D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[Oofta]

This is part of the problem, given the problems WOTC has had in the last year, particularly in regards to Orion Black. Valuing the "old boys club" creates an insular environment, and that's why you get these problems: you're stuck with guys who have been working in this for 20-25 years, rather than people who have a view of what is going on now.



I mean, they don't stand out from those because it's all about being generic killers. This is the problem with these monsters: bloodthirsty killer of the anti-social variety is not particularly more interesting or different than that of the demonic-blooded kind. When you're just mad dog killers, what is the difference? Oh, you kill because you're really angry?

Those sorts of creatures barely need MM entries. If that's what you want, then why even have any more explanation? It's antithetical to what so many people here want from them. But you can map out the broad strokes of a culture that isn't just killing stuff and actually make it way more distinct comparably.



Yes, because their "niche" is not really a "niche": there are plenty of monsters that are just bloodthirsty, unreasoning killers. Grimlocks were mentioned previously, and at least they have an interesting backstory and mechanical hooks.

See I don't think there are many humanoid monsters that fill the same roll. Grimlocks are even more mindless than orcs and closely associated to mindflayers. Orcs at least have some culture even if it's a culture of murder and mayhem. Hobgoblins are militarily minded and far more organized. Goblins? Evil cowards.

It's racist in the real world to call everyone of a specific background or ethnicity dangerous. On the other hand I don't think it's racist to say that a sociopathic serial killer is dangerous no matter what their background or ethnicity is.

If you have a non-human creature that are effectively all sociopathic serial killers I don't think it's racist to call them dangerous. They are dangerous.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's the line for you. There's no correct answer.

Right. Different people will draw the line in different places, and none are objectively right or wrong. The best we can do is have the conversation, and try to get a sense of where the sort of average line is, that most fans will be willing to accept.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Each subculture in effect is a new monoculture.

Nonsense. A good subculture is both part of its parent culture and contrasts with it in ways that help both and prevent either from being a monoculture. For an example here I'm going to talk Warhammer and early Age of Sigmar - and the dawi/dwarfs in particular.

Warhammer dwarfs are short, strong, bad tempered people for whom honour is all and who really know how to hold a grudge. And then there are the Slayers. Slayers are a subculture of dwarfs who've for whatever reason been dishonoured to the point that the only way to atone is to seek death - but suicide is dishonourable. So they seek to die in battle and to do it against a powerful foe. And they mark themselves as slayers by fighting without armour (contrary to normal dwarf behaviour) and by giving themselves giant mohawks (again very different from normal dwarfs), indicating a whole lot of things about who they are. Slayers are very definitely a visually and thematically distinct subculture of dwarfs that are nevertheless part of the main dwarf culture, highlight things about being a dwarf, and make everything more relatable. Slayers both are not a monoculture and work well because they are not a monoculture - and they were one of the most loved parts of dwarf lore.

Then we get Age of Sigmar. Early Age of Sigmar was terrible for fluff (it's been improving since) - and early Age of Sigmar made "Fyreslayers", bare chested mohawked dwarfs into their own culture of honourable but gold-hungry mercenaries with only a very limited relationship to the steampunk Khadron Overlords, the other major dwarf culture in AoS. Fyreslayers aren't a subculture who fulfils a need in or provides an escape valve in or even is just rebelling against wider dwarf society - they are instead a planet-of-the-hats culture of people with a motivation (need for gold) and who all look a bit silly. And so far as I can tell Fyreslayers are one of the more disliked factions.

 

[Charlaquin]

I vastly prefer the 2nd. I find 1 limiting and constricting and I'll almost always end up just throwing it out and doing my own. With the 2nd, I can at least grab some ideas from a couple of the outlines.

My personal preference.

I think it’s also the approach WotC is embracing. Look at the Gothic Lineages unearthed arcana. Three new PC lineages, each based more around a theme than a specific origin. Each with several suggestions about what the origin of a character belonging to the lineage might be, and a table you can roll on to determine an origin randomly. They didn’t create any specific lore - Dhampir aren’t necessarily the children of vampires and humans, heck, they don’t even have to have any connection to vampires at all, as long as they have a hunger for other living creatures. Reborn aren’t tied specifically to the shadowfell, or any particular god, and they don’t even have to be undead, as long as they have a dead person’s memories. I think this is the model we’re likely to see for core material and especially player-facing options going forward, with setting-specific lore kept to campaign setting books.

 

[Maxperson]

It isn't lawful evil AT ALL.

They are neither amoral nor are they following the laws of the land. Of course they aren't, laws forbid murder and such.

Lawful does not have to mean laws of the land.

