it opens them up to losing their license from Wizards.
You assume a great deal. I did not suggest they should just "do it", why do you presume that?
DDB can say to WotC "Hey, some of our customers would like to see previous versions of the book. Can we have a PREVIOUS VERSION button for these pages (see attached list). And then WotC could decide to agree. And there is thus no legal issue. Your presumptions are weird.
As for the ability to do it, DDB is a database. It is certainly achievable to have a button that loads a different version of the data.
"your game idea/character concept is fundamentally evil".
You keep saying this, but as I pointed out in a previous post, it has been the case for a very long time that players can play orcs, or drow (etc) who are not evil. Who managed to break away fro the rest of the species. NO ONE is telling players that their game idea/character concept is fundamentally evil. The rules already let you play a Good Drow. But in game gods exist who are evil and can make evil species of sentient creatures, and they have LITERALLY NO RELATION to the real world!
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
One of the excerpts in your linked article says that Gnolls are inherently evil, but Orcs aren't - why make the distinction? Previously all Orcs were inherently evil too.
And yet, a lot of people feel very uncomfortable with the fact that an entire sapient species - a whole race of people - can be written off as guilt-free murder fodder because their god is evil and that god made their tools evil. Enough people feel uncomfortable enough about that idea that Wizards is backing off on it in newer material and adopting a more neutral stance. DMs who want certain species to be Always Chaotic Evil Forever with absolutely no variation, an endless army of utterly identical monster stat blocks their players can heroically genocide, can certainly do so. But DMs who wish for their species to be more nuanced and for there to be room for individuality amongst an entire species of sapient peoples can now also do so without having to fight the books.
Neutral material that can be tinted one way or another is a stronger overall idea than material which is already tinted the way some people like and has to be cleaned off before anyone else can use it, ne?
a whole race of people - can be written off as guilt-free murder fodder because their god is evil and that god made their tools evil.
You know D&D is not just about roleplaying but also combat, which includes killing people/things and taking their stuff? The whole point of captial-G GOOD and capital-E EVIL in D&D (and other games) is to allow people a guilt-free way to enjoy something that we can't (and SHOULDN'T) do in real life!? I don't want to have to make every combat a passionate struggle with morality.
YOU asked me for a solution. I provided a solution that literally gives everyone what they want. Your only objection was the concern it would be illegal (something I never suggested) and and after I clarified, you seemed to ignore my proposal. I get the feeling what you want is for everyone to HAVE to play with the One True Ordained Version of the Holy Book of D&D (TM)" otherwise why would you be opposed to my solution which lets everyone have what they want?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
The "everybody picks their own errata" thing is messy and not really viable. I would consider it to be an interesting experiment to see how many people actually bother utilizing the feature, but there's also something to be said for everyone having access to the same book. A DM running a game for a new set of players could have plenty of trouble if they never realize that each of their players is using different printings/versions of the books and that's why there's so much rules conflict in their games. "MY copy of Volo's Guide to Monsters says your species is evil ands that you have a -2 to Intelligence, so I'm gonna stab you in your sleep, steal all your stuff, and then convince all your dumb gullible tribal relatives that you had it coming" would be deeply, deeply confusing to someone playing an orc from the most modern printing of Volo's ne?
As Pangurjan said, a lot of people look at D&D and they see the door is closed. They don't know whether or not it's locked, but it's certainly closed, and finding out whether or not it's locked can hurt. People going on huge diatribes about how all these new changes are terrible for the game is a clear and unmistakeable sign of the door being locked. When someone says "D&D isn't the real world and any parallels you draw are YOUR problem, not mine", you're telling someone that any pain they've suffered in the past is invalid. That the door is still closed, and they can abandon their baggage to accomodate your preferences or they can leave.
As just one example, you yourself Mr October told me that the story I related of the player who felt negated and locked out because of his mixed ancestry and D&D's historically very poor portrayal of half-orcs was bullshit. To quote:
... If someone who has mixed ancestry in the real world wants positive representation in D&D for mixed-ancestry, Half-orcs are not the only option. Nevermind half-elves, make any mixed-race humanoid you want. Make half-dwarves, half-halflings (quarterlings?), half-whatevers. But please don't suggest that because half-orcs come from a fantasy race that is treated as villains means that there is NO positive representation of mixed-ancestry. ...
