species are any creature capable of interbreeding, and having viable offspring which in turn are also capable of breeding. Since every race in D&D is technically able to do this, all player races are by scientific definition the same species.
That's not accurate. For example, Neanderthals are not the same species as us, yet we have Neanderthal DNA in us (well, most of us do) because they interbred with our ancestors, despite being different species. Ligers, the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger, are also fertile. There are other examples of fertile offspring from cross species procreation, but that's enough to show the definition is incorrect. It's a simplification made by teachers to get the idea across, but biology isn't that straightforward and clean edged at all. Usually, there is an additional caveat that the two organisms also have to have similar charscteristics, hence a lion, while capable of interbreeding with a tiger and producing a fertile offspring, is not the same species as a tiger. Homo Sapiens is not the same species as Homo Neandarthalensis either, despite being interfertile. In that same vein, a Dragonborn is not the same species as a Halfling. Or indeed, a dragon and a human.
Not that I think D&D is overly concerned with genetics and so forth.
Regardless, this is off-topic and we should let it return to
That's wild, I literally gave the same examples before I even read your post. Yeah, there is definitely some subjectivity. I think normally if two species have enough differences and live separately, they're generally considered separate species. But then by any measure, if they are genetically incompatible for reproduction they're not the same species.
It is a bit off topic. But from now on if racism ever comes up in games, I'm going to start referring to it as speciesism. Because why not :)
species are any creature capable of interbreeding, and having viable offspring which in turn are also capable of breeding. Since every race in D&D is technically able to do this, all player races are by scientific definition the same species.
That's not accurate. For example, Neanderthals are not the same species as us, yet we have Neanderthal DNA in us (well, most of us do) because they interbred with our ancestors, despite being different species. Ligers, the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger, are also fertile. There are other examples of fertile offspring from cross species procreation, but that's enough to show the definition is incorrect. It's a simplification made by teachers to get the idea across, but biology isn't that straightforward and clean edged at all. Usually, there is an additional caveat that the two organisms also have to have similar charscteristics, hence a lion, while capable of interbreeding with a tiger and producing a fertile offspring, is not the same species as a tiger. Homo Sapiens is not the same species as Homo Neandarthalensis either, despite being interfertile. In that same vein, a Dragonborn is not the same species as a Halfling. Or indeed, a dragon and a human.
Not that I think D&D is overly concerned with genetics and so forth.
Regardless, this is off-topic and we should let it return to
This is the difference between biology and paleontology. Under the rules of Biology, Neanderthal were Humans, under the rules of Paleontology they were a subspecies of Humans.
The rule set I gave is only for living breathing animals, ie humans. The difference between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane is what we have in D&D, they look different, even come in vastly different sizes, but in the end they are all the same species.
Meanwhile, looking at 10 million year old bones of the same two dogs, nope different species descended from a common ancestor.
The problem is that while DND is not our world, we can't help but relate that fantasy world in terms of our own knowledge and experiences. The truth is all our experiences don't translate except on very broad terms. Humans are humans there. Racial differences and prejudices in the DND world are literally race related. Slavery in and of itself is not racism. Although just like here, racism is likely often used to justify it.
An interesting side note that has always stuck out with me, what the D&D world refers to as "races" are actually different species. Inter-world racism can certainly be a thing, like if some Wood Elves did not like Drow Elves, but then you can also have speciesism.
I have to say it this way, but actually:
species are any creature capable of interbreeding, and having viable offspring which in turn are also capable of breeding. Since every race in D&D is technically able to do this, all player races are by scientific definition the same species.
Race as defined: any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry
Since Humans are included in player races, and because every race can mate have children and whose children can mate and have children, by the basics of definition Race is the correct term. Even more so in One D&D, as back long ago in other editions some of the races could not intermix, ie Lizard Folk & Gnomes
Speciation is a bit more gray than that. It also includes species that don't normally interbreed, even if they're genetically similar enough to have viable offspring. An example of this would be lions and tigers. They're considered separate species, but ligers are actually a thing. And it can be even more gray than that. Humans and Neanderthals are considered separate species of hominids, yet we know from DNA evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred and produced offspring.
Also, as far as I know D&D lore only has humans intermixing with certain races, like half elves or half orcs. I'm unaware of races like halfling-orcs or dwarf-leonin, etc.
