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

[Incenjucar]

For D&D to "work" it is best just accept that it is a brutal sword and sorcery world without well functioning enlightened judicial system, so somewhat decent people might actually choose to commit vigilante violence.

That's going to vary heavily by campaign and location in the campaign. Original flavor Tyr? Probably. Waterdeep? Might be able to turn them in instead.

 

[Bedrockgames]

These changes don’t stifle art in general or this hobby specifically. At all. They just leave it up to individual tables, while removing unnecessary and insensitive language from official descriptions.

I wasn't talking about the changes (see my point about WOTC having to consider its brand audience). I was talking about the judgement of the poster. The 'you just like racist tropes' response. When I think it is a lot more fair to say they disagree over whether the trope is problematic.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

For D&D to "work" it is best just accept that it is a brutal sword and sorcery world without well functioning enlightened judicial system, so somewhat decent people might actually choose to commit vigilante violence.

Indeed, it also a possibility, but it leads to embracing evil. Knowingly, as it is "choosing" to do that or, rather, being put into the position of having that as the only possible choice... unless they rebel against the "evil" unenlightened society they come from. This is also a strong departure from standard D&D adventures. Not 1980's but even 2020's ones. The alternative is to have a group argument not to mind and have a lighter game.

That's going to vary heavily by campaign and location in the campaign. Original flavor Tyr? Probably. Waterdeep? Might be able to turn them in instead.

Indeed. Or the various Galifar nations.

Yet we continue to see encounters in published adventure where lethal force is the expected outcome.

They even ended their spelljammer adventure with a worse situation. Spoiler in case you intend to play it:

Spoiler

A schlorp had their sun fading, so they "fueled" it with the lifeforce of other worlds, including the PCs'. At the end of the adventure, the players are expected to destroy the life-sucking device, nova'ing the schlorp's sun. Which is explained as destroying entirely the schlorp's homeworld. It is more palatable if that schlorp was "always, irredeemably evil", not "people desperate for survival who put their own survival by condemning others". If they are not always evil, then the expected outcome of the adventure is player comitting genocide on a Alderande scale, and the PC not being better than the ones who designed the life-sucking device in the first place. This is made even worse because not blowing the device means destruction of the PC's homeworld, and the adventure suggesting the PC could next race to save a few people from their world with their spelljamming ship.

@codo: how would your group deal with this kind of proposed ending in a recent published adventure?

 

[Scott Christian]

Just tropes that are racist.

Except it is.

The whole point of calling a whole people racist in or out of stories is to make it morally acceptable within the framework of that 'evil' to do whatever you want to the people you've categorized as evil.

Now I get that you might like that trope and it might be a hard pill to swallow that something you like is, unbeknownest to you, racist, because you obviously are not racist, but by ignoring everyone pointing out the problem and rushing in to defend it, you are contributing to the problem.

Just examine the trope and its usage. Why would a writer create a group that is then labeled to be evil regardless of the excuse)? It's either to be fodder the audience isn't bothered by the hero harming, or to redeem them by having them turn against who they are and how they were born. Neither is a good look because it's not an okay thing to glorify anymore.

I'm sorry if you were a big fan of using it, but history marches on.

For the record, in my setting, the gods don't appear, don't grant powers, and are more akin to ideologies. They certainly can't cause a species to be evil. So, just to be clear, I don't use that trope at all at my gaming table. But I have as a player been at tables whose mythos had that. No one seemed to mind.

And regarding the bold: Who decided it isn't a good look anymore? Hollywood? Nope. They seem to do it in almost every fantasy/sci-fi/superhero movie there is. Novelists? Nope. They do it as much as Hollywood. Game designers like D&D? Nope, they still do it all the time too. They're just pickier about who they do it too. But go ahead and kill all those frost giants that are evil - even though they are sentient beings with freewill that have a culture. But make a goliath evil and they are using racist tropes?

My claim is simple, it's hypocritical. And as a side note, throw out the god debate then. Use plane-touched. Use a curse from a witch. Use a virus that was implanted in the species and passed down through DNA. None of those things are attached to a racist trope. Can those be used?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Indeed, it also a possibility, but it leads to embracing evil. Knowingly, as it is "choosing" to do that or, rather, being put into the position of having that as the only possible choice... unless they rebel against the "evil" unenlightened society they come from. This is also a strong departure from standard D&D adventures. Not 1980's but even 2020's ones.