Note: your reaction was not "oh wow, that really sucks. I'm sorry that happened to that guy. I wish it hadn't, I hope he feels better about the newer rules". It was "That's a bullshit excuse, half-orcs aren't the only option, he shoulda just made something else." Your response was scorn, dismissal, and negation - and yet you claim there is no one anywhere in this hobby that would slam the door in someone's face over these modifications to Wizards' books?
And that is why people push for these changes, October.
Because whenever anyone expresses any support for these ideals, they get bitten and snapped at and constantly told the changes are unnecessary and unwelcome because 'nobody ever makes people feel unwelcome to play D&D anyways!' When examples are brought up that yes - yes, people DO make others feel unwelcome - we get things like that particular comment.
Why do people have to justify their pain to you, October? What is your criteria, what bar does someone have to pass, before they're allowed to feel welcome to try and play a game of D&D?
Myself I like the changes that is happening, it means when the PC's come across a group of creatures it comes down to do we just walk up to them and say hello or do we wait and see if they are evil/good. It means any encounter outside of a known settlement might be a bad encounter. They may be nice to meet or they may not be nice, their race isn't the deciding factor in whether they are good or evil. It adds something to the game I mean that encampment of gnomes might be full of homicidal maniacs or not.
The whole point of captial-G GOOD and capital-E EVIL in D&D (and other games) is to allow people a guilt-free way to enjoy something that we can't (and SHOULDN'T) do in real life!? I don't want to have to make every combat a passionate struggle with morality.
Killing is likely entirely guilt-free when those you killed had it coming, and adventures have never had problems providing ample justification. I can't recall a single adventure, and I've played plenty, where the entire justification provided for turning opponents into the enemy was "they're all EVIL" and nothing but that. Whoever was evil actually did evil and plotted evil and promoted evil. They perpetrated evil on others, that's why they were opposed by the heroes, and that's why the heroes didn't feel guilty. There is no need for a passionate struggle with morality when you are clearly fighting for Good.
Now, if you want a "we see orcs, we canonically know (even if it's metagame knowledge) all orcs are evil, therefor we can kill these orcs simply for being orcs and it's all good" type of campaign I'm not stopping you, but there's no need for that whatsoever if the actual goal is to have a nice, simple, straightforward white hats vs black hats kind of adventure. The DM just has to let the black hats do what black hats do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
One of the excerpts in your linked article says that Gnolls are inherently evil, but Orcs aren't - why make the distinction? Previously all Orcs were inherently evil too.
I think the obvious answer is that WotC just isn't ready to change that yet, which I understand due to some of the defining nature of Gnolls. There are exceptions to the "Gnolls are evil" rule, but they do have an inherent bloodlust that even "peaceful" Gnoll tribes have to actively resist, at least in Faerun lore. The main driver for this is that Yeenoghu has a thing for the slaughter of intelligent beings and slavery. It's not about revenge, he just likes people to suffer.
In contrast, Gruumsh was literally cheated out of lands for his people to settle on, which is why he wants revenge. What I'm saying is that there is at least justification for Orcs being at odds with the other primary races, and thus evil is more about perspective for them.
Edit: I should also say that in Faerun and many other settings, there are subsets of Orcs and Gnolls that have rejected the whims of their gods and old racial rivalries.
In what universe does it make sense to change an entire game system for EVERYONE for a TINY minority of people who are upset by words. Every time they change the game to accommodate this small group of people, the orcs in my games get stupider and stupider.
The game is not being changed to accommodate a small group. Most people are indifferent on the matter and, while it is true that only some have clamoured for the changes, those who will stop doing business with WoTC are, in fact, the minority; otherwise WoTC is failing its shareholders miserably. I’m certain the powers that be at WoTC came to this conclusion themselves only after thorough market research. It is their business, their livelihood after all. You are among the disenfranchised minority now. It is understandable this upsets you but WoTC knows exactly what it’s doing: appealing to progressive, new, young customers who will buy their products for way more years to come than cranky old farts in the twilight of their lives. Sorry, not sorry.