Actually I used what Modern Biologists use, and made sure to qualify it specifically that the offspring could have more offspring. Which your examples can not, Lions and tigers are related subspecies, and may at on time been a part of a ring species. Which is why you can mix them and get a sterile offspring. Same with Donkey and Horse pairings.
In the past lore, which I commented on, they had a lot of restrictions between pairings, and even had good reasonings behind each restriction, One D&D specifically in the You Tube intro interview they called out one such race that couldn't mix ever. Gnomes. Who had more in common with a Dimond than a Human genetically speaking, as being something you could be a half something of. The only races which could break the traditional can interbreed rule, were ones who's breeding was empowered either by a god or devil. Orc & Tiefling, or by body snatching Illithid. Of corse, because of the Orc god hating the Elf God, Orcs couldn't breed with Elves their one and only restriction. Rescinded on Youtube with One D&D as that was a paring the also mentioned.
Setting aside that the Hadozee had problematic narratives, visuals, and similarities to stereotypes.. speaking generally do you guys think it's okay to have a D&D race with things like enslavement in their history? Personally I like heavy story lines in my games. As an example, part of my last DM session involved a story arch where they had to uproot an organized crime ring that was involved in human trafficking, to include sex trafficking. I talked to my players first to make sure that type of content was okay with them, because you don't know everyone's past.
I like battling evil that has parallels in the real world so the players can feel closer to it, as opposed to just an evil monsters doing bad because you're evil.
Unfortunately the real world has a long history of all types of human atrocities against many peoples and cultures. I'm okay with that being put into the lore of certain races.
See bolded part. I'm fine with people exploring any dark corner of humanity in their games, but consent is important. Baking this stuff into official lore bypasses that consent.
I can understand if scrubbing official lore of anything problematic feels too "woke" and "pandering," but that's probably because I'm a cis white guy who was born on third base. WotC is trying to do the right thing here and I very much respect that. In a game where you can do whatever you want, offensive or potentially hurtful material should be opt-in, not the default setting.
I'm saying this as a guy who's favorite official setting has always been Dark Sun, which is entirely incompatible with this approach. It's too bad, but I'd rather we move forward with new stuff that everyone can enjoy. After all, I can always just homebrew slaver socerer-kings and feral cannibal halflings in my own little corner of the game. No one is taking anything away from me. Or from any of you.
I can understand if scrubbing official lore of anything problematic feels too "woke" and "pandering," but that's probably because I'm a cis white guy who was born on third base. WotC is trying to do the right thing here and I very much respect that. In a game where you can do whatever you want, offensive or potentially hurtful material should be opt-in, not the default setting.
I'm saying this as a guy who's favorite official setting has always been Dark Sun, which is entirely incompatible with this approach. It's too bad, but I'd rather we move forward with new stuff that everyone can enjoy. After all, I can always just homebrew slaver socerer-kings and feral cannibal halflings in my own little corner of the game. No one is taking anything away from me. Or from any of you.
100% this. Also DarkSun is one of the greatest D&D settings, and Sorcerer-Kings are literally the worst of the worst, and cannibal Halflings are amazing. One of the best things in Spelljammer is my Bug Race thri-kreen are back.
... I'm fine with people exploring any dark corner of humanity in their games, but consent is important. Baking this stuff into official lore bypasses that consent. ...
Thank you for this, Scatter. It's such a perfectly succinct way of explaining why Wizards is doing what they're doing, and is exactly correct. The books have to be for everyone, or as close to everyone as Wizards can manage. They can't know everybody's personal triggers and land mines, so to the best of their ability they're beholden to avoiding things they know are going to affect many, many people. That doesn't mean you're not supposed to play those things in D&D if your table wants to run that game. It means your table runs that game, while someone else's table where that content would be a hard no - where that content would get the players to quit D&D before they'd consent top play it - can still enjoy the game.
The books are not, and have never been, meant to be the whole of D&D. They're the seed, the spark that fuels your own games. Certain things can pollute that fuel for some folks and render it useless for driving their games, and there's no sense in Wizards doing that if they can avoid it. If those additives make your own game run better? Do it up, at your own table where you can be more-or-less certain you're not stepping on someone's triggers.
