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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yet.

Give it ten years.

I would say less.

I've posted before how when going to 0 hit points doesn't have to mean unconsciousness or death, but could be automatic morale failure (drops weapons, runs away, or surrenders).

 

[whimsychris123]

I feel split on this. In my own games, I like having a diversity of races to roleplay with, without the straight jacket of racial alignment. That’s one reason I like Eberron.

I also understand the parallels of racial descriptions (like “savage”) in both fantasy and real life and how such language could be painful for some players.

On the other hand, virtually every culture (whether you go to Asia, Africa, or Europe) has mythological creatures that are universally evil. It feels like it’s important part of myths and storytelling.

It’s definitely something I would discuss with my group before making major choices about “evil” races and what they represent. One thing I like about roleplaying is that it ultimately comes down to the individuals at the table.

 

[Charlaquin]

When do we get to the part where people complain that "killing people and taking their stuff" in the real world is wrong, so we should take it out of D&D?

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

 

[Mistwell]

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

It is for many people, and not for others, and any generalized declaration of what the game is and is not about is a hasty one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I find it really unfortunate that they half-arsed this. Pretty much no one is happy with what they did. Neither the people who wanted changes nor those who didn't are satisfied with what we got. I always felt that the real issue was never the rules (aside the alignment), it was how the races were represented in the fiction and this does nothing to that, and furthermore their 'rebalancing' of the races is just an utter mess from mechanical perspective.

 

[DemoMonkey]

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

Respectfully disagree.

 

[Mistwell]

I find it really unfortunate that they half-arsed this. Pretty much no one is happy with what they did. Neither the people who wanted changes or those who didn't are satisfied with what we got. I always felt that the real issue was never the rules (aside the alignment), it was how the races were represented in the fiction and this does nothing to that, and furthermore their 'rebalancing' of the races is just an utter mess from mechanical perspective.

I am fine with it so far, and everyone I know who plays the game and is aware of it is fine with it so far. Not sure where you are getting the impression "no one is happy with what they did?"

 

[Marc_C]

I wonder if these "issues" will be the reason 6e becomes a thing sooner than later.

 

[Charlaquin]

It is for many people, and not for others, and any generalized declaration of what the game is and is not about is a hasty one.

Kind of like how alignment is used by many people, and not by others? Or how the optional rules in Tasha’s will be used by many people, and not by others?

If you like your games to be about killing people and taking their stuff, knock yourself out. Nothing WotC can do can stop you from doing that. If you’re worried about that no longer being the focus of published modules, you’re about 20 years behind the times.

 

[DemoMonkey]

The switch from a default "Entire cultures can be uniformly bad or good but some individuals may not be" to a default "Cultures cannot be uniformly good or bad, but individuals may be" is an interesting one. The effect on playstyle is to significantly limit the ability of non-evil PC groups to strike first.

You go from "kill em unless there is a clear and present indicator that is wrong" to "never kill em unless there is a clear and present indicator that is right".

It may be more nuanced, but I question if it is more fun.