D&D (2024) Does the concept of subspecies of Elves come across as racist to you

[Mirrorrorrim]

Who cares? Options are good. Taking away options is bad.

Luckily if there are printed humanoid versions of gnolls in the Legacy aspect of the game, they'd still be usable. Woo!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Half the attraction to being able to play a race like orcs, is they are typically evil

 

[bigfruits]

i think its racist. i dont want no damn half-elf in my party.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Where were they said to be playable in 5e? It doesn't seem like it was in Volo (and I double checked the errata to see if this was a change):

You are correct. It was 4e where gnolls were playable. (And here I was, thinking I didn't remember anything from 4e.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

This might be the disconnect here. You're assuming your preferences, based on a wealth of experience in a profession which is super helpful in creating and evolving the ideas we're discussing, is a good baseline for you to judge if people with other perspectives and lacking your experience get some use out of this concept.

It really just comes down to people say they get use out of it and they're not liars. So why not let them have that tool that you don't get use out of. Trust that your experience isn't universal, we all have different tastes, and this particular thing doesn't harm your game style by being in there but its absence would harm some others.

Ultimately, to bring it back to the topic at hand, this is why we're changing from Race to Species to begin with, right? Some might get no use out of that change, but others will. It costs people very little if they don't get use from the change as the new version works just as well, but benefits some people a lot to make the change. So why can't we apply that same logic to the issue of alignment as well? Some get benefit from it and it costs you nothing - why not let them get their benefit rather than advocate it be modified to satisfy your preferences?

Also I have to think there are plenty of writers who could use alignment as a springboard for good characterization, as we are just talking about writing prompts here. But I do get why it wouldn't fit a modern literary novel or modern horror novel. However you could certainly use alignment as a starting point for a character in a setting like Three Hearts Three Lions or Elric. Gygax even said where he attributed the idea from:

The initial treatment of "Law" and "Chaos" was inspired by Michael Moorcock’s treatment of good and evil in his "Elric" and other fantasy books written prior to 1970.

I am not a big Elric fan but I did find reading that and Anderson definitely helped me see how alignment can make more sense. I do think AD&D alignment is pretty tricky but I have also seen plenty of players use it to make their characters, seen it work in play, and, while I don't think alignment is something you need in every campaign, it occupies useful space in the system (particularly if you are willing to discard it or reshape it for settings where it doesn't fit). And D&D is its own genre at this point so I think for a lot of people alignment fits that genre. Personally I tend to prefer morally gray settings or settings like Ravenloft where you really focus more on evil with a capital E (still uses the 2E alignment system, I just found as a GM my senses were primarily focused around powers checks considerations).

 

[Eubani]

Is it racist? Only for the professionally offended.

 

[bigfruits]

option of being a half-elf : not racist
no provided options of being a human/elf/drow/eladrin: not racist
refusing to roll with half-elves and half-orcs: might be racist

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I think some groups did have a problem with alignment but the straight jacket accusation does not hold up. The alignment graph and drift along its axes suggest a continuum. All of that said, it’s easy to excise.

I miss holy/unholy relics and good and evil as cosmic forces. I do not miss any semblance of a gotcha game though where a dm might penalize a well intentioned player.

However the writing is on the wall. This is just a conversation. The game will dilute its impact further if that is possible…so some of us can add or keep what we want…but WOTC is moving on.

 

[Cadence]

I appreciate the tip but have more than two decades teaching creative writing and I have yet to encounter any writer or writing guide that uses or would view "alignment" as a useful way to start building a character. The problem with words like "chaotic evil" is that they don't really mean anything on their own. Both imply value statements, but how do you interpret that into a character? For example, Gary Gygax gave examples of Lawful Good behaviour that I would describe as psychopathic.

That's why a longstanding pastime of D&D nerds is to argue about what alignment a famous person or character would belong to - we can't agree because alignment is not a realistic way to describe anyone.

"Psychopathic," on the other hand, would be a useful starting place. But more useful would be something like "create a character inspired by a classic movie monster" or "inspired by an object in this room" or "inspired by the person you disliked the most when you were in Kindergarten."

Ok, found some more time to reply.

I don't think it was a "tip". It was just remarking on your seeming hyperbole - and I had said "Which is not to say it is the two word writing prompt I would give either."

But still, I think I would be pretty surprised if many people hearing someone was "chaotic and evil" would expect them to be well behaved at a dinner party, to keep their promises, or be someone you'd want to be caught in a dark alley with. And if told "no, really they're Really Chaotic and Evil", they might picture an out of control violent bad guy in a movie or TV show for a real life case or whatever the modern equivalent of the forces of chaos in Elric were or the modern equivalent of the Sabbat in VtM for fiction.

