All of this is not really related to Dark Sun save tangentially at best. It is related to "discussions" that have never gone well on these forums. I've explained as much as I'm going to. Sorry for the diversion. Carry on with the wanting of Dark Sun.
I'm also going to be responding to only certain parts of your post, mostly the parts that I think could use some general clarification rather than things specifically addressed to Yurei.
I've always failed to see how alignment recommendations harm or expel anyone from the game...
Let me help clarify. Alignment labels, specifically on entire peoples that are also meant to be playable character types, brush a broad stereotype on entire lineages of people even if the mitigating word "typically" is added to it. This kind of stereotyping is exactly the kind of thing that happens to some of us in real life and is a painful reminder of that kind of treatment that we would like to escape while playing D&D. It's removal is a good thing. It allows more people to play the game without depictions that do more than "offend" us, they harm us.
This is a conscious effort on the part of Wizard of the Coast to make the game more welcoming to all people, as evidenced by their Diversity and Dragons statement from a few years ago: https://dnd.wizards.com/news/diversity-and-dnd
All of this is not really related to Dark Sun save tangentially at best. It is related to "discussions" that have never gone well on these forums. I've explained as much as I'm going to. Sorry for the diversion. Carry on with the wanting of Dark Sun.
I have to be honest here, I love alignment and have and will always defend it for PC's and NPC's. But I actually agree with Yurei and Ophidomancer (there are first times for everything!) that racial alignments are extremelyproblematic, and I don't think that's even up for debate.
No one in real life tends to be evil (or good) because they are X race, so no one in D&D should tend towards evil for this reason either.
I am not going to debate Dark Sun because I have never played in it, however, I think there is an important distinction between presenting horrible things, and saying that those things are good. By showing a dysfunctional world, and the things people do in it, it proves in itself that the things they do are dysfunctional ways of living that should not be followed, and that they only make the overall world worse.
As far as the actual lore changes in the Forgotten Realms are concerned, it's not like they said Lolth no longer has any influence over the drow, or Gruumsh or Maglubiyet are no longer factors. From what I understand and have seen, they're simply saying the races affected by these entities are no longer a foregone conclusion as to how they turn out. They are pretty much saying that goblins who aren't horrible, orcs who aren't violent, and drow who aren't scheming slavers do in fact exist in the world even outside of the player characters with those races.
That has always been the case (that good examples of those races have always existed outside of player characters). I hate to point at the obvious example, but Drizzt is a drow separate from Lolth's influence. For the drow specifically, there is good god for them, her name is Eilistraee (look her up, shes very cool). None of these races have ever been unavoidably evil outside of player characters, just enough of them typically are in the forgotten realms to put the stigma over them.
Also you talk about the "nature" of these races, but we have only one example of a sapient, technologically advanced (by nature's standards) species that we know of in the real world, and that's us. And we aren't this monolith that can be boiled down to a set of character traits that can be broadly applied to everyone. So I don't see how one can argue you can do this with any other such species or race, especially when nature is never so clear-cut. Frankly, I find it less immersive that each race has members so similar to each other, given how massive Faerun is. Distance and separation are universally factors that create differences and divergence in a group of organisms. The only reason I don't have more of a hiccup over the fact that there's no language barrier among members of each race in the Forgotten Realms is because I know it's for gameplay convenience, but both Eberron and Exandria treat language how it's supposed to be treated, which is being influenced by geography and culture (not your race or species).
As someone who has always found the topic of human nature quite interesting, it is actually quite definable. This is neither the place nor time to delve into that topic at length, but after sifting through a lot of the miss-information on the topic, there are some very interesting studies on it.
And given that much of the content in 5e is still heavily rooted in the Forgotten Realms (and therefore 5e still isn't completely setting-agnostic yet), it's important to make that distinction, even if it means changing the old lore.
While i agree that making the distinction is important if making races setting agnostic, doing so at the cost of established lore is not something i agree with.
WotC have been shouting near and far that 2024 is the year of 5.5e, when the game is supposedly to be overhauled and the 3 core books reworked to suit their new style of balance... Yet here we are, from Tasha's onwards they have been enacting their new style of balance. If they really wanted to do this right, they would have skipped the wait and released 5.5e asap with all the overhauls theyre making now, and made them setting agnostic while they were at it. Theyve already discontinued 2 books officially and let 2 more sink quietly into the void, the fact that they continue to butcher 5e instead of just ripping off the bandaid will never not sit right with me.
