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

[Frozen_Heart]

Agreed about Eberron (they can even be a race introduced in an Eberron reprint/update after 2024, which would live officially in DDB), but that name makes no sense in FR or Krynn.

Could easily handwave it and say multiverse travellers introduced that name to the Forgotten Realms.

 

[Hussar]

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?

Ok. Let’s change the analogy slightly so you can get the point.

There is only ever one other person in the room with you. That person can avoid stepping on your toes. Some people come in and leave without hurting you. Some people do step on your toes.

Not stepping on your toes is ALWAYS an option.

Does that make it clearer?

And let’s not forget. Every single person who steps on your toes claims it was an accident. It’s never intentional. You must have moved somehow. Why didn’t you avoid having your toes stepped on. It’s never anyone’s fault.

The malicious people say and look identical to the accidental ones. Absolutely no difference.

Does that make it clearer?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

2. What dramatic change? The ONLY difference between a 2014 half elf and a 2024 half elf is two skills in return for either a cantrip or a movement bonus. That's it. That's the sum total of the changes. Nothing else has changed. This is why I don't get the whole "we're being erased" thing. Half species are IN the PHB. They aren't going anywhere. Mechanically, a half-elf is nearly identical. And the primary defining traits of a half-elf are right there. And, if you want to play a half orc? Poof, you can play a half orc whose mechanics will be nearly identical. But, guess what? Now, you could be a half orc, half goliath. Or a half elf half halfling. Nothing whatsoever is being lost.

I don't think that elf-humans being mechanically boring in the 2014 PHB is a good reason to not give them their own mechanical player species entry in 1DnD. Because humans were even more dull and boring mechanically, but I don't see calls for them to be removed. Instead in 1DnD they got new features which give them a mechanical identity. Imo the same should happen for elf-humans.

What's more, for both elf-humans and human-orcs, I don't think that their abilities should be ripped directly half and half from either parent. Instead the themes of those abilities should be looked at in order to create something unique.

(I don't actually like them being called half-elves or half-orcs either)

 

[Bagpuss]

Ok. Let’s change the analogy slightly so you can get the point.

There is only ever one other person in the room with you. That person can avoid stepping on your toes. Some people come in and leave without hurting you. Some people do step on your toes.

Not stepping on your toes is ALWAYS an option.

Does that make it clearer?

And let’s not forget. Every single person who steps on your toes claims it was an accident. It’s never intentional. You must have moved somehow. Why didn’t you avoid having your toes stepped on. It’s never anyone’s fault.

The malicious people say and look identical to the accidental ones. Absolutely no difference.

Does that make it clearer?

No, because then it isn't remotely the same example. It's not a slight change in the analogy, in this new case the person has to go out of their way to step on your toes, so they are clearly intending to do it. You might not be able to prove intent, but you can clearly infer it from the fact they deliberately walked over to you to step on your toes.

How about this it's a busy street, people occasionally step on each others toes.

• Some people walk in towards their destination, and step on others toes occasionally and equally, if they happen to step on someone's toes it is an accident, but perhaps one that could have been avoided if they were extra careful, however if they do step on someone's toes they are genuinely sorry.
• Some people are extra cautious and constantly avoid stepping on peoples toes, they still however do it occasionally it is unavoidable, but it takes them twice as long to get anywhere.
• Other actively look to step on peoples toes (but only if they have blonde hair), they are generally sly about it and make it look like an accident.

You have blonde hair, and notice your toes get stepped on more often than your brunette friend's.

Here walker one could become more like walker two. However there is a drawback, so it might not be that easy to change that behaviour, they don't mean to hurt people it is just a consequence of getting from A to B. Walker three is unlikely to change his behaviour, he enjoys the pain he inflicts.

I think that reflects the fact you can't detect the intent, that someone can still get hurt despite your best efforts and also that someone is targeted more than others due to no fault of their own.

You are saying more people should try to be like walker two (which I agree is a noble goal). I'm saying even if everyone was like walker two, you would still get hurt, it is a good idea to get some steel toe caps, but also when you get your toe trod on it is better to think of the person as walker one or two than three (until they prove otherwise) for your own mental health.

 

[Scott Christian]

Except some irl species can interbreed with some other irl species. And some of them can produce fertile offspring too.

I realize that. But my claim was it would be the easiest way to handle it. I mean, this thread is a perfect example of why it would be easier to say there are no halves. Plus, some third party OneD&D supplement could do it for those that wanted it.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

You can say that about a lot of slurs that have been reclaimed. The N word being the a good example. It can be used by members of the community in a positive light, but it can easily be used as negative by them as well and can only be used negatively by people not of the community. Content matters, but there is such a limited amount of time it's acceptable that its use should be considered negative.