If someone has no problem in killing someone in order to achieve a goal, yes they are clearly not good. But this isn't the scenario at hand. They are killing in order to achieve a good, to prevent evil. Probably at great cost to themselves and to others. They may be wrong, but being Good in the context of D&D does not and never has implied that all your choices be the correct ones.

Murder is always evil. Killing doesn't have to be, but if can't be good.

Your moral absolutism may be one way of playing D&D but it isn't supported in RAW nor, frankly, does it even work intellectually if you think about it for more than 2 seconds.

If by not supported by RAW, you mean the default RAW, then I agree. From the PHB alignment section.

"Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn't tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil."

That's absolutism. Further, the planes of existence make no sense if morality is relative. They are based on hard alignments. Hard morality.

You can play with relative morality as one way of playing D&D, but it isn't supported well by RAW.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Nonsense. A good subculture is both part of its parent culture and contrasts with it in ways that help both and prevent either from being a monoculture. For an example here I'm going to talk Warhammer and early Age of Sigmar - and the dawi/dwarfs in particular.

Warhammer dwarfs are short, strong, bad tempered people for whom honour is all and who really know how to hold a grudge. And then there are the Slayers. Slayers are a subculture of dwarfs who've for whatever reason been dishonoured to the point that the only way to atone is to seek death - but suicide is dishonourable. So they seek to die in battle and to do it against a powerful foe. And they mark themselves as slayers by fighting without armour (contrary to normal dwarf behaviour) and by giving themselves giant mohawks (again very different from normal dwarfs), indicating a whole lot of things about who they are. Slayers are very definitely a visually and thematically distinct subculture of dwarfs that are nevertheless part of the main dwarf culture, highlight things about being a dwarf, and make everything more relatable. Slayers both are not a monoculture and work well because they are not a monoculture - and they were one of the most loved parts of dwarf lore.

Then we get Age of Sigmar. Early Age of Sigmar was terrible for fluff (it's been improving since) - and early Age of Sigmar made "Fyreslayers", bare chested mohawked dwarfs into their own culture of honourable but gold-hungry mercenaries with only a very limited relationship to the steampunk Khadron Overlords, the other major dwarf culture in AoS. Fyreslayers aren't a subculture who fulfils a need in or provides an escape valve in or even is just rebelling against wider dwarf society - they are instead a planet-of-the-hats culture of people with a motivation (need for gold) and who all look a bit silly. And so far as I can tell Fyreslayers are one of the more disliked factions.

40K Orks are a great example of subcultures: Not only do you have the distinct clans (Goffs, Bad Moons, Death Skulls, Snakebites, Evil Sunz, and Blood Axes), they are generally built around smaller subsections of Ork Culture: Stormboyz, Speed Freakz, Meks, Lootas, Flash Gitz, etc... There's a huge amount of distinction there as to who they are and what they do, despite having a somewhat-unified aesthetic for the race.

 

[Oofta]

I think it’s also the approach WotC is embracing. Look at the Gothic Lineages unearthed arcana. Three new PC lineages, each based more around a theme than a specific origin. Each with several suggestions about what the origin of a character belonging to the lineage might be, and a table you can roll on to determine an origin randomly. They didn’t create any specific lore - Dhampir aren’t necessarily the children of vampires and humans, heck, they don’t even have to have any connection to vampires at all, as long as they have a hunger for other living creatures. Reborn aren’t tied specifically to the shadowfell, or any particular god, and they don’t even have to be undead, as long as they have a dead person’s memories. I think this is the model we’re likely to see for core material and especially player-facing options going forward, with setting-specific lore kept to campaign setting books.

I kind of view lineages as a little different though. A damphir is not a unique race, it's a PC that used to be some other race. I don't think lineages are necessarily bad, just not sure how indicative it is of the future.

 

[Scribe]

I kind of view lineages as a little different though. A damphir is not a unique race, it's a PC that used to be some other race. I don't think lineages are necessarily bad, just not sure how indicative it is of the future.

Templates, is what this batch reminds me off. Not true species, but something layered on.

 

[Oofta]

40K Orks are a great example of subcultures: Not only do you have the distinct clans (Goffs, Bad Moons, Death Skulls, Snakebites, Evil Sunz, and Blood Axes), they are generally built around smaller subsections of Ork Culture: Stormboyz, Speed Freakz, Meks, Lootas, Flash Gitz, etc... There's a huge amount of distinction there as to who they are and what they do, despite having a somewhat-unified aesthetic for the race.

How many races/species are there in 40K? It's easy to have more detail when you aren't talking about dozens, if not hundreds of unique creatures.

 

[Democratus]

Lawful does not have to mean laws of the land.

Murder is always evil. Killing doesn't have to be, but if can't be good.

Murder is not always evil. Murder is unlawful killing.

The law is not always on the side of good.