D&D 5E Latest D&D Errata: Drow, Alignment, & More

Sage Advice is a series of articles in which Jeremy Crawford, one of the D&D Studio’s game design architects, talks about the design of the game’s rules and answers questions about them.

Book Updates | Sage Advice | Dungeons & Dragons

This Sage Advice provides updates and errata for a number of books, as well as answers to rules questions.

dnd.wizards.com

D&D books occasionally receive corrections and other updates to their rules and story. This Sage Advice installment presents updates to several books. I then answer a handful of rules questions, focusing on queries related to Fizban’s Treasury of Dragons and Strixhaven: A Curriculum of Chaos.

Official errata has been published for the following books:

• Curse of Strahd
• Dungeon Master’s Guide
• Player’s Handbook
• Storm King’s Thunder
• Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide
• Tales from the Yawning Portal
• Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything
• Tomb of Annihilation
• Volo’s Guide to Monsters

Here's some of the highlights.

• Alignment is removed from the Racial Traits section of races.
• Drow have undergone lore changes which reflect the different types of drow. The 'darkness of the drow' sidebar which portrays them as only evil has been removed.
• Storm King's Thunder alters references to 'Savage Frontier' and 'barbarians'; Curse of Strahd alters references to the Vistani.
• The controversial Silvery Barbs spell has been clarified.

As a drow, you are infused with the magic of the Underdark, an underground realm of wonders and horrors rarely seen on the surface above. You are at home in shadows and, thanks to your innate magic, learn to con- jure forth both light and darkness. Your kin tend to have stark white hair and grayish skin of many hues.

The cult of the god Lolth, Queen of Spiders, has cor- rupted some of the oldest drow cities, especially in the worlds of Oerth and Toril. Eberron, Krynn, and other realms have escaped the cult’s influence—for now. Wherever the cult lurks, drow heroes stand on the front lines in the war against it, seeking to sunder Lolth’s web.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's always a pretty disputed point, though, even on the Twitter Left or the like. Usually there are some young rapscallions who are keen to push the issue, but they're all like 22, and you know that by 35 they'll be hypocrites on this. But if they're saying "Don't keep buying stuff by bad people or promoting their work", that's pretty reasonable.

Except that sometimes that's exactly what it is.

This is part of what I was talking about re: "demonizing the past" often actually just being honest about the past. Sometimes we should always have known better. People at the time knew better. People did have unusual views which later generations claimed were normal in an attempt to defend that person or whatever.

Columbus is a good example. He's been a ridiculously lionized and positively misrepresented figure, rarely seen as anything but purely heroic from like 1800 to about 1970, but even at the time of his expedition, there were people writing that he was an absolute psychopath who not only allowed but encouraged his men to participate in what some on the expedition with him felt were hideous and unholy crimes.

HP Lovecraft is another, obviously lesser example. His racism wasn't "normal for 1930", it was pretty wild even for 1930, especially as it extended to seeing even Scottish people as "subhuman". Yes there was a lot of really wacky racism going on back then but even by those standards he was taking it to another level (it's actually so insanely extreme that I think it comes across as slightly less offensive than the casual but less extreme racism of some of his contempories, because it's so hard to parse/lunatic).

And other figures, like Chivington who EGG was basically saying was "talking facts" are wild as hell. That guy was such a monster he caused widespread revulsion and anger throughout American society and probably accidentally helped avert more steady Native American genocide/ethnic cleansing because people were so shocked certain policies largely got put on hold (for a while).

If we're just talking D&D, there's absolutely stuff which was racist and dumb at the time. Maztica is a good example. POCGamer has a good, short-ish article on it here: Celebrating Subjugation: The Maztican Tragedy (Paragraph 6 is the payoff) There was nothing about that which was a good idea, and yeah, it's racist. Same for the setting, which I'm forgetting the name of, which went to some lengths to characterize various Evil humanoids as having the cultures of Native Americans and others, and then sent the PCs to kill them. That's just racist and dumb, and by the 1990s there was no excuse for not knowing that. Sheesh, I was a kid in the 1990s and I could tell Maztica was racist-as-hell.

Whereas there is some stuff you might get away with saying "Well, just a product of it's time". Oriental Adventures is sort of in the balance there. On the one hand, it's stuffed with stereotypes and cliches, and it presents the whole "Orient" as "Japan". On the other, it has a very holistic picture, doesn't paint it as better/worse than the West, and actually had people of the appropriate culture and ethnicity (Japanese people) involved in making it (albeit as advisors only, note), which was something almost no RPG supplement (D&D or otherwise) had for like a decade or two after it, despite there being countless such books.

