D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Hussar]

Ah but see @Mercurius, there is the primary issue. You accept that some people see the linkage and are open to making changes, even if you don’t necessarily agree with the linkage.

@Maxperson is repeatedly detailing conversation, forcing unnecessary sidebars and pointless regressions in attempts to force people to “prove” that the linkage exists.

That’s why I called him out as part of the problem. He rejects all changes as unnecessary because he refuses to accept that other interpretations can exist.

 

[Dire Bare]

Is this testable in D&D worlds by spells such as a reincarnation spell? It feels like the rules could at least make it clear.

The change from 1e/2e to 3.5 to 5 seems pretty big in this regard. 1e/2e was bascially any living thing combing back as anything. iirc 3.5 was anything coming back as as anything of the same monster classification (so PC races could come back as any humanoid). 5e is humanoids coming back as PC races.

I might be misunderstanding you here, but I don't think this in something testable in game through spellcasting. Are dragons people? That question has to be answered by the designers of the game, and on another level decided by DM's regarding their home games.

The personhood or sentience of various D&D races hasn't been a design issue in the past, not on the scale of the entire game. I have a feeling that the mystery book scheduled for sometime later this year might address it, however. We'll see.

This did pop an image of some scholar types running highly unethical experiments within the D&D world . . . . "Don't worry Mr. Dragon, this test is only to determine if dragons do indeed have souls! If you are reincarnated as, well, anything, then you have a soul! If you are not reincarnated, then it doesn't really matter now does it?"

 

[Mercurius]

Ah but see @Mercurius, there is the primary issue. You accept that some people see the linkage and are open to making changes, even if you don’t necessarily agree with the linkage.

@Maxperson is repeatedly detailing conversation, forcing unnecessary sidebars and pointless regressions in attempts to force people to “prove” that the linkage exists.

That’s why I called him out as part of the problem. He rejects all changes as unnecessary because he refuses to accept that other interpretations can exist.

Fair enough. I can't speak for Maxperson and haven't read every post he's made, though I agree with a lot of what I have read as far as the linkage is concerned. But if he's doing what you say he's doing, I see your point. I just take issue with the implication that seeing the linkage or not is directly related to whether one is "part of the problem" or not.

 

[Lanefan]

5e has Humanoids and Monstrosities. Orcs are labeled in the MM as Humanoids. As such, in 5e, they are subject to Charm Person (Charm Person) and can be Reincarnated.

Charm Person has a pretty broad range of creatures it can hit in any edition, some of whose relationship to Humans is little more than having the same number of legs arms and heads.

And RAW be damned, I have it that absolutely any non-Outsider creature can be reincarnated provided someone's willing to cast the spell on it, with a pretty wide range of creatures it could come back as (though no matter how many possibilities there are they still roll 'Hobbit' every damn time!)

I once had a player whose PC's pet dog died while adventuring*; she spent ages trying to get this bloody dog revived and eventually found a Chaos temple willing to reincarnate it just for kicks (and a whopping fee!). Result: the dog came back as a centaur, who she ran as a second PC and who went on to a half-decent adventuring career.

* - why this poor dog - who wasn't a familiar or animal companion or anything so useful, just a pet - was in the field with her in the first place is a very good question, to which I've no answer at all.

Side question: does 5e not also have Normal Animals as a category; or are cows, pet dogs, rabbits, robins etc. classed as Monstrosities? (they sure ain't Humanoid but calling them monsters is kinda weird)

 

[Xenonnonex]

Charm Person has a pretty broad range of creatures it can hit in any edition, some of whose relationship to Humans is little more than having the same number of legs arms and heads.

And RAW be damned, I have it that absolutely any non-Outsider creature can be reincarnated provided someone's willing to cast the spell on it, with a pretty wide range of creatures it could come back as (though no matter how many possibilities there are they still roll 'Hobbit' every damn time!)

I once had a player whose PC's pet dog died while adventuring*; she spent ages trying to get this bloody dog revived and eventually found a Chaos temple willing to reincarnate it just for kicks (and a whopping fee!). Result: the dog came back as a centaur, who she ran as a second PC and who went on to a half-decent adventuring career.

* - why this poor dog - who wasn't a familiar or animal companion or anything so useful, just a pet - was in the field with her in the first place is a very good question, to which I've no answer at all.

