I'm just against others trying to control me by controlling speech.
And who, exactly, is doing that? WOTC are changing the use of a term in their own product. How is that in any way controlling you or your speech? Why do you feel entitled to claim the speech of D&D as if they were yours? Because that's what this is. Entitlement. You somehow feel a sense of ownership over the terms that D&D uses. Why is that? It's a weird and weirdly fascinating trend I keep seeing here and I honestly don't understand it.
"race" is NOT a racist term....and neither were the founders of D&D.
Of course, you're incorrect about this, but I am fatigued from having to explain this over and over again.
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!
I'm just against others trying to control me by controlling speech. "race" is NOT a racist term....and neither were the founders of D&D.
1. Yes, the founders of D&D were racist. Gary Gygax’s depictions of other cultures we’re unacceptable even in the 70s. He used real world stereotypes to demean other cultures. He quoted people who committed genocide to justify hate in his own game. He was outspoken about his belief biological determinism - the modern version of racial eugenics. His son, Ernest, also a D&D founder (Tenser is an anagram of Ernest), is currently being sued by Wizards for stealing Wizards intellectual property and adding racist elements (ex. Ernest’s version literally says som races are worse than others, and notes that the black race will always be low intelligence - it is full of bigotry like that). Beyond them, early modules were simply full of extremely problematic depictions of other races, indicating systemic racism within D&D even beyond the outspoken racism of the Gygaxs.
2. The only people trying to control speech are those who are demanding Wizards keep with Race. D&D is Wizards’ property, and what words they choose to use is an expression of their speech. Telling them not to change a word is trying to control how they exercise speech; them changing the word is just them exercising their speech and property rights.
I'm sorry, but where is your proof of this? All I know was that Gary Gygax was a kind, Christian man who wanted nothing more than to creatively express himself and allow others to creatively express themselves through story-telling.
As I said, feel free to look at early D&D publications and you will see them dripping with racism. For example, you'll see orcish cultures that heavily borrow from African sterotypes, with the orcs themselves depicted as animalistic and sub-human. You'll see other human cultures in early depictions based less on real world cultural groups and more on the harmful sterotypes of those groups. In 2005, Gygax gave an interview where he justified the killing of orcish women and children by quoting Col. John Chivington--specifically quoting Col. Chivington reveling in scalping Native American women and children. There are multiple instances of Gygax talking about his love for biological determinism, including making (obviously false) comments about how females were biologically incapable of enjoying D&D. You can look up the lawsuit against Ernest Gygax for examples of his blatant racism, and Ernest has given interviews about how upset he is that his and his father's game is having the racism removed from it.
However, despite all that well documented evidence of how awful a person Gygax was, Gygax is still remembered exactly as you said. Gygax--being a terrible person--consolidated power early at TSR around himself. Most notably, he forced the game's other founder Dave Arneson--the man who actually made D&D into D&D; Gygax created the wargame rules, but Arneson added the Roleplaying element that differentiated it from other wargames and turned D&D into the juggernaut it became. With Arneson gone, Gygax created the myth that still exists to this day of Gygax as the game's true founder and painting himself as the kindly father of the nerds. Even when his books were filled with negative stereotypes; even when he made racist comments in interviews; even when his son made objectively racist comments and an objectively racist rule system specifically noting those beliefs were in line with his father's legacy... the myth of Gygax remained.
Wizards knows all this--both that Gygax and the early D&D crew tainted the game with their questionable worldviews and that Gygax's self-created myth about himself is incredibly widespread. That is why they are clearly doing a dance with all these announcements--Wizards always talks about wanting to "move away from its history" but never talks about Gygax personally. It is why their first move was to remove strict racial alignments--this was something Gygax specifically used to justify hatred toward other cultures (it was in the context of strict racial alignments that he quoted a man hot for genocide); but, despite being something Gygax insisted be in the game, Wizards did not mention his name. It is why Wizards does not go back to Greyhawk, Dave Arneson's world that Gygax took over and made the first setting--they do not want Gygax's world to be at the forefront of 5e. It is why Wizards continues to talk about "evolving" language that they find problematic, instead of outright saying "that guy many of you respect was the problem" and we do not want his baggage anymore.
I'm just against others trying to control me by controlling speech. "race" is NOT a racist term....and neither were the founders of D&D.
1. Yes, the founders of D&D were racist. Gary Gygax’s depictions of other cultures we’re unacceptable even in the 70s. He used real world stereotypes to demean other cultures. He quoted people who committed genocide to justify hate in his own game. He was outspoken about his belief biological determinism - the modern version of racial eugenics. His son, Ernest, also a D&D founder (Tenser is an anagram of Ernest), is currently being sued by Wizards for stealing Wizards intellectual property and adding racist elements (ex. Ernest’s version literally says som races are worse than others, and notes that the black race will always be low intelligence - it is full of bigotry like that). Beyond them, early modules were simply full of extremely problematic depictions of other races, indicating systemic racism within D&D even beyond the outspoken racism of the Gygaxs.
