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

[Vaalingrade]

I refer you to my earlier post, this is a feature not a bug.

As for the only race called out as being subject to fetishization and bigotry, are you sure you've read the PHB.

Dwarves talking about halflings "How can you take them seriously?"
Dwarves on Humans "You have to admire that kind of dedication..."
Dwarves on elves "It's not wise to depend on the elves."

Elves on dwarves "Dwarves are dull, clumsy oafs."
Elves on humans "If only they could slow down and learn some refinement."

Humans on Dwarves "Their greed is their downfall..."
Humans on elves "...if an elf can get past that damned racial pride"
Humans on halflings "If halflings had a shred of ambition, they might amount to something."

Seems plenty to go round.

So.. it's a feature that every species is portrayed as a bunch of uniform scumbags I don't want to play because they're all worthless and terrible as people.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No species survive a billion years. None.

Even if they never die out, they evolve into something else which is no longer that species.

I mean fair, we will likely evolve in that time span, unless we take steps to prevent that evolution. That's the weird thing about sapient beings like us, we can choose some of our evolutionary pressures. But, also, we will likely still keep CALLING ourselves humans for a very very long time.

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.

Sure, mammals and reptiles think differently. But dragonborn and Drakes are based off dragons, and dragons DON'T really think like reptiles. Dragons are capable of love, of concepts like motherhood and fatherhood, of forging friendships,

But even if they were more like Lizardfolk, they still have built societies. They still have social bonds, which again is something that I don't think any earth lizard/reptile has. And societal bonds carry certain expectations built into them.

And even if we move beyond that, you still don't have to exoctize it. You still can just... describe them, their wants, their desires, their bonds, the things important to them. We do it with elves and they are just as strange and unlike humans as dragons would be, so I don't see how it would be a problem.

 

[AnotherGuy]

So.. it's a feature that every species is portrayed as a bunch of uniform scumbags I don't want to play because they're all worthless and terrible as people.

You've never appreciated the differences in human cultures? Never gone to a comedy show where x, y and z were joked about? Never shared a passing comment with your friend who is a, b or c?

Even Star Trek does that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You've never appreciated the differences in human cultures? Never gone to a comedy show where x, y and z were joked about? Never shared a passing comment with your friend who is a, b or c?

Even Star Trek does that.

None of those are 'jokes' in the 'actually funny' or 'meant lightly' sense.

Such bangers: All X are dumb and clumsy! You can't take them seriously! They're all greedy and control the-- NO.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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).

... Yes, it is presented as good by the author, because it is the Fremen Mirage. But unless there is someone else in the story who is presenting it, many of those that call Conan a Barbarian are using a title given to him by his enemies, and by those who are part of the corrupted society.

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)

Country life versus City life is literally the Fremen Mirage. You are saying that there are only elements, but then your counterpoint is just parts of the Mirage. And again, yes, the Author who is putting forth this idea of the good and value in rugged hard living that doesn't make you soft, but makes you strong, is going to present the idea as good. But it only really works if the city life, the life of being comfortable and sedentary is presented as bad and weak. But it also means that the city-folk are using the term derisively, and they are proved wrong by the author.

And this is where the Barbarian probably does well in DnD, because the Fremen Mirage doesn't exist in DnD. The nobility is seen as corrupt and decadent, but we also have many medieval ideas of the "true noble" who is a strong leader and a wise man, or the power of scholarship presented in wizards. There are other forms of power available in DnD, so it doesn't become a major issue. But it is still really easy to see where the problematic parts are.

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.

You keep acting like this counters my point, and I don't know why. I've never claimed that the term barbarian represents a specific group. I also don't see how your anecdote disproves my point, if anything it strengthens it. She calls you that because the connotations of the word are "crude" and often Barbarians are associated nearly exclusively with tribal people. It isn't spelled out exactly, but it also isn't something that is actively worked against in the text of the class or the presentations.

It isn't big enough to make a stink over, but it is something to keep an eye on, something to consider changing, just because it isn't wonderful the way it is. I'd also like to see more tribal people presented as full wizards, and not just lesser "shamans" as they tend to do.

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).

Because we can find a better, more evocative word. Yes, this issue isn't exclusive, but not being exclusive is no reason not to keep an open mind about potentially changing the word. I love the class, I love the imagery, I just think it is possible to improve it. And yet, the idea of the name of the class changing is supposed to have scared me into backing off an earlier point, like the name changing would somehow be this massive negative thing we should avoid. But that didn't apply to Priest did it? Or Thief? Or Fighting-Man? Or Magic-User? We've changed the names of classes before, why can't we do so again?

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.

But they also spark biases. They can get us comfortable not questioning things that should be questioned. And how is this potential interest quashed if we have a different name? A more nuanced and complete vision? If Cleric had a valid class identity associated with Shamans, would that not get people more interested in shamans? You can accurately depict holy people of other cultures AND spark interest in them.

And again, the point I responded to that led to this tangent was basically a gotcha. A "but wouldn't this mean we should challenge the name of this class? HAHA gotcha, now you have to agree with me because no one wants that extreme change!" But... I don't see it as an extreme change. I have seen good arguments for the change, just like I've seen good arguments to go back to Priest for the cleric, and good arguments to change fighter to warrior.

I just don't see it as a big deal.

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)

Do you honestly think history is so boring, that an accurate depiction of it wouldn't be entertaining? Haven't there been dozens of great films exploring real historical events? It could be presented in a boring fashion, but I've been entertained watching a guy discuss domes in Venice without him having to make up false facts or present them as the work of aliens.

