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

[Faolyn]

I gave you other reasons. In fact "because it's always been this way" wasn't even one of my reasons (and I don't recall saying because I like it better that way----though I may have given my preference).

Faolyn, I am happy to have a conversation. I really am, and if you walk this style of posting back, I will be glad to start having a good faith discussion with you. But so far I just don't feel like this has been a two-way discussion with you, and I feel you are being a bit rude and hostile

So what are those other reasons? This is like the fifth time I've asked and you haven't said. You literally could have saved so much time if you had just said what those reasons are.

 

[Guest 85555]

So what are those other reasons? This is like the fifth time I've asked and you haven't said. You literally could have saved so much time if you had just said what those reasons are.

I don't think you are understand what my posts are trying to convey to you

 

[Minigiant]

Wrong.

We think of Eberron as Keith's child, but Eberron was developed in house by the whole D&D team using Keith (and apparently others) ideas. You can argue that Wildemont was Mercer's project that was greenlit by WotC, but Eberron has more than just Keith's hands in it.

50%.

The point it was Keith's idea. It was likely his idea to give Orcs a different flavor or the fact that "generic orc lore" doesnt fit in Eberron.

The designers of D&D liked and prefer the generic orc lore. But doing it alone is outdated. And WOTC has never put effort differentiating between a non-evil orc and a non-evil half orc.

 

[gban007]

I don't think you are understand what my posts are trying to convey to you

Just seeing if I have understood the posts over time, certainly a lot of them so not going back through them all, more based on recall of them:

Main reasons I think you've given

-What has been in there supports gameplay that some people enjoy, and therefore to take it away will reduce enjoyment for those people, which may not be offset by others who don't enjoy the gameplay now but will if changes made.

-Making changes could backfire on intent, inasmuch as some people will feel that this is going too far, and harden their position against those trying to make change in wider society - so the cost of making changes in an RPG as such may be preventing more significant change outside of RPG space

-Making changes could lead to the overall product becoming less interesting for people to play

Not saying I necessarily agree with the above, just this is my understanding of your points, to see if I can be clear at least. At a certain reductionist point of view you could say that this is only a problem because it has always been there, and wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't there to begin with, you wouldn't be saying it must be put in, but the concerns outlined above are based on current state, which is what we need to deal with.

 

[Faolyn]

If orcs/goblins were deleted as the generic bad guys from something like Lost Mine of Phandelver, and gnolls were dropped in instead, would people still have the same moral objections?

Right now, gnolls are basically demons. Personally, I dislike that since I like gnolls a lot (also, because they're still listed as humanoids--or at least were; I don't have MPMM to know if they've been updated). But, since they're made by corrupting a natural creature with demonic influence--meaning they don't have a true society or familial feelings, then I for one have much less of a problem with them being the generic bad guys. I just wish it weren't gnolls because I like 'em. I would prefer a "corrupted creature" template, like in 3e.

Orcs (and goblins and other mammalian humanoids and at some non-mammalian ones) are born in D&D; they're not corrupted elves or anything like that. Since they aren't precocial and need to be cared for by their parents, that means that orcs would have to have family ties. Since they remain together after maturing, they also have social ties. Orcs would have to care for each other for their society and biology to make any sort of sense. Gnolls are not born, they're created, and they don't have a society so much as they have a truly mindless pack, not even a pack like real animals do.

One could put bullywugs into this category. Some frogs and toads care for their young; others don't. It's entirely possible to have it so that bullywugs don't care for their young and don't form societies upon reaching adulthood but are still smart enough to figure out how to make weapons (even if "just" stone-tipped spears), nets, and other such objects all on their own. On the other hand, as I said, some batrachians do care for their young--we all know about the famous midwife toad, where the male takes care of the young, and they're not the only type who do--so having them form caring groups is also completely logical.

Perhaps ironically, the good-aligned tortles should be among the least social of the humanoids, as AFAICT, actual tortoises don't care for their young at all.

 

[Guest 85555]

Just seeing if I have understood the posts over time, certainly a lot of them so not going back through them all, more based on recall of them:

Main reasons I think you've given

-What has been in there supports gameplay that some people enjoy, and therefore to take it away will reduce enjoyment for those people, which may not be offset by others who don't enjoy the gameplay now but will if changes made.

-Making changes could backfire on intent, inasmuch as some people will feel that this is going too far, and harden their position against those trying to make change in wider society - so the cost of making changes in an RPG as such may be preventing more significant change outside of RPG space

-Making changes could lead to the overall product becoming less interesting for people to play

It depends on what issue we are talking about because there has been a couple so far, but those are points I have made. Also we have covered so much ground. I would just distinguish and say there is the debate over half orcs and half elves (for which I laid out a large number of points). Then there is the debate about orcs (both the issue of orcs as an evil race, but also the matter of whether D&D is or should be about killing things and taking their stuff. The debate about whether the D&D is colonialist by having killing things and taking their stuff in it (whether it is okay for that to be done going forward).

On orcs I have also given other reasons like orcs are meant to capture the mythic battle of adventurers against monsters (which I think they can do well). That orcs and goblins as a default threat work well because it is very simple thing to set up (especially for new GMs): make a small map, populate it with monstrous threats and dungeons inhabited by monstrous threats guarding treasure, and you have a very gameable core concept.

For half elves my argument was more robust but one of my main contention was the whole trope of a race that is between two worlds is powerful and effective. And it isn't being replaced by anything that seems all that compelling.

