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

[Guest 85555]

No it isn't. Conan being a Barbarian falls into the issue of the Fremen Mirage. He isn't decadant like the city-folk, so he is pure and martial and manly. But he is refered to as a "barbarian" because he is not part of the society around him, he is seperate from it. Only good in that society itself is presented as soft and corrupt and unworthy.

I will try to get to the rest of your argument later but here we are just going to have to disagree. I think Conan as presented in both Howard and Conan the Barbarian are presented as laudable and something good to be. It does come with its own baggage (because a lot of Howards ideas are about urban versus rural life and I think he identified with the latter, but it is a positive portrayal and a bit of a power fantasy too).

 

[Guest 85555]

Right, Fremen Mirage.

I mean there are certainly elements of this idea in Conan. But I think it is just as much that as it was Howard reflecting the values of country life versus city life in America. But yes you can see that kind of thinking at work, where this historical idea of settled peoples growing decadent and weak is present. There are also some uncomfortable racialist ideas too (though not nearly what you have in say Lovecraft). But I don't think that means Conan is less positive when people apply the term Barbarian while thinking of him. We could get into this whole issue of thinking of history in this manner, which predates Dune, so I never really got calling it this, but I was talking about how people see the term Barbarian here. And again I would say as a positive thing, and not as something that points to any real living culture but to idealized images of ancient cultures (which i am a lot more comfortable with)

 

[Guest 85555]

And changing the name of the Barbarian class has come up many times, because there is a reason people don't use this term to describe a way of life anymore outside of games like DnD. It is because calling the ways of life it represents "barbaric" is offensive and misrepresents them.

Again, I think this usage of the term isn't exactly the norm and it doesn't refer to a particular culture that exists (people might say the Russians or Americans are barbarians just as much as anyone else). My wife is Thai and she calls me that all the time because she finds elements of American culture crude. I think it is mostly used to describe acts of cruelty though. And I think the term very much refers to historical people, not people or their descendants living today.

 

[Guest 85555]

You can keep the mechanics, you can keep a great deal of the flavor, but you don't have to keep the name. Because the name, and the associated fluff, perpetuate a false narrative.

I actually know this for a fact, because about a year or so ago on this very forum, I talked about an excellent barbarian I made who was a Knight. I was then, repeatedly, informed that I had made the character wrong, because knights can't be barbarians. You can't be a barbarian and have refined tastes, or like reading, or enjoy galas and balls. They were incensed at the very concept, and not just a single poster, there were a few of them. And I told them their opinions didn't matter to me, but it shows the problem. Barbarian carries with it FAR too many culture assumptions and baggage. It isn't something in desperate need of fixing, but it is something that I wouldn't mind getting fixed.

And is it, to assuage your worries, ever possible to ever tell a story of a tribal person of great strength, great rage, and great martial ability? Of course it is, but saying that they are a barbarian who can't appreciate culture is just a flat stereotype that ignores the breadth of what RAGE can mean. After all, the quintessential rage is Cuchulain, a noble man.

But the cultural baggage you are talking about is within D&D. People are the same way with Paladins, and with Clerics. These are presented as types in the books and people often get rigid about those types. But I doubt your players were saying you couldn't have a noble Celt, Viking or Goth. Even if they were, we are talking about ancient cultures. I still think the imagery of the barbarian is powerful enough that it is worth keeping this idea in a game. And I think if people want to point out, but yes barbarians come from cultures that are actually much more intricate, fair enough. But why throw away a perfectly good and evocative word. When it does conjure up images of historical people, it is groups like the aforementioned people, but its use in ancient times was even more specific to mean either non-Romans or non-Greeks (and that dichotomy isn't even one that matters anymore---none of us are in danger of losing our rights because we are not regarded as Romans).

But I really don't think this has much impact beyond D&D. And if people want to know more about the history of people in the ancient world and the relationship between either Rome and the cultures around it, or the relationship between urban and nomadic people, they can read history books. D&D isn't a great educational tool. It is a great way to pique a persons interest (for example my interest in medieval history is a direct result of playing D&D, and my interest in Roman history was a product of getting the book The Glory of Rome for 2E when it came out. Neither of those were great for educating me (the Glory of Rome was more historical but it was still fundamentally a game book and while it has been a long time so I can't give a thorough review, it wouldn't surprise me if it contained a lot of inaccurate details). What taught me about these things wasn't just continuing to play D&D but reading history books. I would argue you are going to get a lot more young people interested in history with this highly evocative, simplistic and sometimes blatantly non-historical images that appear in media and games, because they are what sparks curiosity.

Where I would agree is people getting their ideas about the world from D&D isn't a great thing. You see think in science fiction all the time (people who get all their knowledge of science from Star Trek or from science fiction more broadly). And it happens in fantasy too (people who get all their ideas about history from fantasy novels and fantasy games). The solution there isn't to change the games or the fantasy novels (though I certainly think its welcome when more historically minded writers take them on) because the aim isn't history, the aim is to entertain, tell a good story, or in the case of an RPG, make a game that is playable. It is very difficult in an RPG setting, even a historical one, to get into the nuances of history because so much history isn't even settled (there are a lot of times different explanations for something that happened and varying accounts, which a history book can easily explain, but RPG books really need to give GMs and players a single answer-----or creatively work in those contradictions). But the problem there isn't D&D or the Barbarian, it is people who take media they consume too seriously and who aren't learning sufficiently outside their narrow modes of entertainment (if someone plays video games all day and never picks up a newspaper or history book, they aren't going to be very informed about the world)

 

[Guest 85555]

Huh?

