D&D 5E Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Lyxen]

Who are you talking to here?

Read the post, willl you ?

Yourself? Are you accusing yourself of racism? Because that's kind of um, an aggressive move?

Obviously, since I don't support the move from WotC, and from the title of the post, It's obvious where the agression lies.

If you're walking to WotC, or players in general, you're talking utter nonsense. Literally no-one thinks it's "racist" (your bizarre word choice) for a Goblin and Mind Flayer (the latter not even a PC race in 5E, nor in any edition AFAIK) to not have the same stats.

Actually, we have moved way beyond stats now, after removing negative ability modifiers, and removing positive ones, now even the size of fantasy races is apparently considered racist. And yes, actually, if you read the post and the related latest WotC update that it writes about, it's in there, and this is what I'm responding to.

If you're accusing @Yaarel, that's both very rude and obviously a lie on your part, because nothing he's said supports what you're saying.

Actually, all of his posts are on this theme, and it's strange that you consider it simply rude for me to point this out, whereas the title of this thread and the implications are actually way worse.

 

[Minigiant]

Sea Elves
Winged Elves
Dark Elves
Moon Elves
Sun Elves
Star Elves
Sun Elves
Wild Elves
Wood Elves
Eberron Elves
Dark Sun Elves
Shadow Elves
Painted Elves
Rockseer Elves

not in generic base D&D. Just 3.

Hill Dwarves
Mountain Dwarves
Deep Dwarves
Duergar
Arctic Dwarves
Urdunnir
Wild Dwarves
Cerillian Dwarves
Athasian Dwarves
Gully Dwarves
Sundered Dwarves
Wild Dwarves
Korobokuru
Eusdrian Dwarves
Kogolor Dwarves
Rot Dwarves
Midgard Dwarves

not in generic base D&D. Just 3.

I'm not going to continue with the other races. You get the point. There are a lot of variants for each of the races if they want to use them.

That's the point.
No one uses them. It's not in the PHB. Most settings barely get past 6. And when WOTC adds more, people freak out.

There could be a dozen elf kings and dwarf kings in generic Fntasy but there usually isn't.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

. Orc-made jerky can get you through a very long winter.

Alas! People on this board often think eating dead enemies is evil. They will never enjoy the fine taste of jerky made of orcs.

not in generic base D&D. Just 3.

not in generic base D&D. Just 3.

The shtick of D&D humans, what make them specific compared to other races is the "widely varying tastes, morals and customs in the many different lands where they have settled" and "as a group, humans are adaptable opportunists, and they stay alert to changing political and social dynamics." Despite not being differentiated by mechanical traits, the 9 ethnic groups in the generic base D&D compared to the three, more differentiated elfs and dwarves, are just illustrating the specificity of fantasy humans and maybe their only defining characteristic now that everyone have the same size and lifespan.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Read the post, willl you ?



Obviously, since I don't support the move from WotC, and from the title of the post, It's obvious where the agression lies.



Actually, we have moved way beyond stats now, after removing negative ability modifiers, and removing positive ones, now even the size of fantasy races is apparently considered racist. And yes, actually, if you read the post and the related latest WotC update that it writes about, it's in there, and this is what I'm responding to.



Actually, all of his posts are on this theme, and it's strange that you consider it simply rude for me to point this out, whereas the title of this thread and the implications are actually way worse.

I mean, you're straightforwardly lying. It's not even an opinion or interpretation thing. It's just blatantly false. It's pretty weird. I've read @Yaarel's most recent posts in this thread and none of them match your description.

I challenge you to actually quote his posts where he does what you says, or, in your own choice of words, to stop "slandering" (LOL!) him. Guessing quoting him is going to prove completely impossible for you, though, because he hasn't said any of those things.

 

[Lyxen]

I mean, you're straightforwardly lying.

Simple, title of the post: If you don't like factions, you are... Please read the word for me.

Also, please do your homework, it took me about 3 minutes to find enlightening sentences like: "The reason for the ability fluidity in the first place is to avoid the appearance of racism."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Simple, title of the post: If you don't like factions, you are... Please read the word for me.

Also, please do your homework, it took me about 3 minutes to find enlightening sentences like: "The reason for the ability fluidity in the first place is to avoid the appearance of racism."

I've read the title of the post, that's not what it says. It's proposing faction-based groupings rather than race-based groupings. It's a different-but-related use of the word racism. I've read @Yaarel's posts. That quote doesn't support a single claim you've made. Your entire complaint is fictional and seemingly based on your failure to understand some fairly simple English.

 

[Minigiant]

The shtick of D&D humans, what make them specific compared to other races is the "widely varying tastes, morals and customs in the many different lands where they have settled" and "as a group, humans are adaptable opportunists, and they stay alert to changing political and social dynamics." Despite not being differentiated by mechanical traits, the 9 ethnic groups in the generic base D&D compared to the three, more differentiated elfs and dwarves, are just illustrating the specificity of fantasy humans and maybe their only defining characteristic now that everyone have the same size and lifespan

I'll just say it here.

That's an excuse.

Humans being adaptables doesn't mean all elves line up into 3 groups politically and culturally: high wood and dark.

Unless mind controlled by gods, even inhuman elves, dwarves, halflings , and orcs would split into more than 3 factions.

My fey elves, gnomes, and other fey have 14 fey nations, one for every month in the fey calendar. And they are weird as heck.

 

[Lyxen]

I've read the title of the post, that's not what it says. It's proposing faction-based groupings rather than race-based groupings. It's a different-but-related use of the word racism. I've read @Yaarel's posts. That quote doesn't support a single claim you've made. Your entire complaint is fictional and seemingly based on your failure to understand some fairly simple English.

Again, simply read this sentence for me, and explain to me that it's not the same word, in the same context, and with the same meaning: "The reason for the ability fluidity in the first place is to avoid the appearance of racism."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Again, simply read this sentence for me, and explain to me that it's not the same word, in the same context, and with the same meaning: "The reason for the ability fluidity in the first place is to avoid the appearance of racism."

It's incredibly simple, the discussion is race-based (racism) vs faction-based (factionalism).

How do you not understand this? Explain. It's like you're desperate to be offended so are clutching for the negative meaning of the word, when from context (factionalism vs racism) it's obvious what the usage is. Arguably, you might say "racialism" is a more-correct word than "racism", but "racialism" is increasingly archaic/obsolete in usage and "racism" is often substituted for it.

 

[John R Davis]

I think @Bacon Bits touched on the heart of the issue and it's solution.

Poor form:
"You're surrounded by orcs, roll for initiative."

Better form:
"You're surrounded by orc bandits, roll for initiative."

Best form:
"You're surrounded by bandits, roll for initiative."

Hmm. Not really
If there are orc bandits then my pc may know to fight them using X, Y and Z.
Human bandits I may know to fight using X, A and B.