D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: Gothic Lineages & New Race/Culture Distinction

The latest Unearthed Arcana contains the Dhampir, Reborn, and Hexblood races. The Dhampir is a half-vampire; the Hexblood is a character which has made a pact with a hag; and the Reborn is somebody brought back to life.

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

Perhaps the bigger news is this declaration on how race is to be handled in future D&D books as it joins other games by stating that:

"...the race options in this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical realities of being a player character who’s a member of a particular lineage. Such traits include things like darkvision, a breath weapon (as in the dragonborn), or innate magical ability (as in the forest gnome). Such traits don’t include cultural characteristics, like language or training with a weapon or a tool, and the traits also don’t include an alignment suggestion, since alignment is a choice for each individual, not a characteristic shared by a lineage."

 

[PsyzhranV2]

No they are not.

I'm Canadian. I grew up beside First Nation reserves. I grew up learning about First Nation's cultures. We shared classes. My great great grandmother is First Nations.

You are taking the worst possible view, and saying thats the view still held, and that its somehow Orcs = Natives.

Its just flat out wrong.

The very presence of an "other" which is framed as group that is inherently inferior or corrupt, to which it is justified or even mandated to pillage, conquer, and subjugate is fraught as a concept, even if that specific "other" has no direct real-world analogue. It still plays into the imperialist and colonialist fantasy of Manifest Destiny, of cowboys and conquistadores, of cultural destruction and genocide. If such acts are framed as good and just, as stuff the "good guys" are encouraged to do, that raises a lot of uncomfortable questions, even if the answer to those questions just turns out to be "the setting authors didn't think it through". Such imperialistic actions and the mindset that drives and justifies them are abhorrent in and of themselves, even if their fictional victims have no direct real-world analogue.

 

[Arial Black]

I still don't think you are understanding. It's not simply that they are both portrayed as bad. It's that the way they are portrayed as bad...the language that is used...is the exact same way that "other people" are always portrayed as bad, in order to rationalize oppression. And in western countries, the strongest example of that, and one that continues to reverberate, is the african american community.

EDIT: As I said above, there are still people who say, in effect, "No, I'm not racist! It's just that Group X is prone to violence." Or "has no ambition" or "doesn't commit to relationships" or "isn't very bright" or "loves to drink" or whatever. Sound familiar?

That said, I'm guessing that there are many, many other cultures still getting the short of the stick who feel the same way about this language as the african american community does. And native americans reading this? Yeah, we used the same language to describe them.

Is the film Dances With Wolves 'bad' because it portrays an ethnicity as being tribal?

In the World of Warcraft film based on the game, orcs were depicted as tribal. Does that mean they were depicted as native americans?

Did the film portray orcs negatively, because they are a tribal society?

Does it mean that stories that include tribal societies are inherently unacceptable?

When I started playing AD&D back in 1979, when I read the PHB I instantly thought that they used the wrong word: 'race' was simply incorrect. The correct word was 'species'. I suppose that all the PC races (including human!) could be described as 'subspecies' and 'humanoid' as the species.

And 'humanoid' still has a human perspective, but so does 'half-elf'; I'm pretty sure elves refer to them as 'half-humans'.

I like the trope of the Noble Savage. In my D&D career I've played human, elven, and dwarven barbarians from tribal cultures (along with Barbarian PCs from a civilised culture). I imagine tribal orcs to be similar. Not inherently evil or good, just seen that way by their enemies or allies.

 

[Scribe]

The very presence of an "other" which is framed as group that is inherently inferior or corrupt, to which it is justified or even mandated to pillage, conquer, and subjugate is fraught as a concept, even if that specific "other" has no direct real-world analogue. It still plays into the imperialist and colonialist fantasy of Manifest Destiny, of cowboys and conquistadores, of cultural destruction and genocide. If such acts are framed as good and just, as stuff the "good guys" are encouraged to do, that raises a lot of uncomfortable questions, even if the answer to those questions just turns out to be "the setting authors didn't think it through". Such imperialistic actions and the mindset that drives and justifies them are abhorrent in and of themselves, even if their fictional victims have no direct real-world analogue.

THIS, I can at least accept as a basis of argument.

Its even been touched on in some FR novels, in regards to the Kingdom of Many-Arrows, and what if anything is to be done about it.