Of course, the question is still, "does a creator's personal politics make their creations not worth appreciating, or say something negative about you if you do appreciate them"? From what I've seen, a lot of people on the internet seem to think the answer is yes.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Now that I've thought about it, I'm surprised Tieflings don't come up more in these kinds of discussions.

Here's tieflings according to a quote from the Planescape: Torment wiki:

"The Lower Planes spits evil across the cosmos, infecting everything it touches. Sometimes it swallows people. When they come back, they come back with the Lower Planes stamped across their faces and their souls, and sometimes they come back bearing children. A child who has been touched by the Lower Planes is called a tiefling, and it's scarred from birth. Being born with a soul that's unquestionably tainted with evil will do that. The reaction a tiefling earns while growing up scars it still further. Tieflings tend to be loners, steering clear of trust and friends, living their own lives. When they do trust, they do it sparingly and only over a long period of time - and it's rare that they'll ever show it."

So here we have tieflings described as children who are born with souls that are "unquestionably tainted with evil" and are regarded by others with prejudice.

From the 3.5 SRD:

Tieflings are sneaky, subtle, and generally conniving. They prefer to strike from ambush and usually avoid a fair fight if they can.

So here we have a description of tieflings being conniving and dishonorable.

4E is, unquestionably, the edition with the most lore on tieflings due to them being promoted to a Player's Handbook race, their origin having a major role in the history of the default setting, and getting both a published supplement book and many articles related to them in the Dragon and Dungeon magazines. In the default setting all tieflings are descendants of the nobility of Bael Turath, an ancient empire that sought to delay its collapse by making the Pact of the Bloodfire Moon with Asmodeus. The Pact involved a month long ritual including the human sacrifice of the nobles of Bael Turath who opposed making a deal with the Nine Hells by the noble houses that sealed the pact: Houses Achazriel, Kahlir, Dreygu, Khanebor, Zannifer, and Zolfura. When Bael Turath finally did fall the tieflings were scattered and became not only distrusted outsiders in the communities they ended up in, but came to distrust other tielfings more than anyone else. It's also stated in the Tieflings supplement book that the Pact of the Bloodfire Moon gives Asmodeus the right to one day claim the souls of all tieflings for the Nine Hells, meaning that the aim of corrupting Bael Turath was to create a race whose souls could be reaped by the devils by cosmic law no matter the character of the individual.

5E keeps tieflings in the PHB but, honestly, does very little with them other than briefly and vaguely allude to the 4E take on their origin and reiterate that they are targets of prejudice.

To be greeted with stares and whispers, to suffer violence and insult on the street, to see mistrust and fear in every eye: this is the lot of the tiefling. And to twist the knife, tieflings know that this is because a pact struck generations ago infused the essence of Asmodeus—overlord of the Nine Hells—into their bloodline. Their appearance and their nature are not their fault but the result of an ancient sin, for which they and their children and their children’s children will always be held accountable. Tieflings subsist in small minorities found mostly in human cities or towns, often in the roughest quarters of those places, where they grow up to be swindlers, thieves, or crime lords. Sometimes they live among other minority populations in enclaves where they are treated with more respect.

Whereas 5E itself does little with tieflings, Baldur's Gate 3 has as it's first major conflict a group of tiefling refugees in a druid grove that wants them out but is threatened by goblins. It's communicated in no uncertain terms that following Elturel being teleported to the Nine Hells and back during the events of Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus that the non-tiefling population looked at the people with horns and pointed tails and ran them out of the city.

Looking at the Tal'dorei Campaign Setting and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount books covering the world of Exandria (the setting of Critical Role) is interesting and, I think, revealing of how the revised 5E will change in describing not only tieflings but other player character races that are subjects of prejudice. The Tal'dorei Campaign Setting effectively replicates the 5E PHB description of tieflings as being the inheritors of an ancient sin and subjects of prejudice with the minor consolation that their history of oppression caused them to be among the first to recognize and rise against a tyrannical ruler who would oppress others the way they have been, which in the more urban centers of the continent at least earned the tieflings more trust and respect.

Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, on the other hand, describes prejudice against tieflings as largely a thing of the past. This could just be due to changing attitudes towards depicting fantasy racism in D&D, but when this book was in development two of the player characters in Campaign 2 of Critical Role were tieflings: Jester Lavorre and Mollymauk Tealeaf. It could simply be that their players wanted to be horned and tailed people with unusual skin colors and hair colors and didn't want to have to deal with the baggage of tieflings being victims of prejudice.

