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

[Maxperson]

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.

In 1e and 2e humanoid was just body shape. Did you have two arms, two legs and a humanish head(no tentacles sprouting from your face)? If yes, humanoid. It wasn't an actual creature type until 3e.

 

[mrpopstar]

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.

This. Also, the rules of the game assume that gods oversee the world and none can deny their existence. Creationism isn't a religious belief, it is known that the gods created the various races with their own hands (or from their tears, their blood, etc.).

 

[Charlaquin]

No one, AFAIK, is worried about describing gnolls as evil. Nor bugbears AFAIK.

Some people definitely do take issue with gnolls and bugbears being always evil.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Ok, let's see it.

See, I have seen the language comparisons between orcs and drow and real world texts. It's not a stretch to say that they are very, very close. I've seen the comparisons of Tokyo Kid and hobgoblins (why, if Japanese armor and whatnot is cool, is it only used on hobgoblins, a monster that isn't, in any way, related to Japanese mythology? Why don't we see Japanese armor and fashion on, say, halflings or dwarves or elves or orcs? If it was "just cool" wouldn't it appear more than once?) and they're pretty compelling.

So, if you got some more, let's see them. I haven't seen the same language being used for a lot of other humanoid races. Other than orcs, none of the humanoids rape human women to make babies, for example. There are no half-goblins or half-bugbears. Half ogre I have seen, but, isn't that an orc/ogre? And, that's largely fallen by the wayside for Goliaths anyway.

As I said, be specific. Because that's how we get things changed. Specific changes for specific reasons. All these airy, vague issues don't actually resolve anything because they are too vague to deal with. There are too many ways to counter argue. It's pretty hard to counter argue when you can hold up two texts and see that they are virtually identical.

 

[Hussar]

Some people definitely do take issue with gnolls and bugbears being always evil.

Why?

Please, be very, very specific. Can you point to exact texts and comparisons? Otherwise, it's all vague, "Well, it's kinda icky" stuff that never goes anywhere. The issues that we CAN deal with right now are very, very specific and have very clear cut evidence. If it's just, "Oh, well, biological morals mmmkay" stuff, I really, really don't care.

 

[Hussar]

"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."

I think that's stretching things a bit much. And, certainly since 3e, the art for elves is pretty far removed from anything even slightly Asian looking. 5e has gone even further and made elves gender fluid. I mean, this:

is an elf in 5e. That's pretty far from an Asian fetish.

 

[Argyle King]

I think that's stretching things a bit much. And, certainly since 3e, the art for elves is pretty far removed from anything even slightly Asian looking. 5e has gone even further and made elves gender fluid. I mean, this:

is an elf in 5e. That's pretty far from an Asian fetish.

Depends what you're reading or looking at.

There are some versions of drow which read as or appear to be palette-swapped versions of elves to me (like the negative of a photograph or Ryu/Ken in Street Fighter). Other versions obviously took inspiration from AA women.

In regards to 5E art, I would agree that much of the newer stuff has been different.

 

[Hussar]

Depends what you're reading or looking at.

There are some versions of drow which read as or appear to be palette-swapped versions of elves to me (like the negative of a photograph or Ryu/Ken in Street Fighter). Other versions obviously took inspiration from AA women.

In regards to 5E art, I would agree that much of the newer stuff has been different.

Yeah, and, really, I think that does need to be mentioned more often - we are doing better. Not that we should be resting on our laurels or anything like that, that's not what I mean. But, in the effort to move forward, it's not a bad thing to realize that yup, we've made some improvements already.

If nothing else, we can point to improvements that have already been made as evidence to counter the slippery slop argument. Look, we've made these changes and the sky hasn't fallen! And, look, we're actually making some strides towards getting D&D out of the white suburban ghetto that it lived in for decades and into the mainstream. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[Argyle King]

Yeah, and, really, I think that does need to be mentioned more often - we are doing better. Not that we should be resting on our laurels or anything like that, that's not what I mean. But, in the effort to move forward, it's not a bad thing to realize that yup, we've made some improvements already.

If nothing else, we can point to improvements that have already been made as evidence to counter the slippery slop argument. Look, we've made these changes and the sky hasn't fallen! And, look, we're actually making some strides towards getting D&D out of the white suburban ghetto that it lived in for decades and into the mainstream. Isn't that a good thing?

I do think it's a good thing.

The only "risk" (for lack of better words) is something I took some flak for bringing up elsewhere: is there a better treatment of something being offered which retains some form of unique identity which continues to justify having said something remain part of the game rather than cutting it out?

I think that some portion of worrying about a slippery slope relates to real positions people have taken, in which it is suggested that there should be neither mechanical nor much in the way of narrative differences between choosing a character option.

Personally, I think there's a lot of room between race/species portrayals which are problematic and race/species portrayals which are largely meaningless, but trying to suggest that tends to produce negative feedback.

So, at my own personal level, I'm not sure exactly how to approach D&D (or movies or a variety of other things) without accepting that somebody somewhere will probably be upset about some aspect of what I produce.

 

[Hussar]

So, at my own personal level, I'm not sure exactly how to approach D&D (or movies or a variety of other things) without accepting that somebody somewhere will probably be upset about some aspect of what I produce.

And, again, that's fair. My honest opinion is that the attempt is valuable in and of itself, even if the final result isn't quite what you'd hoped. IOW, so long as we're trying to be better, then, well, hopefully, we can get enough swings of the bat to get it right in the end.

"It might offend someone" isn't really a fair criteria. It's not enough for someone to just say, "Oh I think that's offensive." It really isn't. You do have to show your work, so to speak. Why is it offensive? How is it offensive? What, specifically, is the problem? Once you get to that level, a lot of the more specious complaints go away. Or, at the very least, it becomes a better too for uncovering what the actual problem is.