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.

 

[Aldarc]

The definition of humanoid in D&D is basically: "They have language and culture, few if any innate magical abilities (though most humanoids can learn spellcasting), and a bipedal form."

So bipeds that can talk. Doesn't automatically mean they have agency or can be any alignment.

Hmmm...that looks awfully like a serious case of reductio ad absurdum for the purposes of constructing a fallacy. Because, you know, if it turned out that this wasn't really the case, and what separates a humanoid from a fiend is more defined or delineated then that, then you wouldn't have two legs of your own to stand on or talk on, though I suppose that would mean you aren't a humanoid by the definition you provide.

 

[Ravenbrook]

I never cared for the alignment system, but orcs and goblins are simply nasty and I will always treat them as "sword-fodder".

 

[Haffrung]

Once you start having goblins walking around the town square, a kobold librarian, an orc grocer, the campaign world has gotten a little less mysterious. You've assumed the default experience of the common person is like a student at Hogwarts.

This gets to what I said earlier about some people wanting their fantasy worlds to be like idealized versions of real world. Cosmopolitan and diverse settlement full of tolerant people are a good thing in the real world. But are they a fun environment for action fantasy gaming? If every settlement is full of elves and dwarves and goblins and minotaurs, which are themselves all diverse and morally complex populations, then doesn't every settlement become the same? And how to reconcile those norms with a game where most of the mechanics and most of the encounters involve violence?

With the path we're going down, I wonder if maybe the people clamouring for change don't want something very different from D&D in a whole host of ways. And if WotC caters to that element of the fanbase, don't they risk alienating the (I'd wager much larger) element of the fanbase who enjoy playing fantasy actions games in a light-hearted manner.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Once you start having goblins walking around the town square, a kobold librarian, an orc grocer, the campaign world has gotten a little less mysterious. You've assumed the default experience of the common person is like a student at Hogwarts.

I'd argue the opposite. What are all these previous enemies from past campaigns doing walking around and working in this civilized town? What now exists out in the great unknown stretches? The former might provide for some interesting social interaction to learn more about the world. The latter might provide an opportunity to bust out baddies from Tomb of Beast 2 that the players have never ever heard of before. There is no shortage of mystery in any campaign as long as the DM and players are willing to exercise some imagination.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ok, then here is where we will have to agree, respectfully, to disagree.

To me, that cover plays on racist tropes of black people as savage and childlike -- the idea of Africans boiling people in pots. It seems the sort of unwelcome depictions you see in racist movies.

I understand that you might have a different opinion, and that's fine. And of course we still have to deal with your question: what do we do when I see racism there but you don't? In that case, what I would do is point out to you that I see racism there -- it makes me uncomfortable -- and why. I might then ask if we could, as a group, agree not to do those things that are making me uncomfortable, and you'd have to decide if you were willing to do that.

Hopefully, even if you didn't really see the same racism that I do, you'd be willing to accommodate me, or if you were not, I'd say, 'Ok, thanks for the game, but this makes me a bit uncomfortable, so I'm going to find another group.'

No problem, I am very happy to agree to disagree on things. I don't believe everyone needs to see things my way and I know I won't see things as many others do.

To me, they are green-skinned aliens (not human, that is). They are not savage necessarily, but posturing because they live in a culture or climate that might be violent and respect strength? Their weapons and armor represent a region where metal is scarce or difficult to use due to lack of resources perhaps?

Anyway, if you want to continue the discussion I would prefer to PM. It can be a touchy subject for people and I don't feel this is the place to continue it. If not, I appreciate your explanation and the discussion. Thanks.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think anyone here is saying that can't be done. But your words seem to indicate that you had one character that did it. The others?

I agree with your logic. But, I think in most games, DM's do not put baby orcs running around because of the moral dilemma. Most don't have a woman nursing (although I once had an old lady with lycanthropy doing it to a wolf pup to show her caring side) because it would cause a moral problem. But the ones that do, most players I know would lock them in a room and still try to reach the root of the problem. Whether that is the creature stealing babies, eating guards, or getting ready to attack the town.

