But that both of those abuses not only existed, but where fairly common, is a reason to get rid of it. I never saw that kind of behaviour in _Traveller_, or _Trek_, or any of the other RPGs I played that got by just fine without alignment.



It wasn't an "abuse," that's just a "badwrongfun" kind of response. People LIKED that kind of play. Some still do like that kind of play. Nobody was forcing you to play like that, but there was no rule being broken to play like that and it was not abusing anything about the game to play like that.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

Shadowedeyes said:


> Yay, another debate on Alignment! Even when it's gone, the mechanic still ends up doing what it always did, which is cause people to argue over it.
> 
> Really, though, do we need it for the Relentless Killer? It pretty much describes what it does in the description.



It's literally TWO CHARACTERS. A "CE" or a "LE" or a "NE" in a stat block. It was a helpful tool to help DMs make on-the-fly decisions about how an NPC might react. The "E" was obvious from "relentless killer" but not the L, N, or C. 

DMs never had to follow it, but it had its uses and didn't take up a lot of space. It changed that killer from "The L might mean they belong to an assassins guild and therefore have a set of rules they need to follow on who they can kill, how they can kill them, and what other rules they need to follow while pursuing their target" to "The C might mean they are looking to cause as much chaos as possible in the population, killing everyone in sight, setting fires, little regard for city guard eing called, while in pursuit of their target," etc..

Two littler characters which could serve to carry a heavy load in the toolbasket of experienced DMs working on the fly with an NPC, if the DM wanted to use it. And no harm to anyone if people didn't want to use it.


----------



## Shadowedeyes (May 27, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> It's literally TWO CHARACTERS. A "CE" or a "LE" or a "NE" in a stat block. It was a helpful tool to help DMs make on-the-fly decisions about how an NPC might react. The "E" was obvious from "relentless killer" but not the L, N, or C.
> 
> DMs never had to follow it, but it had its uses and didn't take up a lot of space. It changed that killer from "The L might mean they belong to an assassins guild and therefore have a set of rules they need to follow on who they can kill, how they can kill them, and what other rules they need to follow while pursuing their target" to "The C might mean they are looking to cause as much chaos as possible in the population, killing everyone in sight, setting fires, little regard for city guard eing called, while in pursuit of their target," etc..
> 
> Two littler characters which could serve to carry a heavy load in the toolbasket of experienced DMs working on the fly with an NPC, if the DM wanted to use it. And no harm to anyone if people didn't want to use it.



I feel like the alignment discussion is going slightly off topic, but as a tool, alignment had issues. Could WotC tried to fix them? Maybe, sure. But we've had 5 editions of D&D now, and alignment and what it means hasn't been clear in any of them. 3rd edition had Zeus as Chaotic Good, and a Dragon magazine article on how killing drow children wasn't evil, so I feel like I'm being pretty generous when I say that. Frankly, I don't blame WotC for coming to the conclusion that removing alignment is for the best.

I'm not gleeful it was removed or anything, but it was a mess. The writers and editors didn't seem to have a clue what alignment meant, so it's no surprise it was a contentious issue in the fanbase.


----------



## Stormonu (May 27, 2021)

I’ll keep alignments in my game, but quite honestly it’s caused arguments since it was included.  A lot of it is generally on the player’s side and getting upset about being “limited” in some form or fashion with their play style.  I think DM’s like having it as a tool - just like having monster types or spell schools.

Outside of D&D and d20 products, I can’t think of a modern role playing game that does use alignments or a similar morality system.


----------



## Cadence (May 27, 2021)

FrozenNorth said:


> In two of my games, a so-called “lawful good” character executed an enemy prisoner who was unarmed, on the reasoning that leaving an evil creature alive led to an overall increase of evil the the world.
> 
> I don’t play with alignment any more (when I DM).
> 
> Hey, I found @imagineGod ‘s lawful good Relentless Killer!



It feels like there are alignment cosmologies where that would be the right play (like some Gygaxian ones).  If being "evil" is embracing evil, and alignment is set up to be really hard to change, why is the evil human or orc much different than the demon, devil, or evil aberration? 

The obvious thing is to not play in a game with straight-jacket alignments

But then you get things like in the real world where there have been plenty of those enslaving others, killing people for heresy, and committing genocide who would think they were lawful good.


----------



## Cadence (May 27, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> The "other guys" were advocating to not add something to D&D because they didn't like it, and I was advocating for eventually removing a vestigial "system" from D&D sometime in the future.




So, after alignment is gone, and someone proposes adding an alignment system for more variety in play...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 27, 2021)

5E already has a replacement set of stats that better explain personalities: Ideals/Bonds/Flaws and, now, in Ravenloft campaigns, Fears. While they're imperfect, they much better simulate real personalities than trying to split hairs on whether someone is Neutral or Lawful Neutral because they pay their taxes.

I still think the best personality system in RPGs was the oWoD's nature/demeanor system, which actually has a basis in psychology.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 27, 2021)

Cadence said:


> So, after alignment is gone, and someone proposes adding an alignment system for more variety in play...



I would then recommend adding more specific alignment mechanics in an optional book (probably Planescape), instead of the base game.


----------



## Faolyn (May 27, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> It's literally TWO CHARACTERS. A "CE" or a "LE" or a "NE" in a stat block. It was a helpful tool to help DMs make on-the-fly decisions about how an NPC might react. The "E" was obvious from "relentless killer" but not the L, N, or C.
> 
> DMs never had to follow it, but it had its uses and didn't take up a lot of space. It changed that killer from "The L might mean they belong to an assassins guild and therefore have a set of rules they need to follow on who they can kill, how they can kill them, and what other rules they need to follow while pursuing their target" to "The C might mean they are looking to cause as much chaos as possible in the population, killing everyone in sight, setting fires, little regard for city guard eing called, while in pursuit of their target," etc..



Since the Relentless Killer is pretty much designed to be either a serial killer or a slasher movie-style killer, the only real choice you need to make is between "Kill everyone it comes across" or "Kill only certain people, such as people who are outside at midnight*, or groups of partying teenagers". And _that_ is up to the DM because that's part of the plot.

(* i.e., the Midnight Slasher)

But if you stuck an alignment up there, you _lose _that choice--because if all Relentless Killers are CE, so you'd have to make changes, possibly even a new statblock, to have a Relentless Killer who is LE and kills by a strict set of rules.

Now, Relentless Killers are fiends, which in D&D terms means that they're pretty much made out of creature-shaped capital-E Evil. But by bringing back those "two characters" you would also be making _all _elves Good and _all _orcs Evil.


----------



## Faolyn (May 27, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but way back when were you not advocating for more crunch and options content, and contending if people didn't want those things all they had to do was not use it?



Alignment isn't crunch; it's a restriction on roleplaying.


----------



## Faolyn (May 27, 2021)

FrozenNorth said:


> In two of my games, a so-called “lawful good” character executed an enemy prisoner who was unarmed, on the reasoning that leaving an evil creature alive led to an overall increase of evil the the world.



Gygax would approve!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 27, 2021)

At this point, alignment mostly serves to tell us what sorts of spells certain types of unusual creatures are affected by. It might be better for them to stop calling it "alignment" entirely and make the spell be, say, "Protection from Fiends/Celestials/Undead" (or preferably something more succinct and punchy, or name it after a spellcasting NPC).

Alignment has never been a good tool for modeling behavior, as the memes where Batman fits in all nine spots on an alignment grid nicely underscore.


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 27, 2021)

Cadence said:


> It feels like there are alignment cosmologies where that would be the right play (like some Gygaxian ones).  If being "evil" is embracing evil, and alignment is set up to be really hard to change, why is the evil human or orc much different than the demon, devil, or evil aberration?



And that is ONE (of several) problems with alignment.  Each player has a different conception of what alignment means, to the point that one good-faith player could conclude that cultists are basically like demons (and therefore killing them even when they are defenseless is not an issue) with everyone else being horrified at what they consider is an Evil act.

Which is why I disagree with @Mistwell ‘s “it’s only two letters”.  It’s only two letters if you don’t bother to explain what Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral (Law-axis), Neutral (Good-axis), Good or Evil actually mean, but if you don’t, you just get even more pointless arguing.

Which brings us back to the Relentless Killer. Describing the creature as a hateful, revenge-obsessed relentless killer means that specifying that it is Evil is unnecessary, and there is really no benefit to limiting revenge-obsessed killers in Ravenloft  to the Chaotic (or Neutral or even Lawful) alignments.


----------



## Stefano Rinaldelli (May 27, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Let us even assume that Character Class Levels are years of experience in a profession and Hit Points are health and well being. Has anyone in real life trained in the cleric profession sudden gained more health with more years of study and life experiences so that a Level 5 cleric has more than double the health of a level 1? "Or has an injured fighter with only 1 HP just as health in combat as a non-" injured 10 HP fighter?
> 
> 
> Other games do not use this system, because if you are looking at real life for examples, D&D does not make sense. So removing alignment just makes the DM's job harder on the fly (glancing up a stat block), yet still does not bring  D&D any closer to real life simulation.



But remove all responsibility from wizard in expressing moral judgement over any ingame creature and so avoiding any rant by so called sensible readers.
And to be honest, leave the DM free to create a more complex narrative. Because in real life good and evil are viewpoint. And twisting the judgment and create complex situations is good storytelling that leads to fun and immersion


----------



## Voadam (May 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It might be better for them to stop calling it alignment entirely and make it, for instance, "Protection from Fiends/Celestials/Undead" (or preferably something more succinct and punchy, or name it after a spellcasting NPC).



Supernaturals might work as a term. 3e's types could have been outsider with a redesignation of fey to be a subtype of outsider.


----------



## Cadence (May 27, 2021)

FrozenNorth said:


> And that is ONE (of several) problems with alignment.  Each player has a different conception of what alignment means, to the point that one good-faith player could conclude that cultists are basically like demons (and therefore killing them even when they are defenseless is not an issue) with everyone else being horrified at what they consider is an Evil act.
> 
> Which is why I disagree with @Mistwell ‘s “it’s only two letters”.  It’s only two letters if you don’t bother to explain what Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral (Law-axis), Neutral (Good-axis), Good or Evil actually mean, but if you don’t, you just get even more pointless argument.
> 
> Which brings us back to the Relentless Killer. Describing the creature as a hateful, revenge-obsessed relentless killer means that specifying that it is Evil is unnecessary, and there is really no benefit to limiting revenge-obsessed killers in Ravenloft  to the Chaotic (or Neutral or even Lawful) alignments.




In that case, couldn't we still easily end up with some good-faith players killing the cultists as the the best solution to a bad dilemma (or maybe not?) to there way of thinking, while the rest are horrified and assume they could have found some way to feed/secure/redeem the cultists even if nothing in the game so far had indicated such would be doable?    And the player who did the needful (to their mind) could still argue they were on the side of law and justice and goodness or whatnot?


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 27, 2021)

Just to build on my previous argument, since Relentless killers don’t universally adhere to a single ethos, how would people who disagree with the removal of alignment from stat blocks feel if the designers had instead used the alignment “Any Evil” to identify Relentless Killers?

To me, who does not see a benefit to alignment, I would find that pointless in a “Captain Obvious” manner.

To quote Wednesday Addams, “I’m disguised as a serial killer.  They look just like the rest of us”.


----------



## Voadam (May 27, 2021)

Mostly monster alignment is a generalized DM characterization guideline tool. Most players are not able to know if the person or monster in front of them is Chaotic aligned or not, Paladins with at will detect evil being an exception throughout the editions. 3e had a lot of mechanical interactions for alignment with things like anarchic swords and cleric spells that interact differently on targets of different alignments, but 5e has a lot fewer.


----------



## Cadence (May 27, 2021)

Voadam said:


> Mostly monster alignment is a generalized DM characterization guideline tool. Most players are not able to know if the person or monster in front of them is Chaotic aligned or not, Paladins with at will detect evil being an exception throughout the editions. 3e had a lot of mechanical interactions for alignment with things like anarchic swords and cleric spells that interact differently on targets of different alignments, but 5e has a lot fewer.




How things have changed.  In B/X we had "Alignment shows whether the monster is Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. [---] The DM should be careful to play the alignment of each monster correctly."


----------



## Kurotowa (May 27, 2021)

And really, what even _is_ alignment? It started out as a copypaste from Moorecock of the cosmic forces of Law and Chaos and the people who tried to balance in between. Being Lawful meant you were aligned with Team Law, had common ground with other people and factions in Team Law, and even had your own secret Team Law code phrases (aka alignment tongue) you could use to identify and trade messages with other people on Team Law. It was really about what side of the cosmic struggle you fought for.

We've come a long way since then. The introduction of a Good vs Evil axis majorly confused things. The importance of Law and Chaos has heavily faded into the background. There's no more alignment tongues, alignment doesn't mean which cosmic faction you're aligned with anymore, and honestly it mostly gets used for Internet meme charts more than it does any beneficial game purpose. It's a vestige that does no real good and, in some people's hands, an appreciable amount of harm as it's applied to justify inborn moralistic evaluations. That some people are "born evil" and it's okay to kill them on sight and murder their children.

All that's left to justify alignment is that it's a concise personality test result, and that fails too because if you ask three people to define the difference between LG and CG you'll get six different answers. As Whizbang points out, if you want a concise personality summery for an important NPC it's better to have an Ideal/Bond/Flaw chart for them. Just putting LE on there doesn't give any really useful information.


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 27, 2021)

Cadence said:


> In that case, couldn't we still easily end up with some good-faith players killing the cultists as the the best solution to a bad dilemma (or maybe not?) to there way of thinking, while the rest are horrified and assume they could have found some way to feed/secure/redeem the cultists even if nothing in the game so far had indicated such would be doable?    And the player who did the needful (to their mind) could still argue they were on the side of law and justice and goodness or whatnot?



Setting up certain acts as objectively Good and Evil tends to erase nuance, not promote it, and in my experience, approaching challenging issues with nuance tends to reduce OOC disagreements, not increase them.  Just acknowledging that killing the cultists is “the best of a bad situation” probably would have avoided some of the conflict rather than stating that it is the Good course of action.

Which leads to the second point.  Players have different and personal ideas of what is Good and Evil, and challenging that will likely lead to players getting defensive.  If I consider that killing an unarmed criminal is a Good act in certain circumstances, I will take it personally if someone else tells me that they consider it Evil.

Also, playing your character to the alignment tends to put the focus on the alignment, not the character. Each character should have their own conception of what they consider Good, and splitting that into only 9 alignments doesn’t do an effective job of putting the focus on the character.

Plus, Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic is a hot mess, with it being either irrelevant or used like an inept astrological sign for most characters.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 27, 2021)

Kurotowa said:


> And really, what even _is_ alignment? It started out as a copypaste from Moorecock of the cosmic forces of Law and Chaos and the people who tried to balance in between. Being Lawful meant you were aligned with Team Law, had common ground with other people and factions in Team Law, and even had your own secret Team Law code phrases (aka alignment tongue) you could use to identify and trade messages with other people on Team Law. It was really about what side of the cosmic struggle you fought for.



Moorcock, especially in later books, is pretty clear that both team Law and team Chaos are bad.


----------



## Kurotowa (May 27, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Moorcock, especially in later books, is pretty clear that both team Law and team Chaos are bad.



And that's why Mordenkainen and his militant Neutrality made _sense_ as a positive figure. A true victory for either Law or Chaos would be detrimental to the mortal races because as abstract cosmic forces they had little concern for us. Mortals thrived in an environment that was a balance between the two, so the best course was to play both sides against each other. Like a small nation dancing between two superpowers, trying not to get pulled into a proxy war or get absorbed by one rising to full predominance.

Only now, Mordenkainen makes no sense because Law and Chaos aren't organized factions and it's Good vs Evil as the primary cosmic struggle. So we get him "trying to keep a healthy balance between Good and Evil", which is an insane proposition that benefits the mortal races not at all. But he's been codified as trying to keep a balance between the warring cosmic factions, so even though those factions have changed he's still trying, despite it no longer making any sense.


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 27, 2021)

Kurotowa said:


> Only now, Mordenkainen makes no sense because Law and Chaos aren't organized factions and it's Good vs Evil as the primary cosmic struggle. So we get him "trying to keep a healthy balance between Good and Evil", which is an insane proposition that benefits the mortal races not at all. But he's been codified as trying to keep a balance between the warring cosmic factions, so even though those factions have changed he's still trying, despite it no longer making any sense.



Dammit, Mordenkainen!  Stop breaking into my shop and stealing my pies!

I’m sorry, but ever since they hanged Bartok the thief, there is just too much Law and Goodness in Hommlet.  I must act!


----------



## Stormonu (May 27, 2021)

You can take away alignment and players are still going to kill orcs on sight, unless told otherwise.

And, despite elves (with the exception of drow) being given alignments of good, “evil” ones intent on doing the party harm have shown up over the years - almost as if alignments weren’t absolutes…


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

Shadowedeyes said:


> I feel like the alignment discussion is going slightly off topic, but as a tool, alignment had issues. Could WotC tried to fix them? Maybe, sure. But we've had 5 editions of D&D now, and alignment and what it means hasn't been clear in any of them. 3rd edition had Zeus as Chaotic Good, and a Dragon magazine article on how killing drow children wasn't evil, so I feel like I'm being pretty generous when I say that. Frankly, I don't blame WotC for coming to the conclusion that removing alignment is for the best.
> 
> I'm not gleeful it was removed or anything, but it was a mess. The writers and editors didn't seem to have a clue what alignment meant, so it's no surprise it was a contentious issue in the fanbase.



ALL DM tools are imprecise and, as you say, "had issues." Maps are published at such small sizes that fine detail in some areas was lost, but I've never heard anyone say "Oh well let's just scrap the maps." Hit Points are really iffy on whether they are meat damage or luck or dodging or divine intervention or what, but I've never heard anyone say, "Oh well let's just scrap hit points." I cannot think of a single DM tool that works perfect, or has ever worked perfect. But, we use them because with experience they can be helpful broad guidelines that save the DM time so they can drill down on their way to play with it. All the tools are a broad abstraction they DMs need to fiddle with at times, but throwing them out because they lack precision and perfection is a bad argument. It would mean none of the DMs side tools ever would be continued if that were a good argument for throwing a rule out.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> 5E already has a replacement set of stats that better explain personalities: Ideals/Bonds/Flaws and, now, in Ravenloft campaigns, Fears. While they're imperfect, they much better simulate real personalities than trying to split hairs on whether someone is Neutral or Lawful Neutral because they pay their taxes.
> 
> I still think the best personality system in RPGs was the oWoD's nature/demeanor system, which actually has a basis in psychology.



There isn't room in books for all that stuff when two single characters can serve as decent shorthand for most NPCs. If it's a more important NPC then sure flesh it out with Ideals Bonds and Flaws, but on the fly to rando NPC who suddenly becomes more important in the moment because of something the players do, alignment could be really helpful sometimes.


----------



## Kurotowa (May 27, 2021)

Stormonu said:


> You can take away alignment and players are still going to kill orcs on sight, unless told otherwise.



And you'll note that the WotC books are starting to tell us otherwise. I mean, it continues to be true in Eberron, and Tasha's was full of art of orcs and drow, and VRG does away with the humanocentric racial prejudices of Ravenloft in favor of more on-theme horrors. This is a trend I fully expect to continue.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Since the Relentless Killer is pretty much designed to be either a serial killer or a slasher movie-style killer, the only real choice you need to make is between "Kill everyone it comes across" or "Kill only certain people, such as people who are outside at midnight*, or groups of partying teenagers". And _that_ is up to the DM because that's part of the plot.
> 
> (* i.e., the Midnight Slasher)
> 
> ...