In this case, Hallf-breed is functioning similar. Those in the community can use it, but others shouldn't. And if the half naming convention cuts a little too close to that, then it needs to be revised.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You can say that about a lot of slurs that have been reclaimed. The N word being the a good example. It can be used by members of the community in a positive light, but it can easily be used as negative by them as well and can only be used negatively by people not of the community. Content matters, but there is such a limited amount of time it's acceptable that its use should be considered negative.

In this case, Hallf-breed is functioning similar. Those in the community can use it, but others shouldn't. And if the half naming convention cuts a little too close to that, then it needs to be revised.

I don't think Half has anywhere near the power or taboo as the N word. And I think we do want to be cautious about how expansive with are with language taboos.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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?

Another issue with comparing this to toe stepping is: intent very much matters when people decide how to react to either having their toes stepped on or being bumped into. People don't get angry at toe stepping simply because it hurts, but because it is a sign of disrespect, and usually in my experience when that happens the person is mentally gauging the intention (or at the very least, the degree to which the person was careless enough to have it happen) before reacting. This is evident if you've ever seen a person bump into or step onto toes another at a party or bar, then apologize, only to have the situation escalated further by the person whose toes were stepped on because they felt it was intentional. Also, while I think stepping on toes is not a great thing, it is one of the most common things I see extreme over reactions to. In cases where I have seen a person step on another's toes or bump into someone, and the person responds to the toe stepper by beating them up, I think that individual loses any moral high ground they may have had because of their overreaction. I think here things are sometimes similar where.

People have mentioned empathy. I am all for empathy and compassion. It is extremely important in my view. I don't think empathy should be something that shifts our basic understanding of facts or important principles, but it does shape how we interact with one another. And it is also a door that swings both ways. Right now people who are in disagreement are engaged in empathy even if they ultimately don't shift position (because at least trying to understand what a poster's intent is, what their moral reasoning is and where they are coming from, changes whether you see that poster as just a bad person to be avoided on the internet, or a good person who just thinks differently than you about the fundamental issue undergirding a complicated social matter).

 

[Hussar]

No, because then it isn't remotely the same example. It's not a slight change in the analogy, in this new case the person has to go out of their way to step on your toes, so they are clearly intending to do it. You might not be able to prove intent, but you can clearly infer it from the fact they deliberately walked over to you to step on your toes.

How about this it's a busy street, people occasionally step on each others toes.

• Some people walk in towards their destination, and step on others toes occasionally and equally, if they happen to step on someone's toes it is an accident, but perhaps one that could have been avoided if they were extra careful, however if they do step on someone's toes they are genuinely sorry.
• Some people are extra cautious and constantly avoid stepping on peoples toes, they still however do it occasionally it is unavoidable, but it takes them twice as long to get anywhere.
• Other actively look to step on peoples toes (but only if they have blonde hair), they are generally sly about it and make it look like an accident.

You have blonde hair, and notice your toes get stepped on more often than your brunette friend's.

Here walker one could become more like walker two. However there is a drawback, so it might not be that easy to change that behaviour, they don't mean to hurt people it is just a consequence of getting from A to B. Walker three is unlikely to change his behaviour, he enjoys the pain he inflicts.

I think that reflects the fact you can't detect the intent, that someone can still get hurt despite your best efforts and also that someone is targeted more than others due to no fault of their own.

You are saying more people should try to be like walker two (which I agree is a noble goal). I'm saying even if everyone was like walker two, you would still get hurt, it is a good idea to get some steel toe caps, but also when you get your toe trod on it is better to think of the person as walker one or two than three (until they prove otherwise) for your own mental health.

There is, of course, rather a danger in over analyzing an analogy and not bothering to even remotely try to understand the point being made.

I'm done here. You seem to be saying that we should blame the victims of racism and bigotry (it is a good idea to get some steel toe caps) rather than actually try to call out racism and bigotry. I will never, ever agree to that.

So, yeah. I'm bowing out. There's not much point in this conversation anymore. We are simply never going to agree here.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think that elf-humans being mechanically boring in the 2014 PHB is a good reason to not give them their own mechanical player species entry in 1DnD. Because humans were even more dull and boring mechanically, but I don't see calls for them to be removed. Instead in 1DnD they got new features which give them a mechanical identity. Imo the same should happen for elf-humans.

What's more, for both elf-humans and human-orcs, I don't think that their abilities should be ripped directly half and half from either parent. Instead the themes of those abilities should be looked at in order to create something unique.

(I don't actually like them being called half-elves or half-orcs either)

But, that's a different issue. The issue that was brought up was that half-elves are being erased. They aren't. They are nearly identical to what they were in 2014, which, apparently, wasn't a problem.

That they might be boring wasn't what was being talked about. I was responding to the idea that there is a "dramatic change" between the two versions. There isn't.