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

[Faolyn]

I think an issue WotC is going to have as they try to “chill out” various racial tensions i their settings is some setting have had like Orcs v Elves v Dwarves etc for awhile.

Apparently, the species playtest packet referenced orcs vs. elves/dwarfs. What that packet didn't do, apparently, was say that it was purely because orcs are EvilEvilEvil and hate all that's Good. And that's a good thing, because that sort of thing is both boring and unrealistic, which should be important for all those people who think that that racism in games is realistic and therefore should be included.

But more important, what it means is that they can and likely will have orc vs. elf vs. dwarf conflict, but there will be reasons for it. A long-standing part of D&D lore has the humanoid gods steal all the land, leaving Gruumsh nowhere to put his orcs. That puts elves and dwarfs into the role of colonizers taking land from the indigenous people. That had always been the lore (or at least since 2e), but because the orcs were Always Evil, this sort of thing was still used to paint the rather horrible actions of Corellon, Moradin, et al as Good, because elves and dwarfs were Good People, and therefore anything done by Good People must also be good.

Even if 6e chooses to ignore this bit or lore, there can still be good reasons why orcs and elves and dwarfs may be at war. Or there could be bad reasons why they're at war. War, as we know, is a very complicated thing and there are both "good" and "bad" reasons why actual real people have gone to war. But there should be reasons, not just "orcs are evil and like to kill things."

You can’t just suddenly come out say like in Dragonlance, Half Elves are loved the world over.

And that's a setting, not the core book.

Or in Faerun Dwarves suddenly got over their tension with their long hated enemies the Orcs.

I don't see why not. It's not like the Realms haven't had world-shaking events that have completely changed things before... (and again, this is a setting, not the core book)

Not without some serious world building like they are trying to do with Faerun Drow.

I mean I get they “just won’t mention it” and only those who have read Faerun lore from previous editions will see the sudden change with no real explanation.

Which IMO lessens them as unique settings

There's very little unique about the Realms, beyond the names.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm pretty sure that if you wrote every species' description in terms other than "other people hate them," people would be more than capable of coming up with their own resonating angst.

Sure, but then every species would be playing out that trope. The appeal here is you have a range of types to select from that appeal to different things. Stuff like Tieflings and Half Elves, can have an appeal to people who feel like outsiders, feel like they are between worlds (or people who are simply interested in playing a character like that). But I don't think you would want every type to be that way. And I do get, in a different kind of setting, you might not have types this strong. Every race and class might be more individual and nuanced (I made a setting like that myself that was much more morally gray and real world-like). But D&D works through tropes that are usually somewhat mythic or at least deeply engrained.

The only reason why those tropes have lasted so long is tradition, because it means you have the bulk of a pre-made background all ready for you and don't have to come up with something new. But most gamers are pretty imaginative and capable of coming up with their own reasons for latching onto a character.

I don't think it is simply tradition. Not every thing in D&D has survived over time. But some tropes have stuck once after they were introduced to the game. And I think in this case it is because the tropes resonate and they work. And yes one of the advantages of races and classes as they have worked is they are quick packages of abilities and ideas that get the ball rolling. But like I said before, by the time you play your fourth or fifth half elf, you may be doing another take (or not, some people like them as is and don't feel the need to add much).

I agree gamers are imaginative. None of this thwarts imagination in my view. I view it more as playing to imagination. But it is meant to make the process simpler

Races and classes are types. They come with some amount of expectation to them. There are games that don't have that as part of their character creation process and they work great. If people want blank slates for PCs, I don't think D&D is the best fit. Part of my point in these discussions isn't that peoples preferences for stuff like half elves or other races and classes are wrong but that D&D has always worked by front loading a bunch of stuff onto character types you select at the start of the game. There are much better games for customization if that is what people want (I more typically play those kinds of games and come back to D&D when I want that Race+Class+Level with Vancian magic experience.

 

[Bedrockgames]

A lot of 'children's show' stuff is actually pretty darn mature.

I am sure there are within reason. I don't really watch children's shows. But my point is I feel like I am watching children's show sometimes the way these things are being presented and written

 

[Faolyn]

Obviously, people of all ages play MC. The majority however are children.

According to this, the average minecraft player is 24 years old.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I keep thinking about how wild it is that you think this is a huge ask. Just to…not call the popular race that looks and dresses differently while not living in cities or using the same tech as the more “familiar” peoples, savage. Like you can’t think of any other way to describe such people? Really?

