D&D: WotC’s New Lore Changes Raise Questions Among Players

Quote from Portential >> 

I have no desire to buy content made up by people who are going to humanize and racialize each and every monster in the world.

 There's about 2000 monsters described in 5E books, even if you take out all the unique ones and the non-monstrous ones. In contrast there are only about 50 playable races, with more than half having been a playable race from the start, rather than a non-playable monster race that got moved to the PC pool. These people you speak of have a long way to go.

Quote from Orthusaku >>

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Man.  Isn't it astonishing how evil is nothing more than a hereditary switch that's flipped ON or OFF at birth?  All the people arguing against any changes to improve flexibility in this thread are so right - you can't possibly have a campaign villain who'se held to be evil because of its actions and the evils it commits on the region!  It has to be evil because it was born that way, even if it's never done anything but lurk in the Underdark its whole life eating the brains of people down there your Heroic Adventuring party's never heard of! 

Why, let's ignore the human robber baron preying on a defenseless populace and crippling trade throughout our region - that guy's human, he can't possibly be evil!  Who cares about the corrupt duke feeding that robber baron information and supplies in exchange for a cut and the use of his smuggler's lines to undercut the king and sidestep trade levies and tarriffs - he's human, how could be possibly be a Campaign Villain?!  Why bother with the shadowy cabal of ancient necromancers who're using the duke as a patsy to destablize the region and try to tip it into civil war so they can reap bodies by the thousands and act unimpeded by armies too busy slaughtering each other to chase them down and stasmp their dark magics out?  Those necromancers are human - we done told you already, humans can't possibly be evil!  They weren't born that way, and that means no action they could ever undertake as part of setting up a thrilling campaign storyline would ever make them evil!

Let's instead launch an invasive war of conquest into the Underdark to get at those mind flayer guys who've shown no sign whatsoever of any intent to cause our nation trouble and stir up that whole hornet's nest, because all those guys down there are evil and must be expunged!  That's the D&D way!

 

So eating brains of people isn't wrong? Good to know that  Hannibal lecter isnt evil to you

Why do you seem against expanding the lore to also include non-clutist Drow as it would fix things without changing the clutist Drow. You said they would be splinters but that wasn't in the post you replied to just that lore can be expanded. You made the comment about splinters. You seem to take the worst possible way to expand things instead of trying to find ways to make it work. 

It seems you don't want the old lore to stay and want it gone instead of expanding the lore further even to the point of hyperbole and strawmans

 

 I still haven't found anything removing the old lore. What has been removed?

All that's been changed is some race's lore has been changed from "ARE evil" to "CAN be evil" and removal of "suggested" alignments to make room for more diverse characters.

Quote from pangurjan >>

Quote from Orthusaku >> 

The issue I have is they didn't move the content to setting books, they just removed it. That is my major complaint of setting books is they give the backdrop and some details but leave a lot of work for the DM. Like I wouldn't be upset if things were at least laid out like these are the default things about the races, places, cultures but feel free to change as you see fit.

Can I put this in perspective a bit? First, the actual content changed or removed is minimal. In this day and age you can pull up the collected info on any setting in a browser window in a matter of seconds. I too would like more content in an actual book in my own two hands, but this (re-)moved content amounts to a drop in the proverbial bucket - it's wouldn't solve anything decribed as "a lot". If that's your main concern, just take it to the interwebs and grab whatever you want from wikis or fan pages or even from someone else's cool homebrew. Second, if WotC were to move this removed content to the relevant setting books, this would affect just one of them: the Realms book. Which we have exactly one of so far and, to loop back to my first comment, that one doesn't even cover one percent of the info on the FR that's been released over a handful of editions. I can't see how this move instead of remove alternative would in any way help you out with your complaint.   

 My issue with the interwebs answer is it is either promoting copy right infringement(breaking the law) or using homebrew

Quote from Orthusaku >>

So eating brains of people isn't wrong? Good to know that  Hannibal lecter isnt evil to you

Why do you seem against expanding the lore to also include non-clutist Drow as it would fix things without changing the clutist Drow. You said they would be splinters but that wasn't in the post you replied to just that lore can be expanded. You made the comment about splinters. You seem to take the worst possible way to expand things instead of trying to find ways to make it work. 

It seems you don't want the old lore to stay and want it gone instead of expanding the lore further even to the point of hyperbole and strawmans

 
Since we're editing posts after the fact...

