It’s still prejudiced to say that one race is smarter than another,..
Slightly pedantic, but no, this is not correct. Saying a gnome character is smarter than a half-orc character just because one is a gnome and the other a half-orc, that's prejudiced: racial tendencies are not absolutes and don't tell us anything about individuals. Saying gnomes are smarter on average however is simply stating a fact, like saying humans are taller than dwarves - there are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking it's true.
I don’t get the difference. They’re both still prejudiced.
Stating a verified fact is not prejudice. Stating something based on a preconceived notion rather than knowing it to be true is prejudice.
Assuming some contact I spoke to on the phone is tall because it turns out he's Dutch is prejudice. Saying the Dutch are tall is not. The difference is that the latter is true and a documented fact, while the former is an assumption I made based on that fact which may or may not be true at all. On average Dutch people are tall; any individual Dutch person however can be tall, short, or anything in between. Similarly, gnomes are smarter than half-orcs: gnomes get an Int bonus, half-orcs don't, so we know this to be true. We're not basing this on rumors or even on inconclusive data, we know this because it's a fact. What we don't know, but might assume if we're prejudiced, is whether Skullsplitter the half-orc is less smart than Albert Gnomestein. Odds are that it's true, with the gnome being a clever chap and the half-orc a touch slow, but maybe Skullsplitter is a world-renowned scholar and Albert had a nasty fall when he was a kid and his brain never recovered. Or maybe Skullsplitter just happens to be a little smarter than the average half-orc and Albert is just a touch less bright than the average gnome. A prejudiced person will make the assumption the odds hold true, a non-prejudiced person will know better than to make that assumption.
But tall is different than smart.
Strong is different from smart too. Artistic, well-educated, resourceful, touched by magic, lucky, hardy - they're all different, but they're also all the same in that they are qualities some races naturally have and others don't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It’s still prejudiced to say that one race is smarter than another,..
Slightly pedantic, but no, this is not correct. Saying a gnome character is smarter than a half-orc character just because one is a gnome and the other a half-orc, that's prejudiced: racial tendencies are not absolutes and don't tell us anything about individuals. Saying gnomes are smarter on average however is simply stating a fact, like saying humans are taller than dwarves - there are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking it's true.
This is the exact can of worms there's no good reason to even have in D&D
I got burnt on this before, but what is? Races that are smarter than other races is a can of worms? OK, let's accept that for a second; then why is that a can of worms but dwarves being more artistic than humans or half-elves being better educated than gnomes or half-orcs being tougher than halflings are not? Intelligence is a hot button but artistry and education aren't?
It’s still prejudiced to say that one race is smarter than another,..
Slightly pedantic, but no, this is not correct. Saying a gnome character is smarter than a half-orc character just because one is a gnome and the other a half-orc, that's prejudiced: racial tendencies are not absolutes and don't tell us anything about individuals. Saying gnomes are smarter on average however is simply stating a fact, like saying humans are taller than dwarves - there are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking it's true.
This is the exact can of worms there's no good reason to even have in D&D
I got burnt on this before, but what is? Races that are smarter than other races is a can of worms? OK, let's accept that for a second; then why is that a can of worms but dwarves being more artistic than humans or half-elves being better educated than gnomes or half-orcs being tougher than halflings are not? Intelligence is a hot button but artistry and education aren't?
One is cultural the other biological. It's easier to criticise the biological and ignore the inherent problems with the cultural part.
This whole racial ASI discussion has nothing to do with the latest errata and is very off topic for this thread. There have been tons of other threads discussing floating vs non floating ASIs
That depends. Alignments in monster races got removed because of the essentialism issue. If non-floating stat bonuses are also considered essentialism, it's not that far off-topic. I don't think they are, I think there's a huge difference between being born with certain talents others don't have because of your species (I'm using that word deliberately here, because it's a better fit than race) and being born with a certain type of character that you can't overcome because of your species, but there are apparently plenty others who disagree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It’s still prejudiced to say that one race is smarter than another,..
Slightly pedantic, but no, this is not correct. Saying a gnome character is smarter than a half-orc character just because one is a gnome and the other a half-orc, that's prejudiced: racial tendencies are not absolutes and don't tell us anything about individuals. Saying gnomes are smarter on average however is simply stating a fact, like saying humans are taller than dwarves - there are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking it's true.
This is the exact can of worms there's no good reason to even have in D&D
I got burnt on this before, but what is? Races that are smarter than other races is a can of worms? OK, let's accept that for a second; then why is that a can of worms but dwarves being more artistic than humans or half-elves being better educated than gnomes or half-orcs being tougher than halflings are not? Intelligence is a hot button but artistry and education aren't?
One is cultural the other biological. It's easier to criticise the biological and ignore the inherent problems with the cultural part.