EDIT: On a sidenote, but still related to the above, if we go by the previously established Forgotten Realms lore, many goblinoids and orcs are fated to end up in the plane of Acheron when they die. Acheron is a Lower Plane where you're forced to fight in pointless, endless, brutal wars for all eternity (in the case of the goblinoids and orcs, for their respective patron deities), and is a cruel and twisted fate. Yet, this is the fate these countless people are apparently facing just by being unlucky enough to be born as goblinoids or orcs. So I can see why someone would not be ok with this kind of detail.
I have not gone to fact check this, but i'm pretty sure that in forgotten realms the deity you revere has always determined what afterlife awaits you, followed by your alignment should there be no deity to claim your soul. Therefore, i would assert that they would only wind up in Acheron if they lived there lives indoctrinated into the religion of a typical tribe of their race.
Except for lolth specifically, i think she found a way to lay claim to any drow who didn't revere another god (which is where Eilistraee played a big part). Again, fact checking required.
As far as the actual lore changes in the Forgotten Realms are concerned, it's not like they said Lolth no longer has any influence over the drow, or Gruumsh or Maglubiyet are no longer factors. From what I understand and have seen, they're simply saying the races affected by these entities are no longer a foregone conclusion as to how they turn out. They are pretty much saying that goblins who aren't horrible, orcs who aren't violent, and drow who aren't scheming slavers do in fact exist in the world even outside of the player characters with those races.
That has always been the case (that good examples of those races have always existed outside of player characters). I hate to point at the obvious example, but Drizzt is a drow separate from Lolth's influence. For the drow specifically, there is good god for them, her name is Eilistraee (look her up, shes very cool). None of these races have ever been unavoidably evil outside of player characters, just enough of them typically are in the forgotten realms to put the stigma over them.
Also you talk about the "nature" of these races, but we have only one example of a sapient, technologically advanced (by nature's standards) species that we know of in the real world, and that's us. And we aren't this monolith that can be boiled down to a set of character traits that can be broadly applied to everyone. So I don't see how one can argue you can do this with any other such species or race, especially when nature is never so clear-cut. Frankly, I find it less immersive that each race has members so similar to each other, given how massive Faerun is. Distance and separation are universally factors that create differences and divergence in a group of organisms. The only reason I don't have more of a hiccup over the fact that there's no language barrier among members of each race in the Forgotten Realms is because I know it's for gameplay convenience, but both Eberron and Exandria treat language how it's supposed to be treated, which is being influenced by geography and culture (not your race or species).
As someone who has always found the topic of human nature quite interesting, it is actually quite definable. This is neither the place nor time to delve into that topic at length, but after sifting through a lot of the miss-information on the topic, there are some very interesting studies on it.
And given that much of the content in 5e is still heavily rooted in the Forgotten Realms (and therefore 5e still isn't completely setting-agnostic yet), it's important to make that distinction, even if it means changing the old lore.
While i agree that making the distinction is important if making races setting agnostic, doing so at the cost of established lore is not something i agree with.
WotC have been shouting near and far that 2024 is the year of 5.5e, when the game is supposedly to be overhauled and the 3 core books reworked to suit their new style of balance... Yet here we are, from Tasha's onwards they have been enacting their new style of balance. If they really wanted to do this right, they would have skipped the wait and released 5.5e asap with all the overhauls theyre making now, and made them setting agnostic while they were at it. Theyve already discontinued 2 books officially and let 2 more sink quietly into the void, the fact that they continue to butcher 5e instead of just ripping off the bandaid will never not sit right with me.
EDIT: On a sidenote, but still related to the above, if we go by the previously established Forgotten Realms lore, many goblinoids and orcs are fated to end up in the plane of Acheron when they die. Acheron is a Lower Plane where you're forced to fight in pointless, endless, brutal wars for all eternity (in the case of the goblinoids and orcs, for their respective patron deities), and is a cruel and twisted fate. Yet, this is the fate these countless people are apparently facing just by being unlucky enough to be born as goblinoids or orcs. So I can see why someone would not be ok with this kind of detail.
