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]

I am happy with the options (which they are, options, not mandatory changes), but there is this nugget from Crawford which raises my heckles.
"is also uncomfortably like some of the racist narratives in the real world."
Different. Species.
An orc is not a dwarf.
The idea of human " races" has been scientifically debunked but I do not see a similar thing happen to differences between dogs and elephants anytime soon.
Again. Different. Species.

The idea of species doesn’t translate well to a fantasy world like D&D. Humans and orcs can breed and produce fertile offspring, so they are not different species as we understand the term. The term really isn’t useful here, and there is no real-world analogue that works. At the end of the day, the different races of D&D are all people. People that have very real inborn differences, yes, but people. There’s no getting around the fact that defining some groups of people as inherently evil, or even inherently warlike, recalls real-world prejudices.

 

[Zardnaar]

The idea of species doesn’t translate well to a fantasy world like D&D. Humans and orcs can breed and produce fertile offspring, so they are not different species as we understand the term. The term really isn’t useful here, and there is no real-world analogue that works. At the end of the day, the different races of D&D are all people. People that have very real inborn differences, yes, but people. There’s no getting around the fact that defining some groups of people as inherently evil, or even inherently warlike, recalls real-world prejudices.

So what about something like the Aztecs with human sacrifices?

They were wiped out argueably because of that. In D&D some races do same thing or worse.

 

[TheIdeaOfGood]

The idea of species doesn’t translate well to a fantasy world like D&D. Humans and orcs can breed and produce fertile offspring, so they are not different species as we understand the term. The term really isn’t useful here, and there is no real-world analogue that works. At the end of the day, the different races of D&D are all people. People that have very real inborn differences, yes, but people. There’s no getting around the fact that defining some groups of people as inherently evil, or even inherently warlike, recalls real-world prejudices.

Okay, maybe I was a bit vague in what exactly I do not agree with. I was referring to how Crawford sees innate advantages as being like racist narratives. That's where I call bs.
I'm not opposed to giving players more options to customize their characters further, but the reasoning behind it is, in my opinion, like pouring the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Depends how you look at it.

It could just as easily be that "destroy/thwart evil" is the convenient excuse the adventures provide for going out, killing things, and taking their stuff.

In other words, the thwarting of evil is the side effect.

 

[Argyle King]

Regarding killing things: a core component of how the game is designed is XP, which is a point value assigned to how much advancement is gained via murdering a creature.

I vaguely remember* the Satanic Panic crowd using that to justify some of their arguments. I find it somewhat strange that we've somehow reached a place where attempts to increase diversity and avoid offense have circled back around to using talking points similar to those employed by folks who demonized D&D players.

*True story: I was unable to buy 2nd Edition because the local Toys'R'Us (which carried the game at the time) would not allow "kids" to buy the game, due to pressure from parent groups who wanted to "protect" children from the evil influences of the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

So what about something like the Aztecs with human sacrifices?

What about them?

They were wiped out argueably because of that.

Um... No? They were conquered by the Spanish...

In D&D some races do same thing or worse..

Ok?

 

[Charlaquin]

Depends how you look at it.

It could just as easily be that "destroy/thwart evil" is the convenient excuse the adventures provide for going out, killing things, and taking their stuff.

In other words, the thwarting of evil is the side effect.

That could be the case. Or the loot could be the side effect of the thwarting. The fact that both are valid interpretations means D&D cannot accurately be said to be “about” killing things and taking their stuff. That is something you can choose to make the focus of your game, but it is not definitively the focus of the game per se.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Regarding killing things: a core component of how the game is designed is XP, which is a point value assigned to how much advancement is gained via murdering a creature.

I vaguely remember* the Satanic Panic crowd using that to justify some of their arguments. I find it somewhat strange that we've somehow reached a place where attempts to increase diversity and avoid offense have circled back around to using talking points similar to those employed by folks who demonized D&D players.

*True story: I was unable to buy 2nd Edition because the local Toys'R'Us (which carried the game at the time) would not allow "kids" to buy the game, due to pressure from parent groups who wanted to "protect" children from the evil influences of the game.

I'm not against killing things in D&D. However, the things you kill better deserve the killing, or you're a murderhobo, and murderhobos are punished in my games.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm not against killing things in D&D. However, the things you kill better deserve the killing, or you're a murderhobo, and murderhobos are punished in my games.

Given contemporary arguments, how is "deserve" defined?

Through the lens of modern real-world culture, it could be argued that there's never a reason for a creature to deserve to die. Asmodeus could be one chai latte and one heart-to-heart talk away from being redeemed.

From more of a meta-game view, it also could be argued (and has been in the past) that attaching an XP value to the lives of creatures -for the purposes of measuring advancement- promotes undesirable behavior among players of the game.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Given contemporary arguments, how is "deserve" defined?

Most fiends, most undead, most aberrations (not flumphs or gnome ceremorphs), and most evil elementals deserve death if they're killing people. Someone that is attempting to kill you or innocent people for malicious purposes deserves death, or at least incapacitation.