You don't lose any choice because CE is next to a monster stat name. Come on, that's silly. It's a baseline broad tool to start with, not a dictate. 

Somehow in discussions about "do you ever increase or decrease monster hit points" I have never once heard someone spin that as "you lose the choice once it's written as "HP 56" in the book." NEVER have I seen that argument made by anyone in 40 years of playing the game. But suddenly if "CE" is written next to an NPC stat block I lose the choice as a DM to play it different than CE? Suddenly I need an ENTIRE NEW STATBLOCK because someone wrote CE and I want to play it as not CE? Come on Faolyn, you had to know that was a bit iffy when you wrote that sentence right? I mean sure, it's the Internet and hyperbole is more excused, but you didn't honestly think "CE" could cause someone to re-write an entire stat block, right?

Alignment next to an NPC does not fix them as "all" anything. Much like "HP 56" doesn't fix them as "All of this race must have 56 hit points." Much like "Scimitar +4, 1d6+2 damage" doesn't fix them as "All of this race wield scimitars." It's just a baseline to go off of, like any other DM tool. Why are you treating alignment like it operates under different rules and expectations than all other stats for a DM?


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Alignment isn't crunch; it's a restriction on roleplaying.



It's no more or less a restriction than any other stat. If it says the monster wields a scimitar, is that a role playing restriction which forces the DM to assume they are skilled with that type of sword, or are they allowed to swap it for something else as they see fit? It's of course the later. You use the scimitar as a baseline and work from there, like any other stat. Same with alignment.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

FrozenNorth said:


> And that is ONE (of several) problems with alignment.  Each player has a different conception of what alignment means, to the point that one good-faith player could conclude that cultists are basically like demons (and therefore killing them even when they are defenseless is not an issue) with everyone else being horrified at what they consider is an Evil act.
> 
> Which is why I disagree with @Mistwell ‘s “it’s only two letters”.  It’s only two letters if you don’t bother to explain what Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral (Law-axis), Neutral (Good-axis), Good or Evil actually mean, but if you don’t, you just get even more pointless arguing.
> 
> Which brings us back to the Relentless Killer. Describing the creature as a hateful, revenge-obsessed relentless killer means that specifying that it is Evil is unnecessary, and there is really no benefit to limiting revenge-obsessed killers in Ravenloft  to the Chaotic (or Neutral or even Lawful) alignments.



Fortunately the books, for every edition, have gone into some depth on what they mean with a broad range of examples. And they don't have to be exact or inflexible, it's just a rough guideline to start from. If you don't like it, it's easy to not use it. But some people really do like it, and like all additional content the answer of "If you don't like it then just don't use it" should apply just as well to you as it applied when you said it to others about content they didn't like which was added to the game.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

Stefano Rinaldelli said:


> But remove all responsibility from wizard in expressing moral judgement over any ingame creature and so avoiding any rant by so called sensible readers.
> And to be honest, leave the DM free to create a more complex narrative. Because in real life good and evil are viewpoint. And twisting the judgment and create complex situations is good storytelling that leads to fun and immersion



Not twisting the judgement and leaving it as more shallow can also be good and fun storytelling. 

I think this gets to the heart of the issue for me. You, and many others, seem to be arguing not that you prefer the approach you like, but that it's somehow objectively the correct and "good" approach. And that we should remove anything from the game which doesn't encourage this objectively correct and "good" approach so as to discourage people from taking the incorrect and "bad" approach of playing a more black and white game which doesn't focus on those complexities.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 27, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> There isn't room in books for all that stuff when two single characters can serve as decent shorthand for most NPCs. If it's a more important NPC then sure flesh it out with Ideals Bonds and Flaws, but on the fly to rando NPC who suddenly becomes more important in the moment because of something the players do, alignment could be really helpful sometimes.



Replacing "Chaotic Neutral" with "Bravo/Soldier" isn't a space or layout issue, come on. And Nature/Demeanor actually _tells you something_. When you see "Chaotic Neutral" written down, all it really tells you is that you've probably got a problem player at your table. For an NPC, it could mean anything from a poor DM rolling a random die for how the NPC behaves each round to the NPC effectively acting like a Chaotic Evil character who's immune to (prior to 5E) Detect/Protect from Evil spells.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 27, 2021)

Voadam said:


> Supernaturals might work as a term. 3e's types could have been outsider with a redesignation of fey to be a subtype of outsider.



That's a good approach.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 27, 2021)

Stormonu said:


> You can take away alignment and players are still going to kill orcs on sight, unless told otherwise.



Not in my campaigns. Once I told my players "orcs are not always evil, and I'm getting rid of alignment", orcs immediately stopped being kill on sight. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but again, it trumps claims made with no evidence to support them. 


Stormonu said:


> And, despite elves (with the exception of drow) being given alignments of good, “evil” ones intent on doing the party harm have shown up over the years - almost as if alignments weren’t absolutes…



If they aren't absolutes, why the hell should they exist as the basis of a planar cosmology meant to explore extreme absolutes (Plansecape)? Also, Shadar-Kai are very much not "good" in the classical sense, and most other elven subraces also are more "chaotic" than "good" (eladrin and sea elves particularly). 

Even if they aren't absolutes, that doesn't make them any more correct or useful, IMO.


----------



## Voadam (May 27, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Not in my campaigns. Once I told my players "orcs are not always evil, and I'm getting rid of alignment", orcs immediately stopped being kill on sight. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but again, it trumps claims made with no evidence to support them.



Did you have an all orcs are evil prior stance?

Did you also change orcs' other description aspects when you took away alignment? 

In 3e era I house ruled alignment to be supernatural forces only and divorced from morality so all people not aligned with gods and other aligned supernatural power were neutral. Including all orcs. In keeping their descriptions the same as in the Monster Manual but taking away the CE entry they were still generally marauding hostile bad guys as a base and individual orcs could be different just like individual dwarves could be different from general dwarf descriptions.

I did not notice any different PC treatment of orcs in my game before and after taking away alignment designations for the monster manual entry in my game.

If I had instead also switched to using Eberron style druid culture orcs as a base description I imagine the player treatment of orcs might have been different.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Replacing "Chaotic Neutral" with "Bravo/Soldier" isn't a space or layout issue, come on. And Nature/Demeanor actually _tells you something_. When you see "Chaotic Neutral" written down, all it really tells you is that you've probably got a problem player at your table. For an NPC, it could mean anything from a poor DM rolling a random die for how the NPC behaves each round to the NPC effectively acting like a Chaotic Evil character who's immune to (prior to 5E) Detect/Protect from Evil spells.



I didn't understand your reply to mean "Bravo/Solider" since you wrote it as, " Ideals/Bonds/Flaws and, now, in Ravenloft campaigns, Fears." I thought you meant at least a full sentence (or more) of information like you find on character sheets. If all you mean is replace it with two words, then I can see that maybe working. We're going to need a better chart I think for the meaning of various Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, and Fears, but I don't think that's any more or less a burden than alignment charts (and honestly the one thing I'd improve about 5e is easier access and better formatted charts and indexes for a lot of things).


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Not in my campaigns. Once I told my players "orcs are not always evil, and I'm getting rid of alignment", orcs immediately stopped being kill on sight. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but again, it trumps claims made with no evidence to support them.
> 
> If they aren't absolutes, why the hell should they exist as the basis of a planar cosmology meant to explore extreme absolutes (Plansecape)? Also, Shadar-Kai are very much not "good" in the classical sense, and most other elven subraces also are more "chaotic" than "good" (eladrin and sea elves particularly).
> 
> Even if they aren't absolutes, that doesn't make them any more correct or useful, IMO.



LOL we don't even have planescape in the game yet in any meaningful way, and you're arguing that is a reason to get rid of alignment? 

Again, if they are not useful for you, that's fine. For some of my campaigns they've been useful, and for others they have not, though I think they've always been at least momentarily useful to some extent to me as a DM. But nobody is telling you that you must use them. I am asking why you're unwilling to accept they are useful for a fair number of people, on some level, and part of the core identity of D&D as well which has some value (non-D&D fans recognize D&D alignments in memes because it's so much a part of the branding)?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 27, 2021)

Voadam said:


> Did you have an all orcs are evil prior stance?



Yep. Orcs were "kill on sight irredemable evil Gruumsh worshipping monsters". 


Voadam said:


> Did you also change orcs' other description aspects when you took away alignment?



Not really. The race overall still worships Gruumsh, often are raiders/hunters, and still have their conflict with Goblinoids. I took away the alignment, made it clear that some orcs (typically the ones that abandoned their society) could be good, neutral, etc, and then they went from "kill on sight" to "other people with a different culture to be fought only if they provoke us". 


Voadam said:


> In 3e era I house ruled alignment to be supernatural forces only and divorced from morality so all people not aligned with gods and other aligned supernatural power were neutral. Including all orcs. In keeping their descriptions the same as in the Monster Manual but taking away the CE entry they were still generally marauding hostile bad guys as a base and individual orcs could be different just like individual dwarves could be different from general dwarf descriptions.
> 
> I did not notice any different PC treatment of orcs in my game before and after taking away alignment designations for the monster manual entry in my game.
> 
> If I had instead also switched to using Eberron style druid culture orcs as a base description I imagine the player treatment of orcs might have been different.



I only used Eberron orcs in Eberron (my new world, which I started developing well after I made this change, has orcs similar in culture to the Eberron orcs, but they're different and I didn't change this in my games until after removing alignment).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 27, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> LOL we don't even have planescape in the game yet in any meaningful way, and you're arguing that is a reason to get rid of alignment?



We do have information in the DMG and PHB on the Great Wheel and Sigil, so we have a bit of it. It's like how Dungeon of the Mad Mage contained a bit of Spelljammer by adding a Spelljamming Helm and adventure on an asteroid in space. 

I'm not using Planescape as a reason to get rid of alignment (which is already gone now). I'm using it to demonstrate how useless alignment was before. Planescape is supposed to be a setting of absolutes taken to an extreme level, using alignment as a basis for it. Doesn't it kind of invalidate the whole idea of planescape if the fundamental ideas it is founded upon are not actually absolutes? 


Mistwell said:


> Again, if they are not useful for you, that's fine. For some of my campaigns they've been useful, and for others they have not, though I think they've always been at least momentarily useful to some extent to me as a DM. But nobody is telling you that you must use them. I am asking why you're unwilling to accept they are useful for a fair number of people, on some level, and part of the core identity of D&D as well which has some value (non-D&D fans recognize D&D alignments in memes because it's so much a part of the branding)?



Then still use them. D&D police will not come to your door to force you to drop alignment. If your table has fun with it, that's all that matters. However, going forward, monster stat blocks and character races won't have alignments attached to them, which benefits my tables. I'm sorry if it negatively impacts yours. Again, I stress that I have never advocated for this change to come in the middle of 5e. There's no reason to get angry at me.


----------



## Faolyn (May 27, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> You don't lose any choice because CE is next to a monster stat name. Come on, that's silly. It's a baseline broad tool to start with, not a dictate.



Tell that to previous editions of D&D, where there's been multiple monsters that are just X, but with a different alignment (for instance, orcs, with their odonti and scro kin). 

And take a look at whant ImagineGod is saying: since there's no CE next to Relentless Killer, then "edgy DMs" are going to declare it LG. Clearly, he doesn't think that would happen if it _had _been given an alignment. Or for that matter, when you said that a LE Relentless Killer might belong to an assassin's guild and had strict rules, while a CE Relentless Killer just wants to see the world burn. The fact that you could think up two different options is good! It means that you have at least two different possible uses for a Relentless Killer even _before _you sat down and thought up a history and reason why someone became one. But would you have come up with with the assassin Killer if there had been a CE in the statblock? And how many other people would have? 

And if alignment is just a "baseline broad tool," what does it provide that all that description on each monster's page in the MM _doesn't _provide? 

More importantly, what does an alignment bring to the game, if it's just two characters, that a more in-depth and nuanced approach doesn't bring?



Mistwell said:


> It's no more or less a restriction than any other stat. If it says the monster wields a scimitar, is that a role playing restriction which forces the DM to assume they are skilled with that type of sword, or are they allowed to swap it for something else as they see fit? It's of course the later. You use the scimitar as a baseline and work from there, like any other stat. Same with alignment.



Equipment is quite a bit different than a rule on what an entire race's moral and ethical outlook is.

Also, everyone can agree on what a scimitar does, because it's there in the books. Considering there have been decades of arguments on alignment, there isn't a lot people can agree on as to what each alignment means.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Tell that to previous editions of D&D, where there's been multiple monsters that are just X, but with a different alignment (for instance, orcs, with their odonti and scro kin).



OK. Where would you like me to tell it to them? I've used good aligned orcs in every edition of D&D sometimes with no trouble. What was it that caused you trouble when you tried it with a prior edition?




Faolyn said:


> And take a look at whant ImagineGod is saying: since there's no CE next to Relentless Killer, then "edgy DMs" are going to declare it LG. Clearly, he doesn't think that would happen if it _had _been given an alignment.



I am not going to argue on behalf of ImagineGod. I think that's a silly argument. I don't buy that the alignment listing for NPCs resulted in obedience to that alignment, or that removing it causes DMs to just flap in the wind like an untied flag completely unable to determine how to play an NPC. All I am arguing, and the only position I intend to defend, is that alignment can be useful sometimes for DMs who, by necessity in the moment, need to make a judgement on the fly based on a glance and the alignment section could be helpful for that. Removing it removes a tool I and others sometimes found useful, but all it ever represented was a baseline tool and not something set in stone.


Faolyn said:


> Or for that matter, when you said that a LE Relentless Killer might belong to an assassin's guild and had strict rules, while a CE Relentless Killer just wants to see the world burn. The fact that you could think up two different options is good! It means that you have at least two different possible uses for a Relentless Killer even _before _you sat down and thought up a history and reason why someone became one. But would you have come up with with the assassin Killer if there had been a CE in the statblock? And how many other people would have?



Yes I would have. Of course I would have, and I think most DMs who gain experience do that. IF I had the time to prepare. What I've been saying (and which I feel you've been ignoring) is that alignment as a tool comes up most often, at least in my games, when on the fly the PCs do something which involves an NPC that I didn't anticipate would happen. And so on the fly I have to determine how that NPC will behave without pausing the game, and alignment could be a useful tool to do that. It also MIGHT have something to do with the plot later on that the writers anticipated and so it sure is helpful to know what they had in mind for this NPC in the moment. Of course I can change it. And of course it can be useful to have it. It's the later you don't seem to want to address.


Faolyn said:


> And if alignment is just a "baseline broad tool," what does it provide that all that description on each monster's page in the MM _doesn't _provide?



Who is reading all that description on each monster's page in the MM in the moment it comes up in a game? Not me! If rando gnoll NPC comes up in a game where I didn't expect it would need to, I am not opening the MM to read all about gnolls. I am glancing in the moment quickly at a stat line and coming up with something on the fly, and the alignment will be part of the tools used to do that. As will intelligence, wisdom, charisma, equipment, and possibly their physical stats as well. Do most gnolls have a reputation for being chaotic evil? If yes, then either I am making this gnoll chaotic evil too OR I am quickly coming up with some reason why they break from that reputation, all influenced by the context of the encounter and setting we're playing in. But alignment first and foremost is an efficient tool which communicates something about an NPC which the DM can use or decide to not use.



Faolyn said:


> More importantly, what does an alignment bring to the game, if it's just two characters, that a more in-depth and nuanced approach doesn't bring?




Expediency in the moment. Much like we could be running D&D with wound systems and luck systems and faith systems and speed and other factors each independently calculating a total for that system for each creature, OR we could for expediency sake use the shorthand known as Hit Points to represent all those things and more. Same goes for Armor Class, for example. It's just a stat like any other stat: it represents a larger array of elements, and has flexibility behind it to focus on one of those larger elements when the need arises, but it can be used as a summary also when expediency is called for.



Faolyn said:


> Equipment is quite a bit different than a rule on what an entire race's moral and ethical outlook is.




It's not an entire races moral and ethical outlook however. It's not represented as such in the MM either. Directly from the MM, "The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. 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."  This, by the way, is fairly similar to how the MM describes monster equipment entries as well.

It's a baseline for typical encounters. Exactly like equipment. You can vary equipment, but if you need to know on the fly what a typical gnoll you might encounter in this game might carry, it's a spear and a longbow. Which is why their entry includes a spear and longbow entry. Much like you can vary their alignment, but if you need to know on the fly what a typical gnoll you might encounter in the game might have for an alignment it's chaotic evil, which is why their entry includes it.



Faolyn said:


> Also, everyone can agree on what a scimitar does, because it's there in the books. Considering there have been decades of arguments on alignment, there isn't a lot people can agree on as to what each alignment means.



There have been decades of arguments on scimitars too. Like WHY OH WHY CAN DRUIDS USE A METAL SCIMITAR? Page and pages of debate on that question alone. More debates on why even have a scimitar when it's just a curved sword and we could just use a longsword and describe it that way. Even more debates on how long a scimitar might be, and the difference between a scimitar and a tulwar, kilij, pulwar, shamshir, szabla, shotel, and kirpaan. And can a scimitar be a piercing weapon or must it be a slashing weapon even though some historically used it both ways? And why is a cutlass not considered a scimitar?

It's a rules focused forum. If you think there have not been decades of arguments on pretty much anything in the game which has existed in most or all of the editions, you're mistaken. Alignment is no different.


----------



## Faolyn (May 27, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> OK. Where would you like me to tell it to them? I've used good aligned orcs in every edition of D&D sometimes with no trouble. What was it that caused you trouble when you tried it with a prior edition?



I have had a _lot _of discussions with people who insist that you can't have good-aligned orcs beyond the occasional exception because they're an evil race.

I've always pretty much ignored alignment. That's one reason I'm glad it's gone. It was just a useless bit of info that caused problems.



Mistwell said:


> I am not going to argue on behalf of ImagineGod. I think that's a silly argument. I don't buy that the alignment listing for NPCs resulted in obedience to that alignment, or that removing it causes DMs to just flap in the wind like an untied flag completely unable to determine how to play an NPC. All I am arguing, and the only position I intend to defend, is that alignment can be useful sometimes for DMs who, by necessity in the moment, need to make a judgement on the fly based on a glance and the alignment section could be helpful for that. Removing it removes a tool I and others sometimes found useful, but all it ever represented was a baseline tool and not something set in stone.



So... what you're saying here is that (A) character background, personality traits/ideals/bonds/flaws, that sort of thing, monster descriptions, your purpose for the creature in your adventure... _completely _useless for determining how an NPC acts; (B) either DMs in general or you in particular can't make up character motivations on the fly _unless _the character has an alignment to tell you; (C) all people of a particular alignment act the same way and have the same motivations; and (D) no DM can ever say "guys, give me a moment here while I figure out how this NPC is going to react.

Uh-huh.

The PCs meet a Chaotic Evil shopkeeper and ask to buy something. Quick! How does that shopkeeper react? Because "attack the PCs," "sell the PCs things that look useful but will explode (literally or metaphorically) later on," and "act totally normal, like any other shopkeeper, and then after work they go off and drown puppies and stalk that one bartender they lust after," are all Chaotic Evil things.