I have not gone to fact check this, but i'm pretty sure that in forgotten realms the deity you revere has always determined what afterlife awaits you, followed by your alignment should there be no deity to claim your soul. Therefore, i would assert that they would only wind up in Acheron if they lived there lives indoctrinated into the religion of a typical tribe of their race.
Except for lolth specifically, i think she found a way to lay claim to any drow who didn't revere another god (which is where Eilistraee played a big part). Again, fact checking required.
Which two books did they allow to sink quietly into the void?
I have not gone to fact check this, but i'm pretty sure that in forgotten realms the deity you revere has always determined what afterlife awaits you, followed by your alignment should there be no deity to claim your soul. Therefore, i would assert that they would only wind up in Acheron if they lived there lives indoctrinated into the religion of a typical tribe of their race.
Except for lolth specifically, i think she found a way to lay claim to any drow who didn't revere another god (which is where Eilistraee played a big part). Again, fact checking required.
It's the indoctrination I'm pointing to more than anything else. From what I recall in the lore told in Volo's Guide, many goblinoids are forced into joining these large hosts that wage war under Maglubiyet's guidance, and the folks in these hosts pretty much resign themselves to being sent to Acheron after death. Orc tribes indoctrinate their members into revering Gruumsh or one of his servant orc deities, so many of them would end up in Acheron as well.
In any case, Volo's Guide is the 5e source for all that goblinoid and orc lore, in case you still want to fact check.
In the interest of getting back on-topic, I have never played Dark Sun, so I have no particular attachment to the setting. And I do personally have skepticism about whether or not WoTC can do the setting in a way that will please a lot of people, but some group would get pissed off regardless, whether it be the folks who want to play up the more dystopian and nightmarish aspects of the world, or the folks who don't want those aspects to be emphasized too much, or the folks who want psionics to be more front and center and will be disappointed by how it's handled here. So I say all that to say maybe it's better that Athas just gets a nod occasionally rather than an actual sourcebook in 5e.
I've always failed to see how alignment recommendations harm or expel anyone from the game... To me, they were always just context for how the societies of those races typically operate or are perceived. I've never felt the need to let them dictate my characters alignment (I'm not actually a massive fan of alignment overall. This isn't really the place for that discussion though, so all i'll say for now is i prefer a homebrew system of Sins and Virtues, it's more open to interpretation and presents more roleplay opportunities than just "i do this because my alignment is XYZ and thats what XYZ does"), and have never really understood why people take them so literally. Even the Alignment traits for races would often prefix things with "usually" or "typically" or "rarely", even the release version of Orc has this caveat, as well as the following tidbit in the section of their description discussing playing them as PC's;
"Most orcs have been indoctrinated into a life of destruction and slaughter. But unlike creatures who by their very nature are evil, such as gnolls, it’s possible that an orc, if raised outside its culture, could develop a limited capacity for empathy, love, and compassion."
On this note, later in your response you have a quotation that i cannot actually find in the Orc races's fluff text. While i understand this was likely paraphrasing, and that the actual description is quiet harsh in of itself, these descriptions are very explicitly the typical Orcish warband. The real issue is not the fluff text or alignment recommendations, but shitty DM's who use them as an excuse to bombard their PC's with a constant stream of roadblocks and hindrances. Racism against PC's is not an indisputable line that should never be crossed, it like all narrative tools, should be reserved for moments where it has meaning in the story and provides something of value to the overall narrative (which is how i typically run orc characters in forgotten realms-adjacent settings). Depending on the game, there might never even be a place for racism (much like with traditional media, if race is not a theme of the story you are telling, there isn't really a need to shoe-horn race into it).
But, there is a ""right"" way to do racism or racial stereotypes with regards to PC's in DnD (contrary to what some would have us believe), whether that be fighting the concept, overcoming it, or even using it as a point in your characters origins. If a DM has a world where Orcs are so hated by the common man that there is no way they can be played as a PC in a capacity that is fun, they shouldn't be allowed as a playable race for that game at all (Part of being a good DM is knowing when to tell a player that their character idea might not be a good fit for their particular story or world). And as a counterexample, i have a homebrew setting called Armistice where Orcs are not discriminated against by the other races (at least not in the traditional sense) and exist normally within societies (they are the obese pig-like depiction of orcs tho, think 'beyond good and evil'). Suffice to say that the entirety of written lore can be subverted on a table-by-table basis should the setting demand it.
