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.

 

[Hurin70]

See the quote earlier in either this thread or the other ongoing thread. Tolkien himself said that orcs are not irredeemably evil.

Yes, but the full quote specifies that they were 'naturally evil'. Here it seems he is saying that they are inherently evil -- just that because they are part of Eru's creation, and Eru is infinitely good, they should not be considered as contrary to the divine plan.

They're still evil.

Here's the full quote, from Letter 153:

[Eru/God] gave special 'sub-creative' powers to certain of His highest created beings: that is a guarantee that what they devised and made should be given the reality of Creation. Of course within limits, and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions. But if they 'fell', as the Diabolus Morgoth did, and started making things 'for himself, to be their Lord', these would then 'be', even if Morgoth broke the supreme ban against making other 'rational' creatures like Elves or Men. They would at least 'be' real physical realities in the physical world, however evil they might prove, even 'mocking' the Children of God. They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making — necessary to their actual existence — even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.) But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them.

 

[Haffrung]

It boggles my mind how people cant make the distinction between the morally justifiable use of force (Police officers shooting an armed suspect, Soldiers in war engaged in armed conflict, defending yourself from an armed home invader etc) and immoral and unjustifiable use of force (killing POW's, murder, random slaughter, genocide etc) when those very things are universally agreed upon in literally every legal code in existence, and enshrined in the Geneva conventions and elsewhere.

I don't see anyone here unable to draw those distinctions in the real world. The question is whether they apply to an action fantasy game. To most people, they don't. They don't apply in tabletop RPGs, videogames, boardgames, etc. Because when we play we aren't acting as moral agents in the real world, but as action characters doing crazy naughty word in a fantasy world.

 

[Horwath]

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

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong.

No, they're correct. That is a part of it, but every single published adventure in 5e has had the main part be "destroy/thwart evil", while killing enemies and taking their stuff is just a side effect of doing so.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, but the full quote specifies that they were 'naturally evil'. Here it seems he is saying that they are inherently evil -- just that because they are part of Eru's creation, and Eru is infinitely good, they should not be considered as contrary to the divine plan.

They're still evil.

Here's the full quote, from Letter 153:

I’ve read it, and nothing in it contradicts what I said. He isn’t just saying that they’re part of the divine plan, and in fact...doesn’t really seem to be saying that at all. He explicitly says they are not irredeemable. They’re part of the world, and thus malleable and subject to the nature of the world, which is basically good.

 

[Argyle King]

To me, 5E currently feels a lot like how 3E felt toward the end. Books were still being published (and many were of good quality,) but there was a lingering feeling that the game was headed in a different enough direction to need to become something else -despite claims that a new edition was nowhere in site.

I see the reasons for the changes to how races are handled. I agree that change is needed. Whether or not the current way of attempting to make that change is good is something I question.

 

[Horwath]

No, they're correct. That is a part of it, but every single published adventure in 5e has had the main part be "destroy/thwart evil", while killing enemies and taking their stuff is just a side effect of doing so.

maybe the official intent of published adventure is to destroy evil, but more times than not PCs turn it into murder-hoboism. And as you kill only "evil" people, you don't have those pesky authorities to worry about. Haha!

 

[pukunui]

To me, 5E currently feels a lot like how 3E felt toward the end. Books were still being published (and many were of good quality,) but there was a lingering feeling that the game was headed in a different enough direction to need to become something else -despite claims that a new edition was nowhere in site.

I see the reasons for the changes to how races are handled. I agree that change is needed. Whether or not the current way of attempting to make that change is good is something I question.

Yes, it does feel like we're reaching a point where they can't just continue to patch the game via new releases. At some point they're going to have to either start over with a new edition or, at the very least, do a "revised" 5.5 (even if they don't call it that) with a new set of core rulebooks that include the new takes on races and the like.

Otherwise, the core rulebooks are going to get left behind and will end up turning people off for being "backward" in their approach to races and the like in comparison to the newer releases.

 

[Hurin70]

I’ve read it, and nothing in it contradicts what I said. He isn’t just saying that they’re part of the divine plan, and in fact...doesn’t really seem to be saying that at all. He explicitly says they are not irredeemable. They’re part of the world, and thus malleable and subject to the nature of the world, which is basically good.

Where do you see 'malleable' in that quote?

What he's saying is that God/Eru accepted their creation, so we can't say they are irredeemable in the sense that we can't say nothing good can come out of them. (See: problem of Evil). God allows evil to exist, so it must be part of his plan, and he can bring good out of it.

But that doesn't mean that evil isn't evil. He says the Orcs are 'naturally evil'. They are of an evil nature. They are evil.

 

[Maxperson]

I’ve read it, and nothing in it contradicts what I said. He isn’t just saying that they’re part of the divine plan, and in fact...doesn’t really seem to be saying that at all. He explicitly says they are not irredeemable. They’re part of the world, and thus malleable and subject to the nature of the world, which is basically good.

He said they were naturally bad(inherently evil), but not irredeemable. That just means that it's possible that some individual here or there MIGHT overcome its evil nature. Not that they are not inherently evil.