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

[Guest 85555]

Personally, that collective alignment is almost the entire problem. And I think the core should be far more grey than a specific setting, because the core is the default.

Nothing wrong with that preference. I see D&D and its alignment system as being better at the base when it deals with things more collectively (just my opinion but running a morally gray setting is harder, and the heavy use of alignment across cultures is a big simplifier, and especially simple when you need to work with having antagonists in the game to throw at the party). That said, I don't think it should be the default RPG setting. The default for RPGs, I would agree should be more gray. This is more specifically for me about D&D and what it does well at the best (and how you can layer on more complexity through individual settings).

 

[Justice and Rule]

I just pointed to it pretty clearly. This started with a raised awareness of problematic tropes but it is now at a point where tropes are effectively being policed by people on twitter and social media (and it is impacting creators lives because a lot of times an innocent use of something gets recast in a different light and they find themselves defending against accusations of racism). But even if we just focus on this discussion: we are losing our ability to have functional half elves and half orcs. We are losing our ability to have evil humanoid threats in the game as antagonists. We are losing our ability to have games where people write about soothing outside their own culture. We are losing the ability to handle complex and weighty topics like slavery and racism. Again, you can say I've provided no evidence. You can say this stuff isn't happening or if it is it isn't a big deal. But I think most gamers if you asked them would say yes something has been very different in the past five years, and while it might be extremely well intentioned, it feels like it has having a chilling effect on our ability to not just publish games in ways that are gameable and fun, but to even play them (because that can be a risk too now in this day and age)

Who is being policed? Who has been impacted? Just saying these things doesn't make it true. This is just a vague, unfalsifiable claim.

 

[Guest 85555]

Who is being policed? Who has been impacted? Just saying these things doesn't make it true. This is just a vague, unfalsifiable claim.

As I said in a prior post, I don't want to put peoples names on either side of that issue into this discussion, or publisher names, because I think it would unfairly bring them into a conversation they may not want to be in and it can make them targets. But it happens for sure. It is quite common on twitter. If you don't believe it happens, fair. You don't have to believe it.

 

[Justice and Rule]

As I said in a prior post, I don't want to put peoples names on either side of that issue into this discussion, or publisher names, because I think it would unfairly bring them into a conversation they may not want to be in and it can make them targets. But it happens for sure. It is quite common on twitter. If you don't believe it happens, fair. You don't have to believe it.

Again, that just makes it unfalsifiable. Anyone can claim an anonymous "silent majority". But we don't know who you are talking about or what their actual concerns are. It's impossible to address because it's completely formless. It's a vague motion towards the possibility of oppression.

And you talk about Twitter, but I don't see people getting overly "policed". What I see far more often are people who are hate-mobbed for being "woke" and trying to change things. Talking about how you know a bunch of anonymous people are being silenced while LGBTQ+ people are being openly attacked on the platform and driven off... these things are not equal at all.

 

[gban007]

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

While we have seen times where people have been attacked for what they are producing (though I would argue most examples we see are either the ones decried as cancel culture, that seldom look to lead to actual cancellations, and otherwise attacks based around 'go woke, go broke') - ultimately, the publishers have to decide if they want to publish things people want to buy or not.
Even if there wasn't so much criticism alerting the publishers to what people don't want, the end result is likely the same - the people don't want to buy the product, so they were on a losing game anyway.
But on the other side of things, it seems there are a lot more publishers out there since the 2000s, and has been a strong rise in self publishing for books etc, so it feels that in many ways it is generally a lot more easy to publish content than it was prior to 2000, it is easier to get to niche audiences than previously, just many of these self publishers accept that they aren't going to appeal to a wide audience - and that is fine, there is no obligation for people to have to buy products, which your argument is almost leading to, this idea that people shouldn't criticise but instead should be buying the products they don't like.

 

[Guest 85555]

While we have seen times where people have been attacked for what they are producing (though I would argue most examples we see are either the ones decried as cancel culture, that seldom look to lead to actual cancellations, and otherwise attacks based around 'go woke, go broke') - ultimately, the publishers have to decide if they want to publish things people want to buy or not.

It is the way the public pressure is exerted that troubles me, more than the criticisms themselves.

