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

[Guest 85555]

Right, but in your hurry to show both sides, you ultimately show that the sides are empty. One side can or cannot lead to atrocities and the other side can or cannot lead to atrocities, there is no practical difference. A large chunk of people believe in many things, some of them good, some of them bad. The entire point of critical thinking, science, and other such things is to look at the REASONS people believe things, and then judge if it is sound to continue believing in them.

I did't say there isn't a difference. I just said both can lead to bad things. I would argue the absence of this paradigm can lead to much less restraint and to more atrocities (not in all cases but overall). However I do understand that is a hefty debate and one where there are plenty of good points to be made against my position (I've been on both sides of the debate one rate years and ultimately come down on the one I expressed, but I do think it is one where reasonable arguments can be made for both positions).

The majority of humanity believes humans are special, but that doesn't mean they are right, or that their reasons for believing it are more sound than "because I want to believe it".

Sure and that is a deep philosophical and spiritual question which we probably can't get too far into on this forum. But I think it is easy to draw up a caricature or a simplification of both positions here.

And there has been much discussion about whether or not the Barbarian class needs renamed, because the name isn't really tenable.

Is it though? No one today is really called a barbarian in the sense of the class (well my wife calls me one, but that is because she thinks I open doors too loudly). And when people do use this term it doesn't describe a way of life, but more typically, acts of extreme cruelty during war (i.e. the bombing of civilian targets was barbaric). And people use it to describe their enemies all the time, but even then that isn't the Conan sense of the term. In Conan being a barbarian is a good thing.

For example, people often point out that "Conan the Barbarian" was articulate, well-educated, nobility or royalty multiple times, and solved many of his challenges with a quick wit and sharp intellect. Does that sound like the stereotypical DnD barbarian who screams "ME SMASH SMALL!"? Doesn't sound like it to me.

No, because the D&D barbarian is largely influenced by movies. But people also oversell Conan's intellect in the Howard stories. He was smart and cunning, but he also was a man of very simple tastes and certainly not a scholar. He just didn't sound like Arnold. Personally though I love Arnold depiction of Conan. I think it's great

So, again, we are faced with a DnD trope based on the most shallow, least accurate depiction of something possible, and then claiming that because it IS a depiction of that thing, that it is good and we should keep it. I also like the barbarian class, but we could really stand to expand it more, and show more of the truth of the people these myths and legends came from.

Again though this is just a slow whittling away of the things that make the game work. The barbarian class is a lot of fun. People love the rage ability. People adore the concept. It is packed with flavor. Albeit its simplistic, it doesn't tell you anything about history but it works wonderfully in a fantasy or sword and sorcery RPG

 

[Kichwas]

I agree that the "Half" in the name is a problem, but I feel like they can just come up with a better name... elfkin or orcling, or whatever.

But how is it a problem?

The only people complaining about this are the 'racial purity' extremists. "Pure race" people who are NOT 'half' in real life.

Those people can F-off, if they have a problem with me being alive, they can come over here and we'll sort this out in person the same way my grandfather did in the 1940s during the last time we had a war over "racial purity".

 

[Incenjucar]

The rage warrior concept is fine in itself, but the term "barbarian" carries a lot of baggage with it. It's not quite as dubious as chainmail bikinis, but it's still a racist stereotype being carried forward, and much more clearly so than stuff like Fomorians.

 

[Kichwas]

Videos like this from The Dungeon Delver (who I otherwise get along with) I think are not only factually incorrect, they are irresponsible. He's saying Jeremy is saying anyone who is of mixed race is bad. No, that's not what Jeremy is saying at all.

But it pretty much IS what Jeremy said.

This isn't a 'Woke or Anti-Woke' or whatever thing. This is a "we got a pile of stupid in us, so we're going to erase you."

Those of us who are "represented" by the existence of "half breeds" in fantasy know what we are. We're people from mixed worlds, we own that term "half" because it is us.

And they're erasing that because somebody who isn't clear on things, isn't clear on how we see ourselves, told them we were a problem.