I think people underestimate the flavor things kind of language brings to games, and when you strip it out, how sterile it can make it feel. Savage as a word gives people a very clear image. I think we can wring our hands over all the possible connotations of words, and certainly there are some words we wouldn't want to use because they are truly offensive. But the evolution of terminology here and description really does feel like, however well intentioned (and I don't doubt it is well intentioned) it is draining language of its vitality and making it harder for people to communicate ideas without second guessing themselves

 

[Micah Sweet]

Apparently, the species playtest packet referenced orcs vs. elves/dwarfs. What that packet didn't do, apparently, was say that it was purely because orcs are EvilEvilEvil and hate all that's Good. And that's a good thing, because that sort of thing is both boring and unrealistic, which should be important for all those people who think that that racism in games is realistic and therefore should be included.

But more important, what it means is that they can and likely will have orc vs. elf vs. dwarf conflict, but there will be reasons for it. A long-standing part of D&D lore has the humanoid gods steal all the land, leaving Gruumsh nowhere to put his orcs. That puts elves and dwarfs into the role of colonizers taking land from the indigenous people. That had always been the lore (or at least since 2e), but because the orcs were Always Evil, this sort of thing was still used to paint the rather horrible actions of Corellon, Moradin, et al as Good, because elves and dwarfs were Good People, and therefore anything done by Good People must also be good.

Even if 6e chooses to ignore this bit or lore, there can still be good reasons why orcs and elves and dwarfs may be at war. Or there could be bad reasons why they're at war. War, as we know, is a very complicated thing and there are both "good" and "bad" reasons why actual real people have gone to war. But there should be reasons, not just "orcs are evil and like to kill things."


And that's a setting, not the core book.


I don't see why not. It's not like the Realms haven't had world-shaking events that have completely changed things before... (and again, this is a setting, not the core book)


There's very little unique about the Realms, beyond the names.

Yeah, I mischaracterized the lore in the playtest on species (particularly orcs, which I remembered differently and wrong) and that was a mistake on my part. I apologize. I was thinking of the explanation of mixed heritage, which is extraordinarily positive, and also the section on tieflings, which functionally ignores the outcast/misfit part of their heritage. That's the biggest part of their characterization historically, to the point where it's even mentioned in the new movie by the tiefling character.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Obviously, people of all ages play MC. The majority however are children.

Or were children ten years ago. Children grow up.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Perhaps we should then go back to the kind of thinking on orcs that leads to Gygax quoting US Army officers speaking genocidally about Native People to make an point about how it’s just pragmatism to murder orc babies?

Or, we could just move on as a hobby, and leave the fantasy racism to settings and home games.

I am not familiar with that quote so I can't really comment on it specifically. But I think you can have racism and bigotry in a game setting among fictional races, and not have it mean anything outside that. Again don't know that quote but no one here is suggesting it is okay to speak genocidally about native people (and I think I have pretty consistently expressed my deep concern about genocide in these threads). In the real world, those are appalling things we should work to prevent and never allow. But they will make our way into fiction because they are part of history and they are part of the evil that exists in the world (which fiction and fantasy often deal with in different ways).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am not familiar with that quote so I can't really comment on it specifically. But I think you can have racism and bigotry in a game setting among fictional races, and not have it mean anything outside that. Again don't know that quote but no one here is suggesting it is okay to speak genocidally about native people (and I think I have pretty consistently expressed my deep concern about genocide in these threads). In the real world, those are appalling things we should work to prevent and never allow. But they will make our way into fiction because they are part of history and they are part of the evil that exists in the world (which fiction and fantasy often deal with in different ways).

I think it's important for us all to remember that, while as @Faolyn says we absolutely do not need to have things like racism and bigotry in the settings we play, whether they are published or honebrew, we also absolutely do not not have to have them. The core books should allow for either option, at any part of the spectrum, and not advocate exclusively for either for any heritage.

I also agree with @Bedrockgames that heritage in all versions of D&D uses these packages of traits and characterization as a shorthand to help players (especially new players) quickly understand the choice they're making, with digestible examples drawn from the genre. Losing that would, in my opinion, make the game harder to pick up for many people, because the blank slate can be frightening.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Personally, I'd rather they keep the half-elf and half-orc's status and descriptions as existing between yet outside of the parents' cultures. That's what resonated with and drew me to them in the first place. Same with the tiefling's outsider (social, not planar) status.
Ancestries that are just bundles of stats without any lore attached are great for toolkit systems, but D&D has never really been a toolkit system. I much prefer when each ancestry reflects a different aspect or desire of humanity. Individuals can conform to or rebel against those stereotypes, but if those stereotypes don't exist then there's nothing to conform/exceed/rebel against, and that just makes for significantly less engaging worlds. Creativity flourishes best within limits to strain against. A blank piece of paper is the most boring thing in the world to create from.