The description of mixed characters is marginalized RIGHT NOW. It specifically calls it out that all mixed characters are marginalized. Not only that, but none of the mixed characters have their own lands, have their own culture and are always subjected to othering and marginalization by the pure races. There never was a "collective" of half races. You were always a weird one off. That's exactly what the 2014 PHB says.

A. All half races are relegated to the "non-core" uncommon races.
B. All half races are forced to be subject to racism and bigotry and are never accepted.
C. The language around all the half races are pretty clear that they are one offs.

"Half-elves have no lands of their own... half-elves are sometimes numerous enough to form small communities of their own... In most parts of theworld half-elves are uncommon enough that one might live for years without meeting another." (2014 PHB page 39)

This might just be a case against the 2014 PHB then, because most versions of half elf don't say they are never accepted. Just that they face bigotry. And yes they are marginalized, but including a race in the game that reflects something that can really happen in the world isn't a bad thing. People do have this experience (plenty of posters have mentioned their own experience with it and most of the backlash has been because of this experience being written out by saying 'half' is racist). Is it simplistic? Yes of course. All Races and Classes in D&D are simplistic. They never adequately describe in the PHB the breadth and range you get in a complete setting (that is what setting books are for).

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, dragonborn are markedly different from every other PC species that has ever appeared in a D&D core book (all of which are on a mammalian base physically), so it's hard to look at a dragonborn and not see them as  very different. Adding a lot more of them into a setting in an attempt to "normalize" them would likely change the feel of said setting quite a bit and may not be desired.

I'm still six something pages behind (the flight back and the issues with the door order delayed me) but it is rather... trivial to make non-mammalian species "normal". You just describe them like you describe other species.

There is a series I've read where a human ends up in a city full of three major fantasy races. Drakes (basically dragonborn), Antinium (ant-people) and Gnolls (not DnD-style). And... the antininium with their hive-mind and struggles with the concept of individuality are the only ones who are "exotic" in anyway. The drakes are just... people. They are scaley people, and have a different culture that the MC learns, but they are not presented as some exotic group.

These things aren't binary. It isn't "describe them as exotic or make them bland, boring humans with nothing interesting about them". You just treat it like you would treat any other group. You wouldn't start a description of the Dutch by focusing on how exotic and strange they are to normal society, you would just describe what is important to them and what their values are.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm still six something pages behind (the flight back and the issues with the door order delayed me) but it is rather... trivial to make non-mammalian species "normal". You just describe them like you describe other species.

There is a series I've read where a human ends up in a city full of three major fantasy races. Drakes (basically dragonborn), Antinium (ant-people) and Gnolls (not DnD-style). And... the antininium with their hive-mind and struggles with the concept of individuality are the only ones who are "exotic" in anyway. The drakes are just... people. They are scaley people, and have a different culture that the MC learns, but they are not presented as some exotic group.

These things aren't binary. It isn't "describe them as exotic or make them bland, boring humans with nothing interesting about them". You just treat it like you would treat any other group. You wouldn't start a description of the Dutch by focusing on how exotic and strange they are to normal society, you would just describe what is important to them and what their values are.

I mean, if a species of earth lizards evolved to be biped and as smart as humans, they wouldn't just be identical to humans but look different. Their entire physiology and thought process to everything would be different, even if they were just as smart as humans.

Reptiles and mammals act and think differently, even when comparing ones with similar intelligence.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Or do you seriously think we will start getting tons of mixed NPCs based on what will be a glorified sidebar with no actual lore?

Yes, or at least I seriously hope so.

Adventure writers have often pressed the bounds of different depictions, like the Flumph First Mate in the Spelljammer adventure. Flumphs aren't playable characters, but he was still depicted. Is it going to be a flood of them immediately, in the next book? Probably not, but it will come in slowly, and spread, and hopefully in the next few years we will have a stable of mixed race people to pull from.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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?

Yeah, I remember being very surprised when I played a 3E-based CRPG and ran into some orcs, and they all had massive damage bonuses that to my AD&D-trained mind seemed to require 18/51+ strength. I was like, "(!!!) Why are all these orcs on steroids?"

 

[Chaosmancer]

Like I said, until I see something in actual playtest I remain unconvinced. And I'm not holding my breath. I mean I've got nothing against mixing halflings with gnomes and elves with orcs, but the whole situation leaves a sour taste. Because it comes at the expense of having default options. Default options are accessible, are visible, and are more likely to be accepted/respected on the table.

But overall, I don't think any of you can change my mind, because I'm aware that my reaction is emotional, so no amount of reasoning will change how I feel. And the whole language used by the designers felt condescending, othering and overall hurtful. And it brings me back to the feeling of "why do I have to renounce to something I like, and that I identify with so others can be happy?, more so as they somehow celebrate how much this means how good and supportive they are of me while being entirely at the expense of me?"

I can sympathize with this. And I think if it were purely because of lore reasons, I'd even agree with you. But I think they wanted to expand mixed race characters to other options, and that meant they had to consider the mechanics. And mechanically, making default options for every single mixed race is untenable. It is simply not a realistic choice.

And so, they tried something they thought worked. And frankly, I liked the option because I saw the expanded version, it made it possible to create some characters I had always considered, but never been able to create. And I think that is what the designers saw, I think that was what they intended, even if they ended up missing the mark.