Even if there wasn't so much criticism alerting the publishers to what people don't want, the end result is likely the same - the people don't want to buy the product, so they were on a losing game anyway.
But on the other side of things, it seems there are a lot more publishers out there since the 2000s, and has been a strong rise in self publishing for books etc, so it feels that in many ways it is generally a lot more easy to publish content than it was prior to 2000, it is easier to get to niche audiences than previously, just many of these self publishers accept that they aren't going to appeal to a wide audience - and that is fine, there is no obligation for people to have to buy products, which your argument is almost leading to, this idea that people shouldn't criticise but instead should be buying the products they don't like.

I don't think people should buy products they don't like. By all means, buy what you like and talk about it. And say what you don't like. Where my main concerns are here is how personal it can get towards the creatives (and how things get misconstrued---so a person having an element some people find problematic, gets them deemed a racist, even if they aren't one). Again I think the equivocation of these terms sometimes causes that issue. Also the intensity of it, and the central priority of it, I think is part of it too. We had these kinds of criticisms in the past as well, and they were perfectly manageable and more often led to genuine growth I think. But presently I feel it has a very different tenor and there is a lot less charity in how works are received and interpreted (so that you can have the 'right' message but if it isn't expressed in exactly the 'right' way, it becomes a significant issue.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It is the way the public pressure is exerted that troubles me, more than the criticisms themselves.

In what way? Give me a real example.

 

[Faolyn]

I just pointed to it pretty clearly. This started with a raised awareness of problematic tropes but it is now at a point where tropes are effectively being policed by people on twitter and social media (and it is impacting creators lives because a lot of times an innocent use of something gets recast in a different light and they find themselves defending against accusations of racism). But even if we just focus on this discussion: we are losing our ability to have functional half elves and half orcs. We are losing our ability to have evil humanoid threats in the game as antagonists. We are losing our ability to have games where people write about soothing outside their own culture. We are losing the ability to handle complex and weighty topics like slavery and racism. Again, you can say I've provided no evidence. You can say this stuff isn't happening or if it is it isn't a big deal. But I think most gamers if you asked them would say yes something has been very different in the past five years, and while it might be extremely well intentioned, it feels like it has having a chilling effect on our ability to not just publish games in ways that are gameable and fun, but to even play them (because that can be a risk too now in this day and age)

OK, I'm back.

You are not losing the ability to have evil humanoid threats in your game as antagonist. Nor are you losing the ability to have slaves and racism. You can have whatever you want in your game.

Some game companies are choosing to realize that not everyone of a particular race/species/heritage are evil--or are good. Some game companies are choosing not to include slavery and racism in the books that they publish.

You want to play a game where almost everyone of a particular race is evil and that includes slavery and racism? Go play a game of Spire. I've mentioned it before and I'll mention it again. The aelfir--the high elves--are for the most part extremely evil. They have enslaved and exploited the drow for centuries, using all sorts of nasty techniques to do so. (They aren't all that nice to non-drow either.) All drow are forced into a period of slavery. Their religious expression is limited. Many drow cultural traditions are made illegal. A drow criminal can returned to slavery, and "existing while drow" is often enough to be made a criminal again. Aelfir can do anything they want to their slaves, including killing or raping them, or forcing the drow to kill for them. Only a fraction of the slaves actually learn any useful skills in their time of forced labor.

You play a drow freedom fighter, outnumbered and outgunned by the aelfir and their servitors during this perpetual war. The game notes that you will die fighting for your people.

You know what Spire doesn't do? It doesn't treat slavery as just a fun adventure and a way to get XP. It shows how messed up the entire situation is, how messed up the slave owners are, how it can ruin people's lives for multiple generations, how even the people who aren't enslaved suffer at the hands at their oppressors, and how even those of the oppressing race who want to help won't always be trusted by those who are oppressed. You know, like how racism and slavery actually work in the real world.

The way slavery should be treated in a game for it to be a "weighty topic."

(There are probably many other games out there that do the same thing; I just don't own them.)

Having slavery exist just so you can kill slavers is dismissive of an actual weighty topic. It turns such a horrible thing into a way to get points in a game.

