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

[Vaalingrade]

So you'd be fine giving a Strength bonus to male human characters?

Seriously?

You're actually doing this?

I just explained to Micah that you don't have to post everything out loud on the internet.

 

[Bagpuss]

Seriously?

You're actually doing this?

I just explained to Micah that you don't have to post everything out loud on the internet.

I'm just recalling the stink that came about when new comers to the D&D discovered that was a thing briefly. To say introducing sexual dimorphism isn't likely to be an issue seems unlikely. Considering how it has been viewed in the past.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Stupid design based on bad science is always an issue.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm just recalling the stink that came about when new comers to the D&D discovered that was a thing briefly. To say introducing sexual dimorphism isn't likely to be an issue seems unlikely.

Limiting capabilities by sex in order to ensure people don't feel like equals is not the only kind of dimorphism.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

As I said, if a male halfling and a male goliath have the same stats, then a male human and a female human will have the same stats.

 

[Bagpuss]

As I said, if a male halfling and a male goliath have the same stats, then a male human and a female human will have the same stats.

Yes and if the peak male halfling and a peak male goliath can have the same stats, you might as well have a peak minotaur or peak dragon also be limited to 20 STR. So it's not exactly the best justification. Still removing sexual dimorphism it stats was a good thing, because it reflects the fiction the game is trying to portray, where you have characters like Xena that hold their own against men with more muscle mass.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Nah. We can all communicate just fine without calling anyone a savage. It's easy. Literally nothing is lost.

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).

Gygax infamously quoted John Chivington by name, specifically "Kill and scalp them all, big and little; nits make lice." when talking about how it's not evil to kill orc babies. Literally the direct language of genocide. This is why people aren't comfortable with "savage", "primitive", etc in describing whole races in DnD.

There isn't that much of a line between dehumanizing language and violently dehumanizing language, and people who have had that language directed at them understandable don't always want anything to do with a company that uses that language to sensationalize the outside enemy people of their game.

Again, you have to put  something in the core book, and that should provide as wide a spectrum of possible characterizations as possible.

What you are demanding is less expansive and open to any possibility than the language they're changing to.

It's literally just neutral descriptions from the perspective of the people being described. You can go literally anywhere from there. The Orc entry explicitly mentions ancient conflicts between orcs and elves and dwarves. It just doesn't talk about orcs like a 18th Century colonialist describing native people in order to justify murdering them en masse.

 

[MGibster]

I did have a setting in mind where the Drow had extreme sexual dimorphism with males being the size of halflings and females being of the regular sized elvin variety. But then it would have been a somewhat comedic game with the males being rather shiftless and prone to goofing off while the women did all the boring work including governing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes and if the peak male halfling and a peak male goliath can have the same stats, you might as well have a peak minotaur or peak dragon also be limited to 20 STR. So it's not exactly the best justification. Still removing sexual dimorphism it stats was a good thing, because it reflects the fiction the game is trying to portray, where you have characters like Xena that hold their own against men with more muscle mass.

I am so confused as to why the 'sexual dimorphism is contentious' rabbithole if you agree getting rid of it is a good thing.

 

[Bagpuss]

I am so confused as to why the 'sexual dimorphism is contentious' rabbithole if you agree getting rid of it is a good thing.

Because bringing it back would likely annoy some people, even if it was for fantasy no-human races. I mean I wouldn't have a problem, but some people would, hence "contentious".