How is something you can't change and had no actual part in easy to criticize, and something that should be in your power to achieve that you don't is not? I'm 5'7" (the same height as Tom Holland, incidentally). That's perfectly average. I'd have prefered being taller - it's better to be tall for most sports, and height is linked to attractiveness - but (sorry about the pun) short of exotic and ethically questionable medical practices my height is something I can't affect. It's genetically determined, hardcoded into me when I was conceived. I'm not going to claim to have made the most of my intellectual potential or my artistic talents (such as they are) either, but while those talents certainly also vary from one person to the next whether and how much you develop them definitely is a choice. I can take credit for what I did with my education (and beat myself up for not doing more at the same time). I can be commended for my efforts of chided for my lack thereof, depending on where you're standing. I can't really take credit for my height (and wouldn't be able to if I was 6"4' either, though I might possibly be making a whole lot more money as an athlete than working middle management), it just is what it is. I can also point out that the "all Asians are smart and good at math" stereotype is effectively a prejudice, and even if it's a 'positive' one it's harmful.
And then of course there are the many other racial qualities that are in fact biological or at least not cultural - why is being strong problematic, but having wings or being able to see in the dark or having claws or being resistant to certain elements or magical influence or being amphibious or having innate magic isn't?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It’s still prejudiced to say that one race is smarter than another,..
Slightly pedantic, but no, this is not correct. Saying a gnome character is smarter than a half-orc character just because one is a gnome and the other a half-orc, that's prejudiced: racial tendencies are not absolutes and don't tell us anything about individuals. Saying gnomes are smarter on average however is simply stating a fact, like saying humans are taller than dwarves - there are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking it's true.
This is the exact can of worms there's no good reason to even have in D&D
I got burnt on this before, but what is? Races that are smarter than other races is a can of worms? OK, let's accept that for a second; then why is that a can of worms but dwarves being more artistic than humans or half-elves being better educated than gnomes or half-orcs being tougher than halflings are not? Intelligence is a hot button but artistry and education aren't?
One is cultural the other biological. It's easier to criticise the biological and ignore the inherent problems with the cultural part.
How is something you can't change and had no actual part in easy to criticize, and something that should be in your power to achieve that you don't is not? I'm 5'7" (the same height as Tom Holland, incidentally). That's perfectly average. I'd have prefered being taller - it's better to be tall for most sports, and height is linked to attractiveness - but (sorry about the pun) short of exotic and ethically questionable medical practices my height is something I can't affect. It's genetically determined, hardcoded into me when I was conceived. I'm not going to claim to have made the most of my intellectual potential or my artistic talents (such as they are) either, but while those talents certainly also vary from one person to the next whether and how much you develop them definitely is a choice. I can take credit for what I did with my education (and beat myself up for not doing more at the same time). I can be commended for my efforts of chided for my lack thereof, depending on where you're standing. I can't really take credit for my height (and wouldn't be able to if I was 6"4' either, though I might possibly be making a whole lot more money as an athlete than working middle management), it just is what it is. I can also point out that the "all Asians are smart and good at math" stereotype is effectively a prejudice, and even if it's a 'positive' one it's harmful.
And then of course there are the many other racial qualities that are in fact biological or at least not cultural - why is being strong problematic, but having wings or being able to see in the dark or having claws or being resistant to certain elements or magical influence or being amphibious or having innate magic isn't?
I don't have that much energy to go into this again, but here goes. Yes, the "all Asians are smart and good at maths" is a bad stereotype. Same with how the Dutch laugh with Belgians as we were the stupidest creatures on the planet. This leads to the next thing, as most of the non-beautiful or at least non classically attractive races are also portrayed as dumb and that they have an inferior culture where brawns are more admired than brains. This is the problem, in short, with cultural determinism as shown in RPG's. Strong Orcs but tribal, Intelligent Elves and an "advanced" society.
It’s still prejudiced to say that one race is smarter than another,..
Slightly pedantic, but no, this is not correct. Saying a gnome character is smarter than a half-orc character just because one is a gnome and the other a half-orc, that's prejudiced: racial tendencies are not absolutes and don't tell us anything about individuals. Saying gnomes are smarter on average however is simply stating a fact, like saying humans are taller than dwarves - there are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking it's true.
This is the exact can of worms there's no good reason to even have in D&D
I got burnt on this before, but what is? Races that are smarter than other races is a can of worms? OK, let's accept that for a second; then why is that a can of worms but dwarves being more artistic than humans or half-elves being better educated than gnomes or half-orcs being tougher than halflings are not? Intelligence is a hot button but artistry and education aren't?
One is cultural the other biological. It's easier to criticise the biological and ignore the inherent problems with the cultural part.
How is something you can't change and had no actual part in easy to criticize, and something that should be in your power to achieve that you don't is not? I'm 5'7" (the same height as Tom Holland, incidentally). That's perfectly average. I'd have prefered being taller - it's better to be tall for most sports, and height is linked to attractiveness - but (sorry about the pun) short of exotic and ethically questionable medical practices my height is something I can't affect. It's genetically determined, hardcoded into me when I was conceived. I'm not going to claim to have made the most of my intellectual potential or my artistic talents (such as they are) either, but while those talents certainly also vary from one person to the next whether and how much you develop them definitely is a choice. I can take credit for what I did with my education (and beat myself up for not doing more at the same time). I can be commended for my efforts of chided for my lack thereof, depending on where you're standing. I can't really take credit for my height (and wouldn't be able to if I was 6"4' either, though I might possibly be making a whole lot more money as an athlete than working middle management), it just is what it is. I can also point out that the "all Asians are smart and good at math" stereotype is effectively a prejudice, and even if it's a 'positive' one it's harmful.
