D&D (2024) Greyhawk Confirmed. Tell Me Why.

[Hussar]

That’s a point I’ve long agreed with. If the argument is about xenophobia and the “cantina” scene gaming, why are all the Tolkien races exempted?

 

[Remathilis]

That’s a point I’ve long agreed with. If the argument is about xenophobia and the “cantina” scene gaming, why are all the Tolkien races exempted?

Tradition.

Ok, slightly longer answer: they all look human. Elves are thin humans with pointy years, dwarves are short, squat humans with beards, halflings are tiny childlike humans with big feet, and gnomes are tiny, bearded humans with slightly pointed ears. Even half-elves (slightly less thin humans and with slightly less pointy ears) and half-orcs (slightly bulkier humans with pointy underbites) aren't all that different. They are basically all human looking.

People start making cantina comparing when you move past anything that requires elaborate prosthetics or CGI to pull off on camera: people with devil horns, dragon heads, animal features, etc. But if you could pull it off with some camera trickery and makeup, it's acceptable to most people.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Tradition.

Ok, slightly longer answer: they all look human. Elves are thin humans with pointy years, dwarves are short, squat humans with beards, halflings are tiny childlike humans with big feet, and gnomes are tiny, bearded humans with slightly pointed ears. Even half-elves (slightly less thin humans and with slightly less pointy ears) and half-orcs (slightly bulkier humans with pointy underbites) aren't all that different. They are basically all human looking.

People start making cantina comparing when you move past anything that requires elaborate prosthetics or CGI to pull off on camera: people with devil horns, dragon heads, animal features, etc. But if you could pull it off with some camera trickery and makeup, it's acceptable to most people.

Yep, which is why it irritates me when they attempt to play it off as "realism".

 

[Hussar]

I agree about the realism aspect. I mean, elves would be freaking horrifying. Immortal (from a human perspective) beings with a totally alien mindset is not conducive to peaceful coexistence.

The idea that halflings wouldn’t be exploited ten ways from Sunday is laughable. Scarred Lands got that one right.

 

[SkidAce]

Okay. So... what?

Adventuring party tossing around a dragon's hoard worth of jewels and gold has a fancy robot with them. The townsfolk panic and go to the local lord. The local lord shows up and... what? Murders the entire party and enslaves the robot? Why? Do they attack every powerful mage or warrior who goes through their territory? Seems like a bad idea, seems like that would cause problems for them, seems like something the party might have heard about before.

And how would that be different than say... an elven paladin walking through town? Would the townsfolk in good or evil areas not ALSO react extremely to that? Are there no elven racists (false, the scarlet brotherhood exists)

It just gets... kind of exhausting. All of these assumptions get made about how "oh, you don't look like you are from Lord of the Rings, therefore you will be driven from towns" but people don't start applying similar logic to, well, EVERYTHING. I've never heard of a party finding a desperate villager running down the road, panicked about a demoninc invasion, only to rush in and find three tieflings confusedly looking for somewhere to sleep for the night. It only seems to be that these things happen when someone wants to play a tielfling character, and then every effort is made to force them to regret that choice, so that their next character conforms. Which just... isn't how a world full of so many strange and bizarre things would function.

By the time I mention this, the thread will have progressed...anyway...

I dont think its a matter of "you dont look like you are from the Lord of the rings" (not entirely). It goes deeper, to world building. In our campaign for example;

• Lizardfolk from a nearby swamp have a trade/work agreement with the local kingdom. In addition, they like sending 10 of their champions to be the personal gurad to the royal family, to show how tough they are. So, in Landfall, seeing a lizardfolk walking down the street would NOT generate hysteria.
• Merely 20 years ago, a horribly lethal war between an emerging swarm of goblins and the local kingdom, a goblin walking the streets would attract mass hysteria, old war veterans would grab their weapons, etc.

So in our campaign, yes, a goblin would have more trouble in town than a lizardfolk.

 

[Chaosmancer]

By the time I mention this, the thread will have progressed...anyway...