Let me ask you this - are you really trying to expand "The Lore"?  Because to me, and to many, many other people, the constant backlash, sniping, snarling, and resistance to literally ANYTHING that smacks of "maybe the world isn't quite as boringly, unrealistically black-and-white as it used to be" is not at all an 'expansion' of the lore so much as it is you trying to foist people off into some other, non-D&D game so you can keep your world where heroic pale-skinned humans go out and genocide the darkies  People want the lore "expanded" so they can then ignore all the "expanded" lore and go right back to closing the door in the faces of the new people and complaining about all that expanded lore.

I am heartily sick of old lore being used as a club to drive new people away from the entire tabletop gaming hobby, yes.  Somebody comes in and says "hey, I read this really cool book when I was younger about a dark elf guy fighting against his people...can I do something like that?", only for all the old-timers to beat him with sticks until he signs a waiver from his hospital bed swearing to never play D&D again because they're sick of drow not being evil...and all the old-timers are perfectly fine with that.  

I would be delighted to see a proper Forgotten Realms sourcebook.  A big, meaty, burly book with all the information a new DM needs to run a game for new players in a streamlined version of the classic setting.  I wouldn't run that game, but I think it's a very important product that Wizards is lagging way behind in making.  The SCAG is a tire fire and everybody knows it, it's not remotely sufficient.  But frankly, Wizards could produce fifty sourcebooks of the size and quality of Explorer's Guide to Wildemount and still not get through five percent of explaining fifty years of up-its-own-butt, hyper-convoluted, constantly self-contradicting and eternally rebotted Forgotten Realms lore.  Any Forgotten Realms sourcebook would only piss off all the decades-old diehards, because it'd be to the Realms what Rising from the Last War was to Eberron - a brief overview of the most important points of the lore for modern players who just want to play a game of D&D.  And y'all will never accept that.

So why bother?

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Quote from Orthusaku >>

So eating brains of people isn't wrong? Good to know that  Hannibal lecter isnt evil to you

Why do you seem against expanding the lore to also include non-clutist Drow as it would fix things without changing the clutist Drow. You said they would be splinters but that wasn't in the post you replied to just that lore can be expanded. You made the comment about splinters. You seem to take the worst possible way to expand things instead of trying to find ways to make it work. 

It seems you don't want the old lore to stay and want it gone instead of expanding the lore further even to the point of hyperbole and strawmans

 
Since we're editing posts after the fact...

Let me ask you this - are you really trying to expand "The Lore"?  Because to me, and to many, many other people, the constant backlash, sniping, snarling, and resistance to literally ANYTHING that smacks of "maybe the world isn't quite as boringly, unrealistically black-and-white as it used to be" is not at all an 'expansion' of the lore so much as it is you trying to foist people off into some other, non-D&D game so you can keep your world where heroic pale-skinned humans go out and genocide the darkies  People want the lore "expanded" so they can then ignore all the "expanded" lore and go right back to closing the door in the faces of the new people and complaining about all that expanded lore.

I am heartily sick of old lore being used as a club to drive new people away from the entire tabletop gaming hobby, yes.  Somebody comes in and says "hey, I read this really cool book when I was younger about a dark elf guy fighting against his people...can I do something like that?", only for all the old-timers to beat him with sticks until he signs a waiver from his hospital bed swearing to never play D&D again because they're sick of drow not being evil...and all the old-timers are perfectly fine with that.  

I would be delighted to see a proper Forgotten Realms sourcebook.  A big, meaty, burly book with all the information a new DM needs to run a game for new players in a streamlined version of the classic setting.  I wouldn't run that game, but I think it's a very important product that Wizards is lagging way behind in making.  The SCAG is a tire fire and everybody knows it, it's not remotely sufficient.  But frankly, Wizards could produce fifty sourcebooks of the size and quality of Explorer's Guide to Wildemount and still not get through five percent of explaining fifty years of up-its-own-butt, hyper-convoluted, constantly self-contradicting and eternally rebotted Forgotten Realms lore.  Any Forgotten Realms sourcebook would only piss off all the decades-old diehards, because it'd be to the Realms what Rising from the Last War was to Eberron - a brief overview of the most important points of the lore for modern players who just want to play a game of D&D.  And y'all will never accept that.

So why bother?

