D&D 5E I thought WotC was removing biological morals?

[Hussar]

No, a small bunch of people did similar to this thread. They posted a obviously racist drawing from WW2 times and then posted the picture of Hobgoblins from the AD&D MM and declared them to be the same.

Finding some writing that ascribe moral characteristics to genetics (the period where that flourished was brief and well before D&D) and then stretching the same way that the Hobgoblin example I quoted they were declared to be the same.

They are not the same, they are superficially similar.

No, they really, really aren't. You are just wrong here.

I believe I am right in my assessment there, but using the same logic, regardless of that, enough people that have been negatively effected by the real life use of that vein of racism that even the superficial similarities are too much in a part of the game (alignment) that is not even needed.

Extremely few people object to Celestials (Angels) being good for pretty much the exact reason and wording used for evil humanoid races, so I find it annoying when that flag is being waved.

I am perfectly fine with the game rules being changed to eliminate alignment for humanoids even though the rules have pretty much always presented that as just the likely alignment, not the cast in stone one. It removes any doubt that the intent was to provide role playing advice to the DM, not to claim some discredited and racist theory is correct.

Again, you are bringing in issues that aren't under discussion. No one is claiming that the description of orcs is to "claim some discredited and racist theory is correct". That's obviously not true. You keep thinking that this is about assigning blame. As if it matters why or who is including this language or images in the game. No one cares. No one is trying to point to anyone and blame anyone for anything. All that is needed is the offensive language and images to stop being used.

The reason no one objects to Celestials is because the language describing celestials and the images used to show celestials, is not copying or mirroring racist language or images. AFAIK, no one has said, "Hey, these people look and act like angels, that makes them inferior to us." So, we don't worry about celestials. They aren't the problem.

 

[Faolyn]

From the 2e MM: "Ogres are big, ugly, greedy humanoids...."

In 2e (and possibly 1e as well), demi-human referred to elves, dwarfs, halflings, and gnomes, whereas humanoid referred to everything else. It wasn't considered a monster type in 2e; back then, it literally just meant the creature's body shape. It might be worth noting that, in 2e, several magic items lump ogres and other giants together (to determine what bonuses you get against them).

 

[Cadence]

Nope. They were giants. That's why rangers got their bonus damage. That's why hammers of thunderbolts kill them.

I'm arguing against your emphatic statement that Ogres weren't considered Humanoids in most editions.

As noted in the previous post, the "Humanoid Racial Preference Table" in the 1e DMG also included Ogres and Hill Giants. This seems to indicate that Ogres (and Hill Giants) are Humanoids.

They also fit the definition of humanoid in the glossary of the DMG: "anthropomorphic, generally hostile creatures".

Now, to the Ranger list. As @Azzy noted in a post above, the ranger list includes several smaller races. In particular, this list of "giant class creatures" includes "bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobogolins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls". If anything, taking "giant class creatures" in this one list as synonymous with "giant not humanoid" leaves several of the classic humanoids in an odd position and results in some very short giants.

But if Ogres are giants, it makes the case for their being humanoids in 1e even clearer. The first four words under giant in the 1e Monster Manual are "Giants are large humanoids."

I will finally note that it feels like you overstated the case from Hammer of Thunderbolts, as that seems to show that Ogres were not by default counted as giants proper. The * says "Depending on your campaign, you might wish to limit the effects to exclude storm giants and include ogres, ogre magi, trolls, ettins, and clay, flesh, and stone golems". A list that has many differences with the one in the Ranger description.

 

[Umbran]

What makes you say that?

What makes me say that is that the game doesn't say that they do. Game setting lore does not have elves crawling out of the primordial ooze. In addition, the interbreeding patterns see do not match anything akin to standard genetics. Magic is involved. And as soon as you see that, you have to question whether the rules of our world apply.

I am not saying that you cannot have a game world that uses Darwinian evolution. I am saying you cannot depend on that as an explanation for D&D, or other fantasy games, in general - it is an assumption we make, not usually clearly supported by evidence in the text.

 

[DarkCrisis]

This thread is why we can’t have nice things.

 

[Lanefan]

What makes me say that is that the game doesn't say that they do. Game setting lore does not have elves crawling out of the primordial ooze.

But they started somewhere, and usually in the very distant past; and in the eons since then it's easy enough to assume some natural selection and-or slow change has taken place. The Elves in the setting today might bear little if any resemblance to the Elves their deities created back at the dawn of history.

In addition, the interbreeding patterns see do not match anything akin to standard genetics. Magic is involved.

Don't they? If we take it as a given* that Human and Elvish genes are similar enough to allow interbreeding (and ditto for Humans and Orcs), it's not much of a stretch to say that the genes of most mortal lifeforms overall are fairly similar; and given the sheer number and variety of creatures in the setting, sometimes these similarities will be enough to allow interbreeding.

Where things get really messy - and interesting - is when you look at three elements the real world doesn't (yet!) have to worry about: shapeshifters, deities, and magically-constructed creatures.

