D&D 5E (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Bagpuss]

Really?

Ok. Put it another way.

All the evil humanoids, outside of maybe drow or evil dwarves are tribal. There might be a few that aren’t but, dollars to donuts, if a group is described as evil, brutish and stupid, it will be tribal.

So no. I’m not ignoring anything.

But there are evil nations that aren't tribal. So we have good and evil tribal groups and good and evil non-tribal groups. So the just being evil, doesn't seem to be an issue.

I'm not sure about the brutishness and stupidity of particular groups, there are certainly tribal groups in D&D that don't show signs of stupidity and brutishness, so is it just because most evil tribal groups also tend to be brutish? Well city living evil groups also tend to be brutish, that just seems to go hand in hand with being evil a lot of the time, so I'm not sure that's an issue.

What about the stupidity, what's stupid about them? Red Hand of Doom for example the are the Hobgoblins tribal or not? They certainly aren't stupid in their tactics or approach.

(In other news, I really with my autocorrect wouldn’t exchange British for brutish. It’s going to get me in a lot of trouble. )

 

[Guest 85555]

Political =/= ideological. See, this is the problem. You are narrowing the definition so that you can strip it down and pretend that there aren't ideas in why we are moved, what emotions we feel and why we feel them. "This music just makes me happy" well, why did they make music that makes people happy? Why do we find value in that? What things did the music associate with that invoked happiness? The color Yellow? The Summer Sun? Why are these "happy" things? These are parts of a fundamental ideology of humanity. A structure of ideas and ideals. The definition of the word.

It also doesn't simply mean something based on ideas but ideals and it has strong connotations of political ideology. Either way, I meant it as the common used meaning.

I don't think we want to get bound up in arguing over definitions though. The idea that music can make people happy, that the color yellow is associated with an emotion, I don't think of that as ideological in the common sense of the word, but more importantly it isn't what I meant when I used the word. I mean art that is a slave to ideological such as at that is used to promote patriotism, used to promote communist ideas, art that is used to advocate for a particular system of government, used to fight for a particular social issue or moral value. That is different from art whose aim is more universal or just specific about the subject (i.e. trying to evoke emotion, trying to examine something that happened to the creator through a work of art, etc).

But here is the definition:

1. based on or relating to a system of ideas and ideals, especially concerning economic or political theory and policy.
   "the ideological struggle that underpinned the cold war"
   
   
   

 

[Guest 85555]

Who is struggling? And isn't that pressure to get things right... normal? They are staking their lives (quite literally if they need money for medical care or food) on the product being successful. Of course they feel the pressure to be perfect. That's normal.

I am not going to single people out here and make them potential targets of the conversation but this is definitely happening with designers.

Yes, in case people didn't know most game designers are are not making much doing this. And neither are most publishers. So yes it can mean the difference between paying the bills and not paying the bills. And a lot of companies are getting their investment for each book from a very narrow revenue stream, so if the book fails, it can be catastrophic or too cost prohibitive to alter. Of course there is kickstarter, but then the book was made using other peoples money and I think that is a very different situation.

I am not talking about being a perfectionist, I am talking about the way the present cultural climate in gaming and online criticism of gaming gets into designers heads, and how it can even result in cancelation, ruining their personal lives, etc if they get things "wrong". Obviously we disagree that this is even happening but I think anyone who has participated in the hobby knows that is. Anyone who has been on the receiving end in the past five years understands how much more nefarious and cruel it has become

Also I would argue pressures to be perfect can reach unhealthy levels. But that is another topic, and something you see more in other areas of expression right now (like music, for example). But again another topic really

 

[Guest 85555]

You either care what the public thinks, and try and match that, or you don't. That has been true since we took chisel to stone. This isn't some new thing, not really. What is new is the scope. What is new, is the internet. Not that people have had these opinions or thought these things, but now that you can get the true scope of opinions, instantly, rather than waiting for someone to walk between towns to let you know they think you suck.

The internet is definitely the big factor here. But the internet has always been around. Something has changed considerably in the past 5 years (maybe more it is hard to track time as you get older). The conversations have become much more zero sum, more hostile, more cruel even. And the level of criticism so much more intense (to where it usually becomes personal). I think most designers care what people think, otherwise they wouldn't put stuff out there. But the social climate you release things into matters. And the problem with the current social climate is the only way to function healthily in it is not to care what people think, which is extremely counter productive. I've learned to turn this stuff into white noise because it feels like lose-lose. And I know a lot of others have. But that isn't a great state for the hobby to be in.

