Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
As a fan of AD&D-style alignment (yes, we exist!), I actually agree with this point. As a descriptor, I find it basically useless. I've removed it from my 5e games.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D (2024) Does the concept of subspecies of Elves come across as racist to you
- Thread starter Mistwell
- Start date
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I have a passionate hate for revisionist history, whether it be in real life or fictional lore. You do not change the past to better represent your present views. You take responsibility for your past, and then you move forward from where you are. Or you start something new.
Are you opposed to new printings of the books including errata in general?
Book Updates | Sage Advice | Dungeons & Dragons
This Sage Advice provides updates and errata for a number of books, as well as answers to rules questions.
If so, does this include typos?
Updating the high jump rules on page 182?
Things like pg. 91 of the phb chaning "your spells" to "your ranger spells"?
If so, would it be fine if they put "Xth Printing with Associated Errata" in big letters on the cover?
Frozen_Heart
Hero
Yeah I really dislike their willingness to go back and edit/delete already bought content. With printed copies it's fine, as people know what they're buying. But with online content already in peoples libraries it sets a bad precedent.
Making changenotes with both the old and new versions available is fine imo though.
Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
This is one of the issues with lack of PDFs. When a PDF is updated, I have the option to retain a copy of the old version, if I want it for whatever reason.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
If the errata is actually correcting an unintended error and not a stealth rules change, I'm fine with it.Are you opposed to new printings of the books including errata in general?
Book Updates | Sage Advice | Dungeons & Dragons
This Sage Advice provides updates and errata for a number of books, as well as answers to rules questions.dnd.wizards.com
If so, does this include typos?
Updating the high jump rules on page 182?
Things like pg. 91 of the phb chaning "your spells" to "your ranger spells"?
If so, would it be fine if they put "Xth Printing with Associated Errata" in big letters on the cover?
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
That's fine, but you get many of your peers do look at alignment and would miss it, and it's literally just two characters of text next to an NPC, so the cost to you to keep it is low while the cost to those who like it is high if it's lost, right?
That's meaningless. D&D is bigger than all the "modern TTRPGs" combined and none have that traditional reputation I mentioned earlier at stake.
I explained why. Of course you read the description but there are instances where the shorthand in the stat block is useful to alert you to the description when in a hurry.
As I mentioned in the example, I find it most useful in published adventures when the common assumptions don't meet the individual description and you're in a hurry and didn't read or remember in advance because the PCs went somewhere unexpected. This isn't theoretical, it was a meaningful complaint about a published adventure where they removed alignment without warning the adventure authors, and a particular encounter was frequently messed up by DMs in ways which made their jobs harder for no good reason.
Right because it's not to your tastes. But that ends, or should, when you realize it is to other's tastes and costs so very little to you for it to still be there.
Mirrorrorrim
Hero
BG3 lets you do just about anything (with consequences) so have fun with your Eldritch Blasts. (Btw, I recommend always picking Repelling Blast, as it is one of the greatest insults you can toss at any enemy.) Fus Ro Dah!
Volo is certainly... quirky... with absolutely no respect for truth. He's like a tabloid chronicler. Never trust the contents of a book that has Volo's name on it. (By this rule alone, Monsters of the Multiverse is a better tome, and more accurate lorewise, compared to Volo's Guide to Monsters.)
Regarding the OP, Elf lineages are not inherently racist, even if D&D has very questionable lore in the past. New books can remove that lore and new players don't need to be subject to it going forward. We all know the old lore was problematic. I recognize that a big reason why someone might consider it racist is because of what they think it means for mixed bloodlines. This goes back to the Origins UA argument.
Historically, it was a problem that "half-" races were being depicted by negative societal racial titles as Half-breeds hated by both sides, or being primarily the result of non-consentual interactions with raiders. Relatedly, there being inherently evil humanoids, or inherently evil humanoids being depicted with dark features, was also a problem. We as veteran players don't have to "forget" those things, rather we just have to recognize and understand why we are abandoning them, and are moving forward without them. It isn't helpful to hold onto old problematic lore rather than leave it behind and create new, inspiring lore.
