D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Bagpuss]

Then it should be included in a setting book. Again, I'm talking ONLY about the Player's Handbook 2014. Just to be really, really specific.

And you seriously think it's a good idea that ONLY mixed heritage characters are called out for being subjected to racism? You honestly think that's a good look in the game? You see no problems at all here?

Well drow were also called out at being subject to racism, tieflings too, animosity between elves and dwarves use to be a thing, the problem is they keep sanitizing everything so yes they end up being the only ones, but only because they have already white washed everything else.

 

[Hussar]

Well drow were also called out at being subject to racism, tieflings too, animosity between elves and dwarves use to be a thing, the problem is they keep sanitizing everything so yes they end up being the only ones, but only because they have already white washed everything else.

Note tieflings are also a mixed heritage race. So basically it’s the mixed races and drow that are subject to racism.

Possibly not the best of looks.

 

[Blue Orange]

Note tieflings are also a mixed heritage race. So basically it’s the mixed races and drow that are subject to racism.

Possibly not the best of looks.

I mean, it's up to the game world. Apparently in Aglarond in the Forgotten Realms being a half-elf is no big deal; we all remember what Tanis in Krynn had to go through. IRL adjacent countries often have nasty histories of conflict, so you imagine separate species living in proximity would have the same. But it winds up varying by game world.

The whole thing with the tieflings is they're part devil (or demon), so since all devils and demons are evil (they're supernatural creatures of darkness) people are suspicious of them. But tieflings, from what I know of the fluff, are usually less than half devil. So I guess at some point the genetic evil doesn't kick in. A quarter? An eighth? I know, sounds a little Nuremberg-y.

Could work the same with the aasimar if you don't like the society the gods built, I guess.

I mean, this is usually the point where I shrug and say 'tieflings aren't real and neither are wizards or dragons'. But most gamers these days, especially the younger generation, aren't content with that. And I don't think Hasbro is trying to put all their efforts into appealing to Gen X gamers.

 

[Alzrius]

Orcs are not in the PHB.

This strikes me as an artificial limitation on the subject under discussion, which is "why do only half-races have a negative portrayal?" It's not an issue of PC races only (of which orcs are typically presented as a PC race in a subsequent supplement anyway, and will be in the Revised 5E PHB).

Tieflings are a mixed heritage race.

One which doesn't have "half" in their name, and which were usually described as being looked askance at for their fiendish ancestry. But that, like so many other negative qualities, has been quietly shuffled out the door in the name of being inoffensive.

Only drow are the odd one out really. And, frankly, that's because drow have all sorts of other issues as well.

It's the same issue. That a negative in-game depiction is taken as being representative of, or an unbearable reminder of, real-world bigotry. So that was removed, leaving them anodyne.

Again, I'm talking about the Player's Handbook here. What sources are you talking about?

Leaving aside that tieflings and drow are in the 5E PHB, and orcs will be alongside them in the Revised 5E PHB, I'm referring to (PC-playable) races in general. I'm not sure there's much merit to limiting things to the PHB, but given that the orc will be there in less than eighteen months, it's kind of a moot restriction anyway.

I'm frankly finding it rather baffling that asking that we not include the same language that real world bigots use to describe and treat people in the PHB is considered a big ask.

This again? Yes, it's a big ask, because it's so expansive that it encompasses literally all possible negative characterizations of a particular race, since every negative quality imaginable has been used to describe some ethnicity at some point. Saying "no language reminiscent of real world bigotry" is the way you excise all negative chararcterizations altogether. It encompasses calling orcs savage and brutal. Calling kender kleptomaniacs. Calling drow treacherous and deceitful. And on and on. That "ask" (which is usually framed as a demand, with the underlying implication that there's no acceptable reason for refusing) is reasonable only in how it sounds, not what it wants.

Do you remember when I pointed out the way that Dragonlance's draconians can be read as using the language of bigotry with regard to people of African-American heritage, and you said "let's agree to disagree" because it was "reaching pretty hard" with regard to it being offensive? That's how a lot of people feel with regard to orcs, drow, tieflings, half-elves, etc.

 

[Aldarc]

I wonder though. Do people take races based on the race abilities or because those races appeal to them. I have a sneaking suspicion that racial mechanics are not very high up on people's list of priorities when creating a character. I might be wrong, but, it would explain why WotC is going the route they are. If people's choices of race are largely for aesthetic reasons, then, well, why bother creating a whole system for mix and match race abilties? It just makes creating a character that bit more complicated. Which, in turn makes these races less appealing.