 

[Guest 85555]

So earlier when you said "But I never said you asking for content to be removed from RPG books is going to need to the entirety of art across society being bland" was that a lie, or just a weasel-word attempt to differentiate between us asking for this and the "broader movement" which according to you, we and the RPG community are being affected by? Because you have talked about "the community" being chilled by the larger societal movement, and you have equated what we are talking about to that movement, but when I point out your hyperbole of the dangers faced by our stance, you retreat and say that you never said that what we are asking for would lead to the slippery slope... until you start repeating yourself and talking about the slippery slope.

You can't have the cake on display and eat the cake. Either we are part of this broader cultural movement, or we aren't. Which is it?

I think there is a few things here so let me clearly state my impression of your position. I think over the course of the conversation it seems to me you want certain parameters established on what is acceptable in RPG design in order to make people feel more welcome, particularly in WOTC products, and specifically the PHB (to be clear I don't think you are calling on any rules or asking for social media mobs, you are just hoping that enough people make the case you are making that it persuades publishers to act). If I am wrong, certainly tell me so. I don't think you are out in the streets demanding books come off shelves or ripping pages from them. I would say I see your position as a much more gray area than someone calling for books to be taken off a shelf. But I think your ideas are venturing into censorious territory, or at least the kinds of ideas that are creating a chilling effect. Don't think that makes you a bad person, because I think your reasons for wanting certain things to be dropped from the game are to make other people feel welcome (and that is a value I can agree with, even if I make a different calculation about how best to do that and how best to balance that with other values). In fairness you probably think my ideas are making people feel less welcome (and clearly I wouldn't agree with that, but I think those are the two values right now we are struggling with: free expression and the need to make people feel more welcome)

That said, my post was trying to make an important distinction: there is a broader movement in our culture that is about thing like taking greater care in our use of language, media tropes, etc out of a belief this will improve society and protect marginalized people (this doesn't capture everything, it isn't a definition, but I think people get what what it describes). There are also smaller communities this discussion has filtered down to, like the RPG community (and you might even argue it filtered down to the RPG community earlier than others as these conversations started a while ago but only recently really blossomed into what they are now). That distinction is important because you asked me if I thought the ideas you were advancing in this discussion were a threat more broadly to artistic expression, and I don't know enough about you or anyone else participating in this thread, to know how much you are invested in the broader movement (for all I know you think RPGs are a unique case because of their immersive effect or their history of being a mostly white hobby, so you feel extra care should be taken here, but maybe you don't care as much about tropes in a movie for some reason----not saying this is your position, just that I don't want to assume anything about your position.

Nothing happening in the the RPG discussion is going to impact what they do in a movie. People advocating for change in the hobby may also be advocating for change outside the hobby in the broader culture, so I am sure there is cross over, but I don't think they are identical.

Also I am trying to be very careful here, and not trying to use weasel words, because I don't want to level an accusation against you simply for disagreeing with me about media tropes. So while I am concerned about the movement, I am not interested in blaming individuals who believe in the movement (particularly since I think they are coming from a good place). I don't think anyone is striving for censorship, I don't think anyone sees that as the goal. I think it is more a case of an idea that seems good and sounds nice, inadvertently leading us there. And I would much rather engage with people than right them off as censors. So if I seem like I am equivocating at all, I do apologize but it is because I don't want to veer from debating your ideas into debating you as a person. That is also why when I restated what I thought your position was above, I asked for you to tell me if I am wrong because I don't want to put words in your mouth.

 

[Guest 85555]

But there are evil nations that aren't tribal. So we have good and evil tribal groups and good and evil non-tribal groups. So the just being evil, doesn't seem to be an issue.

This. I think most settings seem to have a mix these days. Which is good for variety

 

[Guest 85555]

Sure, a happy song isn't political. It isn't religious. It isn't socio-economic. But it does have ideas. It does have a purpose. That purpose isn't attempting to reshape society so we have lower tax rates, but it is a purpose none the less.

I think it is pretty obvious though that this isn’t what I meant (or what someone would generally mean) when they talk about a song being a slave to ideology (unless of course it’s a product of some movement that only wants happy songs, then sure).

 

[Chaosmancer]

But there are evil nations that aren't tribal. So we have good and evil tribal groups and good and evil non-tribal groups. So the just being evil, doesn't seem to be an issue.

Do we? I mean sure, if we count Mindflayers and Neogi, but those aren't humanoid.

