• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
What? Who said you were passive? Who said it was only art and nothing else?

Hey, do you know how the moral values of religion are taught to people? Stories. Parables, morality tales, ect. How do we discuss ethics? We put them in scenarios that demonstrate the issue, AKA a story. How does school teach History? Stories. Math and Science involve story problems. Stories are everywhere.

And while it may be dangerous to think you can engineer society, it is naive to think that art cannot possibly change society. No, not naive. Demonstrably false. The abolition movement received a massive boost from Uncle Tom's Cabin, which was a story. But was also propaganda. The story of the Life of Jesus has shaped western culture.

But that is exactly what you and others keep presenting. This art cannot possibly be affecting the world, it is only art, only a story, not important enough to be shifting perceptions. It is only fiction. Like fiction doesn't reshape our world. Even without a direct call of action, it shapes us.
I am not saying it can’t affect the world. But I don’t think art has the changing power a lot of people believe it does. I also think misguided efforts to use art for social engineering often just end up constraining free expression, making art a servant to ideology or the state and rarely achieve their objectives. What troubles me about what we are doing now is it’s very iconoclastic in the original sense, even cultural revolution like. To me it feels like we are throwing old things into the fire and saying art needs to express X, without due consideration to the nuance of artistic expression

And sure parables are an easy way to convey religious teachings but religion isn’t just stories. It’s ritual, doctrine, religious experiences, etc.

My point was you aren’t just at the mercy of D&D tropes or action movie tropes. You bring religious belief, ethics, elements of your upbringing, a critical eye and a range of ideas into the experience. People are able to navigate these things with nuance
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Bagpuss

Legend
And while it may be dangerous to think you can engineer society, it is naive to think that art cannot possibly change society. No, not naive. Demonstrably false. The abolition movement received a massive boost from Uncle Tom's Cabin, which was a story. But was also propaganda. The story of the Life of Jesus has shaped western culture.

Or a more recent one The Scully Effect on women in STEM fields, which wasn't intended as propaganda.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Are you talking about Stone Age humans or Orcs, because I can agree that your Stone Age human, intellect wise is probably capable of living in a modern world, our knowledge comes form culture and education, how much the brain has evolved since then is likely very small.

You can't say the same thing about Orcs, they are a fantasy race and could have completely different brain make-up and alien psychology.

For those that haven't read it I high recommend the 2300AD Kafer Sourcebook, for how an alien psychology might work. The Kafer's in 2300AD are an alien species that rather than adrenaline in stressful situations they have a hormone that speeds and improves their intelligence. Enough exposure to this hormone sees a permanent increase, so all their scientists, and leaders tend to come from frontline warriors. They also seek conflict to improve their race. They hit human prisoners when they don't understand instructions, not because they are being cruel, but because they believe it will make them more intelligent and able to understand.

It is entirely possible for Orcs (or any species in D&D) to not be capable what humans are capable of because they aren't necessarily built the same way because they aren't human. If your orcs an analogy for that aspect of humanity that thinks "might makes right", they don't need to full range of human cultures and capabilities of thought, they can be beyond redemption.

Beyond redemption?

Let's take those Kafer's for a second. Are they beyond redemption? No, they are ignorant. They are assuming biology is the same between them and us, and if they are actually intelligent, what do you think happens when they figure out the difference? Do you think they keep beating human prisoners to make them smarter? Or do you think they realize they need to adapt their behavior.

This is a major point that we keep skipping over. These sorts of differences only happen on initial contact. They only happen when one group is ignorant of the other group's situation. And it doesn't take very long to figure these things out. A decade or so? Orcs, humans, halflings, elves, and dwarves have been interacting in most DnD worlds have been living side by side for HUNDREDS OF YEARS, in some settings for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. You'd have to be intentionally ignorant to not learn how these people exist and how they are different from you after that long. So how can they be "beyond redemption?"
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
A potential point of conflict to give pre-sapients an incentive to be the 'generic bad guy' would be making their primary prey be humans and other sapients. They wouldn't actually be evil, any more than a lion is evil because it hunts zebra.

But a group of smart, strong, and fast creatures which raid humans to take and eat people would be a clear point of conflict beyond 'this group evil'.