Or more seriously: The PCs meet a Chaotic Evil minion of a bad guy. How does the minion react? Because "attack the PCs," "Ally with the PCs to help overthrow its master, since it has no real loyalty to the master," "threaten the PCs with its master's wrath until they give it money," and "run away, since it has no real loyalty to its master, and therefore doesn't feel the need to risk its life on behalf of its master," are also Chaotic Evil things.

How does having that Chaotic Evil alignment help you figure out the NPC's motivation where there are countless motivations inside every single alignment?



Mistwell said:


> Yes I would have. Of course I would have, and I think most DMs who gain experience do that. IF I had the time to prepare. What I've been saying (and which I feel you've been ignoring) is that alignment as a tool comes up most often, at least in my games, when on the fly the PCs do something which involves an NPC that I didn't anticipate would happen.



That's when you just run with what the PCs are doing and decide the NPC's "alignment" later.



Mistwell said:


> And so on the fly I have to determine how that NPC will behave without pausing the game, and alignment could be a useful tool to do that. It also MIGHT have something to do with the plot later on that the writers anticipated and so it sure is helpful to know what they had in mind for this NPC in the moment. Of course I can change it. And of course it can be useful to have it. It's the later you don't seem to want to address.



Wait... you run prewritten adventures without reading them first? That's just... weird. I mean, I can see reading them and not taking notes or making changes before running the adventure, but not reading them _at all_?

Guys, is this a thing DMs do? Even the most improv-based DM at my table does a ton a prep work before he runs. And I know that I read the adventure multiple times before I run and make tons of adjustments. And we generally all know our favorite settings inside and out. Are we a weird table?



Mistwell said:


> Who is reading all that description on each monster's page in the MM in the moment it comes up in a game? Not me!



_And _you run games without reading the material first? Or at least having a strong idea of what's in it? Whaaat?

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound rude, but this is _weird. _I've read the MMs and my setting books multiple times, and I have my own opinions on what things are "really like" in my setting. While I certainly haven't memorized them, I know enough to say that if I decide that the PCs run into something, such as a particular type of creature, I have an idea of how that type of creature works in my game. And if it turns out my memory of that creature is off, then either that _particular _creature is different somehow, is hiding something, or I just change how that creature type functions in my game.



Mistwell said:


> Expediency in the moment. Much like we could be running D&D with wound systems and luck systems and faith systems and speed and other factors each independently calculating a total for that system for each creature, OR we could for expediency sake use the shorthand known as Hit Points to represent all those things and more. Same goes for Armor Class, for example. It's just a stat like any other stat: it represents a larger array of elements, and has flexibility behind it to focus on one of those larger elements when the need arises, but it can be used as a summary also when expediency is called for.



Hit Points = numbers.
AC = numbers.
Alignment =/= numbers.



Mistwell said:


> It's not an entire races moral and ethical outlook however. It's not represented as such in the MM either. Directly from the MM, "The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. 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."  This, by the way, is fairly similar to how the MM describes monster equipment entries as well.



Well, in that case, having an alignment is incredibly pointless. It doesn't describe morals and ethics on a species level and can be changed on a whim. There's no hard-coded definition to it in the same way there's a hard-coded definition to how a particular weapon or suit of armor works. And nobody can agree as to what any particular alignment means.

Thanks. You just proved that there's no reason to include alignment.



Mistwell said:


> There have been decades of arguments on scimitars too. Like WHY OH WHY CAN DRUIDS USE A METAL SCIMITAR?



Because Gygax said it was a sword that kinda looked like a sickle.



Mistwell said:


> It's a rules focused forum. If you think there have not been decades of arguments on pretty much anything in the game which has existed in most or all of the editions, you're mistaken. Alignment is no different.



Then what are the rules for alignment?

Edit: In case I wasn't clear: There are rules for AC, to figure out what hits it. There are rules for weapons, to figure out what damage it inflicts when it hits. And there are rules for hit points, to figure out how much damage a creature can take. If alignment is no different than those things, then what are the actual _rules _for it.


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 27, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> Fortunately the books, for every edition, have gone into some depth on what they mean with a broad range of examples. And they don't have to be exact or inflexible, it's just a rough guideline to start from. If you don't like it, it's easy to not use it. But some people really do like it, and like all additional content the answer of "If you don't like it then just don't use it" should apply just as well to you as it applied when you said it to others about content they didn't like which was added to the game.



Let's set aside the argument that players who started in 5th edition should purchase books from previous editions for the purposes of understanding alignment and applying a broad range of examples.

The fact is, alignment has never been consistent across editions.  In 2nd edition, the rulebooks suggested that a True Neutral character could potentially switch sides in the middle of a conflict to preserve the balance between good and evil, and could be completely indifferent to raising their party members.  Chaotic neutral was described as lolrandom! and also likely to switch sides for no reason.

Then came 3rd edition, with bards and barbarians that couldn't be lawful and monks that couldn't be chaotic.

Of course, alignment grognards always skip over 4th edition, which simplified the alignments down to Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil and Chaotic Evil.


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 27, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> I think this gets to the heart of the issue for me. You, and many others, seem to be arguing not that you prefer the approach you like, but that it's somehow objectively the correct and "good" approach. And that we should remove anything from the game which doesn't encourage this objectively correct and "good" approach so as to discourage people from taking the incorrect and "bad" approach of playing a more black and white game which doesn't focus on those complexities.



This argument was started by several people objecting to VRGTR removing alignment and criticizing it over it.  So it seems that the argument is more over a small number of people insisting that alignment MUST be included.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> I have had a _lot _of discussions with people who insist that you can't have good-aligned orcs beyond the occasional exception because they're an evil race.
> 
> I've always pretty much ignored alignment. That's one reason I'm glad it's gone. It was just a useless bit of info that caused problems.
> 
> ...




I am going to stop here. I know you wrote a lot more than this, but you're starting out with a clearly snarky, hyperbolic strawman. For no reason. It wasn't justified by the tone of our conversation, and it was a jerky thing to do. You know that isn't what I was saying, I had already gone to great lengths to explain that wasn't what I was saying, and you turned to that for reasons which frankly are not OK for a conversation like this. 

If you change your mind, let me know and I am happy to engage with you some more on this. But I think it's fair for me to draw the line when someone does that.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2021)

FrozenNorth said:


> This argument was started by several people objecting to VRGTR removing alignment and criticizing it over it.  So it seems that the argument is more over a small number of people insisting that alignment MUST be included.



I have not seen that, but I don't think it "must" be included. But, I find it a handy tool. And if you remove that tool, I hope additional shorthand information is included to fill most of the gap left by the utility of that tool being removed. Like, "Capricious/Cruel" in the stateblock to represent at a quick glance some common attitudes of that NPC.


----------



## Malmuria (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> All I am arguing, and the only position I intend to defend, is that alignment can be useful sometimes for DMs who, by necessity in the moment, need to make a judgement on the fly based on a glance and the alignment section could be helpful for that.



This actually seems like kind of an edge case?  If your players are interacting with an NPC in a social encounter, the context of the situation would be more likely to drive the improv for DMs.  If they are an important NPC, you should already have some sense of their motivation and methods.  If they are a random guard or shopkeep, the context of what the players are trying to do and how they are acting would guide how the NPC reacts.  In a more antagonistic context (e.g. a dungeon), a tool like a reaction table would be more useful than alignment.




Mistwell said:


> If rando gnoll NPC comes up in a game where I didn't expect it would need to, I am not opening the MM to read all about gnolls. I am glancing in the moment quickly at a stat line and coming up with something on the fly, and the alignment will be part of the tools used to do that. As will intelligence, wisdom, charisma, equipment, and possibly their physical stats as well. Do most gnolls have a reputation for being chaotic evil? If yes, then either I am making this gnoll chaotic evil too OR I am quickly coming up with some reason why they break from that reputation, all influenced by the context of the encounter and setting we're playing in.




You're just adding an extra step, which is counterproductive if you are concerned with using alignment to make a snap decision.  You already have "the context of the encounter and the setting." But you're going to look at the stat block, see "chaotic evil," and then decide on the fly why this particular gnoll is not chaotic evil but some other alignment, assign that new alignment to the gnoll, and then interpret how the gnoll would react based on that and the context and situation.  

On the other hand, removing alignment from the stat block does not solve the problem they are ostensibly trying to solve.  The first two sentences of the 5e gnoll description read, "Gnolls are feral, hyena-headed humanoids that attack without warning, slaughtering their victims and devouring their flesh. Gnolls are feral humanoids that attack settlements along the frontiers and borderlands of civilization without warning, slaughtering their victims and devouring their flesh."  

On the one hand, it takes 5 seconds to read those two sentences and they convey the general vibe of the gnoll about as efficiently as the "chaotic evil" in the statblock.  However, even this short description implies much about the default dnd setting.  We know that there is a CIVILIZATION and Gnolls--all Gnolls--are not part of this Civilization.  They are humanoid, like elves and halflings and humans, but in a "feral" way, seen by the fact that they devour the flesh of their victims, a connotation of cannibalism.  And this civilization has settlements along its "frontiers" and "borderlands."  So we know this Civilization is expanding via its settlements, and the Gnolls are a threat to this expansion, and its implied that the PCs are part of the former and will be contending with the feral-ness of the latter, whether or not they are officially "chaotic evil."  It's a settler colonial fantasy.

This isn't about Ravenloft anymore obviously, my apologies.  But I think the whole discussion around alignment it shows the problems that WOTC is going to have in trying to change the game, and the risk they they will end up satisfying no one.


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> I have not seen that, but I don't think it "must" be included. But, I find it a handy tool. And if you remove that tool, I hope additional shorthand information is included to fill most of the gap left by the utility of that tool being removed. Like, "Capricious/Cruel" in the stateblock to represent at a quick glance some common attitudes of that NPC.



Well, the genesis of the argument in this thread was that the "Relentless Killer" who is described as "hateful" and "revenge-obsessed" lacks an alignment.  I think you would agree with me that specifying an alignment for the "Relentless Killer" is completely unnecessary.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> I didn't understand your reply to mean "Bravo/Solider" since you wrote it as, " Ideals/Bonds/Flaws and, now, in Ravenloft campaigns, Fears." I thought you meant at least a full sentence (or more) of information like you find on character sheets. If all you mean is replace it with two words, then I can see that maybe working. We're going to need a better chart I think for the meaning of various Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, and Fears, but I don't think that's any more or less a burden than alignment charts (and honestly the one thing I'd improve about 5e is easier access and better formatted charts and indexes for a lot of things).



The two words are the oWoD style nature/demeanor. The Chaotic Neutral NPC in question is a bully (bravo) under the surface, but presents himself as a hard-nosed soldier on the surface. That, to me, gives us a lot more sense of who the NPC is than "Chaotic Neutral" does, which could mean almost anything, as every internet discussion about alignment ever tells us.


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> This actually seems like kind of an edge case?  If your players are interacting with an NPC in a social encounter, the context of the situation would be more likely to drive the improv for DMs.  If they are an important NPC, you should already have some sense of their motivation and methods.  If they are a random guard or shopkeep, the context of what the players are trying to do and how they are acting would guide how the NPC reacts.  In a more antagonistic context (e.g. a dungeon), a tool like a reaction table would be more useful than alignment.




I am saying it from experience for 40 year now. I wish it were an edge case, but players are just not as predictable as that and they do the unexpected frequently. I really don't like to railroad so I give players the freedom to color outside the lines. I find depending on tools like the shorthand provided by alignment is crucial to keeping the game going smoothly when the unexpected happens.


Malmuria said:


> You're just adding an extra step, which is counterproductive if you are concerned with using alignment to make a snap decision.  You already have "the context of the encounter and the setting." But you're going to look at the stat block, see "chaotic evil," and then decide on the fly why this particular gnoll is not chaotic evil but some other alignment, assign that new alignment to the gnoll, and then interpret how the gnoll would react based on that and the context and situation.



Often I don't decide to change the alignment. It's only if the context suggests I might consider that, that I will change it. I don't find it to be an extra step at all. 




Malmuria said:


> On the other hand, removing alignment from the stat block does not solve the problem they are ostensibly trying to solve.  The first two sentences of the 5e gnoll description read, "Gnolls are feral, hyena-headed humanoids that attack without warning, slaughtering their victims and devouring their flesh. Gnolls are feral humanoids that attack settlements along the frontiers and borderlands of civilization without warning, slaughtering their victims and devouring their flesh."
> 
> On the one hand, it takes 5 seconds to read those two sentences




Those two sentences will not be there in the random encounter table or short stat block I am looking at. I know in general what gnolls are like (it's an easy example) but a lot of monsters I like an alignment prompt as a generalization. 



Malmuria said:


> and they convey the general vibe of the gnoll about as efficiently as the "chaotic evil" in the statblock.



But CE is two characters and those sentences are a lot more than two characters so they won't appear in any shorthand statblock.


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

FrozenNorth said:


> Well, the genesis of the argument in this thread was that the "Relentless Killer" who is described as "hateful" and "revenge-obsessed" lacks an alignment.  I think you would agree with me that specifying an alignment for the "Relentless Killer" is completely unnecessary.



It's not completely unnecessary as it still adds something on the lawful-chaotic scale, like I mentioned earlier. Does he adhere to an external or internal code of conduct? Does he appreciate destruction for its own sake? Those kinds of questions have a suggested answer by alignment which isn't well suggested by the description you gave.


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> It's not completely unnecessary as it still adds something on the lawful-chaotic scale, like I mentioned earlier. Does he adhere to an external or internal code of conduct? Does he appreciate destruction for its own sake? Those kinds of questions have a suggested answer by alignment which isn't well suggested by the description you gave.



Say you're writing an adventure that has a Relentless Killer. Do you _want _it to adhere to an external or internal code of conduct? Do you _want _it to appreciate destruction, or do you want it to feel compelled to destroy, and therefore only feels relief upon doing so? Why did it become a Relentless Killer in the first place? (Remember, they're fiends who started out as normal people.) What makes more sense for the adventure you will be running?

These kind of questions won't be answered by including an alignment. Especially in Ravenloft, where every monster should have a backstory explaining why it became a monster in the first place. You're not _supposed _to just run them out of the book.

The Relentless Killer is clearly based on characters such as The Midnight Slasher, from the second Ravenloft MC Appendix Yeah, there's an alignment there, because 2e. But that alignment tells you absolutely nothing--it's the Slasher's _background _that explains the _why _behind the murders.


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Say you're writing an adventure that has a Relentless Killer.



Naw if I am writing the adventure it doesn't matter. Heck if I am writing the adventure I might have scrawled a name and race and profession on a scratch sheet of paper and that's it. This is more for stuff others have written that I grabbed. 




Faolyn said:


> These kind of questions won't be answered by including an alignment. Especially in Ravenloft, where every monster should have a backstory explaining why it became a monster in the first place. You're not _supposed _to just run them out of the book.



They won't be answered by ANY stat block. Again (and I cannot stress this enough), I am not talking about important NPCs with full back stories. I am talking about the NPC I didn't expect the players to focus on, who is suddenly part of the focus. 

I think I've said that about a half dozen times now, and everyone who responds eventually gets around to this same strawman. What's with that? I know you saw me describe this aspect at least twice in parts you participated in - so why are you claiming everyone has a backstory when of course not everyone has a backstory in adventures you buy!


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> I think I've said that about a half dozen times now, and everyone who responds eventually gets around to this same strawman. What's with that? I know you saw me describe this aspect at least twice in parts you participated in - so why are you claiming everyone has a backstory when of course not everyone has a backstory in adventures you buy!



_Because _an alignment is completely unnecessary for an NPC you didn't expect the PCs to talk to. It's also unnecessary for an NPC that has a specific role in your adventure, like a Relentless Killer. Which should have at least enough of a backstory that you know _why _it's relentlessly killing people.

Heck, even if it's a completely random encounter, knowing that you rolled "bandits" is more useful than anything else.

You chose to dismiss my entire last post, so I'll copypaste the part that's important here:



> The PCs meet a Chaotic Evil shopkeeper and ask to buy something. Quick! How does that shopkeeper react? Because "attack the PCs," "sell the PCs things that look useful but will explode (literally or metaphorically) later on," and "act totally normal, like any other shopkeeper, and then after work they go off and drown puppies and stalk that one bartender they lust after," are all Chaotic Evil things.
> 
> Or more seriously: The PCs meet a Chaotic Evil minion of a bad guy. How does the minion react? Because "attack the PCs," "Ally with the PCs to help overthrow its master, since it has no real loyalty to the master," "threaten the PCs with its master's wrath until they give it money," and "run away, since it has no real loyalty to its master, and therefore doesn't feel the need to risk its life on behalf of its master," are also Chaotic Evil things.



If this is some nameless NPC, then why bother giving it an alignment? It'll act according to its role in the story. Shopkeepers are gonna keep shop. If it turns out that the PCs like the nameless NPC enough that you feel the need to bring it back in a later adventure, then you have some time to think of a backstory for it. 

If it's a named NPC, then you probably already know at least a sentence's worth of detail about it ("Minion Bob hates his boss") and so an alignment is superfluous, because that sentence will likely be enough to get you through the encounter. The PCs try to threaten or bribe Minion Bob into betraying his boss. Welp, he hates his boss, so sure, he's game!

And if you _do _give it an alignment, then as I showed above, that alignment doesn't actually _dictate_ anything about how the NPC is going to act. I listed three ways a CE shopkeeper can react and four ways a CE minion can react, and that's just what I wrote down right then and there. I can think of lots of other ways. So I repeat: The fact that a minor NPC has a particular alignment has no singular meaning as to its actions. You'd be better off coming up with a bunch of Random NPC Interaction charts; at least something like that would actually tell you what the NPC would do. (<rolls dice> "OK, 13 on the die, so the Shopkeeper Table says... she decides to shortchange the PCs.")

Also, maybe if everyone is giving you the same answer, that means it's time for you to reevaluate your question.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (May 28, 2021)

I feel the fact that other RPGs that don't use alignment as a categorization schema for their NPCs by and large don't seem to have the problems alignment's proponents are claiming in this thread speaks for itself.


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> _Because _an alignment is completely unnecessary for an NPC you didn't expect the PCs to talk to.



I've told you I've used it countless times for 40 years, and know many others who also do that.

Are you calling me a liar, or just a bad DM here, or what?

It's one thing for you to say YOU don't find it useful in that context. It's another for you to declare it's objectively useless.



Faolyn said:


> If this is some nameless NPC, then why bother giving it an alignment? It'll act according to its role in the story. Shopkeepers are gonna keep shop. If it turns out that the PCs like the nameless NPC enough that you feel the need to bring it back in a later adventure, then you have some time to think of a backstory for it.



Right.

OK so we're not communicating here. This is the part i've repeated over and over. You've quoted it several times now. But every time, you default it back to something it's not.

There is no "if it turns out that the PCs like the nameless NPC enough..." part of this. How are we not past that point already, given that's exactly where I started this discussion?

There is no time to think about the story. That's what "on the fly" means. That's what "unexpected" meant. The NPC became important suddenly. Not "they came back to the NPC" the NPC already suddenly became important. Which happens A LOT in games I DM because I don't railroad and my players do unexpected things. 

It's like you have not even groked the basic premise of what I've been saying. Or, given how you've mis-stated it three times now, like you don't want to engage about it. 



Faolyn said:


> Also, maybe if everyone is giving you the same answer, that means it's time for you to reevaluate your question.



