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

[RhaezDaevan]

This whole thread has me sad for the future of D&D, and sad for the future of humanity.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

And such species are closely related, extremely rare exceptions, not the norm. It's not "every single type of vaguely similar-looking organisms" (eg: dwarf, dragonborn, tabaxi, aarakocra, triton, etc). That's one of the fundamental points of the term "species". If you want more readily viable interbreeding between dissimilar-looking creatures, you want the term "breed", as in "breed of dog", but I expect people would find that far more offensive than "race". And of course "breed" is not the same thing as "species", which gets us back into the terminology issue.

I mean the two 5e examples we have of hybrids are human/elf and human/orc. With both elves and orcs looking like they could be in the genus 'Homo' (depending on the setting, as in many setting they're just magicked into existence by gods).

Our species already has precedent of hybridising with other species, as Homo sapiens interbred with both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo denisova to produce fertile offspring.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Kids are so old these days. Back when I was a kid, I was just a child.

Apropos of nothing:

Back when I was a girle, before I became a guy, "girle" meant "a young person of either gender" and "guy" meant "a person of grotesque or unusual appearance."

 

[niklinna]

What government conspiracy, they literally said if you changed the words and ignored the bit about gorillas and dolphins. It could be offensive, yes and if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike.

How have I lived this long without knowing the miracle of Gino? Oh, do have some more.

 

[Clint_L]

This thread makes me feel icky about D&D.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Except a lot of source books existed for different playable fantasy human ethnicities/cultures (often based on real world ones) at the same time, so clearly the none-human races weren't just stand ins for those cultures as they were represented by humans.

Why are you for example saying savage, brutal and stupid orcs represent a particular human culture when those cultures are already represented as a human culture in D&D.

Stuff like The Horde, and The Golden Khan of Ethengar a human civilisations that were clearly based on the Mongols, or the Atruaghin Clans a human culture clearly based of the Native Americans. If you look into D&D most significant human cultures have a fantasy human equivalent somewhere, although admitted not always represented in a brilliant light, but usually more nuanced than savage brutal orcs.

That's because orcs are meant to represent the worst traits of humanity, that's what they are an allegory for. They aren't meant to be complex as they represent just an aspect of all humanity (regardless of culture).

Unfortunately throughout history people also like to assign the worst traits of humanity to their enemies, and people they are at war with, hence it also appears in bigoted propaganda. So yes you are going to see the same terms, doesn't mean that orcs are intended as a representation of a particular race.

I think part of the problem is people really over simplify this stuff. Fantasy cultures are going to draw on real world culture and conflicts, but that doesn't mean things are 1-1 stand-ins. It also doesn't mean just because an orc tribe is evil the game is saying all tribal people are evil. The imagery of savage invaders is something that resonates with people. But so does the imagery of an evil and highly advanced civilization. You can have all these evils taken from real world cultures and experiences. And you may draw on Mongolian history for a band of evil orcs, but then draw on that same history for a much more friendly culture in another area on the map. And of course there is more room for gray in different settings (D&D just tends to default to very clear demarcations of good, evil, neutral, etc.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

And you may draw on Mongolian history for a band of evil orcs

Warhammer casually basing their orcs on British football hooligans...

 

[MGibster]

Warhammer casually basing their orcs on British football hooligans...

Flintloque/Slaughterloo is a fantasy Napoleonic table top war game.

English - Orcs
French - Elves
Spanish - Dark Elves
Russians - Undead
Austrians - Dog People
Scottish - Rat Men
Germans - Dwarves
Irish - Goblins (I think)

 

[Minigiant]

This whole thread has me sad for the future of D&D, and sad for the future of humanity.

Me not really.

This thread kind of fortifies my belief that WOTC is either too beholden to the old guard or make up disproportionately by the old guard in both design and business that they either are unable to or afraid of new ideas become the core of D&D. But this thread proves that the D&D community is. And since now WOTC IS sensitive to community thought, they likely will change with it.

I mean.. they tried aardling. Aardling only failed because they halfheartedly did so and would not commit to the flavor.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Me not really.

This thread kind of fortifies my belief that WOTC is either too beholden to the old guard or make up disproportionately by the old guard in both design and business that they either are unable to or afraid of new ideas become the core of D&D. But this thread proves that the D&D community is. And since now WOTC IS sensitive to community thought, they likely will change with it.

I mean.. they tried aardling. Aardling only failed because they halfheartedly did so and would not commit to the flavor.

What would your solution be here if you believe that the old guard is making WotC handle it wrong?

Also the main reason I disliked aardling was because it was trying to be the counterpart to the tiefling, when that already existed as the aasimar. If anything, I'd have liked aardling to become a 4th aasimar variant alongside the existing three.