And then of course there are the many other racial qualities that are in fact biological or at least not cultural - why is being strong problematic, but having wings or being able to see in the dark or having claws or being resistant to certain elements or magical influence or being amphibious or having innate magic isn't?
I don't have that much energy to go into this again, but here goes. Yes, the "all Asians are smart and good at maths" is a bad stereotype. Same with how the Dutch laugh with Belgians as we were the stupidest creatures on the planet. This leads to the next thing, as most of the non-beautiful or at least non classically attractive races are also portrayed as dumb and that they have an inferior culture where brawns are more admired than brains. This is the problem, in short, with cultural determinism as shown in RPG's. Strong Orcs but tribal, Intelligent Elves and an "advanced" society.
Which then means dwarves being more artistic and half-elves being better educated and orcs having intuitive knowledge of some subjects and kalashtar having stronger will and warforged's specialized design and humans being linguists are also problematic. There's no meaningful difference between an Int mod and having had more learning if both are racially determined.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It’s still prejudiced to say that one race is smarter than another,..
Slightly pedantic, but no, this is not correct. Saying a gnome character is smarter than a half-orc character just because one is a gnome and the other a half-orc, that's prejudiced: racial tendencies are not absolutes and don't tell us anything about individuals. Saying gnomes are smarter on average however is simply stating a fact, like saying humans are taller than dwarves - there are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking it's true.
This is the exact can of worms there's no good reason to even have in D&D
I got burnt on this before, but what is? Races that are smarter than other races is a can of worms? OK, let's accept that for a second; then why is that a can of worms but dwarves being more artistic than humans or half-elves being better educated than gnomes or half-orcs being tougher than halflings are not? Intelligence is a hot button but artistry and education aren't?
One is cultural the other biological. It's easier to criticise the biological and ignore the inherent problems with the cultural part.
How is something you can't change and had no actual part in easy to criticize, and something that should be in your power to achieve that you don't is not? I'm 5'7" (the same height as Tom Holland, incidentally). That's perfectly average. I'd have prefered being taller - it's better to be tall for most sports, and height is linked to attractiveness - but (sorry about the pun) short of exotic and ethically questionable medical practices my height is something I can't affect. It's genetically determined, hardcoded into me when I was conceived. I'm not going to claim to have made the most of my intellectual potential or my artistic talents (such as they are) either, but while those talents certainly also vary from one person to the next whether and how much you develop them definitely is a choice. I can take credit for what I did with my education (and beat myself up for not doing more at the same time). I can be commended for my efforts of chided for my lack thereof, depending on where you're standing. I can't really take credit for my height (and wouldn't be able to if I was 6"4' either, though I might possibly be making a whole lot more money as an athlete than working middle management), it just is what it is. I can also point out that the "all Asians are smart and good at math" stereotype is effectively a prejudice, and even if it's a 'positive' one it's harmful.
And then of course there are the many other racial qualities that are in fact biological or at least not cultural - why is being strong problematic, but having wings or being able to see in the dark or having claws or being resistant to certain elements or magical influence or being amphibious or having innate magic isn't?
I don't have that much energy to go into this again, but here goes. Yes, the "all Asians are smart and good at maths" is a bad stereotype. Same with how the Dutch laugh with Belgians as we were the stupidest creatures on the planet. This leads to the next thing, as most of the non-beautiful or at least non classically attractive races are also portrayed as dumb and that they have an inferior culture where brawns are more admired than brains. This is the problem, in short, with cultural determinism as shown in RPG's. Strong Orcs but tribal, Intelligent Elves and an "advanced" society.
Which then means dwarves being more artistic and half-elves being better educated and orcs having intuitive knowledge of some subjects and kalashtar having stronger will and warforged's specialized design and humans being linguists are also problematic. There's no meaningful difference between an Int mod and having had more learning if both are racially determined.
It’s still prejudiced to say that one race is smarter than another,..
Slightly pedantic, but no, this is not correct. Saying a gnome character is smarter than a half-orc character just because one is a gnome and the other a half-orc, that's prejudiced: racial tendencies are not absolutes and don't tell us anything about individuals. Saying gnomes are smarter on average however is simply stating a fact, like saying humans are taller than dwarves - there are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking it's true.
This is the exact can of worms there's no good reason to even have in D&D
I got burnt on this before, but what is? Races that are smarter than other races is a can of worms? OK, let's accept that for a second; then why is that a can of worms but dwarves being more artistic than humans or half-elves being better educated than gnomes or half-orcs being tougher than halflings are not? Intelligence is a hot button but artistry and education aren't?
One is cultural the other biological. It's easier to criticise the biological and ignore the inherent problems with the cultural part.
