D&D General “‘Scantily Clad and Well Proportioned’: Sexism and Gender Stereotyping in the Gaming Worlds of TSR and Dungeons & Dragons.”

[billd91]

Yeah, which is a damn sight better than the UA description. It is still a little generic for my tastes, I preferred the 2014 description. But I understand the reason for the change, even if I don’t prefer it. The 2014 description was much longer, and set some worldbuilding expectations that might not mesh with the setting a given group is playing in.

Oh, see, this is why, for me, tieflings are BACK, baby! None of this limiting infernal background, or even horns(!), baked into the species. Takes me right back to their Planescape origins.
Edit: Well, maybe not exactly back, but much closer.

 

[Gradine]

I think it’s being questioned because the description of Tieflings in the Orins and Species playtest UA completely de-emphasized the reviled outsider angle and presented Tieflings as broadly being recognized as heroes, which was a bizarre choice. The published version toned-down the weird “actually everyone loves Tieflings” angle, but didn’t really bring back the “Tieflings are unjustly persecuted” angle, so it just ends up very milquetoast

I will say, I knew at least a few POC who were highly critical of the Tiefling storyline in Baldur's Gate 3 as a re-creation/representation of anti-black racial hatred.

Of course, I know plenty more who don't agree with that interpretation at all (many of whom are also queer), but I can see WotC maybe trying to head off that particular avenue of criticism.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

That, however, assumes all "between two worlds" characters are from groups with a power imbalance, which is not a given.

While I'm fully Asian in background, I don't think there's much of an power imbalance for someone who's partially East Asian and European in background that lives in a western country. There definitely still is the "not fitting in" thing. But that can be for someone like me who's an Asian brought up in western culture, as I can be described as a "banana" which can be construed as an racial insult even if that's a racial insult that mostly other Asians use to describe me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair, but in this context we're talking humans, orcs and The Perfectest People Evar.

That might be true about those specific cases, but there's still room in a campaign setting where the three are not power imbalanced, even if all three of think of themselves as the crown of creation. And that might matter very much in areas where two or all three butt up against each other.
There its more likely to be about sets of expectations clashing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One thing I like about both

While I'm fully Asian in background, I don't think there's much of an power imbalance for someone who's partially East Asian and European in background that lives in a western country. There definitely still is the "not fitting in" thing. But that can be for someone like me who's an Asian brought up in western culture, as I can be described as a "banana" which can be construed as an racial insult even if that's a racial insult that mostly other Asians use to describe me.

I've always thought that had to be the case in people raised away from the areas their split ancestry comes from, but being an Croat/Scots/Nordic mix in Southern California, I didn't feel qualified to say.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, see, this is why, for me, tieflings are BACK, baby! None of this limiting infernal background, or even horns(!), baked into the species. Takes me right back to their Planescape origins.
Edit: Well, maybe not exactly back, but much closer.

I really liked the 4e origin for Tieflings, but it was very specific to 4e’s assumed setting. When they brought Tieflings back to the PHB for 5e, getting rid of those setting assumptions but keeping the very Devil-centric design was a bad choice IMO.

 

[Mannahnin]

I really liked the 4e origin for Tieflings, but it was very specific to 4e’s assumed setting. When they brought Tieflings back to the PHB for 5e, getting rid of those setting assumptions but keeping the very Devil-centric design was a bad choice IMO.

Yeah, I thought the 4E ones were decent and I like the original 2E ones, but the 5E take never grabbed me.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I really liked the 4e origin for Tieflings, but it was very specific to 4e’s assumed setting. When they brought Tieflings back to the PHB for 5e, getting rid of those setting assumptions but keeping the very Devil-centric design was a bad choice IMO.

I don't like how they have so far kept the Devil-centric design for most Tieflings in 5e, with the exception of 2 examples of legacy 2e Planescape characters (Factol Rhys and Sly Nye).

 

[MGibster]

Of course, I know plenty more who don't agree with that interpretation at all (many of whom are also queer), but I can see WotC maybe trying to head off that particular avenue of criticism.

I can't help but think someone's always going to be unhappy. And trying to make everyone happy is a Sisyphean task that can only end in failure and frustration. Now that shouldn't be taken to mean a creator shouldn't consider criticism, look at their work through the lens of that criticism, and possibly make revisions to their work. But sometimes a creator needs to examine the criticism and tell the critic, "I see where you're coming from, but I'm not changing it."

 

[Aldarc]

Fair, but in this context we're talking humans, orcs and The Perfectest People Evar.

I think that this says more about your attitudes towards "elves" than anything else about half-elves. If you are biased against elves, it's no small wonder that you are also biased against half-elves. But on the plus side, we have at least reached the actual core issue with why you dislike half-elves.