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

[DarkCrisis]

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

Orcs are double plus ungood.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

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

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

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

I kinda understand both points of view. There are people who want to be part of taking on the prejudice inherent to many of different species. They want to deal with elf/dwarf/orc hatred or the prejudice of being a mixed species. Others don't want to be burdened with that, they just want to play a big tough orc without being harassed in every bar and tavern they go to. I can see why they might want to move away from systemic hatred or prejudice as defining species relationships while retaining the ability for some individuals to remain prejudiced.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

You're not getting it. You can write a race to be the "outsider" race without making it so that the core books say they invite discrimination. You can emphasize that they have an ability to see things from both parent's point of view or that they often have tastes or interests that are different enough from their peers that they don't necessarily connect, all without also saying "people hate or look down on them." And/or you can write that elves or whatever are prone to bigotry in the description of the elves.

I say this as someone who prefers tieflings and half-elves for their outsider nature, in large part due to my neurodivergence and (a)sexuality. But the reasons why I'm an outsider isn't because of those factors; it's because of other ,"normal" people who can't handle me being different. The blame isn't on me or on half-whatevers for being different; it's on the other people for not being more understanding. The same would be true if I were a different ethnicity. This is the important difference. If you, for whatever reason, need that bigotry there, then the bigotry should be squarely on the shoulders of the bigots, not on the victims of their bigotry.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're not getting it. You can write a race to be the "outsider" race without making it so that the core books say they invite discrimination. You can emphasize that they have an ability to see things from both parent's point of view or that they often have tastes or interests that are different enough from their peers that they don't necessarily connect, all without also saying "people hate or look down on them." And/or you can write that elves or whatever are prone to bigotry in the description of the elves.

I say this as someone who prefers tieflings and half-elves for their outsider nature, in large part due to my neurodivergence and (a)sexuality. But the reasons why I'm an outsider isn't because of those factors; it's because of other ,"normal" people who can't handle me being different. The blame isn't on me or on half-whatevers for being different; it's on the other people for not being more understanding. The same would be true if I were a different ethnicity. This is the important difference. If you, for whatever reason, need that bigotry there, then the bigotry should be squarely on the shoulders of the bigots, not on the victims of their bigotry.

Sounds like the right place to put this stuff is in the introduction to the whole section on species. Otherwise you are either victimizing one group, as you say, or  villainizing another.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I kinda understand both points of view. There are people who want to be part of taking on the prejudice inherent to many of different species. They want to deal with elf/dwarf/orc hatred or the prejudice of being a mixed species. Others don't want to be burdened with that, they just want to play a big tough orc without being harassed in every bar and tavern they go to. I can see why they might want to move away from systemic hatred or prejudice as defining species relationships while retaining the ability for some individuals to remain prejudiced.

In the end it won't matter. WotC doesn't do lore anymore. Faerun may be the main campaign setting but it's only ever going to get an adventure book with a few pages of basic lore of the area.

Dragonlance is a great example. That book got a few pages of lore and that's it. If you knew nothing about the setting all you would know is the Gods left for awhile and came back and there as a big war with dragons and dragon gods. That's like saying Faerun is just Neverwinter and/or Waterdeep.

But I get it, it's the easiest path for WotC to take to please everyone and those who have all that background lore knowledge are slowing fading out.

I just think it's sad that all these worlds with tons of amazing stories and lore and characters will eventually be watered down to whatever 90 page adventure book WotC kicks out once a year. It's just all so generic. Faerun is Dragonlance is Eberron is Generica the world of shades of grey.

But more to the topic, yes the CORE 3 books should be generic as possible. But a setting book should have FLAVOR and each should be DIFFERENT. Or why even have setting books? Half-Elves are loved in Faerun but merely tolerated in Krynn. Orcs are mean spirited raiders in Faerun but beloved cobblers in... Eberron or whatever.

One thing I think is funny is that Dragonlance is actually pretty progressive. Yeah there is a tension (born from wars) between Elves and Dwarves and Humans but it's not odd for a Hobgoblin or an Ogre etc to be welcomed into a town. Not to mention Minotaurs a main race in the setting who are known for a "might makes right" attitude . Even Draconians are eventually normalized even after they were introduced merely as stormtroopers for the evil army.

But that setting get one adventure book and some basic lore, while they are bending over backwards to "fix" Faerun.

 

[cranberry]

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

The average isn't necessarily the majority.

Young children are largely an untapped market. Why wouldn't WoTC want to market to them?

There are more effective ways to attract the interest of 24 year old.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

No, I did not say that. I said we don't need it in the core book's descriptions. Settings can have as much or as little bigotry as is appropriate for it. But that it's often not appropriate because the bigotry is applied is an unrealistic manner; people aren't bigoted against the various animal-people, where they would "logically" be treated like animals, but for some reason are bigoted against half-elves. And they aren't even bigoted against half-elves for being human+ or something like that, but for generic "reasons." I also said that the books should describe the various species in neutral terminology, and that actual reasons should be given for behaviors--not just that the species is Good or Evil, therefore, their actions are by definition good or evil.

I honestly can't tell if I'm bad at explaining myself or you're deliberately misunderstanding what I write.

 

[MGibster]

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.

I don't think you can unless the fiction in question is completely devoid of anything meaningful. i.e. It's souless. Fiction has meaning outside the confines of its medium. Old stories like The Iliad continue to resonate with modern audiences because it has meaning.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Young children are largely an untapped market. Why wouldn't WoTC want to market to them?

This is far removed from trying to paint the most successful (and broadly successful) video game ever as mostly for kids to make a point.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think you can unless the fiction in question is completely devoid of anything meaningful. i.e. It's souless. Fiction has meaning outside the confines of its medium. Old stories like The Iliad continue to resonate with modern audiences because it has meaning.

My point is it doesn't have to be a commentary on the real world, and that racism in a fictional setting, isn't an endorsement of real world racism