D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Guest 85555]

And this isn't the only world I have encountered, made by an artist, that doesn't use racism or some of these other "negative qualities" to be interesting. You don't have to be offensive to be interesting, or to make good art. I mean, would the original Star Wars trilogy be better with more racism in it? It doesn't have any that I can think of, no one treats chewie as less than a person because he is a wookie. And as a writer and creative person... I don't see it. I don't see this NEED to include these things. You can, if you want, but it isn't NEEDED. There are other ways to be interesting, especially since to be interesting, you usually need to be doing something new, and having people hate other people based on superficial qualities of race/species isn't new. It is old, well-tread ground.

No one disparages chewy because he will rip your arms off. It has been a while since I have seen Star Wars but I will just say, the WWII themes are pretty strong in that movie as Bagpuss points out. But Star Wars is also the opposite of the kind of media I am talking about. And to be clear I want things like star wars to exist. I think there is definitely a place for more optimistic and hopeful movies, games, shows, etc. But I also want stuff like Dirty Harry, Taxi Driver and the kinds of movies Star Wars was a reaction to, to exist. With games I think it is important to at least have some amount of flavorful content in that respect that can veer into dark territory without it automatically being seen as problematic or as an endorsement (i.e. if there is slavery in a setting, that isn't an endorsement of slavery; hatred between two fictional races isn't necessarily saying anything at all about real world race relations, nor is it an endorsement of bigotry or an attempt to exclude people).

And four or five years ago, if you told me I was overreacting or being ridiculous, I think you might have had a point, as it wasn't as clear where this is going. But at that time we were just talking about whether evil orcs were racist, and all the things people expressed concern about happening seem to have passed (at least in terms of constraining creative choices). We are at a point in the hobby where the core activity: going into dungeons, killing monsters and/or stealing their treasure, is widely equated with colonialism and seem by a not insignificant number of people as a problem that needs to be fixed. I just think many of these things, while they are no doubt done with the best of intentions, are very quickly making the games less interesting and even less gameable.

 

[Guest 85555]

Really so did the fact all the Empire were white human men, in uniforms that shared a lot in common with the Nazi army just float over your head? That's the main reason people didn't like Finn as a black stormtrooper, because the Empire was basically a fascist organisation, that inclusivity diluted it. Also Chewbacca while it wasn't obvious in the movie, in the wider lore around, Wookies were made a slave race by the Empire, so year lots of racism in Star Wars.

I thought Finn was fine because while my impression was the empire was fascist, I thought it was more fascist by being so human-centric. Finn got screwed though in that last two movies in terms of focus and storyline. I never got deep into expanded lore, but I remember the line I always heard on the playground was that the empire didn't like alien species. Not sure how true that is. It does seem to be mostly or all human in the first trilogy (though obviously they are interacting with a number of alien species). Still stormtroopers isn't subtle at all.

 

[Remathilis]

I agree I think a solution where the half elf is kept in some fashion but the drama is kept down is possible.

After looking at MOTM, it is possible to redothe half elf by combining it with those of other fey parentage and just make that the replacement race.

Easier still would be to use (or adjust) the hexblood race from Van Richten's Guide.

Creature Type. You are a Fey.
Size. You are Medium or Small. You choose the size when you gain this lineage.
Ancestral Legacy. If you replace a race with this lineage, you can keep the following elements of that race: any skill proficiencies you gained from it and any climbing, flying, or swimming speed you gained from it.
If you don't keep any of those elements or you choose this lineage at character creation, you gain proficiency in two skills of your choice.