Just the three same guys who always say they don't like alignment. Take a look at my posts about alignment in this thread. DOZENS of "likes" on those posts.

Again nobody has ever told you that you have to like or use alignment. It's purely you three guys, over and over again, telling everyone alignment is useless so it should be removed, and routinely ignoring or diverting from any comment from people who say they find it's useful.

I'd love for you to explain how those two characters being listed in an NPC stat block makes your game worse?


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> Just the three same guys who always say they don't like alignment. Take a look at my posts about alignment in this thread. DOZENS of "likes" on those posts.



Maybe go take a look at TTRPG discussions on other forums and social media platforms, or even in the TTRPGs General subforum here on ENWorld.


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> Maybe go take a look at TTRPG discussions on other forums and social media platforms, or even in the TTRPGs General subforum here on ENWorld.



I am not looking to find people to disagree with. I was not saying "My view is right because it's popular" I was saying "I don't think people are confused by what I am saying as a meaningful number of people seem to like it."

Are you confused by what I am saying? He was suggesting I needed to change how I was saying it because three people kept strawmanning it as if they didn't get what I was trying to say. Are you saying you also didn't get it? I am betting you did.


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> Are you calling me a liar, or just a bad DM here, or what?
> 
> It's one thing for you to say YOU don't find it useful in that context. It's another for you to declare it's objectively useless.



I'm saying alignment useless because it doesn't perform the job you claim it does.



Mistwell said:


> Right.
> 
> OK so we're not communicating here. This is the part i've repeated over and over. You've quoted it several times now. But every time, you default it back to something it's not.
> 
> There is no "if it turns out that the PCs like the nameless NPC enough..." part of this. How are we not past that point already, given that's exactly where I started this discussion?



Because by that point, the NPC is no longer nameless and you've likely figured out its background and/or personality. And you yourself said that "[questions about motivation] won't be answered by ANY stat block. Again (and I cannot stress this enough), I am not talking about important NPCs with full back stories."

So neither am I. You barely even need a few sentences of backstory before it becomes more useful than a written alignment, let alone a full developed one.

Also, you keep claiming that alignment is like weapons or AC or hp, but have yet to show how, when those three things have strict definitions and rules as to how they're used and nobody in nearly 50 years can even agree on what any one alignment actually means.



Mistwell said:


> There is no time to think about the story.



If you've been playing D&D for forty years, you're more than capable of telling your players to hold on for a moment while you figure things out. 



Mistwell said:


> That's what "on the fly" means. That's what "unexpected" meant. It's like you have not even groked the basic premise of what I've been saying.



I do. You've failed to understand what I've said:

If it's a nameless NPC, then you don't need it to have an alignment. You need it to fill a function. If you make this nameless NPC respond to the PCs, then you will  cause it to naturally develop a personality of its own based on the way the PCs are acting. Thus, you don't need an alignment, because you're developing its personality and that's more important than its alignment. 

Knowing that a nameless NPC is chaotic evil won't tell you anything about how it reacts to the PCs and won't provide you with any useful information "on the fly." Both a LG shopkeeper and a CE shopkeeper can be meek and obsequious or brash and demanding. 

But since you keep insisting alignment is somehow important for on-the-fly GMing, what information does alignment actually tell you about the NPC? Seriously. Try actually answering the question instead of whining that nobody is listening to you or we're being mean to you: a shopkeeper is chaotic evil. The PCs enter his shop. Now what? 

Or are you going to say I'm a jerk and not answer me again?



Mistwell said:


> Just the three same guys who always say they don't like alignment. Take a look at my posts about alignment in this thread. DOZENS of "likes" on those posts.



I wasn't aware we were on reddit or facebook, where likes counted for anything. Good to know. Enjoy your internet points.



Mistwell said:


> Again nobody has ever told you that you have to like or use alignment. It's purely you three guys, over and over again, telling everyone alignment is useless so it should be remove, and routinely ignoring or diverting from any comment from people who say they find it's useful.



Considering that WotC has decided to get rid of alignment, and most other gaming systems never had alignment to begin with, it's more than "purely us three guys" talking about it. I'd wager it's the majority of the industry and fanbase realizing it's alignment is unnecessary and just a handful of people complaining that they've been using alignment for ever and ever so how dare they change it.


----------



## Mecheon (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> I'd love for you to explain how those two characters being listed in an NPC stat block makes your game worse?



I think its moreso they don't do enough on their own to justify all of the other problems with alignment.

If alignment was just "Two letters on a stat block", then we wouldn't had the past nearly 3 decades of arguments about it. But its a lot more than that, and that's where the problem lies.


----------



## JEB (May 28, 2021)

I also found alignment useful, in much the same way @Mistwell describes - as a shorthand when I wanted an easy button for personalities. I never considered it a straitjacket - I considered it a tool, and also descriptive rather than prescriptive.

I also think its elimination won't solve the problems folks think it will solve - the majority of monsters will still be written in a bio-essentialist way, players will still mindlessly kill humanoid foes like they're enemies in a video game, etc. Even alignment debates online are probably here to stay, thanks to the concept becoming memetic. But one thing its removal does do is take a tool away from folks who did like it... and also likely makes its defenders feel less welcome in the community.

That all said, this debate is much bigger than a thread about Ravenloft, and frankly doesn't seem to be going anywhere... so perhaps you all could take this to another thread and let folks get back to talking about the new book? Unless you plan to steer it back specifically to Ravenloft-related applications...


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 28, 2021)

JEB said:


> players will still mindlessly kill humanoid foes like they're enemies in a video game,



Which is fine. Enemies don't need an "always CE " flag to tell players they are there to be killed. All those other TTRPGS that aren't D&D work that way, and have done since the late 70s, before video games where much of a thing. _WEG Star Wars D6_ doesn't have alignment, but that doesn't stop players killing Imperials "like enemies in a video game". And that just reflects the movies. Luke Skywalker is supposed to have killed over 300,000 people on the Death Star. That's humans, not always-CE greenskins, or don't-matter constructs. Heroes don't need to worry about it unless they want to be the dark-and-brooding archetype.


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> It's not completely unnecessary as it still adds something on the lawful-chaotic scale, like I mentioned earlier. Does he adhere to an external or internal code of conduct? Does he appreciate destruction for its own sake? Those kinds of questions have a suggested answer by alignment which isn't well suggested by the description you gave.



I think this is why I find alignment so mystifying.  To me, it is pretty obvious that some Relentless Killers have a twisted  code they follow, others appreciate destruction for its own sake, and a million things in between.

Saying Relentless killers are NE (but you can change this if you like) is 100% more bizarre than the implication that each Relentless Killer is different (though they use the same mechanics).


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

Mecheon said:


> I think its moreso they don't do enough on their own to justify all of the other problems with alignment.
> 
> If alignment was just "Two letters on a stat block", then we wouldn't had the past nearly 3 decades of arguments about it. But its a lot more than that, and that's where the problem lies.



If it's "all the other problems" then again I'd ask what harm is it doing to your game that others see alignment there, but you decide to not use it?


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> I'm saying alignment useless because it doesn't perform the job you claim it does.



But it does, for me. I've told you I've found it does perform that job at my table. Other have mentioned they also find it useful in that same way. Either everyone is lying to you, or you simply have a difference in tastes. So which is it?



Faolyn said:


> Or are you going to say I'm a jerk and not answer me again?



If you cannot accept that some people do find alignment to be useful in the way I have described it, then it seems the shoe fits. It's kind of a basic tenant of polite conversation that when someone says, "I like X, for Y reasons" the response not be "no you don't."



Faolyn said:


> Considering that WotC has decided to get rid of alignment



They have not gotten rid of alignment though. They just didn't include it in two books. It's still there in the core books. Which seems to irritate you?


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> I feel the fact that other RPGs that don't use alignment as a categorization schema for their NPCs by and large don't seem to have the problems alignment's proponents are claiming in this thread speaks for itself.



The fact many other RPGs do not have the problems we see with 1 HP enemies in D&D and why unless you kill it dead, a 1 HP enemy is as deadly as a 10 HP or even 20 HP on its turn of action.

Yet, the virulent hatred for alignment  by some herd in stir blocks is absent for Hit Points failure in D&D design, speaks volumes of hypocrisy.

Basically, having alignment on monsters does not force every table to use them. It just a tool to help the DM instead of reading motivations of every random monster thrown out in a random encounter.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> The fact many other RPGs do not have the problems we see with 1 HP enemies in D&D and why unless you kill it dead, a 1 HP enemy is as deadly as a 10 HP or even 20 HP on its turn of action.



That's not a problem. D&D is a game, not a simulation.

Killing someone because they have the wrong hat is.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> That's not a problem. D&D is a game, not a simulation.
> 
> Killing someone because they have the wrong hat is.



I think you missed the part where D&D is just a game like you said. So if you can play 1 HP being as competent as full HP, then all death is just Hit Point loss.

The alignments like hit points are just tools to help Dungeon Masters run the monsters. Thet are not simulations of real life nor death.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> I think you missed the part where D&D is just a game like you said. So if you can play 1 HP being as competent as full HP, then all death is just Hit Point loss.
> 
> The alignments like hit points are just tools to help Dungeon Masters run the monsters. Thet are not simulations of real life nor death.



There is a difference between an unrealistic portrayal of mortality, and an unrealistic portrayal of _morality_.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> There is a difference between an unrealistic portrayal of mortality, and an unrealistic portrayal of _morality_.



Not in a tabletop game that is unrealistic by its very nature. No real person nor real  creature  lives or dies on the table top (not talking of  microbes).

Trying to say morality is more or even less  realistic than hit points is a strawman argument.

Both alignment and hit points are tools in a monster star block to run encounters in a game played on tabletop or tablet computer.

Neither are there to simulate real life.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Not in a tabletop game that is unrealistic by its very nature. Nobody loves on the table top.



You can draw lessons from play. That's the whole reason animals (including humans) play. Those lessens can be helpful, harmful, or neutral.


imagineGod said:


> Trying to say morality is more or even less  realistic than hit points is a strawman argument.



It's a good job that wasn't the argumant I was making then, isn't it?

It's not a matter of being more or less realistic, it's a matter of how much harm to others is done when someone learns the wrong lesson from the game. If you learn the wrong lesson about the effect of injury, the only person you harm is yourself. If you learn that it's okay to kill someone because they have a different belief system, that is doing immense harm.


imagineGod said:


> Both alignment and hit points are tools in a monster star block to run encounters in a game played on tabletop or tablet computer.
> 
> Neither are there to simulate real life.



I'm a teacher. I use simulations all the time in order to teach people about real life.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> You can draw lessons from play. That's the whole reason animals (including humans) play. Those lessens can be helpful, harmful, or neutral.
> 
> It's a good job that wasn't the argumant I was making then, isn't it?
> 
> ...



It is a good thing we no longer live in the Satanic Panic of the 1980s.

Several peer reviewed research papers could not find direct links between violent photorealistic video games and violence in people. Nor was that relationship  found in movies.

So a tabletop game with plastic miniatures or theater of the mind narratives cannot harm anybody in real life

Hence, stat blocks with hit points and alignments have even less prone to brainwashing people than video games with photorealistic violence.

We are all so lucky we live in a world where tabletop games have not opened a portal wherecthe fantasy game took over our real world, are we not?


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

By the way I lived my youth in countries where hardly anyone played D&D on the tabletop and yet real children got limbs amputed through real war violence. My friend, a journalist, escaped a real civil war by riding a motorbike through the bushes across the border. None of those places where bastions of tabletop D&D play.


----------



## Shadowedeyes (May 28, 2021)

Hit points and Alignment are a bad comparison. HP are not realistic, but they are simple to understand and clear in how they work. Alignment is not clear and not realistic. While they can be used as a tool in certain circumstances, I'm dubious that it works any better than any other way to describe a creature/NPC's motivations. The only thing it has going for it is a bit of an iconic status in the game.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 28, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Sure, I always advocate for more content in D&D. However, IMHO, "alignment" is a whole different matter. I have already ignored alignment in my campaigns way before this change was made, so I did exactly what I have recommended others to do. However, I still am pleased to see this change made. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, if that's what you are trying to paint me as.



As a wise man once said, “when you don’t have an actual argument, you vaguely gesture at imagined hypocracy.”


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Shadowedeyes said:


> Hit points and Alignment are a bad comparison. HP are not realistic, but they are simple to understand and clear in how they work. Alignment is not clear and not realistic. While they can be used as a tool in certain circumstances, I'm dubious that it works any better than any other way to describe a creature/NPC's motivations. The only thing it has going for it is a bit of an iconic status in the game.



If we wish to go all pedantic on Hit Points, they too create an unrealistic expectation to injury. Based on Hit Points alone, a creature could be on the brink of Hut Point death, but is still totally fine and healthy like it was on full Hit Points. No life altering injuries, no brain trauma, all perfectly healthy from 20 HP dropped to 1 HP.

But luckily, since D&D is just a game, unrealistic depictions of violence and its after effects are just that, a tabletop ruleset, not reality.


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> But it does, for me. I've told you I've found it does perform that job at my table. Other have mentioned they also find it useful in that same way. Either everyone is lying to you, or you simply have a difference in tastes. So which is it?



You have insisted that alignment is useful when the PCs decide to engage with a nameless NPC. I have asked you to tell me how an alignment/NPC combination--such as Chaotic Evil shopkeeper--actually gives you, the DM, information, and what that information is. And whether or not that information is the same for all CE NPCs (in which case, it would be useful information) or different depending on what sort of NPC it is, the current situation, and how the PCs treat the NPC (in which case, it's not useful information). I've asked this, what, three times now? And each time you've just deleted my question and implied that I'm calling you a liar.

Additionally, you've said that alignment is no different than AC, hp, or weapon stats (and therefore very important). Since those things have very specific, objective rules attached to them, I have asked you to tell me what the specific, objective rules are for alignment. Again, each time you've just deleted my question.

Furthermore, you keep waffling between alignment being an important tool, without which it's all but impossible to run an encounter with an NPC without stopping the game and pondering on the matter, to it being a nothing more than a "matter of taste" So which is it?

So. Are you planning on answering any of my questions this time?


----------



## Shadowedeyes (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> If we wish to go all pedantic on Hit Points, they too create an unrealistic expectation to injury. Based on Hit Points alone, a creature could be on the brink of Hut Point death, but is still totally fine and healthy like it was on full Hit Points. No life altering injuries, no brain trauma, all perfectly healthy from 20 HP dropped to 1 HP.
> 
> But luckily, since D&D is just a game, unrealistic depictions of violence and its after effects are just that, a tabletop ruleset, not reality.




That still doesn't refute my point that hit points, while unrealistic, are easy to understand and use. You have hit points and you are not dying until you have 0 of them. For the purposes of the game, it works.

By contrast, Alignment is not easily understood. Which makes it's use in the game one that tends to spark arguments(You wouldn't do that! You're Lawful Good!) rather arbitrate anything, like hit points and whether you are dying. So, comparing the two is, in my opinion, not a good way to justify alignment's existence.


----------



## Stefano Rinaldelli (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> Not twisting the judgement and leaving it as more shallow can also be good and fun storytelling.
> 
> I think this gets to the heart of the issue for me. You, and many others, seem to be arguing not that you prefer the approach you like, but that it's somehow objectively the correct and "good" approach. And that we should remove anything from the game which doesn't encourage this objectively correct and "good" approach so as to discourage people from taking the incorrect and "bad" approach of playing a more black and white game which doesn't focus on those complexities.



Frankly: no.
There is no right approach.
If you want a morally polarized world you can and it is right at least for you.

But a not morally polarized game allow raw to polarize it. On the contrary a morally polarized game doesn't allow raw to avoid polarization.
In brief is easier to house rule toward polarization than the contrary, so I prefer the choice to remove alignment.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Shadowedeyes said:


> That still doesn't refute my point that hit points, while unrealistic, are easy to understand and use. You have hit points and you are not dying until you have 0 of them. For the purposes of the game, it works.
> 
> By contrast, Alignment is not easily understood. Which makes it's use in the game one that tends to spark arguments(You wouldn't do that! You're Lawful Good!) rather arbitrate anything, like hit points and whether you are dying. So, comparing the two is, in my opinion, not a good way to justify alignment's existence.



Arguments happen regardless. Hit Points have encouraged murder in game because no matter how badly beaten a creature gets from 100 HP to 1 HP it can do as much damage on its turn as if nothing happened. So you get arguments, like we cannot stop fighting that creature until it is killed by dropping to zero Hit Points (abd dying in 5th Ed or negstive HP in older editions). .

You do not get that argument to kill or not to kill creatures in games that have significant injuries that can neutralize a threat without killing it dead.

If you think alignment is bad design so are Hit Points. Basically, HP removes the mechanical incentive of defeated but not dead. In D&D a 1 HP enemy remains undefeated and deadly.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 28, 2021)

Alignment can be very useful when it comes to things like how a magic item or supernatural effect impacts a character (for example things that only target evil, only target chaos only target good, etc). It is also useful in a setting like Ravenloft when evaluating an action to decide if it warrants a powers check and what percentage that ought to be. It is also useful for determining how NPCs behave, and it is a useful way to inform players what their actions are doing to their characters (when the GM changes your alignment from good to neutral or neutral to evil, that is significant) 

It isn't a perfect system. It has serious flaws. That is why not every RPG has alignment. I would argue thought that some kind of alignment system is pretty essential to D&D the same way HP are. If I am going to play D&D, I tend to expect alignment, class, levels, races, HP, attributes, etc. Otherwise I would just play another game. And I think that is an important point for people to take home: you can always play other games. I hardly ever play D&D these days because there are games that do things differently that deal with some of the criticisms people are raising, and do it well. I think rather than change D&D, which has an essence that you can disturb with too many changes to its core, it is often better to seek out other games. Honestly I think the hobby would be much better off if people played less D&D and more of other games (there was a time before d20 where this was quite common)


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

In short, alignment never killed anybody. Hit Point loss did.

Yet, suddenly, alignment is bad wrong fun for D&D. 
Yet, Hit Point attrition until death is perfectly fine.

It is just a game, those are just tools to help the DM use monsters.


----------



## BookTenTiger (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> In short, alignment never killed anybody. Hit Point loss did.
> 
> Yet, suddenly, alignment is bad wrong fun for D&D.
> Yet, Hit Point attrition until death is perfectly fine.
> ...



So why do you think WotC removed Alignment but not Hit Points?


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 28, 2021)

BookTenTiger said:


> So why do you think WotC removed Alignment but not Hit Points?




They are constantly making changes and tweaks hoping they will improve the game and appeal more broadly. But just because they made a design decision, doesn't mean it was good for the system or one that will bring the most people to the table for the game. I don't know what impact taking alignment out will have. It has always been something people have complained about. but when 4E came out, that addressed things people complained about too, and the fanbase split over it. Not trying to dredge that old argument up. But my point is, D&D is the big show in town, it is the main game. So they need to maintain an appeal to a broad audience. I don't think 'fixing' everything in the game is always the best strategy because what someone finds annoying, is essential to someone else, and it is difficult to strike that balance. When 5E came out, one thing that I liked about it even though I never adopted it was it seemed to be an edition designed to appeal to everyone (I knew old school gamers who liked it, I knew new school gamers who liked it, etc). One reason the new Ravenloft lands a little sour for me (though I will purchase it in order to read it and because I want to support some of the people involved), is doesn't seem to have that same spirit of trying to appeal to older fans and new ones at the same time.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 28, 2021)

Shadowedeyes said:


> Hit points and Alignment are a bad comparison. HP are not realistic, but they are simple to understand and clear in how they work. Alignment is not clear and not realistic. While they can be used as a tool in certain circumstances, I'm dubious that it works any better than any other way to describe a creature/NPC's motivations. The only thing it has going for it is a bit of an iconic status in the game.




