D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins

[Undrave]

Which is quite a legitimate issue if we were talking human ethnicities but we are not. We're talking different species, it's the difference between a cat and a dog not different lineages of humans.

You have clearly not read the articles because that argument is plainly addressed in part 2.

I've read those and 'martial race' doesn't mean 'physically strong.' But ultimately if one feels that different fantasy species having different capabilities is problematic, then one needs to get rid of all such capabilities, not only the ASIs. Different movement speeds, traits such as 'powerful build', 'stone's endurance' etc. And you also need to get rid of such differences in the lore as well. And once you have done that, what's left? Why have these fantasy species at all?

Again, the author address those. A lot of other traits are just not ascribable to humans (powerful build is one of those), like a dragonborn's breath for exemple. Those are much more fun.

Movement speed is a factor of stride length, thus a factor of size (I, myself, walk very fast because I'm tall and my legs are proportionally long. I can cover in a single step what shorter people need two or even three step to cover).

Particularly important, I think, is this part of the second article:

Let’s work with a counterfactual here: let’s say their reasons are valid, and it’s cool to take something which looks exactly like racism and put it in your game because a wizard did it/it’s a satire/there’s this one good half-orc who was president or something. None of those reasons negate the visceral reaction of fear, pain, and panic I’ll suffer as a person of color who experiences racism. It’s like flinching away from a blow even if I’m certain it’s a feint. I don’t decide; my muscle memory and subconscious do.

If you don’t feel that fight-or-flight flinch, either you’re blessed with resilience, or you haven’t experienced those racist stimuli in the context of racism before. In the moment, if I’m with strangers and we’ve never discussed the topic before, I don’t know who means well and who’s a real threat (cw: sexual assault discussion). The flinch reaction doesn’t factor in the reasons for a racist-seeming expression or the knowledge that we’re pretending. It lives in the same realm of unconscious bias where my own racist preconceptions live as well. It’s a thing racism does to us which we cannot undo, any more than we can cease to be racist. So even if I believe the setting’s author didn’t intend orcs to read that way … it doesn’t matter. I play, I flinch.

Under the circumstances, many people of color will simply bow out. “No hard feelings. It just isn’t for me,” we’ll say after the game. Maybe we won’t realize what happened or why until we postgame the incident with other PoC later on. Maybe we never will.

Basically, it doesn't actually matter what you intended or that it's all made up, if people of colours are still FEELING it, then it's not good. Their feelings are valid, and to dismiss it as a edge case to be solved by home rules just feels patronizing and colonialist. I don't think racial ASI are worth it if a whole segment of the population can come out of playing the game with a bitter aftertaste.

Tradition be damned.

 

[Oofta]

You have clearly not read the articles because that argument is plainly addressed in part 2.

I've read the articles. I disagree with the conclusion. Nothing new.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, the author address those. A lot of other traits are just not ascribable to humans (powerful build is one of those), like a dragonborn's breath for exemple. Those are much more fun.

So if being strong is represented by a strength bonus it is problematic but if it is represented by powerful build, it is fine and dandy? Give me a break, that is ridiculous.

Movement speed is a factor of stride length, thus a factor of size (I, myself, walk very fast because I'm tall and my legs are proportionally long. I can cover in a single step what shorter people need two or even three step to cover).

And more nonsense. Being stronger because you're big is problematic, but being fast for the same reason is not?

Those orc articles are excellent and I agree with a lot of what is said there. What I do not agree with is bunch of min-maxers on gaming forums trying to wrap their need of optimise in the cloak of social justice. That is just dishonest and disrespectful.

 

[Undrave]

So if being strong is represented by a strength bonus it is problematic but if it is represented by powerful build, it is fine and dandy? Give me a break, that is ridiculous.


And more nonsense. Being stronger because you're big is problematic, but being fast for the same reason is not?

I did not specifically called out Powerful Build. Heck I don't even know off hand what it is.

I know of plenty shorter people who are much more strong than me.

Those orc articles are excellent and I agree with a lot of what is said there. What I do not agree with is bunch of min-maxers on gaming forums trying to wrap their need of optimise in the cloak of social justice. That is just dishonest and disrespectful.

i think ascribing dishonesty and the old boogeyman of the minmaxer to the idea that racial ASI shouldn't be in the game is kinda mean if you ask me. Minmaxers will min-max in whatever game rules you put out, to try to cut them off is foolish and just bad design. You don't design for edge cases like that. People getting synergies between their ability score and class isn't the end of the damn world. If the game can handle rolled stats, it can handle a little more synergy just fine.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I did not specifically called out Powerful Build. Heck I don't even know off hand what it is.

You literally wrote: "A lot of other traits are just not ascribable to humans (powerful build is one of those)" so I assumed you know what it means.

I know of plenty shorter people who are much more strong than me.

And I know plenty of shorter people who are faster than me.

i think ascribing dishonesty and the old boogeyman of the minmaxer to the idea that racial ASI shouldn't be in the game is kinda mean if you ask me. Minmaxers will min-max in whatever game rules you put out, to try to cut them off is foolish and just bad design. You don't design for edge cases like that. People getting synergies between their ability score and class isn't the end of the damn world. If the game can handle rolled stats, it can handle a little more synergy just fine.

I have no problem with minmaxers as long as they don't spout nonsense like that them not getting to start with a 16 in an ability score is a social justice issue.

