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

[Hussar]

Now, one last thought about taking offense and intentions because that's come up a few times as well.

Your intention is not important. It really, really doesn't matter. And there's a good reason why it doesn't matter. I use the analogy of someone stepping on your toes. Imagine you're in a crowded room and someone steps on your toes. The first time it happens, if you're Canadian like me, you probably apologized to the other person for them stepping on your toes. And you likely forget about it and move on.

Then another person steps on your toes. Ok, now you're a bit annoyed, but fine. Then the third, fourth and fifth people come along and trod on your foot. Now, you're pissed. When the sixth person does it, you're losing your poop. Doesn't matter that that sixth person was a 95 year old grandmother, you're pissed. But a funny thing happens. By about the hundredth time someone steps on your foot, you don't care why. You don't care who did it.

The only thing that matters to you is that you are in pain and you want the pain to stop.

And, guess what? Every single one of those previous 99 people said very much the same thing. Virtually word for word. Didn't matter if it was a pure accident or malicious intent. Every single one of those 99 people said, "I'm sorry for stepping on your foot. Didn't see you there." Now, person 100 has just stepped on your toes and said the same thing. But, when you say anything, you get told, "Oh, well, why are you angry? I didn't mean to. It was an accident." Just like the last 99 people who did the exact same thing.

So, no. Intent doesn't matter. Why would it? All that matters is that the thing that hurts stops. Accident, malice, stupidity, completely irrelevant to the person whose foot is a bloody stump from YEARS of having people do exactly the same thing over and over and over again.

Instead of trying to defend what you said (I'm referring to the general you as in anyone reading) by claiming intent, start showing empathy. Why is that other person claiming that what you said hurts them? It could be they're just trying to get attention. That's true. But, more likely they are telling you that what you said was a problem because they've heard the words that you've said a thousand times before and all they want is for you to stop and find new words.

That's what inclusivity means.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, look up half-breed in the dictionary. It is listed as offensive and disparaging.

I think the operative word here though is breed. It makes you sound like an animal if people call you a half breed. But half Ethnicity/Race X doesn't have that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

They did originally when creating 5e. And they are mostly stuck with the skeleton that thought the old guard would be a lot of their primary customers.

This may veer away from the topic at hand but I think when they made 5E, they were trying to unite a divided fanbase so they made appeals to old school gamers, gamers who had slipped away in previous editions, but they also had to appeal to young gamers too. 5E struck me as a very successful compromise. I never really adopted it, because I realized I can just play the older editions or retro clones I like. I have played in 5E campaigns and adventures and found it enjoyable. I have been surprised by the number of gamers my age and by the number of gamers I know who are deep into old school stuff who like it, but I also know a lot of gamers who aren't into those things who like it. I think that is a good path forward. I don't want an edition that overlooks the newer fans or the older ones.

 

[MGibster]

I mean, look up half-breed in the dictionary. It is listed as offensive and disparaging.

I've never heard someone self-identify as a half-breed. I've heard people describe themselves as half-black and half-Puerto Rican or half-French and half-English though.

But language changes over time, and I don't have any real objection to getting rid of it in D&D.

 

[Incenjucar]

I've never heard someone self-identify as a half-breed. I've heard people describe themselves as half-black and half-Puerto Rican or half-French and half-English though.

But language changes over time, and I don't have any real objection to getting rid of it in D&D.

It's quite common to reclaim things that are used as derogatory terms, but certainly not universal. My family takes a great deal of pride in being mixed, so we'll happily call ourselves stuff like "mutts" and "mongrels" because we pretty much dare anyone to try and treat it like a bad thing. Would never use that term at someone else though unless they expressed a similar preference, at which point we'd be high-fiving about it. Language usage is very, very individual.

 

[Hussar]

It's quite common to reclaim things that are used as derogatory terms, but certainly not universal. My family takes a great deal of pride in being mixed, so we'll happily call ourselves stuff like "mutts" and "mongrels" because we pretty much dare anyone to try and treat it like a bad thing. Would never use that term at someone else though unless they expressed a similar preference, at which point we'd be high-fiving about it. Language usage is very, very individual.

I could totally see that.

Given that my children have been subjected to the term their entire life, and having had it forced upon them by the majority, I would be very, very hesitant to use it in anything other than as an example of a derogatory term. To me, there are no positive connotations at all.

 

[Bagpuss]

Now, one last thought about taking offense and intentions because that's come up a few times as well.

Your intention is not important. It really, really doesn't matter. And there's a good reason why it doesn't matter. I use the analogy of someone stepping on your toes. Imagine you're in a crowded room and someone steps on your toes. The first time it happens, if you're Canadian like me, you probably apologized to the other person for them stepping on your toes. And you likely forget about it and move on.