That Gygax's descriptions of Lawful and Good were sometimes so blatantly askew that one would choose them as the comebacks when asked about Chaos and Evil seems a sign that the words do indeed have a general meaning - and that Gygax (and genocidal people he liked to admiringly quote) missed the memo.

In fact, I would also be pretty surprised if someone was told a person was Lawful (what's that, law abiding?) and Good that they didn't get a goody-two-shoes picture in their head, for example. That those nine combinations of words don't flesh out a full picture isn't surprising - they're just nine categories.

But on to other things that "would be a useful starting place":

Is "Psychopathic" actually clear cut?

Spoiler: Three Links on Why Psycopathy isn't Clearcut

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/03/ce-corner-psychopathy

Yet the reality of this condition is far more nuanced than these stereotypes hold. While it is true that people with the condition display a range of disconcerting tendencies—including low empathy and remorse, grandiosity, impulsivity, and sometimes aggressive or violent behavior—new findings show not only that people with psychopathy have varying degrees and types of this condition but that the condition and its precursors can be treated.

Not all psychopaths are violent; a new study may explain why some are 'successful' instead

Psychopathy is widely recognized as a risk factor for violent behavior, but many psychopathic individuals refrain from antisocial or criminal acts. Understanding what leads these psychopaths to be 'successful' has been a mystery. A new study conducted by researchers at Virginia Commonwealth...

www.sciencedaily.com

Psychopathy is widely recognized as a risk factor for violent behavior, but many psychopathic individuals refrain from antisocial or criminal acts.

Why Some Psychopaths Succeed

New findings on the "successful psychopath" phenomenon.

www.psychologytoday.com

The concept of psychopathy conjures up stereotypes from films of aggressive and callous individuals willing to inflict harm on unsuspecting strangers purely for their own amusement. However, the science of psychopathy is somewhat less exciting than this and has tended to focus on measurement issues and the degree to which it is accurate to label somebody a "psychopath" at all.

But still, why not use it?

Spoiler: Two Links on the Harm of Casually Using Pscyhological Disorder Names

http://'http://true']https://www.bb...-harmful-ableist-language-you-unknowingly-use

This kind of ‘ableist’ language is omnipresent in conversation: making a “dumb” choice, turning a “blind eye” to a problem, acting “crazy”, calling a boss “psychopathic”, having a “bipolar” day. And, for the most part, people who utter these phrases aren’t intending to hurt anyone – more commonly, they don’t have any idea they’re engaging in anything hurtful at all.

http://'http://true']https://www.bgdblog.org/2014/01/racist-ableist-use-term-psychopath/

I have become used to being told that I do not have feelings, that I am innately incapable of relating to other people as human beings or having any empathy at all, that this is a core component of what it means to be autistc. ... When I was a sophomore in high school, I was wrongfully accused of planning a school shooting. Another autistic friend who was accused of planting a bomb at her school was detained and interrogated for hours while the entire school went into lockdown. In response to frequent claims in the media and by policymakers that autistic people lack empathy (and are therefore violent psychopaths), many people in the autistic community, including autistic activists, begin the process of disavowal.

So, no. I think I will emphatically disagree with "psychopathic" being better. I might even venture that there are some people that would be offended if someone kept on using it as a story prompt once they knew about the above.

But sure, there are others. Take "inspired by the person you disliked the most when you were in Kindergarten". I mean, certainly no little kids were disliked because they have autism or adhd and maybe hit people or knocked things over or disrupted class regularly because they couldn't neurotypically control themselves all the time in spite of their best efforts. Or maybe it was the kid with a food allergy who ruined parties because you couldn't bring your favorite cake, or the kid from another religion that made your teacher tone down the Christmas party, or the kid who would only come to your house to play and never invited you back because their mom was desperately afraid of his safety being around an abusive father. Who knows. I'm sure the person getting that prompt will set the story up so the kindergartener they disliked - what? Stopped being autistic? Has a life that's a bed or roses? Is still really miserable and disliked? I bet that's even more fun if the kid described somewhat matches the description of someone in the class.

I think I might pass on that one too.

 

[Alzrius]

Difference is a new one would always have been a monster creature with no exceptions. While playable gnolls have been a thing in every edition except 5e.

Where were the rules for gnoll PCs in AD&D 1E?