D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

[Frozen_Heart]

Aren't all the different levels of a taxonomy clades?

Is dinosauria widely accepted as a class?

Wait I got that wrong. Dinosauria is a clade.

Also Dracohors includes silesaurs. So by definition it's awesome.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As for dragon classification, It drastically changes depending on if you're using 4 limbed or 6 limbed dragons. If you're using 6 limbed dragons, then there are actually lobed-fin fish with 6 lobes which exist irl. If one of those had crawled up onto land first rather than a 4 lobed fish, modern terrestrial vertebrates may have ended up with 6 limbs as a base, rather than 4.

In one of my old settings the first fish to crawl on land were six-limbed as were animals that evolved to them. But then there was a massive disaster and most of the animals were annihilated. So evolution had a second go, and this time it was a four-limbed fish that managed to crawl on land, resulting four-limbed vertebrae such we have on Earth. However, some creatures from that first evolution cycle had survived. These were dragons, griffins and other such "mythical" creatures.

In my current setting all natural land vertebrae on the main "plane" are four-limbed, so dragons for example have wyvern-like anatomy like in the GoT series and in the Hobbit films. If something has more limbs it is an indication that it is not a natural creature or is from another "plane".

 

[Frozen_Heart]

In one of my old settings the first fish to crawl on land were six-limbed as were animals that evolved to them. But then there was a massive disaster and most of the animals were annihilated. So evolution had a second go, and this time it was a four-limbed fish that managed to crawl on land, resulting four-limbed vertebrae such we have on Earth. However, some creatures from that first evolution cycle had survived. These were dragons, griffins and other such "mythical" creatures.

In my current setting all natural land vertebrae on the main "plane" are four-limbed, so dragons for example have wyvern-like anatomy like in the GoT series and in the Hobbit films. If something has more limbs it is an indication that it is not a natural creature or is from another "plane".

If I was using 6 limbed dragons for my setting I'd probably say they were descended from Coelacanths. Though personally I'm going for the 4 limbed dragons, with a similar explanation to you for 6 limbed things like angels and demons.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think the question in each case is whether the persons reaction and interpretation is reasonable.

Who determines that? The person whose very recent ancestors were enslaved, and who themselves continue to suffer the effects of a history of discrimination and racism, or the person for whom those disadvantages don't apply, and are somewhat abstract?

And to what extent does the seriousness of an egregious social disparity get weighed against the cost of changing a game of make believe elves and dragons?

I think most cases with stuff like orcs, they haven't been meant as stand-ins, and seeing them as such is a fairly recent phenomenon that has a lot of traction online, because of how online discourse works, but not outside the online sphere.

I mean, seriously, how many $%&@ing times does it have to be explained to you, in how many different ways, THAT THEY ARE NOT MEANT AS STAND-INS? I know you've been participating in these threads for a long time, and this has been explained over and over again, and yet you keep reverting to this falsehood. Are you skipping over the explanations? Do you not understand them? Do you think we are lying? Or does it undermine your position so you are turning a blind eye? Which is it?

I will try once again:
1. It is not necessary for the authors to have intentionally designed orcs as a stand-in for a particular race. (Maybe they did, but I personally don't think so, and either way it's not a necessary condition.)
2. Assuming the authors had the best of intentions, they wanted to portray orcs as vaguely human-like Bad Guys who could be slaughtered with impunity. It's a common theme in lots of stories.
3. In order to portray them that way, they used language and imagery that, as astute writers, they knew would convey the right message. Barbaric, stupid, violent, primitive, ugly, promiscuous, superstitious, irrational, etc.
4. Unfortunately, for all of recorded history that's the sort of imagery...propaganda...we humans use when we want to slaughter or enslave (or both) other humans.
5. If you are somebody whose ethnic group has recently been on the receiving end of that treatment, and are still suffering the effects of discrimination, seeing the same portrayals, with the same results, presented in a game as a rollicking good time to be had by all, is pretty invalidating.

On the other hand, if you and your relatives have not been on the receiving end of that treatment, then your opinion that this isn't a big deal, or your demand for proof that there's a connection or that a remedy would have any effect....basically doesn't matter. I mean, you are allowed to have an opinion, of course, but it's about as relevant as the parenting opinions of the stranger in the supermarket who wants to tell you how to discipline your kid. (To which my response is usually, "Go #$%@ yourself.")

 

[Hriston]

It makes me wonder if one of the reasons that WotC is continuing to make the rules simpler is that actually playing the game the way we're supposed to now is much more complex.

I don't know what you mean by "actually playing the game the way we're supposed to now". The way people play at their own tables is their business. I don't think anyone is telling you how you're supposed to play. My comments to which you're responding were about published game materials which I would expect to become more complex in terms of how the character packages formerly known as "race" are described and handled in order to avoid the inclusion of racist thinking.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The important thing is having half an excuse to murder an entire species in a fantasy game, not avoiding causing pain to actual humans.

Because other people with different experiences or generational trauma aren't real either, you see. We can harm them as much as we want without a thought!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know what you mean by "actually playing the game the way we're supposed to now". The way people play at their own tables is their business. I don't think anyone is telling you how you're supposed to play. My comments to which you're responding were about published game materials which I would expect to become more complex in terms of how the character packages formerly known as "race" are described and handled in order to avoid the inclusion of racist thinking.

I mean that the recent emphasis on social concerns as they relate to D&D, regardless of their value, has the effect of making running the game at the table more complex.

 

[Hriston]

I mean that the recent emphasis on social concerns as they relate to D&D, regardless of their value, has the effect of making running the game at the table more complex.

You'll have to explain how WotC avoiding the inclusion of content that resembles racist thinking in their published materials makes it more complicated for you to run your game and why anyone should be concerned about that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Who determines that? The person whose very recent ancestors were enslaved, and who themselves continue to suffer the effects of a history of discrimination and racism, or the person for whom those disadvantages don't apply, and are somewhat abstract?

I think everyone gets to weigh in here. No one is denying historical atrocities have occurred, but I don't think the existence of past wrongs means we relinquish our own judgment when it comes to analyzing and evaluating media tropes. I also think personal experience can be valuable but it also isn't the be all end all. And it is important to keep in mind, a lot of these groups are not monolithic in their views on these things. So even if you go a group that is offended you can get eight different answers.

Also as another poster pointed out, this particular argument has been hashed out on other threads in the past so it is probably best not to resurrect it here

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, seriously, how many $%&@ing times does it have to be explained to you, in how many different ways, THAT THEY ARE NOT MEANT AS STAND-INS? I know you've been participating in these threads for a long time, and this has been explained over and over again, and yet you keep reverting to this falsehood. Are you skipping over the explanations? Do you not understand them? Do you think we are lying? Or does it undermine your position so you are turning a blind eye? Which is it?

Again we've had these debates in other threads so I don't want to beat the dead horse. On this I will just say, I have definitely seen people make the case that they are meant as stand ins. But if they aren't meant as stand-ins, I think that lends more weight to my position.