I would argue this largely depends on the alignment system you are using. The old system of Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral were pretty easy to understand (particularly in light of the source material that inspired it). I think it did get more complicated in AD&D. It still wasnt' that difficult though. The real problem was people disagreed on the meanings of the alignment combinations and they changed them a lot over time. Also things like true neutral were odd for a lot of people. Personally I think in a setting where alignment is reflecting cosmic forces, it makes sense. However, like I said before it has serious flaws. If you examine it, it does start to fray. I think the best approach honestly is to have mechanics for alignment that reflect how it gets used: which is some use it, and some effectively ignore it----so make it a switch you can flick on and off but be clear what turning it off can impact (as there are rules in the game tied to alignment)


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> You have insisted that alignment is useful




Yes. And the sentence ends there. I have insisted alignment has been useful to me.
So am I lying to you? Are you saying you know what's been useful to me better than I know what's useful to me? 
I mean, I can continue to try to explain why I find it useful, but not until we can get past this basic issue: you are either calling me a liar, or telling me you know what's been useful in my games better than I do. That, or you grant you might just have a difference in tastes.
If there is another option than those three, please let me know. But let's stop talking about why I find it useful, and deal with this initial point that you appear unwilling to accept I _DO_ actually find it useful.



Faolyn said:


> So. Are you planning on answering any of my questions this time?



Not until you answer the basic premise first. It's like you keep asking what type of apple I like, while I am talking about bananas. If you keep telling me _I_ don't actually find alignment useful, and that others don't either, there isn't anything to talk about beyond that. We will have established where you are coming from, and that no conversation will be useful.


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

Stefano Rinaldelli said:


> Frankly: no.
> There is no right approach.
> If you want a morally polarized world you can and it is right at least for you.
> 
> ...



I am not seeing how a listing of alignment causes polarization, when all you need to do is ignore it like everyone who opposes it has said they've been doing for years? How does it make your game more difficult?


----------



## Charlaquin (May 28, 2021)

Bedrockgames said:


> I would argue this largely depends on the alignment system you are using. The old system of Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral were pretty easy to understand (particularly in light of the source material that inspired it). I think it did get more complicated in AD&D. It still wasnt' that difficult though. The real problem was people disagreed on the meanings of the alignment combinations and they changed them a lot over time. Also things like true neutral were odd for a lot of people. Personally I think in a setting where alignment is reflecting cosmic forces, it makes sense. However, like I said before it has serious flaws. If you examine it, it does start to fray. I think the best approach honestly is to have mechanics for alignment that reflect how it gets used: which is some use it, and some effectively ignore it----so make it a switch you can flick on and off but be clear what turning it off can impact (as there are rules in the game tied to alignment)



I think Van Richten’s Guide was absolutely designed to appeal to both old school fans and new school ones, and I have heard from old school fans and new school fans who enjoy it. I’ve also heard from folks who don’t, just as I heard from folks who didn’t enjoy 5e. No product is going to please everyone, this time you just happen to be among the folks this one doesn’t please.


----------



## Tonguez (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Tell that to previous editions of D&D, where there's been multiple monsters that are just X, but with a different alignment (for instance, orcs, with their odonti and scro kin).
> 
> And take a look at whant ImagineGod is saying: since there's no CE next to Relentless Killer, then "edgy DMs" are going to declare it LG. Clearly, he doesn't think that would happen if it _had _been given an alignment. Or for that matter, when you said that a LE Relentless Killer might belong to an assassin's guild and had strict rules, while a CE Relentless Killer just wants to see the world burn. The fact that you could think up two different options is good! It means that you have at least two different possible uses for a Relentless Killer even _before _you sat down and thought up a history and reason why someone became one. But would you have come up with with the assassin Killer if there had been a CE in the statblock? And how many other people would have?



is it even possible for a Killer to be both Relentless and CE?
Being Relentless suggests an absolute obsessions with killing the targets, whereas a chaotic Killer would be "Im gonna kill those meddling kids because I want to but I wont kill them because - _ooh butterflies_..."

PS anyone remember what this thread was originally about? I've forgotten


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> Not until you answer the basic premise first. It's like you keep asking what type of apple I like, while I am talking about bananas. If you keep telling me _I_ don't actually find alignment useful, and that others don't either, there isn't anything to talk about beyond that. We will have established where you are coming from, and that no conversation will be useful.



No, sorry. You are claiming that alignment has specific uses. It's up to you to now explain those uses.

I find it very interesting that that would have been the _fourth _time I asked you to explain what use alignment actually has, how it's "useful" to you, and you have refused every time. Instead, each time you immediately threw it back on me, claiming I must be calling you a liar. I have to wonder if this is some sort of projection on your part. I mean, it would be _really simple _for you to actually provide some examples, and yet you refuse each and every time. Why is that?


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> is it even possible for a Killer to be both Relentless and CE?
> Being Relentless suggests an absolute obsessions with killing the targets, whereas a chaotic Killer would be "Im gonna kill those meddling kids because I want to but I wont kill them because - _ooh butterflies_..."



Now now, not every Relentless Killer has ADOS (Attention Deficit--Ooh Shiny!)


----------



## Remathilis (May 28, 2021)

I'm slowly coming to grips with Alignment's slow death and removal. Mechanically, it's been irrelevant since at least 4e, and the last few books (Frostmaiden, Tasha, Candlekeep, and Van Richten) have shown its being whittled away from:

Races (IWD goliath, VGR lineages)
Deities (Ezra, though it might be a corner case)
Generic Humanoids (IWD)
Generic Monsters (Candlekeep, VGR)
Specific NPCs (VGR)
Specific, Sentient, or Artifact Magical Items (Tasha, VGR)

So, what is alignment used for? Its become a vestigial rule that won't make it past any revision to the game and is in the same boat as fixed ASI as far as dead-rule-walking. 

Is its passing going to hurt? Depends. I still liked it, even if it had outlived its usefulness. Maybe it will be healthier for the game in the long run. Still, I can't help but feel a certain part of D&D's identity passing with this. The phrase "Lawful Evil half-orc monk" might not be exact enough to pin down to a specific play, but it was a short way to paint a general picture that you don't get by saying "orc monk with the following ideal/bond/flaw..."


----------



## Shadowedeyes (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Arguments happen regardless. Hit Points have encouraged murder in game because no matter how badly beaten a creature gets from 100 HP to 1 HP it can do as much damage on its turn as if nothing happened. So you get arguments, like we cannot stop fighting that creature until it is killed by dropping to zero Hit Points (abd dying in 5th Ed or negstive HP in older editions). .
> 
> You do not get that argument to kill or not to kill creatures in games that have significant injuries that can neutralize a threat without killing it dead.
> 
> If you think alignment is bad design so are Hit Points. Basically, HP removes the mechanical incentive of defeated but not dead. In D&D a 1 HP enemy remains undefeated and deadly.




You can reduce something to 0 HP and knock it out, at least with melee attacks, so no, you're actually wrong about not being able to neutralize a threat without killing it. Regardless, I've seen far less arguments about hit points then alignment, so I still don't buy your argument that they are similar. 

In fact, my proof on this? Remove alignment from the game and see how it plays. Pretty much the same. Remove hit points and I bet you're going to be house ruling something real quick.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 28, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> is it even possible for a Killer to be both Relentless and CE?
> Being Relentless suggests an absolute obsessions with killing the targets, whereas a chaotic Killer would be "Im gonna kill those meddling kids because I want to but I wont kill them because - _ooh butterflies_..."
> 
> PS anyone remember what this thread was originally about? I've forgotten



I mean, this is super emblematic of (one of the many) problems with alignment though. Does Chaotic mean a creature acts at random or on the smallest of whims? Does it mean a creature is allied with the cosmic forces of chaos? and if so, allied in what way? Militarily? Philosophically? Metaphysically? Does it mean a creature acts without regard to law? Or that it actively seeks to disobay or dismantle laws? Who’s laws? Can a chaotic creature behave in a way that is consistent with any set of rules, or does doing so cause its alignment to change to Neutral or Chaotic?

You can ask these sorts of questions about any alignment, and every player will answer them differently. It’s like the system was tailor-made for the specific purpose of causing arguments at the game table, and later, on the internet.


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> No, sorry. You are claiming that alignment has specific uses. It's up to you to now explain those uses.




Not really, no. I don't know where you think that obligation comes from, but it doesn't exist.

If I tell you I find X useful, no polite response include, "No you don't."

I can certainly try harder to explain to you why I find it useful. That's something I am up for doing. But only if we can get to the point where you accept I do genuinely find it useful.



Faolyn said:


> I find it very interesting that that would have been the _fourth _time I asked you to explain what use alignment actually has, how it's "useful" to you, and you have refused every time. Instead, each time you immediately threw it back on me, claiming I must be calling you a liar. I have to wonder if this is some sort of projection on your part. I mean, it would be _really simple _for you to actually provide some examples, and yet you refuse each and every time. Why is that?



If you're not calling me a liar, then what are you saying when you tell me I can't have found it useful?

I have not refused to explain why I find it useful, you just don't like the answer I gave and want to talk more about it (like for example post 248). But why the heck would I want to have a conversation with someone who, when I say "I like X" you respond, "You don't like X!" Would YOU want to have that conversation?

If I post a poll, and in that poll I ask people "Have you found alignment useful in any way?" and some meaningful percentage of people answer "Yes, I've found it useful in some way" what are you going to say to them? No, they have not?

I mean, take D&D out of this for a second. If I asked you if you like avocados, and you say yes, how would you react if I told you, "No you don't. Nobody likes avocados?"


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 28, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> I think Van Richten’s Guide was absolutely designed to appeal to both old school fans and new school ones, and I have heard from old school fans and new school fans who enjoy it. I’ve also heard from folks who don’t, just as I heard from folks who didn’t enjoy 5e. No product is going to please everyone, this time you just happen to be among the folks this one doesn’t please.



I could be wrong. When I read it it I will have a better idea. But I do think it is different in that many old school fans I know who were excited about 5E seem less interested in this release due to it seeming to take a negative posture towards much of the old material. The messaging is coming across that way to me as an old fan as well. Now that 1) doesn’t mean it is bad—something can be designed not to appeal to older fans and still be good and 2) the messaging and the actual content might not be in alignment (maybe the previews, statements and reviews are not an accurate reflection if the book). I am just not getting the same ‘we want you all’ here vibe I got leading up to the release of 5E itself.


----------



## Shadowedeyes (May 28, 2021)

Bedrockgames said:


> I would argue this largely depends on the alignment system you are using. The old system of Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral were pretty easy to understand (particularly in light of the source material that inspired it). I think it did get more complicated in AD&D. It still wasnt' that difficult though. The real problem was people disagreed on the meanings of the alignment combinations and they changed them a lot over time. Also things like true neutral were odd for a lot of people. Personally I think in a setting where alignment is reflecting cosmic forces, it makes sense. However, like I said before it has serious flaws. If you examine it, it does start to fray. I think the best approach honestly is to have mechanics for alignment that reflect how it gets used: which is some use it, and some effectively ignore it----so make it a switch you can flick on and off but be clear what turning it off can impact (as there are rules in the game tied to alignment)



The original system is probably the most coherent. But the most widely known is probably the system from 2nd edition. Which, as you have said yourself, is flawed. Ultimately, these flaws haven't been fixed, and that is why I suspect WotC is slowly moving away from the system. 

It's funny, because while I don't like alignment as it stands, I have said in this thread it could possibly be made better and more useful. My recent arguments have been that trying to equate it as a fundamental part of the game as hit points does a disservice to the argument that alignment should be a part of the game.


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> I am not seeing how a listing of alignment causes polarization, when all you need to do is ignore it like everyone who opposes it has said they've been doing for years? How does it make your game more difficult?



People, including myself, have posted how multiple times in this thread.

In short: If WotC is saying that all orcs (or whatever) are evil, then it doesn't matter if some tables choose to ignore that ore not: it means that WotC is basically supporting fantastic racism. In many cases, this fantastic racism mirrors real world racism, such as in the description in Volo's of how orcs can be "domesticated" if raced away from other orcs, but are never truly peaceful. This isn't the type of statement that WotC wants to make.

(And no, having always _good _races isn't better. Mostly because--as we've said many times--there has never been any consensus as to what alignments actually _mean. _This has led to elves being Chaotic Good and dwarfs being Lawful Good, while both having "kill on sight" edicts about certain humanoids (even being baked into their PC race info for dwarfs getting a bonus to hit certain creatures, in earlier editions), or being depicted as having racist or imperialistic views against other good races.)


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> I mean, take D&D out of this for a second. If I asked you if you like avocados, and you say yes, how would you react if I told you, "No you don't. Nobody likes avocados?"



Avocados are bad design! Prove me wrong!


----------



## Charlaquin (May 28, 2021)

Bedrockgames said:


> I could be wrong. When I read it it I will have a better idea. But I do think it is different in that many old school fans I know who were excited about 5E seem less interested in this release due to it seeming to take a negative posture towards much of the old material. The messaging is coming across that way to me as an old fan as well. Now that 1) doesn’t mean it is bad—something can be designed not to appeal to older fans and still be good and 2) the messaging and the actual content might not be in alignment (maybe the previews, statements and reviews are not an accurate reflection if the book). I am just not getting the same ‘we want you all’ here vibe I got leading up to the release of 5E itself.





Bedrockgames said:


> I could be wrong. When I read it it I will have a better idea. But I do think it is different in that many old school fans I know who were excited about 5E seem less interested in this release due to it seeming to take a negative posture towards much of the old material. The messaging is coming across that way to me as an old fan as well. Now that 1) doesn’t mean it is bad—something can be designed not to appeal to older fans and still be good and 2) the messaging and the actual content might not be in alignment (maybe the previews, statements and reviews are not an accurate reflection if the book). I am just not getting the same ‘we want you all’ here vibe I got leading up to the release of 5E itself.



I definitely don’t get the impression that it it slighting old-school fans, or saying that anyone who liked it the way it was is wrong for doing so.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 28, 2021)

Shadowedeyes said:


> The original system is probably the most coherent. But the most widely known is probably the system from 2nd edition. Which, as you have said yourself, is flawed. Ultimately, these flaws haven't been fixed, and that is why I suspect WotC is slowly moving away from the system.
> 
> It's funny, because while I don't like alignment as it stands, I have said in this thread it could possibly be made better and more useful. My recent arguments have been that trying to equate it as a fundamental part of the game as hit points does a disservice to the argument that alignment should be a part of the game.



I honestly can go either way on alignment. Not perfect doesn’t mean it isn’t useful to D&D specifically. But I think the very strong reaction to its removal is a sign that it might be more fundamental to D&D (just as HP are) to more people than folks may have realized.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 28, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> I definitely don’t get the impression that it it slighting old-school fans, or saying that anyone who liked it the way it was is wrong for doing so.



We just have a different impression. But I don’t want to derail another thread over it. I am just not getting the same tone or message as you on this front


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> People, including myself, have posted how multiple times in this thread.
> 
> In short: If WotC is saying that all orcs (or whatever) are evil,



They don't though. I posted the MM language about alignment. It's never been listed as an "all". Plus I am not even talking about monster books, the context here is a stat block in an adventure right? They can change any stat block to reflect that NPCs alignment. You can have a good aligned orc and an evil aligned orc in the same adventure. We're talking about the utility of alignments being listed in a simple form statblock. Much like if one orc is a "relentless killer" and another or is a "compassionate healer" in the same adventure. You can't pretend there is some inherent flaw in alignment because it spans an entire race (which it never did in this edition anyway) but then later claim a common descriptor doesn't do the same thing to that race.


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

Bedrockgames said:


> Avocados are bad design! Prove me wrong!



Yeah but there is nothing wrong with liking poorly designed things.


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> Not really, no. I don't know where you think that obligation comes from, but it doesn't exist.



You made the claim. It's up to you to defend the claim. Do you not understand how burden of proof works?

I'm not debating if it's useful _for you_. You can find anything you want useful. But you have claimed that it is objectively useful, even necessary in places, and no different than AC, hp, or weapon stats. Therefore, it's up to you to show how.



Mistwell said:


> If you're not calling me a liar, then what are you saying when you tell me I can't have found it useful?



You keep claiming it's useful. I have asked you how five times now. Each time you refuse.  

If you keep asking someone to explain something they've claimed and give some examples, and that person refuses while insisting that their claim is correct, what would _you _think?




Mistwell said:


> I have not refused to explain why I find it useful,



No you haven't. You just said that it _is_ useful. When I asked you "does this mean all CE people react the same way?" you refused to answer this.




Mistwell said:


> If I post a poll, and in that poll I ask people "Have you found alignment useful in any way?" and some meaningful percentage of people answer "Yes, I've found it useful in some way" what are you going to say to them? No, they have not?



Again, you have claimed:

1: That alignment is just like AC, hp, and weapon stats. That means it has definitive rules to its use. I have asked you to show me those rules.

2: That "two letters" are necessary for determining how nameless NPCs react. I have asked you to show me how.



Mistwell said:


> I mean, take D&D out of this for a second. If I asked you if you like avocados, and you say yes, how would you react if I told you, "No you don't. Nobody likes avocados?"



And here you claim that person tastes and actual rules are the same thing.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Shadowedeyes said:


> You can reduce something to 0 HP and knock it out, at least with melee attacks, so no, you're actually wrong about not being able to neutralize a threat without killing it. Regardless, I've seen far less arguments about hit points then alignment, so I still don't buy your argument that they are similar.
> 
> In fact, my proof on this? Remove alignment from the game and see how it plays. Pretty much the same. Remove hit points and I bet you're going to be house ruling something real quick.



No taking something to zero HP from 100 HP is the act of pummeling someone into contrition. It is very mentally traumatic if you equate it to a real life situations. 

In many other systems not D&D an enemy can be defeated once wounded. Only D&D plays through the turn by turn pummeling of Hit Points ftom full to zero. 

Like I said Alignment never killed anybody. Pummeling until 0 HP is worse act to teach children. 

The fact so many here rush to defend HP but hate Alignment shows the problem in wanting to eat your cake and still have it in D&D 

Those DMs and Players who play D&D like a table top RPG not a simulation of reality have no problem with neither Hit Points nor Alignment. Both are just tools for the DM to manage monsters to challenge the PCs


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> You made the claim. It's up to you to defend the claim. Do you not understand how burden of proof works?
> 
> I'm not debating if it's useful _for you_. You can find anything you want useful.* But you have claimed that it is objectively useful*



I really have not. Truly. Go back through my responses. I thought I'd been pretty clear in never claiming it was objectively useful. But if that was somehow unclear let me clarify. I am saying it's subjectively useful, not objectively useful. When I said if you don't find it useful in your games that's fine, that's part of me saying it's not objectively useful but merely subjectively useful. Some people find some uses for it. Others do not find uses for it. That's subjective usefulness. When I say I think you and I just have difference preferences and tastes for this, that's me saying it's subjectively useful. I have never once said or implied it is objectively useful. 

Maybe that's why you keep trying to tell me I don't find it useful? Because you thought I was saying YOU had to find it useful?