I think this culture is getting ridiculous. This is a FANTASY world. If you really want to pick through every single thing that may be offensive, then just sell us a blank book and say... use your own imagination and do it behind closed doors.
There is nothing new under the sun. Slavery, discrimination, class system, social structures, sexual preferences, food choices, lifestyle, culture, religion, the list is endless. There is 100% going to be something that is similar in real life.
"Example: I have an issue with murder and so does my country and any other country.
I am offended that d&d endorses killing so... let's do away with combat, weapons and killing. This kingdom at war with another, too similar to any Real life war so please stop producing any war materials."
My main point is let d&d write their stories and create their content. It's the DMs choice to decide if they will use it. It's the players freedom to create their character. I want to be angry at a villain for doing such unforgettable things. I want to feel for a race that has been enslaved. I want to feel the joy when we roleplay how someone with a terrible origin gets accepted. If everything is acceptable, won't the fantasy world get a little.... dull?
PS: I am not saying that any of these awful things are acceptable in any degree in real life but I do not think wizards has anything to apologise for. Well.... unless they specifically say....we based it off a certain real life group. Edited: or if it's too closely based of a real life group.
I think this culture is getting ridiculous. This is a FANTASY world. If you really want to pick through every single thing that may be offensive, then just sell us a blank book and say... use your own imagination and do it behind closed doors.
There is nothing new under the sun. Slavery, discrimination, class system, social structures, sexual preferences, food choices, lifestyle, culture, religion, the list is endless. There is 100% going to be something that is similar in real life.
"Example: I have an issue with murder and so does my country and any other country.
I am offended that d&d endorses killing so... let's do away with combat, weapons and killing. This kingdom at war with another, too similar to any Real life war so please stop producing any war materials."
My main point is let d&d write their stories and create their content. It's the DMs choice to decide if they will use it. It's the players freedom to create their character. I want to be angry at a villain for doing such unforgettable things. I want to feel for a race that has been enslaved. I want to feel the joy when we roleplay how someone with a terrible origin gets accepted. If everything is acceptable, won't the fantasy world get a little.... dull?
PS: I am not saying that any of these awful things are acceptable in any degree in real life but I do not think wizards has anything to apologise for. Well.... unless they specifically say....we based it off a certain real life group.
Mischaracterising someone else’s position does not make you look smart, articulate, or like you are making a valid point - it just shows you are incapable of the empathetic thought process necessary to engage in a serious conversation.
As has been said multiple times on this thread, the issue is not a tangential relationship to racism - it is the fact Wizards used a monkey race, which is a racial slur for a specific group of people, enslaved that race, used the exact same justifications for their enslavement as people did in the real world (“we enslaved them because we used our civilised self to raise them from primitive savagery”), tossed in some “civilised people save savages because they can’t save themselves” imagery (also used against the same group of people), added in a bit of “then sent them back to their primitive land to give the gift of our civilisation” elements (again, used by a post-slavery movement to try and justify expelling the same group from America), tossed in some imagery that looks awfully like the minstrel shows which were racist against that same group, and even through in some “and this race was made so resilient to damage” language in there (another stereotype to the same race, used to explain why they made such good slaves - and a stereotype that still actually persists to this day, resulting in doctors treating patients differently).
It isn’t that slavery is offensive in a vacuum - and Wizards’ having printed slavery as an element of lore as recently as MMM shows Wizards is not adverse to the idea of fantasy slavery… it is the fact they applied a half dozen or so elements unique to a specific situation. Maybe it was just coincidence, but when your coincidences accidentally recreate the real world language used to justify one of the darkest chapters in global history, basic decency and empathy demands apology and revision.
"I don't see a connection, therefore there is no connection, therefore anyone who says there is a connection is just making it up to be a jerk" is (ironically enough, given the common claims of those who make such arguments) essentially reverse cancellation - it is the exact same tactic employed in the opposite direction as usual. Frankly the entire idea of cancellation and 'cancel culture' leaves me in a position somewhere between eye-rolling scoffing and red-tinted fury, but that's not a talk for this place. Just remember - not seeing a connection yourself doesn't mean the connection is not there. To my shame, the hadozee thing had to be pointed out to me (in what scant defense I can offer, I only skimmed the species as hadozee do not and never have interested me in the slightest), but once it was pointed out to me the parallels to real-world U.S. black history couldn't possibly have been more obvious. This is the kind of crap I would expect not-TSR to publish, and my table was deeply confused over how this ended up in the books at all after all the diversification and sensitivity effort that went into Radiant Citadel.