But let's go back to always evil races. How does having "Orc, any alignment" stop you from playing a game with evil orcs? Is having to come up with reasons for orcs to be evil really so hard for you? Do you never have evil humans or evil non-drow elves or evil dwarfs in your game? Do you come up with motivations for those people to be evil? If so, then it shouldn't be hard to come up with motivations for orcs as well!

And now let's go to half-races. I'm pretty sure that most people here want half-races to come back, even though they may not like the term "half" for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is often used in a disparaging way. For some reason, you don't seem to care about that.

You keep claiming that lots of gamers feel exactly like you do, ignoring that lots of gamers feel exactly the same way we do. You have decades worth of material filled with racism, sexism, slavery, and other such things to draw from. Why is it so horrible that we are only just starting to get some books that don't rely on those tired tropes and instead have to be creative and come up with new ideas?

 

[Chaosmancer]

This argument is so frustrating because there's never any actual evidence for it beyond "I know people without naming names", and worst part of it is we don't know what these ideas are. Maybe they are just bad, but we don't know. Rather than people going out, talking to people, getting feedback and trying to adjust, we're told "They're just afraid!" Without knowing who they are and what they are afraid to publish, we can't actually make a judgment on any of it. It's just a vague, unfalsifiable point to try and stop people from talking about these topics.

Exactly, we can't even decide if we agree or disagree, because there are no details

 

[Micah Sweet]

OK, I'm back.

You are not losing the ability to have evil humanoid threats in your game as antagonist. Nor are you losing the ability to have slaves and racism. You can have whatever you want in your game.

Some game companies are choosing to realize that not everyone of a particular race/species/heritage are evil--or are good. Some game companies are choosing not to include slavery and racism in the books that they publish.

You want to play a game where almost everyone of a particular race is evil and that includes slavery and racism? Go play a game of Spire. I've mentioned it before and I'll mention it again. The aelfir--the high elves--are for the most part extremely evil. They have enslaved and exploited the drow for centuries, using all sorts of nasty techniques to do so. (They aren't all that nice to non-drow either.) All drow are forced into a period of slavery. Their religious expression is limited. Many drow cultural traditions are made illegal. A drow criminal can returned to slavery, and "existing while drow" is often enough to be made a criminal again. Aelfir can do anything they want to their slaves, including killing or raping them, or forcing the drow to kill for them. Only a fraction of the slaves actually learn any useful skills in their time of forced labor.

You play a drow freedom fighter, outnumbered and outgunned by the aelfir and their servitors during this perpetual war. The game notes that you will die fighting for your people.

You know what Spire doesn't do? It doesn't treat slavery as just a fun adventure and a way to get XP. It shows how messed up the entire situation is, how messed up the slave owners are, how it can ruin people's lives for multiple generations, how even the people who aren't enslaved suffer at the hands at their oppressors, and how even those of the oppressing race who want to help won't always be trusted by those who are oppressed. You know, like how racism and slavery actually work in the real world.

The way slavery should be treated in a game for it to be a "weighty topic."

(There are probably many other games out there that do the same thing; I just don't own them.)

Having slavery exist just so you can kill slavers is dismissive of an actual weighty topic. It turns such a horrible thing into a way to get points in a game.

But let's go back to always evil races. How does having "Orc, any alignment" stop you from playing a game with evil orcs? Is having to come up with reasons for orcs to be evil really so hard for you? Do you never have evil humans or evil non-drow elves or evil dwarfs in your game? Do you come up with motivations for those people to be evil? If so, then it shouldn't be hard to come up with motivations for orcs as well!

And now let's go to half-races. I'm pretty sure that most people here want half-races to come back, even though they may not like the term "half" for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is often used in a disparaging way. For some reason, you don't seem to care about that.

You keep claiming that lots of gamers feel exactly like you do, ignoring that lots of gamers feel exactly the same way we do. You have decades worth of material filled with racism, sexism, slavery, and other such things to draw from. Why is it so horrible that we are only just starting to get some books that don't rely on those tired tropes and instead have to be creative and come up with new ideas?

There's a difference between wanting new tropes to have a chance and wanting old tropes to no longer be used. It's not a zero sum game, and we don't have to disallow (or socially discourage) the use of older narrative devices in order for other ones to be in use. Addition, not subtraction.