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

[Hussar]

I wonder how much of the difference of opinion here is due to die rolled characters vs point buy. When you use point buy, you rarely see an 18, and even then, it costs a lot to get there and a 20 is 4th level at the earliest. Meanwhile, the player has created one trick ponies that are ridiculously easy to punish. Then the player bitches and whines about the terribly unfair DM punishing them for targeting their weaknesses. This continues until the player flounces out the door screaming "unfair!" all the while.

But... I digress.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, just a note about the half-orcs and slums.

Does anyone actually think that these three things are equivalent?

1. Race A tends to be wealthy artisans working to make beautiful things.
2. Race B tends to be wealthy land owning freeholders working their lands.
3. Race C comes from a hateful, violent, savage race, only improves when mixed with human blood, is still a victim of their bestial nature, and is relegated to slums and are often criminals.

Does anyone honestly not see the problem here?

 

[Voadam]

I never said Goblins.

When you said "and so on" I thought you meant other 5e optional bad guy races in general. Goblins came to mind because a guy in my group is playing one and their stats do not seem a penalty and they have been put out by some as a derogatory Asian stand in for their 5e art.

In any case if your question is just this specific list of bad guy PC options I would say that PC mechanics, particularly in the optional supplements has a lot of variability and some more experimentation compared to the general PH baseline options.

Oh, yes it's powerful. Also, the -2 to Strength seems unnecessary as they're already small, and sunlight sensitivity is a massive negative as well, and they only get a +2 to dexterity, with no other ability score increases. You're punished for playing kobolds, mechanically.

Yes.

Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes.

I've seen Sword Coast and Mords but do not own them, what are the Duergar's mechanics like? I assume they have sunlight sensitivity as they have in prior editions.

 

[Mercurius]

Ok, just a note about the half-orcs and slums.

Does anyone actually think that these three things are equivalent?

1. Race A tends to be wealthy artisans working to make beautiful things.
2. Race B tends to be wealthy land owning freeholders working their lands.
3. Race C comes from a hateful, violent, savage race, only improves when mixed with human blood, is still a victim of their bestial nature, and is relegated to slums and are often criminals.

Does anyone honestly not see the problem here?

Well again, Hussar, the problem is only if one or both of the following are assumed:

1. Race C has an intrinsic connection to a real world group.
2. It is inherently problematic to depict a fantasy race in a negative light.

If those two things aren't assumed, it isn't a problem. As far as I can tell, those that don't see your points as a problem don't make either of those assumptions.

Which inevitably leads us back to discussing different interpretations and connections and whether or not they are valid, and so the discussion endlessly recycles. I know, it is tempting to do so, but does it yield any fruit? The only fruit I've seen grown from these discussions--that is, constructive solutions on a path forward--is when people agree to disagree on interpretations, and instead focus on how to create a Big Tent approach.

 

[Hussar]

See, but, @Mercurius why do we need a "big tent" at all if there's no connection? After all, if there's no connection to any real world peoples, no parallels, then, well, there's no problem. That's the argument that gets recycled over and over again.

To me, it's mind blowing that you could look at that and not see the parallels.

Just as a point though, your #2 has never been an issue. There's absolutely no problem with depicting a fantasy race in a negative light. No one has ever argued otherwise. And, frankly, it's that number 2 that seems to be causing the problems. "Well, if we can't show orcs in a negative light, that must mean we can't show anything in a negative light" goes the argument.

Which has never actually been the problem. You can most certainly show orcs in a negative light. That's not a problem. Just not THAT particular negative light which is far too close to the negative light used to depict real world minorities. Doesn't matter which minorities, that's another red herring that's been brought forward as a counter argument. The simple fact that this language mirrors real world language makes it problematic.

No one gives a damn that vampires, dragons and beholders are described as evil because the way those monsters are described do not mirror the very real world language that is being used for orcs. Describe this or that race as evil all you like. Not a problem. Just leave THAT PARTICULAR description on the editing room floor and pick another one.

But, yeah, the solutions have already been offered in the thread. A bit of editing, a bit of changing the wording here and there and we're good to go.

 

[Oofta]

The fact is that prejudice is real. One particular prejudice is that people that are beautiful are treated more positively while people that are ugly or don't look "normal" are at a disadvantage.

Half orcs tend to be ugly based on common standards of beauty. That has nothing to do with skin color or an association with any particular human race. Tall people are generally more likely to be feared than short. Throw in an association with a creature that is by default CE.

Not saying that it's right, but acknowledging that it will affect how they are treated is realistic.

Now I'm sure I'll be accused of "just like PoC". But I think it's just a matter of convergent results, not association.

On the other hand I don't care if they change it. I've never really paid much attention to it in the first place.

