Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Twig" data-source="post: 8114700" data-attributes="member: 31754">Some interesting points raised above.As for the "human in a rubber suit" argument, I agree that this is a problem that should be avoided. I don't remember where I read it, it might not even be D&D, but one reason put forth as to why many races were more stereotypical while humans remained flexible was that the "mythical" races were more closely bound to their gods. For example, dwarves were made by Moradin, elves were made by Corellon Larethian, orcs were made by Gruumsh, etc. So even if a dwarf left the worship of Moradin or an orc left Gruumsh, they are still bound to that god because they are literally created by their gods to be like their gods. Humans, having no single creator deity, were free to be whatever they wanted and did not have to fight against their own natures to do so. Anyway, it was just an interesting idea.It is interesting that you brought up the 70% thing, Helldritch. I do seem to recall something about rules or options needing to meet that threshold before being added to an official book, and I would be surprised if they had time to really determine that was the case with this particular rule. I mean, they have spent years trying out ranger fixes, and I am excited to see the final version offered in Tasha's, but this one definitely seems more rushed. And that seems true for all of these "racial sensitivity" fixes. Did they really poll the community before removing the Intelligence penalty from orcs? Or did they just unilaterally decide "This is wrong and we need to fix it" without checking with the actual players?That is really just a thought experiment. We have no way of really knowing what they did to reach their conclusions. In addition, to defend the unilateral decision, they might have taken those actions based on the feelings of the people working at the company. I think it is fair to say that no one wants to work for a company that violates their own ethics if they can avoid it. If the majority of the employees at WotC felt it was morally the right thing to do, or indeed, immoral if they did not take action, then it makes sense to implement those changes. Other factors like negative publicity or parent company edicts (from Hasbro for instance) are also reasons that, even if you might now agree with them, are valid reasons for a company to take action.</blockquote>

Verification