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

[Chaosmancer]

I am re-reading the War of the Lance. The books would be quite different without half-elves.

Good thing they are still in the game and trivially easy to write into the books

 

[Micah Sweet]

I feel like the people who are supporting it are not supporting the narrative being discussed, but simply want biracial people in the game. That is different than defining them by certain tropes.



That feels like it should be a character thing and not an aspect of the world. That's really the problem there: sometimes people want to play someone who is biracial and not have to have that hovering over them because the setting made it a focus of their character choice.

What if they kept the half-elf and half-orc entries and rules, but removed the bigotry language? Would that be ok?

 

[Guest 85555]

1. Where did I mention you either by quote or by name? There are more people in this thread than you.

I appologize, I thought you were quoting Faolyn responding to my post, I was wrong in that case.

2. There are REPEATED statements saying that there is no link between fictional races and real world racism.

I think people are saying they don't think the connection is automatic. That some of the tropes people are pointing to around the races as racist or invoking racist language, aren't really doing that. And in cases where real world ideas or language are used the reason is probably more to do with giving it a believability than trying to draw a connective line. But I think most people have also said in the cases where the wording is possible to misread, we can rework the wording. The fundamental disagreement is more over whether we have half elves as a core option, whether the text includes them as outsiders and characters who live between two worlds (often facing bigotry), etc. What people are also saying is having half elves in the game face bigotry isn't the same as trying to bring real world bigotry ot he table or the game.

3. There are repeated statements that even if the material can be considered allegorical, we must only choose certain allegories and ignore others.

Again, i think this is more in the it isn't automatically X style of reasoning. But I would really need to see the posts you have in mind here.

4. There are repeated comparisons to what is happening now and the moral panic days of the 80's, ignoring the fact that the people in the 80's WERE LYING. Their interpretations were not actually supported by anything in the texts. They were MAKING IT UP. The difference is now, you can draw direct lines between the text and the racist language used in the past. And repeatedly, those supported interpretations are swept under the carpet with a "ahh, it's just fiction" argument.

But everyone seems to agree that the scenarios are different. Just like the satanic panic and the red scare are different in their details. But you can also see why the comparison is apt. I am not going to say what happened in the 80s and what is happening now is identical. But as someone who was in the middle of gaming culture in a deeply conservative and religious area where the satanic panic was in full swing (at least for the peak of that movement, thankfully I moved back east), I can definitely say a lot of the tone and mood of what is going on, reminds me a great deal of the tone and mood of the satanic panic (then were were terrifying people would think anything we liked or did had a hint of satanism to them----and it could be as innocent as an image of skelton on a book), now the worry is something you design, say, like, etc is going to be interpreted (and that is the operative word here I think) as racist, problematic, etc. And this wouldn't be a problem if the bar was reasonably set, but it doesn't seem to be. Again no one here is advocating for making racist RPGs. They are talking about including evil orcs in a game at the very worst.

So, no, we are fundamentally not speaking the same language anymore. And the fact that you only responded to the first part of my post is pretty telling. Do you honestly believe that 20 years down the road, your point of view is going to be held up as the right one?

I don't know how this will pan out. History doesn't follow a morally true course, it just moves. So I am under no illusion that this could go in any direction. But I do think there is a sizable chance that people will look back on this period and see it as either a moral panic in gaming, an overreaction in gaming or an over-correction to things that maybe needed to be updated.

That history will justify your position despite the fact that history has NEVER justified any similar position, ever?

Again, people have this idea that history is always moving in a very clear trajectory and that just isn't how it works. But I think this is an unfair statement because it seems to suggest that people thinking half elves and evil orcs are okay is somehow related to or connected to terrible things in the past that we now consider to have been on the extreme wrong side of history. Just to be clear here, because I am not 100% percent sure what you are referring to. I am a product of a mixed religious household. I am in an interracial marriage. My parents were hippies, I consider myself a pacifist like them. I haven't voted for anyone with orange hair. I am religious but very open minded, especially since my wife is a Buddhist and I am a christian (though I have spent a lot of time at Buddhist temples learning meditation). I have probably never supported a policy that you would regard as being on the wrong side of history. I am not saying this because I think people who have different politics are worse than me or something, nor am I trying to present myself as some kind of paragon, but I want to be extremely clear because there are a lot of tacit statements in these posts that feel like they are misunderstanding where I am coming from.

What I have done, is said I think going into dungeons and killing goblins is fine, half elves and half orcs are fine, evil orcs are fine and I have a lot of misgivings about the current atmosphere in the hobby around things like problematic tropes.

 

[Justice and Rule]

What if they kept the half-elf and half-orc entries and rules, but removed the bigotry language? Would that be ok?

I'm not at all opposed to keeping Half-Elves and Half-Orcs in the game. I don't like the ways they've been trying to model the character choice in 1D&D, but I'm not opposed to their inclusion at all.

 

[gban007]

What if they kept the half-elf and half-orc entries and rules, but removed the bigotry language? Would that be ok?

I think something like that would be a reasonable middle ground - I like their intention of having lots of mixed races, but given historical usage then having half-elf and half-orc as examples (though preferably with a change in name, not sure what would be good names though, elfman and orcman or the like sound clunky) with bigotry language removed.

 

[Faolyn]

I have acknowledged Spire above. Not the style of game I enjoy from a design perspective, but I see what you're saying and I apologize for ignoring it.

As far as realism goes, three things. One, verisimilitude or simulation are far better terms than realism to apply to fantasy gaming. Two, there's no reason to assume that fantasy elements would have to lead to the elimination of social constructs like slavery; that is one possibility out of many, and no more narratively relevant. Three, no fantasy setting that I know really looks all that hard into what fantastic elements would do to an otherwise mundane setting, logically, so that argument is IMO too open to be meaningful.