I dont think its a matter of "you dont look like you are from the Lord of the rings" (not entirely). It goes deeper, to world building. In our campaign for example;

• Lizardfolk from a nearby swamp have a trade/work agreement with the local kingdom. In addition, they like sending 10 of their champions to be the personal gurad to the royal family, to show how tough they are. So, in Landfall, seeing a lizardfolk walking down the street would NOT generate hysteria.
• Merely 20 years ago, a horribly lethal war between an emerging swarm of goblins and the local kingdom, a goblin walking the streets would attract mass hysteria, old war veterans would grab their weapons, etc.

So in our campaign, yes, a goblin would have more trouble in town than a lizardfolk.

Didn't move on as much as you think LOL.

And what you have described is mostly great, it makes sense and works with the things you have established. But, as I mentioned in the last post I made, there are levels of world-building.

For example, it can make sense that a Tiefling from the kingdom ruled by Iuz might be treated hostilely by neighboring countries, because they are at war... it can also make sense that considering they would be normal people, with normal jobs, that border towns could also know non-military Tieflings who simply traveled from their homes, and thus they wouldn't freak out as much.

Depending on how your setting went, a goblin walking down the street in the local kingdom might be a terrifying sight... but if a peace treaty was made to stop the slaughter (not saying it was, saying IF it was) then a delegation of Goblins might show up occasionally, and after 20 years... people haven't forgotten, but the sight might only cause concern, not a full-blown panic. After all, it isn't the first time it has happened, it may well be the 40th time, and people won't react with fear to something that is known to happen.

But, notice, we RARELY discuss a horrible lethal war between humans and dwarves leading to them causing a panic. We rarely justify Elven people being accepted because they send Royal Knights to guard the throne. The default for those races is "of course people won't freak out, they know these people are on the side of good". And yes, we can make the argument that Tieflings, Orcs and Goblins have traditionally been foes, and thus the default of evil is expected. And that is fine... but it also isn't true for Tabaxi, Tortle or Dragonborn. Literally in the this thread, the original incarnation of Dragonborn were dedicated soldiers of Bahamut the God of Good. Yet they are also defaulted into being treated with fear and suspicion... because they look less human, they are more unusual. And that is the point where it starts feel less like tradition where these initial baseline expectations some from.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

An observation from actual play. I felt that my players completely underestimated a villain because he happened to be a kobold. It had no real mechanical effect, but the players still treated a character they knew was a wizard as if he would be a pushover.

Conclusion: players, not just NPCs, can make judgements based on racial stereotypes.

 

[Pauln6]

Sure, monocultures are boring and baselines are a thing for individual communities. It still holds though, that this tends to be a one-way street.

No one ever says that "Be careful playing an Elf, the dwarves might kidnap and hold you for ransom due to ancient grudges against the elves" or "Be careful playing a dwarf, the humans might hold you at crossbow point and demand your secret stash of gold and gemstones" These are things that could happen, they make sense for different communities, but they are NEVER mentioned in casual discussion.

However, I had a conversation with someone about how I felt I could create a more interesting story for a character by pulling on the thematics in Kobolds. Their response was that the Kobold merchant I was talking about would be shot on sight like a dog, because Kobolds are known thieves on the King's Highway, and that wasn't fair to the rest of the party. Now, to make this clear, the discussion was "why do people want non-human characters". I wasn't planning on playing a game with this person, there was no established world or group. The very CONCEPT of playing a Kobold was met with "killed on sight because evil/different".

Which is what happens when people mention goblins. Or orcs. or Tieflings. Or Tabaxi. Or Warforged.