2. The only people trying to control speech are those who are demanding Wizards keep with Race. D&D is Wizards’ property, and what words they choose to use is an expression of their speech. Telling them not to change a word is trying to control how they exercise speech; them changing the word is just them exercising their speech and property rights.
I'm sorry, but where is your proof of this? All I know was that Gary Gygax was a kind, Christian man who wanted nothing more than to creatively express himself and allow others to creatively express themselves through story-telling.
As I said, feel free to look at early D&D publications and you will see them dripping with racism. For example, you'll see orcish cultures that heavily borrow from African sterotypes, with the orcs themselves depicted as animalistic and sub-human. You'll see other human cultures in early depictions based less on real world cultural groups and more on the harmful sterotypes of those groups. In 2005, Gygax gave an interview where he justified the killing of orcish women and children by quoting Col. John Chivington--specifically quoting Col. Chivington reveling in scalping Native American women and children. There are multiple instances of Gygax talking about his love for biological determinism, including making (obviously false) comments about how females were biologically incapable of enjoying D&D. You can look up the lawsuit against Ernest Gygax for examples of his blatant racism, and Ernest has given interviews about how upset he is that his and his father's game is having the racism removed from it.
However, despite all that well documented evidence of how awful a person Gygax was, Gygax is still remembered exactly as you said. Gygax--being a terrible person--consolidated power early at TSR around himself. Most notably, he forced the game's other founder Dave Arneson--the man who actually made D&D into D&D; Gygax created the wargame rules, but Arneson added the Roleplaying element that differentiated it from other wargames and turned D&D into the juggernaut it became. With Arneson gone, Gygax created the myth that still exists to this day of Gygax as the game's true founder and painting himself as the kindly father of the nerds. Even when his books were filled with negative stereotypes; even when he made racist comments in interviews; even when his son made objectively racist comments and an objectively racist rule system specifically noting those beliefs were in line with his father's legacy... the myth of Gygax remained.
Wizards knows all this--both that Gygax and the early D&D crew tainted the game with their questionable worldviews and that Gygax's self-created myth about himself is incredibly widespread. That is why they are clearly doing a dance with all these announcements--Wizards always talks about wanting to "move away from its history" but never talks about Gygax personally. It is why their first move was to remove strict racial alignments--this was something Gygax specifically used to justify hatred toward other cultures (it was in the context of strict racial alignments that he quoted a man hot for genocide); but, despite being something Gygax insisted be in the game, Wizards did not mention his name. It is why Wizards does not go back to Greyhawk, Dave Arneson's world that Gygax took over and made the first setting--they do not want Gygax's world to be at the forefront of 5e. It is why Wizards continues to talk about "evolving" language that they find problematic, instead of outright saying "that guy many of you respect was the problem" and we do not want his baggage anymore.
Would you perhaps mind sending a link to the interview or any of your sources? Not necessarily doubting you, I'm just interested. All I know of Gygax is that he made Chainmail and his son is a bigot.
Added: Also, could we stop with calling people "bigots"? It hurts so much to see that word everywhere, especially on a site that revolves around escapism.
If someone is a bigot, it doesn't serve anyone well to try to cover it up. Bigot is not a slur, it is an assessment of someone's actions or beliefs. So while it might be insulting if incorrect it isn't an insulting, vulgar, or obscene word. Please stop treating it like it is somehow a hurtful word on its own, that only serves to protect the feelings of bigots.
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!
I still don't believe that gives you the right to consider him a "terrible person". Everyone makes mistakes, and people nowadays feel as if things such as forgiveness are no longer necessary. Take Will Smith as an example. Despite the fact that he has apologized thousands of times for the Slap, people still mock and shame him for it. While I believe he shouldn't have acted out violently towards Chris Rock, he did it out of passion for his wife, not entitlement. Nobody deserves forgiveness, but we should still show it anyway.
Added: Also, could we stop with calling people "bigots"? It hurts so much to see that word everywhere, especially on a site that revolves around escapism.
This is a false equivalency - Will Smith acted violently when someone made fun of his wife’s medical condition; Gygax engaged in a decade’s long campaign of including racism in his game, a campaign which continues to this day through his son trying to steal Wizards’ intellectual property and add bigotry to it.