Darkvision. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light. You discern colors in that darkness as shades of gray.
Eerie Token. As a bonus action, you can harmlessly remove a lock of your hair, one of your nails, or one of your teeth. This token is imbued with magic until you finish a long rest. While the token is imbued in this way, you can take these actions:
Telepathic Message. As an action, you can send a telepathic message to the creature holding or carrying the token, as long as you are within 10 miles of it. The message can contain up to twenty-five words.
Remote Viewing. If you are within 10 miles of the token, you can enter a trance as an action. The trance lasts for 1 minute, but it ends early if you dismiss it (no action required) or are incapacitated. During this trance, you can see and hear from the token as if you were located where it is. While you are using your senses at the token's location, you are blinded and deafened in regard to your own surroundings. When the trance ends, the token is harmlessly destroyed.

Once you create a token using this feature, you can't do so again until you finish a long rest, at which point your missing part regrows.

Hex Magic. You can cast the disguise self and hex spells with this trait. Once you cast either of these spells with this trait, you can't cast that spell with it again until you finish a long rest. You can also cast these spells using any spell slots you have.
Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma is your spellcasting ability for these spells (choose the ability when you gain this lineage).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What name would you like to use for offspring of humans and elves? Or humans and orcs?

I honestly think that an explanation that multiverse travellers introduced the name 'khoravar' to other realms might be the best explanation for elves and humans.

I like Sylvenne for elf/(anything pretty close to human), unless we wanna get “realistic” and everyone gets a special name like in Latin America.

You’ve got Wood Elf/Humans called Sylvenne, High/Human Altanar, Drow/Human Drougir, Wood Elf/Forest Gnome/Firbolg in any combo is called Orobos, which is ancient high Elven for “tree frog”. Halfling/Elf are Gimagee, and on and on.

 

[Faolyn]

But again I want to be clear because people keep painting my position as being against diversity. I am not. I like diversity. I want more people to play RPGs from all kinds of backgrounds. I just think the current efforts to promote it are based on flawed assumptions, often backfire and shield people from content they might otherwise enjoy (all one needs to do is look at episodes of TV shows that disappear on streaming platforms or portions that are edited out to see the effect this has on free expression and our ability to access and view the content we want). People don't have to agree with me. It is certainly possible I am completely wrong. But I don't think it is fair to paint my position in this way when that is clearly not what I am saying.

So what, exactly, are the non-flawed assumptions that should be followed instead?

 

[Guest 85555]

So what, exactly, are the non-flawed assumptions that should be followed instead?

I don't think this is something one poster can really provide. I am offering a critique of something that has been happening in the hobby over the past several years. I've very actively posted any time we've had an orcs are racist, D&D is colonialist thread because I am concerned about the direction these take the hobby and their impact on things like gameability and free expression. Building up another set of assumptions is a whole other project (and part of my message is to be wary of over confidence in assumptions). But if you are asking how people advance something like diversity in a way I consider unflawed. Again, this isn't the job of a single poster, I have my own narrow view that could miss things, so take with the appropriate grain of salt:

1) Pursue diversity but don't make it part of your marketing. I think this has a toxic effect on the whole endeavor, and it raises a lot of doubts in the minds of both camps (people who support a company's efforts may have doubts about why people are being hired----i.e. is it just so they can market the game on twitter more easily?/ and people who think the company's efforts are misguided will naturally point to this as the reason for them doing so). I think do diversity for its own sake, not as part of a broader PR campaign or even part of the marketing. That will at least keep it free from being corrupted by online discourse the way it often is.

2) Don't focus on fixing language or restricting creatives. You will not win people over by taking away things they enjoy in media. They may not say anything if they are concerned about online reaction to push back, but they will vote with their wallet, they will tune you out if you keep taking things from a game, not because it isn't working or isn't entertaining, but because by a certain system of logic it is non-inclusive

3) Focus on substantive diversity efforts. Instead of hiring sensitivity readers, hire those same people as designers and writers. You don't have to hire thirty. But hire people as actual designers (some companies are doing this, and I think it is a much better approach than having the official role of people who aren't white to be the vetters of rule books).

Also, gaming is still very homogenous. They are trying to bring in more people from different cultural backgrounds, ethnicities and races, but they are doing so in a way that still appeals to the same economic demographic: basically educated suburbs and college students. Maybe hire people without college degrees more.