 

[Helldritch]

I've read the articles. I disagree with the conclusion. Nothing new.

My thoughts exactly.

At some point, arguing about fictional races is cerebral masturbation of the highest degree. Even downright racist to the ethnicity you are comparing the fantasy race to. Where some here see the fantasy race being racist's bias toward an ethnicity, I almost tend see the person as racist for making such a comparison in the first place. Especially if that comparison is not a good one.

 

[Helldritch]

Serious question: how often do you actually say no to that exception (assuming the exception is reasonable and not op)?

For example, drow elves are an optional race in every edition of D&D, but I've never turned down nor been turned down form playing one. Technically, it's an exception to play a non-evil drow, but PCs are always exceptional. I don't think I've ever said or heard say "sorry, but you can only be a drow if you're a CE demon worshipper." Yet for all those non-evil drow, nobody has ever stopped viewing drow primarily as antagonists. The lore didn't suffer. Why? Because the heroic drow are still wildly outnumbered by the non-pc evil drow. They are still exceptions.

That all said, I wonder how many people here would accept a game where races MUST abide by the alignment section of thier race. It's a racial trait according to Max, so what if elves MUST be CG, dwarves LG, tieflings LE and half-orcs CN? Humans, of course, could be any alignment due to having no specific tendency.

I allowed a lawful good drow almost immediately after the UA came out. It was not a ranger but a cavalier (as per the rule, he was sponsored. His goal was to become a paladin of Heironeous. Which he did achieve. Again, exceptions are not the rule.)
I have allowed a halfling rangers in 1ed and a lot of other things. Every single times, it was clear that it was a one shot. If a player had a good interesting and not OP concept (I smell power gamers from miles around) then the chances for me to say yes are great. Especially if it is playing against type. The struggle to "show" the world rings an harmonious bell.

But that bell can't ring if everyone can do anything without repercussions or struggles. Is it a bit clearer? I hope so.
I am not a monster that wants the game to be set in stones for ever. A game must evolve to stay healthy and interesting. But a change for the sake of change or to accomodate a current view or fad is way out of order in my mind. Just like the demons and devils had to change their names for Tanar'ri and Baatezu, I see this change in racial to be a movement of panic and fear from WotC to be accused of racism and whatnot.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

At some point, arguing about fictional races is cerebral masturbation of the highest degree. Even downright racist to the ethnicity you are comparing the fantasy race to. Where some here see the fantasy race being racist's bias toward an ethnicity, I almost tend see the person as racist for making such a comparison in the first place. Especially if that comparison is not a good one.

I'm getting sick of having to argue this, but just to be clear: it's still propagating language in defense of dehumanizing groups of sentients considered "lesser". This probably won't have real-world applications unless we A: figure out how to have meaningful conversations with elephants and/or dolphins, or B: first contact happens, but even still: even when removed from a real world context and placed in a fictional context, the very language itself, and the ideas it represents, is tainted. The stories we tell about ourselves and others reveal our values and beliefs, even if we aren't aware of such. Thus the question to ask is "what kind of themes does this worldbuilding and narrative encourage, and what does it suggest its ideological underpinnings are?"

Just surprised the thread is past the 1000 comment at this point. Feels like its going in circle and the rules aren't even out in the wild... shouldn't this discussion just be put on hold until people have tried the rules for a while? I don't think there's anything left to be said.

Ultimately this. The book's out next week, surely you all can wait that long? We can make a judgement on whether these rules are busted or not then.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm getting sick of having to argue this, but just to be clear: it's still propagating language in defense of dehumanizing groups of sentients considered "lesser". This probably won't have real-world applications unless we A: figure out how to have meaningful conversations with elephants and/or dolphins, or B: first contact happens, but even still: even when removed from a real world context and placed in a fictional context, the very language itself, and the ideas it represents, is tainted. The stories we tell about ourselves and others reveal our values and beliefs, even if we aren't aware of such. Thus the question to ask is "what kind of themes does this worldbuilding and narrative encourage, and what does it suggest its ideological underpinnings are?"

I agree, and I really dislike the concept of 'monster races' or 'enemy races' and the demonising language that comes with that. But at the same time I very strongly feel that in order to the non-human sapients to have a purpose, they must actually be meaningfully different from humans, and this doesn't and shouldn't mean that they're any 'lesser'. Orcs can have their own strengths, weaknesses and ways of doing things, and those don't need to be the same than those of humans to have value.

 

[Oofta]

I'm getting sick of having to argue this, but just to be clear: it's still propagating language in defense of dehumanizing groups of sentients considered "lesser". This probably won't have real-world applications unless we A: figure out how to have meaningful conversations with elephants and/or dolphins, or B: first contact happens, but even still: even when removed from a real world context and placed in a fictional context, the very language itself, and the ideas it represents, is tainted. The stories we tell about ourselves and others reveal our values and beliefs, even if we aren't aware of such. Thus the question to ask is "what kind of themes does this worldbuilding and narrative encourage, and what does it suggest its ideological underpinnings are?"


Ultimately this. The book's out next week, surely you all can wait that long? We can make a judgement on whether these rules are busted or not then.

Is it okay that ogres have a low intelligence? That mind flayers are geniuses? Does being stronger, weaker, wiser or less wise make someone else "lesser"?

Different does not mean lesser.