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

[Guest 85555]

Why? Or more completely, why do we require humans to be special, to treat them well? Yes, there are many things you can do to an animal that you can't do to a human, but we do also general recognize that there is moral value in treating animals well. We have laws punishing people for torture and abuse of animals. They don't have to be "special" for it to be the right thing to do, to treat them well.

I truly don't see why we need to be "special" for us to be able to say "harming other humans is bad". We can be unfair and treat sapient life better than non-sapient life, on the basis of sapience alone. That's allowed.

Because humans are cruel to one another and there is a long history of atrocity showing what we are capable of. I think setting aside human life as special, is key here. If you simply say we aren't special, there is nothing about human life that intrinsically makes it worth more than a dolphin, a plant or an ant, then it becomes very easy for whole societies to say "there is no ought in this world preventing us from harming you for the betterment of society".

 

[MGibster]

Sure, let's agree, the baboon can't communicate "I saw a lion yesterday". But language IS communication, so being able to communicate "There is a lion coming towards us, danger, run!" is... still language. It isn't complex language, but it is still language.

Language is communication but not all communication is language. The rattle of a diamondback is a clear communication that danger is near but it is not an example of a use of language. If we go by your definition of language, sure, I guess it is. But your definition isn't shared by many experts that I'm aware of.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Are they? I haven't read many fantasy books that heavily featured anything resembling the D&D gnome. For years I've wondered what purpose the gnome served that wouldn't be served by a dwarf or even a halfling. And now that we're decoupling traits like a penchent for mechanical shenanigans from race, er, species, I once again find myself asking the following question: Why do we need the gnome?

Every time this comes up, I point out I have read quite a few different literature sources that use gnomes. And whether or not you consider the steampunk aesthetic purely "DnD" instead of Warhammer, it is one of the most common depictions of gnomes across all of them.

They really are a "scholar" species in a very real and true way.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I could see a niche for gnomes in being able to break skills to do something a bit impossible, kind of like how 40K orks are able to believe a red vehicle is faster. This would make for a counter-point to halfling luck.

Oooh, that's interesting

 

[Guest 85555]

I mean, I wouldn't want government censorship, but I certainly would put some limits on it, based on your definition of limits. People use fantasy and sci-fi as cover for horrifically evil ideas pretty regularly. And we need to be able to say "no, these ideas are wrong", especially as they are used for violence against people rather consistently. Because as much as people on here like to say that "they are fictional, it doesn't mean anything", those with hatred in their hearts? They get the message. That's why we call it a dog whistle and not an air horn.

This doesn't work over the long term. When you make an idea simply taboo, or make it so evil we don't even deign to argue against it, it enable evil ideas to flourish because we aren't contending with them in a serious way. I don't think you can simply appeal to peoples emotions or morality here, you also need to appeal to reason and persuade. So I am not saying ideas aren't wrong, but I would agree with John Stuart that engagement is always a much better way to go than to simply dismiss, censor or refuse to engage because we don't like what people are saying.

And I agree if people have used an idea for violence, we can certainly hold that up and point to it. I did that when people were talking about things like bloodlines and lineages. But I also think you can't stop there and say 'it's bad so no conversation happens now' because that is how those bad ideas start to look like they might have some truth in them that we don't want to acknowledge (which is the last thing you want).

Now when it comes to fictional races hating one another, I am sorry but I don't think you can draw the line you are drawing here. Having races that reflect even real world racism, doesn't mean there is a message people are meant to get that is racist or something. And having fictional races that are distinct, the way humans might be from an imaginary humanoid species, is I think very different from something like statting different human races or ethnicities. There are also lots of reasons designers might explore these topics, even reasons where they are trying to contend against the arguments you are concerned about, by applying a thought experiment to races in a fantasy setting.

Yes dog whistles exist, but when you call everything under the sun a dog whistle (especially when you have posters like you do in this thread who are explicitly against racism and clearly not using these things as dog whistles) then you just cheapen what that means and it becomes like looking for subliminal messages in music

 

[MGibster]

Every time this comes up, I point out I have read quite a few different literature sources that use gnomes. And whether or not you consider the steampunk aesthetic purely "DnD" instead of Warhammer, it is one of the most common depictions of gnomes across all of them.

And they're a very clean people.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure, but one does not describe Romans as barbaric raiders. They were a civilisation that invented and improved technology, and added to the arts and sciences.
My conversation with Faolyn included flipping the script on races, so for instance a setting where orcs were not simply barbaric raiders.

blink, blink

Yes, the term the romans used to describe and deride the non-latin speaking people they were conquering/going to war with/working together with was not something used to describe Romans. This is sort of obvious, and it isn't because rome was a technologically advanced country. (Who stole much of the art, science, ect ect that they used from other people.)

 

[Guest 85555]

But to a degree, isn't this like saying you should never paint yellow apples, because all apples are red? There can be a wide variety, there can be nuance beyond the simple and pithy. We say "apples are red" without the fear that we will exlcude these apple-like green and yellow fruits from applehood. Yes, people might try and say that, but they can be proven wrong with more nuanced discussion.

Except we aren't grouping fruit. We are deciding how much value human life has, what its importance is in the world, and whether or not we should extend a concept that protects our rights to theoretical species. I am not saying don't. But I am saying have the conversation (especially if it turns out that species is malevolent from a human point of view). If you encountered an intelligent alien race capable of space travel, that was free willed, but had no sense of morality at all (for example what if our sense of morality is a product of our biology and their biology just doesn't compute that some things are good and some things are bad)...wouldn't that maybe make them another category of being? Or at the very least, we would say, yes they may be people in theory, but in practice trying to extend the rights of personhood to them is self destructive to our own species

 

[Incenjucar]

The recognition of the personhood of others does not negate the rationality of self-defense in the face of harm.

 

[Guest 85555]

Is calling them people useful or helpful? Yes, I think it is. After all, people who are bent on our destruction is a common occurence. People who are malevolent and bent on our destruction even more so. But keeping in mind that they are people means that we recognize that a war to kill all of them is problematic. It prevents us from treating them like something to be exterminated with no other alternative.

It is useful when dealing with other human beings for sure. But again what if you essentially meet a race of terminators who just won't stop until humanity is dead. I get that this is a crazy hypothetical but so is the AI or aliens from outer space scenario. Even if the terminators were fully aware, intelligent and freewill, it doesn't seem we are contending with anything resembling humanity at that point.