New errata are out

[JackPhoenix]

I just noticed this, and I haven't seen a relevant thread anywhere: https://dnd.wizards.com/dndstudioblog/sage-advice-book-updates

Let the nerd rage begins!

[Warder]

I saw it the other day but I can't really muster the motivation to get annoyed anymore - I've already come to terms with 5e becoming the Bland Edition™ and that I'm not the intended target audience for the new design direction. I mostly feel for people who've purchased digital products and get to see huge swaths of content just flat out removed from D&D Beyond etc.

[JackPhoenix]

" Whenever the familiar drops to 0 hit points or disappears into the pocket dimension, it leaves behind in its space anything it was wearing or carrying."

So much for that trick.

[SpanielBear]

There will be rage. I’m heading to a bunker with popcorn, but as I go I will say that I like the removal of alignment and the Drow change. “In these places this culture is dominant and under X’s influence, but other places might not be” is far better than “all entities of this species are X, no exceptions (except for that one weird dude with a panther)”.

[Hael]

There will be rage. I’m heading to a bunker with popcorn, but as I go I will say that I like the removal of alignment and the Drow change. “In these places this culture is dominant and under X’s influence, but other places might not be” is far better than “all entities of this species are X, no exceptions (except for that one weird dude with a panther)”.

In 30+ years of playing DnD, with many different people, I have never known there to be a case where this wasn't completely obvious and understood.

It's like they've decided to write for children, and are going to great pains to post hoc moralize the tales. (Just remember children, killing things is wrong!)

[Gtdead]

I like the Clone change and while I have never thought about using familiar as a perfect thief, the FF change was a good one too.

At long last I can play a non Lolth sworn Drow! I hated WotC for forcing me to be a chaotic stupid for so long!

[AssociateGreen]

Can the silvery barbs spell in Strixhaven affect Legendary Resistance? No. When a creature uses Legendary Resistance, the creature turns a failed saving throw into a success, regardless of the number rolled on the d20. Forcing that creature to reroll the d20 afterward doesn’t change the fact that the save succeeded as a result of Legendary Resistance. No amount of rerolling will undo that success.
That's an aces ruling in my books.

[Mastikator]

I'm not thrilled that they're removing the alignment sections on most races, but I can't say I was ever thrilled about the racial alignments in the first place and at best they should've been explicit about them being suggestions. Because I have seen them be used as a catch all.

However I would've preferred racial personality traits, bonds, ideals and flaws in place of alignment like for example Gith have. Not only would it open up a bit more for roleplay but also give a clearer (and easy to understand) idea of how to roleplay a race.

[SpanielBear]

In 30+ years of playing DnD, with many different people, I have never known there to be a case where this wasn't completely obvious and understood.

It's like they've decided to write for children, and are going to great pains to post hoc moralize the tales. (Just remember children, killing things is wrong!)

Yeah but… it *is* for children. As well, I mean. You’ve been playing 30+ years, kids now are just starting.

I’m 34, my nephew is 10. I’m quite happy that this is a hobby for both of us.

[Sigreid]

Been quite a while since I cared at all what they put in Eratta. Any issues my group had with their wording have been worked out at our table long ago.

[Hytheter]

That's an aces ruling in my books.

If you ask me it was common sense, but I'm increasingly realising that there's no such thing.

[Phhase]

Wait, there's a ruling that says spell storing object is an object interaction. I guess that means it can be used with Haste of quicken to cast two levelled spells in a turn?

[Xihirli]

Or with Fast Hands.

[Khrysaes]

Wait, there's a ruling that says spell storing object is an object interaction. I guess that means it can be used with Haste of quicken to cast two levelled spells in a turn?

Or by a thief rogue to cast up to three

[PhantomSoul]

I saw it the other day but I can't really muster the motivation to get annoyed anymore - I've already come to terms with 5e becoming the Bland Edition™ and that I'm not the intended target audience for the new design direction. I mostly feel for people who've purchased digital products and get to see huge swaths of content just flat out removed from D&D Beyond etc.
(Emphasis mine)

Correct on both fronts, sadly.

But at this point, I don't get why you'd buy a digital product like this because we've already seen you're not getting a stable product and you're not going to be able to access the version of the content you paid for. Especially when changes typically means removing things that can be useful and/or more interesting.

[Sigreid]

(Emphasis mine)

Correct on both fronts, sadly.

But at this point, I don't get why you'd buy a digital product like this because we've already seen you're not getting a stable product and you're not going to be able to access the version of the content you paid for. Especially when changes typically means removing things that can be useful and/or more interesting.

Why I tend to digital products is simple. My group has become scattered across the country and Fantasy Grounds makes it a lot easier for us to play together.

[Zhorn]

But at this point, I don't get why you'd buy a digital product like this because we've already seen you're not getting a stable product and you're not going to be able to access the version of the content you paid for. Especially when changes typically means removing things that can be useful and/or more interesting.
I was reading through the changes (or should I say the "mass redacting") and am very glad I have all these books in physical form, so I'll still be able to reference all those removed sections years from now.

[Azuresun]

There will be rage. I’m heading to a bunker with popcorn, but as I go I will say that I like the removal of alignment and the Drow change. “In these places this culture is dominant and under X’s influence, but other places might not be” is far better than “all entities of this species are X, no exceptions (except for that one weird dude with a panther)”.

No other exceptions? I bet Eliastree, patron goddess of drow who had turned away from the evil culture enforced by Llolth, was feeling a bit stupid for only having one worshipper, then.

[Mastikator]

(Emphasis mine)

Correct on both fronts, sadly.

But at this point, I don't get why you'd buy a digital product like this because we've already seen you're not getting a stable product and you're not going to be able to access the version of the content you paid for. Especially when changes typically means removing things that can be useful and/or more interesting.

It's too bad dndbeyond isn't making errata opt. in content rather than overriding existing content. That way you can have a stable product and use the errata when you choose to.

[PhantomSoul]

Why I tend to digital products is simple. My group has become scattered across the country and Fantasy Grounds makes it a lot easier for us to play together.

Oh, my groups are all online now and many already were (for one group, we're now at three countries after people have moved over the years; for another we were already at two countries and even within-country it was thousands of km apart)... but Beyond has just not proven to be a competent or desirable product (based on people using it and it being such a hassle, which is then made worse by things like mandatory and information-free errata application, regardless of whether it deserves to be errata in any sense of the word or not). Not that I'll fake surprise at Beyond being undesirable, I suppose; I tried it ages ago, and the players who still use it (in the one group where ANYONE still does) have constant hassles with it.

The books or having some better source than Beyond seems relatively necessary these days.

[Khrysaes]

I'm not thrilled that they're removing the alignment sections on most races, but I can't say I was ever thrilled about the racial alignments in the first place and at best they should've been explicit about them being suggestions. Because I have seen them be used as a catch all.

However I would've preferred racial personality traits, bonds, ideals and flaws in place of alignment like for example Gith have. Not only would it open up a bit more for roleplay but also give a clearer (and easy to understand) idea of how to roleplay a race.

I mean, i agree that it should have been clear that the alignments were suggestions.

That said. Lolth literally used the demon wendonai’s blood to corroupt the dark elves into becoming drow. Hence why elistraee and the seven sister Qilue cast a high magic ritual to sever the link between her followers, faezress, and the demon, turning them into dark elves.

[Sigreid]

Oh, my groups are all online now and many already were (for one group, we're now at three countries after people have moved over the years; for another we were already at two countries and even within-country it was thousands of km apart)... but Beyond has just not proven to be a competent or desirable product (based on people using it and it being such a hassle, which is then made worse by things like mandatory and information-free errata application, regardless of whether it deserves to be errata in any sense of the word or not). Not that I'll fake surprise at Beyond being undesirable, I suppose; I tried it ages ago, and the players who still use it (in the one group where ANYONE still does) have constant hassles with it.

The books or having some better source than Beyond seems relatively necessary these days.

I've never used beyond. Fantasy Grounds is a full virtual desktop. Virtual rolling dice. tracking hp, hd , spell slots etc. It just makes it easer for everyone to be on the same page. Especailly makes it easy for the DM to take a peak at the players characters if they need a piece of info but don't want to alert the party yet.

[J-H]

Yeah, it's bland edition. Not so much nerdrage as apathetic disgust... like the last part of the Star Wars Sequel trilogy. I'm already done and checked out with the direction they're taking things.

[ZRN]

Are these all new?

From PHB:

It looks like they buffed reach weapons and the Sentinel feat so you can make opportunity attacks from 10ft.

The new wording on Magic Initiate would seem to mean you add the 1st-level spell to your spells known, like the Fey-Touched and Shadow-Touched feats, which is a BIG buff and actually makes it a much more interesting option.

The fixed Contagion!

TCE:

Eldritch Adept now lets you pick your spellcasting ability, which would seem likely to enable some weird builds. For example, could you play a warlock1/wizardX with Eldritch Adept: Agonizing Blast to add your Int modifier to your eldritch blast?

[Khrysaes]

Are these all new?

From PHB:

It looks like they buffed reach weapons and the Sentinel feat so you can make opportunity attacks from 10ft.

The new wording on Magic Initiate would seem to mean you add the 1st-level spell to your spells known, like the Fey-Touched and Shadow-Touched feats, which is a BIG buff and actually makes it a much more interesting option.

The fixed Contagion!

TCE:

Eldritch Adept now lets you pick your spellcasting ability, which would seem likely to enable some weird builds. For example, could you play a warlock1/wizardX with Eldritch Adept: Agonizing Blast to add your Int modifier to your eldritch blast?

You would still use cha as your attack.

That said, an artificer 1/wizard x can use the all purpose tool to get eldritch blast as a artificer spell For 8 hours a day so you can use int for attack. You may not qualify for eldritch adept then unless are arti 1/ warlock1/wizard x

[someguy]

It's too bad dndbeyond isn't making errata opt. in content rather than overriding existing content. That way you can have a stable product and use the errata when you choose to.

{Scrubbed} Of course they should include up to date changes in the digital product to make it easier for the vast majority of customers who have no need rage here. You can almost just as easily “undo the errata if you want” as someone else could “use the errata if they want”. Seriously you’re suggesting that a good consumer strategy is to publish the wrong rules then tell people to look at a pdf for corrections in a paid digital product?

[Amnestic]

Eldritch Adept now lets you pick your spellcasting ability, which would seem likely to enable some weird builds. For example, could you play a warlock1/wizardX with Eldritch Adept: Agonizing Blast to add your Int modifier to your eldritch blast?

RAW, no.

The errata is intended for Invocations that have DCs/attack rolls such as Mask of Many Faces or Misty Visions.

Agonising Blast doesn't reference "spellcasting ability score", it says specifically charisma, so it wouldn't let you swap to Intelligence modifier.

Otherwise, "ask your DM" as always.

[PhantomSoul]

{Scrub the post, then also scrub where someone else quotes it} Of course they should include up to date changes in the digital product to make it easier for the vast majority of customers who have no need rage here. You can almost just as easily “undo the errata if you want” as someone else could “use the errata if they want”. Seriously you’re suggesting that a good consumer strategy is to publish the wrong rules then tell people to look at a pdf for corrections in a paid digital product?

...I think the suggestion is to be able to toggle off errata (with errata application being the default). At least, that's both what I imagined a competent system would be and interpreted was meant in the quoted post.

[Zhorn]

Are these all new?

The new one's are marked with [New] and those without were from previous erratas, some of which you might find in print already depending on when you got your books.

If a pdf has no [New] tags (such as Tasha's which is a v1.0 release) then everything in them is new.

[EggKookoo]

It's like they've decided to write for children, and are going to great pains to post hoc moralize the tales. (Just remember children, killing things is wrong!)

This is just the state of corporate America right now. I work in a Big Dumb Corporation (40k+ employees) and all of the stuff coming from HR looks like it was written for kindergarteners. I mean our reviews include rating us on how often we interrupt people, and if we make sure to explicitly acknowledge each others' feelings during a meeting. I think it's because it's (perceived to be) the only way to appeal to the kids coming in right out of college.

[J-H]

This is just the state of corporate America right now. I work in a Big Dumb Corporation (40k+ employees) and all of the stuff coming from HR looks like it was written for kindergarteners. I mean our reviews include rating us on how often we interrupt people, and if we make sure to explicitly acknowledge each others' feelings during a meeting. I think it's because it's (perceived to be) the only way to appeal to the kids coming in right out of college.

My first reaction to that was "What, are you serious?" followed by "Of course you are. *eyeroll*."

[Sigreid]

This is just the state of corporate America right now. I work in a Big Dumb Corporation (40k+ employees) and all of the stuff coming from HR looks like it was written for kindergarteners. I mean our reviews include rating us on how often we interrupt people, and if we make sure to explicitly acknowledge each others' feelings during a meeting. I think it's because it's (perceived to be) the only way to appeal to the kids coming in right out of college.

This isn't really new. When I was in the military in the 90's it was explained to us how we could get in trouble if we were having a private conversation with a friend, that we and the friend were both happy with; and a random person how happened by heard what was said and decided our friend should have been offended and reported it. I'm sure we all say jokey things to our friends now and then that we wouldn't say to anyone else, but it's a long accepted joke between us and our friend.

[Psyren]

Yeah but… it *is* for children. As well, I mean. You’ve been playing 30+ years, kids now are just starting.

I’m 34, my nephew is 10. I’m quite happy that this is a hobby for both of us.

*applauds*


...I think the suggestion is to be able to toggle off errata (with errata application being the default). At least, that's both what I imagined a competent system would be and interpreted was meant in the quoted post.

That could end up looking very Wayback Machine with all the toggles and datestamps. I can see why they wouldn't be keen on that.


I mean, i agree that it should have been clear that the alignments were suggestions.

That said. Lolth literally used the demon wendonai’s blood to corroupt the dark elves into becoming drow. Hence why elistraee and the seven sister Qilue cast a high magic ritual to sever the link between her followers, faezress, and the demon, turning them into dark elves.

I mean, I'm sure that's the version of events Lolth's church is propagating in some settings.


This is just the state of corporate America right now. I work in a Big Dumb Corporation (40k+ employees) and all of the stuff coming from HR looks like it was written for kindergarteners. I mean our reviews include rating us on how often we interrupt people, and if we make sure to explicitly acknowledge each others' feelings during a meeting. I think it's because it's (perceived to be) the only way to appeal to the kids coming in right out of college.

I never thought I'd see interrupting people and potentially trampling their feelings framed as a good thing but here we are :smalltongue:

[Sigreid]

.
That could end up looking very Wayback Machine with all the toggles and datestamps. I can see why they wouldn't be keen on that.



I mean, I'm sure that's the version of events Lolth's church is propagating in some settings.



I never thought I'd see interrupting people and potentially trampling their feelings framed as a good thing but here we are :smalltongue:

I would assume if they were to make eratta toggleable, it would be an all or nothing thing. You either have none of the eratta, or the copy that's fully updated to the current.

[Azuresun]

I never thought I'd see interrupting people and potentially trampling their feelings framed as a good thing but here we are :smalltongue:

I know. I'm guessing EggKookoo is not someone who commonly gets talked over by a wannabe alpha male.

[Eurus]

Removing racial alignment seems like a positive change. Hopefully it'll make it easier to not see every race as being one monolithic culture, too.

[Catullus64]

I'm glad they've ironed out some of the most oft-confusing little snags or rules interactions with some of the feats.

They've also straightened out the unseen attackers functionality of Alert, which means my blind warrior character is back on the table!

As for all the fun, non-controversial stuff, my initial reaction was negative, but I did have to step back and admit to myself that none of this affects me very much, since I make games pretty much exclusively in my own worlds anyway.

The only thing that still bothers me even after that much-needed reality check is the removal of alignment from player races; that's the only place where the change feels insincere. A player race gets multiple detailed paragraphs of text talking about that race's culture, conditions of life, and typical personality. If the intent really was to address the tendency of D&D fiction to essentialize people based on their racial group, then simply cutting out the sentence that generalizes alignment seems to have missed the forest for the trees.

"Here's a big block of text telling you what Dwarves are like. But we've removed the harmful three lines that tried to tell you what Dwarves are like."

I like the alignment system as a roleplaying tool and an element of D&D lore, but I'd rather see it scrapped altogether than robbed of all its meaning like this.

[Sigreid]

I know. I'm guessing EggKookoo is not someone who commonly gets talked over by a wannabe alpha male.

I've led many projects for my company, and when the work is really getting done sometimes people get ...passionate about their positions. Honestly, very little in the way of earthshatteringly beneficial change is decided on when everyone is getting along.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Basically, this errata just makes me go meh.

The changes to racial alignment? My setting already ignores alignment entirely.

The mass deletion of "lore"? Don't like it, but doesn't affect me much because I already use completely different lore for all the races, where everyone was already an individual. Don't like the precedent of blanding things down, seemingly to avoid any possibility of offense[1]. But meh.

The functional changes? Meh. I'm not exactly tied to RAW and RAW-style arguments, so it's a little bit of polish on some things. Yay? I guess?

Overall, it is another datum in the current trend that makes me less likely to buy new books and more likely to go my own way in bigger areas; I'm losing faith in their design philosophy. Which was once the big strong point for me. But now they've either changed that philosophy or have started ignoring it. Either way, not a particular fan. But not enough to make me actually feel any emotion about it other than meh.

[1] a pointless endeavor--offense is a subjective thing and people can choose to be offended by anything, regardless of what it is. Sure, you shouldn't go out of your way to cause offense, but no amount of sanding things down will remove all the offense and will just make it all a bland uniform mass.

[DigoDragon]

However I would've preferred racial personality traits, bonds, ideals and flaws in place of alignment like for example Gith have. Not only would it open up a bit more for roleplay but also give a clearer (and easy to understand) idea of how to roleplay a race.

This is a sound idea I'd endorse. I've started doing something similar with my own campaign write-ups. Maybe WotC will adopt this in their updated edition.


I don't think 5e is going bland. I haven't followed racial alignments since I got into the game back in the Ad&D 2e days. Nothing stops people from having an all-evil society if they want one in their campaign. Tossing off the alignment restrictions just let's everyone know that they can do more ideas with the various races, make them more complex and multifaceted by default.

[MadBear]

This is just the state of corporate America right now. I work in a Big Dumb Corporation (40k+ employees) and all of the stuff coming from HR looks like it was written for kindergarteners. I mean our reviews include rating us on how often we interrupt people, and if we make sure to explicitly acknowledge each others' feelings during a meeting. I think it's because it's (perceived to be) the only way to appeal to the kids coming in right out of college.

considering how we have evidence that men to interrupt woman at a disproportionate rate, seems fine to me: http://http://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/zimmermanwest1975.pdf (1975), http://https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275005639_Influence_of_Communication_Partner's_Gen der_on_Language (2014), and http://https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2933016 (2017)

[Dienekes]

This isn't really new. When I was in the military in the 90's it was explained to us how we could get in trouble if we were having a private conversation with a friend, that we and the friend were both happy with; and a random person how happened by heard what was said and decided our friend should have been offended and reported it. I'm sure we all say jokey things to our friends now and then that we wouldn't say to anyone else, but it's a long accepted joke between us and our friend.

Heh, reminds me of an old shipping job I had. Normal day at work, we were all acting our usual selves laughing, joking, everyone was fine. Then a lady from corporate came down to see how we were doing. The next day we all had a meeting where it was explained to us that we were apparently casting a negative view of the company because we were... swearing. In front of only each other.

At least it had the funniest moment that our direct manager, who swore about as much as everyone else if not more, had to straight faced explain to us in the meeting with the corporate over her shoulder why that sort of language would not be tolerated.

The new no cursing policy lasted about 10 seconds after corporate left for the day.

Regardless of fun anecdotes, this errata doesn't really effect me all that much. I don't use the official lore much at all. And as for racial traits, 5e has always only really paid lip service to the idea that these are different species with different mentalities to human. Now would the game be far more interesting if they took the time and energy to make mechanics so Orcs actually do have to handle their inner wrath rather than just have a few sentence explaining it in the fluff? Yes. That's why Burning Wheel's different races actually feel non-human, while D&D races just feel like packages of fairly generic and often weak abilities.

But I don't really expect 5e to start doing races well now, when they haven't done them well ever before. So, might as well just admit to everyone they're just making a bunch of humans with some latched on features.

I suppose if there are people who are really, really into D&D lore this could be a problem. But, I've always found the lore pretty dull. But then, there are people who are really passionate about the Pathfinder setting, and I've always found that just as dull. So, there's got to be some folk who will be upset by this.

[SpanielBear]

…If the intent really was to address the tendency of D&D fiction to essentialize people based on their racial group, then simply cutting out the sentence that generalizes alignment seems to have missed the forest for the trees.

