D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Valchrys]

A person is an individual who has enough intelligence to have a culture (sometimes religion), develop tools and creative problem solving, self awareness, and is fit to be a member of society.

Intelligence is a requirement, but it doesn't give you innate personhood. Culture is key, without culture we wouldn't be people. Development of tools is important, and is what was a major drive in the evolution of humans as we know them today. Self-awareness is very important "I think, therefore I am". You cannot be considered a person if you cannot see that you have a purpose above being a member of a community. Creative problem solving is important, and is what gave us our creativity and tactics that make us human.
The last part, "is fit to be a member of society" is important, perhaps the most important. You have to understand other people's needs, the benefits of being in a society besides the sole benefits to yourself. You have to care about other people.

By my definition, the standard Mind Flayer isn't a person, as their diet requires them to not be able to be a fit member of society. By my definition, murderhobos, liches, and serial killers aren't people.

By my definition, gorrilas or chimpanzees, who are intelligent enough to learn language, communicate, and be in society, aren't people. They don't develop culture or religion.

This is my definition of person. You are born a person, but can choose to not be one. You can be born not a person, but choose to become one.

Not to dog pile but that definition seems pretty anthropocentric. The qualities required to be considered a person are exactly the qualities that humans are evolved to possess. Imagine if instead of having some ape-like genetic ancestor, we had a tiger-like ancestor and we all preferred to be solitary. The definition of person would be very different. This might be off topic for the thread but it's an odd definition to find on a discussion about fantasy and/or sci-fi races.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I still don't have an issue with saying, "the entire race of orcs was formed from the bile of Gruumsh and filled with hate." And, by "don't have a problem" I mean that I would not find it unacceptable if a GM did that in their game. That is, more or less, the original lore. Orcs are bad because they are filled with an uncontrollable hate that comes from a god. They are given humanoid form and biology, but that hate is deeply ingrained.

As far as them being born "the normal way", well, they wouldn't be the only species prone to eating their young. There are also plenty of species with traits bred into them. Wolves are pack animals. Herding dogs herd (oh good lord does my puppy herd the poor cats). Birds migrate. The scorpion stings the fox.

You don't have to use it, but it's not wrong for someone to do so.

First of all, I have no idea why you feel the need to mention them eating their young.

Secondly, why ask me what the difference between them and the other evil races is if you are just going to dismiss it?

Eh? Where did that come from? In 37 years of playing D&D, I've never heard it. I mean, it's not a bad story, but I've just never heard it

I don't know when that lore started, but I do know it existed in prior editions and is in the current Volo's guide and probably even the Monster Manual. Been the lore for gnolls this entire edition.

In D&D, I'd say the half-orcs have humanity and are more nurture than nature. That's why they make sense as a PC race. Orcs should not be playable in settings where they are "born bad".

See, I don't think you should have Half-Orcs in settings where orcs are born evil. Because that is problematic.

I also, don't really like half-orcs and half-elves as storytelling concepts. I always have to mess with them, because the idea of "born of two worlds and not accepted by either", while something a lot of people struggle with, always felt... I don't know. I want the world to be better than that.

Sure, I want evil and grit and darkness in the world. I want horror and dark forces.

I don't want women degraded, or people judged for their race. That isn't the type of evil I am interested in in my world.

So then this, "But, I don't think the value in personhood can be defined by pointing to an intelligent group and saying "they aren't people". wasn't true? You just pointed at an intelligent group and said, "they aren't people."

If we're including Orcs and Dragons, then why not Illithids, Demons and Aboleths?

Ah, I see what you are trying to do.

Aboleths aren't people because they have a hive-personality. There is no individuality amongst them. An Aboleth is reborn into the world, and they are the same as every other Aboleth.

That is what pulls them out of personhood, but that is not how I define personhood.

To be a person you need a few things. Free-Will to make choices. A range of emotions (if you are 100% rage and ahte all the time, you are not a person), Intelligence enough for language and understanding concepts.