I lived for many years in a city that was quite diverse and not at all wealthy. I never saw a single game store. Nor did I see any gaming really as part of the culture. I think you have to go to these places and promote gaming where the people are, if you want to reach a more diverse audience (because while there is increasing diversity in the suburbs, there is a lot more in the inner city). There are also fewer resources there, so young people who might otherwise have an interest in RPGs, may not have the money to spend on books.

4) Focus on charitable conversations, not conversations where we are always looking for bad guys. I think there is plenty of good that can come out of discussions about how to grow the hobby and how to reach a wider and more diverse audience. But the past five years have not been pleasant at all. And I think it is creating a lot more resentment than people realize. So I would say have these discussions, but if you are going to accuse someone of racism the moment they disagree with one of your ten points about social equity, or try to shame them otherwise or ostracize them, you aren't really going to have an impact. And I think we are seeing that because people are visibly burned out with this approach.

5) Don't write people out of gaming history to make a point about the gaming present. I think it is good that things are more diverse, but sometimes people act like there haven't been important women designers or designers from different minority groups. This doesn't always happen but you do see it and it is disheartening to see these folks being glossed over sometimes. I am not saying it was some golden age before. I am just saying there have been important designers of different races and genders. And it hasn't always been a straight line of progress (the early 2000s to me feel like a bit of a regression towards a more male and white audience---I could be wrong but that was my impression at the time).

6) Treat people like adults, not children. I think there is a very paternalistic streak in many of these efforts, to the point that sometimes the language used even feels like people are talking to children. I don't think that is helpful. We are mostly adults and I think while we should be sensitive we should also be reasonable and not make radical changes to games over every little complaint people make. There has to be some amount of debate. It can't just be an automatic thing where a complaint is registered so a change is made.

 

[Minigiant]

Easier still would be to use (or adjust) the hexblood race from Van Richten's Guide.

Yes. Lineages could also work.

Put Feytouched on top of a nonelf and get a Half Elf.
Put Rageblood on top of nonorc and get a Half Orc
Put Hellborn on top of a nontiefling for a Cambion

 

[Faolyn]

I don't think this is something one poster can really provide.

I was asking your opinions.

I am offering a critique of something that has been happening in the hobby over the past several years. I've very actively posted any time we've had an orcs are racist, D&D is colonialist thread because I am concerned about the direction these take the hobby and their impact on things like gameability and free expression. Building up another set of assumptions is a whole other project (and part of my message is to be wary of over confidence in assumptions). But if you are asking how people advance something like diversity in a way I consider unflawed. Again, this isn't the job of a single poster, I have my own narrow view that could miss things, so take with the appropriate grain of salt:

1) Pursue diversity but don't make it part of your marketing. I think this has a toxic effect on the whole endeavor, and it raises a lot of doubts in the minds of both camps (people who support a company's efforts may have doubts about why people are being hired----i.e. is it just so they can market the game on twitter more easily?/ and people who think the company's efforts are misguided will naturally point to this as the reason for them doing so). I think do diversity for its own sake, not as part of a broader PR campaign or even part of the marketing. That will at least keep it free from being corrupted by online discourse the way it often is.

So basically, keep the minorities in the background so it doesn't lower the property game's value.

See, when I realize a product is made by people who are different than me, my first thought is, huh, OK. What I don't think that it was a diversity hire made to fill out a quota or entice the "woke" crowd, and I don't automatically wonder if they're qualified or not to do their jobs well. What I do assume is that, if it's a big company like WotC, or a smaller gaming company that produces good work in general, that whoever this person is, they must have done work good enough to get them this job.

IMO, if a person sees a creator who is different than they are and their first thought is that it was done to be more marketable or that the creator may not be qualified, then that person needs to work on being less bigoted. And I honestly don't care if bigots don't get their gaming whims catered to.

