D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

[Frozen_Heart]

I'd really dislike features like water breathing and anything like that to just end up as something any species can do if they pick it. Once every species can just pick any starting abilities freely, there is no longer any point having multiple playable species. It's all just humans in hats.

 

[Yaarel]

I think this is such a departure from D&D as it is today however, that it largely is academic. Tasha's Custom Lineage with an expanded selection of feats, is likely as close as we are going to get and it still be "D&D".

In practice the D&D updates seem little or no change.

There are no longer "Evil races". But there are still normal D&D Evil encounters.

Look at the MMM (Mordenkeinen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse).

Yuan-Ti are a "Monstrosity" with a number of Evil organizations that serve as old school D&D villains.

(The Grummsh cult among Orcs functions similarly.)

At the same time, Yuan-Ti are also a playable Character Option, that the DM can choose to include in the Setting.

Moreover, the Skulk is illustrative. They are "soulless shells of travelers who became lost in the Shadowfell". Essentially, the Shadow plane has magically oblivionated these individuals. The process makes their alignment Chaotic Neutral, "typically". I suppose there are still individual Skulks who have flickers of memory of their life and their alignment values.

If the Skulks lack souls, I might classify them as Undead. MMM classifies them as Monstrosity. But in either case, they seem a good example of the need for a "Shadow" planar type that is nonidentical with the "Undead" type.

In any case, when players adventure and encounter a Yuan-Ti or Skulk, the encounter feels pretty much same as it ever was.

Racist ways of generalizing seem an unnecessary part of the D&D traditions.



Finally, the rule of thumb is: if the creature has a culture and it can learn, then it has free will and any alignment.

If the creature lacks the ability to learn, then it is no longer humanlike.

The Yuan-Ti definitely has cultures, and players who want to play one. So caution is especially necessary when describing them.

The Skulk loses the ability to have culture or learn new things, and is no longer humanlike. Albeit there can be atypical individual Skulks who still cling to their humanity.

 

[Bill Zebub]

To me, it's the combination of warrior identity and alignment with nature, resulting in the impression of an uncivilized or "primitive" culture. Why would followers of Ares be described as "defenders of the natural order"?

“Natural order” has a lot of connotations…some of which are rather vile…other than tree-hugging.

But aside from that, yeah, there's isn't much that's more savage than Ares.

That’s a much broader use of “savage” than the connotation in “noble savage.”

So, sure, if you want to selectively expand/restrict the meanings of words in order to arrive at a desired interpretation, it can be done.

But I will stand by my claim that the new description of orcs doesn’t convey “noble savage” to somebody who doesn’t have prior conceptions. (Then again, thanks to Peter Jackson, is there anybody who doesn’t have prior conceptions?)

 

[glass]

I find it very sad that WotC's highest priority as a game company is apparently "deflecting criticism".

Is it so impossible to think that their priority is "avoiding harm to marginalised groups"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it so impossible to think that their priority is "avoiding harm to marginalised groups"?

What you're suggesting is not the same thing as deflecting criticism, which is more of a "get off our backs" kind of philosophy. I'd love for them to focus on making the game better, and avoiding harm as much as possible within that.

 

[glass]

What you're suggesting is not the same thing as deflecting criticism, which is more of a "get off our backs" kind of philosophy. I'd love for them to focus on making the game better, and avoiding harm as much as possible within that.

I know it is not the same, which is why I was suggesting it as a possible alternative explanation for the recent changes. EDIT: TBF, I suspect both motivations are in play. My suggested motivation is in play for at least some of the people directly involved, but yours is how they sell it to senior management....

 

[Yaarel]

I think there are a lot of reasons to like non-positive, dark, evil, outcast, etc. One is it is often more interesting. Another is it is often more fun if you are being hammy about it.
...
I think especially when wit, fun and humor are part of the mix, these negative traits can have a different kind of appeal.

In comedies this stuff works. And a lot of gaming is pretty light hearted. A bulk of the time me and my players are making one another laugh.