We do have the terminology argument, though. I would assert that it is not wrong to use the "Fantasy World" reason to change the rules of that universe compared to ours, and to redefine some terms to mean something different (as long as the word itself is not problematic in our real-world societies). We can abandon words that themselves DO mean something problematic or triggering to real world players. The MOST IMPORTANT THING for a game designed for an audience is to serve the audience, not the game itself. The game and its universe isn't real. Players are.
The word "species" does not need to have the same scientific meaning as it does in our real world when it comes to breeding. We don't have a plethora of non-human humanoids that can breed with humans, so we don't have an existing recognizable taxonomic word for it, so we need to redefine one. "Race" has become problematic (thanks a lot, racists), and there are very few other words that can capture the concept like "species" does. The designers can't really invent a new word so it looks like we have to accept an existing word. The word "species" existed long before lots of recognized science, and it doesn't need to be held to a strict real-world "scientific" definition. "Lineage" also isn't problematic in its usage and it doesn't help to try and invent problems.
Also, species mechanics are not the sole factor of defining a species or a mixed species. In a fantasy world, it's fine for the mechanics to take after one parent, and everything else, from features to culture, to be as diverse as the player desires. It isn't a One-Drop Rule thing, or an otherwise racist design plan. Those accusations are baseless attacks. "Mixed" species are fine with just about everyone. They aren't trying to be erased. There just needs to be simple rules to offer them as options. However, the "Half-breed" terminology is icky (and usually technically inaccurate in a multi-species mating environment as "Half" equates exactly to 50%) and should be abandoned. As an alternative to "Half," "Mixed" as a term isn't icky or inaccurate. Also, "-kin" (like Elfkin) isnt problematic if someone wants to make a specific mixed elf/human lineage.
After abandoning old problematic race lore, it is not racist that a fantasy species created or mutated by Greater Powers has multiple lineages (subraces for people stuck on the word "race") that have different abilities. When a High Elf and a Sea Elf mate and have 2 children, those children can be considered "mixed" even if their technical "species" mechanics lean toward one of their parents. One of the sibling's characteristics can even lean towards their other parent, so the blood siblings can manifest differently. That's fine. It's no different than one sibling getting sorcerous powers from a Draconic bloodline, but their other siblings not. Every character is unique (some say even planned or intelligently designed by Greater Powers, and if we want to break the fourth wall, the Greater Powers are us, those who design and play the game). If the Greater Powers want to build-a-bear, GREAT! Make those rules and use them. But it's untenable as a baseline design for a core game. That is too large of a project for the PH.
As another example, an Air Genasi and a Fire Genasi may mate, and their progeny could look like either parent, or have a mix of their features (they could even identify as an quasi-elemental Ash Genasi, if that means something to them), while manifesting the mechanical attributes of one of their parents, and there doesn't need to be a cultural or racial stigma tied to it. That's just how the system works. It's a fantasy world that is not real. It's in our heads. If you are convinced that there needs to be a stigma, that is 100% in your own mind.
I think we just need to think about it in a fantasy Intelligent Design perspective (even if it is on a word budget due to literal design limitations).
Epic Meepo
Adventurer
Regarding species being assigned alignments: I noticed in Monsters of the Multiverse that WotC now states in every Humanoid stat block that members of the species in question can belong to any alignment. Except gnolls, who are apparently so Chaotic Evil, the book retcons them to be Chaotic Evil Monstrosities instead of Humanoids. Sure, gnolls are humanoid in shape, and presumably sapient. But WotC apparently doesn't have a problem reclassifying the entire species as Monstrosities just to keep Chaotic Evil in their stat block.
Does that bring them in line with 4e? (Or was it a different past edition?)