 

[Mercurius]

See, but, @Mercurius why do we need a "big tent" at all if there's no connection? After all, if there's no connection to any real world peoples, no parallels, then, well, there's no problem. That's the argument that gets recycled over and over again.

To me, it's mind blowing that you could look at that and not see the parallels.

Just as a point though, your #2 has never been an issue. There's absolutely no problem with depicting a fantasy race in a negative light. No one has ever argued otherwise. And, frankly, it's that number 2 that seems to be causing the problems. "Well, if we can't show orcs in a negative light, that must mean we can't show anything in a negative light" goes the argument.

Which has never actually been the problem. You can most certainly show orcs in a negative light. That's not a problem. Just not THAT particular negative light which is far too close to the negative light used to depict real world minorities. Doesn't matter which minorities, that's another red herring that's been brought forward as a counter argument. The simple fact that this language mirrors real world language makes it problematic.

No one gives a damn that vampires, dragons and beholders are described as evil because the way those monsters are described do not mirror the very real world language that is being used for orcs. Describe this or that race as evil all you like. Not a problem. Just leave THAT PARTICULAR description on the editing room floor and pick another one.

But, yeah, the solutions have already been offered in the thread. A bit of editing, a bit of changing the wording here and there and we're good to go.

We need a Big Tent because some people see the connection, and the nature of a Big Tent is to be inclusive. Remember, I have suggested the Big Tent even though I don't agree with certain interpretations.

Whether it is "mind-blowing" to you that I don't see the connection (or, more accurately, interpret ad weigh it differently than you do), is beside the point. Again, I don't think re-hashing this leads anywhere good.

And I do think some take issue with the negative depiction of orcs, or rather, the "only/mostly negative" depiction. Some have argued that their depicted morality is too simplistic and not characteristic of real world ethnic groups. Whether or not I agree with that is beside the point. I mean, we can discuss it--and have, endlessly--but nothing really comes of it. It is like endless twitter battles: only very, very rarely does someone have a cognitive breakthrough and say, "Wow, I never saw it that way...thank you for illuminating me with your wisdom!" At least not very often in the context of twitter!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well again, Hussar, the problem is only if one or both of the following are assumed:

1. Race C has an intrinsic connection to a real world group.
2. It is inherently problematic to depict a fantasy race in a negative light.

If those two things aren't assumed, it isn't a problem. As far as I can tell, those that don't see your points as a problem don't make either of those assumptions.

Which inevitably leads us back to discussing different interpretations and connections and whether or not they are valid, and so the discussion endlessly recycles. I know, it is tempting to do so, but does it yield any fruit? The only fruit I've seen grown from these discussions--that is, constructive solutions on a path forward--is when people agree to disagree on interpretations, and instead focus on how to create a Big Tent approach.

If you don't assume it is a problem, it isn't a problem, seems to be a rather circular take.

The fact is that prejudice is real. One particular prejudice is that people that are beautiful are treated more positively while people that are ugly or don't look "normal" are at a disadvantage.

Half orcs tend to be ugly based on common standards of beauty. That has nothing to do with skin color or an association with any particular human race. Tall people are generally more likely to be feared than short. Throw in an association with a creature that is by default CE.

Not saying that it's right, but acknowledging that it will affect how they are treated is realistic.

Now I'm sure I'll be accused of "just like PoC". But I think it's just a matter of convergent results, not association.

On the other hand I don't care if they change it. I've never really paid much attention to it in the first place.

I would agree, however, some of the aspects of orcs that are referred to as the things that make them "ugly" are problematic, such as sloping foreheads. I also think that people being judged successful or not based on beauty is weird. Not that beautiful people don't get all the breaks, but in a world of so many different races like DnD with such diverse appearances, and with the fact that money is still the most "beautiful" thing about a person. I don't know if not being pretty really should force an entire section of the rulebook into poverty

 

[Oofta]

I would agree, however, some of the aspects of orcs that are referred to as the things that make them "ugly" are problematic, such as sloping foreheads. I also think that people being judged successful or not based on beauty is weird. Not that beautiful people don't get all the breaks, but in a world of so many different races like DnD with such diverse appearances, and with the fact that money is still the most "beautiful" thing about a person. I don't know if not being pretty really should force an entire section of the rulebook into poverty

I don't disagree. But it is a logical reason why half-elves get the better deal and the "ugly" races get the short end of the stick while gnomes are viewed as harmless and safe to be around children. Which everybody knows gnomes are actually quite evil. It's the beady little eyes peering out from the darkness under the bed.

 

[Mercurius]

If you don't assume it is a problem, it isn't a problem, seems to be a rather circular take.

Not quite. I am saying something very specific: the problem is based upon one or both of two assumptions, which are--obviously--arguable. It seems that we're not collectively going to come to some mass kumbaya moment where we all agree (or disagree) on those assumptions, so better to focus on a Big Tent.