"Well.... unless they specifically say....we based it off a certain real life group. Edited: or if it's too closely based of a real life group."
The Hadozee first appeared in 1982 so it was highly possible it was based on a certain group of people. The story and Lore was most likily copied whole sale and printed in the book. Thus, an apology is valid in this case. My apologies as well for not considering this.
Why did they remove Boatswain Tarto's portrait from Spelljammer Academy? Why did they remove the images of the two Hadozee that weren't dancing with a lute? Why did they remove the image of a Hadozee, Giff, Astral Elf, and Thri-kreen exploring an alien world at the beginning of chapter 1 of the Astral Adventurer's Guide?
I get removing the backstory and that one image, but why erase literally every picture that contains a Hadozee? Does WotC think that the species itself is inherently racist? Because based on what they said, that's the only inference I can make.
Am I wrong? Can someone give me a better explanation?
Fantasy and Sci-Fi literature has been and continue to be a way to focus the lens, of not only criticism but "what if" situations in society as a whole. Authors explore alternate history and edge cases to find their story. Some works are successful and stand the test of time with audience enjoyment for many years. Others are a flash in the pan or barely a ripple in the collective consciousness. These works are the author's comments, postulates, opinion and supposition on the subject matter about which they write. Critics of these works have agreed, disagreed and found fault with authors' works. The critics opinions and critiques have been evolving if the original work had any appeal.
WotC has chosen to attempt to make the story that the DM tells as open and inclusive as they think they can given the framework they provide. This framework is the one given to the community at large and is appealing to many. As a framework to run an individual game among friends it can; No should, be tailored to the participants of the game.
Any lore that doesn't fit your game table should freely be substituted for something that rings true for the table. WotC is offering the community a way to connect with each other in a specific way.
... I'm fine with people exploring any dark corner of humanity in their games, but consent is important. Baking this stuff into official lore bypasses that consent. ...
Thank you for this, Scatter. It's such a perfectly succinct way of explaining why Wizards is doing what they're doing, and is exactly correct. The books have to be for everyone, or as close to everyone as Wizards can manage. They can't know everybody's personal triggers and land mines, so to the best of their ability they're beholden to avoiding things they know are going to affect many, many people. That doesn't mean you're not supposed to play those things in D&D if your table wants to run that game. It means your table runs that game, while someone else's table where that content would be a hard no - where that content would get the players to quit D&D before they'd consent top play it - can still enjoy the game.
The books are not, and have never been, meant to be the whole of D&D. They're the seed, the spark that fuels your own games. Certain things can pollute that fuel for some folks and render it useless for driving their games, and there's no sense in Wizards doing that if they can avoid it. If those additives make your own game run better? Do it up, at your own table where you can be more-or-less certain you're not stepping on someone's triggers.
The problem that stems from this however, is that be removing or simply ignoring lore about a race makes it harder to run them all together. There is nothing for a DM to build off of and DM's are not immune to choice paralysis, so the "do whatever you want" argument is completely unhelpful. It's ironic to say any lore is hard baked into a race or anything really when a DM can change whatever they want at any time, but providing no lore outright or removing lore completely because it triggers a few people prevent anything in general from being created at all. You have essentially handed both a blank canvas and an uninteresting sheet of numbers and letters at a DM or player. A race with no background or lore is lifeless and worthless without requisite worldbuilding around it. It would have been easier to keep the Hadozee lore and alter it ad hoc.
Considering this content could be omitted at any time by a DM, it would make more sense to leave any potentially inflammatory material in the book and provide content warnings on all their material. Like you said, it will be impossible to know what could trigger people, but making the game blander and more uninteresting to cater to those people specifically is not the answer because literally millions of people play the game and no two people will be triggered by the same number of things. This game has ben around for years, and there are bound to be things that make a few people uncomfortable. I have a friend who is arachnophobic, and D&D has had Giant Spiders since Oe. Should they be cut from content because it might trigger a phobia?
