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

[Branduil]

I feel like focusing on "free will" is a rabbit trail. The issue is fantasy races/species propagating real-world stereotypes and caricatures, whether or not fictional people have free will, if anyone can even define that, is besides the point.

 

[Scott Christian]

I am not avoiding the question. I said evil monsters are ok. You CAN have gods or magic make evil species. (As I said in my previous post Fiends and Undead are EVIL, and I think they are fine. What I have a problem with is claiming that an entire species is EVIL, and is ok to kill on sight, while ALSO allowing them to be PCs.

Pick one or the other the game shouldn't have creatures who are both. Whenever someone ends up trying to justify why a certain species should be killed on sight, except for certain specific individuals, they inevitably end up using the words real world racists used to justify their genocide.

I honestly don't see why both can't exist. As long as language is used that avoids real world racist ideology, then a cursed race that feels compelled to follow an evil god's ways can also be a PC. In my opinion, freewill exists in all species in D&D. Even the yuan-ti. But that doesn't mean the aggregate of the species doesn't use their freewill to do evil things. Which could be part of the description.

Here the problem with the argument to say PCs being the evil species is a problem. PCs are the exception in everything. It even says it in the PHB. They are the exception in attributes. They are the exception in their ability to learn their class powers. They are the exception to be able to communicate with their deity or touch a plane of magic. They are even the exception of their species, if you take innate magical abilities. So why can't they be the exception to an alignment.

And as a side note: I agree, alignment is part of the problem.

 

[codo]

I honestly don't see why both can't exist. As long as language is used that avoids real world racist ideology, then a cursed race that feels compelled to follow an evil god's ways can also be a PC. In my opinion, freewill exists in all species in D&D. Even the yuan-ti. But that doesn't mean the aggregate of the species doesn't use their freewill to do evil things. Which could be part of the description.

Here the problem with the argument to say PCs being the evil species is a problem. PCs are the exception in everything. It even says it in the PHB. They are the exception in attributes. They are the exception in their ability to learn their class powers. They are the exception to be able to communicate with their deity or touch a plane of magic. They are even the exception of their species, if you take innate magical abilities. So why can't they be the exception to an alignment.

And as a side note: I agree, alignment is part of the problem.

The problem is the "Cursed by God to be Evil" is how lots of racists in history have described minority groups in real life, and it is used as justification for their murder, genocide, and enslavement.

The thing is, D&D, or any other game for that matter, doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. If a new player to the game sees things that remind them of the racism or discrimination they experience in real life, they shouldn't have to try and figure out whether it is just clueless nerds not thinking about the larger implications, or cryptoracist dog whistles. Lets not pretend that there aren't lot of really racists people out there who try to sneak racist content into the wider media. Look at the whole NUTSR and their racist Star-Frontiers game, or there is the infamous KKK magic card.

 

[Scott Christian]

This is just a variation on the Thermian Argument. It is obviously possible for a fictional god to do whatever it wants. Notably, multiple real-world religions have, at various times, attempted to justify racism with the "God made us better" argument. I'm sure you can see the problem with that.

If someone's setting has humanoid creatures which are inherently evil, saying "the gods did it" does not absolve the setting of its real-world implications. Regardless of the in-universe justifications, the decision to depict an inherently evil race is a choice made by the human author.

I can see a problem with real world religions doing that. But again, that is not the debate. Same with someone's setting being racist. That is a problem. But you are taking a tremendously large leap from: In this setting this one evil god cursed these halflings and now they are evil to the author's real-world implications is that all short people are evil.

The point I am making is not a Thermian Argument because I am not justifying anything harmful in a text. The language used that reflected real world racism needed to change. What I am pointing out the hypocrisy of other's logic. Mind flayers have free will, no? Yet, we're okay with them being evil. Frost giants have free will and a culture to boot. Yet we are okay with them being evil. Dragons, certainly with their immense power, have freewill. Yet we are okay with them being either good or evil. So it is silly, maybe even hypocritical to say, halflings can't have a natural tendency due to be evil.

 

[Cadence]

I can see a problem with real world religions doing that. But again, that is not the debate. Same with someone's setting being racist. That is a problem. But you are taking a tremendously large leap from: In this setting this one evil god cursed these halflings and now they are evil to the author's real-world implications is that all short people are evil.

The point I am making is not a Thermian Argument because I am not justifying anything harmful in a text. The language used that reflected real world racism needed to change. What I am pointing out the hypocrisy of other's logic. Mind flayers have free will, no? Yet, we're okay with them being evil. Frost giants have free will and a culture to boot. Yet we are okay with them being evil. Dragons, certainly with their immense power, have freewill. Yet we are okay with them being either good or evil. So it is silly, maybe even hypocritical to say, halflings can't have a natural tendency due to be evil.

