Thomas Shey
Legend
Just a note; "the core four" concept probably comes from the fact they appeared first in OD&D (and people are probably lumping half-elves with elves there); even gnomes didn't appear in the original three booklet version.
I don't keep a dictionary of "words that someone somewhere might find offensive". There are certainly words that are offensive that we all know all too well. If we limited our words to ones that a tiny percentage of the population might find offensive (without knowing ahead of time) then I'm not sure we could write much of anything.Um... a scene with dozens of races.
It doesn't need a special term. How would I describe a scene with elves and humans? By saying "You see elves and humans"
And, "Cantina" has specifically been used as an insult. Repeatedly. So getting upset because someone says "You are using a term that is generally used as an insult, so I am seeing negative connotations here" is kind of silly.
Additionally, while I believe you do like Zootopia, other things that generally get thrown around as insulting terms is "cartoons". This actually aggravates me because I know that cartoons are a wonderful medium, but we end up having to use the term "animation" because there are connotations that if you call something a cartoon it is silly and for children only. Which, again, is stupid, but as someone who has tried to get people into watching animated shows, I can tell you that bias runs deep. And, it is present here in these forums. Plenty of people who will compare something they don't like to "cartoons" or "anime" because they think it means those things aren't serious.
You clarified afterward that you really liked Zootopia, but if memory serves you didn't in the original post. So, comparing something to a prominent cartoon by a major producer of children's content, on a forum where people compare things to cartoons to diminish their value? Of course people were going to think you were trying to diminish the value of the thing you were talking about. It sucks, but it is always going to be the case as long as people think that animation and comics are lesser mediums.
See, but Tielfings were basically never a "monstrous race"
Tieflings were introduced in 1994 in Planescape, already a playable option. They stayed a non-core playable option until 2008 when they were in the Core Player's Handbook. That is 14 years. They even got their own dedicated book in 2010, two years later.
That depends what you mean by "widely" and "most". A lot of fantasy authors try to avoid too obviously ripping off Tolkien, and use different races, or only human protagonists. And even the blatant Tolkien rip-offs rarely have gnomes or halflings (or woses).One other note - most of the "standard" races are used widely in fantasy specific fiction.
They might know what someone with fiendish ancestry was though - like Merlin. The concept is broader than the name.I doubt many people outside of D&D wouldn't have a clue what a tiefling was.
Go to the fantasy section of a bookstore and many will have elves, dwarves and perhaps gnomes (which are even in Harry Potter books, although they are a different incarnation). A few will have cat people or similar. Some will have anthropomorphic animals.That depends what you mean by "widely" and "most". A lot of fantasy authors try to avoid too obviously ripping off Tolkien, and use different races, or only human protagonists. And even the blatant Tolkien rip-offs rarely have gnomes or halflings (or woses).
And then there are those of us who actually read books written before 1954....
They might know what someone with fiendish ancestry was though - like Merlin. The concept is broader than the name.
I don't keep a dictionary of "words that someone somewhere might find offensive". There are certainly words that are offensive that we all know all too well. If we limited our words to ones that a tiny percentage of the population might find offensive (without knowing ahead of time) then I'm not sure we could write much of anything.
There's also the bad habit of ignoring the intent of the word when it's later clarified. Is every post I or anyone else makes perfect? Of course not. Tone doesn't always carry, some people take these conversations far, far more seriously than I do. But I don't even have a hot tub, much less one that will let me go back in time to change my post. All I can do is, like @Scott Christian, clarify what I meant if someone takes offense.
One other note - most of the "standard" races are used widely in fantasy specific fiction. I doubt many people outside of D&D wouldn't have a clue what a tiefling was. Add in that many of the "exotic" races were in non-PHB books, books that many people have never seen.
There is a core set of "standard" races that fit what many people think of when they think D&D style fantasy. Whether that is a good thing or not is kind of a moot point IMHO.
Until 4e, I would agree. The retcon and 'reimagining' of how they look forcing them into the 'monster' race section was so unnecessary. I still look at them like Assimar. Plane-touched, and more human looking than not.
If one WANTED to have big horns and red skin, thats fine, completely, but if they would rather it be more subtle, I'm all for it.
Go to the fantasy section of a bookstore and many will have elves, dwarves and perhaps gnomes (which are even in Harry Potter books, although they are a different incarnation). A few will have cat people or similar. Some will have anthropomorphic animals.
If Merlin's fiendish ancestry hadn't been mentioned in this thread I would have never known it. He certainly looked human, nary a horn nor tail in sight.