Did Tasha's go far enough?

[Anymage]

Sometimes an evil monster is just an evil monster.

If you can distinguish fantasy from reality, then it's easy to understand how it's morally reprehensible to harm another human while it's perfectly okay to kill an orc. They're actually two entirely separate concepts.

If your ability to make that distinction is compromised, then it's easy to be confused why it's not okay to hate another person because of where they came from or who they're related to, but it's okay to hate a made up evil fairy tale creature.

At heart, you're getting back to the classic "does a paladin fall for killing orc babies" argument. Are they intrinsically Evil creatures where exterminating them from the multiverse would be the right and just thing to do, or does degrading a whole group of sentient humanoids like that come close enough to real-world bad ideas and make many of us very uncomfortable? I'll just point to the comic to highlight by how much the idea predates Tasha's.

I've seen a lot more support for "the paladin absolutely falls for that" than not, again using this forum and this comic as prime examples. WotC is absolutely justified in shifting their writing direction to follow that, even aside from the real world issues going on now.

However, there are like a kajillion threads on that and related topics. You could always start another if you really feel the need to retread old ground. You can also ask if acceptable targets existing period is okay. (Fiends and undead tend to be more comfortable to a lot of people than something that needs food, shelter, and a place to raise their kids.) I'd kinda like it if this one focused more clearly on if entirely freeform stat mods would indeed encourage more offbeat builds and/or a broader variety, or if they'll just shift the meta slightly to no real ultimate effect. Including what effect they'd have on how NPCs of various races are portrayed.

[RifleAvenger]

Tends to be a problem when something is automatically a legit target solely because of it's race.

If it's a mindless monster with no resemblance to humanity, like an ooze, go hog wild. If it walks and talks and can make choices for itself and you're killing it just for the way it's born, rather than it's actions... Well. There are some uncomfortable parallels there. Ones that me, and many other newer players find unacceptable. You can do it in your home game, but I'm not going to play with you, and WotC should definitely not be endorsing it unless they want to alienate large portions of their new player base.

Some of their old ones as well. People holding progressive ideals are not a new thing in the hobby (I'm not); we don't want to play into the specious narrative that the space of "the gamers^tm" is being invaded by otherthinking outsiders. Liberals and leftists (from Dem-Soc to An-Com) have always been involved in gaming, as have PoC, women, LBGTQ+, etc. etc.

Likewise, the issues posed in this thread have existed and been discussed within the community for decades.

[Lord Raziere]

Having evil creatures to kill isn't necessarily an expression of hatred. Sometimes it fulfills a need for clarity. Reality is, as we all know, messy and ambiguous and filled with gray areas. A sane person navigates that ambiguity because to do otherwise risks harming people who don't really deserve it and denies the nuance that life is filled with. At the same time, it can be tiring or even exhausting. Sometimes it would be nice if the decision was clear -- that the good and bad things were painted in stark relief. To have such a desire doesn't make one intolerant or bigoted or simple-minded or anything. It's just a desire, contrasted with the reality one must face that life simply isn't that way.

So, escapism. You get to play an unambiguously good hero defeating unambiguously evil villains. It's not about hatred but rather catharsis, and it's IMO a very good thing we have forms of entertainment where we can satisfy that. It lets us go back to our regular lives refreshed and ready to do the heavy lifting of seeing things from multiple sides, compromising to bring about the best overall results, and all the other things that being a functional adult requires.

This is what I mean about distinguishing fantasy from reality. I don't mean it in the sense of understanding that D&D is a game. We all mostly get that. But Isaac himself said "it's never just a game" and that's an attitude I find dangerous, or at least uncomfortable. How do we escape if our escapism is still mired in reality? That, also, is why I asked "where does it end?" I want to know where I can go relax the yoke a bit. Where I can, briefly, take off my "functional adult" hat and let myself just enjoy the experience of playing pretend, without some moral guardian standing over my shoulder. Am I not allowed to have that?

Why is only your escape important?

your escape isn't the only one. Your fantasy still exists, moral guardian ninjas aren't going to come over to your house and assassinate you for not living up to their standards. if other people want a different escape, and WotC is willing to accommodate them, all you can do about it is not allow it at your table and let other people have their different forms of escape elsewhere. you don't have to understand WHY they want it. you just have to let other tables be other tables. your allowed that escape, but other are allowed different escapes that are not yours in return. will it be annoying to turn people away over it? Yes, probably but thats all you can probably do man! your fantasy doesn't stop existing just because other peoples fantasies getting more mechanics to support them.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Some of their old ones as well. People holding progressive ideals are not a new thing in the hobby (I'm not); we don't want to play into the specious narrative that the space of "the gamers^tm" is being invaded by otherthinking outsiders. Liberals and leftists (from Dem-Soc to An-Com) have always been involved in gaming, as have PoC, women, LBGTQ+, etc. etc.

The issues posed in this thread have existed and been discussed within the community for decades.

That's fair! It's just from my own personal vantage point I've seen things become more inclusive. Previously, ttrpg groups I've seen in the past have been pretty...exclusionary, and dnd as a hobby was often gatekept from anyone who didn't fit a certain description. Obviously there were always exceptions to this, I'm just speaking in broad generalizations. I teach and I've noticed that since the advent of 5e the amount of students I see playing has gone way up, especially since the actual play podcasts got big, and the homogeneity of the groups I see has gone way down.