"Here's a big block of text telling you what Dwarves are like. But we've removed the harmful three lines that tried to tell you what Dwarves are like."

I like the alignment system as a roleplaying tool and an element of D&D lore, but I'd rather see it scrapped altogether than robbed of all its meaning like this.

(Snipped for brevity.)

I actually agree. I’m on the side of de-essentialising, and part of the reason for that is the freedom to reinvent and explore ideas. So I’d be well up for WoTC to do that, “here are various dwarf cultural ideas”, as sparks to creativity. That is a missed opportunity.

[Catullus64]

This is a sound idea I'd endorse. I've started doing something similar with my own campaign write-ups. Maybe WotC will adopt this in their updated edition.


I don't think 5e is going bland. I haven't followed racial alignments since I got into the game back in the Ad&D 2e days. Nothing stops people from having an all-evil society if they want one in their campaign. Tossing off the alignment restrictions just let's everyone know that they can do more ideas with the various races, make them more complex and multifaceted by default.

I think (and was trying to get at this at an earlier post) that part of the problem is the severing of the alignment system from other elements of the game fiction.

For instance, the Dwarf section talks about moral values and traits common to Dwarves. It talks about how they prize loyalty and truth even to the point of stubborness, are strongly motivated by kinship bonds, and cleave fiercely to tradition. It paints a convincing picture of Dwarves as Lawful creatures. Removing the line which says that Dwarves tend to be lawful doesn't create a more nuanced understanding of the race, but it does discourage a connection between the alignment system and rich, roleplay-inspiring game fiction, leaving the alignment system even more of a vestigial shell than it already is.

[t209]

Part of me seems odd about racial alignment since WoTC seems to focus more on Drizzt to the point that Eilistraee seems to be sidelined even with “well, she is still alive”.
I mean you can say their nude dances, but Drizzt had Drow who are okay with “inter family relations” and decadent group intercourses.
Then again who wanted to be a Drow who gave out cookies and happiness instead of loner who would never be accepted by surface society (except a dwarf, a human wife, Barbarian, and Halfling mobster).

[Psyren]

I like the alignment system as a roleplaying tool and an element of D&D lore, but I'd rather see it scrapped altogether than robbed of all its meaning like this.

"Robbed of all its meaning," good grief :smalltongue: Alignment has far more use cases than race.
Personally I would prefer if they just do like 3.5 and include "races of X" fluff in the setting books, where they can say things like "FR Halflings are like this" and "Eberron Elves are like that."


I would assume if they were to make eratta toggleable, it would be an all or nothing thing. You either have none of the eratta, or the copy that's fully updated to the current.

So if you want to mix and match you'd have to do it manually anyway.


Removing racial alignment seems like a positive change. Hopefully it'll make it easier to not see every race as being one monolithic culture, too.

Indeed, especially not the adventurers from those races, which is where this is being removed from.


Part of me seems odd about racial alignment since WoTC seems to focus more on Drizzt to the point that Eilistraee seems to be sidelined even with “well, she is still alive”.
I mean you can say their nude dances, but Drizzt had Drow who are okay with “inter family relations” and decadent group intercourses.
Then again who wanted to be a Drow who gave out cookies and happiness instead of loner who would never be accepted by surface society (except a dwarf, a human wife, Barbarian, and Halfling mobster).

I mean, he doesn't even worship Eilistraee anyway no? He's a ranger of Mielikki IIRC.

[Khrysaes]

"Robbed of all its meaning," good grief :smalltongue: Alignment has far more use cases than race.
Personally I would prefer if they just do like 3.5 and include "races of X" fluff in the setting books, where they can say things like "FR Halflings are like this" and "Eberron Elves are like that."



So if you want to mix and match you'd have to do it manually anyway.



Indeed, especially not the adventurers from those races, which is where this is being removed from.



I mean, he doesn't even worship Eilistraee anyway no? He's a ranger of Mielikki IIRC.

I think it is more that drizzt is the go to poster boy for the good drow while elistraee is the literal goddess of good drow but didnt get mentioned in an earlier post as (except for that one with the panther)

[Naanomi]

Removing alignment stuff from PC options is fine (though the risk of the different species into just 'humans with rubber masks' isn't my preference, and I'm fine with broadly negative traits being in the mix)... Doing so for Outsider races (as some suggest, though not present in this errata) has more serious setting/lore/cosmology implications that I'm not a fan of

[Greywander]

I can't wait for them to just remove races entirely and make everyone human. {Scrubbed}

[P. G. Macer]

I saw the errata a few days ago, I just assumed it wasn’t posted here because the mods would (understandably) lock it immediately.

As I’m not sure I can stay in the forum rules discussing alignment and the lore removal, I’m going to focus on two trap options being removed.

In SCAG, they finally removed the Keen Senses option for the variant half-elves! I still don’t know what Green Ronin was thinking when they included that. Trading any two skills for one predefined skill? Really?

Meanwhile, in Tasha’s, they removed Weapon Master from the Battle Master builds. Right out the gate, so I assume someone at WotC noticed the issue very soon after changes could no longer be made for the first printing.

[Catullus64]

"Robbed of all its meaning," good grief :smalltongue: Alignment has far more use cases than race.
Personally I would prefer if they just do like 3.5 and include "races of X" fluff in the setting books, where they can say things like "FR Halflings are like this" and "Eberron Elves are like that."


Heh, you're right, I was being a little hyperbolic.

A little more specificity of races by setting would indeed go a long way in resolving this tedious discussion. But on the whole I find the project of "let's emphasize how diverse and nuanced every race is" to be tiresome because I think they've conflated a real problem that needed addressing (D&D has historically replicated, intentionally or not, a bunch of dangerous tropes that can cause harm to real world people) with a non-problem, which is that D&D races, by function of being gameplay and story conceits and not actual peoples, are more monolithic and culturally simplistic than real-world ethnic groups. (Incidentally, I think the Drow text falls more under the former category, and therefore I have no real problem with it).

Right or wrong, I've met my self-imposed three-posts-per-month-on-this-inflammatory-topic limit. Au revoir.

[Wildstag]

Removing racial alignment seems like a positive change. Hopefully it'll make it easier to not see every race as being one monolithic culture, too.

The only races that have been monolithic cultures are the ones too few in number to have more than one culture. Dragonborn are a monoculture in 5e because in Faerun there's only one nation of Dragonborn. Thus, to be of that race, you have to be from that culture.

Elves clearly aren't a monoculture (by virtue of drow being a subrace with its own culture within the overall elf species). Dwarves haven't been either, as evidenced by the setting differences in culture between regional dwarf populations. Orcs aren't a monoculture either, which has been clear to anyone that's read anything about the setting besides Sword Coast. There's entire civilizations of orcs out there that aren't as nomadic as the orcs of the Sword Coast.

And moving on to other races, halflings haven't been a monoculture either. Gnomes haven't been. Goliaths have been because there's not enough of them to warrant there being more than one culture (and honestly, they were tacked on to Faerun in a lazy fashion; they're made for Oerth instead). Firbolgs are few in number and generally in the North.

In general, the "monoculture" accusation doesn't really stick to most settings because most settings don't have them. The issue with 5e is that because WotC puts out so little content for their own settings (aside from SCAG and these "traveler's guides"), the average consumer only sees a fraction of the setting. Like, when was the last time we saw Halruaa, or The Sea of Stars, or the Dalelands, or Myth Drannor, or Mulhorand, or Thay, or any of the other number of regions on the continent of Faerun teeming with other cultures of every race and subrace?

Alignment has nothing to do with the monoculture issue. The monoculture issue is only such because WotC are poor stewards of the setting they decided to be their default for 5e.

[loki_ragnarock]

Overall, it is another datum in the current trend that makes me less likely to buy new books and more likely to go my own way in bigger areas; I'm losing faith in their design philosophy. Which was once the big strong point for me. But now they've either changed that philosophy or have started ignoring it. Either way, not a particular fan. But not enough to make me actually feel any emotion about it other than meh.



This is mostly where I'm at.

[t209]

Alignment has nothing to do with the monoculture issue. The monoculture issue is only such because WotC are poor stewards of the setting they decided to be their default for 5e.
Further proving my point of lack of Eilistraee, or lack of exposure, in current DnD (or 4E but Smedman novels did dirty on her, like being more bloodthirsty and punishing for males just for looking at their dance, which is open to everyone).
That and Drizzt being poster boy.
I mean there was Drows of the Underdark where it kinda avoided monoculture (at most), and older Forgotten Realms had surface Drows trying to befriend surface races with mixed results.
Now…let’s say that there is no Promenade in Waterdeep modules.

[Yakk]

People people.

The most important part is that Mage's no longer have a Sexton on a roll of 73.

Every other errata before and since is insignificant.

[DarknessEternal]

There's almost no functional changes here. Don't understand the butthurt.

[Psyren]

I can't wait for them to just remove races entirely and make everyone human. Scrub the post, scrub the quote

Yes, everyone who sees a positive in these changes must be... an infant? How endearing :smallsigh:


I think it is more that drizzt is the go to poster boy for the good drow while elistraee is the literal goddess of good drow but didnt get mentioned in an earlier post as (except for that one with the panther)

She's not in as many settings as Lolth is so that's understandable. And a goddess being the reason behind X race is bad fluff anyway because it's inherently setting-specific. Look at Golarion or Tamriel, dark elves exist in those places without Lolth. Even in Eberron or Ravenloft I don't think she was mentioned until pretty recently though I could be mistaken on that.


Heh, you're right, I was being a little hyperbolic.

A little more specificity of races by setting would indeed go a long way in resolving this tedious discussion. But on the whole I find the project of "let's emphasize how diverse and nuanced every race is" to be tiresome because I think they've conflated a real problem that needed addressing (D&D has historically replicated, intentionally or not, a bunch of dangerous tropes that can cause harm to real world people) with a non-problem, which is that D&D races, by function of being gameplay and story conceits and not actual peoples, are more monolithic and culturally simplistic than real-world ethnic groups. (Incidentally, I think the Drow text falls more under the former category, and therefore I have no real problem with it).

I think relegating cultural information to the settings is indeed the best way to avoid any semblance of being a monolith. This clues DMs into the idea that there is no base fluff for the race independent of setting and that they will have to think about what it will be for their world, even if they opt for "dwarves are like FR except" and "halflings are like dragonlance Kender except" etc.

[Warder]

(Emphasis mine)

Correct on both fronts, sadly.

But at this point, I don't get why you'd buy a digital product like this because we've already seen you're not getting a stable product and you're not going to be able to access the version of the content you paid for. Especially when changes typically means removing things that can be useful and/or more interesting.

I agree, but at this point I think there's also a big (justified) feeling of sunken cost when it comes to D&D Beyond and other services. If you've bought the digital books for years, it's hard to justify switching to someone else because of the expenses involved.

The consumer rights advocate in me boils a bit at all of this, but gets overruled by the apathetic-about-the-WotC-dev-team multiclass levels I've taken. The bad direction they're on just means I'll look at third party content or PF2e going forward, there's just not much more to say about it for me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think relegating cultural information to the settings is indeed the best way to avoid any semblance of being a monolith. This clues DMs into the idea that there is no base fluff for the race independent of setting and that they will have to think about what it will be for their world, even if they opt for "dwarves are like FR except" and "halflings are like dragonlance Kender except" etc.

My expectation is that they'll remove cultural information from the base books....and then not add anything meaningful in any of the settings. So what you'll have is a mishmash of old-edition information and vapid airy nothing in the core books. Or add more namby pamby "all these cultures are just great! No problems here!" stuff, even to things where that makes little sense (seriously, beholders aren't human in any way. There's no need to make them cuddly critters.) And the old-edition stuff clashes horribly with the new. Leading to a perception that the total lack of meaningful cultures is intended--that the RP part is null and all there are are bundles of mechanics.

I mean...I don't disagree that having culture be more prominent and more setting-specific is good and proper and what the should do. It's just at this point I have little confidence in their ability or will to implement that well, if at all. They seem to lack any kind of coherent vision for the product except "whatever makes us money".

[Phhase]

Yeah but… it *is* for children. I take umbrage with this line of thinking. Or, at least, the line that I think I'm hearing, of course. It recalls the attitude of "Children's cartoons should be 100% sterile and sanitary, because adults should not be enjoying them". No. No, that's silly. Of course there are bounds of subject matter if you want some mass appeal and want children to also be able to enjoy the media, but there's no reason not tohave more complex themes that a child can still enjoy, but an adult can really get. It's possible. You can do it. It's called good writing. I can't pretend to know how precisely to achieve it - that, after all, is the crux of what we're debating right now. But neither will I pretend that this (or, again what I'm picking up as, I could be off base) exclusive it's-not-made-for-you approach to writing is a good idea.

The very best children's media - with Dungeons and Dragons among such examples - is both approachable, and complex.

[KorvinStarmast]

I work in a Big Dumb Corporation (40k+ employees) and all of the stuff coming from HR looks like it was written for kindergarteners. Our 40k + Fortune 500 corp's HR department issues similar rubbish. About 10% of what they issue is worth reading. Sturgeon's Law in action, perhaps.

Removing racial alignment seems like a positive change. Hopefully it'll make it easier to not see every race as being one monolithic culture, too. For those who see every race that way. Many of us never did.

considering how we have evidence that men to interrupt woman at a disproportionate rate
Fascinating bit of academia that has no application in real life, for me.
My wife interrupts me nearly every time I speak to her, regardless of the topic. It's been getting worse over the past few years to the point that I am with greater frequency saying "May I finish please?" when I am in a good mood and when I am in a poor mood I just stop and say something like "Oh, right, why do I speak? You don't bother to listen" which usually ends what might have been a conversation. Almost a direct opposite of those findings. On the bright side, I suppose, I talk less than I used to.

Removing alignment stuff ... Doing so for Outsider races (as some suggest, though not present in this errata) has more serious setting/lore/cosmology implications that I'm not a fan of For celestials and fiends they need to retain that attribute.

I can't wait for them to just remove races entirely and make everyone human. Hopefully they'll get rid of all the big words next so their primary demographic can finally read the rules. Laughed, I did. FWIW: if they made PCs human-only the game is still very playable. (We've done that, it works, but only in two groups I have been in).

The most important part is that Mage's no longer have a Sexton on a roll of 73.

Every other errata before and since is insignificant. I wish I got that reference, since I suspect a nice joke is contained therein. May I have an assist please?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I wish I got that reference, since I suspect a nice joke is contained therein.

The pre-errata table had a Sexton (a type of clergy in certain churches) as one of the results for the trinkets instead of a Sextant (the navigational tool). They fixed that. No free clergy for you!

[Psyren]

The very best children's media - with Dungeons and Dragons among such examples - is both approachable, and complex.

Removing racial alignments is not removing complexity. If anything it is increasing it.


I agree, but at this point I think there's also a big (justified) feeling of sunken cost when it comes to D&D Beyond and other services. If you've bought the digital books for years, it's hard to justify switching to someone else because of the expenses involved.

The consumer rights advocate in me boils a bit at all of this, but gets overruled by the apathetic-about-the-WotC-dev-team multiclass levels I've taken. The bad direction they're on just means I'll look at third party content or PF2e going forward, there's just not much more to say about it for me.

But.. PF2 doesn't have racial alignments either :smallconfused:

And for the cultural stuff - Paizo has exactly one mega-setting (well, two if you consider Pact Worlds to be separate) so any cultural information they include on their races is going to be reflective of that setting. They aren't juggling half a dozen main ones and Tiamat-knows-how-many MTG ones like WotC is.

[KorvinStarmast]

The pre-errata table had a Sexton (a type of clergy in certain churches) as one of the results for the trinkets instead of a Sextant (the navigational tool). They fixed that. No free clergy for you! Oh. Thanks. I'll check my basic rules trinkets table.
All of my sailor background characters (Dil Excepted) have navigational tools, which I always assumed to include a sextant ... so, what, I was carrying around a cleric for all of these years? :smalleek:
No wonder Korvin died: he'd been overstraining his heart for all of those forays into the dungeon ...

[Warder]

But.. PF2 doesn't have racial alignments either :smallconfused:

And for the cultural stuff - Paizo has exactly one mega-setting (well, two if you consider Pact Worlds to be separate) so any cultural information they include on their races is going to be reflective of that setting. They aren't juggling half a dozen main ones and Tiamat-knows-how-many MTG ones like WotC is.

I'm sorry, I mean this as respectfully as I can, I don't really want to engage with you - I think neither of us would enjoy or really get anything from that exchange. My apologies.

[Phhase]

Removing racial alignments is not removing complexity. If anything it is increasing it.

You said it, not me. I actually don't mind that. I was specifically objecting to the rationale in the quote I cited. Please consider context.

On the topic plainly, my position is that I could take or leave racial alignment, but I still feel the construct of alignment itself is a neat tool for describing worldviews, and oughtn't be canned in its entirety. As long, of course, as it's universally acknowledged as a descriptor, not an exclusive boundary or mold that one must adhere to. Simply a tool, and of description, not assignment. Archaic perhaps, but still of some small utility for contextualizing the actions of an individual, perhaps.

[Xervous]

Coming off the 48 page ENworld thread all I have to say is I’m disappointed that WotC needs new books to patch subclasses but uses errata to replace Brothels with Music Halls, implicitly confirming the horny bard archetype.

[Phhase]

Coming off the 48 page ENworld thread all I have to say is I’m disappointed that WotC needs new books to patch subclasses but uses errata to replace Brothels with Music Halls, implicitly confirming the horny bard archetype.

'Scuse me? :smallbiggrin: C'mon. Now that just makes me chuckle.

[Corsair14]

This is why I limit my official 5e to big adventure books like Tales from the Yawning Portal and Saltspite. Everytime I read an update like the alignment thing or the Familiar spell(I have reprinted older edition FF and taped it over the 5e version, its a local creature you summon that has real repercussions if it dies, not a fae thing that changes shape) I kind of get ticked off that they have gone so far away from what made DND fun and interesting. Then they do changes like this. I'll stick to my abridged 5e or the golden edition of AD&D.

[Psyren]

I'm sorry, I mean this as respectfully as I can, I don't really want to engage with you - I think neither of us would enjoy or really get anything from that exchange. My apologies.

Uh... my quoting you isn't necessarily demanding a reply from you, I'm addressing a statement on a public forum with another statement on a public forum :smalltongue: Anyone else reading is free to form their own conclusions.


You said it, not me. I actually don't mind that. I was specifically objecting to the rationale in the quote I cited. Please consider context.

On the topic plainly, my position is that I could take or leave racial alignment, but I still feel the construct of alignment itself is a neat tool for describing worldviews, and oughtn't be canned in its entirety. As long, of course, as it's universally acknowledged as a descriptor, not an exclusive boundary or mold that one must adhere to. Simply a tool, and of description, not assignment. Archaic perhaps, but still of some small utility for contextualizing the actions of an individual, perhaps.

Alignment hasn't been "canned in its entirety" as far as I can tell, they haven't errata'ed it out of either core book. PHB 122 kept the typical alignment examples by monster in that section, and even retained outer plane outsiders being composed of their alignment (but emphasizing the possibility of rare yet dramatic change.)

[SpanielBear]

I take umbrage with this line of thinking. Or, at least, the line that I think I'm hearing, of course. It recalls the attitude of "Children's cartoons should be 100% sterile and sanitary, because adults should not be enjoying them". No. No, that's silly. Of course there are bounds of subject matter if you want some mass appeal and want children to also be able to enjoy the media, but there's no reason not tohave more complex themes that a child can still enjoy, but an adult can really get. It's possible. You can do it. It's called good writing. I can't pretend to know how precisely to achieve it - that, after all, is the crux of what we're debating right now. But neither will I pretend that this (or, again what I'm picking up as, I could be off base) exclusive it's-not-made-for-you approach to writing is a good idea.

The very best children's media - with Dungeons and Dragons among such examples - is both approachable, and complex.

Firstly, I do apologise if my point came across as “D&D is only for kids”. I was responding to an earlier post that seemed to imply it shouldn’t be for kids at all- 90% of the games I play are in my 30+ friendship group, I’m right there with you that a game can be a mature or easygoing as it needs to be.

Nor do I disagree with your point that kids can cope with and appreciate intelligent writing. You are bang on the money there. Terry Pratchett said something along the lines of “kids know when they’re being patronised”, and that tracks with my experience.

But that being the case- do you really think that the phb *specifically* is intelligent writing cleverly aimed to weave the perspectives of adults and children together in a harmonious web? As it stands?