Also, it's a change that had it been present from the beginning, would not have attracted any attention.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
'Grognard' is an admittedly derisive term for someone who clings to the game's past to the point of directing hostility towards new players and anyone who attempts to change the game from the version the grognard grew up playing and has formed attachments to. Note that 'grognard' doesn't mean 'old player' - it's perfectly possible to be a longtime D&D player without evincing any signs of grognardism. Grognards are, specifically, people who resist any changes to the game and furthermore do so in a mean-spirited, bad-actor way that puts them at odds with newer/younger/more adaptive players. Their own anger and frustration, their feeling that they're being judged and found wanting, drives them to hostility and confrontation out of a defensive reflex reaction to try and preserve "Their" game whilst driving out anyone not part of their specific clique/club/generation.
THis post, earlier in the thread, is very common and typical of the sort of posts you get from people who might be called 'grognards'. You'll get a lot of this sort of thing, as people decided that other people's emotions aren't worth considering and that we should all leave the game to those who 'deserve' to keep it and find something else, instead.
The woke mob strikes again. These people can't handle big scary words like "slave" or "colony" so they go around sterilizing everything they touch. Make your own game and be sure to include lots of safety pads and trigger warnings so people who can't handle playing a damned table top game for kids have a place they can feel safe and represented.
Are you saying the emotions of the "grogands" are not worth considering?
Not at all. Back when I was having this fight in every third thread, I tried to make it quite clear that everyone deserved their game. I understand, as I said in the post you quoted, that Old Guard players are pulling this grognard crap out of anger, frustration, and even fear. They believe the game they love is being eroded and destroyed, and most of them believe the changes are being made to placate people who won't stick with the game in the long term. They see themselves as the true, loyal adherents and don't understand why the company is choosing to forsake them. They're afraid of losing their place and, ironically...no longer being welcome at the table.
Games grow. They evolve. They change. Veneration for what has come before has to be balanced with innovation for what is to come, or what you have is a dead, stagnant product that will never reach a new audience. Wizards is caught between a rock and a hard place - they can't fail to try and grow their audience or their game will die, but every last little thing they do to try and grow their audience alienates Old Guard who are desperate to keep the game from changing in any way. It's difficult to thread that needle, and over-alienating the Old Guard results in problems just as much as slamming the door in the face of new players does. See: the whole Fourth Edition fiasco.
What I will say is that in general, only one side of the Grognard vs. FNG debate tends to display instant hostility and constant claims that the other side should "find a different game and leave forever." One side of that debate is deeply invested in gatekeeping and ensuring new players have to measure up to their own decades of experience and unrealistic standards before they're allowed a seat at the table. As I told one of the most vicious, brutal, and hostile-minded grognards back when this fight was everywhere, though...old-schol D&D isn't going anywhere. The OSR movement is going strong and enjoying tremendous third-party support. Grim Hollow, especially, is an excellent new entry in exactly the sort of grim, gritty, man-vs.-evil campaign settings many old guard players want to play in. I've got all three* Grim Hollow books and they're fantastic. Dungeon Classics is going strong as well, and a lot of that material can easily be backported into 5e. Most of those players also still have extensive collections of older-edition material they can refer to when fishing for lore for their own games and can easily ignore anything Wizards says about 5e.
What this often boils down to, or did back when a certain subset of users was screeching from the ramparts every day, is "new players won't know the same lore I know and love the same lore I love, and that is just not acceptable to me." Sadly for Old Guard and Grognard alike, it's going to have to be acceptable to them, because absolutely no one can catch up on fifty years of dense, impossible-to-research, byzantine, and often contradictory Faerun/Forgotten Realms lore. All the D&D wikis are choked into uselessness with people's terrible homebrew and are completely unusable as resources; the only way to research the history of the game and "love the same lore" is to spend many thousands of dollars scouring the Internet for out-of-print books from older editions. You simply cannot make a new 'Old Guard' player, and if the game is to survive in any form it has to do so on the backs of new players. Who will know, and like, different lore than the Old Guard folks.
I wish there could be other solutions. But I really don't think there are.
Would you prefer that Wizards do nothing and leave those who are currently unwelcome at the table out in the cold?