You know, I can agree with this. But lions aren't evil in DnD. Behir aren't evil. Evil requires choice, not pre-sapience and instincts.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
The problem with this is any monster in any type of genre, is potentially the 'other'. And I have no issue with a game or movie trying to explore that and do things like give the monsters perspective or show that the monster is really just misunderstood (that itself is a pretty classic trope at this point). Again, Night Breed is one of the best monster movies ever. But you still need to be able to have monsters in media. Clive Barker making Cabal and Nightbreed should be the landmark that they are in horror, but they mean we can no longer have Freddy Krueger. And this goes back pretty far actually. Even the Creature from the Black Lagoon was misunderstood and his actions are a response to one of the divers attacking him (he seems pretty content in his Lagoon far away from people, and only curious about them not hostile at first). So I get the value of using something like horror or fantasy to explore social issues, racial tensions etc. I just don't think every single fantasy world and horror movie is doing that or needs to be seen as commentary. I don't want every slasher movie to be about how the killer is just someone who is othered, or that the killer has to actually be a representative of a group with power and is attacking the marginalized (those can work from time to time, but most of the time, I just want a terrifying monster). Same with other types of monsters movies. There is plenty of room for more introspective takes. You just also need to be able to use classic bad guy monsters too.

Why can't you have Freddy Krueger? Not a single person in this thread has ever objected to showing an individual in a bad light.

And that's an interesting point. How many monster movies show a RACE of monsters, and entire species instead of a single individual? Very very few of them. And many or them that show a race or species of monsters... doesn't have them capable of communicating with humans.

The objection is painting every individual with the same brush, and that brush being "EVIL because"
 

This seems pretty primitive in terms of freely coming up with interesting threats. Plus you are always still going to potentially run into problems which is why how it is done and the intent should matter (rather than just saying it can’t be done). Take the monkey and rodent example. Rats were long used as a way to dehumanize Jews leading up to the Holocaust. And there are plenty of legends and mythologies involving monkeys around the world that have nothing to do with US racial politics (Monkey in Journey to the West for example)
Are there any animals which people having been compared to? Am I going to have to make a Yi-Qi based species to escape that?
Really? You see any issues that someone could take with any of the stuff you wrote?
  • Smarter than apes, less intelligent than player species (int 7).
  • They would be classed as beasts, not humanoids.
So black slaves have never been compared to smart apes, or being non-human?
Is Int 7 just a banned number at this point then? If an ape is 6 and the lower bounds of ability score for humans are 8?
  • Unable to speak (or learn) PC languages, and instead speak using a complex series of calls.
You know like the clicks some African languages use...
Clicks aren't calls. They're sounds specifically made up culturally for communication. Same as words.

If you want an example of human 'calls', then laughter or crying are examples. They're produced automatically regardless of culture or languge, and are universal across the species.
  • They are able to build tools, weapons, and shelters from stone, wood, and earth. But have no metalworking.
Not at all like any human cultures? I can think of several.
Producing stone tools isn't human exclusive. Chimps and macaques can create stone tools, and some groups have been known to flake off the edges to sharpen them in a way identical to early humans. If tool use is cultural appropriation, then apes should also be removed from DnD.
  • They conflict with sapients like humans, as those are their natural prey.
Are we liking them to cannibals then?
They're only cannibals in the same way a lion is a cannibal when it eats a zebra. Why would it be any different to any other non-sapient creature eating a human or elf?
  • As depicting different humans as monkeys or apes has been a common tactic irl against different races, lets make them a different group of mammals. Rodents are close to monkeys and apex, and DnD has no existing rodent species. So lets make them bipedal rodents of unusual size.
Yeah humans have never compared their enemies to rodents in the past... Not going to cause problems at all...

(Oh and get well soon)
Are there any animals which humans haven't compared other humans to? At some point in human history?

(Visual headache gone so I can see again. Pain headache has hit now though :/ )
 

I never said they were the same lore? But orcs have been an incredibly common enemy in the game. The lore I found for Mystara states they are incredibly common in Mystara, and you ran FR for a decade. Even if the lore is different, it is really weird you keep saying that you NEVER looked into orcs before this thread.
Why? The only thing I have taken from the humanoids in Mystara is the blue knife.
The PC wanted a weapon that could transform from a warhammer to a glaive. I inserted the backstory, that the blue knife was this weapon, found/stolen by his parents and left to him when they disappeared, but more so the blue knife in my campaign was a shard of the Rod of 7 Parts and proof of a cosmos beyong Mystara given that it was made from no known material.

Oh, so it isn't that you never used orcs before, or people didn't encounter orcs before, you just never bothered to read anything about them before using them. They were simply in the game as disposable enemies and you left it at that.
Yes, plenty monsters with intelligence are simply in the game as disposable monsters. They're just not that important unless they're important to the PCs.