This frankly... is actually something we deal with in the real world. I grew up hearing people who were "all Black" or "all Asian" or "all White" or "all Indiginous" telling me and those like me that we were a threat. BOTH in our existence, and in our "rude insistence" on being called what we were". They were always telling us to "pick a side" so their kind could get more 'voting representation' and similar benefits. But when we show up to the block party - it was GTFO because you're not really one of us.

So I'm a half breed, or in my case actually quarter breed. If they only want me around when it boosts their numbers in the census, then they can ALL f-off.

I've been fighting being erased my whole life in "the real world". Now they're declaring the one thing in my fantasy that was built to speak to me to also be a problem...

Yeah. That's a personal attack.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

But how is it a problem?

The only people complaining about this are the 'racial purity' extremists. "Pure race" people who are NOT 'half' in real life.

Those people can F-off, if they have a problem with me being alive, they can come over here and we'll sort this out in person the same way my grandfather did in the 1940s during the last time we had a war over "racial purity".

I'm not sure what it is you are saying. Are you saying that all people who have a problem with the word "half" are racial purists?

Because from my perspective, people who don't like the word "half" are not about racial purity. They are saying the word "half" has historically had a negative connotation (like half-breed or half a person), and they prefer other words like "mixed" or "biracial" and the like.

 

[Incenjucar]

The functional issue with "half-", which is not helping by "-ling" at all, is that it presupposes that one species is the default for which any mixing is a modification of the core species, rather than each species being equal. It's like calling a Scotch-Irish person a Half-Scott.

 

[Hussar]

I am not wading into the Roman discussion but I just want to point one outcome of what you are saying would be the class Barbarian isn't tenable. Again, I wouldn't point so much to history, because this is all pretty removed from a 2000 year old conflict between Rome and Germanic tribes. But I think it's a powerful image that people gravitate towards and want to play (I love Barbarians as a class and love Conan the Barbarian as a character). I wouldn't look to Conan for an understanding of humans in our past that were labeled barbarians, but for a fun sword and sorcery world where we are guided more by imagination than logic, I think it works really well

But, barbarian as a class isn’t a society. There is no society of barbarian same as there is no society of clerics.

Barbarian the class is just a collection of tropes and mechanics lumped together. And there’s very little negative language in that description. After all, barbarians don’t have intelligence restrictions for example. Which half orcs did once have.

And the class barbarian can apply to a very broad spectrum of archetypes - Worf from Star Trek could easily be made as a barbarian.

 

[Incenjucar]

Barbarians have lost some dubious baggage over the years, and used to be a bit closer to being caveperson rangers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There seem to be a lot of foundational aspects of D&D as it was envisioned that, at least according to this and similar threads, a number of folks have a real problem with. I am forced to ask: what exactly do these folks want D&D to be? What's in the books? Specifically, because there's a lot of "I don't want/think this is boring/we could do without" this or that thing. I want to know what the actual game of D&D is supposed to be like, if all the people who have problems with this stuff get their way.

Serious question.

 

[Guest 85555]

But, barbarian as a class isn’t a society. There is no society of barbarian same as there is no society of clerics.

Barbarian the class is just a collection of tropes and mechanics lumped together. And there’s very little negative language in that description. After all, barbarians don’t have intelligence restrictions for example.

I don't think we disagree about the Barbarian then (I was replying to a poster who had made a case for the barbarian being a bad trope, or at least seem to take issue with the name).

Which half orcs did once have.

Sure, but half orc was a race, and lots of the races had things like that before. Personally I am not too worked up over orcs being lower intelligent. But again I don't really read real world race into orcs. I just think they are a different species, and one of the fun thought experiments in a fantasy world is how things play out if you have different species with different biology but who are intelligent, etc.

And the class barbarian can apply to a very broad spectrum of archetypes - Worf from Star Trek could easily be made as a barbarian.

Sure, but it is pretty specific in D&D I would say to a trope that doesn't really refer to anyone presently alive, and is mostly built around sword and sorcery tropes, Conan in particular.