These changes aren't being made on a lark. The D&D brand is critically important to Wizards of the Coast, they wouldn't make these decisions lightly or out of a flash-in-the-pan fad to appease the Twiterati outrage jockeys. They're doing this because they have reason to do so. Assuming there's a reason for it...what would you suggest, instead?
My solution would be let people to use the version they want to use. It would be viable as well dm overrides any differences between books.
Regarding the balance between new and old. Honestly I would suggest wotc building a new setting or even using like 2 Text boxes on lore things like old lore and new lore until a new edition comes out and resets things to a new setting without the baggage, and wotc could ideally work to get their old not for sale content available via an online archive.
... until a new edition comes out and resets things to a new setting without the baggage
There's never not going to be baggage. New editions are not blank slates, not even mechanically but certainly not in terms of lore and setting background. This isn't really something WotC can please everyone with. Some players love the older settings they cut their first D&D teeth on and get upset if anything about them gets changed. Other players were put off by some aspects of those settings and remain upset if WotC tacitly confirms they don't think there's a problem by not changing those aspects. And ignoring those settings in favour of entirely new ones upsets everyone who wants that setting to be brought into the new edition, regardless of whether they mind some (largely cosmetic) changes meant to prevent giving offense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
... until a new edition comes out and resets things to a new setting without the baggage
There's never not going to be baggage. New editions are not blank slates, not even mechanically but certainly not in terms of lore and setting background. This isn't really something WotC can please everyone with. Some players love the older settings they cut their first D&D teeth on and get upset if anything about them gets changed. Other players were put off by some aspects of those settings and remain upset if WotC tacitly confirms they don't think there's a problem by not changing those aspects. And ignoring those settings in favour of entirely new ones upsets everyone who wants that setting to be brought into the new edition, regardless of whether they mind some (largely cosmetic) changes meant to prevent giving offense.
That means it is a no way to please anyone, you will offend someone either by basterizing a setting or not changing questionable things about settings. Then it would become a question of what % of potential buyers would you be alienating by either choice and even then, wotc could theoretically do both. Officially release a modified version for newer editions but give permission for third party updates of settings on official platforms via a selection process.
I see this more of an attempt by WotC to get themselves out of the hole they dug when Volo's introduced playable monster races. Suddenly players were able to play Goblins, Orcs and Lizardfolk that lore said were evil races. Volo's essentially said that for players these races were no longer necessarily evil and it was for the DM to decide how they were treated by society. This contradicted the lore that said for NPCs these races were inherantly evil.
When Volo's came out I felt you had to supress reality if someone in the group wanted to be (say) an Orc because no good aligned PCs would trust them to the point of going adventuring with them (ie. trusting them with your life).
One of the excerpts in your linked article says that Gnolls are inherently evil, but Orcs aren't - why make the distinction? Previously all Orcs were inherently evil too
This could explain the distinction, A PC can not be a gnoll (at least not without homebrew) so, like fiends it is OK to have them all evil
What might be a good (and, better, legally feasible) compromise should DDB care to do so is allowing older versions of errata'd books to be viewable as compendium-only, read-only documents. You still have access to the original text, but the tools are all aligned with the latest update and the older documents are explicitly called out as archived, no-longer-current documents and cannot be confused by any reasonable person as The Way Stuff Be. If you own the book you can read any version of it you like, but the website's services and the searchable database refers to the up-to-date text. Everyone works off the same books, but you can read the older text for all the lore bitsies the Old Guard is crowing about.
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.
What might be a good (and, better, legally feasible) compromise should DDB care to do so is allowing older versions of errata'd books to be viewable as compendium-only, read-only documents. You still have access to the original text, but the tools are all aligned with the latest update and the older documents are explicitly called out as archived, no-longer-current documents and cannot be confused by any reasonable person as The Way Stuff Be. If you own the book you can read any version of it you like, but the website's services and the searchable database refers to the up-to-date text. Everyone works off the same books, but you can read the older text for all the lore bitsies the Old Guard is crowing about.
Why wouldn't it be legally feasible to have a toggle for older options in the tools? Players will still make homebrew out of it and even DMs would ban the new changes which would make dnd beyond buggy for games using older text
Unless there is something I am missing that it would be illegal for ddb to allow the use of old mechanic.