There's also no reason to assume that fantasy elements wouldn't lead to the elimination of slavery.

Imagine a world with an active god of freedom--say, Greyhawk's Trithereon. How long would slavery last in a setting where the god and their clerics are actively removing it from the world?

Imagine a world where people can spontaneously develop magical abilities or make pacts with eldritch beings in exchange for power. How long would slavery last in a setting where slaves suddenly were able to fight back magically?

Imagine a world where people have alignments that codify behavior, instead of like in the real world where people are really one shade of gray or another. How long would slavery last in the kingdom once a truly Good-aligned monarch took the throne?

Imagine a world where ragtag groups of 4-6 people start murdering slavers willy-nilly (and stealing their stuff). How long would slavery last when any potential slaver knows they've got a target painted on their backs?

Sure, you can point out the things that would bring the bad stuff back in--gods of slavery, (expensive to cast) anti-magic zones, evil rulers, alignment-fooling spells. But how many GMs actually think of those things when they make their worlds? Very, very few, I imagine. Instead, they just make a general claim about "realism" or "verisimilitude" as if that's the one true answer. Sure, the people, history, religions, climate, politics, and even the laws of physics are completely different, but of course they're going to be bigoted just like in the real world--as if everywhere in the real world was like this all the time as well! Maybe your fantasy world used to be bigoted, but that was hundreds of years ago and people have learned to be more accepting--which is also realistic and filled with verisimilitude.

 

[Guest 85555]

Right but... Do you think that no one influenced Lewis or Tolkien? That neither of them looked out at their society and considered a work in the context of their audience? The thing you want to happen is the artist ignoring the community, or the community being silent so there is nothing to ignore. Because any other situation ends with the external constraints. Tolkien can't write a Catholic work he thinks the Catholic church would disapprove of.

No, of course they considered their audience. Writers should consider their audience. But often we aren't even talking about the writer's audience.

What I want, is if Tolkien wants to write book the Catholic Church approves of, that is a socially viable thing to create, and if he wants to write a book the Catholic Church disapproves of, that is also socially viable. I would argue getting into territory that stirs controversy, even if it is untended is less socially viable these days (to be clear in gaming today than gaming say ten or twenty years ago)

So, to me, as an author and part of the creative community, it really just sounds like you just don't want people to express opinion on art, because that opinion may be negative. Because making a game that people don't enjoy playing isn't making a good game. So you HAVE to consider the community. It is inevitable.

I am fine with negative opinions. I actually like gettin negative opinions because they are often more constructive. And if I get a negative opinion I disagree with, even one that says "I think you using this trope is bad for humanity!" I am always happy to tell the person that I appreciate their feedback and while I disagree I am glad they shared their opinion with me. This isn't an issue I have at all. I have an issue with the personal attacks that tend to arise out of this (and I have personal experience with those, which I don't want to get into here, but I can assure you they happen). And it is because on platforms like twitter, on social media and even in forums when issues like this get raised as the point of contention, all that matters is optics. You can be 100% right, or 100% saying something good and it won't matter because all that matters is how it plays out in the first few tweets. And the level of cruelty you see people, who are claiming they are empathetic and trying to make the hobby welcoming, indulge in cruelty is real, and it has a devastating psychological effect. It also has an effect on one's livelihood that is very real.

I am not accusing you of doing that, but I am saying this stuff happens around these issues for sure. And I am not saying there aren't other terrible things also going on. Nor am I saying everyone taking my position is perfect. There is a lot of division and hostility in general in the gaming community right now, and I would really love if we could find a way out of it and get back to a more live and let live approach to this stuff

 

[Incenjucar]

A lot of this is especially weird given that LotR had so many examples of how racism is stupid and makes everything worse and the good people recognizing this saves the world.

 

[Faolyn]

The whole issue started though when WOTC said anything with 'half' was problematic. And there have been posters saying the idea of a half elf is an issue. But it doesn't seem to be the argument in the last number of pages so fair enough, maybe the point got narrowed down more finely and we were talking past one another

I can certainly see not liking the flavor of the half elves as discriminated against, but I don't understand why this would be described as racist or a problem. I mean it seems to get a lot of support from people who are of mixed background (and yes some complain too, but I see far more people who call themselves bi-racial or mixed, as taking pretty strong umbrage with this being labeled a problem).

Also feeling of being between two worlds, and facing some amount of bigotry because you are of mixed background, exists and I think a lot of people who experienced that found something in the handlings they could connect to. I think it is fair to argue this is a boring trope. And fair to say you think it could be handled better. But I don't think it is fair to call it racist.

What WotC did is get rid of half-whatevers completely as a separate species block and say that if you wanted to play one, you could just pick one full-race or the other, do a quick aesthetic reskinning, and say they were half-blooded.

This action is problematic for many players for several different reasons. Not only does it get rid of races that some people really like, it makes people of mixed heritage invisible and its evocative of racist "just one drop" policies.

And why did WotC get rid of half-whatevers? Because historically, WotC and TSR had decided that people were bigoted against them.

If you want there to be bigotry against half-whatevers in your world, that's fine. You do you. There is zero reason for it to be in the core books especially when the same sort of bigotry doesn't apply to even weirder races and there's no reason to get rid of half-whatevers when it's not at all difficult to create rules for making them.

 

[Guest 85555]

You can't even respond to my very simple, very basic, very fair request. This is not sniping as much as it is persistence.

it wasn’t the repeated requests that I considered to be the sniping