Which brings me full circle to my main point on this; This issue with changing these things and carving them out of the setting is twofold, in that if people really wanted a setting where these egregious things were not the norm, it should be possible then for a new official setting to be created where that is not the case (and its sales metrics would be a perfect indicator of the actual demand for such changes), and that anyone unhappy with the existing settings as they were could simply just change them for use in their own games. When i take issue with how the lore has been changed, it is not because i want to "exclude" or "harm" anyone, it's because changing something that already has quantifiable amounts of precedent and established material should not be preferable to creating something new that ticks the boxes for anyone who took issue with it.
What does that bolded line mean by "limited capacity" though? Even that supposed concession implies that an orc PC can't be as compassionate or empathetic as other PCs for whatever reason, which can be viewed as problematic.
Also there are two official settings where orcs aren't depicted this way: Eberron and Exandria.
I fail to see how the fake depiction of fake people in a fake game is a problem in the real world. No one has ever been able to adequately draw that line for me without resorting to faith claims.
I'm honestly baffled at the amount of time and energy people put into being upset by this.
Though the depiction may be of fantasy races, it draws back to real life racism, and is based off & encourages real life racist stereotypes.
It may be in a book, but it is still incredibly problematic.
I fail to see how the fake depiction of fake people in a fake game is a problem in the real world. No one has ever been able to adequately draw that line for me without resorting to faith claims.
I'm honestly baffled at the amount of time and energy people put into being upset by this.
Because this is a game where people often put some aspect of themselves into their characters, and a game in which it's often the case that the world you play in requires some level of immersion to make the most of it. Also fiction, no matter the medium or genre, is a reflection of something in the real world, and we have used fiction and games to contextualize real-world elements throughout human history. And WoTC recognized that having certain elements in the game can (and probably does) put people of certain demographics away from the game, so to maximize profits, they've been taking steps to make the game feel more inclusive to these groups. I don't know what more I can say about that.
I've always failed to see how alignment recommendations harm or expel anyone from the game... To me, they were always just context for how the societies of those races typically operate or are perceived. I've never felt the need to let them dictate my characters alignment (I'm not actually a massive fan of alignment overall. This isn't really the place for that discussion though, so all i'll say for now is i prefer a homebrew system of Sins and Virtues, it's more open to interpretation and presents more roleplay opportunities than just "i do this because my alignment is XYZ and thats what XYZ does"), and have never really understood why people take them so literally. Even the Alignment traits for races would often prefix things with "usually" or "typically" or "rarely", even the release version of Orc has this caveat, as well as the following tidbit in the section of their description discussing playing them as PC's;
"Most orcs have been indoctrinated into a life of destruction and slaughter. But unlike creatures who by their very nature are evil, such as gnolls, it’s possible that an orc, if raised outside its culture, could develop a limited capacity for empathy, love, and compassion."
On this note, later in your response you have a quotation that i cannot actually find in the Orc races's fluff text. While i understand this was likely paraphrasing, and that the actual description is quiet harsh in of itself, these descriptions are very explicitly the typical Orcish warband. The real issue is not the fluff text or alignment recommendations, but shitty DM's who use them as an excuse to bombard their PC's with a constant stream of roadblocks and hindrances. Racism against PC's is not an indisputable line that should never be crossed, it like all narrative tools, should be reserved for moments where it has meaning in the story and provides something of value to the overall narrative (which is how i typically run orc characters in forgotten realms-adjacent settings). Depending on the game, there might never even be a place for racism (much like with traditional media, if race is not a theme of the story you are telling, there isn't really a need to shoe-horn race into it).
But, there is a ""right"" way to do racism or racial stereotypes with regards to PC's in DnD (contrary to what some would have us believe), whether that be fighting the concept, overcoming it, or even using it as a point in your characters origins. If a DM has a world where Orcs are so hated by the common man that there is no way they can be played as a PC in a capacity that is fun, they shouldn't be allowed as a playable race for that game at all (Part of being a good DM is knowing when to tell a player that their character idea might not be a good fit for their particular story or world). And as a counterexample, i have a homebrew setting called Armistice where Orcs are not discriminated against by the other races (at least not in the traditional sense) and exist normally within societies (they are the obese pig-like depiction of orcs tho, think 'beyond good and evil'). Suffice to say that the entirety of written lore can be subverted on a table-by-table basis should the setting demand it.