It feels like things being "humanoids" makes a difference to enough people to make it a tipping point.

 

[Scott Christian]

The problem is the "Cursed by God to be Evil" is how lots of racists in history have described minority groups in real life, and it is used as justification for their murder, genocide, and enslavement.

The thing is, D&D, or any other game for that matter, doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. If a new player to the game sees things that remind them of the racism or discrimination they experience in real life, they shouldn't have to try and figure out whether it is just clueless nerds not thinking about the larger implications, or cryptoracist dog whistles. Lets not pretend that there aren't lot of really racists people out there who try to sneak racist content into the wider media. Look at the whole NUTSR and their racist Star-Frontiers game, or there is the infamous KKK magic card.

I won't look at NUTSR because I don't support people who are racist. They don't need a click from me. And, of course there are artists that sneak their crap in. We should not support them. But cursed by evil god is not a trope that equates to racism. Just like cursed by a witch is not a trope people connect to misandry.

 

[Scott Christian]

It feels like things being "humanoids" makes a difference to enough people to make it a tipping point.

How is a hill giant or frost giant not a humanoid? They are literally humans, but bigger. Just like sprites, which are good, are humanoid, but smaller.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I can see a problem with real world religions doing that. But again, that is not the debate. Same with someone's setting being racist. That is a problem. But you are taking a tremendously large leap from: In this setting this one evil god cursed these halflings and now they are evil to the author's real-world implications is that all short people are evil.

The point I am making is not a Thermian Argument because I am not justifying anything harmful in a text. The language used that reflected real world racism needed to change. What I am pointing out the hypocrisy of other's logic. Mind flayers have free will, no? Yet, we're okay with them being evil. Frost giants have free will and a culture to boot. Yet we are okay with them being evil. Dragons, certainly with their immense power, have freewill. Yet we are okay with them being either good or evil. So it is silly, maybe even hypocritical to say, halflings can't have a natural tendency due to be evil.

From a company's point of views, their goal is to maximize profit. By removing things, they'll not lose any racist dollar (because I really doubt KKK members or Nazi supporters would stop buying D&D products because of a removal of, say, dark elves from a setting) but they are confronted with a situation where a group of people actively say they don't want to see X in their game (and they might, indeed, stop buying). Therefore, their goal becomes to remove X, even if X isn't extremely logical. What's driving the change isn't the soundness of any argument but its existence and the feeling of their customers.

I won't look at NUTSR because I don't support people who are racist. They don't need a click from me. And, of course there are artists that sneak their crap in. We should not support them. But cursed by evil god is not a trope that equates to racism. Just like cursed by a witch is not a trope people connect to misandry.

The argument is that "Real-life racists used "they are cursed by an evil god to be evil like him and serve his evil ways" to explain why they could enslave and murder a minority, so this argument can't be used in fiction without replicating real life racist trope, especially as "always evil" is a justification, in game, to kill members of this race". I have never encountered this argument in real life. Honestly, I thought most racist arguments emerged in Europe and the US in the 19th century, where the concept of evil god wasn't strong (monotheism was strong). But, it doesn't matter. If people think it, they'll ask for the removal of the explanation, and it makes sense to remove them. I don't think there will be many "evil god cursing people" supporters.

Pointing out that the argument used by real-life racist was that "MY GOD has cursed THEM to be evil/soulless/generally inferior so I am justified in enslaving them and killing them" is a different argument (and even more offensive and obnoxious for reasons that this board forbids to explain) might be true, but I don't think it matters from WotC point of view to implement change based on their target audience reaction.

 

[codo]

It feels like things being "humanoids" makes a difference to enough people to make it a tipping point.

It's less being "humanoid", and more being a PC.

 

[Cadence]

How is a hill giant or frost giant not a humanoid? They are literally humans, but bigger. Just like sprites, which are good, are humanoid, but smaller.

Assuming One continues types like 5e, then giants are there own creature type (giant) and sprites are of type fey.

Sticking to humanoids ("Humanoids are the main peoples of the D&D world"), the 2014 5e MM currently leaves the language: "Almost as numerous but far more savage and brutal, and almost uniformly evil, are the races of goblinoids [...], orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds."

[Edit: Ok. The below is apparently only in the monster section, not the PC section. I retract and amend that I have no clue where they're going with it.]

But in MMotM the goblinoids have been moved to fey, gnolls are monstrosity, and kobold have been moved to dragon. I'm guessing they'll keep going that way in One.