Calibans, Mongrelfolk and diability awareness

[MGibster]

When it comes to D&D, the mongrelfolk (didn't they used to be mongrelmen?) don't really look all that weird when compared to the myriad of species which exist in the world. If we're accepting half-orcs (assuming they still exist), various types of elves, dwarves, kenku, gensai, goliaths, goblin, githzerai, tiefling, bugbears, etc., etc., then why are mongrelfolk suddenly given the short end of the stick?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

When it comes to D&D, the mongrelfolk (didn't they used to be mongrelmen?) don't really look all that weird when compared to the myriad of species which exist in the world. If we're accepting half-orcs (assuming they still exist), various types of elves, dwarves, kenku, gensai, goliaths, goblin, githzerai, tiefling, bugbears, etc., etc., then why are mongrelfolk suddenly given the short end of the stick?

Agreed.

As we all know, the various types of the elves shouldn't get the short end of the stick. They should get the pointy end of the stick.

Repeatedly.

 

[Faolyn]

You don't need toxic materials. You just need to know that they are working with glowing-hot metals and fire before modern safety equipment. One slip, and that sword you are working on falls against your leg and you are burned for life...

Well, all that arsenic that was added to copper to make bronze would have definitely had a negative effect even in the safest smiths.

 

[TiQuinn]

When it comes to D&D, the mongrelfolk (didn't they used to be mongrelmen?) don't really look all that weird when compared to the myriad of species which exist in the world. If we're accepting half-orcs (assuming they still exist), various types of elves, dwarves, kenku, gensai, goliaths, goblin, githzerai, tiefling, bugbears, etc., etc., then why are mongrelfolk suddenly given the short end of the stick?

The pic of the mongelfolk that always stuck with me was the one from the 2e splatbook Complete Handbook of Humanoids, and to me, it's that they are obviously an amalgamation of multiple species in a kind of Frankenstein monster sort of way.

 

[Faolyn]

The pic of the mongelfolk that always stuck with me was the one from the 2e splatbook Complete Handbook of Humanoids, and to me, it's that they are obviously an amalgamation of multiple species in a kind of Frankenstein monster sort of way.

That plus their asymmetry makes them "ugly."

 

[AnotherGuy]

What I find curious about discussions like this is, that one of the reasons we all enjoy D&D is because of the genre and that genre includes sensibilities of a time where beliefs were different to now and that the characters we usually play are the force of goodness in the world. And many of us like leaning into these archaic sensibilities when we are exploring our stories so things like
Slavery may be common in some parts of the world, cannabilism is still practised by some, disfigurement may be interpreted as cursed, superstition is rampant, handicapped are mocked, sexism may be a thing in certain cultures, entire peoples considered evil...etc
But combating all the above or piercing through this muddled mess are the PCs.

All this to say that I enjoy the world's like Westeros and Essos where GRRM gave us Tyrion, Shireen Baratheon, Jaime Lannister, Varys, the Unsullied, Slavers Bay, the Onion Knight, the Hound...etc

 

[haakon1]

When it comes to D&D, the mongrelfolk (didn't they used to be mongrelmen?) don't really look all that weird when compared to the myriad of species which exist in the world. If we're accepting half-orcs (assuming they still exist), various types of elves, dwarves, kenku, gensai, goliaths, goblin, githzerai, tiefling, bugbears, etc., etc., then why are mongrelfolk suddenly given the short end of the stick?

Yes, they were first introduced in AD&D (1e) in the Greyhawk adventure “Dwellers of the Forbidden City” and added to the rulebooks in Monster Manual 2 as Mongrelmen. By 3e, the name was Mongrelfolk.

I don’t recall them being “disabled”. Perhaps that’s lore added along the way that I missed?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, they were first introduced in AD&D (1e) in the Greyhawk adventure “Dwellers of the Forbidden City” and added to the Rulebooks in Monster Manual 2 as Mongrelmen. By 3e, the name was Mongrelfolk.

I don’t recall them being “disabled”. Perhaps that’s lore added along the way that I missed?

I think the disability part of the OP was related to the hunchback characters not the mongrelfolk

 

[Micah Sweet]

That plus their asymmetry makes them "ugly."

Symmetry is a big part of the perception of beauty.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What I find curious about discussions like this is, that one of the reasons we all enjoy D&D is because of the genre and that genre includes sensibilities of a time where beliefs were different to now and that the characters we usually play are the force of goodness in the world. And many of us like leaning into these archaic sensibilities when we are exploring our stories so things like
Slavery may be common in some parts of the world, cannabilism is still practised by some, disfigurement may be interpreted as cursed, superstition is rampant, handicapped are mocked, sexism may be a thing in certain cultures...etc
But combating all the above or piercing through this muddled mess are the PCs.

All this to say that I enjoy the world's like Westeros and Essos where GRRM gave us Tyrion, Shireen Baratheon, Jaime Lannister, Varys, the Unsullied, Slavers Bay, the Onion Knight, the Hound...etc

Yeah. I really see creative harm in pushing against the presence of these kinds of settings and characters.