D&D (2024) Half Race Appreciation Society: Half Elf most popular race choice in BG3

[Scribe]

There's several NPCs outlined, and they're quite evil, which people in this thread have insisted is impossible

I certainly hope you are not referring to me lol

 

[Yaarel]

Wait, what? Per your prior posts in this thread, you believe the mere existence of three lineages within the elf species is inherently racist, but you have no problem calling out one and only one playable species as "the most violent and dangerous of all natural creatures" in your proposed species write-up? If WotC characterized orcs as "the most violent and dangerous of all natural creatures," would you be okay with that? What if WotC characterized drow elves as "the most violent and dangerous of all natural creatures," but made no such statement about high elves?

There is a difference between an honest self-description of the Human species (from reallife science) versus psychological projection, scapegoating, and othering.

In any case, it is absurd to describe the Orc as slightly more violent, when the Human species is already horrifically violent. (Humans are carnivorous predators, but also endless wars, criminal violence, violent sports, the extermination of other species for farming, construction, deforestation, and the impact on the planetary ecosystem. Humans are the most dangerous animal on the planet, by far. Heh, even D&D is fantasy violence for entertainment.)

Because humans are so violent, hatespeech is highly irresponsible.

 

[Scribe]

Humans are the most dangerous animal on the planet, by far.

Absolutely. The problem here is that Humans are real, and Orcs are a figment of the imagination, yet you are unwilling to assign attributes to a figment, which you will readily assign to an actual species.

This is not the path out of the logical problem, but a doubling down.

 

[Yaarel]

Absolutely. The problem here is that Humans are real, and Orcs are a figment of the imagination, yet you are unwilling to assign attributes to a figment, which you will readily assign to an actual species.

This is not the path out of the logical problem, but a doubling down.

When the game describes the Human species, that is us, all of us in reallife, there is no racism.

But when the game describes other humanlike species, it crosses the line into human ethnic diversity, and requires judicious caution.

When an other Humanoid species is different because of something impossible to reallife humans, such as teleporting, then there is no reallife stereotype as its referent. So it helps avoid racist tropes.

But when the only differences are human differences (slightly smarter, slightly more aggressive, slightly thievish, etcetera), it refers to reallife racist tropes.

 

[Scribe]

When the game describes the Human species, that is us, all of us in reallife,

No.

Its describing a game object.

 

[Yaarel]

No.

Its describing a game object.

A wargame that transmits worldviews.

Wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy functions in the same way.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

There is a difference between an honest self-description of the Human species (from reallife science) versus psychological projection, scapegoating, and othering.

In any case, it is absurd to describe the Orc as slightly more violent, when the Human species is already horrifically violent. (Humans are carnivorous predators, but also endless wars, criminal violence, violent sports, the extermination of other species for farming, construction, deforestation, and the impact on the planetary ecosystem. Humans are the most dangerous animal on the planet, by far. Heh, even D&D is fantasy violence for entertainment.)

Because humans are so violent, hatespeech is highly irresponsible.

Technically per capita, humans don't even come close to the top of the list among mammals when it comes to inflicting violence onto each other. The only reason our 'total' violence so high is because our population is so high.

The mammal on earth which murders its own kind the most is.... the meerkat. So if you introduced a sapient meerkat playable species, would it be racist to have them as more violent than humans?

 

[Yaarel]

Technically per capita, humans don't even come close to the top of the list among mammals when it comes to inflicting violence onto each other. The only reason our 'total' violence so high is because our population is so high.

The mammal on earth which murders its own kind the most is.... the meerkat. So if you introduced a sapient meerkat playable species, would it be racist to have them as more violent than humans?

It depends on how much the game humanizes the meerkat. The qualification of "sapient" indicates humanlike, with learning, language, and cultures.

An unplayable nonsapient Beast would be less likely a problem.

 

[Scribe]

A wargame that transmits worldviews.

Wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy functions in the same way.

Propaganda is not a game to pass the time and slay dragons. I suppose if one feels WoTC is trying to brainwash people you may have some kind of point.

I'm pretty sure we know what Wizards is after however, and it's green, and stacks nicely. It's not wartime propaganda my dude.

 

[Epic Meepo]

When the game describes the Human species, that is us, all of us in reallife, there is no racism.

Even if we assume the game was describing Humans as they exist in real-life, a racist trope is a racist trope. If the rule for game authors is, "Don't rely upon racist tropes when describing people," authors shouldn't get a free pass to rely upon racist tropes when describing people in their own in-groups. The same goes for racial slurs. If the publisher doesn't permit authors to use racial slurs, authors shouldn't be allowed to use racial slurs to describe themselves.

But when the game describes other humanlike species, it crosses the line into human ethnic diversity...

I disagree. When the game describes any humanlike species (not other humanlike species), it crosses the line into human ethnic diversity. If Humans are just one of several playable, humanlike species in the game and game authors are expected to avoid othering language, Humans can't be given any special treatment not given to any playable non-Human species. This remains true even if the game's author is a real-life human.

When an other Humanoid species is different because of something impossible to reallife humans, such as teleporting, then there is no reallife stereotype as its referent. So it helps avoid racist tropes.

So is it racist that there are three Elf Lineages, or not? Those Lineages are different because of things impossible to real-life humans (Darkvision and Spells). Per your most recent argument, that helps avoid racist tropes. And I'll add that no Elf is being othered for having a Lineage, since every Elf has a Lineage. There's no stigma or value judgment associated with any Lineage. Just differences with no real-life stereotype as a referent.

But when the only differences are human differences (slightly smarter, slightly more aggressive, slightly thievish, etcetera), it refers to reallife racist tropes.

Those are only racist tropes because you are assigning subjective value judgements to species (smartness, aggressiveness, and thievishness, in your examples). We could look at other types of human differences, such as average height, without being even remotely racist. If there were hypothetical Variant Goliaths that were Large but otherwise mechanically identical to Humans, there'd be nothing racist about it. (Unbalanced, yes. Racist, no.)