How is something you can't change and had no actual part in easy to criticize, and something that should be in your power to achieve that you don't is not? I'm 5'7" (the same height as Tom Holland, incidentally). That's perfectly average. I'd have prefered being taller - it's better to be tall for most sports, and height is linked to attractiveness - but (sorry about the pun) short of exotic and ethically questionable medical practices my height is something I can't affect. It's genetically determined, hardcoded into me when I was conceived. I'm not going to claim to have made the most of my intellectual potential or my artistic talents (such as they are) either, but while those talents certainly also vary from one person to the next whether and how much you develop them definitely is a choice. I can take credit for what I did with my education (and beat myself up for not doing more at the same time). I can be commended for my efforts of chided for my lack thereof, depending on where you're standing. I can't really take credit for my height (and wouldn't be able to if I was 6"4' either, though I might possibly be making a whole lot more money as an athlete than working middle management), it just is what it is. I can also point out that the "all Asians are smart and good at math" stereotype is effectively a prejudice, and even if it's a 'positive' one it's harmful.
And then of course there are the many other racial qualities that are in fact biological or at least not cultural - why is being strong problematic, but having wings or being able to see in the dark or having claws or being resistant to certain elements or magical influence or being amphibious or having innate magic isn't?
I don't have that much energy to go into this again, but here goes. Yes, the "all Asians are smart and good at maths" is a bad stereotype. Same with how the Dutch laugh with Belgians as we were the stupidest creatures on the planet. This leads to the next thing, as most of the non-beautiful or at least non classically attractive races are also portrayed as dumb and that they have an inferior culture where brawns are more admired than brains. This is the problem, in short, with cultural determinism as shown in RPG's. Strong Orcs but tribal, Intelligent Elves and an "advanced" society.
Which then means dwarves being more artistic and half-elves being better educated and orcs having intuitive knowledge of some subjects and kalashtar having stronger will and warforged's specialized design and humans being linguists are also problematic. There's no meaningful difference between an Int mod and having had more learning if both are racially determined.
Yes.
So all races should be exactly the same, is what you're saying?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This whole racial ASI discussion has nothing to do with the latest errata and is very off topic for this thread. There have been tons of other threads discussing floating vs non floating ASIs
That depends. Alignments in monster races got removed because of the essentialism issue. If non-floating stat bonuses are also considered essentialism, it's not that far off-topic. I don't think they are, I think there's a huge difference between being born with certain talents others don't have because of your species (I'm using that word deliberately here, because it's a better fit than race) and being born with a certain type of character that you can't overcome because of your species, but there are apparently plenty others who disagree.
There are already other threads that went on for 10+ pages discussing specifically ASI changes. ASI changes did not occur in the latest errata. Its not on topic. Maybe loosely related, but certainly not related to what the thread is actually trying to poll (which is our feeling on the specific changes which occurred in the latest errata, not those that came before).
I do not think you need to talk about floating ASIs to have a meaningful discussion on the latest errata given that there were about 10 pages of discussion that occurred before floating ASIs were even mentioned. At best, its a loosely related topic if you specifically want to talk about essentialism, I suppose. At worst, it is a fully distracting tangent.
When was the last time a change from the actual errata was mentioned in this thread?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
This leads to the next thing, as most of the non-beautiful or at least non classically attractive races are also portrayed as dumb and that they have an inferior culture where brawns are more admired than brains. This is the problem, in short, with cultural determinism as shown in RPG's. Strong Orcs but tribal, Intelligent Elves and an "advanced" society.
Eh? They don't have a Cha penalty too, right? Orc's don't have low CHA because they are Orcs, they have low CHA because they gravitate towads melee tanking builds which don't need CHA so it becomes a dump stat where you put your 8 or 10 because you are going to put your 15 into STR or CON and your 14 into the other one, conversly, you can put a higher score into CHA if you are going for Paladin; the 13 in point of fact.
But again, yes, Orcs are dumber than Elves and Elves are weaker than Orcs. I still don't see why this is a problem for you and others. Orcs are the anti-elves. What you expect to see in an elf, you should expect to see the opposite in an Orc. Yes, Elves favor Brains over Brawn, Yes, Orcs favor brawn over brains. Again this is by design. Orcs, are meant to be your typical Barbarian/Fighter tyes and Elves are meant to be your typival Wizard types or mixed martial arcanists. That is all good and right, correct and true; and no problem at all.
Besides which, don't elves have a subtype for tribal/Barbarians? Gurgatch was it or something like that? If you want to create or have WoTC create a sub-type for Civilized and Intelligent Orcs who favor Craftsmanship over combat proficiency, etc. Go right ahead. Afterall, there are Ogre-Mages. Why not Orc Wild-Magic Sorcerors (with a 15 in CHA and perhaps even a +2 there) or Shamans (Druids 15 in Wis): "High-Orcs" or "Liberated Orcs" - Having escaped the thrall of Gruumsh, these orcs find their physiological development to likewise have been freed from his arresting influence. (For this sub-type only) Remove the -2 INT penalty and change the +2 STR bonus to a Floating Bonus, etc. - There's nothing wrong with creating more kinds of Orc to accomodate whatever is bothering you about base varient Orcs.
There is something wrong with telling me that I've been playing/using base varient Orcs wrong for twenty years.
If you are going to take all of my monsters away and turn them all into people, what are you giving me in exchange for them to use as villains?
It’s still prejudiced to say that one race is smarter than another,..