Which brings me full circle to my main point on this; This issue with changing these things and carving them out of the setting is twofold, in that if people really wanted a setting where these egregious things were not the norm, it should be possible then for a new official setting to be created where that is not the case (and its sales metrics would be a perfect indicator of the actual demand for such changes), and that anyone unhappy with the existing settings as they were could simply just change them for use in their own games. When i take issue with how the lore has been changed, it is not because i want to "exclude" or "harm" anyone, it's because changing something that already has quantifiable amounts of precedent and established material should not be preferable to creating something new that ticks the boxes for anyone who took issue with it.
What does that bolded line mean by "limited capacity" though? Even that supposed concession implies that an orc PC can't be as compassionate or empathetic as other PCs for whatever reason, which can be viewed as problematic.
Also there are two official settings where orcs aren't depicted this way: Eberron and Exandria.
I fail to see how the fake depiction of fake people in a fake game is a problem in the real world. No one has ever been able to adequately draw that line for me without resorting to faith claims.
I'm honestly baffled at the amount of time and energy people put into being upset by this.
Though the depiction may be of fantasy races, it draws back to real life racism, and is based off & encourages real life racist stereotypes.
It may be in a book, but it is still incredibly problematic.
And that, Folks, is why we're never getting Dark Sun in 5E.
The Satanic Panic is still in full swing. It's just that - this time - the call is coming from inside the house.
Let me clarify my opinion, Dark Sun is different because it does not actively Encourage these stereotypes.
As Yurei said, there is a vast difference between showing evil acts, and saying those evil acts are good or justified.
By presenting terrible crimes along with a terrible, dysfunctional, world, Dark Sun and other doomsday planes show that these crimes just make the world a lot worse overall.
PS- I think misunderstood your post, I thought you were saying that you can make generalizations about D&D races just because they're not real, my apologies for the misunderstanding. Also, I was not saying trying to say that Dark Sun should not be in books.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I fail to see how the fake depiction of fake people in a fake game is a problem in the real world. No one has ever been able to adequately draw that line for me without resorting to faith claims.
I'm honestly baffled at the amount of time and energy people put into being upset by this.
Because this is a game where people often put some aspect of themselves into their characters, and a game in which it's often the case that the world you play in requires some level of immersion to make the most of it. Also fiction, no matter the medium or genre, is a reflection of something in the real world, and we have used fiction and games to contextualize real-world elements throughout human history. And WoTC recognized that having certain elements in the game can (and probably does) put people of certain demographics away from the game, so to maximize profits, they've been taking steps to make the game feel more inclusive to these groups. I don't know what more I can say about that.
I can see it now.
"I don't know what happened, y'all. I was doing some encounter prep for next week's game and decided to add in some orcs. I read the flavor text and - the next thing I know - I was tossing back Michelobs and White Russians at the Aryan Nation mixer..."
I don't know how you took me saying that inclusion is part of why WoTC has been doing this stuff to what you said there, but I don't want to get into a quarrel over this, so I'll just leave it at this.
I personally don't have an issue with WoTC bringing Dark Sun into the game, and I don't even have a problem with it having slavery and such, since those are part of the setting. But I can see why WoTC might want to avoid it.
I defend Dark Sun because I think there's a place for all of it. What I push back against is the idea that darker themes make for real world problems. I see the same argument being made about the connection between video games and real-world violence, and I don't think that connection actually exists.
I don't think anyone (in this thread, at least) is saying that darker themes make for real world problems.
First of all, I agree with you, worlds full of conflict and strife make for easer-to-write plot, at a fundamental level. Plot is conflict. And "undead sorcerer-kings who commit genocide and enslave everyone" is a much better, more actionable villain than "the statline says 'evil' and mine says 'good' so I guess we fight."
Some darker themes do remind people of real-world trauma they'd rather not have to put up with in a game, though. It makes complete sense that WotC or any other decent publisher would tread lightly when it comes to things like slavery and genocide and in-world racism. Undeath is fictional, so no-one really cares, but slavery is/was a very real thing, with real imagery, and real effects that are still being felt.