This last point, I think leads to a central point in the issue: different people have different reasons for wanting to play a certain character race. One person who plays a tiefling might want to play a character that looks like a devil, one person might want to play a brooding character that is distrusted wherever they go, another player might want to play an Infernal Pact Warlock who has an ancestral link to their patron, and another player might just want to play as someone with horns, a tail, and unusual skin and hair colors. Different things attract people to playing a tiefling, but having the default lore being "tieflings are victims of prejudice" can inspire a DM to run with it and force that on a player that just wants to be a red or blue or green and have horns and a tail.

 

[HammerMan]

That's always a pretty disputed point, though, even on the Twitter Left or the like. Usually there are some young rapscallions who are keen to push the issue, but they're all like 22, and you know that by 35 they'll be hypocrites on this. But if they're saying "Don't keep buying stuff by bad people or promoting their work", that's pretty reasonable.

I mean most are hypacrits now... "That rapper isn't THAT bad, but that one is" and it is understandable. the human mind makes you over look things of people you like that you wont over look on ones you don't...

Except that sometimes that's exactly what it is.

yeah, sometimes black face in 2007 is still a thing (Really, what made you think that was accaptable in your lifetime, you were born in the late 80s...)

This is part of what I was talking about re: "demonizing the past" often actually just being honest about the past. Sometimes we should always have known better. People at the time knew better. People did have unusual views which later generations claimed were normal in an attempt to defend that person or whatever.

yup 100% agree that SOME times it is true... but again most of us have grandparants (or even great grandparents for some of you kids) who say things that make us wince... but were progressive for there time. That doesn't mean some grandparant doesn't suprise you with "yeah like that summer Mike went away and came back the next school year as kate" like it was no big deal in 1937...

Columbus is a good example. He's been a ridiculously lionized and positively misrepresented figure, rarely seen as anything but purely heroic from like 1800 to about 1970, but even at the time of his expedition, there were people writing that he was an absolute psychopath who not only allowed but encouraged his men to participate in what some on the expedition with him felt were hideous and unholy crimes (and literally everyone today would). Even now I very much doubt many US schools teach about the stuff he was involved with.

great example. We should totally start with some very basics (at a young age there is no need for details) Columbus wasn't a good man, but he did X Y and Z and those few things have good reprecusions, and when you are older we can paint a better picture of things...

but instead I hear every year "Shouldn't be remembered at all"

HP Lovecraft is another, obviously lesser example. His racism wasn't "normal for 1930", it was pretty wild even for 1930, especially as it extended to seeing even Scottish people as "subhuman". Yes there was a lot of really wacky racism going on back then but even by those standards he was taking it to another level (it's actually so insanely extreme that I think it comes across as slightly less offensive than the casual but less extreme racism of some of his contemporaries, because it's so hard to parse/lunatic).

even better then Columbus we can literal separate this one... "Racisit Sexisty Clown HP Lovecraft was raised by some bad people and until just about the end of his life thought and said terable things... he also created a concept of Cthulu that has stayed with us as the foremost cosmic horror for the last 100ish years."

If we're just talking D&D, there's absolutely stuff which was racist and dumb at the time. Maztica is a good example. POCGamer has a good, short-ish article on it here: Celebrating Subjugation: The Maztican Tragedy (Paragraph 6 is the payoff) There was nothing about that which was a good idea, and yeah, it's racist. Same for the setting, which I'm forgetting the name of, which went to some lengths to characterize various Evil humanoids as having the cultures of Native Americans and others, and then sent the PCs to kill them. That's just racist and dumb, and by the 1990s there was no excuse for not knowing that. Sheesh, I was a kid in the 1990s and I could tell Maztica was racist-as-hell.

in 1991 when I read Maztica I was blown away at how weird and outdated it was (I was in school and I knew better) but it was written by people closer to my age in 2021 then my age in 1991... so I wonder how much was rascisit and how much was unknown... and if some 13 year old in 1995 came across Maztica and loved it and didn't recognize the rasicist features I don't blame them.

Whereas there is some stuff you might get away with saying "Well, just a product of it's time". Oriental Adventures is sort of in the balance there. On the one hand, it's stuffed with stereotypes and cliches, and it presents the whole "Orient" as "Japan". On the other, it has a very holistic picture, doesn't paint it as better/worse than the West, and actually had people of the appropriate culture and ethnicity (Japanese people) involved in making it (albeit as advisors only, note), which was something almost no RPG supplement (D&D or otherwise) had for like a decade or two after it, despite there being countless such books.

and yet you can find a 4-6hour long series of Youtube videos that went viral ripping it apart.