Demons meet a weird place. They are likely people, but they are also destruction personified. They are anthropomorphized in a physical sense. I'd say they hit well on the line.

3. Having a long memory passed down to you doesn't make you not a person.

You are missing the the scale with this.

Everything is ctrl+v from one Aboleth to the next, except the experiences of that body, which are then spread to every Aboleth created after.

This isn't "I am a new mind and I have access to all these memories" this is like waking up in a new body, for every single Aboleth. They are less a species and more a series of clones.

Edit: The more I think about it, I guess Aboleths are a person. A singular person, because they are all copies of that original mind. Mindflayers would still not be, because they lack free-will. I'd say Elder Brains might be, but I also remember hearing that Elder Brains are just nodes in a larger network, so I'm not sure at what scale we reach an entity with free-will to act.

You're making an arbitrary decision who who is a person and who is not, though. There's absolutely nothing in the definition of "person" that keeps abberations and aliens from being people, too. Once you extend the definition past human, it applies to any intelligent being. Well, the definition did seem to require men and women, so any alien or aberration with genders will do.

So only Humans are people. Is that your answer?

Edit: As you continued it seemed you expanded to anything Intelligent, which includes everything of import.

Insane people and murderers aren't people. They lose their personhood when they don't meet the requirements.
And, it's for society in general. A society has to have 3 things:

1. People to agree upon the rules of the society.
2. People who enforce the rules of society.
3. The agreed upon pact that everyone in society will be treated equally.

You have to be fit to abide by these rules in society. If you can't agree to the rules, won't obey by the rules, or treat others equally, you will not be a member of society.

I disagree with you here. Insanity and murderer do not make you not a person. They make you an insane person or a bad person, but you are still a person.

Being a member of society isn't neccesary for personhood either.

Whoa, I'm not saying they still don't have a right to live and redemption. They definitely still do have all the rights that any other human does, if they can continue to follow the rules of society. Prison systems are supposed to give punishment to people who do crime to enforce the rules of society, and according to the USA's laws, you're not a full person while in prison. People make mistakes, and should be able to redeem themselves, but there's a point where people do lose personhood. (I have mentioned serial killers multiple times. I've done research into them, they should not be considered people)

I can see an argument for serial killers being so warped that it is easier to consider them not being people. But I don't think that is a necessary step to take.

I think showing remorse and regret at the horrors that had to go wrong to create such a person is appropriate, and at a certain point of depravity, death is a solution that must be considered, but if we remove personhood from them, I think it becomes less of a tragedy, and I'd rather it stay a tragedy that they were so far gone, rather than the other way.

I have not done explicit research into them, but I have seen plenty to understand that that hole is a dark and deep one that I do not wish to tread.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

We should probably get back on topic.
(I'm aware my definition is a bit human-based, and I blame that on me being a human. I'm sorry if any of my statements on personhood caused derailing or offense. It's a work in progress, I do not mean to sound like a eugenicist or nazi.)

 

[Hussar]

Thanks for your response. I don't remember saying I wanted to block changes but that's fine, sometimes people misinterpret things on forums. I see you don't want to have a discussion and that's okay.
/snip

That may not be your intention, but, it's certainly the effect. Eight pages now of watching @Maxperson play silly buggers pedantic games, just this side of trolling so as not to trigger the mods. We actually were getting somewhere a few pages back, with people talking about possible changes to lore that would be satisfactory. But, then, in swoop a bunch of posters, some well intentioned and some questionable, derailing the conversation with bafflegab and inventing problems where none actually exist.

So, sure, while you might not want to block changes, it is exactly what you are doing when you start asking slippery slope "whataboudit" questions regarding things that no one has an issue with. It's no different than bringing up this ludicrous aboleth discussion.