Some publishers have a history of using fictional worlds to stand on a "racism is justifiable in the real world" soapbox (which has happened, and is still happening, with some publishers). It's a good thing that other publishers are sometimes (if only barely) standing on a "actually, no, games shouldn't work like that" soapbox.
I've never played Dark Sun, but I've always been kinda intrigued by the Dune / Mad Max / edgelord vibe of it, so I'd at least hope that WotC could find something constructive to do with it.
I fail to see how the fake depiction of fake people in a fake game is a problem in the real world. No one has ever been able to adequately draw that line for me without resorting to faith claims.
OK, here's a distillation of the issue: statements like "I don't see a problem, so there must not be a problem" are kinda the definition of privilege, and how privilege enables harm.
So what? You may not see it, but other people do. They don't owe you a damn thing.
I assure you, there are people who have been hurt by this sort of thing who play D&D, and who might even be on these forums. It's a little disingenuous to ask that they speak up whenever the topic comes up, especially when they've had to do that many times before (and are probably very tired of it --- adding insult to injury).
There are many kinds of trauma, and some of it can absolutely lead to panic attacks (etc.) when even fake-fake fiction brings it up.
I tried to describe that without using the word "trigger," because that word has been dragged to hell and back, but the above basically is the definition.
Caveat: I'm no expert at mental health, so please don't quote me as such.
To be clear, I don't think you're trying to hurt anyone, but no-one else is trying to hurt you, and you clearly don't have a history of being hurt by this. Changes that WotC are making, or might make, are not being made in bad faith, even if you personally don't understand them.
I think the changes WOTC is making to D&D in general are awesome. At the same time, I would love to see Dark Sun come back in whatever form the designers want. It was a cool setting and as long as people don’t use it as a justification for racism and the other unpleasant aspects of Athas, I think it would make a great addition to the 5e multiverse.
Like I mentioned before, when I ran Dark Sun back in college, my players were fighting against slavery from day one, so I never had to deal with any of the more unpleasant aspects of gaming on Athas.
I think the changes WOTC is making to D&D in general are awesome. At the same time, I would love to see Dark Sun come back in whatever form the designers want. It was a cool setting and as long as people don’t use it as a justification for racism and the other unpleasant aspects of Athas, I think it would make a great addition to the 5e multiverse.
Agreed. Whatever people think the designers are going to remove from DS never seemed crucial to my enjoyment of the setting.
I just had a conspiracy theory level idea. Maybe the first map, with Athas space on it, actually was the real map, and they’re going to announce Dark Sun at the big thing on the 18, the same spelljammer comes out. So this second, doom space map was actually just to throw people off. And then the real map will have Athas Space and will be released into the wild the same day they announce Dark Sun.
Or, to go even further out. It’s a cross-promotion with Marvel, to announce Planet Hulk the same day She Hulk comes out.
I just had a conspiracy theory level idea. Maybe the first map, with Athas space on it, actually was the real map, and they’re going to announce Dark Sun at the big thing on the 18, the same spelljammer comes out. So this second, doom space map was actually just to throw people off. And then the real map will have Athas Space and will be released into the wild the same day they announce Dark Sun.
Or, to go even further out. It’s a cross-promotion with Marvel, to announce Planet Hulk the same day She Hulk comes out.
I'm sorry, but this isn't true. The book has already had complete flip-throughs online, and the map still reads "Doomspace". It seems that they were originally planning on Athas appearing in the book, but decided against it and replaced it with a new solar system that shared common elements with Athas.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Which two books did they allow to sink quietly into the void?
I was referring to SCAG and EE. Most of the content from both of them has been reprinted elsewhere, and the latter of which isn't even viewable on DDB (the content can be found in listings, but the compendium itself is inaccessible). They technically aren't "legacy" yet, but i don't expect them to stay off the chopping block for long.
Which is sad, because SCAG in particular is a great source of lore and maps.
Which two books did they allow to sink quietly into the void?
I was referring to SCAG and EE. Most of the content from both of them has been reprinted elsewhere, and the latter of which isn't even viewable on DDB (the content can be found in listings, but the compendium itself is inaccessible). They technically aren't "legacy" yet, but i don't expect them to stay off the chopping block for long.