Some groups enjoy those sorts of moral dilemmas. They add to the tension and drama of the game and allow the players to better learn about their PCs. My players create complex personalities for their PCs and enjoy that sort of dilemma. Over the years the "baby orc" kind of scenario has come up more than once for my group and they've killed them, saved them and left them to chance, depending on what kind of PC they were playing.

If you don't enjoy that sort of game, then you shouldn't play it. However, it's incorrect to portray that sort of game as any sort of problem. Like roleplay vs. rollplay, it's not right or wrong. It's just a different style of play that's not for everyone.

 

[SkidAce]

"What possible moral ambiguity is there in fighting bandits/raiders, slavers, murder-cultists, etc?"

But what if they're bandits because they're hungry?

What if they are slavers to avenge themselves on the creatures that enslaved them?

Murder-cultists are just paladins who don't worship YOUR god.

Previously, if the party kicks in the door in a dungeon and there are 4 drow and a Drider inside and they know Drow are evil, they can lead with a fireball.

Now, they can only lead with a "Hey guy's, sup? How do you feel about evil and stu OH GOD I'M POISONED AND STABBED!!"

Regardless of any position on this discussion....

That was funny!

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Absolutely.

As far as I can see when publishing their products the game is invariable about stopping other people killing everyone.

Rime - stopping everyone freezing to death.
Avernus - rescuing people from hell.
Tomb - stopping everyone dying.
Dragon Heist - stopping the baddies getting rich.

By killing other people though, right?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not saying you literally said 'malleable' was in the text; I never meant to imply that. I used quotes because you said that word specifically, and I don't see anything in that quote that suggests Orcs are malleable.

Yes, actually, that's what it does mean: they are, by nature, evil. Their nature is evil. They are evil.

The supernatural (i.e. Eru/God) can always intervene to change them, but that's just because Eru/God is omnipotent and can do anything he wants. But he allows evil to exist because it is part of his plan for the universe. This is why Eru didn't just vaporize Morgoth when he started playing his own tune during the song of creation. Ordinary mortals might not be able to fathom why -- what exactly the plan is -- but Eru does, and they have to respect it.

This doesn't mean that Morgoth is capable of suddenly becoming a good guy though. He is what he is -- he is evil. This is what Tolkien means by 'naturally evil.' I would not misinterpret what he means by 'irredeemable.' The reason we can't say Morgoth is 'irredeemable', and why Tolkien says here it would be going a step too far to call Orcs 'irreddemable', is not because they are good or even neutral; it is because Eru/God has a plan for the universe and Morgoth and Orcs will play an important role in it, just as Attila the Hun could play the role of Scourge of God. Don't misinterpret that to mean they could be good. The villains of the story don't become good just because they have a role to play. They have to be evil for the plot/divine plan to work. The plot is what is good. The villains are not.

Yeah, no. You’re adding a bunch of stuff in because it suits your preferred interpretation, but it’s not actually there.

 

[Haffrung]

By killing other people though, right?

I don't have the Rime campaign myself, but how many monsters are there in the book? I'd guess 600 or 800 individually statted monsters. I'd also guess that in most campaigns, the great majority of those monsters are killed dead. Chopped up, gutted, blown to pieces, burned to cinders. Again, many of these are intelligent, sentient creatures.

Or let's look at the big picture. Let's say 5,000 groups play D&D this weekend. What would we guess the death toll in monsters will be? I'd put the over-under at 40,000. So 40,000 kills in a weekend.

I'm at a loss as to why people who aren't comfortable with routine lethal violence, played out in a light-hearted manner, choose D&D as their game of choice. D&D, a game where 70 per cent of the rules content is monsters, weapons, abilities to help in combat, and spells that kill monsters. There comes a point at which you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.