 

[Dire Bare]

Whoa, I'm not saying they still don't have a right to live and redemption. They definitely still do have all the rights that any other human does, if they can continue to follow the rules of society. Prison systems are supposed to give punishment to people who do crime to enforce the rules of society, and according to the USA's laws, you're not a full person while in prison. People make mistakes, and should be able to redeem themselves, but there's a point where people do lose personhood. (I have mentioned serial killers multiple times. I've done research into them, they should not be considered people)

I'm not saying any of that. You lose your personhood if you kill someone, but it's not like you can't regain it. They can be part of society again if they don't do what they used to.
I'm also talking about murders here, not self defense or accidental/sudden killing of people.

I would never kill anyone because lack of "personhood". I would never criminalize someone because of that. I do not agree with Nazis at all. Hitler doesn't count as a person, in my definition.

Heh, glad your position isn't as far gone as I'd feared! But I'm still really uncomfortable with your ideas of personhood, that it is something you can lose and regain. That generally isn't how we treat it in the real world . . . although some of course do, and those folks worry me.

IRL, deciding who gets to be a person and who doesn't . . . . ick. Not good. Dangerous territory there.

In the fantasy world . . . well, that's what the discussion is about, although not necessarily on the level of individuals but with entire races of creatures. I've brought up a lot of sci-fi examples (and I ain't sorry for it), but fantasy is a bit tougher when you add in magic, fate, destiny and all that fun stuff.

 

[Dire Bare]

That may not be your intention, but, it's certainly the effect. Eight pages now of watching @Maxperson play silly buggers pedantic games, just this side of trolling so as not to trigger the mods. We actually were getting somewhere a few pages back, with people talking about possible changes to lore that would be satisfactory. But, then, in swoop a bunch of posters, some well intentioned and some questionable, derailing the conversation with bafflegab and inventing problems where none actually exist.

So, sure, while you might not want to block changes, it is exactly what you are doing when you start asking slippery slope "whataboudit" questions regarding things that no one has an issue with. It's no different than bringing up this ludicrous aboleth discussion.

I agree with you that some posters in this thread aren't engaging honestly, they are just stirring the pot and playing troll. But, that doesn't mean that some of the points they have raised aren't valid, ironically.

You keep wanting the discussion to circle back to orcs and drow, but that wasn't actually part of the OP specifically. I don't see a reason why the discussion can't expand to include races/creatures that are farther from humanity than elves, dwarves, and orcs. IMO, that makes the discussion more interesting and valid.

I don't see the aboleth discussion as ludicrous . . . . but then again, I'm missing half of the posts as some of those jokers have long been on my ignore list (sometimes I'm clicking on "show ignored content" just to see what they said most recently to get folks all riled up).

This thread has been going in circles for quite some time now, the trolls keep on trolling, and some of us keep taking the bait. Some of the discussion has gotten, IMO, ugly. If you feel a particular poster isn't engaging honestly . . . . stop responding to them. Put'em on your ignore list, or at least don't feed them.

On the other hand, minus the trolls and bad-faith arguments, I've gotten a lot out of this discussion and have some ideas I might try to write up for the DM's Guild. If I can ever defeat the demon Procrastination, that is.

 

[Hussar]

Just to add to my point @TaranTheWanderer . The last post in this thread actually directly addressing what changes could be made to anything in order to make them less of a problem was by you, actually, on PAGE 38. ((Note, there is a reference to another solution at the bottom of the same page)).

IOW, we've been derailed for 11 pages, TWO HUNDRED POSTS. Now do you understand why I might be a teensy bit frustrated? Just a tiny bit hot under the collar? When we have fantastic posts, like yours, directly dealing with the issue, and then go off on a tangent for two hundred posts about what is the definition of a "person" is just mind boggling. And, frankly, I can't see it as anything other than deliberate. It goes on for too long and occurs too often for it to simply be random chance.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

On the other hand, minus the trolls and bad-faith arguments, I've gotten a lot out of this discussion and have some ideas I might try to write up for the DM's Guild. If I can ever defeat the demon Procrastination, that is.

