D&D 5E WotC On Tasha, Race, Alignment: A Several-Year Plan

WotC spoke to the site Dicebreaker about D&D race and alignment, and their plans for the future.

• On of the motivations of the changes [character customization] in Tasha's Cauldron was to decouple race from class.
• The 'tightrope' between honouring legacy and freedom of character choice has not been effectively walked.
• Alignment is turning into a roleplaying tool, and will not be used to describe entire cultures.
• This work will take several years to fully implement.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But only one of these ways of representing biological differences restricts the viability of certain gameplay roles.

Yes, a perfectly valid point if you're arguing for game balance. It just has nothing to do with 'problematicness' in moral sense.

 

[Flamestrike]

"What possible moral ambiguity is there in fighting bandits/raiders, slavers, murder-cultists, etc?"

But what if they're bandits because they're hungry?

What if they are slavers to avenge themselves on the creatures that enslaved them?

Murder-cultists are just paladins who don't worship YOUR god.

Previously, if the party kicks in the door in a dungeon and there are 4 drow and a Drider inside and they know Drow are evil, they can lead with a fireball.

Now, they can only lead with a "Hey guy's, sup? How do you feel about evil and stu OH GOD I'M POISONED AND STABBED!!"

Thats a standard not even contemporary Police, Military and Civilians (in self defence) are beholden to.

The alignment of your victims does not matter.

If you round a corner and see 3 humanoids with weapons, who pose a threat to you that reasonably required violence in self defence (collective or personal) and your response is proportionate to that threat, your violence (including killing) is not evil.

This is a principle enshrined in the legal system of where you live (where ever that may be) and that exists in legal codes around the world, and through time immemorial.

See an Orc/ Elf/ Human/ Goblin in a tavern having a quiet drink by himself? Sneaking up behind him and bashing his brains in is EVIL.

See an Orc/ Elf/ Human/ Goblin drawing a weapon and roaring at you with menace in his eyes? Violence is an acceptable response.

It's no different to real life, and if you dont know when it is morally accceptable to use force (including lethal force) in real life, then you have much larger problems.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, yeah, generally those things happen before a monster reaches 0 hp...

YMMV, but in 5E? Nope. Most tables/games IME are still a bunch of murder-hobos when it comes to combat.

I was actually considering trying an experiment: only ONE combat per level. Everything else has to be role-playing, problem-solving, etc. Emphasis would be put on avoiding combat (because, let's face it, combat should be scary and deadly and frankly just isn't in this game 90% of the time...) because who wants to risk getting killed? Anyway, I am still working on the concept, but my time with 5E is likely waning, I don't know how much effort I'll really put into the idea.

 

[jasper]

I hate to break it to you, but “killing people and taking their stuff” hasn’t been what D&D is about for years.

I enjoy breaking to you, but "Killing people and taking their stuff" is still the gold standard for a lot of groups. Lots of modules. And lots of Adventure paths.

 

[Oofta]

I think many different styles of play are valid, if you and your group have fun you're all good.

What I have a problem with is people telling others (or implying) that they're retrograde, behind the times neanderthal because in their campaign orcs are evil. Orcs aren't people, they aren't even a species in the natural world sense. They are monsters that happen to have similar form to humans that were created by an evil god for the sole purpose of waging never ending war. They are evil in the same sense that zombies are undead; neither are real so they don't have to follow real world rules.

I rarely use orcs (or other monstrous humanoids) but sometimes I just want evil cannon fodder. But this is the same argument just getting rehashed by the same people.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"It's no different to real life, and if you dont know when it is morally accceptable to use force (including lethal force) in real life, then you have much larger problems."

It's true, I don't. I'm currently awaiting trial in real life for using my +2 Glaive to Divine Smite on the subway because someone wouldn't take off their backpack.

...

Now if we can move past the snideness, being aware of the propriety of using force in the real world is precisely why having the implicit moral justification to use it and be right to use it in game is...well...fun!

 

[Charlaquin]

YMMV, but in 5E? Nope. Most tables/games IME are still a bunch of murder-hobos when it comes to combat.

That’s really more on the NPCs behavior though. If they always fight until they reach 0 hp, yeah, they’re gonna get killed. But if you have them surrender, retreat, etc. when it’s clear they can’t win, it might be a different story.

 

[jgsugden]

D&D is an RPG - a role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. Misconceptions, bad information and lack of information are common story elements.

I think it is important to consider whether you're thinking about the absolute truths of a campaign world, or whether you're talking about the beliefs within a campaign world. While WotC is establishing that it is a universal truth that orcs are inherently evil, there is nothing preventing a DM from having it be a widely held belief throughout almost all cultures in their campaign world that orcs are inherently evil. This misconception can be used by DM to create a lot of stories. Real history, and many fantasy stories, are filled with tales that trigger around a belief that an entire race, culture or belief system is inherently evil. Revealing that it is not true, and raising awareness that it is a lie, can be the entire motivation for an entire campaign.

 

[Charlaquin]

I enjoy breaking to you, but "Killing people and taking their stuff" is still the gold standard for a lot of groups. Lots of modules. And lots of Adventure paths.

I don’t agree with your assessment that it’s the gold standard for a lot of modules or adventure paths anymore. But even if we assume for the sake of argument that it is, that still doesn’t make the assertion that killing people and taking their stuff is “what D&D is about” accurate, as there are undeniably groups, modules, and adventure paths that aren’t about that. We can quibble over which is more common, but at the end of the day, it just isn’t accurate to claim that that’s what D&D is about.

 

[Ace]

Thats a standard not even contemporary Police, Military and Civilians (in self defence) are beholden to.

The alignment of your victims does not matter.

If you round a corner and see 3 humanoids with weapons, who pose a threat to you that reasonably required violence in self defence (collective or personal) and your response is proportionate to that threat, your violence (including killing) is not evil.

This is a principle enshrined in the legal system of where you live (where ever that may be) and that exists in legal codes around the world, and through time immemorial.

See an Orc/ Elf/ Human/ Goblin in a tavern having a quiet drink by himself? Sneaking up behind him and bashing his brains in is EVIL.

See an Orc/ Elf/ Human/ Goblin drawing a weapon and roaring at you with menace in his eyes? Violence is an acceptable response.

It's no different to real life, and if you dont know when it is morally accceptable to use force (including lethal force) in real life, then you have much larger problems.

Good post. However in many places historically ambushing and murdering strangers even those say in your inn was socially acceptably and even tolerated . Its why traveling alone was historical and in some places still is very dangerous.

There are also many cultures where hunting "others" is considered good sport and its not a tiny percentile.

A bit drifty, this is the reason in my opinion for the hospitality mandate in the Norse Havamal . An inability to travel safely results in greater impoverishment than the real risks (disease, violence) engendered by strangers warrant.

Its only the last few centuries, an eyeblink in historical time in which anything like safety or order were seen in many parts of the world or that stranger= possible enemy wasn't on everyone's mind at least a little.

All in all as with everything in gaming, its world dependent. There are worlds where orcs have no capacity for moral reasoning and killing them is fine. Its not the correct path for D&D to take but its not that uncommon either.

Just make it fun for your group.

For official D&D I hope its editors can serve the best balance between Zeitgeist , Player Base and Market Needs. More D&D is always good.