D&D 5E I thought WotC was removing biological morals?

[Scott Christian]

Still. "As compared to humans" doesn't explain why high elves are smarter than wood elves, but wood elves are wiser than high elves.

Why not?
If you are comparing to humans, why can't you say the wood elf is wiser than a human on average, and the high elf is smarter than the human, on average.

 

[Scott Christian]

Its depressing how true that is. And, by the way, it is disingenuous to the original writing, and I am not happy that they pretended it has always been the way they want it to be now.

I can see through your lens. I don't see it as a depressing change, but simply just change. It has changed and always will. But the pretending part is irritating. I am fine with change. Just say: "In light of the changing views in our society, we would like to amend some of the aspects of our game we deem archaic. Therefore, we are changing the original intent to ____________________."
I have no problem with people who do that. It can sometimes show growth. But to not be forthcoming, that always makes it feel like they either: don't know why they are changing it or are trying to hide something.

 

[Nikosandros]

Even 1e had a hit-to-subdue option; originally intended for use specifically against Dragons but often* extended to be useable against any living foe with a discernable anatomy. The difference in 1e, and personally I think it's better than how 5e does it, is that you declare you're striking to subdue before your attack rather than after the fact.

* - not sure if this was ever made "official" by the TSR gurus; though I've a feeling it might have been.

Subdual rules were published in Unearthed Arcana (APPENDIX R: NON-LETHAT COMBAT).

 

[Eubani]

I am just waiting for the outrage about the prejudice of only virgins being able to ride Unicorns, I am sure there is some sort of ism there.

 

[Scott Christian]

Any negative language we use to describe a creature will have, unfortunately, been used to describe a certain group of people, to make them non-human. Fear and dehumanization of the other has unfortunately always been with us and probably always will be.

I agree that some of the language should be fixed, but there will always be people who see correlations.

Yes, the language should definitely be fixed.

This reminds me of the "everything purple" argument. Eventually, you run out of correlating humanoid factors that can be evil. It's all about how far can you diverge from real life history and have it be acceptable with everyone. Can someone make a dark skinned evil race? For some, if they give them one eye, a giant mouth, a horn, goat legs, and four arms, it is acceptable. For others, all it takes is white hair and red eyes. That's where purple comes in. If it is purple, since it has not real life connection, then it can be evil.

But that leads to language...

And that is your original point. Language is finite. All that happens is people run the same litmus test on language that they do with visual art. So the author must mix and match different negative language through history in order to pass the litmus. But no matter how it is done, you are correct, there will always be allusions to some writing in history. It is how much it mirrors a specific group that causes conflict.

Maybe there best bet is to have the races as stand alone proxies in the PHB. No description. Then describe places PC's can come from, and use those for the traits and abilities and skills. So everyplace is a mixture of dwarves, elves, tieflings, half-orcs, etc. It'll just be the culture they come from that determines what they get. Then you can go all out and have a crazy cannibalistic, militant, slave holding society and it doesn't matter - because all the races partake in it.

 

[FrogReaver]

But it is not evidence you’re right. That’s the issue with slippery slope arguments. They are a fallacy because they don’t present an argument for why one change will cause a bunch of other changes.

Sure, such arguments aren't going to win any academic debates, but we also must remember that calling something a slippery slope doesn't actually mean it's implausible - and in many cases after sufficient time what was initially criticized as a slippery slope comes to be. So, IMO outside academic debates it's not enough to counter an argument by calling it a slippery slope, one must propose sufficient reasons for why the slippery slope will not occur.

 

[Argyle King]

I worry about this kind of analysis. While I don't disagree there is a certain level of fetishizing of elves, I think it's reading in a racial element just to find a racial element. Moreover, I ask what is too be done about this. Are we to remove the elements that make elves look distinct from humans other than pointed ears? What about dwarves and halflings dwarfism? Tabaxi and catgirls? It's one thing to proverbially remove the bone from the orc's nose, but the "elves shouldn't be lithe and angular because Asian fetishization" feels like analysis out looking for an argument.

Again, depending on how you look at it...

It's the angular features; almond eyes; old stereotypes about body hair and myths about nude Asian women; long blue-black hair; waxing poetically about some exotic culture and exotic beauty and so-forth. (And why the longsword as an Elven weapon? Tolkien or kitana?)

It's also contextual in that you can take the "standard" (if there is such a thing) D&D female character and contrast that with how both elven women and drow women compare to that standard. Then further contrast that with how the traditional standards of "western" and American femininity and beauty compare to why people (men specifically) fetishize women from cultures who don't fit into that ideal.

If you want to also bring in orcs, you might further find parallels between the intersection of old American culture trying to deprive African-American men of masculinity (or paint it as a negative) and the attempt to combat that by seeking out ways to embrace "white" ideals of what it means to be a man through interracial relationships.

In some ways I agree with your comment. That doesn't mean there isn't merit in questioning the mental underpinnings which created fantasy tropes. Whether correlation is real or imagined varies from case to case, and I do agree that there are times when people find what they want to find. But there's also, I believe, merit in exploring which cases are valid and which aren't -and why.

 

[FrogReaver]

At least one notable group of gamers has established a fairly clear boundary: don’t use RW bigoted stereotyping in describing creatures in RPGs. It’s an easy enough bright-line test that has been suggested time and time again in multiple threads.

IMO. That's a rather fuzzy boundary.

1. When we have a paragraph describing a creature in an RPG, who decides how much of that paragraph must align to RW bigoted stereotyping before it's 'problematic'? Is it one sentence, one word, half the paragraph?

2. Most negative language has been used at some point to describe specific groups of people, especially if we go back in history far enough. How far back in history do we go in our attempts to purge RW bigoted stereotyping?

3. One pro to sci-fi and fantasy literature is that the worlds and peoples inhabiting those worlds don't actually exist. This allows questions to be explored like, 'how would things be if there really was biological essentialism'. 'how would things be if certain biological species were actually 100% evil'. 'what if the evil of certain races wasn't just an offensive negative stereotype but actually real and true'

Perhaps, you would find more agreement if you worked on showing that the principles driving the changes weren't as broad and sweeping as some imagine?

 

[Scott Christian]

In some ways I agree with your comment. That doesn't mean there isn't merit in questioning the mental underpinnings which created fantasy tropes. Whether correlation is real or imagined varies from case to case, and I do agree that there are times when people find what they want to find. But there's also, I believe, merit in exploring which cases are valid and which aren't -and why.

And that is the part that is forever debated. And the side that wins is the side that makes others think they might lose status or money. Sad, but true.
We have a very hard time believing other people's point of view.

 

[FrogReaver]

Any negative language we use to describe a creature will have, unfortunately, been used to describe a certain group of people, to make them non-human. Fear and dehumanization of the other has unfortunately always been with us and probably always will be.

I agree that some of the language should be fixed, but there will always be people who see correlations.

I'm also not so sure that changes from all orcs are bad to there are good groups of orcs and bad groups of orcs is going to be a particularly satisfying change once the issues with that dichotomy bubble to the surface.