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

[Bedrockgames]

Also it's not particularly honest to try and depersonalize colonialism as something that must be about entire kingdoms, when what you are describing is just "killing people and taking their stuff" repeated over and over. Colonialism is not just something that only exists at the scale of an Europa Universalis game where you press buttons and a Colonialism happens. It's people who go into places, kill the people and take their land, largely because they think they can since the people they are taking it from aren't fully people from their perspective.

The point is it wasn't going into dungeons and killing orcs for gold. It was about taking whole peoples lands, setting up colonies, exploiting the region for resources, etc. And exploration itself, isn't only about modern colonialism. There are all kinds of myths and legends about exploration that go way, way back. And again, perhaps most importantly, even if everything you said were true: killing orcs in a dungeon has zero impact on the world in terms of colonialism. So it doesn't really matter. My sense is this is almost like an academic muscle that has been flipped into overdrive in the culture. It takes these very informed and complex lenses and applies them to media. And sure if you do that, you may see things you didn't before, but that isn't because reality is being revealed to you but because of the lens you are using.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The point is it wasn't going into dungeons and killing orcs for gold. It was about taking whole peoples lands, setting up colonies, exploiting the region for resources, etc. And exploration itself, isn't only about modern colonialism. There are all kinds of myths and legends about exploration that go way, way back. And again, perhaps most importantly, even if everything you said were true: killing orcs in a dungeon has zero impact on the world in terms of colonialism. So it doesn't really matter. My sense is this is almost like an academic muscle that has been flipped into overdrive in the culture. It takes these very informed and complex lenses and applies them to media. And sure if you do that, you may see things you didn't before, but that isn't because reality is being revealed to you but because of the lens you are using.

No, colonialism doesn't have to have all that to be colonialism. It's worth remembering that there were plenty of people who were only here for the treasure; sticking around was just necessary to get to it. Trying to obscure it by saying you need to hit all the ticks on a checklist is just trying to ignore the obvious.

My sense is that most people understand the nature of this and get uncomfortable when it is pointed out, and thus get incredibly defensive when it gets brought up. I think the reality is pretty clear, it's more that you don't want to recognize it because you feel it says something about you

 

[Maxperson]

Times change justifies a lot, to be honest.

It justifies just as much as tradition does. It's not a good argument.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I haven't altered the meaning of your posts. I've even quoted you directly at times.

Dude I agree with your overall stance, but…yeah, you have.

It’s been pretty uncomfortable to observe, frankly.

 

[Minigiant]

I for one believe WOTC should actively support the creature of lore,art,and mechanics for evil versions of all PC races

1. Evil Dragonborn
2. Evil Dwarves
3. Evil Elves
4. Evil Gnomes
5. Evil Goliaths
6. Evil Halflings
7. Evil Humans
8. Evil Orcs
9. Evil Tieflings

Each with their own core tactics and different motivations. More options for the DM to use or ban and give PC different challenges and reasons to fight them.

 

[Aldarc]

Except that, to be completely honest, I've never remembered those lines until you just said them. They didn't stick with me like "Use the Force, Luke" or "I am your Father"

That says more about your memory than anything else. I hear these lines quoted, and both of those quotes were off the top of my head.

Maybe you are right, but also, I've never really seen anyone until this moment talking about how Chewbacca was defined by these moments of humans looking down on him and treating him like crap, except for Han Solo. But again, I'll ask, would making it more obvious, more racist, make them better movies? Because the argument I keep seeing and that I was talking about is "but if you don't stop telling people not to write racist things, then all art everywhere will become bland and boring!" So is Racism the secret sauce of making good art? Especially when, again, this is stuff that never seemed to be very important to the movies themselves?

This is moving the goal posts from the original argument that there was no racism towards Chewbacca in the films. I don't care.

My only point was that you were factually wrong that there was an absence of racism in the movies against Chewbacca. You don't need to make arguments about Star Wars using misinformation in order to make arguments about appropriate levels of racist themes in D&D. If you can't remember Star Wars, then Stick to D&D.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Lost Mine of Phandelver works pretty well no matter what you replace the bad guy species with. You can replace the bandit orcs/goblins with humans, or gnolls, or elves, or halflings, or even dwarves. You could replace the drow at the end with a High Elf or a Wood Elf. The module still works.

I've always made the assumption that the orcs involved are bandits and raiding parties, as there is no sign of any community or proper living accommodations. No children either.

People prefer fighting smart enemies like orcs or kobalds because those things can plan and outsmart the players. They also carry weapons, armour, and items which can be looked by the players. If you go clear out a Kruthik hive, you're probably not getting much at the end of it. If you're fighting oozes, they don't do much apart from 'beeline player, make attack'.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

To be fair though, half-orcs being a core race whereas full orcs were relegated to monster book and bonus stuff was always an incredibly weird look. Like, especially in this universe where World of Warcraft and Warhammer exist, and "New player who is a fan of the Warcrafts and wants to play a thematically similar character" should be a simple ask, yet D&D made it incredibly DM dependant

It happened originally as orcs were meant to be the 'generic enemy' and not a player species. Like warhammer orcs in a way. But lots of media was starting to explore orcs in a different way, so half-orcs were added as player options.

Of course this instantly starts this slippery slidey slope about alignment and what's a person and all that, and questions were rightfully asked about if orcs were people too. If human + orc = still a person, then logically orc = person. And person = free will.

Things like Gnolls and Mind Flayers haven't had this happen as they're not player species. They don't even reproduce like regular species, instead needing to kill to reproduce. So now they're an 'acceptable' smart enemy to face instead. But the second they're added as a playable species, they will get changed, and will no longer become an 'acceptable' generic bad guy.

 

[Minigiant]

It happened originally as orcs were meant to be the 'generic enemy' and not a player species. Like warhammer orcs in a way. But lots of media was starting to explore orcs in a different way, so half-orcs were added as player options.

Of course this instantly starts this slippery slidey slope about alignment and what's a person and all that, and questions were rightfully asked about if orcs were people too. If human + orc = still a person, then logically orc = person. And person = free will.

Things like Gnolls and Mind Flayers haven't had this happen as they're not player species. They don't even reproduce like regular species, instead needing to kill to reproduce. So now they're an 'acceptable' smart enemy to face instead. But the second they're added as a playable species, they will get changed, and will no longer become an 'acceptable' generic bad guy.

5e originally started with the idea that orcs were all evil and thus unplayable. Half Orcs was the playable orc.. Orog was the unplayable smart orc. But this was outdated by 2014 due to the fantasy community being familiar with other media like TES and Warcraft.

So Orc became playable. But like I said upthread, this gave Half Orcs no niche. Orcs now could be smart and could temper their rage. So if Orcs are people and Human are people, what is Orc + Human.

WOTC never explored that. A half orc is just an orc who can take human feats.

Mind flayers and gnolls display ways you can have intelligent beings that you can kill indiscriminately. They aren't people. They don't think like people. They don't look like people. They are monsters through and though.

 

[AnotherGuy]

They are literally a race. A playable race, even. And you think killing them is fun.

Does playable make them off limits for you - in terms of having fun?

Why not kill elves and take their stuff? What is it about orcs that's fun to kill? Because they're not as pretty as elves?

Sure. We generally do not kill things which are pretty, unless they are harmful.
It's why there is the trope of a hag disguising herself as a beautiful maiden.

Because ages and ages ago, some people decided that they were OK to kill and you don't want to question that?

Sure. If you'd like to put in the time and effort to redesign a few things for your setting, go right ahead.
Some people just play as is, in the same way some run published adventures and don't create a homebrew setting.