 

[jmartkdr2]

You're not wrong. But the corollary to your conclusion is that races can never feature any ability we wouldn't want a 1st level character to have - full flight, size Large, etc.

Well, actually, you're kinda wrong. We already see this in a number of races that give advanced spellcasting at higher levels. So this is already acceptable as a minor practice, but nothing that scales large.

So, how do we combine what already exists and is therefore already proven to be acceptable, with the ability to give races even more meaningful features that shouldn't be handed out until higher levels? If you don't accept expanding the already existing system, how can we do it and still meet your requirements?

I must have been unclear - it's not about power levels, there's lots of ways to handle that - it's about the depth of culture and history each race brings to the table.

Whether centaurs can be large (as a game mechanic) isn't my point - horseshoes are. Whether centaur traditions about when and where to wear horseshoes, the rituals involved, the idioms created, and taboos around them, do these matter? Are they necessary? Is it acceptable to release a centaur race without a few paragraphs on the meanings and traditions of shoes something we can tolerate?

I would say yes - all that's fun and all but the game works fine without it. But if centaurs are just "large", with no other discussion about who and what they are, they can end up a little boring and/or redundant with Goliaths. I suppose; I don't actually see that happen at real tables but I can't disprove it.

 

[HammerMan]

Of course, the question is still, "does a creator's personal politics make their creations not worth appreciating, or say something negative about you if you do appreciate them"? From what I've seen, a lot of people on the internet seem to think the answer is yes.

HP Lovecraft, and JK Rowling's are both in this boat... but I love me some Mythos stories, and my teenage Niece and even my fiancé talk about what houses they are in and wanting more Potter movies. Yet if I believed some on twitter and facebook liking those things makes us evil...

 

[Vaalingrade]

the problem comes from the fact that when people critizes those three people (and they do) they don't just stop at saying they are bad. they say that injoying them is supporting them, and that the work is tainted, and if you like the work YOU are tainted.

1) In some cases, enjoying them would be supporting them. There's a reason I don't buy DvDs of that woman's original show--I would literally be giving her money that pays for the internet and electricity that lets her hurt people on twitter.

2) For some people, the work is tainted. You can't see the character without seeing the scumbag underneath and you can't enjoy it anymore. People usually just infer the 'you are tainted' part because they've internalized their fandom.

wait... Ineed to look this up...

I am well documented for not cutting off arms.

Yes and to come full circle, you need to approch it with "This was a work of that age, and now we have moved past" not "this was evil vile and racsist and we should have always known better" (not you in perticular you in general, as in all of us)

Except some things really were and they should have known better. Like you don't just accidentally an all-black evil matriarchy and they certainly didn't just happen to make Volo a MASSIVE racist in the 2010's in the midst of the discussion on 'evil' races.

If tomorrow they errata Tavern into Inn, would you not think "Hey, why are they against Tavern's?"

I might ask why they changed it, but I wouldn't assume they were against them.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I kind of wonder how many 15-18 year olds coming into the game even know what a brothel is to leave the game in droves over it.

My younger cousins marvel in mock disgust at people using the term 'tape' for recording/video. I can't imagine an archaic word for a rare (in the US) establishment is going to fair much better.

It's not the kids that care (and they know what brothels are, they have the internet and dictionaries) - it's the parents who ight not buy - and they aren't reading the DMG. They're reading az poorly-researched article online about how DnD is all about brothels because it tells you to include them in every settlement, and thinking "I don't want my kid playing a game like that!"

To be fair, I wouldn't want my kid playing a game like that, which is why I will never let them play FATAL.

 

[FormerLurker]

I mean, wasn't that always inevitable? Hasn't it arguably been true for a long time? I'd say that the primary audience target for 3E, for example, was actually people in their very late teens through mid-twenties, based on everything about the marketing, design, approaches and so on. Sure it worked fine for older people, but if you were over 40 back then, it was aimed at a target audience "half your age". Sooner or later, you were always going to be "twice the age" of the target audience.

Not really. Because the target audience of 5th Ed was “D&D players.” It embraced and encouraged everyone to play. I remember a good mix of ages playing organized play. It was generational.

Now WotC is telling us “Hey, thanks for saving the game and keeping it alive. We appreciate your service. Goodbye.” They only care about the 20yo. To them, we’re just Thaco the grumpy clown.

So feeling "slighted" seems like you projecting malice onto inevitability. It'd be like me being mad most AAA video games now are aimed at people aged like 16-30 when I'm 43. I was once in the target audience, but I aged out of it. There isn't any malice involved. And being older than the target audience doesn't mean you can't enjoy something. I mean jeez, I'm pretty sure Arcane on Netflix had a target audience under 20, or not much older, but I enjoyed it.

