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

[Lanefan]

But, not all stats are equal. And, all that leads to is people cookie cutting their characters. Got a +2 Str -2 Int? Well, fighter here I come.

Or different creature type that doesn't have that particular combination of +/- here I come.

The only time your point would matter is if players are each forced to roll their PC's creature type and are bound to play what they roll.

I much prefer the "just plusses" approach which means that you aren't pigeonholing races into specific classes. Add to that the fact that stats are a lot less important in 5e than in any other edition of D&D, it's not a big deal. A character with a 16 for the highest stat is perfectly viable in any class. Long gone are the days where every fighter had to have an 18 strength or they just weren't worth playing.

The "must have an 18 or it ain't worth playing" idea never really took hold around here, save for a few players who aren't in our crew anymore.

Must have a 16 - OK, I can get behind that.

 

[Lanefan]

Okay, but this literally has nothing to do with anything in this thread. The fact of the matter is, in Volo's you're punished for playing Orcs. You're punished for playing Kobolds and Drow and Duergar and so on.

Personally I don't mind that at all as to me none of those are player-character creatures anyway.

My point is that the core PHB non-Humans should also have penalties to cancel out their bonuses, with Humans at a flat +0 across the board.

 

[Hussar]

The fact is that prejudice is real. One particular prejudice is that people that are beautiful are treated more positively while people that are ugly or don't look "normal" are at a disadvantage.

Half orcs tend to be ugly based on common standards of beauty. That has nothing to do with skin color or an association with any particular human race. Tall people are generally more likely to be feared than short. Throw in an association with a creature that is by default CE.

Not saying that it's right, but acknowledging that it will affect how they are treated is realistic.

Now I'm sure I'll be accused of "just like PoC". But I think it's just a matter of convergent results, not association.

On the other hand I don't care if they change it. I've never really paid much attention to it in the first place.

The problem I see though is you keep pulling each thread individually and then claiming there’s no problem or correlation. Try taking a look at the whole package.

Have a few minutes more now- so wanted to add.

Ugly race is evil? Ok, fair enough. I mean it's not like beholders are pretty.

Stupid race is evil? Ok, again, fair enough. Evil is pretty stupid sometimes, and, well, again, no one is having much of an issue.

Fecund race is evil? Ok, bit odd, but, fair enough.

Ugly, stupid, fecund race that is described using certain language? Yeah, THAT'S the problem.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

When you said "and so on" I thought you meant other 5e optional bad guy races in general. Goblins came to mind because a guy in my group is playing one and their stats do not seem a penalty and they have been put out by some as a derogatory Asian stand in for their 5e art.

In any case if your question is just this specific list of bad guy PC options I would say that PC mechanics, particularly in the optional supplements has a lot of variability and some more experimentation compared to the general PH baseline options.

From "so on" I meant the "bad" races that give you mechanical penalties. Goblins don't really have any of those, they're a fairly balanced race.

I've seen Sword Coast and Mords but do not own them, what are the Duergar's mechanics like? I assume they have sunlight sensitivity as they have in prior editions.

They have sunlight sensitivity and psionic abilities and a strength bonus, IIRC.

 

[Scott Christian]

When you base that "someone" on race and then tie that race to real world minorities with some pretty negative stereotyping, don't you think that might be a problem?

It is a problem if it is true. And I've read both sides; evidence that it is and just as compelling evidence that it is not (or has been changed because it was). Again, I'm not passing judgement on either side. I offered a solution through backgrounds. You didn't think that solution would work. There was no statement on how to improve my solution. Just a question: Why don't I see it your way?
Mercurius said it very well:

Well again, Hussar, the problem is only if one or both of the following are assumed:

1. Race C has an intrinsic connection to a real world group.
2. It is inherently problematic to depict a fantasy race in a negative light.

I think it would behoove everyone to read what he wrote. It is the framing of the subject that causes problems. For a great book that discusses framing, try reading Why We Make Mistakes by Joseph Hallinan.

