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.

 

[Umbran]

Are we still talking about a fantasy game or about the real world?

A fantasy game.

But my PCs must have slain hundreds of bandits, outlaws, mercenaries, cultists, etc. in D&D.

Did your PCs do this before those bandits, outlaws, mercenaries, cultists, etc, did anything wrong?

I am pretty sure nobody here is concerned with the PCs dealing harshly with creatures that have proved themselves an imminent threat to innocent folks.

The issue with the label "evil" is that it is a pre-judgement. Literal prejudice. What is wrong with having the threat actually demonstrate as a threat before putting it to the sword?

 

[Charlaquin]

What about Tieflings, Genasi, or Vampires? At least two of those were playable pretty early on in 5e's lifetime.

All of the following applies to my own setting. Others will have different takes.

Tieflings are humans belonging to one of several bloodlines that were cursed for dealing with demons. They are no more inclined to evil than any other humans (though like all humans, they do tend to be more susceptible to the temptation of evil than many other peoples).

Genasi are a mythical people said to be native to the elemental planes. They are generally not available as a playable race, and may or may not actually exist.

Vampires are undead.

 

[DND_Reborn]

In fact, given that you can choose when you reduce an enemy to zero HP whether they are unconscious or dead, every killing was a deliberate one. Wasn't there another option?.

This is a very valid point, but to be clear you can only use this option with a melee attack (not ranged). shrug

 

[DemoMonkey]

"I'm just going to mention that resurrection magic exists in D&D worlds, so if the party can't be sure that the person they killed was guilty at the time that they had to kill them, they can just bring them back and ask them."

You are correct. I made that point a couple of pages ago actually.

 

[pukunui]

Dunno, and dammit I wasn't going to comment but now I can't help myself. So, I looked at my copy of Tasha's and under Summon Fiend (6th level conjuration), the demon you summon has no alignment. Not one creature mentioned in the entire book has an alignment.

Hmm. OK. I hadn’t realized that. Maybe it’s just a sign that they are getting rid of alignment descriptors all together. Demons will still be evil but it’ll be based on their fluff text, not on “alignment”.

 

[DemoMonkey]

If I summon a Fiend with no alignment and have it deliver a nice cherry pie to some orphans, is it Good?

What if the pie is poisoned? Does that then make it Evil?

What if I tell it the pie is poisoned, but it isn't, but it doesn't know that?

Is Good or Evil to be defined solely by effect, regardless of origin or intent?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If I summon a Fiend with no alignment and have it deliver a nice cherry pie to some orphans, is it Good?

You're controlling it. That would be a good act from you.

What if the pie is poisoned? Does that then make it Evil?

That makes you evil.

What if I tell it the pie is poisoned, but it isn't, but it doesn't know that?

You're commanding it, so you're lying to something for absolutely no reason.

Is Good or Evil to be defined solely by effect, regardless of origin or intent?

Can we please stop doing these useless red herrings?

 

[pukunui]

I think I could get behind removing alignment entirely.

That way everyone and everything can be judged on its behavior in the game, rather than a built-in morality.

 

[Maxperson]

"I'm just going to mention that resurrection magic exists in D&D worlds, so if the party can't be sure that the person they killed was guilty at the time that they had to kill them, they can just bring them back and ask them."

You are correct. I made that point a couple of pages ago actually.

Raising can and does fail. It's dependent on the person wanting to come back, which is far from a sure thing. They almost surely didn't want to die, but the afterlife might keep them from returning.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"Can we please stop doing these useless red herrings?"

This conversation is for entertainment purposes only. No actual moral or philosophical enhancement is offered or implied. Offer void where prohibited by law, No monetary value. If you experience a forum discussion lasting longer than 4 hours, please seek medical assistance. Ask your doctor if Debatanol is right for you.