... I'm fine with people exploring any dark corner of humanity in their games, but consent is important. Baking this stuff into official lore bypasses that consent. ...
Thank you for this, Scatter. It's such a perfectly succinct way of explaining why Wizards is doing what they're doing, and is exactly correct. The books have to be for everyone, or as close to everyone as Wizards can manage. They can't know everybody's personal triggers and land mines, so to the best of their ability they're beholden to avoiding things they know are going to affect many, many people. That doesn't mean you're not supposed to play those things in D&D if your table wants to run that game. It means your table runs that game, while someone else's table where that content would be a hard no - where that content would get the players to quit D&D before they'd consent top play it - can still enjoy the game.
The books are not, and have never been, meant to be the whole of D&D. They're the seed, the spark that fuels your own games. Certain things can pollute that fuel for some folks and render it useless for driving their games, and there's no sense in Wizards doing that if they can avoid it. If those additives make your own game run better? Do it up, at your own table where you can be more-or-less certain you're not stepping on someone's triggers.
The problem that stems from this however, is that be removing or simply ignoring lore about a race makes it harder to run them all together. There is nothing for a DM to build off of and DM's are not immune to choice paralysis, so the "do whatever you want" argument is completely unhelpful. It's ironic to say any lore is hard baked into a race or anything really when a DM can change whatever they want at any time, but providing no lore outright or removing lore completely because it triggers a few people prevent anything in general from being created at all. You have essentially handed both a blank canvas and an uninteresting sheet of numbers and letters at a DM or player. A race with no background or lore is lifeless and worthless without requisite worldbuilding around it. It would have been easier to keep the Hadozee lore and alter it ad hoc.
Considering this content could be omitted at any time by a DM, it would make more sense to leave any potentially inflammatory material in the book and provide content warnings on all their material. Like you said, it will be impossible to know what could trigger people, but making the game blander and more uninteresting to cater to those people specifically is not the answer because literally millions of people play the game and no two people will be triggered by the same number of things. This game has ben around for years, and there are bound to be things that make a few people uncomfortable. I have a friend who is arachnophobic, and D&D has had Giant Spiders since Oe. Should they be cut from content because it might trigger a phobia?
Jesse, what the **** are you talking about?
You're acting like there is no lore for the Hadozee anymore. If you had bothered to check, you would have learned that you were incorrect before leaping to the defense of racist lore.
They still have about 3 paragraphs left of lore, not including that which is included in Boo's Astral Menagerie. They got rid of the racist stuff and kept the information on how they evolved and have spread to other worlds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You're acting like there is no lore for the Hadozee anymore. If you had bothered to check, you would have learned that you were incorrect before leaping to the defense of racist lore.
They still have about 3 paragraphs left of lore, not including that which is included in Boo's Astral Menagerie. They got rid of the racist stuff and kept the information on how they evolved and have spread to other worlds.
The three paragraphs that remain in both books do not inform any player or DM on the races history, worldbuilding aspects or lore of any real kind beyond the incredibly vague. The same is true of the Owlin, and doubly so for the Thri-kreen, who's world isn't even mentioned. So yes, it's like there isn't any lore on them because their isn't. There is nothing about their rise to civilization or even how civilizations work on Yazir; or how they view magic or religion or technology. There is no lore about their culture or cultures. No heroic figures or important points in their history. There is nothing about how they figured out how to enter the astral sea or pilot spelljammers; and next to nothing about their relationships with other races that can. This was not a "leap to defend anything racist" as nothing was racist to begin with. They didn't get rid of anything "racist", they got rid of a background which included Slavery (which is not racist), and Eugenics. Distasteful as these thing are, the content warning on the books should have metered one's expectations of what they might find inside. If you purchased them then you gave consent to being exposed to that content. Moreover, if this is what people have become accustomed to being traumatized by, may I remind you of the Chitine, who have a near perfect copy of the Hadozee's previous lore, and it's somehow not racist. How racist it must be to deem the entire history of a sapient race who fought and achieved their own freedom so unimportant or potentially "traumatizing" to others that it is relegated to a single paragraph footnote that tells nothing of their past.
In any case, I'm not here to defend anything racist or make any such remark. The original point hat I made and continue to stand by is that by removing or not writing lore for a race you make it both a blank canvas, and completely bland and unimpressive. Why play a race with no background or history when you could play one that does?