Why We Make Mistakes: How We Look Without Seeing, Forget Things in Seconds, and Are All Pretty Sure We Are Way Above Average

Shared via Kindle. Description: <b>We forget our passwords. We pay too much to go to the gym. We think we’d be happier if we lived in California (we wouldn’t), and we think we should stick with our first answer on tests (we shouldn’t). Why <i>do</i> we make...

read.amazon.com

Good book, and part of it discusses framing. It is the cause of many disagreements and why people "see things differently."

 

[Sadras]

I think it would behoove everyone to read what he wrote. It is the framing of the subject that causes problems. For a great book that discusses framing, try reading Why We Make Mistakes by Joseph Hallinan.

Why We Make Mistakes: How We Look Without Seeing, Forget Things in Seconds, and Are All Pretty Sure We Are Way Above Average

Shared via Kindle. Description: <b>We forget our passwords. We pay too much to go to the gym. We think we’d be happier if we lived in California (we wouldn’t), and we think we should stick with our first answer on tests (we shouldn’t). Why <i>do</i> we make...

read.amazon.com

Good book, and part of it discusses framing. It is the cause of many disagreements and why people "see things differently."

Are you saying this is about presentation?
If you are this would he hilarious.

@Hussar may not have been the first, but he was the first on this site who I saw, which said that the biggest issue with people having an issue with 4e was due to its presentation. Which I came to agree with - took me some time, but I accepted that presentation had a sizable part to play in my disatisfaction for that edition.

If by framing you are not meaning presentation, then just ignore all I wrote.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Are you saying this is about presentation?
If you are this would he hilarious.

@Hussar may not have been the first, but he was the first on this site who I saw, which said that the biggest issue with people having an issue with 4e was due to its presentation. Which I came to agree with - took me some time, but I accepted that presentation had a sizable part to play in my disatisfaction for that edition.

If by framing you are not meaning presentation, then just ignore all I wrote.

You know, I was just thinking that with the conversations regarding race and D&D, and alignments, and banning old D&D books, and so on, things were way too easy-going.

We should probably throw in some 4e stuff too. Just to spice it up?

 

[Scott Christian]

Are you saying this is about presentation?
If you are this would he hilarious.

@Hussar may not have been the first, but he was the first on this site who I saw, which said that the biggest issue with people having an issue with 4e was due to its presentation. Which I came to agree with - took me some time, but I accepted that presentation had a sizable part to play in my disatisfaction for that edition.

If by framing you are not meaning presentation, then just ignore all I wrote.

Hi Sadras,
No, it's not what I was saying. Framing is the background, experiences, circumstances, and emotion from which someone looks at an argument. Literally, it is like a picture frame. It's similar to when people say they remember something, and the other person says they are viewing it through "rose colored glasses." Both may be correct. It does not negate the feelings of each perspective.

 

[Mercurius]

You know, I was just thinking that with the conversations regarding race and D&D, and alignments, and banning old D&D books, and so on, things were way too easy-going.

We should probably throw in some 4e stuff too. Just to spice it up?

Shardminds are mineralist!

 

[Hussar]

See, the problem that folks are having is that you think that an interpretation needs your agreement in order to be valid. That's not true. The interpretation, for example, of orcs being monolithically evil in D&D is a perfectly valid interpretation. It's easily supportable. You can point to all sorts of examples of it in the texts of the game. However, the same is true for the language surrounding orcs mirroring real world racist language. Again, this isn't really up for debate. It's demonstrably true. That you don't think that it's the same really doesn't matter. An interpretation doesn't need your approval or agreement. So long as the interpretation can be supported, it's valid.

So, all this stuff about "framing" and whatnot, doesn't matter one whit. I couldn't care less if you agree with the interpretation or not. Your approval is neither needed nor required. What is required, is the recognition that this is an interpretation that is held by a significant number of people who are asking you to change the verbiage. Your feelings or my feelings on the matter are irrelevant.