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> They don't though. I posted the MM language about alignment. It's never been listed as an "all".



Then what's the point of having the alignment in the first place?



Mistwell said:


> Plus I am not even talking about monster books, the context here is a stat block in an adventure right? They can change any stat block to reflect that NPCs alignment. You can have a good aligned orc and an evil aligned orc in the same adventure. We're talking about the utility of alignments being listed in a simple form statblock. Much like if one orc is a "relentless killer" and another or is a "compassionate healer" in the same adventure.



Neither "relentless killer" or "compassionate healer" can be described by a single alignment. Both a Chaotic Evil orc and a Lawful Good one can be described as relentless killers, and both a Lawful Evil orc and a Chaotic Good one can be compassionate healers.



Mistwell said:


> You can't pretend there is some inherent flaw in alignment because it spans an entire race (which it never did in this edition anyway) but then later claim a common descriptor doesn't do the same thing to that race.



If a common descriptor says "orcs are ruthless raiders" then no, it's just as bad as saying "orcs are Chaotic Evil."

Which is why the common descriptors are _not _saying things like that. Instead, they're using words like "many" or "some," or giving other reasons for their behavior, or other ways they express their "natural tendencies."


----------



## Shadowedeyes (May 28, 2021)

Not once have I argued HP are realistic. So I'm not really sure why you keep saying I am ImagineGod.


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> I really have not. Truly. Go back through my responses. I thought I'd been pretty clear in never claiming it was objectively useful.



Then I stand corrected. You didn't say objective. 

Which doesn't change that I have asked you _six _times now to describe how it's useful and you've refused. So far, all you've said is that it acts as a "decent shorthand" without describing how it would determine how an NPC would act.

And you _did _say it was just like AC, hp, and weapon stats, and have refused to explain how.


----------



## Stormonu (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Again, you have claimed:
> 
> 1: That alignment is just like AC, hp, and weapon stats. That means it has definitive rules to its use. I have asked you to show me those rules.
> 
> ...



With this sort of argument, why don’t you remove Type as well - why do we need to know that goblinloids are type humanoid when it can just be described in the monster entry?  What’s that, there are spells that only work against certain types?  Like how Protection from Evil works against Lawful Evil creatures?


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Then what's the point of having the alignment in the first place?



We've been around that issue already, remember? The whole "baseline" discussion we had? What's the point of ANY description of a creature, since they can all vary from that description? If you describe an orc as killers, does that mean no orc can be not a killer? If you describe an orc as wearing chainmail does that mean all orcs must wear chainmail? It's ALL a baseline to start from as a generic average description. 



Faolyn said:


> Neither "relentless killer" or "compassionate healer" can be described by a single alignment.



No but they can be a single entry in a description of a creature in a monster book, right? Which, exactly like alignment, would imply apparently to you that that's the only type they can be. Since that's the logic you've applied to the alignment listing there.



Faolyn said:


> Both a Chaotic Evil orc and a Lawful Good one can be described as relentless killers, and both a Lawful Evil orc and a Chaotic Good one can be compassionate healers.



But compassionate non-violent healer cannot be described as a relentless killer, right? And yet, an orc (or whatever entry you've put "relentless killer" under) could be a compassionate non-violent healer, right? Are you arguing whatever description is in the monster manual, no individuals of that monster type can vary from the description given?



Faolyn said:


> If a common descriptor says "orcs are ruthless raiders" then no, it's just as bad as saying "orcs are Chaotic Evil."




But EVERYTHING in the description eliminates some other options for them if you're taking descriptions as written in stone.


Faolyn said:


> Which is why the common descriptors are _not _saying things like that. Instead, they're using words like "many" or "some," or giving other reasons for their behavior, or other ways they express their "natural tendencies."



But that IS EXACTLY what the alignment entry says. Go look up "Alignment" at the beginning of the MM. the entire entry for all monsters is saying "many" and "some." It's implied by the entry..and all the other entries for all the creatures, including equipment and ability scores and AC and hit points and attacks etc..  It sounds like you applied some special condition on the alignment entry which you didn't apply to any other part of the monster stat block or description?


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Then I stand corrected. You didn't say objective.
> 
> Which doesn't change that I have asked you _six _times now to describe how it's useful and you've refused. So far, all you've said is that it acts as a "decent shorthand" without describing how it would determine how an NPC would act.
> 
> And you _did _say it was just like AC, hp, and weapon stats, and have refused to explain how.



I didn't refuse. I gave you examples (with details: I explained how an assassin might follow an internal or external code of conduct for their kills if they are listed as lawful or a more random approach if it's listed as chaotic, for example), you argued with me about them, and then followed that up claiming I didn't find them useful.

So OK, I guess thanks for finally acknowledging that I can find it useful even if you do not? Not sure why you're dwelling so much on why I find it useful since I am not trying to persuade you to use alignment in your games?

All I've ever been saying is "There is this content in the game which I and some meaningful number of people find useful in some way, and which has some iconic branding surrounding it which is somewhat useful for marketing purposes. Some other meaningful number of people do not find it useful. But because some do find it useful, and it's easier to ignore a rule you don't like than it is to add it back in if you do, I'd prefer it be kept in the game by default even if it's listed specifically as optional."


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Mistwell said:


> I didn't refuse. I gave you examples (with details: I explained how an assassin might follow an internal or external code of conduct for their kills if they are listed as lawful or a more random approach if it's listed as chaotic, for example), you argued with me about them, and then followed that up claiming I didn't find them useful.



Right, and when I mentioned that _that _should be determined in the creature's background, you said "oh no, this is for nameless NPCs only!" Well, by nameless, you said, NPCs you didn't expect the PCs to interact with, which is pretty much the same thing.

And when I brought up CE shopkeepers and minions of the BBEG, both good examples of nameless NPCs, and asked how alignment would help with them, you ignored the question. (Which does beg the question of, if they're so minor that you never expected the PCs to interact with them, why would they  even have an alignment?)

So either you're springing random assassins on your players without figuring out _why _they're trying to assassinate your PCs first, or you just moved your goalposts around a lot.


----------



## Azzy (May 28, 2021)

Stormonu said:


> With this sort of argument, why don’t you remove Type as well - why do we need to know that goblinloids are type humanoid when it can just be described in the monster entry?  What’s that, there are spells that only work against certain types?  Like how Protection from Evil works against Lawful Evil creatures?



_Protection from Evil and Good_ works against aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead regardless of their alignment.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 28, 2021)

Alignment is a shorthand for behavior; it is not a straight jacket, but a guideline.  Many people like having a shorthand for this soft of thing, and don't automatically assume that moral nuance is always a good thing in a game where people get together to throw dice and maybe work off some real life tensions.  The people cheering its removal are essentially happy a tool other people appreciated and used is being removed, because it sometimes caused arguments.


----------



## Azzy (May 28, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> Alignment is a shorthand for behavior; it is not a straight jacket, but a guideline.  Many people like having a shorthand for this soft of thing, and don't automatically assume that moral nuance is always a good thing in a game where people get together to throw dice and maybe work off some real life tensions.  The people cheering its removal are essentially happy a tool other people appreciated and used is being removed, because it sometimes caused arguments.



The thing that's being argued, however, is that it's a really bad shorthand that may as well not be there considering how inconsistent it's been deployed and described over the game's lifetime.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 28, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> The people cheering its removal are essentially happy a tool other people appreciated and used is being removed, because it sometimes caused arguments.



The people cheering its removal are happy that a vestigial game element that has long lost any mechanical relevance but still causes arguments and hinders the potential for nuanced portrayal of fictional monsters and groups is finally being let go of. The only argument that seems to be made in its defense is its “a useful shorthand,” and there are plenty of ways to provide a useful shorthand that don’t have the same argument-causing, nuance-killing baggage alignment has.


----------



## Mistwell (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Right, and when I mentioned that _that _should be determined in the creature's background, you said "oh no, this is for nameless NPCs only!" Well, by nameless, you said, NPCs you didn't expect the PCs to interact with, which is pretty much the same thing.




Look, that's what I mean by you argued with me. Like somehow I didn't give you an example if you would have done it differently.
I get you would do it differently. I don't care that you would do it differently. You asked for an example of how I have used it and I gave you one. You don't like the example, that's fine. You'd do it differently, that's also fine. It's still an example of how I've used it. Please stop telling me I gave you no examples.




Faolyn said:


> And when I brought up CE shopkeepers and minions of the BBEG, both good examples of nameless NPCs, and asked how alignment would help with them, you ignored the question. (Which does beg the question of, if they're so minor that you never expected the PCs to interact with them, why would they  even have an alignment?)




Because I don't need to keep going with you back and forth on individual examples once I had given you one and you basically said, "nuh uh!" to it. What exactly is the point of this to you?

And yes, I've sometimes sprung nameless assassins on my players before who then ended up negotiating with the nameless assassin and trying to convert her to their side (or at least work for them for a fee) and I had to figure out how that particular assassin might react to that unexpected offer, and alignment is one item I can find useful in such a situation.  

For instance it might work like this in the moment: if they are lawful, odds are they will answer no because they have a reputation for always completely their contract, or work for a guild that uses that as a rule for their assassins. If they are listed as neutral, they will consider the offer from the PCs if it's worth their while. And if they are listed as chaotic, they will take the offer from the PCs, and then try to kill them anyway at first opportunity. That all might sound trite, but it's one quick method of deciding how this nameless NPC might react in the moment without pausing the game. 

And let me tell you, it's often easier for me to figure out how they would react based on alignment than it is to come up with a name off the top of my head which doesn't sound like, "Assassin McStabby."


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> The people cheering its removal are happy that a vestigial game element that has long lost any mechanical relevance but still causes arguments and hinders the potential for nuanced portrayal of fictional monsters and groups is finally being let go of. The only argument that seems to be made in its defense is its “a useful shorthand,” and there are plenty of ways to provide a useful shorthand that don’t have the same argument-causing, nuance-killing baggage alignment has.



And those happy to destroy the past will soon have no future. 

For as you look back at baggage, you will realize none of the best works of fiction require Hit Point attrition. It just does not make for good story telling. 

Many games use injuries, that offer more nuance, than Hit Points. 

Same goes for HP linked to Class levels. What exactly does a normal non-magic creature 20th Level human fighter have to justify so many more Hit Points than at 1st. Experience, you have skills and feats. 

There is just no narrative advantage in HP attrition for a useful game. 

And piece by piece 10th Edition D$D is not D&D anymore.


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> Alignment is a shorthand for behavior; it is not a straight jacket, but a guideline.  Many people like having a shorthand for this soft of thing, and don't automatically assume that moral nuance is always a good thing in a game where people get together to throw dice and maybe work off some real life tensions.  The people cheering its removal are essentially happy a tool other people appreciated and used is being removed, because it sometimes caused arguments.



Except it's not actually a useful tool. As I said in another post, imagine you have an NPC, like a shopkeeper or a mook, with the Chaotic Evil alignment. What does that actually _mean?_ If the alignment is so vague that there are multiple ways that it can be expressed, then it's useless and can be replaced by a description like "cheats customers" or "will betray for coin."


----------



## Malmuria (May 28, 2021)

Bedrockgames said:


> And I think that is an important point for people to take home: you can always play other games. I hardly ever play D&D these days because there are games that do things differently that deal with some of the criticisms people are raising, and do it well. I think rather than change D&D, which has an essence that you can disturb with too many changes to its core, it is often better to seek out other games. Honestly I think the hobby would be much better off if people played less D&D and more of other games (there was a time before d20 where this was quite common)




Many OSR games do not have alignment (or even race in many cases): black hack, knave, maze rats, mörk borg, into the odd, worlds without number, white hack.  So yes, play all those games!  But also notice that 1) they are all dnd hacks, all of wanting to distill the dnd experience into a minimal, rules-lite form, and none of them felt the need to include alignment; and 2) changing and modifying the game is in fact central to the ethos of dnd.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Some people playing D&D hate almost all its game mechanics: hate character races, classes, alignment, hit points, initiative based turn order.

So why play D$D when so many Indie RPGs are free from all this baggage?


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 28, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> I think Van Richten’s Guide was absolutely designed to appeal to both old school fans and new school ones, and I have heard from old school fans and new school fans who enjoy it. I’ve also heard from folks who don’t, just as I heard from folks who didn’t enjoy 5e. No product is going to please everyone, this time you just happen to be among the folks this one doesn’t please.



I’m generally not a big fan of horror, but the reviews and posts have me excited to purchase this once I finish reading Candlekeep mysteries.


----------



## Azzy (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Some people playing D&D hate almost all its game mechanics: hate character races, classes, alignment, hit points, initiative based turn order.
> 
> So why play D$D when so many Indie RPGs are free from all this baggage?



Nice strawman.


----------



## Malmuria (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> And those happy to destroy the past will soon have no future.



yeah, see, here I'm not sure if "lawful neutral" or "overly dramatic" is a better short hand description of your position.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> yeah, see, here I'm not sure if "lawful neutral" or "overly dramatic" is a better short hand description of your position.



But if we are pedantic, we can argue the meaning of dramatic? It seems no better than alignment. How do you agree which action is the right or wrong one? Removing alignment does not magically solve that right and wrong conundrum at play.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> And those happy to destroy the past will soon have no future.
> 
> For as you look back at baggage, you will realize none of the best works of fiction require Hit Point attrition. It just does not make for good story telling.
> 
> ...



1. This is a non-sequitur. It has no meaningful relation to the arguments for or against hit points.
2. While hit points do have disadvantages compared to other harm systems, it also has advantages. This is not the case with alignment compared to other “useful shorthands” for monster/NPX behavior.
3. Even if some future edition of D&D does end up getting rid of Hit Points, so what?

EDIT: Holy crap, that $ in place of the & isn’t a typo, is it?! You’re intentionally avoiding calling 5e “D&D” and simultaneously implying it’s a cash grab!


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Azzy said:


> Nice strawman.



No, you tell me what makes D&D different from another RPG if you remove races, which some have clamored to get axed, you remove HP, you remove Classes for those hating Class based ply, what is left in D&D that non-D&D games do better already?


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 28, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Many OSR games do not have alignment (or even race in many cases): black hack, knave, maze rats, mörk borg, into the odd, worlds without number, white hack.  So yes, play all those games!  But also notice that 1) they are all dnd hacks, all of wanting to distill the dnd experience into a minimal, rules-lite form, and none of them felt the need to include alignment; and 2) changing and modifying the game is in fact central to the ethos of dnd.




Sure. One of the appeals of the OSR is you can basically make D&D but without the things in D&D that annoy you, and with the things you think it ought to have. I love that about the OSR. But that doesn't mean that D&D itself ought to emulate the games in the OSR that have stripped out something which could be deemed essential. Yes changing the game, hacking it is part of what people have always done. But the core game, put out by the company that currently holds the IP, needs to cleave enough to its essence, that it doesn't fragment the player base the way 4E did. My caution here is to say, people seem to have forgotten just how fragmented things were in the wake of 4E. The point is D&D can't take its player base for granted, because if they make an edition that forty percent of people thing isn't D&D enough, those people all now have plenty of alternatives they can go to.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> 1. This is a non-sequitur. It has no meaningful relation to the arguments for or against hit points.
> 2. While hit points do have disadvantages compared to other harm systems, it also has advantages. This is not the case with alignment compared to other “useful shorthands” for monster/NPX behavior.
> 3. Even if some future edition of D&D does end up getting rid of Hit Points, so what?



This is very valid to the Alignments argument. A lot of people find them useful shorthand. A lot hate alignment.

The vocal anti-alignment crowd kept shouting until alignments got axed in new D&D.

Another vocal group hating the whole races concept is shouting until races get axed They are already heading out.

Next many hate Classes. Other RPGs are classless because Classes like alignments are restrictive. A Fighter or Cleric is not nuanced. You get better Roleplay in classless RPGs. So I guess get rid of Classes to stop the arguments that no, your Fighter cannot cast spells, and your Wizard must be crippled with low Hit Die to balance spell power.

Then obviously, like I said Hit Points attrition is one reason kill-it-until-dead is so D&D. That is a negative excessive force of pummeling to death mechanic because a 1 HP enemy is as deadly as a 20 HP, no injuries affect it.

So remove all these problem elements of D&D so what is left as D&D not just another RPG?


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Except it's not actually a useful tool. As I said in another post, imagine you have an NPC, like a shopkeeper or a mook, with the Chaotic Evil alignment. What does that actually _mean?_ If the alignment is so vague that there are multiple ways that it can be expressed, then it's useless and can be replaced by a description like "cheats customers" or "will betray for coin."




It tells me he is willing to break the law, possibly even willing to harm people, if it advances his interests (or even if he just feels like it). Chaotic evil is much more intense in my mind than 'will betray for coin'. A chaotic evil person might lock you in their cellar and torture you, or they might murder you in the night and take your money and magic items. It is certainly broad. You tend to read alignment in the context of what description you have of the character. Maybe it isn't useful for you. That is fair. But plenty of people find it useful


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 28, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> The people cheering its removal are essentially happy a tool other people appreciated and used is being removed, because it sometimes caused arguments.



People cheering its removal think there are better, easier to use tools that can accomplish that goal much easier.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Even Attributes Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma have list all meaning in the latest D&D sourcebooks. 

Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft
Page 24 Living Shadow Lineage.
Grasping Shadow: your spellcasting ability for this spell is Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma (your choice when you gain this Dark Gift).

I would argue I might as well use Strength, because if we can allow all the prior three, why are we discriminating against Strength or Dexterity. After all grasping is a strength or dexterity action.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> This is very valid to the Alignments argument. A lot of people find them useful shorthand. A lot hate alignment.



You’re ignoring the fact that there are other useful shorthands that could be used, that do the same thing alignment is supposedly useful for just as well if not better.


imagineGod said:


> The vocal anti-alignment crowd kept shouting until alignments got axed in new D&D.



For the record, it hasn’t actually been axed yet. But I’ll grant that it’s on its way out, and probably won’t exist in 6e.


imagineGod said:


> Another vocal group hating the whole races concept is shouting until races get axed They are already heading out.



Races aren’t being axed. The way they’re being presented is changing, and with good reason.


imagineGod said:


> Next many hate Classes. Other RPGs are classless because Classes like alignments are restrictive. A Fighter or Cleric is not nuanced. You get better Roleplay in classless RPGs. So I guess get rid of Classes to stop the arguments that no, your Fighter cannot cast spells, and your Wizard must be crippled with low Hit Die to balance spell power.
> 
> Then obviously, like I said Hit Points attrition is one reason kill-it-until-dead is so D&D. That is a negative excessive force of pummeling to death mechanic because a 1 HP enemy is as deadly as a 20 HP, no injuries affect it.



This is slippery slope fallacy. And a bad one, because unlike alignment, classes and HP have advantages that can’t be replicated by less controversial systems. And again I ask, even if some future edition of D&D does get rid of these things, so what?


imagineGod said:


> So remove all these problem elements of D&D so what is left as D&D not just another RPG?



D&D is not just a collection of game mechanics. It’s a brand. Granted, changing the game mechanics too much too fast is bad for the brand; 4e proved that. You know what else is bad for the brand? Not making changes that the majority of the player base is demanding.


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 28, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> Alignment is a shorthand for behavior; it is not a straight jacket, but a guideline.  Many people like having a shorthand for this soft of thing, and don't automatically assume that moral nuance is always a good thing in a game where people get together to throw dice and maybe work off some real life tensions.  The people cheering its removal are essentially happy a tool other people appreciated and used is being removed, because it sometimes caused arguments.



