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

[Bedrockgames]

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.

But people have gone looking for treasure throughout history, myth and legend without colonialism too. May point is D&D doesn't actually feature anything that genuinely resembles real colonialism.

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

This is extremely simplistic. Now you are just projecting what you think people are feeling. I don't feel uncomfortable when people point this out, I just feel it is not particularly accurate. And I find it troubling that good aspects of a game are potentially being removed or avoided because people have been able to make this connection. But I don't think people are having a discomfort due to a twinge of conscience over your observation (I would say that response is rather cartoonish actually). Perhaps some people who are genuinely persuaded by your position feel that way. But I think people who disagree with it, just find it annoying more than anything else to have to defend dungeon crawling and exploring and killing monsters as someone perpetuating the evils of colonialism or in some way being infected with its residue

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

This seems like the role played by drow, duegar and deep gnomes (can't recall if there is a halfling version)

 

[Alzrius]

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

I'll say "draconians" here.

1. Evil Dwarves

Duergar. And derro too, for that matter.

1. Evil Elves

Drow. I suppose the fey'ri too.

1. Evil Gnomes

Spriggans, here.

1. Evil Goliaths

I'd posit that giants fit this role.

1. Evil Halflings

Those would be the jerren, from the 3.0 Book of Vile Darkness (affiliate link).

1. Evil Humans

Vasharans, from the same.

1. Evil Orcs

Those are, you know, just orcs. This is an area where you'd flip the script and mention how there are good orcs.

1. Evil Tieflings

Fiends of various stripes.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

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.

I do wonder if at some point, the mind flayer and gnoll lore will get rewritten to make them playable and not just monster manual entries.

I don't want it to happen, but I can see it happening.

 

[Minigiant]

I do wonder if at some point, the mind flayer and gnoll lore will get rewritten to make them playable and not just monster manual entries.

I don't want it to happen, but I can see it happening.

The gnolls used to be. WOTC purposely rewrote their lore to be unplayable.

I don't see the mind flayer ever being playable in core

 

[AnotherGuy]

Saying they are "visibly not human" is doing a lot of work there, especially with the modern conception of Orcs. But even if they don't look like people to you doesn't mean they aren't sapient creatures. Even if it were lizardmen, if you're just there to take their stuff it doesn't change that you are taking it thinking beings.

Characters often take stuff off of dead people - ones they've just killed, one they just found or when tomb raiding. They can be any sapient you wish for them to look like. One of the iconic classes in previous editions and a subclasses in 5e is called the Thief.
Do you think the multitude of designers in all those editions and D&D heart-breakers were basing this class off colonisers?

 

[Justice and Rule]

But people have gone looking for treasure throughout history, myth and legend without colonialism too. May point is D&D doesn't actually feature anything that genuinely resembles real colonialism.

Sure, but going onto a people's land, killing them because "they don't look human", and then taking their stuff is pretty colonialist. You just keep trying make it so that colonialism is only a big picture thing when it is actually a collection of different kinds of actions which, individually taken, can be colonialist, but together form a wider picture of what colonialism is.

This is extremely simplistic. Now you are just projecting what you think people are feeling.

I mean, and you weren't?

I don't feel uncomfortable when people point this out, I just feel it is not particularly accurate. And I find it troubling that good aspects of a game are potentially being removed or avoided because people have been able to make this connection. But I don't think people are having a discomfort due to a twinge of conscience over your observation (I would say that response is rather cartoonish actually). Perhaps some people who are genuinely persuaded by your position feel that way. But I think people who disagree with it, just find it annoying more than anything else to have to defend dungeon crawling and exploring and killing monsters as someone perpetuating the evils of colonialism or in some way being infected with its residue

No offense, but your attempts to avoid the issue have not worked because you keep trying to expand out the definition of colonialism so that it must have this massive focus, but at the end of the day that just misses what is required on the ground by by that big-picture view. The act of killing people because they are deemed "the bad guys" and taking their stuff, especially because "they don't look human" is pretty damn colonialist.

And I do think people feel that way because I've seen it expressed by others before. People don't like the idea that their game type might be problematic, and it sparks resistance in that manner.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, but going onto a people's land, killing them because "they don't look human", and then taking their stuff is pretty colonialist. You just keep trying make it so that colonialism is only a big picture thing when it is actually a collection of different kinds of actions which, individually taken, can be colonialist, but together form a wider picture of what colonialism is.