Now, that I agree with. There have been some very cool ideas. I disagree with trying to talk about every monster because, well, it's too much. It won't go anywhere because of the endless strings of "whatabouts" and then circling back because people have forgotten that something got talked about fifteen pages ago.

But, yeah, there's some cool ideas. I really like the idea of Gruumsh as a sort of tempter god, parasitically feeding off of orcs by inculcating evil cults. I don't recall any resolutions for other races, but, then again, like I said, the signal to noise ratio can become pretty overwhelming after a while.

 

[Imaculata]

So, arguing for the sake of arguing?

I don't think this is constructive. Max is coming at this issue from a different angle than you. While you may not see the value of discussing this specific side of the issue, I don't think you should presume he is argueing in bad faith just for that reason.

For the record, I don't have a dog in this race (see what I did there?), but I do find myself agreeing with some of his points.

You can't claim that dragons are people, and mindflayers are not. They build entire cities, wear clothing, and absolutely have a culture. You can't say any of that about dragons. Mindflayers are people more so than dragons imo. They may be evil, but so are plenty of dragons.

But this raises only more questions for me. Is the way dragons are color coded, and what this means in regards to their alignment problematic? And what about the mere concept of mindflayers enslaving other creatures?

 

[Dire Bare]

Just to add to my point @TaranTheWanderer . The last post in this thread actually directly addressing what changes could be made to anything in order to make them less of a problem was by you, actually, on PAGE 38. ((Note, there is a reference to another solution at the bottom of the same page)).

IOW, we've been derailed for 11 pages, TWO HUNDRED POSTS. Now do you understand why I might be a teensy bit frustrated? Just a tiny bit hot under the collar? When we have fantastic posts, like yours, directly dealing with the issue, and then go off on a tangent for two hundred posts about what is the definition of a "person" is just mind boggling. And, frankly, I can't see it as anything other than deliberate. It goes on for too long and occurs too often for it to simply be random chance.

11 pages, huh? Doesn't seem that bad when you have the most problematic posters on the ignore list, it all goes by so much quicker. But then you wonder why the posts you do see are all irritated . . . .

Discussions don't always go the way you want, they drift. It's how these things go. I found the tangents fascinating, personally, although I agree those who started them didn't necessarily do so with honest intentions.

What more would you like to see about orcs or drow or other close-to-human races? In game design and in our home games, we need to, 1) watch out for and avoid language that mirrors racist colonial tropes (which is tough, as it's deeply embedded in the game and the source literature), 2) avoid classing entire races as evil, savage, bestial, and "non-people", at least races that aren't outsiders or spirits of some kind ("mortal" races), 3) drop ability adjustments and racial traits that play into those racist tropes (maybe even drop them all together), and 4) give orcs (and other races) more cultural variety both to buck the mono-culture trend that too easily leads to racist tropes and to also give more player variety . . . .

In my home game, I'm starting with Arcanist Press' "Ancestry and Culture" which tweaks the racial system from the PHB and tries to separate inherited traits (biology or magical) from learned traits (cultural). I'm going to tweak it further by making all ability adjustments as cultural suggestions only, and every character, regardless of race, gets to put +3 towards any abilities they want (either +2 and +1 or three +1 adjustments). This product only gives the crunch for OGL races/subraces, so I'm starting to work on converting the other races from the PHB and other D&D sources. At the same time, I'm going to try and come up with some reworked cultures and mayhaps some new ones . . . . rewrite the Gruumsh and Lolth stories to make those deities (and the cultures they inspire) more realistic and less cartoonishly evil.

EDIT: I'll add a bit about another newish product I like from the DM's Guild, "Grazzilax's Guide to Ancestry". I prefer "Ancestry and Culture", but Grazilaxx's Guide provides a bunch of alternate rules to deal with those pesky racial ability adjustments. The book gives detailed breakdowns for assigning those extra three points by class, or by background, or by simply using point-buy and increasing the points . . . and some others I forget off the top of my head. Worth a look if you are not happy with assigning ability adjustments by race (or culture).