Which is sad, because SCAG in particular is a great source of lore and maps.
Are you kidding? The SCAG is one of the worst books in all of D&D 5e. Compare it to literally any other setting book in 5e or the Forgotten Realms books of the past and it's easy to see how bad it is.
Storm King's Thunder is a better Sword Coast Gazetteer book than the SCAG is, and it's an adventure book.
Letting the SCAG slowly fade into the void is for the better. It's hard to find a worse book in 5e (maybe the Tyranny of Dragons books).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Which two books did they allow to sink quietly into the void?
I was referring to SCAG and EE. Most of the content from both of them has been reprinted elsewhere, and the latter of which isn't even viewable on DDB (the content can be found in listings, but the compendium itself is inaccessible). They technically aren't "legacy" yet, but i don't expect them to stay off the chopping block for long.
Which is sad, because SCAG in particular is a great source of lore and maps.
Hmm. I bought Princes of the Apocalypse in Nov 2020 and I didn’t get the Elemental Evil Companion AFAIK.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
All of this is not really related to Dark Sun save tangentially at best. It is related to "discussions" that have never gone well on these forums. I've explained as much as I'm going to. Sorry for the diversion. Carry on with the wanting of Dark Sun.
Please do not contact or message me.
I have to be honest here, I love alignment and have and will always defend it for PC's and NPC's. But I actually agree with Yurei and Ophidomancer (there are first times for everything!) that racial alignments are extremely problematic, and I don't think that's even up for debate.
No one in real life tends to be evil (or good) because they are X race, so no one in D&D should tend towards evil for this reason either.
I am not going to debate Dark Sun because I have never played in it, however, I think there is an important distinction between presenting horrible things, and saying that those things are good. By showing a dysfunctional world, and the things people do in it, it proves in itself that the things they do are dysfunctional ways of living that should not be followed, and that they only make the overall world worse.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.That has always been the case (that good examples of those races have always existed outside of player characters). I hate to point at the obvious example, but Drizzt is a drow separate from Lolth's influence. For the drow specifically, there is good god for them, her name is Eilistraee (look her up, shes very cool). None of these races have ever been unavoidably evil outside of player characters, just enough of them typically are in the forgotten realms to put the stigma over them.
As someone who has always found the topic of human nature quite interesting, it is actually quite definable. This is neither the place nor time to delve into that topic at length, but after sifting through a lot of the miss-information on the topic, there are some very interesting studies on it.
While i agree that making the distinction is important if making races setting agnostic, doing so at the cost of established lore is not something i agree with.
WotC have been shouting near and far that 2024 is the year of 5.5e, when the game is supposedly to be overhauled and the 3 core books reworked to suit their new style of balance... Yet here we are, from Tasha's onwards they have been enacting their new style of balance. If they really wanted to do this right, they would have skipped the wait and released 5.5e asap with all the overhauls theyre making now, and made them setting agnostic while they were at it. Theyve already discontinued 2 books officially and let 2 more sink quietly into the void, the fact that they continue to butcher 5e instead of just ripping off the bandaid will never not sit right with me.
I have not gone to fact check this, but i'm pretty sure that in forgotten realms the deity you revere has always determined what afterlife awaits you, followed by your alignment should there be no deity to claim your soul. Therefore, i would assert that they would only wind up in Acheron if they lived there lives indoctrinated into the religion of a typical tribe of their race.
Except for lolth specifically, i think she found a way to lay claim to any drow who didn't revere another god (which is where Eilistraee played a big part). Again, fact checking required.
Which two books did they allow to sink quietly into the void?
It's the indoctrination I'm pointing to more than anything else. From what I recall in the lore told in Volo's Guide, many goblinoids are forced into joining these large hosts that wage war under Maglubiyet's guidance, and the folks in these hosts pretty much resign themselves to being sent to Acheron after death. Orc tribes indoctrinate their members into revering Gruumsh or one of his servant orc deities, so many of them would end up in Acheron as well.
In any case, Volo's Guide is the 5e source for all that goblinoid and orc lore, in case you still want to fact check.