OKay, but this gets very confusing to me.
I will tell you what is confusing for me.

I never did a deep dive into the lore between the Elves and Gruumsh. You mentioned a couple things in your post which paints the Elven deity as pretty suck-y and provides understanding, if not justification, for Gruumsh's actions. I propose a whole bunch of ideas based off that lore you provided which I'm assuming is correct. I would have never come up with those ideas were it not for the lore you gave.
Given we are dealing with deities and specifically the orc deity, I'm thinking orc or half-orc PC or PCs is necessary to pursue such a game (cause I'm into character goals) and it would be a higher-level play given my ideas propose some drastic changes in the cosmos.

You then want to know why I never inserted these ideas ever in my campaign despite the fact that I do not have orcs or half-orcs PCs and that I haven't done many high-level campaigns. But still you want to know why I didn't derail my current campaigns and my current PC's goals because the PCs encountered orcs.

Can you not see the disconnect with your line of enquiry?

We have brought up the half-orc is problematic. You responded "aha! The Mark of Gruumsh makes this not problematic" So, immediately, you are assuming that a level 1 character would need to know about The Mark of Gruumsh on some level, because it is a fundamental part to this racial write-up and a reason that "civilized" folk, let's say "are cautious" around half-orcs.
So they do not know they are made in their creator's image (Mark of Gruumsh) but are aware of their own religion, history as you stated below?
Do you think the orcs don't know their own religion?) and would require an orcish character... because only orcs can possibly care about the plight of orcs and how they have been mistreated?


But then, I responded to how the Mark of Gruumsh doesn't really solve the problem. Because if you see "Gruumsh is evil and hates everything" as propoganda, as the story told against Gruumsh, and look at his motivations.... it is trivially easy to see him as a heroic figure. To which you then proposed this entire campaign of redemption for Gruumsh and the downfall of the elves, and presented it as though that was the entire point of Gruumsh's forty year old lore, was to allow you to make that story, and that campaign.
No, I said the lore inspired me to come up with that redemptive campaign for Gruumsh.

Why can't a follower of Kelemvor, who believes in balance and judgement, look upon the situation and go "that's messed up"?
Because a PC of Kelemvor will likely pursue Kelemvor-business. I have TWO such clerics in my campaign.
One was reforged after death. He looks the same, but only has shattered memories of his previous life, with no emotional connection and has been tasked to kill someone by Kelemvor. I only provided the reason why Kelemvor wanted this individual dead, the rest was all the player's idea.
Another suffered a crisis of faith and has since found his place within the order as a paladin rather than a cleric. Again all player.

My players will not be interested in the Gruumsh redemption storyline because they are not playing orcs or half-orcs.

Meanwhile, none of this actually gets back to the initial point, which is that the "Mark of Gruumsh" is a thinly-veiled attempt at reducing the obvious racial overtones in how they are talking about a mixed race person in the half-orc entry.
You see it as something bad, I do not. I see the Mark providing a basis for the rage whereas before orcs were just quick to temper for no good reason. It is not unusual to me for a creator to instil some part of themselves into their creation. We do that wittingly or unwittingly with our own kids.
 
Last edited:


Are there any animals which people having been compared to? Am I going to have to make a Yi-Qi based species to escape that?

I was just making the point if we say "these kinds of animals are off limits" then that creates its own problem because those animals don't necessarily have the same connotations in other mythologies (and if you want to incorporate that mythology, I think it would be a mistake for people to think the two are blurred---for instance there are deeply racist depictions of black people in the US that have drawn on monkeys and so doing that would certainly be objectionable, but including something like Monkey from Journey to the West should not be mistaken for that IMO). That is why I think taking everything case by case is the best way to go (i.e. how was it handled here, what was the apparent aim, etc)
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
No it's a feature that every species views outsiders with some level of distrust, that each species (and or their culture) has some flaws, they aren't "scumbags" or "worthless, terrible people" for not being perfect.
What we see here isn't 'views with distrust'. In fact, a bunch of them is the opposite. The don't take halflings seriously at all. They say dwarves are greedy and that will be their down fall just like those--NO.

That's not ignorant distrust, that's just plain old racism. So scumbags. Worthless scumbags.

Maybe don't paint entire species as thinking this way next time? Try out some new tropes that weren't the style of the time literally 50 years ago? We don't need this kind of crap to be so prevalent anymore and no appeal to 'flaws' or tradition or 'free speech' or 'creativity' (hahahaha. 'creativity' to do the same thing for half a century) will change that.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top