With shapeshifters, the simple question is whether the shapechange goes down to the genetic level. For those magically polymorphed, I say it doesn't; but for innate shapechangers e.g. doppelgangers it's IMO a very open question.

No question about shapeshifting deities, though. Their change goes to the core, meaning Zeus CAN spend a night with Alcmene and several months later out pops Hercules; and every descendent of Hercules will have divine genes in its background.

Magically-constructed creatures e.g. Owlbears are another mess. Can an Owlbear breed with other Owlbears? Normal bears? Nothing at all?

* - assuming the existence of Part-Elves and-or Part-Orcs in the setting, of course.

 

[Argyle King]

No, they really, really aren't. You are just wrong here.


Again, you are bringing in issues that aren't under discussion. No one is claiming that the description of orcs is to "claim some discredited and racist theory is correct". That's obviously not true. You keep thinking that this is about assigning blame. As if it matters why or who is including this language or images in the game. No one cares. No one is trying to point to anyone and blame anyone for anything. All that is needed is the offensive language and images to stop being used.

The reason no one objects to Celestials is because the language describing celestials and the images used to show celestials, is not copying or mirroring racist language or images. AFAIK, no one has said, "Hey, these people look and act like angels, that makes them inferior to us." So, we don't worry about celestials. They aren't the problem.

To be fair, there are books across various editions in which the language used to describe elves (especially females) could be construed to embody the stereotypical western fetishization of Asian girls. I bring that up to make the point that language need not necessarily be perceived as negative or offensive to still be categorized as potentially racist or problematic. Perceived or stated perceptions of inferiority are not a requirement for what could viewed as racist tropes.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, there are books across various editions in which the language used to describe elves (especially females) could be construed to embody the stereotypical western fetishization of Asian girls. I bring that up to make the point that language need not necessarily be perceived as negative or offensive to still be categorized as potentially racist or problematic. Perceived or stated perceptions of inferiority are not a requirement for what could viewed as racist tropes.

Now that's a new one to me. I've not heard this one before. Can you point to some examples?

Note, we're not talking about "kinda similar" here. We're talking about virtually 1:1 exactly the same. To the point where all you have to do is swap out the word for whichever ethnic group is being denigrated with the word orc and there is virtually no difference.

 

[Mirtek]

The issue is that the description of orcs directly (and very often word for word) mirrors the SAME LANGUAGE used to describe minorities in the very recent past. THAT LANGUAGE is the problem. The same way that we don't start quoting from Mein Kampf to describe things in the game. It's a really, really bad idea and carries with it far, far too many connotations and historical baggage.

That SAME LANGUAGE is still being used for a lot of other humanoid mortal races. They are just not as front and center as orcs and drow and only because of that still mostly fly under the radar.

 

[Argyle King]

Now that's a new one to me. I've not heard this one before. Can you point to some examples?

Note, we're not talking about "kinda similar" here. We're talking about virtually 1:1 exactly the same. To the point where all you have to do is swap out the word for whichever ethnic group is being denigrated with the word orc and there is virtually no difference.

Away from books at the moment, but offhand...

There's often a big deal made about how they don't have body hair, have lithe and delicate body features, and more angular facial (typically drawn as the eyes) features. There tends to be a big deal made about their familiar yet exotic beauty.

In a similar way, if you look at how drow women are portrayed in older editions, their description could be construed as what were stereotypical fetishization of some African-American women: powerful, strong, domineering, and sexually active (in contrast to the more traditional blonde-hair and blue-eyed submissive 1950s-60s caucasian housewife).

None of this is to say that there is an intentional connection. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't. But it's something which can be seen if looking at it through a particular lens: thinking about how ideals concerning womanhood, western beauty, and sexuality would have been described and illustrated in media which would have been familiar to the writers and artists who created the descriptions and depictions of fantasy races.

Edit: What follows was copied from D&D Beyond. Some of the more egregious things from earlier editions appear to have been cut, but a lot of the underlying language is still there.

"With their unearthly grace and fine features, elves appear hauntingly beautiful to humans and members of many other races. They are slightly shorter than humans on average, ranging from well under 5 feet tall to just over 6 feet. They are more slender than humans, weighing only 100 to 145 pounds. Males and females are about the same height, and males are only marginally heavier than females.

Elves’ coloration encompasses the normal human range and also includes skin in shades of copper, bronze, and almost bluish-white, hair of green or blue, and eyes like pools of liquid gold or silver. Elves have no facial and little body hair. They favor elegant clothing in bright colors, and they enjoy simple yet lovely jewelry."

Personally, I once believed the mentioning of the hair was to create a contrast with dwarves (who are typically depicted as being gruff and hairy,) but I could see how someone might view it differently and there is some amount of artwork and narrative which goes into describing elves as having some sort of ethereal beauty in a manner which isn't too far from the stereotypical nerd drooling over an anime girl.