Being "hammy" and over-the-top is how the Orcs of Thar happened. The "light-heartedness" didnt translate well in print. Its humor seems dubious anyway.

In general, humor can "feel" obviously different, depending on whether it is "insider humor" where a culture makes fun of itself while playing on the subtle incongruencies that the culture takes for granted.

Completely different is "outsider humor" that disparages someone elses culture while playing on stereotypical generalizations about that other culture.

In Orcs of Thar, it is obviously outsider humor with little knowledgeability about Indigenous American cultures, and even less sensitivity toward how members of the Indigenous cultures might react to this "humor".



I think the lesson of humor is instructive for how to handle D&D setting cultures generally. If the characterization of a clearly humanlike culture is from an "outsider" who disparages it, it will probably be problematic. If the characterization of the culture is from an "insider" who notices the conflicts from within the humanlike culture, it will probably be more dignifying.

Even when the descriptions are brief, the reader can kinda tell whether the speaker is an insider or an outsider.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Being "hammy" and over-the-top is how the Orcs of Thar happened. The "light-heartedness" didnt translate well in print. Its humor seems dubious anyway.

In general, humor can "feel" obviously different, depending on whether it is "insider humor" where a culture makes fun of itself while playing on the subtle incongruencies that the culture takes for granted.

Completely different is "outsider humor" that disparages someone elses culture while playing on stereotypical generalizations about that other culture.

In Orcs of Thar, it is obviously outsider humor with little knowledgeability about Indigenous American cultures, and even less sensitivity toward how members of the Indigenous cultures might react to this "humor".

I wasn't defending Orcs of Thar, but I don't think humor going wrong, being offensive in a particular instance, or not aging well is an argument for not using humor. And I wasn't talking about racially disparaging humor, I was defending dark humor, having hammy, extremely evil races, etc. My point was basically about how you can characters like Black Adder or Wednesday who do truly terrible things (Wednesday for example tries to kill a baby to prove a point about physics if I remember), but we laugh instead of gasp because it is obviously taking a humorous tone. Basically just saying tone can matter a lot in how we perceive these things. And that fun and humor are a big part of the hobby.

 

[Scribe]

Then again, thanks to Peter Jackson, is there anybody who doesn’t have prior conceptions?

Heck, WoW Vanilla Cinematic and Burning Crusade Cinematic have 4.5 and 7.1 Million views respectively on youtube, and thats not including all the views 'in game'.

I highly highly doubt between WoW and LoTR there exists anyone in any sphere even close to 'Fantasy Fan' who doesnt have preconceptions of what an Orc is.

Oh, and add in GW Orc/Orks, just for fun.

 

[Hriston]

“Natural order” has a lot of connotations…some of which are rather vile…other than tree-hugging.

Okay? That doesn't seem to address whether it's a quality that might contribute to a people's depiction as being barbaric, primitive, or savage, or whether it's an apt description of the followers of Ares who may or may not be considered such a people, so I'm really not following.

That’s a much broader use of “savage” than the connotation in “noble savage.”

So, sure, if you want to selectively expand/restrict the meanings of words in order to arrive at a desired interpretation, it can be done.

That's fair. The point I'm trying to make though, is that people have been called "savages" in order to depict them as violent, bestial, and primitive -- part of the natural world to be subdued by civilization. War (Ares) is also violent, so depicting a people (orcs) as warlike also serves that purpose.

But I will stand by my claim that the new description of orcs doesn’t convey “noble savage” to somebody who doesn’t have prior conceptions. (Then again, thanks to Peter Jackson, is there anybody who doesn’t have prior conceptions?)

But that's the thing. People have all kinds of conceptions they're bringing, and you or I might not be aware of the impact certain ways of describing a people might have on the way that description ends up being received. I think they can do better than the new description. For one thing, they can avoid generalizing all orcs as tireless, mighty, and the toughest and most tenacious, especially when coupled with a narrative that depicts them as warriors that defend nature.