Look, I’m not setting out to be all “think of the children”, I’ve got no interest in hyperbole. There are *tons* of things out there worse than how Drow and Orcs get written, this is not an urgent hill to die on. But as we’re discussing it, and as I have had people, friends, feel excluded from a hobby I enjoy, why would I not be pleased that it’s changing to be more welcoming? I *like* playing D&D, and I want as many people as possible to enjoy it too.

Ideally that would be by WoTC making more settings, exploring the possibilities of what magic societies could be like, or underworlds, or anything imaginable. I don’t disagree that removing alignment is a complete half-measure, and dull as a solution. But it is better than sticking with 50 year old tropes that make a lot of potential players really uncomfortable.

[Phhase]

Alignment hasn't been "canned in its entirety" as far as I can tell, they haven't errata'ed it out of either core book. PHB 122 kept the typical alignment examples by monster in that section, and even retained outer plane outsiders being composed of their alignment (but emphasizing the possibility of rare yet dramatic change.)

It may be my poor phrasing, but again, I didn't mean to imply it was being removed entirely. Just echoing what I believe is part of the thread zeitgeist, which is that changes like what is currently being implemented might potentially mean that something like that could happen in a possible future.

I, again, completely agree with what you're outlining - monstrous alignment examples, especially those of outsiders that ostensibly are literal embodiment of their alignment in most respects, are good, haven't, and shouldn't be changed.

[Dork_Forge]

Fascinating bit of academia that has no application in real life, for me.
My wife interrupts me nearly every time I speak to her, regardless of the topic. It's been getting worse over the past few years to the point that I am with greater frequency saying "May I finish please?" when I am in a good mood and when I am in a poor mood I just stop and say something like "Oh, right, why do I speak? You don't bother to listen" which usually ends what might have been a conversation. Almost a direct opposite of those findings. On the bright side, I suppose, I talk less than I used to.


To be fair this is a real issue faced by some women in the workplace, since my partner started working from home I've heard her, and other female managers, interrupted repeatedly by various male coworkers.


Coming off the 48 page ENworld thread all I have to say is I’m disappointed that WotC needs new books to patch subclasses but uses errata to replace Brothels with Music Halls, implicitly confirming the horny bard archetype.

That was amusing in the moment but utterly hollow otherwise, that entirely assumes that the replacement serves the same purpose when there's absolutely no reason to think so besides making fun of a bad stereotype.

Would that association have remained if they'd replaced it with some other place instead of a music hall?

[Psyren]

It may be my poor phrasing, but again, I didn't mean to imply it was being removed entirely. Just echoing what I believe is part of the thread zeitgeist, which is that changes like what is currently being implemented might potentially mean that something like that could happen in a possible future.

I, again, completely agree with what you're outlining - monstrous alignment examples, especially those of outsiders that ostensibly are literal embodiment of their alignment in most respects, are good, haven't, and shouldn't be changed.

Yeah we're aligned (heh).

The only part I was objecting to was the implied belief that removing the whole "Orcs are evil because Grummsh made them to serve him" from core means the material is somehow worse off. That stuff shouldn't have been in core to begin with, it's very much a setting detail; for that matter, I would even look askance at it being embedded in an official setting, but definitely when I saw that line in core I raised an eyebrow.

[kenjigoku]

It's too bad dndbeyond isn't making errata opt. in content rather than overriding existing content. That way you can have a stable product and use the errata when you choose to.

It would be really cool if DnD Beyond had an "all versions" tab so that you could click back old errata versions and select those for your ruleset.

[EggKookoo]

I never thought I'd see interrupting people and potentially trampling their feelings framed as a good thing but here we are :smalltongue:

I know there's a good chance you're being facetious but I often do encounter people who drop context like a hot potato and interpret things like that.

For those playing along at home, it was the infantilization (or... toddlerization?) of our working relationships that was irksome. Fortunately my immediate manager knows it mostly nonsense, but then he gets evaluated for the same kind of thing.

Feelings are important but I don't think they're more important than progress. In fact, feelings are usually a hindrance to progress.


I know. I'm guessing EggKookoo is not someone who commonly gets talked over by a wannabe alpha male.

Happens all the time. I know I make some long-winded posts here, but in verbal stuff I really don't like to talk to hear my own voice, and I usually only pipe up if I have something to say. I'm usually the one getting talked over.

I have been told that once someone finally gets me going, it's an effort to shut me up sometimes. But there's a decent amount of activation energy.

[Xervous]

To be fair this is a real issue faced by some women in the workplace, since my partner started working from home I've heard her, and other female managers, interrupted repeatedly by various male coworkers.



That was amusing in the moment but utterly hollow otherwise, that entirely assumes that the replacement serves the same purpose when there's absolutely no reason to think so besides making fun of a bad stereotype.

Would that association have remained if they'd replaced it with some other place instead of a music hall?

If it had been something other than a music hall I’d be lacking a witty remark, but their lack of care for old design patterns they have iterated past would remain.

[Phhase]

Firstly, I do apologise if my point came across as “D&D is only for kids”. I was responding to an earlier post that seemed to imply it shouldn’t be for kids at all- 90% of the games I play are in my 30+ friendship group, I’m right there with you that a game can be a mature or easygoing as it needs to be.

Nor do I disagree with your point that kids can cope with and appreciate intelligent writing. You are bang on the money there. Terry Pratchett said something along the lines of “kids know when they’re being patronised”, and that tracks with my experience.

But that being the case- do you really think that the phb *specifically* is intelligent writing cleverly aimed to weave the perspectives of adults and children together in a harmonious web? As it stands?

Look, I’m not setting out to be all “think of the children”, I’ve got no interest in hyperbole. There are *tons* of things out there worse than how Drow and Orcs get written, this is not an urgent hill to die on. But as we’re discussing it, and as I have had people, friends, feel excluded from a hobby I enjoy, why would I not be pleased that it’s changing to be more welcoming? I *like* playing D&D, and I want as many people as possible to enjoy it too.

Ideally that would be by WoTC making more settings, exploring the possibilities of what magic societies could be like, or underworlds, or anything imaginable. I don’t disagree that removing alignment is a complete half-measure, and dull as a solution. But it is better than sticking with 50 year old tropes that make a lot of potential players really uncomfortable.

Excellent, excellent, I much appreciate the increased clarity :smallbiggrin:. I simply loathe exclusive reasoning. And yes, I'm pleased to say that I agree with your points in major part. Indeed, the inverse of the sanitization argument is equally distasteful to me, adult appeal ought not be exclusive either.

Is the 5e PHB a standout exemplar of good, intelligent writing?

......No. To be fair, that is a high bar, but even with that consideration...eh.

And yeah, you put it well. While not a thing worth crossing swords over, it's certainly worth debate. I think the most important thing is that alignment is understood as descriptive, not assignative (is that a word? Assignatory? I hope that made sense). And while removing is something of a band-aid to the issue of alignment being historically misunderstood or misused, I agree in that it is, while lukewarm, potentially hazardous, and dull, a solution.

[137beth]

There will be rage. I’m heading to a bunker with popcorn, but as I go I will say that I like the removal of alignment and the Drow change. “In these places this culture is dominant and under X’s influence, but other places might not be” is far better than “all entities of this species are X, no exceptions (except for that one weird dude with a panther)”.

I like this change. I'm pretty meh about everything else.

[kore]

Removing racial alignments is not removing complexity. If anything it is increasing it.

Agreed. It means you can't uniformly know how an interaction is likely to transpire. More effort, more roleplaying will be required. Sounds like a good time to me.

[137beth]

But.. PF2 doesn't have racial alignments either :smallconfused:

Wait, what?
Okay, I admit I have not yet purchased PF2, but I am looking at the Archives of Nethyrs and the creature statblocks that represent species have alignments listed.

Here's one for a drow (https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=165): it says "CE." All the entires for higher level drow also say "evil." Here's one for a gold dragon (https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=151), it says "LG." Here's a wight (https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=413): it says "LE."

And all the other creature statblocks I looked at have a listed alignment.

From the limited context that AoN provides, it looks to me like those are supposed to be statblocks representing a 'generic' member of a species, not just one specific individual or a member of one organization. Maybe there is more information in the books: maybe the statblock for a wight I linked to is presented as "a typical member of the Super Evil Crime Syndicate, the organization that some wights have voluntarily joined," and not "a typical wight." But just from the online source, it does look like PF2 has racial ancestral alignments.

What context am I missing from the actual books?

[MrCharlie]

If DnD is for children, it's in the same sense LOTR is for children.

And yes, LOTR is for children; the characters are more or less morally simplistic, evil is framed as being corrupting in an infantilized way, and the plot is relatively simplistic.

Yes, the language is complex, there is a deep lore, the world is complicated, and it's certainly well written-but in the context of this discussion, it's for children.

All that said, my biggest concern is the scrubbing of content and its replacement by...nothing. The rest of it, like removal of alignment from stat blocks? I don't care. Even the dark elf changes are an understandable retcon, and one that allows for more stories and a deeper treatment of the lore, not less. Lloth, like most (all) authoritarians, talks a good game but has less actual control than she wants you to think she does. I like that.

I don't like how it undoes lore in some settings-but if you had to change it in this direction this is the right change. I have no problems with any PhB, DMG, MM, or other changes in this errata.

What I dislike is the removal of entire reams of text whole-sale from Volo's, and the direction some of it is going. I mean, the Cthulu head monsters are evil because they enslave people's minds, kill them, and eat them. We're allowed to say that, to make that call. If that is problematic now, we do have a problem, and it ain't with the monsters.

On the other hand there is the potential for rebellion from that society-but when we're talking about the society as a whole, we need to be able to make generalizations without worrying about the fact that we are making generalizations. Some societies in DnD are racial, and many of those racial societies are evil. Some are good. And there is a reason they are evil or good. Volo's Guide just scrubbed a lot of those, and left us with a confused message that is very troubling.

[Psyren]

Wait, what?
Okay, I admit I have not yet purchased PF2, but I am looking at the Archives of Nethyrs and the creature statblocks that represent species have alignments listed.

Here's one for a drow (https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=165): it says "CE." All the entires for higher level drow also say "evil." Here's one for a gold dragon (https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=151), it says "LG." Here's a wight (https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=413): it says "LE."

And all the other creature statblocks I looked at have a listed alignment.

From the limited context that AoN provides, it looks to me like those are supposed to be statblocks representing a 'generic' member of a species, not just one specific individual or a member of one organization. Maybe there is more information in the books: maybe the statblock for a wight I linked to is presented as "a typical member of the Super Evil Crime Syndicate, the organization that some wights have voluntarily joined," and not "a typical wight." But just from the online source, it does look like PF2 has racial ancestral alignments.

What context am I missing from the actual books?

Those are bestiary (monster manual) entries you're citing. I'm talking about the CRB (their PHB/DMG equivalent), which is where these were removed from in the D&D errata being discussed. PF2 never had alignment entries on races ("ancestries") to begin with.

[Wildstag]

Ideally that would be by WoTC making more settings, exploring the possibilities of what magic societies could be like, or underworlds, or anything imaginable. I don’t disagree that removing alignment is a complete half-measure, and dull as a solution. But it is better than sticking with 50 year old tropes that make a lot of potential players really uncomfortable.

I know you aren't replying to me, but a large part of my comment earlier was that these tropes only exist in the heads of the ignorant (to use the word in a non-pejorative way). Definitely in the last 30 years, the trope of "all of this race is that way" doesn't hold up.

The Faerunian and Eberron sourcebooks (15-20 years old) describe races that are more than just one alignment, and just from what I recall of the Planescape books it definitely explained that individuals of all alignments could be found for mortal races, or at least it provides enough examples to infer that (and those are the 90s).

Books with the "Forgotten Realms" logo on them include official lore, and part of the work of books like "The Orc King" was to show an example of a fledgeling orc nation that cares about the welfare of its folk. And that's not even counting the eastern-Faerunian orcs that differ from the Sword-Coast orcs.

You're right to say that it's not enough, to change one line on these blocks; it's the bare minimum effort. But on the other hand, it's also the case that the work has been done for the most part by the people making the settings. Those 50-year-old tropes are a boogeyman that sustains itself with public perception (and their passive perception is LOW). Changes in public thought take a LONG time.

TL;DR: The tropes are more what the public thinks is true, and that doesn't always line up with the entire truth of the matter. The changes being made now will do nothing to change that public perception.

[137beth]

Those are bestiary (monster manual) entries you're citing. I'm talking about the CRB (their PHB/DMG equivalent), which is where these were removed from in the D&D errata being discussed. PF2 never had alignment entries on races ("ancestries") to begin with.

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

[SpanielBear]

If DnD is for children, it's in the same sense LOTR is for children.

And yes, LOTR is for children; the characters are more or less morally simplistic, evil is framed as being corrupting in an infantilized way, and the plot is relatively simplistic.

Yes, the language is complex, there is a deep lore, the world is complicated, and it's certainly well written-but in the context of this discussion, it's for children.

All that said, my biggest concern is the scrubbing of content and its replacement by...nothing. The rest of it, like removal of alignment from stat blocks? I don't care. Even the dark elf changes are an understandable retcon, and one that allows for more stories and a deeper treatment of the lore, not less. Lloth, like most (all) authoritarians, talks a good game but has less actual control than she wants you to think she does. I like that.

I don't like how it undoes lore in some settings-but if you had to change it in this direction this is the right change. I have no problems with any PhB, DMG, MM, or other changes in this errata.

What I dislike is the removal of entire reams of text whole-sale from Volo's, and the direction some of it is going. I mean, the Cthulu head monsters are evil because they enslave people's minds, kill them, and eat them. We're allowed to say that, to make that call. If that is problematic now, we do have a problem, and it ain't with the monsters.

On the other hand there is the potential for rebellion from that society-but when we're talking about the society as a whole, we need to be able to make generalizations without worrying about the fact that we are making generalizations. Some societies in DnD are racial, and many of those racial societies are evil. Some are good. And there is a reason they are evil or good. Volo's Guide just scrubbed a lot of those, and left us with a confused message that is very troubling.

It’s the difference, I think, between as you say Lolth/Gruumsh/Cthulhu* talking a good game but their control not being absolute, and “Orcs are always evil and brutal”.

One opens possibilities, the other shuts them down.

More stories/settings are better than less. Getting rid of problematic stuff, as I’ve said elsewhere, is positive, but I am sympathetic to the view it hasn’t in itself left settings any richer without writing new stories.

The problem we have is that “Drow and Orcs are always evil” was pretty much the only story in town. As part of a wider mythology where other stories are part of the zeitgeist, it possibly wouldn’t be as egregious.



*I mean part of the whole deal with Cthulhu is you try to stop the cultists who seek to raise him, to *stop* him from turning humanity into his puppets. The idea that you only encounter orcs and Drow after that event has happened to their species and there’s no way to restore their free will (so individuals so inclined can *choose* to be utter b*stards if they wish and earn a good stabbing on their own merits) is pretty dystopic. It would be an interesting adventure, except it’s a) almost never explored that way in the literature and b) again it’s the only game in town.

[Greywander]

Yes, everyone who sees a positive in these changes must be... an infant? How endearing :smallsigh:
I was partly just making a funny, but more in the black comedy "dead baby ha ha" type of way. Let me lay out to you what I see happening, and maybe the positions who don't like what WotC is doing might make a bit more sense to you.

What I think has happened is that 5e became wildly popular and brought in a bunch of new players. That's great, every hobby has to continually expand its player base or else it will die off. I'm happy for their success. It's what happened afterwards that I'm less enthused about. I think they wanted to make sure to retain their new playerbase (which is fine), so they started making changes to make it more appealing to them (which is... fine), but they did so at the expense of long-time fans (which is not fine). The people who have been playing D&D for 30 years are likely to keep playing for 30 more, but a fair chunk of the people who have only been playing 1 year are likely to get bored and drop it. It doesn't make any sense to sacrifice regular customers just to appeal to someone stepping foot in your store for the first time.

But it doesn't end there. Part of the changes they've been making have involved insulting the history of the hobby. A lot of what they've been doing is excising anything that might "offend" their new fans, and in their haste to revise and distance themselves from the past, they (whether on accident or on purpose) end up offending their old fans, many of whom may have fond memories of the things being removed or substantially changed. I'm not saying they shouldn't change and update things, I'm just saying that they should show some respect for the history of the IP. They should celebrate the IP by making it better, not try to sweep the past under the rug while telling everyone "we're just going to pretend all that stuff never happened."

But there's more. If the "new" D&D was actually better, or at least as good, then it might still find an enduring fanbase. But a lot of the changes seem to involve dumbing things down and making them more bland. They're making the lore less interesting when they should be making it more interesting. Instead of adding new and unique things to the lore, they're stripping it down to a fantasy kitchen sink. And it's obvious why they're doing it: they want to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They want to maximize the number of people who are buying their products, which isn't itself a bad thing, but in doing so they are turning their product into something bland and boring. Anything the least bit racy or controversial gets removed, because that might not appeal to some people, and the end result is something that looks like it was made for small children. Something safe.

Contrast this with something like 40k (though GW has been having their own issues of late). 40k is highly offensive to some people. The setting is basically one big race war, where the "good guys", if such a thing exists in 40k, are a bunch of space fascists. It's so radically different, both from what we're used to seeing in fantasy, but also from what is normally considered acceptable in real life, that it ends up being a unique and interesting setting. It's not for everyone, and if it tries to be for everyone, it will die. But it has long had a dedicated following, and the people who are into 40k are really into it. There are things they can do to open it up and make it accessible for more people, but it isn't for everyone, and shouldn't try to be. And the same is true for D&D. There are other games out there; if you're not happy with D&D, or with 40k, then go try something else. I'm sure there are a lot of people unhappy with the changes being made to 5e that will begin looking elsewhere.

TL;DR, WotC is crapping on the IP's history and making the IP bland and boring, ticking off the old fans who drop serious coin on their produces, all to appeal to their new fans who may or may not stick around, and aren't used to dropping so much money on the hobby. Doesn't seem like a strategy for long term success to me.

It's not just about racial alignments; TBH I don't really care about those. They're just another link in a long chain of bad decisions. No, it's really more the fact that they think I don't have the mental capacity to understand that each character is unique and doesn't necessarily adhere to what's written in the fluff text, or what's shown in the stat block. I've played plenty of actual children's games that didn't feel the need to be patronizing, why should I put up with it here?

Also the way they keep nerfing the fun and interesting combos. Because if people are having too much fun then it must not be balanced, am I right? I wish they only "fixed" the things that legitimately broke the game, and not the things that turned out to be just a little stronger than they intended.


Laughed, I did.
My work here is done.


FWIW: if they made PCs human-only the game is still very playable. (We've done that, it works, but only in two groups I have been in).
This would arguably work better, since then they could have different races that better represented the lore, instead of trying to keep everything balanced. I'm not sure about D&D elves, but I know Tolkien elves were pretty much superior to humans in every way, such that in a TTRPG based on LotR someone playing an elf would have a much stronger character than someone playing a human. But you know people would still want to play elves anyway.

Human-only settings are fine as well. But even then, I might still want a list of kingdoms or cultures to choose from, essentially filling the same design space as races (and being more literally different races of humans, rather than the separate species that fantasy races typically represent). I remember reading the Belgariad and I'd sometimes forget that everyone was supposed to be human.

[SpanielBear]

TL;DR: The tropes are more what the public thinks is true, and that doesn't always line up with the entire truth of the matter. The changes being made now will do nothing to change that public perception.

Except I think it *is*. It’s building on improving narratives like you say. But there are a lot more female players now fantasy is moving away from chain-mail bikinis, so that worked. This feels like the same progression.

[Tanarii]

Let the nerd rage begins!
I've already decided WotC doesn't get any more of my money until the stop {Scrubbed} Since I'm not currently running my campaign, that doesn't really mean much. But if I ever do start it up again, it'll be original 5e rules only, pre-Tasha only and that'll affect their bottom line with a number of players. Not enough for them to get the message, but I can't control other folks spending other than through the rules I allow into a campaign.

[Evaar]

So other than the alignment stuff, which is a matter of personal opinion and not given to any sort of useful or constructive conversation, has anyone noted any interesting changes?

I saw the Creation Bard's level 6 feature now clarifies the object being animated must not be worn or held, which is I believe contrary to a prior Crawford tweet about the same ability. This is IMO a good change, because despite Crawford suggesting it was a legitimate use, the ability provides no information on what happens when you do that. So it would be yet another case in 5e where they just look at the DM and say "We're done designing the game, you do it." I'm actually in a game with a Creation Bard now, and this player is especially known for living within the world of ambiguous rules and attempting ridiculous shenanigans from there, so I'm glad this change came before he actually got access to that feature. Still plenty to do with it, but now the DM doesn't have to try to invent rules for animated armor with an unwilling wearer.