Side question: does 5e not also have Normal Animals as a category; or are cows, pet dogs, rabbits, robins etc. classed as Monstrosities? (they sure ain't Humanoid but calling them monsters is kinda weird)

Look up beast type. 5e has that.

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough. I can't speak for Maxperson and haven't read every post he's made, though I agree with a lot of what I have read as far as the linkage is concerned. But if he's doing what you say he's doing, I see your point. I just take issue with the implication that seeing the linkage or not is directly related to whether one is "part of the problem" or not.

I can see that. Frankly, so long as you're willing to work with us in changing the language, it's not really my place to question what you believe.

 

[Sadras]

Parents? The Japanese word for someone of mixed heritage is hafu - as in half-breed. You think that doesn't make me want to kneecap people with a tire iron every time I hear it about my children? Fortunately, it seems to have fallen out of use once the history of the word was explained to people. Change can happen.

Halfbreed makes me think of the offspring between orcs and humans, less so of the offspring between elves and humans. Is the word halfbreed still used in the world other than when someone is teasing their friend? Like if you're the only half-Italian in a group of Italian friends and they affectionately call you half-breed.

In South Africa we have a political racial term known as coloureds, a term in USA I believe which is very much a no-no. To give you an example Trevor Noah would be classified as coloured as would his offspring. The term itself, to all South Africans, is not deemed as derogatory at all, it is a racial classification utilised when compiling various statistics.

It is going to be tricky to come up with words anddescriptions that do not offend anyone, cater to people's wants/desires and deal with all the races that maybe in question. So for some, stopping with changes for orcs, drow and vistani it will be enough, for others they will want to address all the humanoinds.

 

[Hussar]

Halfbreed makes me think of the offspring between orcs and humans, less so of the offspring between elves and humans. Is the word halfbreed still used in the world other than when someone is teasing their friend? Like if you're the only half-Italian in a group of Italian friends and they affectionately call you half-breed.

In South Africa we have a political racial term known as coloureds, a term in USA I believe which is very much a no-no. To give you an example Trevor Noah would be classified as coloured as would his offspring. The term itself, to all South Africans, is not deemed as derogatory at all, it is a racial classification utilised when compiling various statistics.

It is going to be tricky to come up with words anddescriptions that do not offend anyone, cater to people's wants/desires and deal with all the races that maybe in question. So for some, stopping with changes for orcs, drow, vistani and it will be enough, for others they will want to address all the humanoinds.

To be fair, intellectually, I KNOW those poeple didn't mean it as a racial epithet. So, in my head, I knew they didn't really have a racist bone in their body. But, it still didn't stop my blood pressure from shooting out my ears when someone would pat my daughter on the head and say, "Oh, what a pretty little hafu".

And, yeah, one country or another might have different ideas of what is offensive. Fair enough. Again, to be honest here, I think that simply making an effort, even if that effort isn't 100% effective, goes such a HUGE distance. You have to remember that this sort of thing, like chainmail bikinis and whatnot also, used to just get entirely brushed off whenever it came up, if it came up at all. Ten years ago, we would never, ever have THIS conversation on En World or anywhere else for that matter. So, simply showing willing and making an effort goes a long way.

 

[DammitVictor]

So, literally turn them into not-people. That is your solution for potentially offensive language being used, that was once used to de-humanize people, "just refuse to acknowledge personhood and the issue goes away."

I'm, I'm literally stunned. The only analogy I can think of is turning to someone worried about dying of cancer and saying "well, if we kill you, the cancer isn't a problem."

I understand that lot of people say this in bad faith or in a tragic misunderstanding of the issue... but you do realize that we're talking about fictional creatures, right? If we stop fictionally portraying them with the traits of personhood... with their own language, their own culture, with friends and family... they will literally stop being people in the exact same way that fictional creatures that were never portrayed as people were never people in the fiction.

Literally all of the problem here is that they are being portrayed as fictional people that the in-game fiction then morally justifies treating as not people. You can remove the problem by changing either half of that equation equally well.

 

[DammitVictor]

Halfbreed makes me think of the offspring between orcs and humans, less so of the offspring between elves and humans.

Respectfully, I would suggest that you are now dangerously close to understanding the problem.