I think there are different modes of engaging morality in media and in games. In some you are essentially not able to separate your own from the conceits of the setting (i.e. its too realistic and to embrace some simple moral premise in the game that in reality probably plays out terribly, feels wrong). When I am watching dramas, playing very character driven campaigns, I tend to be more in this zone. But when I am 'action movie mode', I think it is a different story. I enjoy the movie commando. I don't enjoy real gun violence and am a bit of a pacifist in reality. If you break down the morality of the individual kills, the film is overly simplistic, using the thread of his daughter being kidnapped to justify all kinds of mindless violence. But that is also what an action movie needs to work (unless they have a particularly clever action movie or an especially redeemable groups of bad guys). I think some campaigns of D&D are just in action movie mode.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Indeed, it also a possibility, but it leads to embracing evil. Knowingly, as it is "choosing" to do that or, rather, being put into the position of having that as the only possible choice... unless they rebel against the "evil" unenlightened society they come from. This is also a strong departure from standard D&D adventures. Not 1980's but even 2020's ones.


Indeed. Or the various Galifar nations.

Yet we continue to see encounters in published adventure where lethal force is the expected outcome.

They even ended their spelljammer adventure with a worse situation. Spoiler in case you intend to play it:

Spoiler

A race had their sun fading, so they "fueled" it with the lifeforce of other worlds, including the PCs'. At the end of the adventure, the players are expected to destroy the life-sucking device, killing the race's sun. Which is explained as destroying all the race's homeworld. It is more palatable if that race was "always evil", not "people desperate for survival". If they are not always evil, then the expected outcome is genocide. This is made even worse because not blowing the device means destruction of the PC's homeworld.

I'd argue that this tension is caused by the game originally being more sword and sorcery and having mechanics to support that. Narratives of the game have moved on from that but the gameplay really hasn't, causing dissonance.

And if a lot of the game is about combat and killing, then I think it is more honest to just accept that the world is not enlightened and the characters are not morally perfect. You may call it "embracing evil", I'd just call it roleplaying an era without all our modern morals and the privilege that lets us afford them. To me that is far less jarring than continuing the bloodbath but concocting spurious reasons why this actually is totally morally enlightened thing to do.

 

[Incenjucar]

Players have been sparing and befriending their attackers in D&D for decades. There's nothing stopping that from continuing. It's been how a lot of encounters have gone in the games I've been part of since I started playing in '92. I even had a short campaign end when the players started a business with the components of the final boss after defeating them.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I think there are different modes of engaging morality in media and in games. In some you are essentially not able to separate your own from the conceits of the setting (i.e. its too realistic and to embrace some simple moral premise in the game that in reality probably plays out terribly, feels wrong). When I am watching dramas, playing very character driven campaigns, I tend to be more in this zone. But when I am 'action movie mode', I think it is a different story. I enjoy the movie commando. I don't enjoy real gun violence and am a bit of a pacifist in reality. If you break down the morality of the individual kills, the film is overly simplistic, using the thread of his daughter being kidnapped to justify all kinds of mindless violence. But that is also what an action movie needs to work (unless they have a particularly clever action movie or an especially redeemable groups of bad guys). I think some campaigns of D&D are just in action movie mode.

Sure, I am right with you. SOMETIMES you want to let the steam off and be in "action movie mode". Which is easier with clear-cut adversary you don't have to mind about. Which doesn't preclude alternating with more serious stories. But, I was told that even calling for some of this fun of having an option of "not sparing" their enemies was speaking from a position of priviledge, so I'd really like to know how one can deal with the ending of Spelljammer ethically, without explicit or implicit "always evil" opponents.

I'd also say that the level of expectations of having D&D totally devoid of this "clear cut" situation is far above that the public expectation on films and novels is, given the success of superhero movies or action movies.

Players have been sparing and befriending their attackers in D&D for decades. There's nothing stopping that from continuing. It's been how a lot of encounters have gone in the games I've been part of since I started playing in '92. I even had a short campaign end when the players started a business with the components of the final boss after defeating them.

Sure, it's the opposite that can't continue (ie, not sparing their adversary and killing them because it is more convenient to do so and they are evil anyway).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And I definitely have nothing against PCs sparing or even befriending the enemies. But that is not the default expectation in D&D and I doubt it will become one.

And that Spelljammer ending is just bad. There really isn't a correct answer. I'm fine with occasional vigilante manslaughter in my D&D, but vigilante genocide is couple of steps too far!

 

[Bill Zebub]

I wasn't talking about the changes (see my point about WOTC having to consider its brand audience). I was talking about the judgement of the poster. The 'you just like racist tropes' response. When I think it is a lot more fair to say they disagree over whether the trope is problematic.

“Racist” does not require malice or intent. Something is racist if it reinforces false stereotypes.

Unfortunately the word itself has taken on a newer meaning, and there seems to be a desire to identify and shame individuals for being “racis”t, rather than identifying and alleviating the more subtle latent racism woven into society.