Slightly pedantic, but no, this is not correct. Saying a gnome character is smarter than a half-orc character just because one is a gnome and the other a half-orc, that's prejudiced: racial tendencies are not absolutes and don't tell us anything about individuals. Saying gnomes are smarter on average however is simply stating a fact, like saying humans are taller than dwarves - there are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking it's true.
This is the exact can of worms there's no good reason to even have in D&D
I got burnt on this before, but what is? Races that are smarter than other races is a can of worms? OK, let's accept that for a second; then why is that a can of worms but dwarves being more artistic than humans or half-elves being better educated than gnomes or half-orcs being tougher than halflings are not? Intelligence is a hot button but artistry and education aren't?
"Racial tendencies"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Orc's don't have low CHA because they are Orcs, they have low CHA because they gravitate towads melee tanking builds which don't need CHA so it becomes a dump stat where you put your 8 or 10 because you are going to put your 15 into STR or CON and your 14 into the other one, conversly, you can put a higher score into CHA if you are going for Paladin; the 13 in point of fact.
There's no such thing as a dump stat for NPCs. Orcs as a race don't have dump stats. Orcs used to have a Cha penalty because they were orcs, not because they didn't need Cha for whatever reason a PC might not need it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It’s still prejudiced to say that one race is smarter than another,..
Slightly pedantic, but no, this is not correct. Saying a gnome character is smarter than a half-orc character just because one is a gnome and the other a half-orc, that's prejudiced: racial tendencies are not absolutes and don't tell us anything about individuals. Saying gnomes are smarter on average however is simply stating a fact, like saying humans are taller than dwarves - there are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking it's true.
This is the exact can of worms there's no good reason to even have in D&D
I got burnt on this before, but what is? Races that are smarter than other races is a can of worms? OK, let's accept that for a second; then why is that a can of worms but dwarves being more artistic than humans or half-elves being better educated than gnomes or half-orcs being tougher than halflings are not? Intelligence is a hot button but artistry and education aren't?
"Racial tendencies"
Then again we get to the issue that making one race distinct from another results in racial tendencies and the only way not to have those is to make the races largely indistinguishable. I don't think that's what we want either. Not speaking for anyone else here, but that's definitely not what I want and I'm pretty sure I'm in the majority. I'm also pretty sure that having distinct races in and of itself is not offensive. Individual people may take offense at individual distinctions, that's perfectly ok and understandable, but on the whole having distinctions shouldn't be problematic, I think. Moralistic absolutes, those are bad and the errata aim at getting rid of those, for good reason. Distinctions between races, not so much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
True, but in the fantasy world, there are monsters, and it's because you don't want to use 'people' as the villains.
You don't want to encourege your players to kill 'people'. You also don't want the game to just become an all diplomacy simulator. Combats are factor of this game. If your players are meant to be a'killin' the enemies at least some of the time, if not more often than less; you want those enemies to be things, not folks. The players shouldn't feel guilty for having to kill the encounter creature(s). They are meant to be enjoying themselves and feeling all awesome and powerful.
It can potentially ruin the fun to find out one of the Orc's you've just killed amongst the bunch was actually "Tiny Too-Smart the Shameful" patron of the local orphange and guy who feeds the homeless portions of his freshly grown vegatables.
It can potentially ruin the fun to find out one of the Orc's you've just killed amongst the bunch was actually "Tiny Too-Smart the Shameful" patron of the local orphange and guy who feeds the homeless portions of his freshly grown vegatables.
Doing away with racial moral absolutes doesn't mean your DM is now obligated to tell you that slaver you killed grew up an orphan and had to survive by making friends with some bad people and was now just trying to make ends meet for his family and especially the two newborn twins who are sickly and won't make it through the winter without food, medicine and a warm shelter. Enemies aren't "folks" unless the DM chooses to make them. Which they already could and some of them occasionally did when the group enjoyed a more ethically grey and challenging campaign. These errata change nothing in this regard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
True, but in the fantasy world, there are monsters, and it's because you don't want to use 'people' as the villains.
You don't want to encourege your players to kill 'people'. You also don't want the game to just become an all diplomacy simulator. Combats are factor of this game. If your players are meant to be a'killin' the enemies at least some of the time, if not more often than less; you want those enemies to be things, not folks. The players shouldn't feel guilty for having to kill the encounter creature(s). They are meant to be enjoying themselves and feeling all awesome and powerful.
It can potentially ruin the fun to find out one of the Orc's you've just killed amongst the bunch was actually "Tiny Too-Smart the Shameful" patron of the local orphange and guy who feeds the homeless portions of his freshly grown vegatables.
There's plenty of things that are not people and don't look like people to smash in D&D. I don't know if I have time to unpack all of what's going on here, but maaaaybe the urge to have antagonists that look like people but which one can safely categorize as not people because the Powers That Be say so is umm ... problematic?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
For me, there's a big difference between the race in general or specific PCs.
I don't mind if elven/dwarven etc societies tend to have certain tendencies. I don't mind if say, most orc enemies in the monster manual have low CHA. The only cases where I would have an issue here, is if the specifics had problematic implications, such as if say someone threw in a race that was a caricature of native american stereotypes. I'm not accusing any races of this here to be clear. If dwarves 'tend' to be sturdy and elves 'tend' to be dexterous and orcs 'tend' to be strong, I'm good with that.
