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

[Bagpuss]

I see the playtest normalizing mixed-parentage characters. The "Half-Elf" and the "Half-Orc" are no longer weird. Now mixing is something that all sapient species can and do.

I see the opposite. Rather than normalizing it "Thanks to the magical working of the multiverse Humanoids of different kinds sometimes have children together." "wonderous pairing" - Implies to me it is weird, and unusual, while they have made it clear all sapient species can do it, when it happens it is "magical and wonderous", not something that happens every time different species get busy. Though half-elves and half-orcs are the more common of these pairings, so are less weird.

 

[Hussar]

snip.

Which is daft because these fantasy races were created as allegories for particular aspects of humanity. Be it our potential for brutalism and violence (Orcs), the sense of home and comfort (hobbits), etc. You don't have homebody orcs because that isn't what they represent, you don't have savage halflings because again that isn't what they represent in the fiction.

/snip

But… I was told in no uncertain terms in this thread that the fantasy races aren’t allegorical at all. I was told that repeatedly.

So which is it? Are they allegorical or not?

 

[Bagpuss]

But… I was told in no uncertain terms in this thread that the fantasy races aren’t allegorical at all. I was told that repeatedly.

So which is it? Are they allegorical or not?

You were told they aren't allegorical to a particular ethnic group of people, not that they weren't allegorical at all. (At least by me, I can't vouch for what other people have said).

 

[Andvari]

I stopped reading this thread at about 20 pages and was wondering how it had made it to more than a hundred. I approve one reason is the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

 

[Horwath]

But… I was told in no uncertain terms in this thread that the fantasy races aren’t allegorical at all. I was told that repeatedly.

So which is it? Are they allegorical or not?

they do not represent any specific ethnicity, but as they are written by humans, they are humanocentric by default. In most cases, when we write fiction, we cannot escape that.
But, like in Startrek they represent certain characteristic of humans that are somewhat exaggerated and concentrated in one place(more or less).

 

[Hussar]

You were told they aren't allegorical to a particular ethnic group of people, not that they weren't allegorical at all. (At least by me, I can't vouch for what other people have said).

But, that's not how allegories work. You can't say that they're allegorical for aspects of humanity and then deny that they are allegorical for aspects of humanity. Ethnicity is every bit as much of an aspect of humanity as behavior or anything else. If we can read something as allegorical of one thing, then you cannot say that they must only be read as allegorical in one particular way just because it's convenient. As soon as you admit that something can be read as allegorical, so long as the interpretation can be supported by the text, then any allegorical reading is valid.

And the supporting text is certainly there. You might not like that interpretation, but that doesn't invalidate it.

 

[Hussar]

they do not represent any specific ethnicity, but as they are written by humans, they are humanocentric by default. In most cases, when we write fiction, we cannot escape that.
But, like in Startrek they represent certain characteristic of humans that are somewhat exaggerated and concentrated in one place(more or less).

Umm... what? Klingons were absolutely a stand in for Communist Russia. That was the entire point of Klingons in the original series. But, over time, particularly after the fall of Soviet Russia, that interpretation was superseded by later interpretations. But, Star Trek races were absolutely meant to represent ethnic and social groups.

And sometimes Star Trek got it horribly wrong. See the Next Generation episode Code of Honor for how this can go so very, very wrong.

 

[Bagpuss]

But, that's not how allegories work. You can't say that they're allegorical for aspects of humanity and then deny that they are allegorical for aspects of humanity. Ethnicity is every bit as much of an aspect of humanity as behavior or anything else. If we can read something as allegorical of one thing, then you cannot say that they must only be read as allegorical in one particular way just because it's convenient. As soon as you admit that something can be read as allegorical, so long as the interpretation can be supported by the text, then any allegorical reading is valid.

And the supporting text is certainly there. You might not like that interpretation, but that doesn't invalidate it.

Of course you are right, death of the author and all that, you can ascribe meaning to things that weren't intended. If you continue to insist your orcs are racist stereotype of a particular race, you go for it. I shouldn't try and stop you.

But similarly you shouldn't keep trying to invalidate my interpretation, that orcs are a representation of an aspect of the whole of humanity, not any particular subset. You might not like that interpretation but that doesn't invalidate it.

You carry on with your racist interpretation and I'll stick with mine.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Where did the idea that orcs are "super-strong" come from? It is not a Tolkien thing really (they are canon fodder really). It isn't evident in the 1e MM description either. I know it is a popular stance now, but where did the idea come from?

Warhammer and WoW both have big muscly orcs, so might have originated due to them.

 

[Guest 85555]

But it is the entire crux of your argument against my point. Your entire point is that if we do not consider the fact of "is human" to be essential and immutably part of being "a person" that we invite disaster. But my point is that "a person" certainly does include all humans, but it isn't limited to only humans. That doesn't remove the designation from humans, simply expands it. But by claiming that humans are special in a way that only humans are, we invite problems that we do not need to have.

I think this subject is probably too beyond the topic for us to keep going back and forth forever on, but I would just say here, the problem is 'personhood' as it has been defined so far in this thread, and as it usually is defined, doesn't include 'human being' as part of its definition. I believe the definition people offered here was something like sapience + free will equals personhood. And the problem is once you make an argument that an individual doesn't have one of both of those, you can label them a non-person. The idea of personhood is something that can be used, to exclude some from personhood. Like I said, I certainly wouldn't want to see a self aware and humanlike race of aliens denied these rights either, but I would like to make sure if we are going to use this term that human beings are a part of the definition (we are all automatically people) and that we at least don't confer to unmet races of aliens yet automatically because we have no idea what those may be. But it seems we at least agree that all humans should be regarded as persons, which is something good I think.