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]

It's a really difficult line to walk between in order to please one group and not displease the other...but when you view other races as actually humans rather than creatures that are different on an instinctual level (like other beasts such as Wolves, Sharks, Crocodiles are different from humans) it IS problematic to label them or categorize them in certain ways as it comes to close to prejudice and discrimination and how they are presented in the real world.

True. Which is why, I, for one, view other races as other creatures. They are NOT humans, they have different values and morals and such and their behaviors reflect those things. It is also why I have no issue with racial ability score modifiers. What is "evil" to one creature (even intelligent ones) is not necessarily "evil" to another.

It is unfortunate IMO that people IRL take offense to creatures which are part of a fantasy game because they feel they relate due to hatred and negative comments or such, but that discussion has happened many times and all I can do is run my games as I see fit to. I stress to my players if they feel offended or hurt, to please call me out on it, we'll pause the game, and address the issue then and there. But, fortunately for me, the players I have who are likely to feel that way find such issues to be non-issues for them (I HAVE had this talk with them, FWIW).

 

[DemoMonkey]

Good lesson there, thank you. Never quote anyone, ever!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Gygax also thought Col. John Milton Chivington had the right of it, so I wouldn't trust his moral judgment.

John Chivington - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sand Creek massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is Lawful and what is Good is entirely dependent on the morals of the society at the time.

 

[GreyLord]

Gygax also thought Col. John Milton Chivington had the right of it, so I wouldn't trust his moral judgment.

John Chivington - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sand Creek massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Editing this post - I agree, it could throw suspect on what Gygax's morality regarding Good/Evil/Right/Wrong were...but it doesn't change the assumptions upon why he made level limits and why he tried to make the game humanocentric in AD&D (OD&D on the otherhand, while still humanocentric, had the adage that a player could actually play anything they wanted...I've had players play red Dragons, Horses, Unicorns...etc).

It's hard to make out what Gygax felt about the Sand Creek massacre, but he DID use it to reinforce his ideas of what Lawful Good was (note: It was not the idea that you make peace with everyone or save the women and children, but that a Paladin could actually kill other things...INCLUDING humans if we want to include the Chivington example if Gygax indeed meant to point out Chivington as a Paladin type example).

I've only read the Twitter post, but it appears that the Gygax post there was in relation to alignment, not necessarily race or taking race into consideration. In fact all the examples are pertaining to human on human violence.

It is interesting that he had read (not that it is correct, it may actually be quite wrong) that the Cheyenne Warrior actually backed up Chivington's reasons for the masscre, even though one would have thought the Warrior would have been against it. The Warrior apparantly used the same reasons to slaughter as well. Of course, that comes the paradox of whether that Warrior was Lawful Good either, and if not, if two non-Lawful Good characters can define what a Lawful Good Character actually is.

It's a little off-topic though...as that covers more of what the alignment of Lawful Good actually is and what they can and cannot do rather than addressing race.

 

[Charlaquin]

These seems to be written quickly. Do gods exist, give magic powers, and hold some accountable in your campaigns? Or is religion just a placeholder for spells?

As far as the characters in the setting know? Their gods certainly exist. Of course, different peoples have different myths, which are often mutually contradictory. Who’s right? Maybe no one. There’s no way to know for sure.

Does the yuan-ti culture make most of them evil, like really evil, or are the majority of them misunderstood?

The yuan-ti aren’t super fleshed out in my world as of yet, mostly because I’ve never found them all that interesting. But regardless, I don’t think I would describe them as either “evil” or “misunderstood.” They are a people who have had frequent conflict with the common folk of the West.

I get you can make your own world and the yuan-ti could be the good group. Or that there are outliers. But the point is, what is the difference between a yuan-ti, a mind flayer, a frost giant, or an orc.

I’m not sure I understand the question. Yuan-ti are snake people, mind flatters are alien parasites, frost giants are elemental creations of the primordials, and orcs are a people who believe themselves to be descended from the one-eyed God Gruumsh.

If it is racial (deemed from the gods) or cultural, it is all the same. How can you say you wouldn't get along at a table where those things are "table truths."

Again, I’m not sure I understand you.

Does every sentient race in your campaign have a gray morality.

Pretty much.

If so, cool, but I don't see how you wouldn't get along with someone who plays a different way.

Because I find it distasteful?

 

[DemoMonkey]

Accurate. I don't taste good at all.

 

[tetrasodium]

It has happened for thousands of years here? Dynamics shift. And it was literally a 16 word summary to make a point. So yes, there would be some organization. Maybe they are slavers as well.

The problem, is that those faerun orcs are that and only that yet somehow they haven't collapsed & nobody has eradicated them. A lot of people think that's what the mongol army was & why I mentioned the mongols doing more, but the reality was very different as an advanced extremely professional army (by the standards of the time) that did a great deal to enable trade, spread knowledge, allow education, & advance civilization.. not only that they had motivations like making money & doing those things to make it.. the always evil style orcs of faerun do none of that and have no civilization capable of maintaining stability without descending into a self destructive chaos.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Accurate. I don't taste good at all.

Probably not if you have a monkey flavor! Blah!

 

[GMMichael]

“The last thing we want in our game [...] is for there to be these real-world hurts sneaking into the player’s experience.”

Assuming this has been thoroughly analyzed (torn apart?) in the last 200 or so posts.

Have they announced official adoption of the X card yet?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It objectively isn’t, at least in published material, but also in most actual play media, and most online discussion about the game.

The difference is that taking their stuff is incidental and not actually necessary or in any way central to the plot of the adventure.

Most of those adventures are literally just as fun if there is no loot, and any cool toys you get are purchased or crafted with money gained as reward for helping people.

They may or not be just as fun, but the adventures themselves tend to assume cool toys are found or taken from others, not purchased or made.