Then another person steps on your toes. Ok, now you're a bit annoyed, but fine. Then the third, fourth and fifth people come along and trod on your foot. Now, you're pissed. When the sixth person does it, you're losing your poop. Doesn't matter that that sixth person was a 95 year old grandmother, you're pissed. But a funny thing happens. By about the hundredth time someone steps on your foot, you don't care why. You don't care who did it.

The only thing that matters to you is that you are in pain and you want the pain to stop.

And, guess what? Every single one of those previous 99 people said very much the same thing. Virtually word for word. Didn't matter if it was a pure accident or malicious intent. Every single one of those 99 people said, "I'm sorry for stepping on your foot. Didn't see you there." Now, person 100 has just stepped on your toes and said the same thing. But, when you say anything, you get told, "Oh, well, why are you angry? I didn't mean to. It was an accident." Just like the last 99 people who did the exact same thing.

So, no. Intent doesn't matter. Why would it? All that matters is that the thing that hurts stops. Accident, malice, stupidity, completely irrelevant to the person whose foot is a bloody stump from YEARS of having people do exactly the same thing over and over and over again.

It’s not a great analogy as you’ve said the room was crowded. These people aren’t doing it on purpose, and in fact can’t avoid it unless the situation changes and they will be standing on each others feet as well.

However you are the only person complaining about a situation everyone finds themselves in. Everyone else is apologetic but getting on with it without blaming the other people.

Worse it equates words to actual physical pain, they aren’t the same.

Instead of trying to defend what you said (I'm referring to the general you as in anyone reading) by claiming intent, start showing empathy. Why is that other person claiming that what you said hurts them? It could be they're just trying to get attention. That's true. But, more likely they are telling you that what you said was a problem because they've heard the words that you've said a thousand times before and all they want is for you to stop and find new words.

New words don't help if they are trying to convey the same concepts, kind of shown by people getting upset over replacing race with species. And often people just go on to start taking offence at the new words because the sentiment is the same.

That's what inclusivity means.

A crowded room isn't a great example of "inclusivity" either, as everyone is in the same situation. The whole point of inclusivity is because people aren't in the same situation. Inclusivity would be inviting people outside in so they have the same opportunities to get their toes trod on.

 

[Bagpuss]

I could totally see that.

Given that my children have been subjected to the term their entire life, and having had it forced upon them by the majority, I would be very, very hesitant to use it in anything other than as an example of a derogatory term. To me, there are no positive connotations at all.

I can totally see that, but that's why context and intention matter, when it comes to taking offence. You might overhear @Incenjucar or someone who uses the term ironically or affectionately and take offence when none is intended. Yes your experience of the word matters to you, but you can't expect everyone to share your experience or know how that word might effect you.

However if you have someone shouting that word in your face aggressively and abusively then the intention to offend is clear. If we try and use your crowded room example there is a difference between someone who lightly accidentally treads on you toe before quickly raising their foot and someone who stamps on it. If you get upset over both equally then the fault is yours and not the person standing on your toe.

Eddie Izzard did a great mini series (Invasion, Immigration, and Infusion) in the UK called Mongrel Nation, which basically showed that the UK is made up of so many different ethnic origins over the centuries that we are all mongrels, and something we should be proud of. That had an effect on how the word is viewed here.

 

[Hussar]

True @Bagpuss, but again you have to remember that any time anyone steps up and says anything they are immediately accused of being too sensitive, over emotional or irrational.

And again, you are missing the point. After the hundredth time that someone steps on your foot, you just want the pain to stop. Why someone stepped on your toesbecomes largely irrelevant. Mostly because EVERYONE says that they didn’t mean to, no matter what their intentions were.

Intent is impossible to prove. And by insisting we assess intent we move the conversation away from the people being harmed. Which is largely the problem in the first place.

 

[Bagpuss]

True @Bagpuss, but again you have to remember that any time anyone steps up and says anything they are immediately accused of being too sensitive, over emotional or irrational.

And again, you are missing the point. After the hundredth time that someone steps on your foot, you just want the pain to stop. Why someone stepped on your toesbecomes largely irrelevant. Mostly because EVERYONE says that they didn’t mean to, no matter what their intentions were.
Intent is impossible to prove. And by insisting we assess intent we move the conversation away from the people being harmed. Which is largely the problem in the first place.

Right but the example the person can't avoid stepping on your foot. So other than apologise their is nothing they can do.

So it all falls down on how the person that got their foot trod on reacts they are the only person with any options in that situation.

Do they assume it was an accident, and accept the apology?

Or do they assume it was intentional and the person was lying with their apology and everyone is out to get them?

Which one do you think is healthier for the victim?

"Intent is impossible to prove." - Yes but it is frequently very easy to infer.

You can often easily tell is someone accidentally trod on your foot, or stamped on it intending to hurt you. That's also the often the way with offence.

And in those edge cases where you aren't sure, which is the healthier outlook to have in life?