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

[Remathilis]

Any intelligent, self-willed being has the potential for complexity, even mind flayers. If you want an enemy you can turn your moral compass off for you have things like mindless undead, constructs, oozes, etc.

Hold up.

I'm absolutely willing to accept humanoids have free will, but I'm not as ready to accept that most other monsters need be so complicated. aberrations and fey have very alien minds and notions of good and evil. Fiends, elementals and celestials are made of raw (aligned) planar energy. Unread are tied to negative energy that warps their minds l. Many types of monstrosities are likewise either bestial or have a different mindset to humanoids. The only ones I might give some leeway on are giants and dragons, and even then they have such a thematic connection to elemental heritage and deities that I'm willing to "usually" an alignment.

That's not to say such a creature can't fight their instincts and be a different alignment. That though should be rare and memorable. I also love Eberron, but I think that making alignment overly fluid removes some of the noir feel of the setting. The biggest thing I don't want though is losing the ability to fight monsters without going through due process. I don't mind losing orc hordes, but I want to keep some monster on the ok to fight list. Let exceptions like Falls-From-Grace or Large Luigi be exceptional while the mind flayer ship that just took orbit over Daggerdale probably isn't looking to establish trade relations.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've provided a list of ways upthread how racism can be utilised in a D&D game in interesting ways. Perhaps you'd like to reply on that post and provide me with some constructive criticisms.

I don't think it's a valuable discussion to see what spicy topic could be added to a movie to make it better. That's trying to set up a gotcha moment with an absurd question.

I didn't post my original point about your list of racism in Dnd. I posted it in response to the assertion that taking out the racism from DnD would remove the spice from it and make bland and uninteresting. If that logic follows, then adding racism to a movie makes it spicy and more interesting. Now you claim that is an absurd point of view and a gotcha.... so how is taking something out making something bland, but adding it in absurd? Why does this logic only work in one direction, the direction of not changing anything?

 

[gban007]

I'd argue that there is value in having always evil enemies. For example the Tyranids in 40k. There is no 'good' tyranid. Ever.

Jumping in here, because I like the Tyranids Not sure I'd classify them as evil either, bit like the Xenomorphs in alien series (That I believe they were inspired by) - they are very much other / alien, while what they are doing may be considered evil from our point of view, they aren't like Chaos / Dark Elder, they are doing it because of their intrinsic nature to feed / propagate.

Of course, should still try and eliminate them on sight, but I like them because I don't they fit on good / evil spectrum, as so far outside human experience.

 

[Incenjucar]

There is literally a Good-aligned illithid monk in the Book of Exalted Deeds, Thaqualm. An "alien" mind just means that their conceptions of ideal behavior are likely to function differently, not that they're going to automatically be evil. Flumphs are aberrations, as well.

 

[Hussar]

I'm perfectly fine with othering a fictional species for the purpose of providing antagonist for a game. I'm not seeing a problem here.

De lurking because I think this is the nub of the issue as it were.

As someone who has been othered most of my adult life, living as an immigrant, I DO see the problem. Because, guess what? What you are doing right here? This othering because the other isn't real? That's EXACTLY what is done in the real world. You are othered because you are not seen as having real feelings. As having a real identity outside of whatever it is that you are being othered by.

So, in other words (sorry for the pun) you are doing precisely what real world people do when they other people.

The fact that you're doing it to a fictional species isn't really the point. It's uncomfortable to me because it exactly mirrors what is being done to me and mine on a daily basis. And, the reactions for doing so are also identical - oh, don't be so sensitive... I didn't mean anything by it... Why are you upset...

For those of us who are on the receiving end of othering constantly, it's not an academic issue. It's our lived experience. Which is the heart of the issue here. For you, it's not a problem. Of course it's not a problem. You most likely aren't being othered every single day of your life by the majority of people around you. You go to a supermarket and no one pays you the slightest bit of attention. Random strangers don't come up to you and start talking to you, simply because you don't happen to look like everyone else. People don't treat you differently, constantly, every day.