I'm not an old time player, hell I just bought my first book in 2018, but seeing the lack of official resources to work with on where to start on my own world and lack of anything to actually run a game in the settings. Cause I always start planning out a campaign and get bogged down my logical questions I have about who, what, where, when, how

I don't like it that there are people who bludgeon others for wanting to try out a character, or story, or what have you. But I also don't think removing typically evil or typically good, etc will change that.

Edit: I'm gonna admit I'm not very creative at times and I will admit that those things being listed helps me with a starting point. Like mind flyers are evil, that gives me an idea of how I'm gonna integrate them into the story. It is never we are going to go here and kill them cause they are evil, but more did a thing and there is retaliation for the thing. But always give me an idea of how they are. They are intelligent but also share a hivemind. I've already created "good" Drow more based on the dunmer from elder scrolls but I didn't get rid of the classic Drow as an optional location to adventure in

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand point missed, twice over.

Everyone clutching their pearls and wringing their hands saying "How will I make evil villains for my campaigns if the books don't explicitly tell me something is evil?!"  

The answer is very simple - actions make evil, not heritage.  The lion-in-the-wild thing is an idiotic example - no the lion's not bloody 'evil', but if it's eating farmers on the frontiers you put it down anyways to protect your own.  If mind flayers are eating brains in your backyard and preparing to invade your realm, you go deal with that because even though the mind flayers don't consider themselves evil at all, you ain't gonna be having that brain buffet nonsense in your hometown because you like your brains where they are, thanks. 

You don't need a book telling you "Mind flayers are evil" to make a campaign about mind flayers threatening your society.  You don't need a book telling you "all drow are always terrible" to run a campaign where Menzoberranzen has uncovered ancient magical superweapons and is about to make that your problem.  Hell, it'd make that game more interesting to have a sporadic influx of refugees from Menzoberranzen be what alerts the players to the problem in the first place - cast-offs and living detritus that escaped their fate as fuel for the weapon, begging sanctuary.  Good way to lead into the campaign - have the players help resolve this sudden, bizarre influx of ragged, malnourished 'slaver elves' and figure out what the hell that's all about as a way for them to discover "wait, the priestesses of Lolth have uncovered what?!  HOLY SHIT, we need to do something about that!"  Hell, maybe one of the party's PCs is even one of those escapees.  They used their talents to bring themselves and a heartbreakingly small handful of their friends and family out, and they're the only one both brave and powerful enough to risk going back and setting this to rights.  

I'd totally be down to play that game, probably as the delf escapee.  The whole "Oops, Menzoberranzen is doing the slavery thing again, y'all better go genocide you some dark people and bring back their loot"?  Significantly less so, thanks.

 It seems more like you, and people like you, don't want anyone to commit the thoughtcrime or imagine anyone as being inherently evil ever, and that this type of idea must be EXPUNGED from the game. It's black and white with you, there is no nuance.

D&D is not an analog for the real world. Never has been, and never should be. Orcs are not humans. It doesn't matter how intelligent they are, you are trying to anthropomorphize them.

We only have the intelligent species of earth to compare and understand, but in complete honest truth, we actually live in a real universe where life may (and probably does) exist on other planets. It is thus entirely possible that there could exist on another planet a species that is almost always larger than humans, or stronger than humans, or more intelligent than humans, much dumber that humans. There could even be a species so alien to how we are made that their brains are literally wired to commit acts we humans would judge as evil. That is a real potential thing.

The point we are trying to make to you is that while you might not like the moral ickyness of an entire species (except for outliers) being a particular way, it seems to be only because you equate the fantasy setting of D&D as analogous to the real world, and since you are afraid of such generalizations being made about humans in the real world, you are afraid of what people might think if they pretend those things in a pretend world. It's almost like you seem to be saying "There should be no X in D&D because we don't want X in real life, and if we allow it in D&D, then people will try to make it the same way in real life."

It has been the case for a long time in D&D that members of an evil race can be not evil. A very... long... time. NO ONE is saying that all drow should be slaughtered on site. No one.

Evil is not a real tangible thing in the real world, only subjective morality. Evil is a real thing in D&D. A real, actual, tangible thing.

Evil is a "tangible, real thing" in the Forgotten Realms.

It's no such thing in Eberron.

It's not really any such thing in Wildemount.

It's not any such thinbg in Theros or Ravnica or Strixhaven, where Color Warz dominates over Battles of Good and Evil.

Why should the core books describe things as they work in the Forgotten Realms, when that's the only realm of the ever-increasing number of D&D settings where things work that way?