Sure, you don't HAVE to change the name of the Barbarian, it isn't a requirement, but... why would it be bad? You keep presenting this as some sort of terrible deed, as the destruction of the entire class, but the argument is mostly that the name isn't accurate and could be better. We can still entertain, without having to perpetuate the biases and tropes of the past. It isn't an insurmountable task.

 

[ChameleonX]

In my games, Orcs are basically human-sized chimpanzees with stone age technology. Roughly as intelligent as the average human peasant, but just wired different. They're naturally aggressive and violent, and their social structure is based on strength and intimidation. An individual can be gentle and friendly towards someone if they like you, but if you piss it off things are going to get ugly quick.

They have the mental capacity to learn how to farm, mine, smith, and grow crops, but at this point in their cultural development they just don't care enough to bother. It's easier to take what they want through brute force, so that's what they do, in general. If presented with an obviously superior force they might be willing to trade or negotiate, but as a group they don't tend to have the patience or forethought for things like alliances or treaties. It's more of a "we won't kill you this time" sort of arrangement.

A "half-orc" would likely be somewhat like a human who is somewhat "slow" and impatient, has a very bad temper, and probably doesn't get along well with others. They are also stronger than humans because... well... humans are actually pretty weak in general.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Maybe. Makes me wonder what they're going to charge, or how much of a loss they're going to take on each unit.

Don't particularly care, because it is the 50th anniversary set, obviously it is going to be a bit pricier. And f they include more content, they end up charging more. That just makes sense.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The older editions used smaller font. Feels like they packed more meat into the product. They could cover more - more possibilities to inspire.

Older editions could also sometimes use too much purple prose and talk in circles. Again, this seems like we are moving solely into a discussion of the technical aspects of the books, and frankly I wouldn't want smaller text.

 

[Micah Sweet]

... Yes, it is presented as good by the author, because it is the Fremen Mirage. But unless there is someone else in the story who is presenting it, many of those that call Conan a Barbarian are using a title given to him by his enemies, and by those who are part of the corrupted society.



Country life versus City life is literally the Fremen Mirage. You are saying that there are only elements, but then your counterpoint is just parts of the Mirage. And again, yes, the Author who is putting forth this idea of the good and value in rugged hard living that doesn't make you soft, but makes you strong, is going to present the idea as good. But it only really works if the city life, the life of being comfortable and sedentary is presented as bad and weak. But it also means that the city-folk are using the term derisively, and they are proved wrong by the author.

And this is where the Barbarian probably does well in DnD, because the Fremen Mirage doesn't exist in DnD. The nobility is seen as corrupt and decadent, but we also have many medieval ideas of the "true noble" who is a strong leader and a wise man, or the power of scholarship presented in wizards. There are other forms of power available in DnD, so it doesn't become a major issue. But it is still really easy to see where the problematic parts are.



You keep acting like this counters my point, and I don't know why. I've never claimed that the term barbarian represents a specific group. I also don't see how your anecdote disproves my point, if anything it strengthens it. She calls you that because the connotations of the word are "crude" and often Barbarians are associated nearly exclusively with tribal people. It isn't spelled out exactly, but it also isn't something that is actively worked against in the text of the class or the presentations.

It isn't big enough to make a stink over, but it is something to keep an eye on, something to consider changing, just because it isn't wonderful the way it is. I'd also like to see more tribal people presented as full wizards, and not just lesser "shamans" as they tend to do.




Because we can find a better, more evocative word. Yes, this issue isn't exclusive, but not being exclusive is no reason not to keep an open mind about potentially changing the word. I love the class, I love the imagery, I just think it is possible to improve it. And yet, the idea of the name of the class changing is supposed to have scared me into backing off an earlier point, like the name changing would somehow be this massive negative thing we should avoid. But that didn't apply to Priest did it? Or Thief? Or Fighting-Man? Or Magic-User? We've changed the names of classes before, why can't we do so again?



But they also spark biases. They can get us comfortable not questioning things that should be questioned. And how is this potential interest quashed if we have a different name? A more nuanced and complete vision? If Cleric had a valid class identity associated with Shamans, would that not get people more interested in shamans? You can accurately depict holy people of other cultures AND spark interest in them.

And again, the point I responded to that led to this tangent was basically a gotcha. A "but wouldn't this mean we should challenge the name of this class? HAHA gotcha, now you have to agree with me because no one wants that extreme change!" But... I don't see it as an extreme change. I have seen good arguments for the change, just like I've seen good arguments to go back to Priest for the cleric, and good arguments to change fighter to warrior.

I just don't see it as a big deal.



Do you honestly think history is so boring, that an accurate depiction of it wouldn't be entertaining? Haven't there been dozens of great films exploring real historical events? It could be presented in a boring fashion, but I've been entertained watching a guy discuss domes in Venice without him having to make up false facts or present them as the work of aliens.

Sure, you don't HAVE to change the name of the Barbarian, it isn't a requirement, but... why would it be bad? You keep presenting this as some sort of terrible deed, as the destruction of the entire class, but the argument is mostly that the name isn't accurate and could be better. We can still entertain, without having to perpetuate the biases and tropes of the past. It isn't an insurmountable task.

What the heck is this Fremen Mirage you keep bringing up as if everyone knows what it is? Seems very jargony to me.

 

[AnotherGuy]

None of those are 'jokes' in the 'actually funny' or 'meant lightly' sense.

Such bangers: All X are dumb and clumsy! You can't take them seriously! They're all greedy and control the-- NO.

Beware Romulans bearing gifts.
Never trust a Ferengi giving you back money
The Cardassians have no honour.

Deep Space Nine was full of this and yet was arguably the best series. Despite Disco being written over 2 decades later with all the correct modern sensibilities...