So, yeah, when the game justifies things by using the exact same language that gets applied to me every single day, I DO see the problem.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There is literally a Good-aligned illithid monk in the Book of Exalted Deeds, Thaqualm. An "alien" mind just means that their conceptions of ideal behavior are likely to function differently, not that they're going to automatically be evil. Flumphs are aberrations, as well.

To be fair, the BoED is probably one of the most evil books written for D&D; chock full of torture, brainwashing, hypocrisy, and Vow of Poverty.

 

[Faolyn]

Honestly, is this a common aspect of game play today?

Well, you were claiming 80%, remember? "It absolutely impacts play to remove going to dungeons and wilderness, killing monsters and taking their stuff. Other things can be done, but this is like 80% of how people play the game." So, were you wrong then or now?

These days, most of the people I've gamed with won't just attack any random orc they meet. Last time I had a game with orc antagonist, my players were very concerned about not attacking them for no good reason. Even back in the old days, we attacked orcs because it was made clear they were no good villains. We didn't attack them because they were orcs, we attacked them because they were part of the same group raiding or otherwise harming others in the vicinity.

Tell me, where they no-good villains for reasons other than they were orcs? In the old days, did you ever have orc heroes and orc members of the general populace?

I'm perfectly fine with othering a fictional species for the purpose of providing antagonist for a game. I'm not seeing a problem here.

Undoubtedly you don't. But I see the problem being when you relegate an entire race to be the antagonists, for no reason other than somebody 50 years ago decided they were.

And that is fine, we don't have to all agree.

Ah, so you have no problem with your viewpoint being seen as unhealthy and detrimental to all of gamer-dom? Cool. I mean, your lack of problem certainly explains why you've been arguing for your viewpoint for... how many pages now?

I think that is a fairly inaccurate description of my posts but if you aren't persuaded by my reasons, you aren't persuaded.

So do me a favor, then, and restate your reasons.

You say it stifles creativity (even though having to come up with new reasons and motivations is by definition more creative). So, please show me where creativity has been stifled by not including racism, sexism, etc. And before you say Dark Sun, we have absolutely no idea how creative the 5e/6e version would be--them choosing not to produce a book isn't a sign of a lack of creativity, but a sign that they are choosing to not produce a book because, as so many people like to say, something that is quite harmful to many, many people is so important to the game that you can't have Dark Sun without it.

 

[Faolyn]

I didn't post my original point about your list of racism in Dnd. I posted it in response to the assertion that taking out the racism from DnD would remove the spice from it and make bland and uninteresting. If that logic follows, then adding racism to a movie makes it spicy and more interesting. Now you claim that is an absurd point of view and a gotcha.... so how is taking something out making something bland, but adding it in absurd? Why does this logic only work in one direction, the direction of not changing anything?

I guess the idea is that D&D only has bigotry in it to make it interesting; therefore, removing the bigotry leaves nothing useful behind.

I'm pretty sure, though, that even people who really hate D&D don't think it has nothing interesting in it besides the bigotry.

Either that or people think no racial hatreds = happy sweet fun for everyone.

 

[Horwath]

And so when you enter orc or goblin lands, or a dungeon where they are living, why is okay to murder them? They don't get the right to deal with trespassers as they see fit?

everyone has the right to deal with trespassers as they see fit.

Only thing that can be in question, was the dungeon built by the orcs/goblins or did they pushed the dwarves from it and you are helping dwarves to reclaim it.

or it was always orc/goblin land and they are launching raids from the area, then attacking it might be looked as preemptive strike.

 

[Faolyn]

everyone has the right to deal with trespassers as they see fit.

Only thing that can be in question, was the dungeon built by the orcs/goblins or did they pushed the dwarves from it and you are helping dwarves to reclaim it.

or it was always orc/goblin land and they are launching raids from the area, then attacking it might be looked as preemptive strike.

How often do PCs do historical research using verifiable sources?