Also don't DMs control the content and nothing stops them from using the "older version" the only thing this would do is limit the usefulness of any dev tool unless wotc will make it illegal to use old content in campaigns
You assume a great deal. I did not suggest they should just "do it", why do you presume that?
DDB can say to WotC "Hey, some of our customers would like to see previous versions of the book. Can we have a PREVIOUS VERSION button for these pages (see attached list). And then WotC could decide to agree. And there is thus no legal issue. Your presumptions are weird.
As for the ability to do it, DDB is a database. It is certainly achievable to have a button that loads a different version of the data.
You keep saying this, but as I pointed out in a previous post, it has been the case for a very long time that players can play orcs, or drow (etc) who are not evil. Who managed to break away fro the rest of the species. NO ONE is telling players that their game idea/character concept is fundamentally evil. The rules already let you play a Good Drow. But in game gods exist who are evil and can make evil species of sentient creatures, and they have LITERALLY NO RELATION to the real world!
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
One of the excerpts in your linked article says that Gnolls are inherently evil, but Orcs aren't - why make the distinction? Previously all Orcs were inherently evil too.
Many racial prejudices have no basis in reality. Doesn't stop them from being problematic.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So you and many, many, many others keep saying.
And yet, a lot of people feel very uncomfortable with the fact that an entire sapient species - a whole race of people - can be written off as guilt-free murder fodder because their god is evil and that god made their tools evil. Enough people feel uncomfortable enough about that idea that Wizards is backing off on it in newer material and adopting a more neutral stance. DMs who want certain species to be Always Chaotic Evil Forever with absolutely no variation, an endless army of utterly identical monster stat blocks their players can heroically genocide, can certainly do so. But DMs who wish for their species to be more nuanced and for there to be room for individuality amongst an entire species of sapient peoples can now also do so without having to fight the books.
Neutral material that can be tinted one way or another is a stronger overall idea than material which is already tinted the way some people like and has to be cleaned off before anyone else can use it, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
You know D&D is not just about roleplaying but also combat, which includes killing people/things and taking their stuff? The whole point of captial-G GOOD and capital-E EVIL in D&D (and other games) is to allow people a guilt-free way to enjoy something that we can't (and SHOULDN'T) do in real life!? I don't want to have to make every combat a passionate struggle with morality.
YOU asked me for a solution. I provided a solution that literally gives everyone what they want. Your only objection was the concern it would be illegal (something I never suggested) and and after I clarified, you seemed to ignore my proposal. I get the feeling what you want is for everyone to HAVE to play with the One True Ordained Version of the Holy Book of D&D (TM)" otherwise why would you be opposed to my solution which lets everyone have what they want?
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
The "everybody picks their own errata" thing is messy and not really viable. I would consider it to be an interesting experiment to see how many people actually bother utilizing the feature, but there's also something to be said for everyone having access to the same book. A DM running a game for a new set of players could have plenty of trouble if they never realize that each of their players is using different printings/versions of the books and that's why there's so much rules conflict in their games. "MY copy of Volo's Guide to Monsters says your species is evil ands that you have a -2 to Intelligence, so I'm gonna stab you in your sleep, steal all your stuff, and then convince all your dumb gullible tribal relatives that you had it coming" would be deeply, deeply confusing to someone playing an orc from the most modern printing of Volo's ne?
As Pangurjan said, a lot of people look at D&D and they see the door is closed. They don't know whether or not it's locked, but it's certainly closed, and finding out whether or not it's locked can hurt. People going on huge diatribes about how all these new changes are terrible for the game is a clear and unmistakeable sign of the door being locked. When someone says "D&D isn't the real world and any parallels you draw are YOUR problem, not mine", you're telling someone that any pain they've suffered in the past is invalid. That the door is still closed, and they can abandon their baggage to accomodate your preferences or they can leave.
As just one example, you yourself Mr October told me that the story I related of the player who felt negated and locked out because of his mixed ancestry and D&D's historically very poor portrayal of half-orcs was bullshit. To quote:
Note: your reaction was not "oh wow, that really sucks. I'm sorry that happened to that guy. I wish it hadn't, I hope he feels better about the newer rules". It was "That's a bullshit excuse, half-orcs aren't the only option, he shoulda just made something else." Your response was scorn, dismissal, and negation - and yet you claim there is no one anywhere in this hobby that would slam the door in someone's face over these modifications to Wizards' books?