[BRC]

It's not just about racial alignments; TBH I don't really care about those. They're just another link in a long chain of bad decisions. No, it's really more the fact that they think I don't have the mental capacity to understand that each character is unique and doesn't necessarily adhere to what's written in the fluff text, or what's shown in the stat block. I've played plenty of actual children's games that didn't feel the need to be patronizing, why should I put up with it here?

So here's the thing, it only comes across as "Patronizing" because they're taking action right now. Had it been this way from the beginning, it wouldn't be "Patronizing" at all.

They're not putting in a line that says "Orcs are People and can be any alignment! Don't judge Orcs on their appearance!", they're simply taking out the line that says "orcs are evil". Patronizing would be adding unnecessary guidance, this is the opposite, it is REMOVING guidance that they no longer agree with.


Consider this, there are two responses to a piece of game rules that say "Orcs are Evil".

Response A) "Orcs are fully sentient people, so it does not make any sense to have them statistically be Evil. I am going to ignore this guidance". This is the "Sensible Person Response", to Ignore This rule and, as you said it

understand that each character is unique and doesn't necessarily adhere to what's written in the fluff text, or what's shown in the stat block

Response B) "The stat block says Orcs are evil, therefore Orcs must be inherently evil, they wouldn't put it in the stat block otherwise". This is the Unquestioning Response. I can think of plenty of reasons why somebody might have this response to seeing "Evil" in the statblock. The most common is somebody new to the hobby, who isn't quite comfortable enough with it to go against/outside the guidance in the book (When people start learning new skills, it can be hard to tell what is Important Good Practice and what is just trappings).


So, if we take it as a given that the correct response is to understand that each character is unique and doesn't necessarily adhere to what's written in fluff text, isn't it correct to just...take that fluff text out? Why have the line in there at all if the correct response is for everybody to ignore it?


Unless the real issue is that by taking the fluff text out, we have to actively acknowledge that it was bad fluff, as opposed to leaving it in and just passively deciding to ignore it (because it's bad).


But there's more. If the "new" D&D was actually better, or at least as good, then it might still find an enduring fanbase. But a lot of the changes seem to involve dumbing things down and making them more bland. They're making the lore less interesting when they should be making it more interesting. Instead of adding new and unique things to the lore, they're stripping it down to a fantasy kitchen sink. And it's obvious why they're doing it: they want to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They want to maximize the number of people who are buying their products, which isn't itself a bad thing, but in doing so they are turning their product into something bland and boring. Anything the least bit racy or controversial gets removed, because that might not appeal to some people, and the end result is something that looks like it was made for small children. Something safe.


Okay, I've seen this response a lot before, but how is taking out racial alignments 'Making the lore less interesting".

Like, saying "X people are all Evil and should be killed on sight" is a shortcut for when you don't want to write an actual conflict.

Why must all interesting or exciting stuff come in the form of "Things that Offend People", such that taking out such material is inherently "Making things for small children". Are tales of Dragons and Wizards not interesting unless they will offend somebody? Is the Evil Warlord boring and safe because he is "Just" a cruel and greedy man, rather than being some sort of stereotype? Is the Lich, who does terrible things in the pursuit of Knowledge, not a compelling antagonist unless somebody will be Offended by him?

[Psyren]

TL;DR, WotC is crapping on the IP's history and making the IP bland and boring, ticking off the old fans who drop serious coin on their produces, all to appeal to their new fans who may or may not stick around, and aren't used to dropping so much money on the hobby. Doesn't seem like a strategy for long term success to me.

Bluntly - I think you're vastly overestimating both the percentage of "old fans" who care enough about such changes to even remark on them, and of those, the even smaller percentage who will stop or scale back their "dropping coin" because of it, rather than merely griping about it on disparate forums. Offsetting that fraction of a fraction who do with newer (and let's face it, younger) fans who are attracted to the hobby's increased inclusivity is I would guess not much of a hurdle.


It's not just about racial alignments; TBH I don't really care about those. They're just another link in a long chain of bad decisions. No, it's really more the fact that they think I don't have the mental capacity to understand that each character is unique and doesn't necessarily adhere to what's written in the fluff text, or what's shown in the stat block. I've played plenty of actual children's games that didn't feel the need to be patronizing, why should I put up with it here?

Also the way they keep nerfing the fun and interesting combos. Because if people are having too much fun then it must not be balanced, am I right? I wish they only "fixed" the things that legitimately broke the game, and not the things that turned out to be just a little stronger than they intended.

I can't help but find the latter take hilarious as one of the biggest common criticisms leveled against the recent books (Tasha's, Fizban's, and especially Strixhaven) is that they represent blatant power creep! So they're simultaneously overnerfing the game and overbuffing it, how can they win? :smallbiggrin:

For the former though, I don't think its patronizing to simply avoid the setting-agnostic core of your game containing blanket statements like orcs are evil.

[DarknessEternal]

TL;DR, WotC is crapping on the IP's history and making the IP bland and boring, ticking off the old fans who drop serious coin on their produces,
I am the oldest fan on this forum. I think D&D is in the best place it's ever been. I have been spending more on it than I ever have. {Scrubbed}

[P. G. Macer]

My expectation is that they'll remove cultural information from the base books....and then not add anything meaningful in any of the settings. So what you'll have is a mishmash of old-edition information and vapid airy nothing in the core books. Or add more namby pamby "all these cultures are just great! No problems here!" stuff, even to things where that makes little sense (seriously, beholders aren't human in any way. There's no need to make them cuddly critters.) And the old-edition stuff clashes horribly with the new. Leading to a perception that the total lack of meaningful cultures is intended--that the RP part is null and all there are are bundles of mechanics.

I mean...I don't disagree that having culture be more prominent and more setting-specific is good and proper and what the should do. It's just at this point I have little confidence in their ability or will to implement that well, if at all. They seem to lack any kind of coherent vision for the product except "whatever makes us money".

This sums up my own views quite nicely. I’m most frustrated with the removal of whole paragraphs of lore from Volo’s that were replaced by a single sentence, and no indication that replacement lore is coming.

There is also some errata in the DMG, such as the aforementioned replacement of “brothel” with “music hall” and the replacement of oppression and genocide on the “Villain’s Methods” Table of page 95 that reek of Disneyfication* and sanitization of the worst kind.

*Disneyfication is a legitimate term in sociology, not merely a pejorative.

[MrCharlie]

It’s the difference, I think, between as you say Lolth/Gruumsh/Cthulhu* talking a good game but their control not being absolute, and “Orcs are always evil and brutal”.

One opens possibilities, the other shuts them down.

More stories/settings are better than less. Getting rid of problematic stuff, as I’ve said elsewhere, is positive, but I am sympathetic to the view it hasn’t in itself left settings any richer without writing new stories.

The problem we have is that “Drow and Orcs are always evil” was pretty much the only story in town. As part of a wider mythology where other stories are part of the zeitgeist, it possibly wouldn’t be as egregious.


*I mean part of the whole deal with Cthulhu is you try to stop the cultists who seek to raise him, to *stop* him from turning humanity into his puppets. The idea that you only encounter orcs and Drow after that event has happened to their species and there’s no way to restore their free will (so individuals so inclined can *choose* to be utter b*stards if they wish and earn a good stabbing on their own merits) is pretty dystopic. It would be an interesting adventure, except it’s a) almost never explored that way in the literature and b) again it’s the only game in town.
Part of the issue is that there is some "Evil only has to win once" mentality at play, where people only imagine the horrible thing that evil does and not the long-term consequences or why it wouldn't work. It might seem apocalyptical if Drow society is corrupted by a demon and crushed into obedience, but then we see how much damned work Lolth personally puts in to maintain her empire and we realize how pointless it all is.

Gruumsh is another good example-he wants his people to breed, spread over the world, and take it from all the other races. He discourages inter-racial corporation as such. And, by and large, he's succeeded in alienating his would-be-allies, getting orcs excluded from societies where they would thrive, and gotten entire generations of orcs decimated by war. An orcish kingdom who legitimately corporates with other governments and acts with an even vague concept of politics becomes the most populous realm of orcs in the world, lasting seven generations before being tragically destroyed by a plot involving Gruumsh, the big idiot, and Lolth aligned drow.

The only thing Gruumsh has really accomplished is to destroy the only successful orc realm we have seen in most DnD lore. Which is entirely accurate to real life authoritarians.

That said, there is a real problem with the orcs in DnD, one which has long been recognized but which has persisted. A lot of settings (Eberron is one of the more well known) and splats have included races of non-primal orcs, but the default has always been primal, bloodthirsty savages-and it hasn't been framed as "Gruumsh makes them savages by his creed", it's been framed as "Orcs are savages, whom follow the creed of Gruumsh because they are savages". This has had seriously screwed up implications because, in addition to Gruumsh being a bloodthirsty and misogynistic maniac who has done more harm than good for his orcs, he's framed as being the legitimate champion of their rights.

The dominion of Gruumsh and Lolth over their races should be treated as a tragedy, not an excuse to kill them or a result of whom the races are.

[Wildstag]

Except I think it *is*. It’s building on improving narratives like you say. But there are a lot more female players now fantasy is moving away from chain-mail bikinis, so that worked. This feels like the same progression.

You kinda just reinforced my point. "Now fantasy is moving away from chain-mail bikinis" is also an outdated sentiment. If you look at artwork for D&D and just about every mainstream ttrpg of the last two decades, there haven't been chainmail bikinis except in an EXTREME minority. It's not a new thing that we're moving away from it.

Chainmail bikinis have almost exclusively been a video-game issue in the last two decades, with only a handful of exceptions in ttrpgs. And I guess pulp-fantasy covers, but who really pays attention to those?

But because the public has this idea that "D&D = Chainmail bikinis", it's seen as some brand new thing. Like, seriously, go through the 3.5 PHB and look for bikini armor. The closest we get is Mialee the Wizard, and I honestly don't even know how to describe what she's wearing. The art throughout 3e follows that theme, that skimpy armor is the extreme exception.

I'm not gonna even pretend that 4e avoided chainmail-bikinis though. There's almost explicitly chainmail bras for each race just looking through Chapter 2.

People don't remember serious attempts to change for the better. They only remember the tropes and the ways they can make fun of the tropes. Long after alignment is phased out of D&D, they'll still be referring to the tropes and acting like it's representative of contemporary D&D.

[MadBear]

FWIW my entire group and myself really enjoy these changes and we definitely fit into the group of players who've been playing for 25+ years (I've been playing since I was 7 back in 92). I don't really think it's at all fair to say that these changes are just for new players. I find the changes make the game better, not worse.

[SpanielBear]

Part of the issue is that there is some "Evil only has to win once" mentality at play, where people only imagine the horrible thing that evil does and not the long-term consequences or why it wouldn't work. It might seem apocalyptical if Drow society is corrupted by a demon and crushed into obedience, but then we see how much damned work Lolth personally puts in to maintain her empire and we realize how pointless it all is.

Gruumsh is another good example-he wants his people to breed, spread over the world, and take it from all the other races. He discourages inter-racial corporation as such. And, by and large, he's succeeded in alienating his would-be-allies, getting orcs excluded from societies where they would thrive, and gotten entire generations of orcs decimated by war. An orcish kingdom who legitimately corporates with other governments and acts with an even vague concept of politics becomes the most populous realm of orcs in the world, lasting seven generations before being tragically destroyed by a plot involving Gruumsh, the big idiot, and Lolth aligned drow.

The only thing Gruumsh has really accomplished is to destroy the only successful orc realm we have seen in most DnD lore. Which is entirely accurate to real life authoritarians.

That said, there is a real problem with the orcs in DnD, one which has long been recognized but which has persisted. A lot of settings (Eberron is one of the more well known) and splats have included races of non-primal orcs, but the default has always been primal, bloodthirsty savages-and it hasn't been framed as "Gruumsh makes them savages by his creed", it's been framed as "Orcs are savages, whom follow the creed of Gruumsh because they are savages". This has had seriously screwed up implications because, in addition to Gruumsh being a bloodthirsty and misogynistic maniac who has done more harm than good for his orcs, he's framed as being the legitimate champion of their rights.

The dominion of Gruumsh and Lolth over their races should be treated as a tragedy, not an excuse to kill them or a result of whom the races are.

Yeah, I think we agree on a central point here. These are interesting stories in themselves, the problem is that they are a) frequently over-simplified and b) that over simplification has popular saturation, so alternative stories don’t get heard.

[OldTrees1]

So here's the thing, it only comes across as "Patronizing" because they're taking action right now. Had it been this way from the beginning, it wouldn't be "Patronizing" at all.

They're not putting in a line that says "Orcs are People and can be any alignment! Don't judge Orcs on their appearance!", they're simply taking out the line that says "orcs are evil". Patronizing would be adding unnecessary guidance, this is the opposite, it is REMOVING guidance that they no longer agree with.

Point of order: They already had (paraphrased) "Orcs are People and can be any alignment. This even holds true for Angels/Slaad/Modrons/Demons" in previous editions.


In 5E, partially due to the word choice, partially due to the larger audience, 5E was being misread as saying "Orcs are evil". There are multiple ways of WotC owning and dealing with that miscommunication. Removing the alignment sections is one of several ways to fix the miscommunication. Although they didn't remove the alignment sections (just on the PC side unless I missed an errata).


Personally I prefer the solution that reaffirms moral agency (the nuanced approach that kids can understand) instead of the solution that avoids the topic (the bland approach that does not say anything). However either work.


The change is not ideal (not that perfection was expected) but I think it is a good change.

[BRC]

Point of order: They already had (paraphrased) "Orcs are People and can be any alignment. This even holds true for Angels/Slaad/Modrons/Demons" in previous editions.


In 5E, partially due to the word choice, partially due to the larger audience, 5E was being misread as saying "Orcs are evil". There are multiple ways of WotC owning and dealing with that miscommunication. Removing the alignment sections is one of several ways to fix the miscommunication. Although they didn't remove the alignment sections (just on the PC side unless I missed an errata).


Personally I prefer the solution that reaffirms moral agency (the nuanced approach that kids can understand) instead of the solution that avoids the topic (the bland approach that does not say anything). However either work.


The change is not ideal (but why expect perfection?) but I think it is a good change.

Sure, but remember the context here is an Eratta to a rulebook. By it's nature we're looking at something that can be communicated in a few lines of text.

A more nuanced approach requires more discussion, and there isn't really a place for it in a monster's statblock. So the Eratta is going to read "Remove the line that says "Orcs are Evil"" Regardless.

[Joe the Rat]

Alignment is pretty much a ribbon in the game - you have three magic items that outright care, one that flips the script, and several sentient weapons that will likely strike up a discussion on the point. A few spells change damage types, depending on the caster. That's it. Everything else is describing a character's general views and attitude, and where that character (specifically) will go when they die, assuming that isn't superseded by other lore.

Quite a long ways from where your Alignment was your Cosmic Conflict Secret Society Allegiance from the Basic and AD&D1 days. And it's been a progression.

I did not have a problem with "tends towards" alignment bullet, but that is very much what should be in the culture section. Take the line, move it out of the build block and into the fluff block, and you're gilt. Or just drop it. I haven't used alignment as anything other than a worldview and behavior trend touchstone. Much like the traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws section.

Sometimes, you have to admit that something is a bad idea, and let it go. Sex-based stat maximums were once a thing, for "realism." For one edition.

[Psyren]

In 5E, partially due to the word choice, partially due to the larger audience, 5E was being misread as saying "Orcs are evil". There are multiple ways of WotC owning and dealing with that miscommunication. Removing the alignment sections is one of several ways to fix the miscommunication. Although they didn't remove the alignment sections (just on the PC side unless I missed an errata).


You're correct, they didn't remove the alignment sections themselves - they just took player races out of the examples and made them less absolute.

Example old vs new wording:


Lawful Evil creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.


Lawful Evil creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils and blue dragons and hobgoblins are typically lawful evil.

I think the biggest change though occurs later on that same page, where it talks about "Alignment in the Multiverse." I won't quote the whole thing, but here's an excerpt with some of the changes included for brevity:



(Old vs New)

For many thinking creatures, alignment is a moral choice. Humans, dwarves, elves and other humanoid races people can choose whether to follow the paths of good or evil, law or chaos. According to myth, the good-aligned gods who created these races gave them free will to choose their moral paths, knowing that good without free will is slavery.

The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god's influence.)

Had that second paragraph been left in, I don't think it would have taken much "misreading" to conclude that the original game intended orcs - and even half-orcs! - to have strong tendencies towards evil. And I can even see how such fluff might be cool/interesting/dramatic in certain settings or campaigns. But I can also see how including it in core and thus front-and-center for every newcomer to the genre or every DM trying to decide what to include in their world could present a point of view they'd consider limiting. Especially so in a section that implicitly purports to apply to all D&D worlds.

[Millstone85]

I just noticed this, and I haven't seen a relevant thread anywhere: https://dnd.wizards.com/dndstudioblog/sage-advice-book-updates

Let the nerd rage begins!Here comes my reaction without having read the thread yet.


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.
The cult of the god Lolth, Queen of Spiders, has corrupted some of the oldest drow cities, especially in the worlds of Oerth and Toril.I am fine with this. To me, the main appeal of the drow is that they are elves of the Underdark. I also like Lolth and her Dark Seldarine, but their level of influence might indeed vary depending on the setting.

I actually consider that a huge improvement over having all good drow move to the surface, like with Drizzt, the cult of Eilistraee, or those newfangled aevendrow and lorendrow.


A devil does not choose to be lawful evil or tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceases to be lawful evil, it changes into something new—a transformation worthy of legend.That's fine too. It doesn't read as "Sure, a fiend can be good, why not" but as "Yes, much as there are fallen celestials, there are risen fiends".


Roleplaying a Yuan-ti (p. 98). The four paragraphs before the tables have been replaced with [a single sentence].
Cannibalism and Sacrifice (p. 99). This sidebar has been removed.Now that's straight-up removing content, and that's not okay.

[Greywander]

So, if we take it as a given that the correct response is to understand that each character is unique and doesn't necessarily adhere to what's written in fluff text, isn't it correct to just...take that fluff text out? Why have the line in there at all if the correct response is for everybody to ignore it?
We're not ignoring it, we're interpreting it as a suggestion, not a rule. There's a huge difference. The fluff text is still useful because it gives us information about what a typical example of that type of creature looks like. This makes it easier in players and DMs alike, as it's often easiest to simply adhere to what's typical, and only deviate selectively. Orcs are evil not because it is impossible for them to be otherwise, but because they're evil unless the DM goes out of their way to make them something else. Orcs simply default to evil, because that's what the DM uses them for: a stock evil monster. This makes things easier on the DM because they already have a bunch of stock monsters and NPCs ready to go with minimal changes. Most NPCs aren't going to be special snowflakes. It's a time-saving tool.


Okay, I've seen this response a lot before, but how is taking out racial alignments 'Making the lore less interesting".
Something that was different between the races was removed. The fact that dwarves tend to be Lawful and elves tend to be Chaotic tells us something about dwarves and elves. Removing that makes them look more similar to each other, i.e. less interesting. See my original comment about removing all races and only having humans left. It was partly a joke, but that's the logical conclusion of this trend.

Whether orcs are Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil has big implications on how I, as the DM, should roleplay them. And if an alignment isn't listed and I only have a vague idea that orcs are generally evil, how do I know which side to lean on? The DM already has the freedom to decide to change how orcs are handled in their campaign, why should we make it any more difficult for DMs who don't care and just want to run "default" orcs?

And again, racial alignments are just one small part of a bigger trend of sanitizing the lore, taking things out that that have been deemed "problematic".


Why must all interesting or exciting stuff come in the form of "Things that Offend People", such that taking out such material is inherently "Making things for small children".
Because everything is offensive to someone. Nothing wagered, nothing gained. If you want to be successful, you have to take some risks, some of which may backfire, and some of which may pay out. There will always be people to take offense at you stepping out of line, but that's the only way you can be successful. The fact is, you shouldn't care about what everyone thinks, because some people's opinions simply aren't important to you. If you try to care about everyone's opinion, you'll be trapped in a purgatory of trying to please everyone, which is impossible. Heck, that's why war exists; because sometimes people disagree to such a degree that a peaceful resolution becomes impossible.


