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.

 

[Charlaquin]

"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!

But it matters what justification you’re using. If it’s “some races are just born evil...” Well, you do you I guess, but to me, a world where that’s true does not sound like fun, and I don’t easily imagine myself getting along with someone to whom it did.

 

[Flamestrike]

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!

Ok, then play an Evil PC.

Then you can sidestep needing a moral justification, or you can implicitly use an immoral one.

 

[pukunui]

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

Yes. I make good use of the Morale rules in the DMG to determine if NPCs / monsters will surrender or run away rather than fighting to the death.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

You are right it depends on a lot of factors. When I DM I put myself in the monster's POV. Would surrender likely save my life? What options do I have? Often, the PCs are there to kill me (as I see it), and rarely will they let me live--at best I'll just be killed later on, as where if I keep fighting maybe I can take them down? Also, many times when a monster gets low enough HP that retreat becomes an option, it is too late and another hit or two will kill them. Finally, with feats like Sentinel, the PCs flat-out refuse to let the bad guys escape so they might live to fight the PCs again later on. Why let your enemy live so they can try to kill you again later?

In short, unless the PCs actually have a reason that benefits them to keep an enemy alive, they won't--it is too risky. Like I said, YMMV, which is great, but that IME.

 

[DemoMonkey]

To be clear, I'm too much of a contrarian to say anything is 100%.

I'm perfectly content with a world where all Drow are evil because their God made them that way except - if they want - the player characters, though. And for that fact to be known and acted on. (My current campaign world.)

I'm also ok with a world where Goblins and Hobgoblins have no more intrinsic an alignment than humans do, and are adversarial only because their nations are at war and the question of which side to support is a recurring one. (Also my current campaign world.)

But I don't think it serves the game for the second position to be the default. And really, defaults are what we are discussing, not possibilities.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes. I make good use of the Morale rules in the DMG to determine if NPCs / monsters will surrender or run away rather than fighting to the death.

Sure, it works great if they have a place to run to or hope that it will actually keep them alive--which if you read my other post you would understand why that often isn't the case IME.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It is not like the lack of alignment will prevent anyone from running a game about going murderhobo on the orcs if they want to.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Do you really still play this way?
I think killing before knowing what's going on is an evil act, no matter how evil you think someone might be.
Righteous good Paladins that are judges and executioners at once often go down the evil route. They walk a very thin line between doing the right thing and overstepping the line. Hey, you can stop a lot of evil if you just do Genocide. Kill the Goblin toddlers so they won't grow up to become monsters.
Some examples are Athas of Warcraft 3, Anakin Skywalker, you surely find more.

I think a good start is removing xp from killing monsters. Instead grant themfor overcoming challenges. Winninng a fight by nonviolent means should give more xp than killing.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"It is not like the lack of alignment will prevent anyone from running a game about going murderhobo on the orcs if they want to."

It's not like the presence of alignment will keep a player from playing a Lawful Good Orc.

Even -now, let's be honest, ESPECIALLY - if their DM asks them not to.

 

[pukunui]

Sure, it works great if they have a place to run to or hope that it will actually keep them alive--which if you read my other post you would understand why that often isn't the case IME.

Yes, I know. I sometimes have to resort to bending the rules to allow some of my NPCs and monsters to escape from the PCs. The default 5e rules are as tough on monster survival as they are lenient on PC survival.