Aarakocra? Not Evil
Bugbear? Evil and Tribal
Bullywug? Evil and Tribal
Deep gnomes? Not evil
Drow? Evil and not tribal, as Hussar stated
Duergar? Evil and not tribal, as Hussar stated
Giff? Not Evil
Githyanki? Ah, evil and not tribal
Gnoll? Evil and Tribal
Goblin? Evil and Tribal
Grimlock? Evil and Tribal
Grung? Not Evil
Hobgoblin? Evil and Tribal according to their official lore
Jackalwere? Evil and Tribal
Kenku? Not Evil
Kobold? Evil and Tribal
Kuo-Toa? Evil and Tribal
Lizardfolk? Evil and Tribal
Merfolk? Not Evil
Orc? Evil and Tribal
Quaggoth? Evil and Tribal
Sahuagin? Evil and Tribal
Shadar-Kai? Ah, another group of evil elves, but not tribal
Thri-Kreen? Not evil
Tortle? Not Evil
Troglodyte? Evil and Tribal
Yuan-Ti? Evil and Tribal

So, If I go ahead and count the Illithid and Neogi, that is a total across the majority of humanoids in the game of six Evil and non-tribal groups, half of which are elves or dwarves. Meaning, unique, humanoid evil societies that aren't tribal are... The Githyanki.

Evil and tribal humanoid? Fifteen.

Tribal but not evil? Three? Maybe less because of few of them are groups like the Tortle that I am very unfamiliar with.

SO, sure, it isn't ALL of them... but the numbers are really clear. If you are a tribal society you are FIVE TIMES more likely to be straight up evil, and the only one that would be good generally would be... mermaids.

And how many of the core races (Human, elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Halfling, Dragonborn) are presented as primarily Tribal? None of them.

 

[Guest 85555]

Yes, I understand that it is fiction, and that it is fantasy. But it isn't JUST that we have a species that behaves in a way we consider evil. That species also acts like humans. They have families and children, they use armor and weapons, they react logically in ways we could expect humans to react.... and then we are told that they have no real goals or motivations, they are just all evil. And you can claim that that is bad and dull, but you don't seem to get the extent to which that break worldbuilding. I would honestly struggle to find a CHILDREN'S SHOW that has a species of human-like bad guys that are bad just for the sole purpose of being bad. They all have goals, many of them show that the bad guys are redeemable. You are presenting something too unrealistic for most children's programming, and then just shrugging like "well, it is fine"

I don't think designating them as evil means they don't have goals. Even when I have evil ogres in a campaign they have interesting personal traits and quirky goals. Just as an off hand example, I had a party kill an ogre without even engaging him and they discovered he was a great Ogre poet (hist poetry was largely about how he liked to dismember and devour halflings, but it was still skillful poetry). And it's routinely common in lots of old school campaigns, where evil monsters are maybe more the norm, for players to negotiate and work with the monsters in a lair to achieve their objective. You can't do that if the masters are just stupid evil and attacking everything on sight.

I mean they are characterized as humanlike and intelligent enough to have individual personalities and desires. Again, this also really depends on individual editions, because the each handle alignment and collective alignment differently. My personal preference in the core books is for treating alignment as tendencies (i.e. most orcs will be evil, most people in this society will be evil), etc. My personal preference for individual settings is much more gray (certainly having orcs who are aggressive or militaristic can work as a species trait, but I think they make more sense when they have produced a range of societies that span a wide spectrum of organizational structures, moral philosophies and religions). However I make exception for campaigns like Ravenloft where the point is to have terrifying monsters and as a conceit of the setting, some, not all, monsters will simply be evil threats (though it of course makes plenty of room for more tragic takes and for individual tragic villains). I think the challenge D&D has always had here though is they have to cater to a range of approaches around alignment and monsters.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

Hobgoblin? Evil and Tribal according to their official lore

Kuo-Toa? Evil and Tribal

Yuan-Ti? Evil and Tribal

I must not have read the entries correctly, or was going off of an earlier version of the game, but my head canon was that Kuo-Toa had cities built in sea caves, and Yuan-Ti had underground cities, with both having temples for sacrifices and such. I wouldn't have classified either as tribal.

I've not heard of Hobgoblins having cities, but I think they should as a default, as they are the most lawful-leaning of goblin-kind.

If they are all described as tribal currently, switching these three would balance things out a bit. I'd still have them mostly be evil (evil leaning) by default though.