D&D 5E Spelljammer Errata

[doctorbadwolf]

Technically, there's nothing wrong with it. They make for good villains. If I were running a Spelljammer game, I'd probably use them. But in the modern political climate, it's not a great idea to include them, especially since elves are still viewed as Always Good. Not unless they spent a couple of pages talking about how and why this particular group of fascist elves was evil and destructive, and sadly, 5e Spelljammer is practically lore-free. (I know you don't like 5e Ravenloft, but at least it had lore to dislike.)

Man I really enjoyed reading the spelljammer set because of the lore. “Practically lore-free” seems like a pretty dramatic overstatement.

 

[Stormonu]

You think 99% of tables are wholly rewriting the lore of races? Based on what?

Can't speak to percentages, but I tend to do my own lore for races, and many other DMs I know or have played under have done likewise, either tweaking or completely rewriting racial lore.

 

[shadowoflameth]

So if I'm reading the text in the new book correctly compared to the errata, people were offended by the story of the wizard using magic to make a slave race of the Hadozee and them escaping. If so, then everyone playing Spelljammer is free to not use the Hadozee or to alter the lore for their game anyway.

 

[shadowoflameth]

So if I'm reading the text in the new book correctly compared to the errata, people were offended by the story of the wizard using magic to make a slave race of the Hadozee and them escaping. If so, then everyone playing Spelljammer is free to not use the Hadozee or to alter the lore for their game anyway.

I'm also looking at the bard image in the book which I've heard some mention. I get the slave race turned minstral image being disturbing to someone but again, make your bard look like whatever you want. If you're DMing and someone is doing something offensive, just say no.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm also looking at the bard image in the book which I've heard some mention. I get the slave race turned minstral image being disturbing to someone but again, make your bard look like whatever you want. If you're DMing and someone is doing something offensive, just say no.

I just think that bard image is just plain ugly, and would bin it on that note.

<EDIT> And I don't remember there being this sort of issue coming up with the picture of Harkon Lukas in Van Richten's guide?

 

[Myrdin Potter]

For all the protecting Perkins on this in the thread, if this was Mearls there would be pages calling for his head.

Perkins posts a good game on Twitter, but if this was his work and was so racist, maybe not ignore who did it?

It also is a new 5e invention, none of that fluff was in the original race. They were not uplifted nor slaves.

 

[Dire Bare]

Part of the problem is having a playable people be Nazis. It can be seen as ambiguity toward whether racial purity ideology is evil or not.

Agreed, but . . . play an elven version of Oskar Schindler.

And in classic Spelljammer, did the Imperial Elves get different write-ups than the classic PHB elves? Or just presented as a different culture and positioned as bad-guys? It's been decades since I've looked at the original material, but I remember (I think) having the option to play a normal, not-fascist elf.

I understand changing up the elves in the modern release, although I don't think we need a unique write-up for "astral elves". But we do get the evil Xaryxian Empire in the adventure, even if it doesn't quite hit the same notes as the older material did.

 

[Mind of tempest]

English is not my first language, so I am not sure which word to use. Slightly racist who thinks elves are better than everyone else but not actively hurting other races just out of spite. No idea what the best word for that is.

Anyway, the "elves think elves are best" trope is quite common and from there its only a small step to actively hostile.

haughty is not considered evil, For example the natives of most capital cities are often seen as thinking of themselves better than other members of their nation but few would consider it evil more umpleasent.
may I ask which is your language and culture if only so I can grasp how to make the explanations easier on you?

Agreed, but . . . play an elven version of Oskar Schindler.

And in classic Spelljammer, did the Imperial Elves get different write-ups than the classic PHB elves? Or just presented as a different culture and positioned as bad-guys? It's been decades since I've looked at the original material, but I remember (I think) having the option to play a normal, not-fascist elf.

I understand changing up the elves in the modern release, although I don't think we need a unique write-up for "astral elves". But we do get the evil Xaryxian Empire in the adventure, even if it doesn't quite hit the same notes as the older material did.

they were sort of a mix of different types of elf if memory serves but I would not call them good in any way other than that insane thing that was apparently good from krynn the empire they dumped an asteroid on for being just awful.

 

[Stormonu]

Elves got several pages in the original campaign setting. I think they were aiming for Victorian Age British Colonial Empire and not zealous Nazis, but it still wasn't a good look overall.

And there was this zinger in the original Hadozee entry from the 2E MC:

The hadozee relationship with elves goes back to the time of the Unhuman Wars, when the deck apes first showed a level of conscience and culture greater than the ores and their kin, with which they had previously been grouped. The hadozee aided the elves in that war, and they have been allied ever since. The elves have willingly employed the talents of the hadozee, and have in return paid them well. The elves in no way consider the hadozee to be an equal race, however.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

That’s what I thought, too, until they took down the art as well, and I found so many statements from folks that were offended by the main race image in itself, before even reading the story.

As someone else said, that isn’t the case. They were helped in freeing themselves by the apprentices of the wizard who created them to be slaves, because the apprentices immediately recognized that what was being done was wrong, and the hadozee ganked said wizard in the process of liberating themselves (with help), and then set about charting their own destiny. That’s the 5e story upon publication. The rest is from previous editions, and is not at all part of the 5e story.

So, bad, but not anywhere close to that.

Indeed, from the very short mention, I don't think they were actually salarymen, as the BBEG was assassinated before executing his plan. He experimented on them to give them sentience (this is "Dr Moreau bad") with the intent of making an "an army of them" "for sale to the highest bidder" (this is "Galactic Republic's clone army bad"), so the recently-uplifted hadozee killed him with the help of the bad guy's apprentices (in legitimate defense of their own life), apparently before the plan came to fruition. But given the sensitivity around salarymen, they were better off removing the origin story rather than trying to clarify into something that wouldn't cause offense. Even "proposing them to hire them into a mercenary army" wouldn't pass.

This is no more reasonable than if I were to demand there can never be evil gods because my beliefs make a clear distinction between the gods, who are (fairly) benevolent or at least benign, and other creatures of comparable power who are inherently not gods by virtue of thier antagonism to mortals and to the gods.

Or that they must remove gods with the same names as my gods form their game books, else present them exactly as I see them.

Except I’d never do that, because it would be blatantly ridiculous.

Err, while I trust you to behave like you describe, I think that a gaming supplement describing, in a fantasy setting, a god from a real-life monotheistic religion by name and made him into something "wild" would be received very badly on this board. I think it would be "hadozee to the power of 10" offense.