2) Don't focus on fixing language or restricting creatives. You will not win people over by taking away things they enjoy in media. They may not say anything if they are concerned about online reaction to push back, but they will vote with their wallet, they will tune you out if you keep taking things from a game, not because it isn't working or isn't entertaining, but because by a certain system of logic it is non-inclusive

I also vote with my wallet. If I see a game relying on evil slaver races because it can't be bothered to come up with more interesting motivations for the bad guys, or has sexism or racism in the name of "verisimilitude," or other junk like that, I don't buy it. I really don't care if those things were popular for a few decades. Lots of things were popular for long periods of time but still deserve to go die on a trash heap.

3) Focus on substantive diversity efforts. Instead of hiring sensitivity readers, hire those same people as designers and writers. You don't have to hire thirty. But hire people as actual designers (some companies are doing this, and I think it is a much better approach than having the official role of people who aren't white to be the vetters of rule books).

So above, you were saying that diversity hires should be kept quiet because people might not think they're qualified to writers and were just hired to be marketable. Here you're saying that people who may qualified to be editors but may have no other experience should become game designers.

Uh-huh.

So which is it? Should non-white people be creators or not? Is it OK if non-white people are creators as long as nobody knows they're creators? Should we also go back to the days when women who wrote SF used initials so nobody would realize they had a feminine first name?

Also, gaming is still very homogenous. They are trying to bring in more people from different cultural backgrounds, ethnicities and races, but they are doing so in a way that still appeals to the same economic demographic: basically educated suburbs and college students. Maybe hire people without college degrees more.

So... I can't even begin to tell you why this is ridiculous.

While I'm not going to say that everyone needs a college education, I am going to say that what you're saying is horribly bigoted: "if you want to get minorities to buy these books, get uneducated people to write them." I mean, seriously?" While also saying that minority employees may cause readers to doubt they were hired for any reason other than marketability?

I lived for many years in a city that was quite diverse and not at all wealthy. I never saw a single game store. Nor did I see any gaming really as part of the culture. I think you have to go to these places and promote gaming where the people are, if you want to reach a more diverse audience (because while there is increasing diversity in the suburbs, there is a lot more in the inner city). There are also fewer resources there, so young people who might otherwise have an interest in RPGs, may not have the money to spend on books.

I'm not sure what the existence of game stores has to do with non-white/straight/male creators, unless you think TSR/WotC owns all the stores and only opens them in particular areas.

I mean, I live in literally one of the most diverse, heavily populated, and wealthiest counties in the US, in a very diverse, populated, and wealthy state (even though I'm poor af), and there are still barely any gaming stores here. Also, in this day and age, brick-and-mortar stores are not nearly as popular as buying online, and pdfs are cheaper than dead tree books. I can count the number of actual, physical books I've bought since the start of last year on one hand, but I've bought tons of different pdfs--if you count the games I got as part of itchio charity bundles or humble bundle sales, well over a thousand, in fact.

Young people who have an interest in RPGs will almost certainly discover what sales are going on right now through gaming subreddits or facebook pages or discord channels.

4) Focus on charitable conversations, not conversations where we are always looking for bad guys. I think there is plenty of good that can come out of discussions about how to grow the hobby and how to reach a wider and more diverse audience. But the past five years have not been pleasant at all. And I think it is creating a lot more resentment than people realize. So I would say have these discussions, but if you are going to accuse someone of racism the moment they disagree with one of your ten points about social equity, or try to shame them otherwise or ostracize them, you aren't really going to have an impact. And I think we are seeing that because people are visibly burned out with this approach.

I literally have no idea what you mean about "charitable conversations" here.

Also, for the most part, people aren't accused of racism just because they disagree with a particular thing. If they're accused of racism, it's nearly always because they've actually said or done something racist.

It's just that a lot of people have internalized racism or other forms of bigotry to the point where it's normal for them, so they see someone say something "normal" and get upset when it's pointed out that no, it's actually bigoted. And they get upset because to them, those thoughts are normal.