But when it comes to individual characters, npcs too but especially PCs, I'm fully in favor of allowing people to subvert those cultural or biological norms. To have exceptions to those norms. I don't really want either extreme. I don't want the distinction between fantasy races to be entirely cosmetic. But I don't want them to be unyielding monoliths either, there should be people that deviate from the norm physically, ideologically, etc. Humans should not the the only race with some variety to them, the only race with counter cultures or differing views within their societies and cultures. I think it's important not to enforce typical monoloths on the races not only for PCs but also NPCs to make things more fleshed out and immersive.
True, but in the fantasy world, there are monsters, and it's because you don't want to use 'people' as the villains.
You don't want to encourege your players to kill 'people'. You also don't want the game to just become an all diplomacy simulator. Combats are factor of this game. If your players are meant to be a'killin' the enemies at least some of the time, if not more often than less; you want those enemies to be things, not folks. The players shouldn't feel guilty for having to kill the encounter creature(s). They are meant to be enjoying themselves and feeling all awesome and powerful.
It can potentially ruin the fun to find out one of the Orc's you've just killed amongst the bunch was actually "Tiny Too-Smart the Shameful" patron of the local orphange and guy who feeds the homeless portions of his freshly grown vegatables.
What was Tiny Too-Smart doing in an orcish raider gang? The people who'd hate him most would generally be other orcs, especially typical orcish raiders.
Why did the players kill an obviously atypical orc, small and weak and presumably not trying to fight back but instead cowering somewhere away from the fight, or at the very least clearly desperately afraid and trying his best to live rather than harm his enemies?
See, if your DM runs an entirely typical orc raider gang encounter and then says "Oh, you guys killed Tiny Too-Smart" without giving the players any clue beforehand that one of these orcs wasn't a typical orcish raider? If he just picks one dead orc in the bunch and then retroactively heaps a sobby backstory on that dead orc? That's what we in the business like to call a "Dick Move". It's a shameless, pointless, careless attempt to jerk on people's emotions and punish them for an action they had no way to know they weren't supposed to take, and the players are right to be upset about that. It's poor storytelling and it tarnishes the DM's game.
If the DM does make it plain that Tiny's not a typical orc - small, weak, clearly terrified and not at all eager to participate in the fight - and the players merder the shit out of Tiny anyways? First of all, that group is not likely to lose any sleep over Tiny's story anyways. Players can be terrifyingly callous, and many of them will cheerfully give zero shits about Tiny Too-Smart and his attempts to rise above his people's reputation. To quote many thousands of murderhobos across the globe: "Sucks to be him. Guess he shouldn't have been an orc." Second of all, they did that their own ass selves and if they're gonna lose sleep over it? That was the choice they made. Might it 'spoil the fun'? Certainly! But 'fun' isn't always how you have fun with a D&D game. Sometimes the games you walk away from feeling like an absolute monster, an anguished sack of misery agonizing over the choices you made, are the absolute best games that you remember forever because those are the campaign turning points and the moments of highest tension and engagement.
If the DM makes it plain that Tiny is not a typical orc and the party doesn't kill Tiny, but instead captures/spares him? Congratulations - you have discovered Plot! How did Tiny end up in that warband? What were they planning, and why would they need an outcast exile who mostly just tended his garden and helped out the local orphanage? Why did the raiders trust Tiny with weapons even though he wasn't really on their side and they presumably knew it? All very good questions that merit investigating, and which could make a few sessions of splendid play. That sort of shit is good D&D. I'd be down to figure out what the deal with Tiny Too-Smart is and what the orcs in the region are up to such that Tiny felt the need to try and do something about it himself despite his legion of inadequacies...or what they're up to such that they coerced Tiny into rejoining the band even though they all hate him and he hates them.
Plenty of cool story potential there! None of which would be possible if orcs were just A.C.E.F. cardboard cutouts with no personalities beyond mindless slobbering psycho raider!
Strong is different from smart too. Artistic, well-educated, resourceful, touched by magic, lucky, hardy - they're all different, but they're also all the same in that they are qualities some races naturally have and others don't.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I got burnt on this before, but what is? Races that are smarter than other races is a can of worms? OK, let's accept that for a second; then why is that a can of worms but dwarves being more artistic than humans or half-elves being better educated than gnomes or half-orcs being tougher than halflings are not? Intelligence is a hot button but artistry and education aren't?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
One is cultural the other biological. It's easier to criticise the biological and ignore the inherent problems with the cultural part.