Also, as far as I know D&D lore only has humans intermixing with certain races, like half elves or half orcs. I'm unaware of races like halfling-orcs or dwarf-leonin, etc.
Darksun had Human + Dwarf = Mul
There is a 3E 3rd party source, Book of Erotic Fantasy, that has a chart for Interspecies Crossbreeding.
That's wild, I literally gave the same examples before I even read your post. Yeah, there is definitely some subjectivity. I think normally if two species have enough differences and live separately, they're generally considered separate species. But then by any measure, if they are genetically incompatible for reproduction they're not the same species.
It is a bit off topic. But from now on if racism ever comes up in games, I'm going to start referring to it as speciesism. Because why not :)
This is the difference between biology and paleontology. Under the rules of Biology, Neanderthal were Humans, under the rules of Paleontology they were a subspecies of Humans.
The rule set I gave is only for living breathing animals, ie humans. The difference between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane is what we have in D&D, they look different, even come in vastly different sizes, but in the end they are all the same species.
Meanwhile, looking at 10 million year old bones of the same two dogs, nope different species descended from a common ancestor.
Actually I used what Modern Biologists use, and made sure to qualify it specifically that the offspring could have more offspring. Which your examples can not, Lions and tigers are related subspecies, and may at on time been a part of a ring species. Which is why you can mix them and get a sterile offspring. Same with Donkey and Horse pairings.
In the past lore, which I commented on, they had a lot of restrictions between pairings, and even had good reasonings behind each restriction, One D&D specifically in the You Tube intro interview they called out one such race that couldn't mix ever. Gnomes. Who had more in common with a Dimond than a Human genetically speaking, as being something you could be a half something of. The only races which could break the traditional can interbreed rule, were ones who's breeding was empowered either by a god or devil. Orc & Tiefling, or by body snatching Illithid. Of corse, because of the Orc god hating the Elf God, Orcs couldn't breed with Elves their one and only restriction. Rescinded on Youtube with One D&D as that was a paring the also mentioned.
See bolded part. I'm fine with people exploring any dark corner of humanity in their games, but consent is important. Baking this stuff into official lore bypasses that consent.
I can understand if scrubbing official lore of anything problematic feels too "woke" and "pandering," but that's probably because I'm a cis white guy who was born on third base. WotC is trying to do the right thing here and I very much respect that. In a game where you can do whatever you want, offensive or potentially hurtful material should be opt-in, not the default setting.
I'm saying this as a guy who's favorite official setting has always been Dark Sun, which is entirely incompatible with this approach. It's too bad, but I'd rather we move forward with new stuff that everyone can enjoy. After all, I can always just homebrew slaver socerer-kings and feral cannibal halflings in my own little corner of the game. No one is taking anything away from me. Or from any of you.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
100% this. Also DarkSun is one of the greatest D&D settings, and Sorcerer-Kings are literally the worst of the worst, and cannibal Halflings are amazing. One of the best things in Spelljammer is my Bug Race thri-kreen are back.
Thank you for this, Scatter. It's such a perfectly succinct way of explaining why Wizards is doing what they're doing, and is exactly correct. The books have to be for everyone, or as close to everyone as Wizards can manage. They can't know everybody's personal triggers and land mines, so to the best of their ability they're beholden to avoiding things they know are going to affect many, many people. That doesn't mean you're not supposed to play those things in D&D if your table wants to run that game. It means your table runs that game, while someone else's table where that content would be a hard no - where that content would get the players to quit D&D before they'd consent top play it - can still enjoy the game.
The books are not, and have never been, meant to be the whole of D&D. They're the seed, the spark that fuels your own games. Certain things can pollute that fuel for some folks and render it useless for driving their games, and there's no sense in Wizards doing that if they can avoid it. If those additives make your own game run better? Do it up, at your own table where you can be more-or-less certain you're not stepping on someone's triggers.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think this culture is getting ridiculous. This is a FANTASY world. If you really want to pick through every single thing that may be offensive, then just sell us a blank book and say... use your own imagination and do it behind closed doors.
There is nothing new under the sun. Slavery, discrimination, class system, social structures, sexual preferences, food choices, lifestyle, culture, religion, the list is endless. There is 100% going to be something that is similar in real life.