That's the real question.  Not all this "you're a terrible person for not liking A.C.E.F. species in D&D" buggery.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Why should the core books describe things as they work in the Forgotten Realms, when that's the only realm of the ever-increasing number of D&D settings where things work that way?

Cause alignment is a mechanic of the system? I know it is rude to answer a question with another question and I hope it didn't come off as rude.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Evil is a "tangible, real thing" in the Forgotten Realms.

It's no such thing in Eberron.

It's not really any such thing in Wildemount.

It's not any such thinbg in Theros or Ravnica or Strixhaven, where Color Warz dominates over Battles of Good and Evil.

Why should the core books describe things as they work in the Forgotten Realms, when that's the only realm of the ever-increasing number of D&D settings where things work that way?

That's the real question.  Not all this "you're a terrible person for not liking A.C.E.F. species in D&D" buggery.

 From EGtW page 27, list of EVIL gods. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/egtw/story-of-wildemount#BetrayerGods Every single one of them is Capital-E Evil. Their alignments are specified in the chart.

Eberron has the Dark Six, and while the chart there does not specify alignment, include a god of Death & Greed, and a god of Betrayal & Bloodshed.

These campaign worlds also use the same alignment system from the PHB, which means that Evil is a real, tangible thing in those campaign worlds.

You are just factually wrong.

Quote from Orthusaku >> 

My issue with the interwebs answer is it is either promoting copy right infringement(breaking the law) or using homebrew

It isn't. Pretty much if it's not creating illegal digital copies or another outright copy/paste type deal, it doesn't infringe on copyright protection. Plenty of perfectly legitimate wikis out there. 

Quote from Orthusaku >>

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Why should the core books describe things as they work in the Forgotten Realms, when that's the only realm of the ever-increasing number of D&D settings where things work that way?

 

Cause alignment is a mechanic of the system? I know it is rude to answer a question with another question and I hope it didn't come off as rude.

 Outside of one or two magic items, alignment has practically no mechanical influence on gameplay. There are no class features or spells which are dependent on the player or target having a particular alignment. 

To call the Alignment chart a mechanic of the system is generous, imo. Removing it from a stat block will have a negligible effect on gameplay. The DM will just decide what they want that instance of the creature to be based on how it fits into their narrative. What the exact alignment is probably wont ever be revealed to the player. 

Quote from Orthusaku >> 

Cause alignment is a mechanic of the system?

Magic is a mechanic of the system, but Chronurgy is strictly speaking non-existent outside Exandria. System fundamentals don't have to be identical in how they show up in various settings. Those are distinct instances.

Quote from mjsoctober >> 

From EGtW page 27, list of EVIL gods. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/egtw/story-of-wildemount#BetrayerGods Every single one of them is Capital-E Evil. Their alignments are specified in the chart.

Eberron has the Dark Six, and while the chart there does not specify alignment, include a god of Death & Greed, and a god of Betrayal & Bloodshed.

These campaign worlds also use the same alignment system from the PHB, which means that Evil is a real, tangible thing in those campaign worlds.

You are just factually wrong.

The alignment system existing doesn't make Evil a tangible thing. Just because characters get placed on a Good - Evil axis doesn't mean there's some absolute cosmic force Evil present in the setting as well. Stepping up from mortals' alignments to gods' alignments doesn't change that either. An evil god isn't the same as a cosmic Evil.

https://the-dragons-neck.fandom.com/wiki/Good_&_Evil_in_Faerun_(Alignments) describes how Good and Evil are intrinsic forces in the Realms. That's simply not the case in Exandria or Eberron.

Someone asked a while back if my Human cities were all unicorns and rainbows (or similar)  Sadly, to maybe ruin your image, the most evil area in the entire realm I created is run by Humans.  To me (and the interwebz proves me right daily) Humans are THE most prone to Evil of ALL the races.  They are more manipulative and judgmental than any other race (maybe the Lolthian Drow are close) and commit more dark, selfish acts against each other and all others, than any other race (or species, if you prefer)

So to summarize he worlds I build, MOST Orcs, Goblins, Gnolls and the like (so called "Evil" races/species) are indeed Evil.  There are some regions where this does not hold true and the communities and such there are quite different (Zog the butcher is an Orc who haggles good deals to folks of all races, while Glob is an Orc as well, but from the farther reach of the continent and he and his people prefer to Butcher anyone NOT an Orc)  MOST of these you encounter will be Evil and should be treated with caution, but you will come across those who are civilized and rational as well.  So far as Humans go, you can NEVER assume what their alignment is, due to their inherent duplicity and radically different beliefs, even within the same society,  At least in my worlds the society of the "other" races is more indicative of the residents behavior.  All told, my biggest, most Evil denizens will tend to be Human, 

The changes posted thus far are not what I had been presented in other discussions, where the inherent Evil of different sects had been erased.  Adding the truth that there are regions and areas where the "norm" (evil Orcs or Drow) doesn't apply, shouldn't be a big issue.  My opposition is/was the removal of lore that stated creatures from X region are generally of Evil alignment.