In the interest of getting back on-topic, I have never played Dark Sun, so I have no particular attachment to the setting. And I do personally have skepticism about whether or not WoTC can do the setting in a way that will please a lot of people, but some group would get pissed off regardless, whether it be the folks who want to play up the more dystopian and nightmarish aspects of the world, or the folks who don't want those aspects to be emphasized too much, or the folks who want psionics to be more front and center and will be disappointed by how it's handled here. So I say all that to say maybe it's better that Athas just gets a nod occasionally rather than an actual sourcebook in 5e.
Though the depiction may be of fantasy races, it draws back to real life racism, and is based off & encourages real life racist stereotypes.
It may be in a book, but it is still incredibly problematic.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Because this is a game where people often put some aspect of themselves into their characters, and a game in which it's often the case that the world you play in requires some level of immersion to make the most of it. Also fiction, no matter the medium or genre, is a reflection of something in the real world, and we have used fiction and games to contextualize real-world elements throughout human history. And WoTC recognized that having certain elements in the game can (and probably does) put people of certain demographics away from the game, so to maximize profits, they've been taking steps to make the game feel more inclusive to these groups. I don't know what more I can say about that.
Let me clarify my opinion, Dark Sun is different because it does not actively Encourage these stereotypes.
As Yurei said, there is a vast difference between showing evil acts, and saying those evil acts are good or justified.
By presenting terrible crimes along with a terrible, dysfunctional, world, Dark Sun and other doomsday planes show that these crimes just make the world a lot worse overall.
PS- I think misunderstood your post, I thought you were saying that you can make generalizations about D&D races just because they're not real, my apologies for the misunderstanding. Also, I was not saying trying to say that Dark Sun should not be in books.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I don't know how you took me saying that inclusion is part of why WoTC has been doing this stuff to what you said there, but I don't want to get into a quarrel over this, so I'll just leave it at this.
I personally don't have an issue with WoTC bringing Dark Sun into the game, and I don't even have a problem with it having slavery and such, since those are part of the setting. But I can see why WoTC might want to avoid it.
I don't think anyone (in this thread, at least) is saying that darker themes make for real world problems.
OK, here's a distillation of the issue: statements like "I don't see a problem, so there must not be a problem" are kinda the definition of privilege, and how privilege enables harm.
I think the changes WOTC is making to D&D in general are awesome. At the same time, I would love to see Dark Sun come back in whatever form the designers want. It was a cool setting and as long as people don’t use it as a justification for racism and the other unpleasant aspects of Athas, I think it would make a great addition to the 5e multiverse.
Like I mentioned before, when I ran Dark Sun back in college, my players were fighting against slavery from day one, so I never had to deal with any of the more unpleasant aspects of gaming on Athas.
Agreed. Whatever people think the designers are going to remove from DS never seemed crucial to my enjoyment of the setting.
I just had a conspiracy theory level idea.
Maybe the first map, with Athas space on it, actually was the real map, and they’re going to announce Dark Sun at the big thing on the 18, the same spelljammer comes out. So this second, doom space map was actually just to throw people off. And then the real map will have Athas Space and will be released into the wild the same day they announce Dark Sun.
Or, to go even further out. It’s a cross-promotion with Marvel, to announce Planet Hulk the same day She Hulk comes out.
I'm sorry, but this isn't true. The book has already had complete flip-throughs online, and the map still reads "Doomspace". It seems that they were originally planning on Athas appearing in the book, but decided against it and replaced it with a new solar system that shared common elements with Athas.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I was referring to SCAG and EE. Most of the content from both of them has been reprinted elsewhere, and the latter of which isn't even viewable on DDB (the content can be found in listings, but the compendium itself is inaccessible). They technically aren't "legacy" yet, but i don't expect them to stay off the chopping block for long.
Which is sad, because SCAG in particular is a great source of lore and maps.
Are you kidding? The SCAG is one of the worst books in all of D&D 5e. Compare it to literally any other setting book in 5e or the Forgotten Realms books of the past and it's easy to see how bad it is.
Storm King's Thunder is a better Sword Coast Gazetteer book than the SCAG is, and it's an adventure book.
Letting the SCAG slowly fade into the void is for the better. It's hard to find a worse book in 5e (maybe the Tyranny of Dragons books).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Hmm. I bought Princes of the Apocalypse in Nov 2020 and I didn’t get the Elemental Evil Companion AFAIK.