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

[Cadence]

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.

I'm guessing that the idea is that "all orcs are evil" is less complicated plot wise and game management wise than "hmm... each of these groups and individuals have their own motivation that needs to be considered when I run a game."

A reason someone might be concerned is over in the thread about whether there is a DM shortage - and if part of that is due to the complexity of running a game.

(To me, the extra complexity to address this is well worth it).

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

The more that every heritage needs to be thought of as just like humanity, with a wide variety of cultures and dispositions, the more effort the DM has to put in to create an adventure and run the game, and the more effort content creators have to put in to support the intensely nuanced take the current zeitgeist is demanding for every heritage in the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.")

My family fled pogroms and were murdered in the holocaust. I think I have a fair understanding of the kind of real world atrocities you are speaking of. But I don't blame orcs. And I don't think that means people without that family history can't weigh in. And I don't have a negative reaction to orcs if all they are being presented as general barbarians (which could include groups like vikings and celts). I think the the conflict between more urban civilizations and more pastoral ones is certainly embedded as a powerful trope for a reason, but I don't think it has that much to do with race.

 

[Xamnam]

And I don't have a negative reaction to orcs if all they are being presented as general barbarians

That's generally not what people who are seriously bothered by their characterization would contend they are presented as.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

One issue is that describing the different DnD species in any way at all can be linked at some point to language which racists have used in the past. X species is stronger/smarter/can do this thing which Y species can't do, is classic eugenicist language.

Ultimately the only way around it is to make all playable species completely identical. But then you just have humans in different hats and there is no point having different sapient species at all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's generally not what people who are seriously bothered by their characterization would contend they are presented as.

I understand that, and again I don't want to bog down the discussion in the old Orcs are Racist thread, but my view has always been they've spanned a range of barbarian types.

 

[Xamnam]

One issue is that describing the different DnD species in any way at all can be linked at some point to language which racists have used in the past. X species is stronger/smarter/can do this thing which Y species can't do, is classic eugenicist language.

Ultimately the only way around it is to make all playable species completely identical. But then you just have humans in different hats and there is no point having different sapient species at all.

There's a big difference between saying Dragonborn can breathe fire, and every Gnome starts out smarter than every Human.

 

[Incenjucar]

You can give different species different abilities without giving them different capacities, which is what moving ASIs to backgrounds does.

All orcs have very physical abilities but they're just as capable of being a genius wizard as an elf is.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm guessing that the idea is that "all orcs are evil" is less complicated plot wise and game management wise than "hmm... each of these groups and individuals have their own motivation that needs to be considered when I run a game."

A reason someone might be concerned is over in the thread about whether there is a DM shortage - and if part of that is due to the complexity of running a game.

(To me, the extra complexity to address this is well worth it).

As soon as the half orc got out, and when there are actual orc children, you really get to the problem, that orcs are just other humanoids.

So if you want something evil, you need to make sure, that you don't speak about humanoids, but demons or the like who just take the shape of humanoids. It is still not ideal, but at least it is better. Gnolls in 5e fill that niche, except that they were falsely adressed as humanoids.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You can give different species different abilities without giving them different capacities, which is what moving ASIs to backgrounds does.

All orcs have very physical abilities but they're just as capable of being a genius wizard as an elf is.

And many orcs just happen to be warriors in the forgotten realms. And of course, their powerful build is aso helping to shape the image of the strong person.