Are tales of Dragons and Wizards not interesting unless they will offend somebody? Is the Evil Warlord boring and safe because he is "Just" a cruel and greedy man, rather than being some sort of stereotype? Is the Lich, who does terrible things in the pursuit of Knowledge, not a compelling antagonist unless somebody will be Offended by him?
You don't think simply portraying a warlord as cruel and greedy might offend some people? We should be more accepting of the warlord's culture. Also, I think it's quite necrophobic of you to accuse the lich of doing "terrible things" just because they violate your outdated standards of morality. And don't get me started on how the wizard ruling class are oppressing the dragon minority.

In short, no, I don't think you can have a compelling story that isn't going to offend someone. But I also think some people are unreasonable and their opinions should not be valued. Whether you agree or disagree, either way you are affirming that some opinions should not be valued. If you don't value someone's opinion, then you shouldn't worry about offending them, but you may need a bit of wisdom to decide whose opinion has value.


Bluntly - I think you're vastly overestimating both the percentage of "old fans" who care enough about such changes to even remark on them, and of those, the even smaller percentage who will stop or scale back their "dropping coin" because of it, rather than merely griping about it on disparate forums. Offsetting that fraction of a fraction who do with newer (and let's face it, younger) fans who are attracted to the hobby's increased inclusivity is I would guess not much of a hurdle.
It's possible, but it's not like this is the first time something like this has happened. I've seen IPs get run into the ground before, and WotC appears to be walking down the same path.


I can't help but find the latter take hilarious as one of the biggest common criticisms leveled against the recent books (Tasha's, Fizban's, and especially Strixhaven) is that they represent blatant power creep! So they're simultaneously overnerfing the game and overbuffing it, how can they win? :smallbiggrin:
The fact that the new content is power creep only makes the nerfing of older content even more egregious. You don't see how widening the power gap between old content and new content might be a problem? If anything, they should buff the old content to be more in line with the new power level established by the new content.


I am the oldest fan on this forum. I think D&D is in the best place it's ever been. I have been spending more on it than I ever have. {Scrub the post, scrub where it is quoted}
You reached a conclusion based on one data point. I'm not saying I'm being any less subjective, but I will say that this kind of mindset is exactly the sort of thing that will kill D&D. Insert the Simpsons meme, "Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."

I will add that I do think 5e did a lot of things right, and this is what led to it being so successful. I'm sure it is in the best place it's ever been. But will it stay there? That's the question.

[Sigreid]

D&D has always had instructions for the DM that they can change any of the races or monsters any way they want. That's not new or innovative.

What I think has been lost over the past few years, and it's really only been a few years, is especially for a brand new group with a new DM that has all these possibilities that can be overwhelming is a clear "These are are the things that are normally the bad guys. They do horrible things to the common folk. Bonus, they're not even human or that close to human. They're basically a monster that can be used to do villainy and your party can fight without having to worry too much about whether fighting them is the right thing, if at all." If the orc or goblin default is that they are bloodthirsty, destructive monsters and not just somewhat different looking humans, then especially for kids starting their first game everything is clear. As players get more comfortable with all of the possibilities they don't need that role anymore, but when you're just starting out it can be helpful.

[DarknessEternal]

Ah, forget it {Scrubbed}

[BRC]

Because everything is offensive to someone. Nothing wagered, nothing gained. If you want to be successful, you have to take some risks, some of which may backfire, and some of which may pay out. There will always be people to take offense at you stepping out of line, but that's the only way you can be successful. The fact is, you shouldn't care about what everyone thinks, because some people's opinions simply aren't important to you. If you try to care about everyone's opinion, you'll be trapped in a purgatory of trying to please everyone, which is impossible. Heck, that's why war exists; because sometimes people disagree to such a degree that a peaceful resolution becomes impossible.


You don't think simply portraying a warlord as cruel and greedy might offend some people? We should be more accepting of the warlord's culture. Also, I think it's quite necrophobic of you to accuse the lich of doing "terrible things" just because they violate your outdated standards of morality. And don't get me started on how the wizard ruling class are oppressing the dragon minority.

In short, no, I don't think you can have a compelling story that isn't going to offend someone. But I also think some people are unreasonable and their opinions should not be valued. Whether you agree or disagree, either way you are affirming that some opinions should not be valued. If you don't value someone's opinion, then you shouldn't worry about offending them, but you may need a bit of wisdom to decide whose opinion has value.



I think there's a world of difference between "Remove the idea that certain types of people (As defined by genetics) are Inherently Prone to Evil" and "Nobody is actually evil, we should just hug it out and respect one another".

People who sign up to play D&D know they're signing up to play a fantasy action-adventure, they know they'll be going up against villains who need to be stopped With Violence. It's possible to excise the idea of "Some groups of People are genetically predisposed to Evil" from that while keeping the actually good stuff.


Like, consider Indiana Jones movies. Lots of people like those movies, but it's possible to complain about how the non-white characters in Temple of Doom correspond to racist stereotypes, but not mind that Indy spends the other two movies punching, shooting, and otherwise inflicting violence onto Nazi soldiers, because "I would prefer my entertainment to not reflect racist beliefs" is an opinion that plenty of people hold without becoming the sort of strawman you describe above.

Yes, I'm sure that there are people who will object to the portrayal of anybody as an acceptable target of violence, but maybe this isn't the game for them.


D&D has always had instructions for the DM that they can change any of the races or monsters any way they want. That's not new or innovative.

What I think has been lost over the past few years, and it's really only been a few years, is especially for a brand new group with a new DM that has all these possibilities that can be overwhelming is a clear "These are are the things that are normally the bad guys. They do horrible things to the common folk. Bonus, they're not even human or that close to human. They're basically a monster that can be used to do villainy and your party can fight without having to worry too much about whether fighting them is the right thing, if at all." If the orc or goblin default is that they are bloodthirsty, destructive monsters and not just somewhat different looking humans, then especially for kids starting their first game everything is clear. As players get more comfortable with all of the possibilities they don't need that role anymore, but when you're just starting out it can be helpful.

Here's the thing, I don't think that even newbie DM's need the help.

We've got a ton of cultural baggage on what 'Orcs" mean, the book is called the "Monster Manual". I don't think a newbie GM looking for a monster to use is going to get held up by the lack of an "Evil" descriptor on the stat block. "Oh no, I can't have them fight GOBLINS, the books didn't put the little "Okay to murder" flag on the page!"


Who is going to be held up is a moderately experienced GM, one who maybe wants to move beyond "All Orcs and Goblins are evil" but get stopped because they still owe some loyalty to what's printed in the books and see "Orcs and Goblins are Always Evil" right there in plain text and haven't quite gotten to the point where they realize that the world is their oyster and that they can just ignore whatever they don't want.


TLDR: I don't mind Goblin Bandits and Orcish Raiders. I don't think anything in these errattas are going to make goblin bandits and orcish raiders go away.

But I don't think we need the literal game text telling us that Goblins should be Bandits and Orcs should be Raiders.

[Sigreid]

Here's the thing, I don't think that even newbie DM's need the help.

We've got a ton of cultural baggage on what 'Orcs" mean, the book is called the "Monster Manual". I don't think a newbie GM looking for a monster to use is going to get held up by the lack of an "Evil" descriptor on the stat block. "Oh no, I can't have them fight GOBLINS, the books didn't put the little "Okay to murder" flag on the page!"


Who is going to be held up is a moderately experienced GM, one who maybe wants to move beyond "All Orcs and Goblins are evil" but get stopped because they still owe some loyalty to what's printed in the books and see "Orcs and Goblins are Always Evil" right there in plain text and haven't quite gotten to the point where they realize that the world is their oyster and that they can just ignore whatever they don't want.


TLDR: I don't mind Goblin Bandits and Orcish Raiders. I don't think anything in these errattas are going to make goblin bandits and orcish raiders go away.

But I don't think we need the literal game text telling us that Goblins should be Bandits and Orcs should be Raiders.

When I was starting into the hobby in 4th grade, it was helpful to me.

[dafrca]

I am the oldest fan on this forum.

OK, you got me curious, how old is the oldest fan on this forum?

:biggrin:

[Greywander]

I think there's a world of difference between "Remove the idea that certain types of people (As defined by genetics) are Inherently Prone to Evil" and "Nobody is actually evil, we should just hug it out and respect one another".

People who sign up to play D&D know they're signing up to play a fantasy action-adventure, they know they'll be going up against villains who need to be stopped With Violence. It's possible to excise the idea of "Some groups of People are genetically predisposed to Evil" from that while keeping the actually good stuff.
Illithids eat humanoid brains. That is at least tacitly evil. Like, they can limit their brain consumption to "acceptable target", like bandits or criminals, but this doesn't change the fact that they have a biological imperative to kill people and eat their brains. Of course illithid culture is going to tend toward evil, as will individual illithids who might be cut off from an elder brain. This doesn't mean that a good illithid couldn't exist, but you might say, in fact, that illithids are genetically predisposed toward evil. If you want to remove a genetic or biological predisposition toward evil, then you'll have to remove illithids from the game, or vastly change them in a way that, shocker, makes them less interesting. The fact that they need to eat brains is part of what makes them compelling.


but maybe this isn't the game for them.
Why couldn't this be true for the people who aren't comfortable with certain creatures tending toward certain alignments? Good and evil races are a longstanding part of fiction, especially high fantasy, going way back to ancient times. D&D is a high fantasy game, so it makes sense it would follow those tropes, which it does and has. Why change it now? Why not just play a different game if this bothers you?


I don't think a newbie GM looking for a monster to use is going to get held up by the lack of an "Evil" descriptor on the stat block.
Okay but... are they Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil? Please, I need help, I'm in the middle of a game right now*, and don't have time to read paragraphs of flavor text. Oh, if only there was some kind of convenient shorthand printed in the stat block that could tell me how to roleplay a monster.

*Not actually in the middle of a game

[EggKookoo]

OK, you got me curious, how old is the oldest fan on this forum?

:biggrin:

I'm 52. Probably not even in the running.

[Wintermoot]

I'm 52. Probably not even in the running.

It doesn't matter how old we all are, judging from the average forum poster's professed provenance, they've ALL been playing the game since the pamphlet version back in 1974 even if they were born in the 2000s. Sort of like how everyone's been reading OOTS since the first post went live.

Me, I was both in 74, been playing since 90. That means I'm such a n00b my opinion doesn't count.

[t209]

(seriously, beholders aren't human in any way. There's no need to make them cuddly critters.)
Yet, that didn’t stop them from becoming plushie or mascots for DND.
Plus I mean I’ve seen Rakhasha (tiger demon one) being chill and gentle in arts despite being “evil” aligned.
I mean even 40k and Warhammer Fantasy managed to code appearance and alignment well to an extent. Though mostly have to do with Dark Fantasy genre.

[MrCharlie]

Illithids eat humanoid brains. That is at least tacitly evil. Like, they can limit their brain consumption to "acceptable target", like bandits or criminals, but this doesn't change the fact that they have a biological imperative to kill people and eat their brains. Of course illithid culture is going to tend toward evil, as will individual illithids who might be cut off from an elder brain. This doesn't mean that a good illithid couldn't exist, but you might say, in fact, that illithids are genetically predisposed toward evil. If you want to remove a genetic or biological predisposition toward evil, then you'll have to remove illithids from the game, or vastly change them in a way that, shocker, makes them less interesting. The fact that they need to eat brains is part of what makes them compelling.

Illithids are a great example of xenofiction. Illithids are not human-like. When done correctly, they are alien. And this makes them interesting.

The fact that they eat human brains and have vastly different value systems makes them "evil" by our reckoning, and part of xenofiction is modeling the human interaction with these life-forms. You can play into this and refuse to call Illithids evil, but if you're going to call anything evil Illithids are it, and even in xenofiction this is an acceptable shorthand for a species that is inherently hostile to humans. Yes, it's from a human perspective, but we can safely assume the reader is human.

That isn't to say that Illithids could not peacefully coexist with humans, and a few examples do exist in DnD-either they police their consumption of brains, use maybe magical supplements to avoid it, or have other abilities that remove their need to eat (one notable one is a high level Monk, and will eventually not require food).


Why couldn't this be true for the people who aren't comfortable with certain creatures tending toward certain alignments? Good and evil races are a longstanding part of fiction, especially high fantasy, going way back to ancient times. D&D is a high fantasy game, so it makes sense it would follow those tropes, which it does and has. Why change it now? Why not just play a different game if this bothers you?

Obviously there is a middle ground where DnD avoids making certain judgement calls while allowing others. Orcs being evil and therefore choosing to be savage and worship savage gods has colonialist implications (and yeah, it really does-"You choose to be savage, so we must conquer you" was a real excuse). Illithids being evil because they kill and eat people is only offensive to murderous cannibals, and no human culture likes them.


Okay but... are they Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil? Please, I need help, I'm in the middle of a game right now*, and don't have time to read paragraphs of flavor text. Oh, if only there was some kind of convenient shorthand printed in the stat block that could tell me how to roleplay a monster.

*Not actually in the middle of a game
Part of the debate over alignment is if alignment actually helps you run a game. In particular, does lawful, neutral, or chaotic actually help describe some characters actions? Will they choose to honor a deal because, while chaotic, they made it? Will they choose to report something to the law, even if they also broke the law? Many criminal enemies might be lawful evil because they are part of organized crime, but they aren't operating within the "law".

It's part of the reason why I don't particularly care about removing alignment. You can always use a monster in a particular way regardless of stat block, none of a monsters flavor text needs to apply, but you often had situations where a monsters alignment actually confused the reader.

Like Drow being Neutral Evil, with a highly stratified society that promotes chaotic advancement. What the hell am I supposed to conclude from that, at a glance? Drow society determines almost everything they do (lawful), yet this society is based on backstabbing (chaotic), so they are neutral evil? How does that help me decide how this specific Drow is going to act? It's not clear without getting in deep to develop an understanding how Drow society is structured and how they function, so in trying to understand that alignment I've had to read just as much of the stat block as before. Plus, Drow act very differently towards non-Drow.

[dafrca]

It doesn't matter how old we all are, ...
Oh I am not saying it is important, just that DarknessEternal said they were the oldest person on the forum and it made me curious how old that is. :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

When I was starting into the hobby in 4th grade, it was helpful to me.
Yup. Default/common alignments for who the bad guys are is incredibly useful for novice DMs.

[Rynjin]

I got about as far into the PHB as seeing that what they apparently thought was necessary is to make Way of Four Elements Monk even weaker than it already is before I laughed myself all the way to the "never playing this **** again" bank.

[JackPhoenix]

Like Drow being Neutral Evil, with a highly stratified society that promotes chaotic advancement. What the hell am I supposed to conclude from that, at a glance? Drow society determines almost everything they do (lawful), yet this society is based on backstabbing (chaotic), so they are neutral evil? How does that help me decide how this specific Drow is going to act? It's not clear without getting in deep to develop an understanding how Drow society is structured and how they function, so in trying to understand that alignment I've had to read just as much of the stat block as before. Plus, Drow act very differently towards non-Drow.

If only there was some text in a book somewhere to describe the general attitude and behavior of neutral evil creatures... that would be pretty helpful, wouldn't it?

[Melphizard]

Looking through the thread I see there's a lot of talk about the alignment stuff but mechanics wise I wish to bring up one specific thing: Guardian Armorer.

Here's the current book text: When a Huge or smaller creature you can see ends its turn within 30 feet of you, you can use your reaction to magically force the creature to make a Strength saving throw against your spell save DC, pulling the creature up to 30 feet toward you to an unoccupied space. If you pull the target to a space within 5 feet of you, you can make a melee weapon attack against it as part of this reaction.

Here's the errata text: In the “Guardian” subsection, the first sentence has been replaced with the following: “When a Huge or smaller creature you can see ends its turn within 30 feet of you, you can use your reaction to magically force it to make a Strength saving throw against your spell save DC. On a failed save, you pull the creature up to 25 feet directly to an unoccupied space.”


First, they made it so you can pull the creation wherever and I feel like that's a nice buff, allowing you to do more shenanigans involving prismatic walls and forcing people through all layers of them; but, why did they reduce the pull by 5 ft. WHY?! What inspired them to make such a minor yet painful change. The number of ways this could just barley screw something up somehow is painful to think about.


Oh and by the way, the Amulet of the Devout remains broken. Currently its text reads: This amulet bears the symbol of a deity inlaid with precious stones or metals. While you wear the holy symbol, you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and the saving throw DCs of your spells.

This bonus is not exclusive to your paladin and cleric spells, making it somewhat busted for paladin or cleric dips. They changed the Astral Shard so why didn't they fix this? I know many DMs would argue against it but this still has ramifications nonetheless.

[Naanomi]

I think there's a world of difference between "Remove the idea that certain types of people (As defined by genetics) are Inherently Prone to Evil"
For a certain value of 'prone to'; and the standard cosmological 'objective morality' definition of Evil DnD uses... I think unless every species is just a human in a rubber mask with different super powers (an incredibly boring prior to me) that inevitably some are going to be relatively 'more prone to evil'.

We have a species of snake people who, seemingly as a factor of biological disposition, are unemotional and unempathetic (relative to humans) kind of inclines me to think that all other factors being equal, they would be 'prone to evil'. Some portrayals of orcs (of if not orcs than some other similar thematic creature) depict them as relatively more aggressive and perhaps with poorer executive functioning skills relative to humans; easily conceptualized as more violent and (by how DnD cosmology defines such things) probably more evil on a statistical level. Likewise it is very easy to imagine species that are 'more good' than humans are on average in their natural instincts.

A species with a thousand year lifespan that lives in small close knit kin groups and reproduces every hundred years or so at most is going to have a different innate cognitive schema and neuroarchitecture than a species that is a lives a few decades at most and spent evolved in nomadic harem breeding strategy system and are strict carnivores. The 'tabula rasa' models just... Don't make sense when there are deep underlying fundamental differences in biology and selection pressures involved.

All that being said, none of it needs to translate in general to an 'alignment' line in any meaningful way... I just don't like when the discussion starts stripping interesting diversity from a setting

[BRC]

Illithids eat humanoid brains. That is at least tacitly evil. Like, they can limit their brain consumption to "acceptable target", like bandits or criminals, but this doesn't change the fact that they have a biological imperative to kill people and eat their brains. Of course illithid culture is going to tend toward evil, as will individual illithids who might be cut off from an elder brain. This doesn't mean that a good illithid couldn't exist, but you might say, in fact, that illithids are genetically predisposed toward evil. If you want to remove a genetic or biological predisposition toward evil, then you'll have to remove illithids from the game, or vastly change them in a way that, shocker, makes them less interesting. The fact that they need to eat brains is part of what makes them compelling.

Here's the way I see it, and I'll be first to admit that this is a bit of an arbitrary line, but there's a point where something is a Sentient Inhuman Creature vs just "A certain type of person with a coat of paint on".

First, look at the fantasy race in question, and list their defining, non-cosmetic features.
Illithids, for example are Intelligent, psionic and eat people's brains.
Elves are Proud, Graceful, and love nature. (You can up the Inhuman factor of elves by leaning into the whole "Long Lived"/"Immortal" side of things, but most fantasy works I've seen basically just treat Elves as Humans who occasionally mention how long they live, rather than people who have a distinct perspective on the world due to their long lives)
Orcs are Strong, Dumb, and Mean.

The Orc and Elf traits could be used to describe a given, ordinary person. They're effectively just Humans with a coat of paint on them. Something the Star Trek costume department would produce to indicate "These are Aliens" when the script didn't call for anything special.

You can't really do the same for Illithids. Even beyond the whole "8 foot tall squidface" thing, they're psychics whose primary food source is brains. They're clearly something besides Human.

For Orcs, the "Fantastical" concept is "What if there was an ethnicity of people who were all inherently strong, dumb, and mean". which can map very easily onto how real world racists perceive real ethnic groups. The farther you get away from "Human but looks a bit different" the less it maps onto that real-world concept of race, and the more acceptable it becomes.

Even then, I don't really mind it for elves, dwarves, heck, even for Orcs if they're in the setting as something beyond enemies. For me, the big line is where you establish "This type of Person, who is effectively just a human who looks different, is Evil and therefore acceptable to kill".



Why couldn't this be true for the people who aren't comfortable with certain creatures tending toward certain alignments? Good and evil races are a longstanding part of fiction, especially high fantasy, going way back to ancient times. D&D is a high fantasy game, so it makes sense it would follow those tropes, which it does and has. Why change it now? Why not just play a different game if this bothers you?

The Strawman Pacifist is never going to enjoy D&D, because D&D is a game about heroic violence. If you take out the heroic violence (The rules for which cover the majority of the printed game books and character sheets), you are effectively Not Playing D&D.