5) Don't write people out of gaming history to make a point about the gaming present. I think it is good that things are more diverse, but sometimes people act like there haven't been important women designers or designers from different minority groups. This doesn't always happen but you do see it and it is disheartening to see these folks being glossed over sometimes. I am not saying it was some golden age before. I am just saying there have been important designers of different races and genders. And it hasn't always been a straight line of progress (the early 2000s to me feel like a bit of a regression towards a more male and white audience---I could be wrong but that was my impression at the time).

I don't think any important women or minority designers have been glossed over.

But the fact that there were one or two such designers for every twenty or fifty white male designers simply isn't enough. You can't say "here's a woman, that means we're not sexist!" If you don't want to be bigoted then the number of woman, non-binary people, non-white people, gay people, transgender people, etc., who work in this field needs to increase until it's no longer noteworthy that they exist.

And before you get the wrong idea, I'm definitely not saying "get rid of the white male designers." I'm saying "get more non-white, non-male designers."

6) Treat people like adults, not children. I think there is a very paternalistic streak in many of these efforts, to the point that sometimes the language used even feels like people are talking to children. I don't think that is helpful. We are mostly adults and I think while we should be sensitive we should also be reasonable and not make radical changes to games over every little complaint people make. There has to be some amount of debate. It can't just be an automatic thing where a complaint is registered so a change is made.

You keep saying that the games now are childish. I'd love a few examples. Games which are marketed to adults in which it's assumed you're playing as an adult, I mean, not settings like Strixhaven where you're assumed to be playing a teenager, I mean. Because that's one setting out of... a lot.

Could it just be that writing styles have changed all over and you just haven't gotten used to it? I like comics, but older comics were a heck of a lot wordier than modern comics are, which (rightly) let the art take some of the storytelling burden and don't assume the readers need to have everything spelled out.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Though racism itself might not be needed in DnD, I'd argue that some form of 'bad' is needed in order to be the antagonist for the player characters.

In a game where the players often end up literally stabbing the other side to death, I sure as hell hope that they're fighting 'bad' guys who have done some significant evil in some way.

Dark themes like the bad guys being racists or slavers often just make it easier for the DM to justify why their players want to go and stab said people to death with sharp bits of metal.

Sure but that is a REALLY trivial bar to set.

Heck, people 30 pages or so ago were complaining about how they thought DnD was becoming too much like children's cartoons. Do you happen to know about a little show called My Little Pony? Pure fluff right, "friendship is magic" and all that. Do you know about the Season 2 villain?

She is called Queen Chrysalis. She disguises herself as a princess to eat and devour the love between the princess and the main character's brother. During the plot she emotionally manipulates the main characters, gaslights her "husband to be", tricks the main character into confronting her and pretending to be hurt so she can trap them, reveals she has had the real princess isolated for months and terrified. So terrified that when they confront her, the Princess nearly breaks and backs down because she threatens to reimprison her. And then after defeating the God-Queen of the setting, she begins a full scale invasion that is barely stopped.

Is that sort of plot "sufficiently bad"? Emotional manipulation, gaslighting, invasion, war, subjugation. In a children's show.

Or how about another children's show. Steven Universe includes a plot by one of the Diamonds to destroy the entire earth by using the fused together fragments of dead Gems (aliens who are rocks) in a literal amalgamation of mindless, angry, and confused shattered souls/minds. Dark enough?

It isn't hard to make bad guys, it isn't hard to make bad guys who go hard. You don't need racial slurs or slavery to do it. As CHILDREN'S SHOWS have shown us.

 

[Guest 85555]

I was asking your opinions.

I am giving them to you but framing them reasonably

So basically, keep the minorities in the background so it doesn't lower the property game's value.

No. I do not see how you get that from what I said. Just don't use them in a way that exploits them for marketing or reduces them to an identity you want to highlight. By all mean put people out in front but essentially don't brag about your diversity efforts. Do it for its own sake