Except that’s not what’s happening here.  WotC removed alignment from its latest product, and various people have come out to say how removing alignment is badwrongfun and detracted from their enjoyment of VRGtR.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Grasping Shadow: your spellcasting ability for this spell is Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma (your choice when you gain this Dark Gift).
> 
> I would argue I might as well use Strength, because if we can allow all the prior three, why are we discriminating against Strength or Dexterity. After all grasping is a strength or dexterity action.



This straw man makes a very good point. I would probably let him use Strength for it if he was playing in my game.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 28, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> The people cheering its removal are happy that a vestigial game element that has long lost any mechanical relevance but still causes arguments and hinders the potential for nuanced portrayal of fictional monsters and groups is finally being let go of. The only argument that seems to be made in its defense is its “a useful shorthand,” and there are plenty of ways to provide a useful shorthand that don’t have the same argument-causing, nuance-killing baggage alignment has.



Fair enough.  Assuming a GM has an idea of what alignments mean to them (and thus that it is a usable shorthand), what would be an equally or improved system that offers the same benefit in expediency?  When I see that a monster is listed in the statblock as "chaotic evil", I know what that means in my understanding of the game and my experience as a GM.  Thus, it is useful to me as a shorthand for behavior.  Do you have a better, and ideally just as easy to grasp and apply method for doing this?  Because I don't want deep nuance in every interaction,  and I don't think I'm alone in that.


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> And those happy to destroy the past will soon have no future.



And those who refuse to move on from the past will be destroyed by it. 

I’m not sure overblown oracular pronouncements are a particularly convincing argument.

To quote @imagineGod at you, removing alignment from the game never killed anyone.


----------



## Shadowedeyes (May 28, 2021)

Yaeahh, I see that we've gone to removing alignment will destroy the soul of D&D. I suppose we should should quickly bring back THACO too.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 28, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> Fair enough.  Assuming a GM has an idea of what alignments mean to them (and thus that it is a usable shorthand), what would be an equally or improved system that offers the same benefit in expediency?  When I see that a monster is listed in the statblock as "chaotic evil", I know what that means in my understanding of the game and my experience as a GM.  Thus, it is useful to me as a shorthand for behavior.  Do you have a better, and ideally just as easy to grasp and apply method for doing this?  Because I don't want deep nuance in every interaction,  and I don't think I'm alone in that.



Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws are oft-cited examples of more effective behavioral shorthands than alignment. The counter-argument is usually that they are too lengthy to serve that purpose, and I actually agree. They should be a couple of words at most instead of complete sentences. But the concept is solid.


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> But if we are pedantic, we can argue the meaning of dramatic? It seems no better than alignment. How do you agree which action is the right or wrong one? Removing alignment does not magically solve that right and wrong conundrum at play.



It is clearly better: there is a world of words to describe someone, of which “overly dramatic” are two.

Alignment limits you to 5 words (9 phrases).  And even within those 5 words, it uses the same word twice to mean two different things!

Very shoddy design.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Except it's not actually a useful tool. As I said in another post, imagine you have an NPC, like a shopkeeper or a mook, with the Chaotic Evil alignment. What does that actually _mean?_ If the alignment is so vague that there are multiple ways that it can be expressed, then it's useless and can be replaced by a description like "cheats customers" or "will betray for coin."



You're doing the same thing to me that you were doing to Mistwell.  If I tell you that an aspect of the game is a useful tool for me, you can't just say, "no, it isn't".  It may not be useful to you, but your opinion is not objective fact.  I've been playing D&D for over 30 years, so I know, for me, what the alignments are and what mean.  That makes it a useful tool, again, for me.  You have no say in that, and again, I doubt I'm the only one holding that opinion.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 28, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws are oft-cited examples of more effective behavioral shorthands than alignment. The counter-argument is usually that they are too lengthy to serve that purpose, and I actually agree. They should be a couple of words at most instead of complete sentences. But the concept is solid.



There could be a more succinct version of those things to use in place of alignment, I agree.  But we don't have one.  WotC has removed a tool without adding, or even proposing, a replacement.  That is a net loss.


----------



## Voadam (May 28, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws are oft-cited examples of more effective behavioral shorthands than alignment. The counter-argument is usually that they are too lengthy to serve that purpose, and I actually agree. They should be a couple of words at most instead of complete sentences. But the concept is solid.



Another argument against those would be their design for an individual instead of for a general monster entry. I am not sure what an appropriate ideal for dire wolves or owlbears generally would be, for example.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> You’re ignoring the fact that there are other useful shorthands that could be used, that do the same thing alignment is supposedly useful for just as well if not better.
> 
> For the record, it hasn’t actually been axed yet. But I’ll grant that it’s on its way out, and probably won’t exist in 6e.
> 
> ...



I showcased how Classes are very bad design that causes arguments and you chose to ignore it since you seem to want to keep classes. 

Early editions having been saddled by m any arguments at the table why a Wizard like Gandalf was prevented from using Swords staying only in the Wizard Class brought that whole mess of multi-class Characters. Then in 3rd Edition you even had those Prestige Classes to allow Sword Mage. Same problem happened for armor wearing arcane spell casters., suffering a penalty but clerics got to cast spells without that penalty. 

Cut it any which way, D&D Classes and Level was just bad design. But it is what makes D&D different from the plethora of RPGs that do not use classes nor penalize Arcane vs Divine spellcasters. In fact the whole premise separating Arcane vs Divine spellpower is shoddy at best. 

So all those are just as bad in terms of design if we chose to get that pedantic than Alignment. 

See alignment never killed anybody. 
Being crippled with low Hit Points because you chose the WIzard class in a game all about Hit Point attrition has killed characters. In earlier editions where a magic user with 1d4 Hit Dice could have 1 HP only at 1st level was basically a "dead man walking" since any damage automatically does at least 1 poitn of damage on any dice, even a d4.

So if those who hate the legacy of D&D alignment are truly honest and not hypocrites, they will see so many D&D classic games mechanics are very broken compared to the many Indie game systems that have already abandoned that sort of play. 

So when is D&D no longer D&D? That Ship of Theseus is very apt an analogy here.


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws are oft-cited examples of more effective behavioral shorthands than alignment. The counter-argument is usually that they are too lengthy to serve that purpose, and I actually agree. They should be a couple of words at most instead of complete sentences. But the concept is solid.



Cypher System creatures have a Motivation line. Some motivations: "Proactive self-defense." "Hungers for flesh." "Curiosity." "Reproduction." "Inexplicable" "Observe the dead or soon-to-be-dead." One short and generally useful, if simplistic, information.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Cypher System creatures have a Motivation line. Some motivations: "Proactive self-defense." "Hungers for flesh." "Curiosity." "Reproduction." "Inexplicable" "Observe the dead or soon-to-be-dead." One short and generally useful, if simplistic, information.



That's shorter and clearer, although less nuanced than the oWoD nature/demeanor system. Which just goes to show there's a bunch of choices out there.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 28, 2021)

Voadam said:


> Another argument against those would be their design for an individual instead of for a general monster entry. I am not sure what an appropriate ideal for dire wolves or owlbears generally would be, for example.



Beasts are Unaligned in 5e anyway...


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> That's shorter and clearer, although less nuanced than the oWoD nature/demeanor system. Which just goes to show there's a bunch of choices out there.



They would work together: Nature/Demeanor for PCs and fully fleshed-out NPCs, and Motivation for creatures and minor NPCs.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

FrozenNorth said:


> It is clearly better: there is a world of words to describe someone, of which “overly dramatic” are two.
> 
> Alignment limits you to 5 words (9 phrases).  And even within those 5 words, it uses the same word twice to mean two different things!
> 
> Very shoddy design.



I doubt even Monte Cook did better with his revolutionary Cypher System. The three phrase economy was not perfect, and the only reason you do not see as many arguments over it is because for all the money Monte Cook makes on Kickstarter, Cypher is still such a niche game, that now Monte Cook converts many Cypher projects into 5th Edition D&D. 

For example here is that supposedly revolutionary character concept:
_A brash (the adjective) explorer (the noun) who abides in stone (the verb)._ 

From a Cypher System rules generator. What the hell does that even mean?  And here you thought alignment was so bad in D&D it needed axing.


----------



## Shadowedeyes (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> I showcased how Classes are very bad design that causes arguments and you chose to ignore it since you seem to want to keep classes.
> 
> Early editions having been saddled by m any arguments at the table why a Wizard like Gandalf was prevented from using Swords staying only in the Wizard Class brought that whole mess of multi-class Characters. Then in 3rd Edition you even had those Prestige Classes to allow Sword Mage. Same problem happened for armor wearing arcane spell casters., suffering a penalty but clerics got to cast spells without that penalty.
> 
> ...



I dunno, ImagineGod. When is D&D no longer D&D? Is it alignment? Did it happen when THAC0 was dropped? Maybe it was when we abandoned gender maximums, Race as Class, or, I know, when we went past having more classes than Fighting Man and Magic User?

If you want to argue the usefulness of alignment, convince me why it is useful, not that it's some sort of iconic element of D&D that has to be there because it always been there.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Shadowedeyes said:


> Yaeahh, I see that we've gone to removing alignment will destroy the soul of D&D. I suppose we should should quickly bring back THACO too.



To Hit Armor Class Zero was replaced with Ascending AC Class. 

What have you replaced the alignment system with in Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft. 

I see an entry for "Relentless Killer" but no quick overview in the stat block if that is a lawfully good paladin in training.

And speaking of Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, maybe it has made the argument to overhall the whole spellcasting Attribute restriction in D&D, if Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma are interchangeable why have all three, since spells in VRGtR can use any, so why regardless.

Notice that in the Free League Year Zero Engine Games, there are only 4 Attributes, since it seems 6 is just too many as we are finding out more and more with D&D spellcasting overlaps. 

So, when is D&D no longer D&D, what classic D&D-isms will be axed that will make still D&D standout from those other RPGs that already axed the many things certain people here hate about D&D?


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Shadowedeyes said:


> I dunno, ImagineGod. When is D&D no longer D&D? Is it alignment? Did it happen when THAC0 was dropped? Maybe it was when we abandoned gender maximums, Race as Class, or, I know, when we went past having more classes than Fighting Man and Magic User?
> 
> If you want to argue the usefulness of alignment, convince me why it is useful, not that it's some sort of iconic element of D&D that has to be there because it always been there.



Because Alignment with its single (E = Evil) or two letter (LG = Lawful Good) shorthand is much easier to peruse quikcly in a stat block and still offer the DM ideas into how to play a monster. Other, games tried other approaches, not any better in play, frankly, I play Cypher too.

By dropping alignment in Van Richeten's Guide to Ravenloft, the text then spends multiple sentences trying to explain that "Relentless Killer" monster in the appendix, when just one letter "e" would have told the DM it was an evil monster.

So if WoTC was honest, instead of dropping alignment, present the better alternative (they have none).

Remember, THAC0 was the shorthand for the tables of to hit you needed in AD&D 1st Edition. Then in 3rd Edition, ascending Armor Class, was a shorter option than THAC0 of AD&D 2nd Edition.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> For example here is that supposedly revolutionary character concept:
> _A brash (the adjective) explorer (the noun) who abides in stone (the verb)._
> 
> From a Cypher System rules generator. What the hell does that even mean?  And here you thought alignment was so bad in D&D it needed axing.



I mean... That tells me _significantly_ more about the character than “Chaotic Good” does.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (May 28, 2021)

This sacred cow is afflicted with a significantly bad case of parasitic brainworms.


----------



## Shadowedeyes (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Because Alignment with its single (E = Evil) or two letter (LG = Lawful Good) shorthand is much easier to peruse quikcly in a stat block and still offer the DM ideas into how to play a monster. Other, games tried other approaches, not any better in play, frankly, I play Cypher too.
> 
> By dropping alignment in Van Richeten's Guide to Ravenloft, the text then spends multiple sentences trying to explain that "Relentless Killer" monster in the appendix, when just one letter "e" would have told the DM it was an evil monster.
> 
> ...



I know you replied to two of my posts, but I think this is the better laid out argument between the two, so I actually wanted to address it. I think the argument that a shorthand, or jargon, on how to play a NPC or monster could be useful, so that argument for alignment is compelling.

That said, jargon is most useful when the people who use it are all on the same page. I would guess that for most of the people who find alignment useful, the group they play with probably generally agree on how to interpret alignment. The problem comes in only if a group is not on the same page on what the shorthand means. 

Which is why I think it's not particularly helpful. If the Relentless Killer is lawful, what does that mean, and more importantly, are we all on the same page with what it means? No shorthand, or even detailed explanation is going to be perfectly interpreted the same by everyone, but alignment seems to be quite varied, probably not helped by different explanations throughout D&D's history.

I'm starting to ramble though. I think unless WotC wants to focus heavily on alignment and defining it, it's not terribly useful. The counter argument is that removing it doesn't add anything. Which is I suppose true. I'd argue that removing it makes the DM and players actually think about why the character or monster is doing what it is doing rather than falling back on the shorthand. I'll admit that is just an opinion on my part though.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> I mean... That tells me _significantly_ more about the character than “Chaotic Good” does.



One could argue that it restricts your imagination into playing the character only that way. Sort of like what you argued alignments do.

Or else, your argument against alignments are invalid, since  we all know alignments are just great single letter or two letter shorthand to inspire the DM to build upon that the same way you are building upon the Cypher solution.

It seems the hatred for alignments by the anti-alignment crowd simply boils down to hating single or two letter shorthand, but happily accepting other short hand. Kind of hypocritical that!


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Shorthand in the original i6 Ravenloft module for AD&D (by Tracy and Laura Hickman):

Random Encounter Table: Encounter:
1-4 villagers ; AC 9, MOV 12", HD 2; #AT 1: Dmg 1-6, AL: NG.

3-12 (3d4) ghouls; AC 6; MOV 9", #AT 3: Dmg 1-3/1-3/1-6; AL: CE

Yet, it seems some people who hate shorthand rather have it removed for everyone else who finds it useful.

I mean, is it not easier and more respectful to fellow DMs to just skip over the "AL: NG" in the above, if it is not personally useful to you, rather than demand no other DM has the right to benefit from that shorthand?


----------



## BookTenTiger (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Shorthand in the original i6 Ravenloft module for AD&D (by Tracy and Laura Hickman):
> 
> Random Encounter Table: Encounter:
> 1-4 villagers , AC9, MOV 12", HD2, #AT 1: Dmg 1-6, AL: NG.
> ...



You are using the word "hate" a lot.


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

Stormonu said:


> With this sort of argument, why don’t you remove Type as well - why do we need to know that goblinloids are type humanoid when it can just be described in the monster entry?  What’s that, there are spells that only work against certain types?  Like how Protection from Evil works against Lawful Evil creatures?



Missed this one earlier.

Type is actually useful in 5e for determining if a creature can be affected by certain spells or other effects. _Protection from evil and good _*doesn't *work against Lawful Evil creatures. It works against aberrations, celestials, constructs, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead. _Charm person _only affects humanoids. _Cure wounds _doesn't affect constructs or undead. A cleric or paladin may have the ability to turn undead--or fiends, or fey, or something else.

On the other hand, there are almost _no _things that require or work against a specific alignment, and most of those are weird magic items.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Some people playing D&D hate almost all its game mechanics: hate character races, classes, alignment, hit points, initiative based turn order.
> 
> So why play D$D when so many Indie RPGs are free from all this baggage?



1) Alignment is not a game mechanic. It's a piece of flavor text that has a handful of alignment-centered mechanics. The base alignment system has no mechanics attached to it, and thus is not a game mechanic.
2) I don't hate character classes, and I haven't seen anyone here saying that they do. Nice strawman, but that's not what we're saying or arguing for.
3) We've explained why we dislike alignment and why it was already near-useless mechanically and thematically in D&D. Removing it does not "destroy D&D". Stop with the slippery slope arguments, please.
4) I like hit points. I would like a few changes to them so that they mechanically fit the PHB's description of them and to make going 0 hp =/= sleep anymore, but I like hit points. Stop with the strawmen, please.
5) I like initiative. No one here has said that they want to get rid of initiative. Again, it could use a few tweaks for stuff like Ready actions, but I like the system.

Does getting rid of alignment and slightly changing up hit points and a few other minor parts of systems destroy D&D? I don't think so. Please stop gatekeeping.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> 1) Alignment is not a game mechanic. It's a piece of flavor text that has a handful of alignment-centered mechanics. The base alignment system has no mechanics attached to it, and thus is not a game mechanic.
> 2) I don't hate character classes, and I haven't seen anyone here saying that they do. Nice strawman, but that's not what we're saying or arguing for.
> 3) We've explained why we dislike alignment and why it was already near-useless mechanically and thematically in D&D. Removing it does not "destroy D&D". Stop with the slippery slope arguments, please.
> 4) I like hit points. I would like a few changes to them so that they mechanically fit the PHB's description of them and to make going 0 hp = sleep, but I like hit points. Stop with the strawmen, please.
> ...



The game is not all about you. There are many arguments on why Character Classes are restrictive to role play. A first level Character class pigeon holes characters into being Magic User without the ability to use Martial Weapons, an artificial restriction that harkens back to D&D history than any valid in-game reason for good role play. So calling out Character Class restrictions is not a strawman. It showcases the alignment haters are selective in their hatred for certain elements of D&D the help other DMs create good encounters on the fly.

Next, I showcased that Hit Points are a terrible injury tracking mechanic that has encourage that dreadful "kill it until dead" style of play in D&D, that other games with better injury tracking do not encourage. Can you please explain what logical reason there is for a 10th Level Fighter to have so many Hit Points compared to a 1st Level Fighter? There is none, HP are a legacy of old D&D encounter balance, not something that is vital if better systems are written like other RPGs seem to have done already.

Regarding Initiative, also a broken system. Why would your character with better Dexterity be last in the imitative order than much slower enemies if your dice rolled badly. If fact your whole party could be lower on the initiative order than the monsters, making for poor overall fun for the Players to witness the DM hacking them one after the other before they get a change to react.

Gatekeeping is refusing to allow other DMs who find alignment useful to get that in the monster stat blocks. Why take toys from others who find them useful?

The option to axe alignment for everyone is more like gatekeeping than the other option of leaving alignment for those who want it but not forcing it in use upon everyone.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

BookTenTiger said:


> You are using the word "hate" a lot.



Why not address the usefulness of shorthand instead of focusing on words not related to the shorthand


----------



## BookTenTiger (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Why not address the usefulness of shorthand instead of focusing on words not related to the shorthand



Because your inflammatory language is getting in the way?

I don't see anyone in this conversation "shouting" or using hateful language other than you. I can't imagine you talk with people in real life like this.

If you want to have a real conversation about alignment, how about asking questions, responding respectfully, and challenging assumptions?

Here are some questions for you:

Why do you think WotC is no longer using alignment?

If you feel like alignment serves a useful purpose, what could be used to replace it?

How will removal of alignment change your game? How will it change the game in general, both positively and negatively?


----------



## Charlaquin (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> One could argue that it restricts your imagination into playing the character only that way. Sort of like what you argued alignments do.



I never argued that...?