That depends. Alignments in monster races got removed because of the essentialism issue. If non-floating stat bonuses are also considered essentialism, it's not that far off-topic. I don't think they are, I think there's a huge difference between being born with certain talents others don't have because of your species (I'm using that word deliberately here, because it's a better fit than race) and being born with a certain type of character that you can't overcome because of your species, but there are apparently plenty others who disagree.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
How is something you can't change and had no actual part in easy to criticize, and something that should be in your power to achieve that you don't is not? I'm 5'7" (the same height as Tom Holland, incidentally). That's perfectly average. I'd have prefered being taller - it's better to be tall for most sports, and height is linked to attractiveness - but (sorry about the pun) short of exotic and ethically questionable medical practices my height is something I can't affect. It's genetically determined, hardcoded into me when I was conceived. I'm not going to claim to have made the most of my intellectual potential or my artistic talents (such as they are) either, but while those talents certainly also vary from one person to the next whether and how much you develop them definitely is a choice. I can take credit for what I did with my education (and beat myself up for not doing more at the same time). I can be commended for my efforts of chided for my lack thereof, depending on where you're standing. I can't really take credit for my height (and wouldn't be able to if I was 6"4' either, though I might possibly be making a whole lot more money as an athlete than working middle management), it just is what it is. I can also point out that the "all Asians are smart and good at math" stereotype is effectively a prejudice, and even if it's a 'positive' one it's harmful.
And then of course there are the many other racial qualities that are in fact biological or at least not cultural - why is being strong problematic, but having wings or being able to see in the dark or having claws or being resistant to certain elements or magical influence or being amphibious or having innate magic isn't?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't have that much energy to go into this again, but here goes. Yes, the "all Asians are smart and good at maths" is a bad stereotype. Same with how the Dutch laugh with Belgians as we were the stupidest creatures on the planet. This leads to the next thing, as most of the non-beautiful or at least non classically attractive races are also portrayed as dumb and that they have an inferior culture where brawns are more admired than brains. This is the problem, in short, with cultural determinism as shown in RPG's. Strong Orcs but tribal, Intelligent Elves and an "advanced" society.
Which then means dwarves being more artistic and half-elves being better educated and orcs having intuitive knowledge of some subjects and kalashtar having stronger will and warforged's specialized design and humans being linguists are also problematic. There's no meaningful difference between an Int mod and having had more learning if both are racially determined.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yes.
So all races should be exactly the same, is what you're saying?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There are already other threads that went on for 10+ pages discussing specifically ASI changes. ASI changes did not occur in the latest errata. Its not on topic. Maybe loosely related, but certainly not related to what the thread is actually trying to poll (which is our feeling on the specific changes which occurred in the latest errata, not those that came before).
I do not think you need to talk about floating ASIs to have a meaningful discussion on the latest errata given that there were about 10 pages of discussion that occurred before floating ASIs were even mentioned. At best, its a loosely related topic if you specifically want to talk about essentialism, I suppose. At worst, it is a fully distracting tangent.
When was the last time a change from the actual errata was mentioned in this thread?
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Eh? They don't have a Cha penalty too, right? Orc's don't have low CHA because they are Orcs, they have low CHA because they gravitate towads melee tanking builds which don't need CHA so it becomes a dump stat where you put your 8 or 10 because you are going to put your 15 into STR or CON and your 14 into the other one, conversly, you can put a higher score into CHA if you are going for Paladin; the 13 in point of fact.
But again, yes, Orcs are dumber than Elves and Elves are weaker than Orcs. I still don't see why this is a problem for you and others. Orcs are the anti-elves. What you expect to see in an elf, you should expect to see the opposite in an Orc. Yes, Elves favor Brains over Brawn, Yes, Orcs favor brawn over brains. Again this is by design. Orcs, are meant to be your typical Barbarian/Fighter tyes and Elves are meant to be your typival Wizard types or mixed martial arcanists. That is all good and right, correct and true; and no problem at all.
Besides which, don't elves have a subtype for tribal/Barbarians? Gurgatch was it or something like that? If you want to create or have WoTC create a sub-type for Civilized and Intelligent Orcs who favor Craftsmanship over combat proficiency, etc. Go right ahead. Afterall, there are Ogre-Mages. Why not Orc Wild-Magic Sorcerors (with a 15 in CHA and perhaps even a +2 there) or Shamans (Druids 15 in Wis): "High-Orcs" or "Liberated Orcs" - Having escaped the thrall of Gruumsh, these orcs find their physiological development to likewise have been freed from his arresting influence. (For this sub-type only) Remove the -2 INT penalty and change the +2 STR bonus to a Floating Bonus, etc. - There's nothing wrong with creating more kinds of Orc to accomodate whatever is bothering you about base varient Orcs.
There is something wrong with telling me that I've been playing/using base varient Orcs wrong for twenty years.
If you are going to take all of my monsters away and turn them all into people, what are you giving me in exchange for them to use as villains?
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
"Racial tendencies"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There are no "monsters" in the real world, but we have no shortage of villains.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
There's no such thing as a dump stat for NPCs. Orcs as a race don't have dump stats. Orcs used to have a Cha penalty because they were orcs, not because they didn't need Cha for whatever reason a PC might not need it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Then again we get to the issue that making one race distinct from another results in racial tendencies and the only way not to have those is to make the races largely indistinguishable. I don't think that's what we want either. Not speaking for anyone else here, but that's definitely not what I want and I'm pretty sure I'm in the majority. I'm also pretty sure that having distinct races in and of itself is not offensive. Individual people may take offense at individual distinctions, that's perfectly ok and understandable, but on the whole having distinctions shouldn't be problematic, I think. Moralistic absolutes, those are bad and the errata aim at getting rid of those, for good reason. Distinctions between races, not so much.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
True, but in the fantasy world, there are monsters, and it's because you don't want to use 'people' as the villains.