The stereotypes that could be problematic for someone playing a Tolkien-esque race are generally ignored, while they are the default assumption for anything that has previously been depicted as an antagonist or even just too different from the norm. Without a world, without a context, the default is just "they would be attacked on sight, because they aren't human/Elf/Dwarf/Halfing"

But, if you want to treat this seriously, as actually part of the way the world functions, and not just a "this isn't what I like, therefore kill" then the problem is a two-way street. Maybe a Tiefling is attacked by a town in the Shieldlands, because they know that the Tiefling likely has connections to Iuz's Kingdom and they are enemies with that kingdom. But a human Knight might also be attack by a town in the border region of Iuz's territory, because they think he is from the Shieldlands and they are enemies with that kingdom. If you want to make that sort of thing happen, then it can happen both ways. It can also happen that while the more zealous folk might be "kill the enemies of the state" the rest might be like "eh, the merchant who supplies my Bronzewood is a Tiefling, he passes through while going back home to visit his family. He owes me six silver from the last time we played cards. Do you know 'em? Cause I think he avoided me last time he came through."

But having complexity and nuance isn't generally the point.

I think the point is that the attitudes of players mirror the attitudes of the common folk. Why should it be a surprise that NPCs would be xenophobic when players are xenophobic? Not all players are xenophobic. Not all NPCs are xenophobic. You shift the baseline dependent on the fictional culture.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Didn't move on as much as you think LOL.

And what you have described is mostly great, it makes sense and works with the things you have established. But, as I mentioned in the last post I made, there are levels of world-building.

For example, it can make sense that a Tiefling from the kingdom ruled by Iuz might be treated hostilely by neighboring countries, because they are at war... it can also make sense that considering they would be normal people, with normal jobs, that border towns could also know non-military Tieflings who simply traveled from their homes, and thus they wouldn't freak out as much.

Depending on how your setting went, a goblin walking down the street in the local kingdom might be a terrifying sight... but if a peace treaty was made to stop the slaughter (not saying it was, saying IF it was) then a delegation of Goblins might show up occasionally, and after 20 years... people haven't forgotten, but the sight might only cause concern, not a full-blown panic. After all, it isn't the first time it has happened, it may well be the 40th time, and people won't react with fear to something that is known to happen.

But, notice, we RARELY discuss a horrible lethal war between humans and dwarves leading to them causing a panic. We rarely justify Elven people being accepted because they send Royal Knights to guard the throne. The default for those races is "of course people won't freak out, they know these people are on the side of good". And yes, we can make the argument that Tieflings, Orcs and Goblins have traditionally been foes, and thus the default of evil is expected. And that is fine... but it also isn't true for Tabaxi, Tortle or Dragonborn. Literally in the this thread, the original incarnation of Dragonborn were dedicated soldiers of Bahamut the God of Good. Yet they are also defaulted into being treated with fear and suspicion... because they look less human, they are more unusual. And that is the point where it starts feel less like tradition where these initial baseline expectations some from.

One of the things I liked about Dragonlance was that elves, dwarves, and humans were very much distrustful of each other, often to the point of violence in some cases. So it's not always just the "monster races" that get this treatment.

 

[Hussar]

By the time I mention this, the thread will have progressed...anyway...

I dont think its a matter of "you dont look like you are from the Lord of the rings" (not entirely). It goes deeper, to world building. In our campaign for example;

• Lizardfolk from a nearby swamp have a trade/work agreement with the local kingdom. In addition, they like sending 10 of their champions to be the personal gurad to the royal family, to show how tough they are. So, in Landfall, seeing a lizardfolk walking down the street would NOT generate hysteria.
• Merely 20 years ago, a horribly lethal war between an emerging swarm of goblins and the local kingdom, a goblin walking the streets would attract mass hysteria, old war veterans would grab their weapons, etc.

So in our campaign, yes, a goblin would have more trouble in town than a lizardfolk.

Which is really cool. I love it.

But, I don't think that should be the baseline of D&D. Nor should it be the baseline presentation of D&D. You have perfectly valid, in game reasons for people to react in one way or another. But, those reasons are idiosyncratic to that campaign. I wouldn't expect those reasons to be referenced anywhere else.

So, why not just not presume that particular races will be problematic, and simply pass it off to individual tables? The whole "cantina scene" argument against the inclusion of different species always seems to me to be a particular person trying to pretend their personal preferences are somehow more important.