Hussar, just so that you you don't have to resort to making sneaking suspicions of any sort about other people, I can tell you that I personally enjoyed both aspects when it came to 4e and 5e half-elves. I liked the mechanical aspects of the 5e half-elf, and I will deeply miss them in the revised D&D 5e precisely because picking either elf or human for their mechanics does nothing for me when I liked the half-elf mechanics.

The issue is the language used in half races. Misfits. Cannot belong to either culture. Face fetishization or bigotry. On and on and on.

And it’s based on a history in the game that’s even more problematic. In 2e it was impossible for a half elf to have a half elf child unless the other parent was a full elf. After all, in 2e rules, being less than 50% elf made you human. Never minding the language that states that you could be 99% elf but still be considered a half elf.

That’s the problem.

Khoravar ("half-elves") have their own communities, populations, and cultures in Eberron with generations of Khoravar born to Khoravar parents.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Because it unfortunately reflects reality, thus it gives representation to those real world groups.

I would disagree with the last part of this. Yes it is interesting that the half races in the game both face bigotry (and I think in a fantasy setting where you have homogenous races like that I think it makes in world sense). But I don't see this as representation of a real world group. Yes people can see those races, see the challenges they face, and identify with them (but I think its much more universal and open than just being a stand in for people with mixed real world racial or ethnic background). Importantly because none of these races are stand ins for real world races. People can attach that kind of meaning to them, but dwarves aren't meant to be a stand in for a real world cultural or racial group (there may be real world borrowings for flavor but that doesn't make them a stand in). I also think this is where a lot of the fundamental divisions in the hobby around this issue are arising.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well drow were also called out at being subject to racism, tieflings too, animosity between elves and dwarves use to be a thing, the problem is they keep sanitizing everything so yes they end up being the only ones, but only because they have already white washed everything else.

I think the animosity between other races is a good point. Dwarves and Elves are a very notable example of that.

And while I don't see these races as stand-ins, I do expect a fantasy setting to have the same kinds of flaws as the real world would (not to make people miserable but because that is one of the things that makes a fantasy setting and stories compelling and believable: it is easy to imagine how bigotries might exist between different races in a setting like Forgotten Realms or how in Ravenloft the humans are suspicious of demi-humans in general. And while again, they aren't stand ins, they can become a means for addressing real world themes and issues (like you have with Vlad Drakov in the old Falkovnia material).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well drow were also called out at being subject to racism, tieflings too, animosity between elves and dwarves use to be a thing, the problem is they keep sanitizing everything so yes they end up being the only ones, but only because they have already white washed everything else.

Drow were an extremely popular race to play in the 90s (because of Drizzt). I could definitely see including them as a core race

 

[SteveC]

This strikes me as an artificial limitation on the subject under discussion, which is "why do only half-races have a negative portrayal?" It's not an issue of PC races only (of which orcs are typically presented as a PC race in a subsequent supplement anyway, and will be in the Revised 5E PHB).



Do you remember when I pointed out the way that Dragonlance's draconians can be read as using the language of bigotry with regard to people of African-American heritage, and you said "let's agree to disagree" because it was "reaching pretty hard" with regard to it being offensive? That's how a lot of people feel with regard to orcs, drow, tieflings, half-elves, etc.

I think this is an excellent observation. The entire discussion is artificial and arbitrary. If we look at the different races/species/ancestries that fill D&D, all of them can be viewed through a racist lens. I know that elves, dwarves, and gnomes all have had discussions about racism, and I can easily make an argument for any others if you wish.

This is because all of the classic fantasy creatures people play in D&D come from real world mythologies including Tolkien, and over time they have had negative connotations in the real world. No matter what you do, you can't get away from those issues unless you make them unrecognizable for the tropes that we associate with them.

I'm not sure if you remember the game "Sovereign Stone," but dwarves in that setting were horse riding nomads. At the time, that was discussed as removing the qualities people actually liked about dwarves.

What I find about the different creatures we can play in D&D is that they can all be awesome in their own way. That's equally true with the classes. They have tropes we can play either with or against. And none of them are coming from a perspective that's racist. Yes, you can look at them that way, but that is going to end up with humans only. And playing a game with just humans is open to the same issues of racism as well.

 

[Bagpuss]

I would disagree with the last part of this. Yes it is interesting that the half races in the game both face bigotry (and I think in a fantasy setting where you have homogenous races like that I think it makes in world sense). But I don't see this as representation of a real world group.

I'm not saying they represent a particular real world group of people, I'm saying real world people can see parallels with the experiences of fantasy races. Thus find representation.