So... this thread has wandered a bit.

Quote from Falwith >>

 

The changes posted thus far are not what I had been presented in other discussions, where the inherent Evil of different sects had been erased.  Adding the truth that there are regions and areas where the "norm" (evil Orcs or Drow) doesn't apply, shouldn't be a big issue.  My opposition is/was the removal of lore that stated creatures from X region are generally of Evil alignment.

This has been the problem with this thread from the very start.  The lore has neither been changed or removed.  Someone somewhere said it, and rather than read the errata for themselves, people jump on the internet with their torches and pitchforks looking to fight.

Removing the Alignment block from the Racial Traits section doesn't change the lore for the Forgotten Realms at all.  

Quote from pangurjan >>

The alignment system existing doesn't make Evil a tangible thing. Just because characters get placed on a Good - Evil axis doesn't mean there's some absolute cosmic force Evil present in the setting as well. Stepping up from mortals' alignments to gods' alignments doesn't change that either. An evil god isn't the same as a cosmic Evil.

https://the-dragons-neck.fandom.com/wiki/Good_&_Evil_in_Faerun_(Alignments) describes how Good and Evil are intrinsic forces in the Realms. That's simply not the case in Exandria or Eberron.

 From the web site you referenced: "Below is clarification on how the Admins and Developers of TDN perceive alignment for Forgotten Realms." This is not an official position from WotC on FR.

Please show me where either Eberron or Wildemount state that Evil is not a real thing in those places?

It remains my position that in all of those campaign worlds the following can be argued to be true:

1. Evil and Good are real, tangible things, especially where the divine is concerned.
2. Gods that can create populations of sentient creatures exist.
3. Some of those gods are Evil.
4. Some of those Evil gods can, and do, create entire populations of sentient creatures who have been hardwired by that god to be actual Evil.
5. Some of those hard-coded evil sentient creatures are able to overcome or escape from that evil.
6. Unless a campaign setting states that Evil is not a real thing in the campaign (ie. Morality is subjective) then it can be assumed that Real Evil (TM) exists.
7. No one in this thread has (afaik to this point) suggested that ALL Evil sentient fantasy creatures should be killed on sight.

Quote from Kaboom979 >>

Quote from Orthusaku >>

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Why should the core books describe things as they work in the Forgotten Realms, when that's the only realm of the ever-increasing number of D&D settings where things work that way?

 

Cause alignment is a mechanic of the system? I know it is rude to answer a question with another question and I hope it didn't come off as rude.

 Outside of one or two magic items, alignment has practically no mechanical influence on gameplay. There are no class features or spells which are dependent on the player or target having a particular alignment. 

To call the Alignment chart a mechanic of the system is generous, imo. Removing it from a stat block will have a negligible effect on gameplay. The DM will just decide what they want that instance of the creature to be based on how it fits into their narrative. What the exact alignment is probably wont ever be revealed to the player. 

 From pg 3 of the new errata for the PHB:

"Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. Both types of creatures are associated with metaphysical planes of existence—specifically the Outer Planes—that embody certain alignments. For example, most devils hail from the Nine Hells, a plane of lawful evil. 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 these devils are literal Evil, and can't be Devils without being evil, means that the alignments are more than a suggestion, or that removing them has no mechanical effect. There are a creatures whose very nature is tangible evil.

Quote from pangurjan >>

Quote from Orthusaku >> 

My issue with the interwebs answer is it is either promoting copy right infringement(breaking the law) or using homebrew

It isn't. Pretty much if it's not creating illegal digital copies or another outright copy/paste type deal, it doesn't infringe on copyright protection. Plenty of perfectly legitimate wikis out there. 

So there are legitmate wikis are that one to one copies of the lore with no rewording, no homebrew, and no parapharsing and exactly the content that was released without any homebrew modifications?

Links to these, "screengrabs of the old Volo's lore chunks", please.