That's why this is an issue so close to my heart: I see a lot of the modern inclusive choices as welcoming many new players who previously saw DnD as inaccessible to them. Whether that was the case is immaterial; the choices WotC are making now is sending out a message loud and clear that they are strongly for inclusion and regardless of what motivates that, I will support it. When teaching a student how to play DnD now, it's extremely nice to be able to point to changes like the Tasha's ones to show that the designers are moving forward and working to fix past mistakes. It can mean a lot to a kid to feel supported by a game's designers, rather than merely tolerated.

[EggKookoo]

Why is only your escape important?

your escape isn't the only one. Your fantasy still exists, moral guardian ninjas aren't going to come over to your house and assassinate you for not living up to their standards. if other people want a different escape, and WotC is willing to accommodate them, all you can do about it is not allow it at your table and let other people have their different forms of escape elsewhere. you don't have to understand WHY they want it. you just have to let other tables be other tables. your allowed that escape, but other are allowed different escapes that are not yours in return. will it be annoying to turn people away over it? Yes, probably but thats all you can probably do man! your fantasy doesn't stop existing just because other peoples fantasies getting more mechanics to support them.

I think we're misunderstanding something. I don't object to this new ASI rule. I like it, in fact, and I have made sure my players know about it. If I ever get a chance to play (and not DM) with my current group, I'll certainly take a look at it, but at the same time I kind of like playing weird gimped PCs so I don't know how much I'd take advantage of it.

I've been talking about something else entirely -- whether or not it's okay to have an "evil race" in a game like D&D. I see no problem with it, and I don't think I'm being hateful or racist or whatever for saying so. I don't think it's a requirement for it to "be D&D" but I do think it's a requirement to have the option. I would not want to see all evil species/races/whatever removed from the game because some players don't like that, any more than I would want there to be only good or evil races because some players want that.

[stoutstien]

Some of their old ones as well. People holding progressive ideals are not a new thing in the hobby (I'm not); we don't want to play into the specious narrative that the space of "the gamers^tm" is being invaded by otherthinking outsiders. Liberals and leftists (from Dem-Soc to An-Com) have always been involved in gaming, as have PoC, women, LBGTQ+, etc. etc.

Likewise, the issues posed in this thread have existed and been discussed within the community for decades.

aye. if anything the the gaming community/ TTRPG community have always been in a interesting role of being a good place to talk about border science, philosophy, and just having weird introspective moments.

[Lord Raziere]

I've been talking about something else entirely -- whether or not it's okay to have an "evil race" in a game like D&D. I see no problem with it, and I don't think I'm being hateful or racist or whatever for saying so. I don't think it's a requirement for it to "be D&D" but I do think it's a requirement to have the option. I would not want to see all evil species/races/whatever removed from the game because some players don't like that, any more than I would want there to be only good or evil races because some players want that.

Well moral guardian ninjas aren't going to come and assassinate you for having evil races either, but don't expect me to agree with you having them in.

[Theoboldi]

Well moral guardian ninjas aren't going to come and assassinate you for having evil races either, but don't expect me to agree with you having them in.

To be fair though, they are going to let everyone and their grandmother know that you are horrible and a bad person for having evil races in your game. You personally won't do that, but there are certainly enough places in the rpg community for me to be uncomfortable with where that is the norm.

[zinycor]

To be fair though, they are going to let everyone and their grandmother know that you are horrible and a bad person for having evil races in your game. You personally won't do that, but there are certainly enough places in the rpg community for me to be uncomfortable with where that is the norm.

(Emphasis mine)

Who is this "They" you are talking about here?

[Theoboldi]

(Emphasis mine)

Who is this "They" you are talking about here?

The nebolously defined moral guardians that the conversation has revolved around.

For me, that includes several blog writers, people who argue on forums that having evil races in your game means there is something wrong with you (or just heavily imply it), much of the staff of a certain other rpg related forum, and anyone else who publicly voices such opinions.

Generally, people who pursue such moral oversight actively and to the extend of giving sweeping denouncements about people they do not know.

[zinycor]

The nebolously defined moral guardians that the conversation has revolved around.

For me, that includes several blog writers, people who argue on forums that having evil races in your game means there is something wrong with you (or just heavily imply it), much of the staff of a certain other rpg related forum, and anyone else who publicly voices such opinions.

Generally, people who pursue such moral oversight actively and to the extend of giving sweeping denouncements about people they do not know.

Thing is, all of those people don't matter. All that matters is what happens at your table. If your table likes to spend time killing demons, cause they are demons (Like the Doomslayer) everything is ok.

[Lord Raziere]

The nebolously defined moral guardians that the conversation has revolved around.

For me, that includes several blog writers, people who argue on forums that having evil races in your game means there is something wrong with you (or just heavily imply it), much of the staff of a certain other rpg related forum, and anyone else who publicly voices such opinions.

Generally, people who pursue such moral oversight actively and to the extend of giving sweeping denouncements about people they do not know.

Yeeeeah, if its the forum I think your talking about, I'm pretty sure I experienced that first hand, but again, not naming names here, just in case. and if anyone knows me, they would know I'm strongly opposed to the idea of evil races in DnD, and I was not good enough for them.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Closed for review.