When I have made the point about tradition, my point is more that things that enter the game and stick because they resonate, shouldn't just be abandoned because some people online have complaints. I think you can always change things in D&D, you can always improve it, but it is a delicate balancing act because at a certain point you do risk both losing whatever it is that makes D&D, D&D, and you risk driving away fans who might like the content you are changing (not a small concern given how instantly the fanbase was split when 3E ended for example---so much so it gave rise to Paizo being a big contender against WOTC). I've generally stated 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater' which I think is a useful thing to keep in mind anytime you are advocating for change. Change can be good, but change can also be bad (just like tradition can be good but tradition can also be bad).

You will have to forgive me as I am rather lethargic (had a lot of dental work done yesterday) so hopefully I addressed all the things you wanted information on, and hopefully I haven't forgotten any of my own points.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Right now, gnolls are basically demons. Personally, I dislike that since I like gnolls a lot (also, because they're still listed as humanoids--or at least were; I don't have MPMM to know if they've been updated). But, since they're made by corrupting a natural creature with demonic influence--meaning they don't have a true society or familial feelings, then I for one have much less of a problem with them being the generic bad guys. I just wish it weren't gnolls because I like 'em. I would prefer a "corrupted creature" template, like in 3e.

Orcs (and goblins and other mammalian humanoids and at some non-mammalian ones) are born in D&D; they're not corrupted elves or anything like that. Since they aren't precocial and need to be cared for by their parents, that means that orcs would have to have family ties. Since they remain together after maturing, they also have social ties. Orcs would have to care for each other for their society and biology to make any sort of sense. Gnolls are not born, they're created, and they don't have a society so much as they have a truly mindless pack, not even a pack like real animals do.

One could put bullywugs into this category. Some frogs and toads care for their young; others don't. It's entirely possible to have it so that bullywugs don't care for their young and don't form societies upon reaching adulthood but are still smart enough to figure out how to make weapons (even if "just" stone-tipped spears), nets, and other such objects all on their own. On the other hand, as I said, some batrachians do care for their young--we all know about the famous midwife toad, where the male takes care of the young, and they're not the only type who do--so having them form caring groups is also completely logical.

Perhaps ironically, the good-aligned tortles should be among the least social of the humanoids, as AFAICT, actual tortoises don't care for their young at all.

Looking at them, it seems that the Fang's themselves are fiends. The gnolls they create are humanoids. Gnolls become Fangs by doing rituals to allow a spirit of Yeenoghu to posses them. When the fang kills a foe, it lets a hyena eat the body, which turns it into a gnoll. So their creature type is inconsistent. Personally though, I fully believe that gnolls will go through the process which orcs have and become playable sapient humanoids.

As for bullywugs, as long as they aren't based on the Surinam toad, I'm happy. (don't google those). However as bullywugs are int 7 as standard, I don't think they're really suitable as a PC species.

 

[Remathilis]

The point it was Keith's idea. It was likely his idea to give Orcs a different flavor or the fact that "generic orc lore" doesnt fit in Eberron.

The designers of D&D liked and prefer the generic orc lore. But doing it alone is outdated. And WOTC has never put effort differentiating between a non-evil orc and a non-evil half orc.

The years of reading Keith's Blogs are a blur to me, but I do vaguely recall this.

One of the big things they wanted to with Eberron is not put most familiar things in their familiar places. That wasn't always Keith's doing (Areneal elves were not part of his original treatment and were IIRC lifted from another submission). One of the biggest things was the idea that monsters in Eberron didn't exist only to be slain. Which is why orcs had a heavy druid/planar theme, goblins were a fallen empire of mighty warriors, an entire nation of monstrous folk existed, and undead were used as foot soldiers during the Last War. Coupled with Eberron's very loose suggestions on alignment and noir aesthetics, it created the notion of Eberron being more reflective of the modern world in terms of outlook.

I don't necessarily believe what worked for Eberron would work for the Core game. I like the fact that Eberron plays with those assumptions, but I still want some of those assumptions to exist to be subverted. The Core is a good place to say "this is an elf" and then allow settings to say "but also, these are what elves from here are like". That doesn't mean keep the hurtful stereotypes, but I want there to be some default lore that a setting like Eberron or Krynn can come and say "actually..." to.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But meanwhile no one questions it with things like bullywugs, despite being basically a reskin of early dnd orcs. Because they haven't had other media exploring them from a non evil perspective, and there has never been a 'half-bullywug' playable.

Um... I certainly do question it. That's why I don't use Bullywugs. They are meant to be joke characters. Mockeries of "real nobles" and "real culture", and I find it incredibly distasteful.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The Realms has civilized orcs, as does Eberron. This is from the 5e Wayfinder's Guide

"The Clans blend the traditions of human and orc, building towns and working with steel."

That's civilized orcdom.

From Wildemount.

"The orcish settlement of Bladegarden was incorporated into the Dwendalian Empire after the fall of the Julous Dominion, nearly three hundred years ago. Ores are now renowned as some of the empire's most accomplished soldiers, though many folk still fear the ancient legends of the curse of ruin."

Those are civilized orcs.

Ah yes, pure orc culture with nothing else in it. It isn't like that first quote literally states "blend the traditions of human and orc". I mean, I'm sure the pure orc cultures work with steel... oh wait, ancient sect of druids that don't use steel... hmmmmmm. Well, I wonder where they got the idea to do that, it is just pure orc culture with no other elements whatsoever.

Oh but Wildemount, where that orcish settlement was taken over the by the Human empire, driving out some of the orcs who didn't want to join the empire to the Brokenveil Marsh. But yes, clearly the Human Empire's main outpost city with a population of a mighty 20% Orc is the pinnacle of pure orcish culture. Why, if you count the half orcs, they make up a full 53% of the population. No human influences or culture here in a major stronghold of the human empire