There’s quite a few “dad games” for AAA video games. God of War and Last of Us really have a different level when you’re a father.

And there’s a difference because those are single player. RPGs are communal, and it’s awkward being that 40yo in a group of 20yos.

And when I was younger I often enjoyed things I was wildly "too young" for, target-audience-wise. I mean, jeez I used to watch Last of the Summer Wine, which clearly had a primary audience in at least their 50s (it was about men in their 50s/60s), and all sort of other shows. Cheers was my favourite show and I was really sad when it ended when I was all of 15, and I guarantee the "target audience" for that was in its 30s or later by then.

So honestly, I'd say "get over it". Ageing happens. Being too old or too young to be the target audience for something does not actually mean you can't enjoy it (with the possible exception of stuff aimed at actual small children).

You’d be surprised how ineffective “get over it” is when someone is upset about something. Would you tell the people upset about drow alignment to “get over it”?

And enjoying something you’re too old for is fine if it’s you. Or you and some friends. But when you’re that old guy at a game store surrounded by people half your age it comes across a super creepy. And it’s even weirder in a homegame. Can you imagine being a 40yo and going to a game hosted in their parent’s basement? When you’re as old as their parents upstairs?
shudder

 

[Vaalingrade]

This to me suggests a lack of empathy. If you dont understand someone else's opinions, that's fine. But don't suggest that maybe there's something wrong with them for feeling that way. That just plays into those same concerns.

It is literally a known and studied problem within fandoms that people internalize the fandom and perceive an attack on their media as an attack on them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Of course, the question is still, "does a creator's personal politics make their creations not worth appreciating, or say something negative about you if you do appreciate them"? From what I've seen, a lot of people on the internet seem to think the answer is yes.

I think it's a complicated question, realistically.

Personally I'd say there were three major things which can push the issue from "Not really" to "Yeah it does say something bad about you":

1) The author's works incorporate ideas which, once you realize their personal politics, make it clear that they really do think X horrific thing is actually a good thing.

and/or

2) The author's views are so horrific that they're not merely grotesque or outdated or eye-roll-worthy, but in fact "beyond the pale". Obviously there are a few people who are ridiculous about this - like I once read a blog that suggested any fantasy author who features racism or sexuality-based oppressed should be cancelled - but they're outliers and rarely have much support (esp. as it would mean cancelling most left-wing fantasy authors!). It's easy to see (imho) who is genuinely beyond the pale of mainstream-ish society in their views.

and/or

3) The author has really awful views and is alive, and is actively campaigning based on those views/encouraging people to them. If this is the case, and you keep spending money on the author's works, or actively promoting them, it's pretty easy to see that there's a direct line between you supporting that author and the author being empowered to further be awful.

and yet you can find a 4-6hour long series of Youtube videos that went viral ripping it apart.

Sure but I can find 4-6 hour long series on YouTube about how [insert horrific historical figure] was actually a good person, or how Star Trek "became woke" and started sucking (at no point was Star Trek not "woke" for it's time period lol). Chancers on YouTube will make videos about anything and people will watch them. Hell, I once clicked on a mild criticism of Mass Effect (which in no way touched on feminism or anything of the sort), and then YouTube decided I wanted right-wing lunatics ranting about "the feminists ruining gaming", and apparently there were dozens/hundreds of videos on the subject, because they made up about 20% of my recommended videos from then until YouTube changed it's algorithm away from the the "radicalization" algorithm.

in 1991 when I read Maztica I was blown away at how weird and outdated it was (I was in school and I knew better) but it was written by people closer to my age in 2021 then my age in 1991... so I wonder how much was rascisit and how much was unknown... and if some 13 year old in 1995 came across Maztica and loved it and didn't recognize the rasicist features I don't blame them.

There's no possibility the authors didn't know it was basically a massive whitewash. Douglas Niles is only 67, not 97, and he and the other author certainly did some research into the subject. The discussion of exactly how awful the Spanish were in South America had been ongoing since literally the 1600s! (C.f. the "Black Legend" and "White Legend" re: Spain). They basically chose a "White Legend" approach, and they didn't have to do the conquistador thing at all - they could have written something actually original.

but instead I hear every year "Shouldn't be remembered at all"

I mean, he probably should be downplayed a fair bit because his actual personal importance has been overstated and he was a monster, and "Columbus day" definitely shouldn't be a thing (and it isn't in many places now) - it's easy to keep the holiday and just make it be about something else.