Again that also describes war in general. It describes a lot of conflicts and many genres of adventure and legend. The idea of killing monsters who don’t look human exists in all kinds of lore. But it also isn’t as simple as you are describing. They aren’t killed because of how they look, in campaigns where orcs are the bad guys, they are either killed because they are evil or because it is convenient and essentially a team blue versus red situation for gameability purposes. The appearance is more for stuff like coolness, making them more scary and tapping into human fears of predatory creatures and as a way of reflecting their inner evil

Again this argument that it is colonialist just doesn’t feel like a solid one to me. And I’ve read plenty on the history of it. I even get that one can make an argument about the history of the literature and genre going back and connecting to it. But I don’t think that is what is being re-enacted at the table when a party goes into a dungeon and kills some goblins

Again you are just taking a lens that is preconfigured to read colonialism into it and that is what is being seen

I mean, and you weren't?

I understand my own reaction. You can keep saying this, it doesn’t make it more true

No offense, but your attempts to avoid the issue have not worked because you keep trying to expand out the definition of colonialism so that it must have this massive focus, but at the end of the day that just misses what is required on the ground by by that big-picture view. At the end, the act of killing people because they are deemed "the bad guys" and taking their stuff, especially because "they don't look human" is pretty damn colonialist.

I am offering the standard definition of colonialism. You don’t have to agree with my arguments. People in debates are often not persuaded by one another. But I also think you are underestimating the strength of the points I am making here.

Again killing people and taking their stuff because they look different also describes tribal conflict, gang warfare, violent robberies, etc. abd again you are simplifying because this isn’t happening due to appearance. The appearance is just a convenience and flavor in those instances, the reason is usually either the evil nature of the creatures and/or the greed of the adventurers

Again the default isn’t setting up colonies, taking control of the territory (it often remains an open dungeon or untamed wilderness), while some campaigns go the mercantile route most aren’t doing things like exploiting the local resources, imposing their culture in the orcs, or doing this do a colonial power can become more powerful (they could be in service to a power but often if they are they are just retrieving an object that was lost long ago or saving a princess)

And I do think people feel that way because I've seen it expressed by others before. People don't like the idea that their game type might be problematic, and it sparks resistance in that manner.

Again you are claiming to read peoples minds here. I can tell you you are 100% wrong about my reaction. I am sure others can weigh in on their’s

 

[Chaosmancer]

Forced? No. Is their reason bupkis? Yes. Are there MANY others besides me? Also yes.

Ah, so you and those "many others" are the true arbiters of "reasons good enough" to allow artists to make the art they wish to make? So you and this invisible group get to decide "no, sorry, your reasons aren't good enough, you have to make it anyways"?

Sure, why not. As long as we're being ridiculous, they should consult me, yes.

Companies are allowed to make bad decisions and do so all the time. We are allowed to call them out on those bad decisions.

I am being ridiculous to make a point. For all the discussion about not protesting and "chilling" things that artists can make the work they want to make... people sure seem to have no problem DEMANDING art and declaring the artist's reasons for not making it aren't good enough and therefore they should do what they don't want to do.

I've mentioned a few times that I am an author, I write. In the genre I write in there is a specific rather common trope, that I have personal issues with and do not write. I've acknowledged it is a personal issue, but no matter how many times people try to demand I write it... I'm not going to. I get to make the decision on what I create, and I get to decide what reasons are good enough not to make something. Sure, you are free to call them out on their reasons, but at the same time you berate and deride people for calling them out on reasons to make stuff. It is the same action, the same thing, and yet one is acceptable because it gets you what you want, and the other is unacceptable because it is something you don't want.

 

[Remathilis]

I'll say "draconians" here.

Duergar. And derro too, for that matter.

Drow. I suppose the fey'ri too.

Spriggans, here.

I'd posit that giants fit this role.

Those would be the jerren, from the 3.0 Book of Vile Darkness (affiliate link).

Vasharans, from the same.

Those are, you know, just orcs. This is an area where you'd flip the script and mention how there are good orcs.

Fiends of various stripes.

Garguns are offshoots of Goliaths and small giants breeding and filled a neanderthal role of stone tool using hunters, gatherers and pillagers of Goliath communities. (Per Races of Stone)