How much that inferiority is codified, how much of it is perception, how much is word of god or simply in universe 'bias' or 'racism'.

I still argue that fantasy, Forgotten Realms type fantasy, is going to have more than small mountain to climb if you want to say we cannot have groups of people's that pillage, or subjugate, as a non-starter.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

It might be worth a moment to consider that as an RPG, the very essence of the game is to kill things and take thier stuff rather than negotiate peace treatise and cultural exchange with them. Maybe the whole premise of the game is inherently flawed and should be jettisoned?

Not all RPGs are as focused on tactical small unit combat as D&D. It's perfectly possible to have an RPG, even a fantasy RPG, where the core loop of play doesn't involve killing things and taking their stuff.

Yes, there's the question of "Will Dungeons & Dragons still be 'Dungeons & Dragons' if we get rid of the dungeons". The D&D brand may be doomed to "hack & slash" forever, but there are ways to keep that combat focus without incentivizing grave robbing as a primary means of income.

Not to mention that lots of D&D groups and tables are already moving away from that dungeon delving style of play and towards a more story-focused style of play (though still with lots of action), but they're doing so in spite of the mechanics, rather than being aided by them.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I like the trope of the Noble Savage.

Have you ever heard the phrase 'You're one of the good ones'?

 

[Guest 6801328]

No they are not.

I'm Canadian. I grew up beside First Nation reserves. I grew up learning about First Nation's cultures. We shared classes. My great great grandmother is First Nations.

You are taking the worst possible view, and saying thats the view still held, and that its somehow Orcs = Natives.

Its just flat out wrong.

I was typing yet another attempt, but never mind. I give up.

 

[Arial Black]

Dude. Listen to yourself.

It's not that they are different culturally, it's that they ae cultural analogs to tribespeople. Specifically, those made up as an excuse to murder them and take their stuff. Orcs are savage tribals who cannot be reasoned with except by the point of the sword--which is exactly what colonizers said about the natives of the Americas, Africa, Polynesia, and even modern day in the Middle East only they say 'nuke' instead of 'sword'.

That is the problem. They represent and give legitimacy to some of the most monstrous acts in human history.

Maybe that doesn't resonate with you, in which case, fine. But some of us have that as part of our history and heritage. Some of us have that as part of our personal history. Part of us have that as our today.

How about portraying tribal orcs as people who CAN be reasoned with?

During the two world wars, the Allies portrayed Germans that way, no (other) 'race' involved.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I still argue that fantasy, Forgotten Realms type fantasy, is going to have more than small mountain to climb if you want to say we cannot have groups of people's that pillage, or subjugate, as a non-starter.

You can have 'people's' who pillage and subjugate. The issue is that orcs are an entire race who do it because they are inherently like that and who are coded with the tropes of tribal peoples.

Like, a group of orc bandits who are raiders and naughty words is fine as long as the entire species isn't just nothing but bandits who are constantly dressed up like genocide victims... for the purpose of making it okay to genocide them.

In fact, that's the thing people are trying to get away from: not murderhoboing, not home invasions, but genocide. All these 'always evil, kill on sight' naughty words old school fantasy considers monsters in need of cleansing.

 

[Arial Black]

The very presence of an "other" which is framed as group that is inherently inferior or corrupt, to which it is justified or even mandated to pillage, conquer, and subjugate is fraught as a concept, even if that specific "other" has no direct real-world analogue. It still plays into the imperialist and colonialist fantasy of Manifest Destiny, of cowboys and conquistadores, of cultural destruction and genocide. If such acts are framed as good and just, as stuff the "good guys" are encouraged to do, that raises a lot of uncomfortable questions, even if the answer to those questions just turns out to be "the setting authors didn't think it through". Such imperialistic actions and the mindset that drives and justifies them are abhorrent in and of themselves, even if their fictional victims have no direct real-world analogue.

Does that mean that no story from now on is allowed to have a villain? Because whatever group that villain belongs to will bring out the response, "How DARE you suggest that people of (villains group) are villains!"

 

[Vaalingrade]

How about portraying tribal orcs as people who CAN be reasoned with?

How about not portraying them as 'tribal'.

How about we as gamers and game designers rub two creativities together and give them a culture that isn't directly ripping off folks who have been traditionally brutalized by our culture?