"Example: I have an issue with murder and so does my country and any other country.
I am offended that d&d endorses killing so... let's do away with combat, weapons and killing. This kingdom at war with another, too similar to any Real life war so please stop producing any war materials."
My main point is let d&d write their stories and create their content. It's the DMs choice to decide if they will use it. It's the players freedom to create their character. I want to be angry at a villain for doing such unforgettable things. I want to feel for a race that has been enslaved. I want to feel the joy when we roleplay how someone with a terrible origin gets accepted. If everything is acceptable, won't the fantasy world get a little.... dull?
PS: I am not saying that any of these awful things are acceptable in any degree in real life but I do not think wizards has anything to apologise for. Well.... unless they specifically say....we based it off a certain real life group. Edited: or if it's too closely based of a real life group.
Mischaracterising someone else’s position does not make you look smart, articulate, or like you are making a valid point - it just shows you are incapable of the empathetic thought process necessary to engage in a serious conversation.
As has been said multiple times on this thread, the issue is not a tangential relationship to racism - it is the fact Wizards used a monkey race, which is a racial slur for a specific group of people, enslaved that race, used the exact same justifications for their enslavement as people did in the real world (“we enslaved them because we used our civilised self to raise them from primitive savagery”), tossed in some “civilised people save savages because they can’t save themselves” imagery (also used against the same group of people), added in a bit of “then sent them back to their primitive land to give the gift of our civilisation” elements (again, used by a post-slavery movement to try and justify expelling the same group from America), tossed in some imagery that looks awfully like the minstrel shows which were racist against that same group, and even through in some “and this race was made so resilient to damage” language in there (another stereotype to the same race, used to explain why they made such good slaves - and a stereotype that still actually persists to this day, resulting in doctors treating patients differently).
It isn’t that slavery is offensive in a vacuum - and Wizards’ having printed slavery as an element of lore as recently as MMM shows Wizards is not adverse to the idea of fantasy slavery… it is the fact they applied a half dozen or so elements unique to a specific situation. Maybe it was just coincidence, but when your coincidences accidentally recreate the real world language used to justify one of the darkest chapters in global history, basic decency and empathy demands apology and revision.
"I don't see a connection, therefore there is no connection, therefore anyone who says there is a connection is just making it up to be a jerk" is (ironically enough, given the common claims of those who make such arguments) essentially reverse cancellation - it is the exact same tactic employed in the opposite direction as usual. Frankly the entire idea of cancellation and 'cancel culture' leaves me in a position somewhere between eye-rolling scoffing and red-tinted fury, but that's not a talk for this place. Just remember - not seeing a connection yourself doesn't mean the connection is not there. To my shame, the hadozee thing had to be pointed out to me (in what scant defense I can offer, I only skimmed the species as hadozee do not and never have interested me in the slightest), but once it was pointed out to me the parallels to real-world U.S. black history couldn't possibly have been more obvious. This is the kind of crap I would expect not-TSR to publish, and my table was deeply confused over how this ended up in the books at all after all the diversification and sensitivity effort that went into Radiant Citadel.
Please do not contact or message me.
Disclaimer as stated at the end of my post.
"Well.... unless they specifically say....we based it off a certain real life group. Edited: or if it's too closely based of a real life group."
The Hadozee first appeared in 1982 so it was highly possible it was based on a certain group of people. The story and Lore was most likily copied whole sale and printed in the book. Thus, an apology is valid in this case. My apologies as well for not considering this.
Why did they remove Boatswain Tarto's portrait from Spelljammer Academy? Why did they remove the images of the two Hadozee that weren't dancing with a lute? Why did they remove the image of a Hadozee, Giff, Astral Elf, and Thri-kreen exploring an alien world at the beginning of chapter 1 of the Astral Adventurer's Guide?
I get removing the backstory and that one image, but why erase literally every picture that contains a Hadozee? Does WotC think that the species itself is inherently racist? Because based on what they said, that's the only inference I can make.
Am I wrong? Can someone give me a better explanation?
I guess if they were not monkeys it would not have been so obvious.
As it is ....WOW!
If they had been any other animal, fought for their own freedom, and a few moved back on their own it might have been better. But....
