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

[Justice and Rule]

I'm not saying that it can't be true, but rather there's nothing that shows it to be true. No studies that I know of and not one single time in my rather extensive personal play experience.

What I have seen are people that are more disposed towards playing their already present inner feelings in the game. You can tell the difference between someone who is roleplaying something distasteful and someone who is getting off on it now that they have an outlet. I quickly stop playing with the latter.

I mean, this was me just doing a brief look up of things. I know there are other ones out there. Really, there's definitely a link between what media we consume and how we form our biases and attitudes. It's perhaps most obvious with news media, but what we consume changes our attitudes as much as we pursue things that agree with our biases.

Now, attitudes and such are different than behavior: video games won't get you to shoot up a school, for example. But they can desensitize, help you form opinions and reinforce attitudes. That's just the nature of media.

 

[Incenjucar]

Personhood is a major real world debate given the Ship of Theseus issue, the possibility of alien life (as unlikely as it is to reach us), the extinct human species like Neanderthal, apes and dolphins, and AI. We have many, many, many pieces of fiction about the personhood of non-humans.

 

[AnotherGuy]

No one said buffoonery. It's just a funtime game element; a 'tool in the toolbox' to those people. They're taking it super lightly to the point that they're putting it ahead of real people's pain.

Sadly I have had this discussion before and it get us nowhere mostly because I refuse to subscribe to your reality about the real life harm of RPGs. We should probably leave it at that.

From the core. From the basic element that tells everything this is a good and fun thing to do. Stop pretending not having it as the default is 'excising it' completely. That's pointless hyperbole.

Then what exactly do you want? Do you think 100+ species would experience zero racism or do you want to play in a post-racism era within the fantasy setting? Even Star Trek includes othering.

That's what racism is. That's the point of racism. It's not a quaint theme park ride or tourism of other people's problems that it's being used as. People around me are being killed for the reasons that are 'just a tool' to people who are untouched by it and think it's just a point if interest to throw into a story.

And when people complain, it's 'dramatization'.

We (general we) complain because people seem to merge reality with fiction and appear to be unable to tell them apart.
When I watch Django Unchained, I'm happy that Quentin Tarantino never listened to the naysayers telling him not to do the project.

It is highly absurd to me to call out racism in a game where PCs are murdering left right and centre (for whatever reason) and that is what is predominantly used for progress. The more you murder the better you are at murdering. But racism is causing real life harm not the requirement for murder.

 

[Guest 85555]

Why not? There is nothing about liking humanity required in personhood. We aren't special

It isn't so much about liking, as it is about this thing essentially being a predator. I would argue that humans are special though. And I think human life is special. Other forms of life also matter, but I would protect a human before a bear

No, we aren't talking about fictional races, we are talking about the definition of personhood. And you are trying to state that people with a drive or compulsion aren't people. I hope I don't need to explain to you why declaring that behavorial compulsions removing personhood are deeply problematic.

That isn't what I am trying to say. What I am trying to say is if you have a being who is different enough from us that they are effectively our predators, even if they are sapient and free willed, would we call them people? And again, I think being human automatically does make you a person (the definition is essentially a product of humanity reflecting on itself). That doesn't mean there can't be other creatures we would label people, but I think it is questionable if sapience and free will alone make it so (for example some people argue dolphins are sapient and I am actually inclined to agree. I think that makes them precious and special, but I don't think it make them people because they have such different nature from humans.

 

[Incenjucar]

Creating a story about racism and defining an entire fictional species by racism are not the same thing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I reject your argument that real life news=games. People know that they are playing a game. Many, if not most do not know when the news lies to them or portrays things in a bad light.

Feel free to reject arguments never made. Though I do think you have some straw left in your hair.

Where are the studies that show that games cause bias and/or racism?

Ignoring what I said in favor of strawmen.

So barbarians don't live in those cities?

If we are talking about the Uthgardt Barbarians... no. Their lands are not inside any of those cities.

They forge stuff out of metal as I have shown. They have smith and have in an official capacity in every edition of D&D except maybe 4e. I don't know for sure because I haven't played 4e. Why do you malign orcs so badly and insist that they can't make armor? Do you think they're too dumb? Do their gods keep it from them?