You are doing so yourself, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
And that is why people push for these changes, October.
Because whenever anyone expresses any support for these ideals, they get bitten and snapped at and constantly told the changes are unnecessary and unwelcome because 'nobody ever makes people feel unwelcome to play D&D anyways!' When examples are brought up that yes - yes, people DO make others feel unwelcome - we get things like that particular comment.
Why do people have to justify their pain to you, October? What is your criteria, what bar does someone have to pass, before they're allowed to feel welcome to try and play a game of D&D?
Please do not contact or message me.
Myself I like the changes that is happening, it means when the PC's come across a group of creatures it comes down to do we just walk up to them and say hello or do we wait and see if they are evil/good. It means any encounter outside of a known settlement might be a bad encounter. They may be nice to meet or they may not be nice, their race isn't the deciding factor in whether they are good or evil. It adds something to the game I mean that encampment of gnomes might be full of homicidal maniacs or not.
Killing is likely entirely guilt-free when those you killed had it coming, and adventures have never had problems providing ample justification. I can't recall a single adventure, and I've played plenty, where the entire justification provided for turning opponents into the enemy was "they're all EVIL" and nothing but that. Whoever was evil actually did evil and plotted evil and promoted evil. They perpetrated evil on others, that's why they were opposed by the heroes, and that's why the heroes didn't feel guilty. There is no need for a passionate struggle with morality when you are clearly fighting for Good.
Now, if you want a "we see orcs, we canonically know (even if it's metagame knowledge) all orcs are evil, therefor we can kill these orcs simply for being orcs and it's all good" type of campaign I'm not stopping you, but there's no need for that whatsoever if the actual goal is to have a nice, simple, straightforward white hats vs black hats kind of adventure. The DM just has to let the black hats do what black hats do.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think the obvious answer is that WotC just isn't ready to change that yet, which I understand due to some of the defining nature of Gnolls. There are exceptions to the "Gnolls are evil" rule, but they do have an inherent bloodlust that even "peaceful" Gnoll tribes have to actively resist, at least in Faerun lore. The main driver for this is that Yeenoghu has a thing for the slaughter of intelligent beings and slavery. It's not about revenge, he just likes people to suffer.
In contrast, Gruumsh was literally cheated out of lands for his people to settle on, which is why he wants revenge. What I'm saying is that there is at least justification for Orcs being at odds with the other primary races, and thus evil is more about perspective for them.
Edit: I should also say that in Faerun and many other settings, there are subsets of Orcs and Gnolls that have rejected the whims of their gods and old racial rivalries.
Also, it's a change that had it been present from the beginning, would not have attracted any attention.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Are you saying the emotions of the "grogands" are not worth considering?
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Not at all. Back when I was having this fight in every third thread, I tried to make it quite clear that everyone deserved their game. I understand, as I said in the post you quoted, that Old Guard players are pulling this grognard crap out of anger, frustration, and even fear. They believe the game they love is being eroded and destroyed, and most of them believe the changes are being made to placate people who won't stick with the game in the long term. They see themselves as the true, loyal adherents and don't understand why the company is choosing to forsake them. They're afraid of losing their place and, ironically...no longer being welcome at the table.
Games grow. They evolve. They change. Veneration for what has come before has to be balanced with innovation for what is to come, or what you have is a dead, stagnant product that will never reach a new audience. Wizards is caught between a rock and a hard place - they can't fail to try and grow their audience or their game will die, but every last little thing they do to try and grow their audience alienates Old Guard who are desperate to keep the game from changing in any way. It's difficult to thread that needle, and over-alienating the Old Guard results in problems just as much as slamming the door in the face of new players does. See: the whole Fourth Edition fiasco.