Racial Alignments, while a longstanding trope, is not, in fact, a core part of what people enjoy about the game (if it IS a core part of what you enjoy about the game, I have some serious concerns about you). Sure, it's a convenient shortcut in certain situations, and it's been around since the roots of the genre.

But if I sat down and ran for you a D&D game about fighting Bandits, Owlbears, Undead, and Cultists, things that are either Distinctly Not People, or People Who Chose To Be Evil, You'd still be playing D&D.

Would you stand up and complain that my Bandits are just humans who decided to become Bandits? That my Cultists worship an evil god because they happen to be cruel people who want the power that their evil deity gives to his followers? Are you missing out on something because my antagonists are not racially predisposed towards evil? Would it enhance your experience if you could just look at a random person on the street and say "They are, by their very nature, more likely to be Evil than the person next to them"?


Why do you care so much about this subject? What does this add to the game or the settings that you think is being lost?

[Thunderous Mojo]

A response from Ray Winninger. It strikes me as reasonable response and explanation….I don’t think the sky is falling:

Updated 12/16/21 by Ray Winninger

We recently released a set of errata documents cataloging the corrections and changes we’ve made in recent reprints of various titles. I thought I’d provide some additional context on some of these changes and why we made them.

First, I urge all of you to read the errata documents for yourselves. A lot of assertions about the errata we’ve noticed in various online discussions aren’t accurate. (For example, we haven’t decided that beholders and mind flayers are no longer evil.)

We make text corrections for many reasons, but there are a few themes running through this latest batch of corrections worth highlighting.

1) The Multiverse: I’ve previously noted that new setting products are a major area of focus for the Studio going forward. As part of that effort, our reminders that D&D supports not just The Forgotten Realms but a multitude of worlds are getting more explicit. Since the nature of creatures and cultures vary from world to world, we’re being extra careful about making authoritative statements about such things without providing appropriate context. If we’re discussing orcs, for instance, it’s important to note which orcs we’re talking about. The orcs of Greyhawk are quite different from the orcs you’ll find in Eberron, for instance, just as an orc settlement on the Sword Coast may exhibit a very different culture than another orc settlement located on the other side of Faerûn. This addresses corrections like the blanket disclaimer added to p.5 of VOLO’S GUIDE.

2) Alignment: The only real changes related to alignment were removing the suggested alignments previously assigned to playable races in the PHB and elsewhere (“most dwarves are lawful;” “most halflings are lawful good”). We stopped providing such suggestions for new playable races some time ago. Since every player character is a unique individual, we no longer feel that such guidance is useful or appropriate. Whether or not most halflings are lawful good has no bearing on your halfling and who you want to be. After all, the most memorable and interesting characters often explicitly subvert expectations and stereotypes. And again, it’s impossible to say something like “most halflings are lawful good” without clarifying which halflings we’re talking about. (It’s probably not true that most Athasian halflings are lawful good.) These changes were foreshadowed in an earlier blog post and impact only the guidance provided during character creation; they are not reflective of any changes to our settings or the associated lore.

3) Creature Personalities: We also removed a couple paragraphs suggesting that all mind flayers or all beholders (for instance) share a single, stock personality. We’ve long advised DMs that one way to make adventures and campaigns more memorable is to populate them with unique and interesting characters. These paragraphs stood in conflict with that advice. We didn’t alter the essential natures of these creatures or how they fit into our settings at all. (Mind flayers still devour the brains of humanoids, and yes, that means they tend to be evil.)

The through-line that connects these three themes is our renewed commitment to encouraging DMs and players to create whatever worlds and characters they can imagine.

Happy holidays and happy gaming.

[Psyren]

Because everything is offensive to someone. Nothing wagered, nothing gained. If you want to be successful, you have to take some risks, some of which may backfire, and some of which may pay out. There will always be people to take offense at you stepping out of line, but that's the only way you can be successful. The fact is, you shouldn't care about what everyone thinks, because some people's opinions simply aren't important to you. If you try to care about everyone's opinion, you'll be trapped in a purgatory of trying to please everyone, which is impossible. Heck, that's why war exists; because sometimes people disagree to such a degree that a peaceful resolution becomes impossible.

Perfect Fallacy - because it's impossible to make content that zero people on the planet will find objectionable, we should make no attempt to make anything better?



The fact that the new content is power creep only makes the nerfing of older content even more egregious. You don't see how widening the power gap between old content and new content might be a problem? If anything, they should buff the old content to be more in line with the new power level established by the new content.

You mean... like they did? With overhauling the Ranger? And Optional Class Features? And Proficiency swap rules? And retraining? All things that benefit old content? :smallconfused:

[KorvinStarmast]

After all, the most memorable and interesting characters often explicitly subvert expectations and stereotypes. If you are going to paint with a broad brush, Ray, just get out a roller. :smalltongue:
His assertion is hardly a universal truth, but that model did sell a lot of Rob Salvatore's books. It also makes for some trite cliches and the well known, if hardly kind, characterization of too many attempts at this resulting in the infamous edgelord cliche.

My most memorable characters didn't have to go to those lengths. It's a matter of personal taste, not some universal truth.

[MrCharlie]

We have a species of snake people who, seemingly as a factor of biological disposition, are unemotional and unempathetic (relative to humans) kind of inclines me to think that all other factors being equal, they would be 'prone to evil'. Some portrayals of orcs (of if not orcs than some other similar thematic creature) depict them as relatively more aggressive and perhaps with poorer executive functioning skills relative to humans; easily conceptualized as more violent and (by how DnD cosmology defines such things) probably more evil on a statistical level. Likewise it is very easy to imagine species that are 'more good' than humans are on average in their natural instincts.

A species with a thousand year lifespan that lives in small close knit kin groups and reproduces every hundred years or so at most is going to have a different innate cognitive schema and neuroarchitecture than a species that is a lives a few decades at most and spent evolved in nomadic harem breeding strategy system and are strict carnivores. The 'tabula rasa' models just... Don't make sense when there are deep underlying fundamental differences in biology and selection pressures involved.

So are Vulcans. What makes the Yuan-Ti evil is their societal stratification, sense of superiority, and desire to dominate others to further it. Vulcans are, in fact, physically superior to humans and quite often mentally superior, yet see no benefit in being jerks. Yuan-Ti do, which is not a product of their biology. There is no biological incentive for them to maintain a cold-war level relationship with "lesser" species that control 90% of the globe and are an existential threat to them.

The other paragraph is generally true, there are still serious problems here. Most DnD humanoid races can't fit either point because they are, biologically human. They might be weird humans, but they can reproduce with humans and make fertile offspring and therefore are human. Plus, there is very little to suggest that actually do think differently enough to qualify as being a true alien.

Basically, almost every DnD race has this issue, where if we let them fit true xenofiction, but let them reproduce with humans, we start creating unfortunate parallels with human ethnic groups. Even if it isn't with the race itself, we get the problem with the hybrid race.

(The exceptions are when the reproduction is explicitly magical and rare.)

We have a group of savages who worship blood gods that call for the death of civilized folk, who are aggressive invaders that cannot know peace, whom pollute bloodlines and create dumb hybrid children fit primarily for physical labor, and who must be exterminated or at least conquered so that civilized folk can live in peace...

And I could just as easily be describing Africans or Native Americans from a Eurocentric perspective, or Orcs in a DnD book.

This is a problem.

If you're going to try to tell xenofiction they should either not be humans in a mask, or they should be humans in a mask with perspectives that don't confirm to major racial propaganda.

Basically, if you want to tell a story about a fast-breeding and short-lived race with a harem structure, at least have the decency to make them cat people or something.

This is part of the reason why I have few issues with the Yuan-Ti, but serious issues with DnD Orcs.

Oh, and Dragons are another great example. Dragon society and thought processes are heavily, heavily biological influenced. They have genetic memory (to an extent), they live basically forever, they lay eggs, some even eat coins, and are pretty socially isolated. Their entire perspective is drastically different, and a lot of it is rather rational for such a different species with a drastically different body plan, diet, appearance, and reproductive strategy.

And no one cares, because it's obviously not trying to make a statement about human beings. They are too different.


If only there was some text in a book somewhere to describe the general attitude and behavior of neutral evil creatures... that would be pretty helpful, wouldn't it?
That alignment section completely fails to describe Drow in any meaningful way.


Here's the current book text: When a Huge or smaller creature you can see ends its turn within 30 feet of you, you can use your reaction to magically force the creature to make a Strength saving throw against your spell save DC, pulling the creature up to 30 feet toward you to an unoccupied space. If you pull the target to a space within 5 feet of you, you can make a melee weapon attack against it as part of this reaction.

Here's the errata text: In the “Guardian” subsection, the first sentence has been replaced with the following: “When a Huge or smaller creature you can see ends its turn within 30 feet of you, you can use your reaction to magically force it to make a Strength saving throw against your spell save DC. On a failed save, you pull the creature up to 25 feet directly to an unoccupied space.”

If the end their turn within 30 feet of you, they can only be pulled 25 feet towards you anyway. You occupy a 5 foot space, so that area is excluded from the ability and always has been. You couldn't pull it to either side, as it has to be towards you. Given this, the range was not changed in any way.

[Naanomi]

They might be weird humans, but they can reproduce with humans and make fertile offspring and therefore are human. Plus, there is very little to suggest that actually do think differently enough to qualify as being a true alien.
First, I don't think reproduction compatibility is a good measure of 'species' in a DnD setting. Most historical lore says that mating compatibility has more to do with the creator deities than anything (which is why elves and orcs can't reproduce, but both can reproduce with humans), and reproduction has little to do with genetics and a lot to do with positive energy and anima... Besides, most species in DnD can breed with dragons, beings made of pure elemental essences, entities composed of composite belief and incarnate morality, literal Gods, and even plenty of alien lovecraftian horrors explicitly from places incompatible conceptually with the Great Wheel. Yet in most established settings, most humanoids are infact not compatible I that way (halflings, gnomes, dwarves, etc rarely have half-options)

Second, even being the same 'species' doesn't preclude significant and fundamental distinctions in a wide range of mental functions that could (would... Do) influence behavior. Coyotes and wolves and dachshund can all breed successfully, but I would suggest treating them identically would be... ill advised?

Third, alienness isn't an all or nothing... One can be completely incomprehensible to mortal cognition and it drives someone mad to attempt to do so... Or one can have many similarities to humans but have deep underlying ideosyncracies that create fundamental (but not necessarily insurmountable) distinctions. If your thousand year old elves, giants with literally perfect and infallible memories, kender with apparent complete lack of a functioning orbito-prefrontal cortex, and artificially constructed magitek-robots are 'just humans with a coat of paint' then I suggest that is missing a wonderful opportunity to explore those distinctions and failing to even consider it is fundamentally boring (and more than a little immersion breaking)

[EggKookoo]

If you are going to paint with a broad brush, Ray, just get out a roller. :smalltongue:
His assertion is hardly a universal truth, but that model did sell a lot of Rob Salvatore's books. It also makes for some trite cliches and the well known, if hardly kind, characterization of too many attempts at this resulting in the infamous edgelord cliche.

My most memorable characters didn't have to go to those lengths. It's a matter of personal taste, not some universal truth.

How do I know if my character is "defying expectations" if the expectations have been expunged?

[KorvinStarmast]

I just noticed this, and I haven't seen a relevant thread anywhere: https://dnd.wizards.com/dndstudioblog/sage-advice-book-updates

Let the nerd rage begins! They need to errata the errata in Volo's.
Change

[New] Kenku Traits (p. 111). The Alignment trait has been removed
to read

[New and much improved] Kenku has been removed :smalltongue:

[Witty Username]

I think my only complaint is the claim that Drow exist on Krynn.

[MrCharlie]

First, I don't think reproduction compatibility is a good measure of 'species' in a DnD setting. Most historical lore says that mating compatibility has more to do with the creator deities than anything (which is why elves and orcs can't reproduce, but both can reproduce with humans), and reproduction has little to do with genetics and a lot to do with positive energy and anima... Besides, most species in DnD can breed with dragons, beings made of pure elemental essences, entities composed of composite belief and incarnate morality, literal Gods, and even plenty of alien lovecraftian horrors explicitly from places incompatible conceptually with the Great Wheel.

Second, even being the same 'species' doesn't preclude significant and fundamental distinctions in a wide range of mental functions that could (would... Do) influence behavior. Coyotes and wolves and dachshund can all breed successfully, but I would suggest treating them identically would be... I'll advised?

Third, alienness isn't an all or nothing... One can be completely incomprehensible to mortal cognition and it drives someone mad to attempt to do so... Or one can have many similarities to humans but have deep underlying distinctions that create fundamental (but not necessarily insurmountable) distinctions. If your thousand year old elves, giants with literally perfect and infallible memories, kender with apparent complete lack of a functioning orbito-prefrontal cortex, and artificially constructed magitek-robots are 'just humans with a coat of paint' then I suggest that is missing a wonderful opportunity to explore those distinctions and failing to even consider it is fundamentally boring (and more than a little immersion breaking)
Most of the races produced by mating with alien creatures are both rare, a good place for xenofiction, and typically not problematic from a morality perspective. Yes, your Illithid-Human hybrid does have a very strange perspective at best, and maybe they even trend towards real, honest, evil. The Illithid perspective is alien enough I have no problems with that.

But when you have two humans in a mask produce a kid, and this kid has massive angst because they are an inhuman monster that is "between worlds" and has "unnatural urges" we start getting into essentialism and problematic ethnic stereotyping.

Also, elves and orcs can make children. They just don't, typically, and generally people haven't made hybrid races. But the lore has clarified its possible.

The point also isn't that from a biological perspective a species has homologous behavior (although, in fact, they mostly do). Dogs are a bad example because humans have outpaced genetics there, and done targeted behavioral modification. You can, in fact, treat coyotes and wolves broadly similar.

(Canis has also evolved remarkably recently).

The point was mostly that, racial mixing and bigotry against "mixed race" children being such a serious real-life problem, it's not a neutral statement to say that half-orcs are biologically prone to being strong workers and prone to anger. Even if you're doing xenofiction with orcs, you have an inherent problem with making half-orcs that fit a racial stereotype. This isn't so say you can't do it, but if you're already toeing a line that can easily cross it for many people.

Finally...Kender are just a bad idea. They exist to be too annoying and dangerous to ignore, succeed, and get murdered. That's the entire point, and it's a stupid one. To hell with Kender, they are a prime example of a species that is too stupid to live.

But Elves, Giants, and Warforged should absolutely have different perspectives than humans. That's not a problem.

The problem is that the distinctions between the monstrous races and humans aren't distinctions, they are moral quandaries that hit racial stereotypes. Sometimes. Not every tree needs a hatchet.

[Naanomi]

Also, elves and orcs can make children. They just don't, typically, and generally people haven't made hybrid races. But the lore has clarified its possible.
I'd need to see a source for that, 2E lore basically said Gruumsh attempted to make his people compatible with everything, but Corellon worked extra hard to no-sell it. Because neither elves nor orcs are naturally evolved, and don't have a shared lineage. Arguably none of the species in the Great Wheel are naturally evolved in any way we would recognize (at least not ultimately, many did develop from precursor species of various kinds... Reigar and their ilk are likely ancestors for some of them for example... but those precursors themselves were not naturally developed)... heck most of their underlying physiology (including behaviorally relevant neuroarchitecture) doesn't line up with anything we'd recognize; it is all planar energies and alchemical elementalism and the like

Toril does have examples of Dwarf/human pairings; Greyhawk says gnomes are compatible with dwarves, in Athas almost anything that isn't Kreen or reptilian/avian is 'really' a mutated halfling (their 'elves' are not elves) but humans and dwarves cannot reproduce without magical intervention, in Mystara 'crossbreeding' is a unique trait of humans (but not with goblinoids, who can only interbreed with eachother)...


Dogs are a bad example because humans have outpaced genetics there, and done targeted behavioral modification. You can, in fact, treat coyotes and wolves broadly similar.

(Canis has also evolved remarkably recently).
The Gods (and other things... aboleth...) of the DnD Cosmology did *way* more than that to their creations, and in most cases remarkably recently

[JackPhoenix]

But if I sat down and ran for you a D&D game about fighting Bandits, Owlbears, Undead, and Cultists, things that are either Distinctly Not People, or People Who Chose To Be Evil, You'd still be playing D&D.

OK. Why are orcs people and undead (which is category much broader than "orcs", btw) aren't? Why did all bandits and cultists apparently chose to be evil, and how is that different from saying all orcs chose to be evil?


Would you stand up and complain that my Bandits are just humans who decided to become Bandits? That my Cultists worship an evil god because they happen to be cruel people who want the power that their evil deity gives to his followers? Are you missing out on something because my antagonists are not racially predisposed towards evil?

Would you stand up and complain that my orcs all decided being evil is cool? That they worship an evil god because they happen to agree with with his creed of violence, conquest and oppression of everyone who's not an orc?


Would it enhance your experience if you could just look at a random person on the street and say "They are, by their very nature, more likely to be Evil than the person next to them"?

Maybe. Depends on what I want from the game. Propably not, because I wouldn't expect someone who's by nature evil be a "random person on the street".


The other paragraph is generally true, there are still serious problems here. Most DnD humanoid races can't fit either point because they are, biologically human. They might be weird humans, but they can reproduce with humans and make fertile offspring and therefore are human. Plus, there is very little to suggest that actually do think differently enough to qualify as being a true alien.

Dragon can have fertile offspring with humans too, in D&D. Does that mean dragons are humans too? Or literal demons made from abstract concepts of chaos and evil? Or maybe, just maybe, fictional D&D 'biology' is screwed up and you can't apply real-life standards, because it's got little to do with, well, actual biology.


Basically, almost every DnD race has this issue, where if we let them fit true xenofiction, but let them reproduce with humans, we start creating unfortunate parallels with human ethnic groups.

You, perhaps, will start creating unfortunate (and possibly entirely imaginary) parallels with human ethnic groups. That doesn't mean everyone else will, too. There are people who don't have problem realizing that not all fiction is some disguised sociological commentary.


We have a group of savages who worship blood gods that call for the death of civilized folk, who are aggressive invaders that cannot know peace, whom pollute bloodlines and create dumb hybrid children fit primarily for physical labor, and who must be exterminated or at least conquered so that civilized folk can live in peace...

And I could just as easily be describing Africans or Native Americans from a Eurocentric perspective, or Orcs in a DnD book.

This is a problem.

It's only a problem if you care about what some racist thinks, or share his prejudices, even if you're trying to present yourself as more moral by voicing an outrage. Because that description does not actually fit any existing African culture. Or any other existing human culture, for that matter.


Oh, and Dragons are another great example. Dragon society and thought processes are heavily, heavily biological influenced. They have genetic memory (to an extent), they live basically forever, they lay eggs, some even eat coins, and are pretty socially isolated. Their entire perspective is drastically different, and a lot of it is rather rational for such a different species with a drastically different body plan, diet, appearance, and reproductive strategy.

And no one cares, because it's obviously not trying to make a statement about human beings. They are too different.

And what makes you think the (general D&D depiction of) orcs *is* supposed to be statement about human beings? Just because they look vaguely like humans?


That alignment section completely fails to describe Drow in any meaningful way.

Does it? Because "do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms" does, in fact, help tell you how a NE drow would act. It means that, unlike CE, their concern about consequences is stronger than their hatred, greed or bloodlust, and while lowly warrior can get away with awful lot less than a high priestess, he follows the rules because he's not certain he won't be caught breaking them, not because he especially values those rules, like LE would. And neither of them would let annoying things like compassion, concern for others or conscience stand in their way. Sure, other personality traits and of course specific circumstances matter, but as a short-hand description for behavioral patterns of a random NPC, alignment does work.

[t209]

Alignment, this started from Moorcock universe where Order and Chaos are in constant conflict.
Either winning isn't always ideal, Order can lead to an empty slate while Chaos can lead to an incoherent mess.
Unfortunately, many players interpret Order as good (also didn't help that Warhammer Fantasy and 40k, even if it wasn't widespread outside of UK at the time, tends to show Chaos as malevolent even when "Order" tends to include tyrannical empire) and Gygax had to add Good and Evil to further elaborate on it.

[137beth]

Illithids eat humanoid brains. That is at least tacitly evil. Like, they can limit their brain consumption to "acceptable target", like bandits or criminals, but this doesn't change the fact that they have a biological imperative to kill people and eat their brains.

WotC has added a blog post underneath the errata in which they talk about the motivation for this errata, and one of the things they say is:

First, I urge all of you to read the errata documents for yourselves. A lot of assertions about the errata we’ve noticed in various online discussions aren’t accurate. (For example, we haven’t decided that beholders and mind flayers are no longer evil.)