Fantasy and Sci-Fi literature has been and continue to be a way to focus the lens, of not only criticism but "what if" situations in society as a whole. Authors explore alternate history and edge cases to find their story. Some works are successful and stand the test of time with audience enjoyment for many years. Others are a flash in the pan or barely a ripple in the collective consciousness. These works are the author's comments, postulates, opinion and supposition on the subject matter about which they write. Critics of these works have agreed, disagreed and found fault with authors' works. The critics opinions and critiques have been evolving if the original work had any appeal.
WotC has chosen to attempt to make the story that the DM tells as open and inclusive as they think they can given the framework they provide. This framework is the one given to the community at large and is appealing to many. As a framework to run an individual game among friends it can; No should, be tailored to the participants of the game.
Any lore that doesn't fit your game table should freely be substituted for something that rings true for the table. WotC is offering the community a way to connect with each other in a specific way.
By writing your collaborative story.
The problem that stems from this however, is that be removing or simply ignoring lore about a race makes it harder to run them all together. There is nothing for a DM to build off of and DM's are not immune to choice paralysis, so the "do whatever you want" argument is completely unhelpful. It's ironic to say any lore is hard baked into a race or anything really when a DM can change whatever they want at any time, but providing no lore outright or removing lore completely because it triggers a few people prevent anything in general from being created at all. You have essentially handed both a blank canvas and an uninteresting sheet of numbers and letters at a DM or player. A race with no background or lore is lifeless and worthless without requisite worldbuilding around it. It would have been easier to keep the Hadozee lore and alter it ad hoc.
Considering this content could be omitted at any time by a DM, it would make more sense to leave any potentially inflammatory material in the book and provide content warnings on all their material. Like you said, it will be impossible to know what could trigger people, but making the game blander and more uninteresting to cater to those people specifically is not the answer because literally millions of people play the game and no two people will be triggered by the same number of things. This game has ben around for years, and there are bound to be things that make a few people uncomfortable. I have a friend who is arachnophobic, and D&D has had Giant Spiders since Oe. Should they be cut from content because it might trigger a phobia?
Jesse, what the **** are you talking about?
You're acting like there is no lore for the Hadozee anymore. If you had bothered to check, you would have learned that you were incorrect before leaping to the defense of racist lore.
They still have about 3 paragraphs left of lore, not including that which is included in Boo's Astral Menagerie. They got rid of the racist stuff and kept the information on how they evolved and have spread to other worlds.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The three paragraphs that remain in both books do not inform any player or DM on the races history, worldbuilding aspects or lore of any real kind beyond the incredibly vague. The same is true of the Owlin, and doubly so for the Thri-kreen, who's world isn't even mentioned. So yes, it's like there isn't any lore on them because their isn't. There is nothing about their rise to civilization or even how civilizations work on Yazir; or how they view magic or religion or technology. There is no lore about their culture or cultures. No heroic figures or important points in their history. There is nothing about how they figured out how to enter the astral sea or pilot spelljammers; and next to nothing about their relationships with other races that can. This was not a "leap to defend anything racist" as nothing was racist to begin with. They didn't get rid of anything "racist", they got rid of a background which included Slavery (which is not racist), and Eugenics. Distasteful as these thing are, the content warning on the books should have metered one's expectations of what they might find inside. If you purchased them then you gave consent to being exposed to that content. Moreover, if this is what people have become accustomed to being traumatized by, may I remind you of the Chitine, who have a near perfect copy of the Hadozee's previous lore, and it's somehow not racist. How racist it must be to deem the entire history of a sapient race who fought and achieved their own freedom so unimportant or potentially "traumatizing" to others that it is relegated to a single paragraph footnote that tells nothing of their past.
In any case, I'm not here to defend anything racist or make any such remark. The original point hat I made and continue to stand by is that by removing or not writing lore for a race you make it both a blank canvas, and completely bland and unimpressive. Why play a race with no background or history when you could play one that does?
*cough* chitine*cough*
Darksun had Human + Dwarf = Mul
There is a 3E 3rd party source, Book of Erotic Fantasy, that has a chart for Interspecies Crossbreeding.
Why miss an opportunity to create where you find lack?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Because people typically don't. Why not just make a homebrew race then? Or rather, why should we need to homebrew official content?