You don't want to encourege your players to kill 'people'. You also don't want the game to just become an all diplomacy simulator. Combats are factor of this game. If your players are meant to be a'killin' the enemies at least some of the time, if not more often than less; you want those enemies to be things, not folks. The players shouldn't feel guilty for having to kill the encounter creature(s). They are meant to be enjoying themselves and feeling all awesome and powerful.
It can potentially ruin the fun to find out one of the Orc's you've just killed amongst the bunch was actually "Tiny Too-Smart the Shameful" patron of the local orphange and guy who feeds the homeless portions of his freshly grown vegatables.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Doing away with racial moral absolutes doesn't mean your DM is now obligated to tell you that slaver you killed grew up an orphan and had to survive by making friends with some bad people and was now just trying to make ends meet for his family and especially the two newborn twins who are sickly and won't make it through the winter without food, medicine and a warm shelter. Enemies aren't "folks" unless the DM chooses to make them. Which they already could and some of them occasionally did when the group enjoyed a more ethically grey and challenging campaign. These errata change nothing in this regard.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There's plenty of things that are not people and don't look like people to smash in D&D. I don't know if I have time to unpack all of what's going on here, but maaaaybe the urge to have antagonists that look like people but which one can safely categorize as not people because the Powers That Be say so is umm ... problematic?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
For me, there's a big difference between the race in general or specific PCs.
I don't mind if elven/dwarven etc societies tend to have certain tendencies. I don't mind if say, most orc enemies in the monster manual have low CHA. The only cases where I would have an issue here, is if the specifics had problematic implications, such as if say someone threw in a race that was a caricature of native american stereotypes. I'm not accusing any races of this here to be clear. If dwarves 'tend' to be sturdy and elves 'tend' to be dexterous and orcs 'tend' to be strong, I'm good with that.
But when it comes to individual characters, npcs too but especially PCs, I'm fully in favor of allowing people to subvert those cultural or biological norms. To have exceptions to those norms. I don't really want either extreme. I don't want the distinction between fantasy races to be entirely cosmetic. But I don't want them to be unyielding monoliths either, there should be people that deviate from the norm physically, ideologically, etc. Humans should not the the only race with some variety to them, the only race with counter cultures or differing views within their societies and cultures. I think it's important not to enforce typical monoloths on the races not only for PCs but also NPCs to make things more fleshed out and immersive.
What was Tiny Too-Smart doing in an orcish raider gang? The people who'd hate him most would generally be other orcs, especially typical orcish raiders.
Why did the players kill an obviously atypical orc, small and weak and presumably not trying to fight back but instead cowering somewhere away from the fight, or at the very least clearly desperately afraid and trying his best to live rather than harm his enemies?
See, if your DM runs an entirely typical orc raider gang encounter and then says "Oh, you guys killed Tiny Too-Smart" without giving the players any clue beforehand that one of these orcs wasn't a typical orcish raider? If he just picks one dead orc in the bunch and then retroactively heaps a sobby backstory on that dead orc? That's what we in the business like to call a "Dick Move". It's a shameless, pointless, careless attempt to jerk on people's emotions and punish them for an action they had no way to know they weren't supposed to take, and the players are right to be upset about that. It's poor storytelling and it tarnishes the DM's game.
If the DM does make it plain that Tiny's not a typical orc - small, weak, clearly terrified and not at all eager to participate in the fight - and the players merder the shit out of Tiny anyways? First of all, that group is not likely to lose any sleep over Tiny's story anyways. Players can be terrifyingly callous, and many of them will cheerfully give zero shits about Tiny Too-Smart and his attempts to rise above his people's reputation. To quote many thousands of murderhobos across the globe: "Sucks to be him. Guess he shouldn't have been an orc." Second of all, they did that their own ass selves and if they're gonna lose sleep over it? That was the choice they made. Might it 'spoil the fun'? Certainly! But 'fun' isn't always how you have fun with a D&D game. Sometimes the games you walk away from feeling like an absolute monster, an anguished sack of misery agonizing over the choices you made, are the absolute best games that you remember forever because those are the campaign turning points and the moments of highest tension and engagement.
If the DM makes it plain that Tiny is not a typical orc and the party doesn't kill Tiny, but instead captures/spares him? Congratulations - you have discovered Plot! How did Tiny end up in that warband? What were they planning, and why would they need an outcast exile who mostly just tended his garden and helped out the local orphanage? Why did the raiders trust Tiny with weapons even though he wasn't really on their side and they presumably knew it? All very good questions that merit investigating, and which could make a few sessions of splendid play. That sort of shit is good D&D. I'd be down to figure out what the deal with Tiny Too-Smart is and what the orcs in the region are up to such that Tiny felt the need to try and do something about it himself despite his legion of inadequacies...or what they're up to such that they coerced Tiny into rejoining the band even though they all hate him and he hates them.
Plenty of cool story potential there! None of which would be possible if orcs were just A.C.E.F. cardboard cutouts with no personalities beyond mindless slobbering psycho raider!
Please do not contact or message me.