Whatever argument you are trying to have about whether illithids are, or should be, evil, seems to me to be a slippery slope argument.

They also say that the first big reason they made these changes isn't because some people don't like the FR lore, it's to sell you more setting books:

1) The Multiverse: I’ve previously noted that new setting products are a major area of focus for the Studio going forward. As part of that effort, our reminders that D&D supports not just The Forgotten Realms but a multitude of worlds are getting more explicit. Since the nature of creatures and cultures vary from world to world, we’re being extra careful about making authoritative statements about such things without providing appropriate context. If we’re discussing orcs, for instance, it’s important to note which orcs we’re talking about. The orcs of Greyhawk are quite different from the orcs you’ll find in Eberron, for instance, just as an orc settlement on the Sword Coast may exhibit a very different culture than another orc settlement located on the other side of Faerûn. This addresses corrections like the blanket disclaimer added to p.5 of VOLO’S GUIDE.

And I think that makes sense: in a game that officially supports playing in Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Eberron, Wildemont, Theros, Krynn, and any other settings they do going forward, the core rules shouldn't be so heavily wedded to Forgotton Realms.

[Melphizard]

I think my only complaint is the claim that Drow exist on Krynn.

My main complaint is the consistent lack of mentioning Eilistraee in most of the more recent lore for Drow. She's a Chaotic Good Drow goddess and has existed for so long yet they primarily mention the Lolthian Drow and those new ones in Icewind Dale. One day they'll acknowledge her next to Lolth in Drow lore pages. One day.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: closed for review.

[Pirate ninja]

Modly Roger:

This is a polarising topic which people feel strongly about. When discussing it please be very careful not to attack (even subtly) your fellow posters. If you don't feel you are able to keep yourself on the right side of this line, probably better not to post in the thread.

Thread reopened.

[Millstone85]

My main complaint is the consistent lack of mentioning Eilistraee in most of the more recent lore for Drow. She's a Chaotic Good Drow goddess and has existed for so long yet they primarily mention the Lolthian Drow and those new ones in Icewind Dale. One day they'll acknowledge her next to Lolth in Drow lore pages. One day.I agree she is severily under-represented, but Eilistraee did get a few paragraphs in MToF, page 56.

[Azuresun]

And I think that makes sense: in a game that officially supports playing in Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Eberron, Wildemont, Theros, Krynn, and any other settings they do going forward, the core rules shouldn't be so heavily wedded to Forgotton Realms.

Agreed, though even with FR, it would be incredibly easy to say "centuries have passed and the world got blown up twice, in that time, drow culture has diversified". Retroactive changes feel a bit lazy. I mean, we know 5e Realms is a soft rollback to third edition rather than an advance of the timeline, but don't be so obvious about it. :smallbiggrin:


WotC has added a blog post underneath the errata in which they talk about the motivation for this errata, and one of the things they say is:

Whatever argument you are trying to have about whether illithids are, or should be, evil, seems to me to be a slippery slope argument.

Trivia: There was a good-aligned mind flayer monk in the Book of Exalted Deeds for 3e (I forget the details, but I'd assume a Ring of Sustenance was involved). Then again, I can understand people wanting to forget that book was ever written.

[EggKookoo]

And I think that makes sense: in a game that officially supports playing in Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Eberron, Wildemont, Theros, Krynn, and any other settings they do going forward, the core rules shouldn't be so heavily wedded to Forgotton Realms.

Unpopular opinion: I think WotC should bite the bullet and say FR is the official default setting for D&D, and all "cultural" stuff should be viewed through that lens. Then say "oh, there are other official settings where these values may be different."

FR should be the kitchen sink. DMs might appreciate being given sanction to trim, edit, and customize for their own settings (i.e. the "no dwarves!" thing).

[GooeyChewie]

Unpopular opinion: I think WotC should bite the bullet and say FR is the official default setting for D&D, and all "cultural" stuff should be viewed through that lens. Then say "oh, there are other official settings where these values may be different."

FR should be the kitchen sink. DMs might appreciate being given sanction to trim, edit, and customize for their own settings (i.e. the "no dwarves!" thing).

I agree with this opinion. Most of their published adventures take place in the Forgotten Realms anyway, to the point that I've seen players assume Forgotten Realms is the default setting already.

[diplomancer]

WotC has added a blog post underneath the errata in which they talk about the motivation for this errata, and one of the things they say is:

Whatever argument you are trying to have about whether illithids are, or should be, evil, seems to me to be a slippery slope argument.

They also say that the first big reason they made these changes isn't because some people don't like the FR lore, it's to sell you more setting books:


And I think that makes sense: in a game that officially supports playing in Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Eberron, Wildemont, Theros, Krynn, and any other settings they do going forward, the core rules shouldn't be so heavily wedded to Forgotton Realms.

This would all be well, good, and reassuring, IF WotC hadn't lied to the public about their rules changes in Tasha's. As it is, in this particular heated topic at least, they have a tarnished reputation, so I don't find this explanation particularly convincing. They've abused our good faith. I'm not saying it can't be regained. I'm saying that I'll believe it when I see it.

[Dualswinger]

Wait, there's a ruling that says spell storing object is an object interaction. I guess that means it can be used with Haste of quicken to cast two levelled spells in a turn?

Can't find this, which document is it in?

[stoutstien]

Can't find this, which document is it in?

It's always been the case but they verified it. On the Sage advice compendium Pg three under class features. The 2nd bullet under artificer.

[MrCharlie]

Dragon can have fertile offspring with humans too, in D&D. Does that mean dragons are humans too? Or literal demons made from abstract concepts of chaos and evil? Or maybe, just maybe, fictional D&D 'biology' is screwed up and you can't apply real-life standards, because it's got little to do with, well, actual biology.
I explained why I think there is a difference. To simplify further-if it's explicitly magical, then there is a buffer between an real-life commentary and what is happening in the game. Dragons use magic to reproduce with humans, angels and devils use magic as well, orcs do not. If we have a character whose origin is mythological, it's buffered from historical parallels. If we have a character whose origin precisely fits what American/European bigotry has said about mixed-race children for ~300 years, it's not.


You, perhaps, will start creating unfortunate (and possibly entirely imaginary) parallels with human ethnic groups. That doesn't mean everyone else will, too. There are people who don't have problem realizing that not all fiction is some disguised sociological commentary.

Ad hominem, please try again. Or you might want to just walk away.

And the point isn't that everything is meant to be disguised sociological commentary. It's not, primarily, meant to do that. This is irrelevant.


It's only a problem if you care about what some racist thinks, or share his prejudices, even if you're trying to present yourself as more moral by voicing an outrage. Because that description does not actually fit any existing African culture. Or any other existing human culture, for that matter.

Of course it doesn't actually describe people. And no, it does not only matter if I care what a racist thinks.


And what makes you think the (general D&D depiction of) orcs *is* supposed to be statement about human beings? Just because they look vaguely like humans?

It's not. But...It is a statement about humans beings all the same.

A description or conceptual engagement with a topic does not need to directly engage with racists, or be intended to engage with them, to be rooted in the language and descriptions they've used. The entire concept of savages was invented to dehumanize people, and has been used to that effect for centuries. The concept that some people are categorically inferior mentally and prone to aggression, necessitating violent "intervention" in their society or culture, was actually used in history to justify colonialism. We can't escape that by saying we aren't talking about it. The concepts we're using mean we are talking about it.

The point isn't that any of this was intended by DnD authors, or that they came from anything like a place of malice when writing it. The point is that the very concepts used to describe orcs flow from a racist, bigoted root, and the way we describe and talk about them is steeped in this history.

When a "monstrous race" looks like a human with a mask and is described with words and concepts invented to isolated and disparage humans, it's not entirely harmless anymore. It should at least have the grace to make it clear that these words and concepts aren't being used in the same way, and that the race isn't biologically disposed to fit these stereotypes.


Does it? Because "do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms" does, in fact, help tell you how a NE drow would act. It means that, unlike CE, their concern about consequences is stronger than their hatred, greed or bloodlust, and while lowly warrior can get away with awful lot less than a high priestess, he follows the rules because he's not certain he won't be caught breaking them, not because he especially values those rules, like LE would. And neither of them would let annoying things like compassion, concern for others or conscience stand in their way. Sure, other personality traits and of course specific circumstances matter, but as a short-hand description for behavioral patterns of a random NPC, alignment does work.
That description does not predict what a Drow will do. It explains it after the fact by being heavily generic. Most villains act without compassion, it describes all of them, and distinguishes none of them.

On the law-chaos axis, how does neutral evil fit the Drow? They do not fit the description where they do whatever they can get away with, because there are lines the Drow don't cross with regards to intraspecies fighting and rulebreaking. They don't fit the description where they hold evil up as an ideal at all, and in general neutral evil descriptors fail miserably to describe them.

The real blurb for Drow is probably closer to this-"Theocratic bigots, Lolth worshipping Drow chafe at the restrictions of their matriarchically stratified society and practice treachery towards outsiders, yet abide by these restrictions when dealing with other Drow to further the race."

Neutral evil blurbs completely fail to encompass any of that except treachery, and simplifies that to the point where it won't be used correctly when dealing with other Drow.

Which is fine. But at that point the DM can just assign neutral evil there themselves.

[PhantomSoul]

This would all be well, good, and reassuring, IF WotC hadn't lied to the public about their rules changes in Tasha's. As it is, in this particular heated topic at least, they have a tarnished reputation, so I don't find this explanation particularly convincing. They've abused our good faith. I'm not saying it can't be regained. I'm saying that I'll believe it when I see it.

Plus some things just don't make an ounce of sense -- claiming you're helping people subvert tropes or expectations is a complete flop when you remove the lore that serves as context... so the new player used as an example won't know it and they actually just end up less informed about the norms or expectations other players (and the world) may have. "X tends to be Y" or "most X are Y" gives way more information than saying nothing (and is way better for seeing what the point of having these species is), and it already quite explicitly tells you you don't have to be Y if you're X.

[Psyren]

I think talking about Tasha's is a good way to get this thread locked like the other one.


How do I know if my character is "defying expectations" if the expectations have been expunged?

Perhaps "Orcs are evil and dumb" is not an expectation that needs to be set up just to be routinely defied anymore. Especially not in the core rules.


Unpopular opinion: I think WotC should bite the bullet and say FR is the official default setting for D&D, and all "cultural" stuff should be viewed through that lens. Then say "oh, there are other official settings where these values may be different."

FR should be the kitchen sink. DMs might appreciate being given sanction to trim, edit, and customize for their own settings (i.e. the "no dwarves!" thing).

I'd be curious to see whether they've considered doing this and what their response might be. I don't think it would change their desire to walk back the redacted paragraph from 122 even if it is official canon for FR though.

EDIT: Oh, yesterday they added a clarifying statement to the errata that goes into this a bit:

"1) The Multiverse: I’ve previously noted that new setting products are a major area of focus for the Studio going forward. As part of that effort, our reminders that D&D supports not just The Forgotten Realms but a multitude of worlds are getting more explicit. Since the nature of creatures and cultures vary from world to world, we’re being extra careful about making authoritative statements about such things without providing appropriate context. If we’re discussing orcs, for instance, it’s important to note which orcs we’re talking about. The orcs of Greyhawk are quite different from the orcs you’ll find in Eberron, for instance, just as an orc settlement on the Sword Coast may exhibit a very different culture than another orc settlement located on the other side of Faerûn. This addresses corrections like the blanket disclaimer added to p.5 of VOLO’S GUIDE. "

So that would appear to show that they have no intention of making FR be "default."

[Stangler]

This is one of those changes that I already made in my head because the initial idea of tying evil to essentially genetics was too big of a departure from reality to make interesting story telling in my book. That said I don't expect many campaigns to get into the moral complexities of the lvl 1 goblin enemies the party just killed.

I see this change as making it more clear that these fantasy worlds are open to more morally complex story telling while still allowing relatively simplistic good v evil story telling by using evil gods. There is this clear move towards flexibility in story telling which I really appreciate. I have a really hard time seeing the downside and think the vast majority of the complaints boil down to appeals to tradition which ALWAYS happens when things change.

[Yakk]

I wish I got that reference, since I suspect a nice joke is contained therein. May I have an assist please?
There is an errata (from before) where one of the tables for the contents of a Mage's Labratory on a 73 was a Sexton.

A Sexton is someone who manages property of a church, and/or a basketball player. It was supposed to be a Sextant, which is a tool for determining your location using stars, planets, the sun and other astronomical stuff.

So an errata changed mage's laboratories from having a groundskeeper/paperwork administrator to a tool, but only 1% of the time. I find this funny.

I also find it puts the rest of the changes into context. A good chunk of it is copy-editing, even if it doesn't feel like it, and some people seem to take it as an attack on their core D&D values.

"My mage's labs have sextons 1% of the time, damnit."

[Tanarii]

We have a group of savages who worship blood gods that call for the death of civilized folk, who are aggressive invaders that cannot know peace, whom pollute bloodlines and create dumb hybrid children fit primarily for physical labor, and who must be exterminated or at least conquered so that civilized folk can live in peace...

And I could just as easily be describing Africans or Native Americans from a Eurocentric perspective, or Orcs in a DnD book.

This is a problem.There is no problem, because Orcs in a DND book are Orcs in a DND book.


The point was mostly that, racial mixing and bigotry against "mixed race" children being such a serious real-life problem, it's not a neutral statement to say that half-orcs are biologically prone to being strong workers and prone to anger. Even if you're doing xenofiction with orcs, you have an inherent problem with making half-orcs that fit a racial stereotype. This isn't so say you can't do it, but if you're already toeing a line that can easily cross it for many people.


If we have a character whose origin precisely fits what American/European bigotry has said about mixed-race children for ~300 years, it's not.Half-Orcs fit their own custom written fantasy half Orc stereotype, there is no problem.


It's not. But...It is a statement about humans beings all the same.

A description or conceptual engagement with a topic does not need to directly engage with racists, or be intended to engage with them, to be rooted in the language and descriptions they've used. The entire concept of savages was invented to dehumanize people, and has been used to that effect for centuries. The concept that some people are categorically inferior mentally and prone to aggression, necessitating violent "intervention" in their society or culture, was actually used in history to justify colonialism. We can't escape that by saying we aren't talking about it. The concepts we're using mean we are talking about it.No, it is not a statement about humans. Fantasy Orcs and Half Orcs are fantasy Orcs and half Orcs.


Perhaps "Orcs are evil and dumb" is not an expectation that needs to be set up just to be routinely defied anymore. Especially not in the core rules. Orcs are classic bad guys, there are made up creatures, and most players expect they are going to do heroic things fighting fantasy bad guys. There is a need for the role that 'humanoids' (Orcs, Goblinoids, Gnolls, Ogres. trolls) fill in fantasy gaming.

[Dr.Samurai]

The entire concept of savages was invented to dehumanize people, and has been used to that effect for centuries.
This overly simplistic and severely flawed understanding of history is precisely why we have to suffer these conversations...

The concept that some people are categorically inferior mentally and prone to aggression, necessitating violent "intervention" in their society or culture, was actually used in history to justify colonialism. We can't escape that by saying we aren't talking about it. The concepts we're using mean we are talking about it.
People are trying to play a game, rather than "escape" anything. While everyone else is rolling a d20, you're carrying a tree to the table, chaining yourself to it, and screaming that the bulldozers are coming.

The point isn't that any of this was intended by DnD authors, or that they came from anything like a place of malice when writing it. The point is that the very concepts used to describe orcs flow from a racist, bigoted root, and the way we describe and talk about them is steeped in this history.
Still doesn't matter. No matter how serious you try to make this sound, it still doesn't matter. It doesn't matter until it actually starts impacting people in a negative way. And that will never happen my friend, no matter how many articles telling us it's problematic get published.

When a "monstrous race" looks like a human with a mask and is described with words and concepts invented to isolated and disparage humans, it's not entirely harmless anymore.
Yes it is. Still entirely harmless. Typing about it online doesn't manifest real harm. You are like a person, in the middle of nowhere, on a lifeless planet, at the highest peak of the tallest mountain, screaming into the aether about a problem that doesn't exist.

This is an imagined problem, where people expend a lot of energy trying to convince other people it is a real problem.

It should at least have the grace to make it clear that these words and concepts aren't being used in the same way, and that the race isn't biologically disposed to fit these stereotypes.
Yes, exactly like how I need a notice telling me the little packet of silica desiccants is not another piece of beef jerky and I shouldn't eat it.

The sentiments that fuel this sort of concern-mongering can go any which way. You can't depict cultures as evil, you can't depict them as good either because of the implication that they are better than, etc. There will always be some avenue in which offense can be taken and a grievance can be made. WotC should, in my humble opinion, simply focus on the world they want to make, with the cultures they think should belong there, and not water everything down to avoid offending people that have their sensors set to TAKE OFFENSE. The settings are a major part of the game for many people. Water the lore down too much and all you will have left is mechanics. We're not there yet, but I wouldn't keep steering the car following these directions.

[Psyren]

The "fantasy Orcs in a D&D book" are still written by real human authors and designers. In a perfect world we could wholly separate them from the implicit biases and views of their creators, but we don't have one of those. Examining those biases periodically and making changes to minimize them is the next best thing.



Orcs are classic bad guys, there are made up creatures, and most players expect they are going to do heroic things fighting fantasy bad guys. There is a need for the role that 'humanoids' (Orcs, Goblinoids, Gnolls, Ogres. trolls) fill in fantasy gaming.

If you need low level humanoid villains, is it really that hard to say "Orc cultist" instead of just orc, or "goblin bandit" instead of just goblin? We don't seem to have any issues doing that with humans or elves.

[Tanarii]

The "fantasy Orcs in a D&D book" are still written by real human authors and designers. In a perfect world we could wholly separate them from the implicit biases and views of their creators, but we don't have one of those. Examining those biases periodically and making changes to minimize them is the next best thing.It doesn't need to be a perfect world. We just need to read them as fantasy Orcs in a D&D book, with an intent to provide classic fantasy bad guys, which is a role that we need filled, and we're good to go.


If you need low level humanoid villains, is it really that hard to say "Orc cultist" instead of just orc, or "goblin bandit" instead of just goblin? We don't seem to have any issues doing that with humans or elves.
The entire point is human cultist or human bandit is actually far more likely to be problematic in a way that fantasy creature whatever either can't or generally is far less likely to be.

[Stangler]

This overly simplistic and severely flawed understanding of history is precisely why we have to suffer these conversations...

People are trying to play a game, rather than "escape" anything. While everyone else is rolling a d20, you're carrying a tree to the table, chaining yourself to it, and screaming that the bulldozers are coming.

Still doesn't matter. No matter how serious you try to make this sound, it still doesn't matter. It doesn't matter until it actually starts impacting people in a negative way. And that will never happen my friend, no matter how many articles telling us it's problematic get published.

Yes it is. Still entirely harmless. Typing about it online doesn't manifest real harm. You are like a person, in the middle of nowhere, on a lifeless planet, at the highest peak of the tallest mountain, screaming into the aether about a problem that doesn't exist.

This is an imagined problem, where people expend a lot of energy trying to convince other people it is a real problem.

Yes, exactly like how I need a notice telling me the little packet of silica desiccants is not another piece of beef jerky and I shouldn't eat it.

The sentiments that fuel this sort of concern-mongering can go any which way. You can't depict cultures as evil, you can't depict them as good either because of the implication that they are better than, etc. There will always be some avenue in which offense can be taken and a grievance can be made. WotC should, in my humble opinion, simply focus on the world they want to make, with the cultures they think should belong there, and not water everything down to avoid offending people that have their sensors set to TAKE OFFENSE. The settings are a major part of the game for many people. Water the lore down too much and all you will have left is mechanics. We're not there yet, but I wouldn't keep steering the car following these directions.

All your "problems" seem harmless and/or imagined.

[Psyren]

It doesn't need to be a perfect world. We just need to read them as fantasy Orcs in a D&D book, with an intent to provide classic fantasy bad guys, which is a role that we need filled, and we're good to go.

Appeal to Tradition - "Classic" does not mean good, lacking problems, or unworthy of re-examination.


The entire point is human cultist or human bandit is actually far more likely to be problematic in a way that fantasy creature whatever either can't or generally is far less likely to be.

Why? "Cultist" is judging a target for what they're doing rather than what they are, which is exactly the point.

[Just Helping]

This would all be well, good, and reassuring, IF WotC hadn't lied to the public about their rules changes in Tasha's. As it is, in this particular heated topic at least, they have a tarnished reputation, so I don't find this explanation particularly convincing. They've abused our good faith. I'm not saying it can't be regained. I'm saying that I'll believe it when I see it.