----------



## Espadadelaaurora (May 28, 2021)

Give plenty of choices to the gamers and let them choose what is more suitable for their game.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> It seems the hatred for alignments by the anti-alignment crowd simply boils down to hating single or two letter shorthand, but happily accepting other short hand. Kind of hypocritical that!



Dude, take it down a notch. No one here has run over your puppy with their car.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> It seems the hatred for alignments by the anti-alignment crowd simply boils down to hating single or two letter shorthand, but happily accepting other short hand. Kind of hypocritical that!



Once again, when you (the general you, not you, imagineGod) don’t have an actual argument, you gesture vaguely at imagined hypocrisy.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> The game is not all about you.



I never claimed it was. However, the game is all about fun, and fun is inherently subjective to each table (including mine and including yours), so removing a piece of the game is "about me" and my table, and other people that agree with me and their tables.

The game is not all about you, either. You want alignment in the game because you like it, and that's the core of your rebuttal to my argument that alignment already did practically nothing for the game except taking up space in the books with no real benefits to a lot of campaigns and tables.


imagineGod said:


> There are many arguments on why Character Classes are restrictive to role play. A first level Character class pigeon holes characters into being Magic User without the ability to use Martial Weapons, an artificial restriction that harkens back to D&D history than any valid in-game reason for good role play.



I believe that 5e's Class/Subclass system is a bit too restrictive, and that Subclasses should determine more than they currently do. However, I'm not advocating for the destruction of the Class/Subclass system, just changing it a bit to promote player creativity a bit more.


imagineGod said:


> So calling out Character Class restrictions is not a strawman. It showcases the alignment haters are selective in their hatred for certain elements of D&D the help other DMs create good encounters on the fly.



It is. It's a red herring and a strawman argument. I'm not arguing to remove the class system, no one in this thread brought it up before you did, and so it's off topic and a strawman. We (my side collectively that dislikes alignment) don't want to get rid of character classes, so bringing it up is the definition of a strawman (a mischaracterization meant to distract away from the actual argument to attack something easier to argue against).


imagineGod said:


> Next, I showcased that Hit Points are a terrible injury tracking mechanic that has encourage that dreadful "kill it until dead" style of play in D&D, that other games with better injury tracking do not encourage. Can you please explain what logical reason there is for a 10th Level Fighter to have so many Hit Points compared to a 1st Level Fighter? There is none, HP are a legacy of old D&D encounter balance, not something that is vital if better systems are written like other RPGs seem to have done already.



Hit points are a part of video games, card games, and a bunch of other board games and TTRPGs. The 5e PHB describes hit points as a "combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck". They're not just physical durability, it's a mix of other factors. They've already evolved from their original version in D&D. Furthermore, hit points are an essential part of D&D's combat system. Again, this is another strawman. Stop it, please.


imagineGod said:


> Regarding Initiative, also a broken system. Why would you character with better Dexterity be last in the imitative order than much slower enemies if your dice rolled badly. If fact your whole party could be lower on the initiative order than the monsters, making for poor overall fun for the Players to witness the DM hacking them one after the other before they get a change to react.



I have advocated for changes to initiative, like allowing INT/WIS being allowed to be added to it instead of just Dexterity. That would make it a bit more realistic, IMO. Sure, it's unrealistic, but it's essential to how D&D combat works. Alignment in 5e is not essential to anything (it's important to Planescape, but not essential).


imagineGod said:


> So why exactly are you only gatekeeping for the anti-alignment crowd and refusing to allow other DMs who find alignment useful to get that in the monster stat blocks. Why are you so happy to take away toys from others because you personally dislike them?



Wow. I've been accused of gatekeeping by angry grognards twice now. Interesting.

Firstly, I'm not gatekeeping. I recommend you check the definition of it. I'm not claiming that people who use alignment "aren't playing D&D", or don't deserve to be a part of the community, or shouldn't play the game. I've never done that. However, you have claimed that people who get rid of alignment aren't playing D&D. That's gatekeeping. Stop it. Stop accusing me of gatekeeping, because that's another purposeful mischaracterization of what I'm doing/saying (a strawman argument), and it's a personal attack.

I'm not happy to take away toys from other people. I didn't take away this "toy" from you, WotC did. I didn't even ask them to do this, so my joy at it not being in the books is not hurting you in any way.


imagineGod said:


> Your option to axe alignment for everyone is more like gatekeeping than the other option of leaving alignment for those who want it but not forcing it in use upon everyone.



I want alignment to be restricted to an optional Planescape setting book for 5e and future editions, just like I wanted the Customize your Origin mechanic to be restricted to Tasha's Cauldron of Everything for 5e. Alignment was being forced onto me, though, with its inclusion in every D&D book up until Candlekeep Mysteries. Stop trying to play the victim, and stop trying to paint me as the villain. I'm not. It's jerkish behavior and it's not true. Kindly, knock it off, please.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Dude, take it down a notch. No one here has run over your puppy with their car.



When everyone is quoting my statements like dog piling as if my views are not welcome here. Is that a friendly response you see if you scroll all the way back through this thread? 



AcererakTriple6 said:


> I never claimed it was. However, the game is all about fun, and fun is inherently subjective to my table, so removing a piece of the game is "about me" and my table, and other people that agree with me and their tables.
> 
> The game is not all about you, either. You want alignment in the game because you like it, and that's the core of your rebuttal to my argument that alignment already did practically nothing for the game except taking up space in the books with no real benefits to a lot of campaigns and tables.
> 
> ...



I find the world "grognard" personally insulating, since you do not know my history and just made an assumption by quoting my name in the post right before using grognard as a slur in response to my views of what I like about older D&D modules.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> I find the world "grognard" personally insulating, since you do not know my history and just made an assumption by quoting my name in the post right before using grognard as a slur in response to my views of what I like about older D&D modules.



You know what? I don't really care. I begin to not care about offending a person when the same person that knows nothing about me decides that I hate D&D, want to steal all the fun away from you, and needs to be kicked out of the hobby that both helped me learn useful social skills as someone with Autism Spectrum Disorder and kept my depression from (possible trigger warning) potentially progressing into suicidal thoughts and attempts. I don't care if that offends you. You have attacked me personally and refused to debate in good faith, so I feel that one mention of the word "grognard" is both accurate and warranted.

Edit: I will make it clear that I didn't mean it offensively. I meant it as "veteran player", which is its meaning.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 28, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> When everyone is quoting my statements like dog piling as if my views are not welcome here. Is that a friendly response you see if you scroll all the way back through this thread?



You started off combative, have escalated with every response and then use everyone else's corresponding escalations as reason to escalate further.


imagineGod said:


> I find the world "grognard" personally insulating, since you do not know my history and just made an assumption by quoting my name in the post right before using grognard as a slur in response to my views of what I like about older D&D modules.



Grognard literally means you're a veteran player. Saying people are using "slurs" is a great example of the extreme escalation happening here.

Also, spoiler alert: You guys aren't going to come to any agreement on alignment on this thread.


----------



## imagineGod (May 28, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> You started off combative, have escalated with every response and then use everyone else's corresponding escalations as reason to escalate further.
> 
> Grognard literally means you're a veteran player. Saying people are using "slurs" is a great example of the extreme escalation happening here.
> 
> Also, spoiler alert: You guys aren't going to come to any agreement on alignment on this thread.



"Angry grognard" is not a term of endearment in any community, especially when used without knowledge of the other person's games history.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 28, 2021)

Rules lawyer is also not a slur.


----------



## Umbran (May 28, 2021)

*Mod note:*

Guys, cut it out.  Now.  All of you.

Only warning you are getting.


----------



## Faolyn (May 28, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I want alignment to be restricted to an optional Planescape setting book for 5e and future editions, just like I wanted the Customize your Origin mechanic to be restricted to Tasha's Cauldron of Everything for 5e. Alignment was being forced onto me, though, with its inclusion in every D&D book up until Candlekeep Mysteries. Stop trying to play the victim, and stop trying to paint me as the villain. I'm not. It's jerkish behavior and it's not true. Kindly, knock it off, please.



Now that I think about it, alignment might not even really be necessary for Planescape. (No, hear me out!) 

You can step away from the way the Great Wheel centers on alignment and go to planar themes. Plane of Universal Harmony, Plane of Pastoral Kindness, Plane of Ceaseless War, Plane of Self-Centeredness, etc. You can still have layers get sucked from one plane to the other if the theme changes too much. That layer of Arcadia still got sucked into another plane because it was no longer a Peaceable Kingdom but more of a Military Camp--it might have ended up somewhere other than Mechanus in this version.

Likewise, the factions are, of course, philosophical in nature and generally don't map to any one alignment, even if their headquarters are on a plane on the Wheel.

And numerous NPCs were built to deliberately flout their race's norms. A'kin the Friendly Fiend (is he _really _Neutral Evil, or is he more complex than that). That one babau and osyluth who became BFFs. Ylem the rogue modron. Good tieflings and evil aasimar. Etc.

So considering how little alignment has impact on the rules so far in 5e, it might be very possible to have a Planescape with no alignment.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 28, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Now that I think about it, alignment might not even really be necessary for Planescape. (No, hear me out!)
> 
> You can step away from the way the Great Wheel centers on alignment and go to planar themes. Plane of Universal Harmony, Plane of Pastoral Kindness, Plane of Ceaseless War, Plane of Self-Centeredness, etc. You can still have layers get sucked from one plane to the other if the theme changes too much. That layer of Arcadia still got sucked into another plane because it was no longer a Peaceable Kingdom but more of a Military Camp--it might have ended up somewhere other than Mechanus in this version.
> 
> ...



I agree it's possible, but I would prefer to have an optional book contain alignment (mostly) to be fair to the players that like/use it.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 29, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Now that I think about it, alignment might not even really be necessary for Planescape. (No, hear me out!)
> 
> You can step away from the way the Great Wheel centers on alignment and go to planar themes. Plane of Universal Harmony, Plane of Pastoral Kindness, Plane of Ceaseless War, Plane of Self-Centeredness, etc. You can still have layers get sucked from one plane to the other if the theme changes too much. That layer of Arcadia still got sucked into another plane because it was no longer a Peaceable Kingdom but more of a Military Camp--it might have ended up somewhere other than Mechanus in this version.
> 
> ...



You can absolutely have a multi-planar setting without alignment, but you will never convince me that it is Planescape, no matter what the trade dress says.


----------



## JEB (May 29, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Also, spoiler alert: You guys aren't going to come to any agreement on alignment on this thread.



_looks at the six pages of arguments on the topic since I last visited

looks at the thread title again_

Sigh.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 29, 2021)

Erdric Dragin said:


> What if the PCs *do* seek out a Darklord? What if the story involves a confrontation with one?



Then the DM uses either the suggested statblock from the MM or from Van Richten's, or chooses or creates one that is appropriate to the level of the party. Strahd can be a level 20 campaign capstone fight, or the terrifying recurring villain of the early days of the campaign that is finally beaten, or at least escaped from, at level 6, or can be played straight out of CoS and be taken on around level 15. 

The goal is literally the opposite of what you seem to think it is.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 29, 2021)

Jiggawatts said:


> Canon matters. Pretending that it doesn't is disingenuous.



No, it doesn't.


----------



## Azzy (May 29, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> No, you tell me what makes D&D different from another RPG if you remove races, which some have clamored to get axed, you remove HP, you remove Classes for those hating Class based ply, what is left in D&D that non-D&D games do better already?



Did you just cast Grease on that slope?


----------



## Azzy (May 29, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Because Alignment with its single (E = Evil) or two letter (LG = Lawful Good) shorthand is much easier to peruse quikcly in a stat block and still offer the DM ideas into how to play a monster.



Monster statblocks don't use single or two-letter shorthands, though. The alignment entry is spelled in full.


----------



## Mecheon (May 29, 2021)

Bedrockgames said:


> Avocados are bad design! Prove me wrong!



Avocados are plenty good design!

Its just they were designed for giant sloths or gompotheres, which South America has a distinct lack of at the moment


----------



## Pauper (May 29, 2021)

Voadam said:


> A number of the old published adventures would not be consistent with the current campaign setting either, like the Cat of Falkovnic from Dungeon involving the former Baron darklord of Verbrek or the Darkon adventures involving Azalin's then active schemes for the Grand Conjunction and pre-Necropolis shenanigans.



Absolutely agree with you there -- if you were hoping to convert your old TSR adventures and use them with the new campaign book, you're probably pretty disappointed.

Though I have read some older fans who have basically decided to take the approach that they'll adopt the stuff they like about the new book into new domains and keep the old lore as it is. Given that a large portion of the old Ravenloft material is available on the DM's Guild, folks who are interested in the old lore can still get ahold of it.

--
Pauper


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 29, 2021)

Mecheon said:


> Avocados are plenty good design!
> 
> Its just they were designed for giant sloths or gompotheres, which South America has a distinct lack of at the moment



Yeah. Avocados most likely would have gone extinct if Humans had not decided to eat them. (Curse humanity! Why did you have to let that disgusting fruit/vegetable/whatever-it-is survive!?!?! You should have let it die like it was freaking supposed to!!!)


----------



## Charlaquin (May 29, 2021)

Mecheon said:


> Avocados are plenty good design!
> 
> Its just they were designed for giant sloths or gompotheres, which South America has a distinct lack of at the moment



Gotta know your target audience!


----------



## Mecheon (May 29, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Yeah. Avocados most likely would have gone extinct if Humans had not decided to eat them. (Curse humanity! Why did you have to let that disgusting fruit/vegetable/whatever-it-is survive!?!?! You should have let it die like it was freaking supposed to!!!)



Man, you have not had the good guac that I've had

Good avacados are delicious and make delicious products


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 29, 2021)

Mecheon said:


> Man, you have not had the good guac that I've had
> 
> Good avacados are delicious and make delicious products



No. Avocados are disgusting and guacamole is literal vomit. This is definitely an objectively correct and true fact, absolutely not an opinion influenced in the slightest by my ASD-affected palate.


----------



## imagineGod (May 29, 2021)

Humans are truly strange.

Some who do not like eating avocados do not just skip ordering them from the menu, but instead demand all avocados get removed from every restaurant menu.


So some such people say: why should they be subjected to reading an entry for avocados when they personally dislike avocados, not caring that other patrons  enjoy eating avocados regularly.
Because to them, how dare a restaurant take up space on a menu listing avocados when not everyone eats them.


----------



## FrozenNorth (May 29, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> No. Avocados are disgusting and guacamole is literal vomit. This is definitely an objectively correct and true fact, absolutely not an opinion influenced in the slightest by my ASD-affected palate.



Guys, keep it civil!  We’ll get this thread locked down due to our inability to agree on guacamole!


----------



## BookTenTiger (May 29, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Yeah. Avocados most likely would have gone extinct if Humans had not decided to eat them. (Curse humanity! Why did you have to let that disgusting fruit/vegetable/whatever-it-is survive!?!?! You should have let it die like it was freaking supposed to!!!)



As a Californian this is very difficult to read. Avocado is practically our state bird.

Then again, I prefer the old term fro avocado: alligator pear. It describes the thing perfectly!


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 29, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Humans are truly strange.
> 
> Some who do not like eating avocados do not just skip ordering them from the menu, but instead demand all avocados get removed from every restaurant menu.
> 
> ...



Wrong analogy.  Replace 'avocado' with 'peanuts'.

People don't want peanuts as a default in a lot of place that offer food... because peanuts are know to cause harm to a certain segment of the population with horrendously bad allergies.  And it's not enough to just say to those people "Well, don't eat them!", because the people who are using peanuts oftentimes aren't paying attention to how the peanuts are being used and the chance of them accidentally causing unnecessary harm is there.  Even if unintended.

Alignment is the same way.  It has been shown time and time again that the negative attributes given to the game's traditional "default orc" aligns eerily to many of the attributes given to certain actual human races and peoples to cause harm-- and alignment highlights one of them.  Now whether or not that is intended to be the case doesn't matter-- if some people are feeling genuine hurt due to people just not thinking about it, treating orcs like second-class citizens and seeing the parallels between them and actual races in society... sometimes you do indeed need to say "Why don't we just remove them from our menu altogether so there's there's less chance of an accident here, hmm?"

That doesn't mean someone can't continue to eat peanuts or use the traditional "default orc" they always have in their own personal life and game... but it also doesn't mean the person cooking the meal or making the game can't be cognizant of the potential injury and just choose to go another way.


----------



## Umbran (May 29, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Humans are truly strange.




*Mod Note:*
Yes, humans are strange.  They persist with problematic behavior after being told they needed to stop.

Fine.  You are done in the thread.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 29, 2021)

Edit: Didn't see the mod post. Removed a post that was responding to someone now out of the thread.


----------



## Jiggawatts (Jun 1, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The majority of D&D play occurs in homebrewed world.



And the established canon of those homebrew worlds matter. Internal consistency and verisimilitude are the most important features of any non-satirical work of fiction.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 1, 2021)

Jiggawatts said:


> And the established canon of those homebrew worlds matter.



You have successfully argued a point no one was disputing.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Jun 1, 2021)

Jiggawatts said:


> Internal consistency and verisimilitude are the most important features of any non-satirical work of fiction.



Internal consistency maybe, verisimilitude not so much. I've observed that a lot of my crop of media consumers (Early Gen-Z and very late Millenials; speak to the tastes of the kids these days, or to older Millennials) find that verisimilitude has a time and a place, and outside of that time and place there is room for tossing verisimilitude out the window in favour of Rule of Cool/Rule of Drama/Rule of Funny. Overvaluing verisimilitude is a road that leads to those surface level media criticisms obsessed with a caricature of "realism" that prevents people from suspending any measure of disbelief and engaging with the broader and more abstract themes of the work.


----------



## Jiggawatts (Jun 1, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> You have successfully argued a point no one was disputing.



You attempted to use that as a counterpoint to my original comment. I was responding directly to that.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 1, 2021)

Jiggawatts said:


> You attempted to use that as a counterpoint to my original comment. I was responding directly to that.



My point was that most people play homebrew, _and thus don't care about the canon of Ravenloft._ Saying that the canon of homebrew settings matters is not something anyone was debating and is 100% irrelevant to the discussion.

People like dry socks, too. Also not relevant to this discussion.


----------



## Jiggawatts (Jun 1, 2021)

And I was saying established canon matters, regardless of what it is. It matters just as much in a homebrew setting as it does in a published one. We can look at 4E for a very prominent example of when changes go wrong.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 1, 2021)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> Internal consistency maybe, verisimilitude not so much. I've observed that a lot of my crop of media consumers (Early Gen-Z and very late Millenials; speak to the tastes of the kids these days, or to older Millennials) find that verisimilitude has a time and a place, and outside of that time and place there is room for tossing verisimilitude out the window in favour of Rule of Cool/Rule of Drama/Rule of Funny. Overvaluing verisimilitude is a road that leads to those surface level media criticisms obsessed with a caricature of "realism" that prevents people from suspending any measure of disbelief and engaging with the broader and more abstract themes of the work.



Overemphasis of verisimilitude is what brought us the cancer of media criticism that is CinemaSins.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2021)

Remathilis said:


> Overemphasis of verisimilitude is what brought us the cancer of media criticism that is CinemaSins.



Though that may be a bit of a chicken/egg situation. Not with Cinema Sins specifically, but that whole style of media criticism.


----------



## Faolyn (Jun 7, 2021)

In case anyone is interested, over on the Ravenloft subreddit they're having a contest on a large number of homebrew domains. I've only read a few so far, but they're so far wonderfully imaginative and quite creepy.


----------