What I will say is that in general, only one side of the Grognard vs. FNG debate tends to display instant hostility and constant claims that the other side should "find a different game and leave forever." One side of that debate is deeply invested in gatekeeping and ensuring new players have to measure up to their own decades of experience and unrealistic standards before they're allowed a seat at the table. As I told one of the most vicious, brutal, and hostile-minded grognards back when this fight was everywhere, though...old-schol D&D isn't going anywhere. The OSR movement is going strong and enjoying tremendous third-party support. Grim Hollow, especially, is an excellent new entry in exactly the sort of grim, gritty, man-vs.-evil campaign settings many old guard players want to play in. I've got all three* Grim Hollow books and they're fantastic. Dungeon Classics is going strong as well, and a lot of that material can easily be backported into 5e. Most of those players also still have extensive collections of older-edition material they can refer to when fishing for lore for their own games and can easily ignore anything Wizards says about 5e.
What this often boils down to, or did back when a certain subset of users was screeching from the ramparts every day, is "new players won't know the same lore I know and love the same lore I love, and that is just not acceptable to me." Sadly for Old Guard and Grognard alike, it's going to have to be acceptable to them, because absolutely no one can catch up on fifty years of dense, impossible-to-research, byzantine, and often contradictory Faerun/Forgotten Realms lore. All the D&D wikis are choked into uselessness with people's terrible homebrew and are completely unusable as resources; the only way to research the history of the game and "love the same lore" is to spend many thousands of dollars scouring the Internet for out-of-print books from older editions. You simply cannot make a new 'Old Guard' player, and if the game is to survive in any form it has to do so on the backs of new players. Who will know, and like, different lore than the Old Guard folks.
I wish there could be other solutions. But I really don't think there are.
Please do not contact or message me.
My solution would be let people to use the version they want to use. It would be viable as well dm overrides any differences between books.
Regarding the balance between new and old. Honestly I would suggest wotc building a new setting or even using like 2 Text boxes on lore things like old lore and new lore until a new edition comes out and resets things to a new setting without the baggage, and wotc could ideally work to get their old not for sale content available via an online archive.
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
There's never not going to be baggage. New editions are not blank slates, not even mechanically but certainly not in terms of lore and setting background. This isn't really something WotC can please everyone with. Some players love the older settings they cut their first D&D teeth on and get upset if anything about them gets changed. Other players were put off by some aspects of those settings and remain upset if WotC tacitly confirms they don't think there's a problem by not changing those aspects. And ignoring those settings in favour of entirely new ones upsets everyone who wants that setting to be brought into the new edition, regardless of whether they mind some (largely cosmetic) changes meant to prevent giving offense.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That means it is a no way to please anyone, you will offend someone either by basterizing a setting or not changing questionable things about settings. Then it would become a question of what % of potential buyers would you be alienating by either choice and even then, wotc could theoretically do both. Officially release a modified version for newer editions but give permission for third party updates of settings on official platforms via a selection process.
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
I see this more of an attempt by WotC to get themselves out of the hole they dug when Volo's introduced playable monster races. Suddenly players were able to play Goblins, Orcs and Lizardfolk that lore said were evil races. Volo's essentially said that for players these races were no longer necessarily evil and it was for the DM to decide how they were treated by society. This contradicted the lore that said for NPCs these races were inherantly evil.
When Volo's came out I felt you had to supress reality if someone in the group wanted to be (say) an Orc because no good aligned PCs would trust them to the point of going adventuring with them (ie. trusting them with your life).
This could explain the distinction, A PC can not be a gnoll (at least not without homebrew) so, like fiends it is OK to have them all evil
What might be a good (and, better, legally feasible) compromise should DDB care to do so is allowing older versions of errata'd books to be viewable as compendium-only, read-only documents. You still have access to the original text, but the tools are all aligned with the latest update and the older documents are explicitly called out as archived, no-longer-current documents and cannot be confused by any reasonable person as The Way Stuff Be. If you own the book you can read any version of it you like, but the website's services and the searchable database refers to the up-to-date text. Everyone works off the same books, but you can read the older text for all the lore bitsies the Old Guard is crowing about.
Please do not contact or message me.
CLARIFYING OUR RECENT ERRATA
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.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Why wouldn't it be legally feasible to have a toggle for older options in the tools? Players will still make homebrew out of it and even DMs would ban the new changes which would make dnd beyond buggy for games using older text
Unless there is something I am missing that it would be illegal for ddb to allow the use of old mechanic.
Also don't DMs control the content and nothing stops them from using the "older version" the only thing this would do is limit the usefulness of any dev tool unless wotc will make it illegal to use old content in campaigns
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.