I keep hearing this, and am confused about where the lie is. They said the changes to races were optional, and they were (shown by the fact that the ASIs are un-errata'd). It is no different than feats being optional yet constantly published without added featless alternatives.

Maintaining past rules as optional does not obligate them to design future rules to meet your desires.

[Tanarii]

Why? "Cultist" is judging a target for what they're doing rather than what they are, which is exactly the point.Exactly. They're humans and it's judging. Now you've got a made up human with some kind of associated (possibly made up) culture and some kind of (possibly made up) associated activity and it's being judged. And someone seeing links is far more likely. As soon as you remove humans from the equation, you've made links less likely.

For example, Stormtroopers are problematic in ways that clone stormtroopers are not. Southrons are problematic in ways that LOTR Orcs/Goblins are not.

Don't get me wrong, it's totally possible to create links anyway if you work hard at it, doing an intentional job and exaggerating greatly to make it blindingly obvious to everyone. Both World of Warcraft and Warhammer FRP have been doing it for years. D&D? Not so much.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'm not concerned with how newcomers play their games. They come to my table, I'll explain how things work here. And as always, I'll listen if they prefer this new stuff. We'll have a conversation if that hypothetical ever happens.

I'm not big on alignment anyway. I'd prefer players just write a few quick descriptors, like "merciful", or "violent", or "curmudgeonly". More impactful, many more permutations, less arguments on the internet.

[Dr.Samurai]

All your "problems" seem harmless and/or imagined.
Very good. Now you are beginning to understand. When someone presents a claim as truth, with absolutely nothing to substantiate it, it can be dismissed just as easily.

"Cultural depictions in D&D cause real harm" is just like... your opinion, man.

I prefer to play the game where there are evil societies and cultures around to cause problems that need heroes to resolve. And I have yet to see this harm anyone in real life.

[Psyren]

Exactly. They're humans and it's judging. Now you've got a made up human with some kind of associated (possibly made up) culture and some kind of (possibly made up) associated activity and it's being judged. And someone seeing links is far more likely. As soon as you remove humans from the equation, you've made links less likely.

My point is that their race is irrelevant. Whether it's an orc cultist, tiefling cultist, human cultist or dwarf cultist, their actions are what determine whether they need to be stopped with violence or not.


For example, Stormtroopers are problematic in ways that clone stormtroopers are not. Southrons are problematic in ways that LOTR Orcs/Goblins are not.

Stormtroopers are a parallel (right down to their name) for something we can't discuss here.
LotR orcs/goblins aren't problematic? Seriously? :smallconfused:

[Sigreid]

I still see it as if you want to run a game with clear moral lines (remember, in early editions choosing your character's alignment WAS choosing a side in a cosmic war. You even had languages for each alignment and all creatures of a given alignment could communicate with each other with no issue), it's far cleaner to have races created by their gods to embody their alignment and side. If you want a conscience free home invasion robbery game, fighting races that are monsters has less overhead than fighting humans. It's a relatively recent evolution to Orc for them to be more human instead of more boar capable of using weapons and I think it's because of the popularity of warhammer.

Beyond that, I don't think I'm personally interested in playing with people who look at a fantasy race see a stand in for a group of real world people. That to me is far more problematic and distasteful than having fantasy races as designated enemies. Will the fantasy races have elements taken from real world cultures? Almost definitely yes. The reason for that is simple, human imagination is limited and we're very likely to take ideas from the real world for how actual survival really works. Have a fantasy nomadic race? It's in all probability going to have some similarities with one or more current or historical cultures simply because we know it can work that way. That doesn't mean we're painting those cultures as that race, it just means we don't have another idea how to make them work. Until very recently I couldn't even conceive of Orcs being a direct correlation for a specific group of people. It simply wouldn't occur to me and I'd have raised an eyebrow at and not wanted to associate with anyone making that comparison. That's still kind of where I'm at. If someone starts talking about X race is obviously just a bad caricature of Y group of people, I take that as more of a sign of something being wrong with that person than anything else.

[MrCharlie]

There is no problem, because Orcs in a DND book are Orcs in a DND book.



Half-Orcs fit their own custom written fantasy half Orc stereotype, there is no problem.

No, it is not a statement about humans. Fantasy Orcs and Half Orcs are fantasy Orcs and half Orcs.

Orcs are classic bad guys, there are made up creatures, and most players expect they are going to do heroic things fighting bad guys. There is a need for the role that 'humanoids' (Orcs, Goblinoids, Gnolls, Ogres. trolls) fill in fantasy gaming.
You can say there is no problem and its a fantasy game, but it just ain't so. How does it being a fantasy game invalidate anything I've said? Fantasy mimics reality. The concepts we use to describe fantasy mimic the concepts we use to describe reality. This blank wall refusal to engage with that is precisely what half the problem is-a repetition of racist stereotyping without accepting its racist stereotyping.

It's also entirely possible, even easy, to maintain the role of bad guys without hitting the really troubling concepts that people have issues with, like orcs being biologically predisposed to savagery, or drow having a blood maledict on their race that they can't escape. Orcs can be savage and violent without it having a biological cause, and the drow can be stuck in a damned hellscape of a society without it being due to their tainted blood.

[Tanarii]

, like orcs being biologically predisposed to savagery, or drow having a blood maledict on their race that they can't escape. Orcs can be savage and violent without it having a biological cause, and the drow can be stuck in a damned hellscape of a society without it being due to their tainted blood.
Neither of these are problems, either way.

[Dr.Samurai]

How does it being a fantasy game invalidate anything I've said?
More to the point, how have you validated anything you've said?

[DavidSh]

I would assume if they were to make eratta toggleable, it would be an all or nothing thing. You either have none of the eratta, or the copy that's fully updated to the current.
They should use a versioning system like svn or git, so customers could check out any version they like.

[GooeyChewie]

I keep hearing this, and am confused about where the lie is. They said the changes to races were optional, and they were (shown by the fact that the ASIs are un-errata'd). It is no different than feats being optional yet constantly published without added featless alternatives.

Maintaining past rules as optional does not obligate them to design future rules to meet your desires.

It's the complete opposite of feats being optional yet getting new feats. If your table chooses not to use feats, your table simply ignores new feats. If racial ASIs were treated the same way, new races would have racial ASIs and if your table chooses not to use them, your table would simply ignore them. Instead, WotC has chosen not to print racial ASIs for new races, so if your table does not want to use the floating ASIs option you have to generate that content yourself.

The lie is Tasha's was not about existing races which already had printed ASIs. The lie was that this rule, being entirely optional, would not affect tables which did not want to use it. But if such a table wants to allow any post-Tasha's race (or lineage), they do have to deal with the "optional" rule one way or another. I tend to think of Tasha's as a "half-truth" rather than an outright lie, because it was feasible to not use the optional rule when it was first printed. But WotC stopped supporting tables which wanted not to use that rule immediately after printing it, so presenting it as optional was at a minimum extremely misleading.

[MrCharlie]

Exactly. They're humans and it's judging. Now you've got a made up human with some kind of associated (possibly made up) culture and some kind of (possibly made up) associated activity and it's being judged. And someone seeing links is far more likely. As soon as you remove humans from the equation, you've made links less likely.

For example, Stormtroopers are problematic in ways that clone stormtroopers are not. Southrons are problematic in ways that LOTR Orcs/Goblins are not.

Don't get me wrong, it's totally possible to create links anyway if you work hard at it, doing an intentional job and exaggerating greatly to make it blindingly obvious to everyone. Both World of Warcraft and Warhammer FRP have been doing it for years. D&D? Not so much.
Clone troopers are still human though? Cloning isn't even Sci-Fi anymore, it's just impractical. And stormtroopers are a fully intentional parallel-they aren't problematic so much as a whole-plot reference to reality.

Otherwise-No, LOTR orcs are deeply problematic, that statement does not even agree with the author. Tolkien was deeply troubled by the implications of what he made, for good reason-something created evil speaks to the quality of creation itself. He justified their existence a variety of ways, and seems to have settled on, basically "They aren't always evil, they are just Sauron/Melkors primary victims." The bad guys are bad because they make everyone into orcs.

Warhammer also gets a pass for being a parody in its early days, plus Warhammer has basically done what DnD is doing, and removed alignment. Warhammer also has something approaching true xenofiction, even with their excuse plot. It's complicated.

This overly simplistic and severely flawed understanding of history is precisely why we have to suffer these conversations...

Because I can't summarize 4000 years of human prejudice into a completely accurate summery? It's basically correct to say that the savage trope is about dehumanizing people. If you really want to argue why its not, feel free.


People are trying to play a game, rather than "escape" anything. While everyone else is rolling a d20, you're carrying a tree to the table, chaining yourself to it, and screaming that the bulldozers are coming.

Strawman.


Still doesn't matter. No matter how serious you try to make this sound, it still doesn't matter. It doesn't matter until it actually starts impacting people in a negative way. And that will never happen my friend, no matter how many articles telling us it's problematic get published.



Yes it is. Still entirely harmless. Typing about it online doesn't manifest real harm. You are like a person, in the middle of nowhere, on a lifeless planet, at the highest peak of the tallest mountain, screaming into the aether about a problem that doesn't exist.



This is an imagined problem, where people expend a lot of energy trying to convince other people it is a real problem.

These all mean the same thing-it's not hurting someone, so it's not wrong and you shouldn't be telling me it is.

Here's where we disagree-I think that things can be in poor taste or bad without crossing the threshold into "harm". By that logic, DnD could be espousing the same philosophy as FATAL and we should shut up and enjoy the rolling.

It's an insufficient argument.


Yes, exactly like how I need a notice telling me the little packet of silica desiccants is not another piece of beef jerky and I shouldn't eat it.

Strawman.

...Also, those notices exist for a reason. A lot of the arguments claiming that "our culture is being sanitized" is based on propaganda.

McDonalds cups, for instance, say they are hot because McDonalds served coffee that was legitimately boiling (as in, 100 Celsius boiling) and caused several dozen people third degree burns. As part of the settlement they both prevented the coffee from getting that hot, and posted warnings. Now it looks like they are warning you that slightly too-warm to drink coffee is too warm to drink, instead of warning you that they are serving you something that can legitimately maim you.


The sentiments that fuel this sort of concern-mongering can go any which way. You can't depict cultures as evil, you can't depict them as good either because of the implication that they are better than, etc. There will always be some avenue in which offense can be taken and a grievance can be made. WotC should, in my humble opinion, simply focus on the world they want to make, with the cultures they think should belong there, and not water everything down to avoid offending people that have their sensors set to TAKE OFFENSE. The settings are a major part of the game for many people. Water the lore down too much and all you will have left is mechanics. We're not there yet, but I wouldn't keep steering the car following these directions.
That's not what the concern mongering is. The concern is that cultures are being depicted as evil for precisely the wrong reasons, ones which are politically charged. The rest is a slippery slope fallacy that is a misconstruction of what is actually being said.

Your entire post comes down to one argument "This doesn't harm people so it can't matter". It doesn't need to harm someone to matter. Why is that the only standard here? DnD just needs to be neutral-it shouldn't strive to be better than that?

Very good. Now you are beginning to understand. When someone presents a claim as truth, with absolutely nothing to substantiate it, it can be dismissed just as easily.

"Cultural depictions in D&D cause real harm" is just like... your opinion, man.

I prefer to play the game where there are evil societies and cultures around to cause problems that need heroes to resolve. And I have yet to see this harm anyone in real life.
Okay, so what extent would DnD have to go for the cultural depictions to be harmful? Could it go that far? Because if the answer is no, you would never consider it harmful, then we're really just using two different words here-your definition of harmful and mine, in this context, are different.

Basically; if your argument is that nothing should change unless the words have crawled off the page and shot someone...We have very different ideas about how to judge content.

[Gtdead]

You can say there is no problem and its a fantasy game, but it just ain't so. How does it being a fantasy game invalidate anything I've said? Fantasy mimics reality. The concepts we use to describe fantasy mimic the concepts we use to describe reality. This blank wall refusal to engage with that is precisely what half the problem is-a repetition of racist stereotyping without accepting its racist stereotyping.

It's also entirely possible, even easy, to maintain the role of bad guys without hitting the really troubling concepts that people have issues with, like orcs being biologically predisposed to savagery, or drow having a blood maledict on their race that they can't escape. Orcs can be savage and violent without it having a biological cause, and the drow can be stuck in a damned hellscape of a society without it being due to their tainted blood.

This isn't necessarily true. Fantasy can be allegorical in nature and there can be a huge disconnect between the concepts that make sense in real life and the symbolism in fantasy. Where you see stereotyping and mindless evil races that remind you of common real life notions of racism, I see adversity made flesh in a manner than can only be fought and not reasoned with and I don't care about the medium itself.

It's your prerogative to think the way you do and draw parallels but we should all be careful when assigning blame due to ideology and moral inclinations.

Edit: Excuse me if I misrepresenting your position to some degree, it's not my intent. I'm taking a more general approach to the specific part that I highlighted.

[Just Helping]

It's the complete opposite of feats being optional yet getting new feats. If your table chooses not to use feats, your table simply ignores new feats.

And, if racial ASIs are that crucial, you can simply not use the lineages or new races.


If racial ASIs were treated the same way, new races would have racial ASIs and if your table chooses not to use them, your table would simply ignore them. Instead, WotC has chosen not to print racial ASIs for new races, so if your table does not want to use the floating ASIs option you have to generate that content yourself.

Just as those without feats would have to generate some other option if they want something to do on level-up.


The lie is Tasha's was not about existing races which already had printed ASIs. The lie was that this rule, being entirely optional, would not affect tables which did not want to use it.

And it does not, since the racial ASIs are retained in all official documentation.


But if such a table wants to allow any post-Tasha's race (or lineage), they do have to deal with the "optional" rule one way or another.

Humans and half-elves both had floating ASIs before now. Does your table anchor those as well?


I tend to think of Tasha's as a "half-truth" rather than an outright lie, because it was feasible to not use the optional rule when it was first printed. But WotC stopped supporting tables which wanted not to use that rule immediately after printing it, so presenting it as optional was at a minimum extremely misleading.

No, it's just as optional a rule as it was before. It is simply that WotC's new designs do not have these essentialist archetype parameters you are requesting. Vhuman works the exact same way.

[MrCharlie]

More to the point, how have you validated anything you've said?
I wrote, in depth, about why I feel the way I do. You can disagree with me and refuse to read what I write, but don't claim I haven't constructed an argument. That's just being dishonest.


Neither of these are problems, either way.
I can sortuve accept the "it's not human so it's not relevant", until we start saying this is blanketly true. If Star Trek gave all the black people pointy ears and made them a slave race called "Afrocanians", would you really defend it because its Sci-Fi? I'd argue that the logic fails at some point, and I'd argue it fails long before we reach fantasy orcs.

(I'm not trying to construct and absurdist argument here, I just really want to know where your limit on this point stands, to clarify).

[Dr.Samurai]

These all mean the same thing-it's not hurting someone, so it's not wrong and you shouldn't be telling me it is.

Here's where we disagree-I think that things can be in poor taste or bad without crossing the threshold into "harm". By that logic, DnD could be espousing the same philosophy as FATAL and we should shut up and enjoy the rolling.

It's an insufficient argument.
Rather, it is as sufficient as your own. You said this causes harm. I am saying it doesn't. If you want changes to be made to avoid the harm, you should be able to substantiate the claim to compel the changes.

I have been playing for over a decade and have never seen harm caused by the game in the manner you are... describing (I'm using that term loosely). Given how quickly you have back-pedaled from "not harmless" to "in poor taste", I am guessing you have no receipts to provide for your claims other than your own personal opinion/preference on the matter.

Strawman.
Not at all. The notice is for a very specific individual that, for whatever reason, cannot make the same delineations as almost everyone else. In other words, the vast majority of people are not eating silica packets when they finish off their beef jerky, just like the vast majority of people are not drawing real world parallels from fantasy races. The problem you are talking about is only a problem for select people, and it is absolutely in question whether the game should be changed for these handfuls of people.

Your entire post comes down to one argument "This doesn't harm people so it can't matter". It doesn't need to harm someone to matter. Why is that the only standard here? DnD just needs to be neutral-it shouldn't strive to be better than that?
You are appealing to everyone's decency by saying this has to change because it matters because it is harmful. I am saying it isn't harmful.

Okay, so what extent would DnD have to go for the cultural depictions to be harmful? Could it go that far? Because if the answer is no, you would never consider it harmful, then we're really just using two different words here-your definition of harmful and mine, in this context, are different.

Basically; if your argument is that nothing should change unless the words have crawled off the page and shot someone...We have very different ideas about how to judge content.
You said:


When a "monstrous race" looks like a human with a mask and is described with words and concepts invented to isolated and disparage humans, it's not entirely harmless anymore.

That means it is harmful in some way. How? Anyone that wants to change something should be able to explain their reasons well enough to compel others.

[Naanomi]

There is a middle ground between 'all orcs are evil by nature' and 'all orcs are humans with different cultural backgrounds and upbringing that explain all the differences in their mentality and culture'; and I think both extremes make for worse storytelling than the space in-between (which of course has variance as a spectrum itself... Between 'naturally evil but extreme and rare circumstances can change that' like illithid, or 'very similar to humans but slightly less proclivity towards pro-social behavior that often get exaggerated by cultural factors' like many goblinoids)

[Psyren]

Rather, it is as sufficient as your own. You said this causes harm. I am saying it doesn't. If you want changes to be made to avoid the harm, you should be able to substantiate the claim to compel the changes.

I have been playing for over a decade and have never seen harm caused by the game in the manner you are... describing (I'm using that term loosely). Given how quickly you have back-pedaled from "not harmless" to "in poor taste", I am guessing you have no receipts to provide for your claims other than your own personal opinion/preference on the matter.

"I have not seen any harm caused by the old language therefore there is none" is Personal Incredulity Fallacy. It's safe to say that WotC, being the locus point for feedback on their game, have received accounts of that harm or gamers expressing direct discomfort that Dr. Samurai has not. If you want to assume they just woke up one day and decided to do this by rolling on a chart that's your prerogative, but I don't think that's the case.


Neither of these are problems, either way.

As above, you can certainly think that, just as others (including WotC themselves) can disagree.


They should use a versioning system like svn or git, so customers could check out any version they like.

I wouldn't mind this approach to digital errata but that sounds like a lot of work for WotC to implement. Either they would have to license such a versioning tool, or make one themselves, neither of which sound more cost-effective than simply ignoring a few squeaky wheels online.

[MrCharlie]

Rather, it is as sufficient as your own. You said this causes harm. I am saying it doesn't. If you want changes to be made to avoid the harm, you should be able to substantiate the claim to compel the changes.

I have been playing for over a decade and have never seen harm caused by the game in the manner you are... describing (I'm using that term loosely). Given how quickly you have back-pedaled from "not harmless" to "in poor taste", I am guessing you have no receipts to provide for your claims other than your own personal opinion/preference on the matter.

You are appealing to everyone's decency by saying this has to change because it matters because it is harmful. I am saying it isn't harmful.

You said:

That means it is harmful in some way. How? Anyone that wants to change something should be able to explain their reasons well enough to compel others.
Okay, full stop-let me restate this.

Do you think DnD could cause harm?

No matter what it says now, could it cause harm with its content.

We need to settle where we disagree here and what words we are using, or there is no point replying.


Not at all. The notice is for a very specific individual that, for whatever reason, cannot make the same delineations as almost everyone else. In other words, the vast majority of people are not eating silica packets when they finish off their beef jerky, just like the vast majority of people are not drawing real world parallels from fantasy races. The problem you are talking about is only a problem for select people, and it is absolutely in question whether the game should be changed for these handfuls of people.
You...Really need to look into why these notices exist. It's a very bad argument to be making that they are in any way similar, and suggests you are advocating for...Very, very dangerous public policies. We really need to step away from that topic if we can't agree that it was a strawman.

[Sigreid]

I wrote, in depth, about why I feel the way I do. You can disagree with me and refuse to read what I write, but don't claim I haven't constructed an argument. That's just being dishonest.


I can sortuve accept the "it's not human so it's not relevant", until we start saying this is blanketly true. If Star Trek gave all the black people pointy ears and made them a slave race called "Afrocanians", would you really defend it because its Sci-Fi? I'd argue that the logic fails at some point, and I'd argue it fails long before we reach fantasy orcs.

(I'm not trying to construct and absurdist argument here, I just really want to know where your limit on this point stands, to clarify).

I think Star Trek is a bad foundation for your argument because Mr. Rodenberry when he created Star Trek was very intentionally using it for real world social and political commentary.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Thread closed. Probably for good.