D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: Gothic Lineages & New Race/Culture Distinction

The latest Unearthed Arcana contains the Dhampir, Reborn, and Hexblood races. The Dhampir is a half-vampire; the Hexblood is a character which has made a pact with a hag; and the Reborn is somebody brought back to life.

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

Perhaps the bigger news is this declaration on how race is to be handled in future D&D books as it joins other games by stating that:

"...the race options in this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical realities of being a player character who’s a member of a particular lineage. Such traits include things like darkvision, a breath weapon (as in the dragonborn), or innate magical ability (as in the forest gnome). Such traits don’t include cultural characteristics, like language or training with a weapon or a tool, and the traits also don’t include an alignment suggestion, since alignment is a choice for each individual, not a characteristic shared by a lineage."

 

[squibbles]

I think the difference (to a large extent...Hill Giants for example might be an exception) is that those other types of monsters are made evil using other tropes.

The problem isn't just that monster X is inherently evil, the problem is when the way it is signaled to us that it's evil, and we know it can be killed on-sight, is because it's lazy, violent, promiscuous, stupid, irrational, etc.

That's a really interesting answer.

So, could the stock humanoid enemies of the MM be signaled as evil using tropes that don't have these kinds of racial overtones? Are there some humanoid enemies that sidestep these issues? Or is that signalling only applicable to dragons and giants and what-have-you?

 

[Remathilis]

There really should be such a subclass. Call it thug.

Considering the racial implications of that word both historically and in modern times, let's not call it that.

 

[Scribe]

WTF? How is that putting words into somebody's mouth?

If that wasnt your intent thats fine and I apologize.

I dunno. But if we are to argue that the monsters aren't antagonists then they have a right to life same as anyone. Good luck.

It could totally be done. You just dont have any kind of mono-cultures at all, you need a lot more world building, a lot more definition around how the world functions, and your adventures would become much more 'this villainy was performed by a being named Bob, go correct it.'.

I dont think thats an impossible scenario.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Considering the racial implications of that word both historically and I'm modern times, let's not call it that.

You're correct. 'Bruiser?'

 

[Remathilis]

You're correct. 'Bruiser?'

Mugger seems appropriate

 

[Faolyn]

Does that mean that no story from now on is allowed to have a villain? Because whatever group that villain belongs to will bring out the response, "How DARE you suggest that people of (villains group) are villains!"

No! What it means is that your villains need to have motivations for being villains. And "it's an orc, therefore evil" is not a motivation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Mugger seems appropriate

Yes!

 

[Guest 6801328]

That's a really interesting answer.

So, could the stock humanoid enemies of the MM be signaled as evil using tropes that don't have these kinds of racial overtones? Are there some humanoid enemies that sidestep these issues? Or is that signalling only applicable to dragons and giants and what-have-you?

I find mind-flayers* totally fine, because it doesn't rely on those primitive, tribal tropes. And it's not the tentacles; they would still be fine without those.

Then again, I'm a privileged white male, and once upon a time I thought orcs were fine. It might very well be the case that mind flayers are built on some insidious tropes that have been used to marginalize real world people.

*Not 'humanoid' by D&D formal definition, but mostly humanoid in form.

 

[Scribe]

No! What it means is that your villains need to have motivations for being villains. And "it's an orc, therefore evil" is not a motivation.

Exactly, which I THINK is how things have been going. Its been awhile for the older 5e adventures but Icewind Dale didnt seem to have anything at a glance that screamed 'this is just because I'm an orc and bad, rawr'.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

* When kobolds and gnomes are going to bury the hatchet and smoke the peace pipe (= the end of the racial animosity)?

* Some racial traits becomes useless if the player chooses certain class for that race. For example most of elf wizards don't use bows, or a dwarf roguedoesn't wear medium amor. But this may be easily fixed if other options are avaible, being replaced with other trait.

* Most of us here agree WotC really is showing good will about being politically correct, but somebody could use fictional races or fantasy as offensive allegory of real groups. Let's imagine a story where the "evil empire" are the mechanatrix, the planetouched race from Mechanus (3rd Ed Fiend Folio). Then a Frech player complains because this faction is an acid satire of Napoleon's troops, and it is true, because the author is a Spanish with his own point of view about the History. I have said Napoleon's army as an inofensive example, but it could have been Xerxes and the Persian invaders against the Spartans, the Otoman corsairs catching slaves in Christian coasts (this is the origin of the Spanish expression "moors on the coast" as sign of potential menace), or Japanese pirates attacking Filipino coasts for the Spanish empire. Here it is not WotC's fault, but this potential controversy could hurt very much the prestige of the brand.