Morg: "Ozak, I would like you to make me some chain mail."
Ozak: "Sorry. I can make nails, horse shoes, studs for armor, hammers, any kind of weapon, sickles, plow shares, shields, and more, but for some bizarre reasons I can never seem to be able to make chain links or plates of mail to wear."
Morg: "You need to complain to Chaosmancer and see if he will allow you to make what you very obviously should be able to make."

You didn't show that. You showed a picture of Tolkien Orcs, who were known forgers of weapons and armor. And I don't know why you are saying I'M refusing them, when I'm just straight quoting Volo's guide.

But here's a thing. Volo's guide includes a map of an orc cave system, complete with shrines, different areas for men and women, places for child-rearing. You look at that map and show me where the blacksmith's forge is labeled.

They have civilized orcs. They had them in 1e, 2e, and 3e, and I see no reason for 5e not to have them. For your point to stand, you need to show that all of the civilized orcs that are shown in official products since the game came out really don't exist.

Do you mean those places that listed "and orcs live here too!" like that is somehow an orc civilization? Or this just a factor of you not really paying attention to the material that was available to 5e because "you know" better about what is "really there"?

 

[Guest 85555]

Do you mean those places that listed "and orcs live here too!" like that is somehow an orc civilization? Or this just a factor of you not really paying attention to the material that was available to 5e because "you know" better about what is "really there"?

I think 2E got pretty interesting with the monsters. I can't recall the specific examples of orcs (feel like there were some that were civilized but I would have to go looking through my books). There were civilized minotaurs in Dragonlance which was pretty cool. There was even a novel about a Minotaur character and there was Taladas, where if I remember correctly the Minotaurs basically had a Roman-like culture.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

That isn't what I am trying to say. What I am trying to say is if you have a being who is different enough from us that they are effectively our predators, even if they are sapient and free willed, would we call them people? And again, I think being human automatically does make you a person (the definition is essentially a product of humanity reflecting on itself). That doesn't mean there can't be other creatures we would label people, but I think it is questionable if sapience and free will alone make it so (for example some people argue dolphins are sapient and I am actually inclined to agree. I think that makes them precious and special, but I don't think it make them people because they have such different nature from humans.

I think if there was an irl species smarter than ape, but less intelligent than humans. And said species was a specialised hunter of humans, we probably wouldn't refer to them as people.

However if said species evolved to be as smart as humans and formed into organised societies, they might be referred to as people, at least from a philosophical point of view.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think if there was an irl species smarter than ape, but less intelligent than humans. And said species was a specialised hunter of humans, we probably wouldn't refer to them as people.

However if said species evolved to be as smart as humans and formed into organised societies, they might be referred to as people, at least from a philosophical point of view.

That seems fair. Part of the problem with orcs though is they have done both, and at times in the game, these two versions have co-existed. I tend to view it as very generic in the rulebook. I think a lot of groups do like evil orcs, so leaving it open to that works, but allowing for more sophisticated orcs is good too. The core rulebooks don't have to form a cogent setting just provide enough material and a baseline to work with when you make your own campaign. So even though it is a little odd, I think the compromised version we often get is pretty ideal for what people need to play

 

[Faolyn]

Ok, how would you go about writing an Int 7 enemy type for the monster manual. Considering Int 6 is apes, and Int 8 is the lower bounds for player characters using standard array or point buy.

Are Int 7 bad guys just not allowed anymore?

Intelligence is weird. Humans who live in low-tech societies are just as smart and capable as humans who live in high-tech societies; they just have a different knowledge base (and, of course, learned knowledge and raw intelligence are different things). Gorillas and other highly-intelligent animals still aren't quite as smart as adult humans. I found one article that posits that modern apes may be more intelligent than Australopithecus were, based on blood flow to the brain indicated by the fossils.

I used to work with adults with intellectual disabilities, people who would have, in D&D terms, Int scores of 7 or lower (you need to have an IQ of 70 or below to be considered intellectually disabled). I can tell you right now that none of these people would be able to survive as "adventurers" for any length of time--the low IQ of a human with intellectual disabilities corresponds with actual damage (edit: or malformation) to the brain, and with those changes also comes lack of physical strength and coordination. In effect, the lower the IQ, the weaker the body, which is why people with severe intellectual disabilities are also often in wheelchairs and why they often suffer from senility earlier and more severely than those people who don't have such disabilities.

But in game terms, do bullywugs (and orcs) get a -2 to their History checks because they're stuck in a swamp without any access to historical texts (including their own), or do they get a -2 because they're too stupid to know anything?