I would love for Gygax not to have been a bad person - but all facts point to a man who had no loyalty to his friends (forcing them out of the company they founded together) and whose views on race and sex were morally bankrupt even by the standards of his time. Don’t get me wrong - he did a lot of good for the game as well (even if his habit for taking credit for others’ contributions means he probably deserves slightly less credit than is attributed to him). But the reason we are having this conversation is because of him - because he infected the game with decades of problematic views on race and Wizards is finally getting around to removing traces of Gygax’s racial politics.
Added: Also, could we stop with calling people "bigots"? It hurts so much to see that word everywhere, especially on a site that revolves around escapism.
This is getting off-topic but I'd like to mention the Star Frontiers situation. That is blatant bigotry, and I strongly encourage you to read up:
Please keep commentary on-topic and relevant to the thread title. Personal arguments and side conversations can be started as a new thread or taken to Private Messages.
It is why Wizards does not go back to Greyhawk, Dave Arneson's world that Gygax took over and made the first setting--they do not want Gygax's world to be at the forefront of 5e. It is why Wizards continues to talk about "evolving" language that they find problematic, instead of outright saying "that guy many of you respect was the problem" and we do not want his baggage anymore.
They have gone back, well a little bit, but I should point out that Forgotten Realms is Ed Greenwood, and Ed Greenwood has on multiple occasions condemned Racism, Bigotry, and Sexism (Even if he has an oddly hippy view on sexuality, and Elminster hooks up with ... well he's wizard with a larger little black book than any bard.) Ed has stated Trans Rights on a few occasions and reminded everyone that Being Gender Fluid in his setting is supported by the Gods, and the 1st level spell Ceremony can be used for Transition for characters needing that.
I haven't heard what Ed has said about one D&D and removing "Race" for character creation, but I'm sure he would be in great support of the change and would probably write a whole novel on how Elminster hates the use of race, as he runs around with an (insert random species) woman, saving the world and ... yeah.
When this change was first made, I thought "Yay. Removing harmful elements of the game in order to make it safer for everyone is always a good change. The best part of it though is that it helps people while hurting no one, so clearly there is no way that anyone will be able to complain."
24 pages and a bunch of different angry discussions later, it seems obvious that I hold humankind to a much higher standard than many of us can meet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
When this change was first made, I thought "Yay. Removing harmful elements of the game in order to make it safer for everyone is always a good change. The best part of it though is that it helps people while hurting no one, so clearly there is no way that anyone will be able to complain."
24 pages and a bunch of different angry discussions later, it seems obvious that I hold humankind to a much higher standard than many of us can meet.
I believe the time for the change was long overdue. The way the change was made however, could have been handled better. Wotc could have created a poll with several terms that could be used as a replacement term, with the limiting factor being one term could be chosen when voting, and open it to the D&D playerbase and general community to determine the term to be used.
Would we have gotten 24 pages of heated discussions? Probably?
Would we have gotten a better picture of what terms the community might be willing to accept? Definitely!
Is it too late for Wotc to poll the D&D community for what term might be better accepted? NO, there is still significant time before Wotc has to finalize a term for the SRD and final determination.
I say, Let the community decide. Let the community see where the majority sits, then discuss the merits or fallacy of what the possibility would be.
Is it too late for Wotc to poll the D&D community for what term might be better accepted? NO, there is still significant time before Wotc has to finalize a term for the SRD and final determination.
I say, Let the community decide. Let the community see where the majority sits, then discuss the merits or fallacy of what the possibility would be.
Umm yes, that's exactly what's happening. It's currently a question on the latest playtest survey. WOTC is interested in hearing people's thoughts. I mean currently it looks like they're debating between Species, Kind, and Type (Subtype). If you want to let them know what you think, go check out the playtest and take the survey afterwards. Personally I picked Type (Subtype) as my highest choice of the three because if we're trying to go with something that is detached, mechanical, and devoid of any untoward associations we might as well go all the way. Something that is nakedly only a rules term.
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!
Is it too late for Wotc to poll the D&D community for what term might be better accepted? NO, there is still significant time before Wotc has to finalize a term for the SRD and final determination.
I say, Let the community decide. Let the community see where the majority sits, then discuss the merits or fallacy of what the possibility would be.
Umm yes, that's exactly what's happening. It's currently a question on the latest playtest survey. WOTC is interested in hearing people's thoughts. I mean currently it looks like they're debating between Species, Kind, and Type (Subtype). If you want to let them know what you think, go check out the playtest and take the survey afterwards. Personally I picked Type (Subtype) as my highest choice of the three because if we're trying to go with something that is detached, mechanical, and devoid of any untoward associations we might as well go all the way. Something that is nakedly only a rules term.
I'm testing the UA material thoroughly. As for the surveys I personally find they are as limiting as the playtest material, mainly because as I suspected from the second release all we are doing is confirming the contents of the SRD for what "OneD&D" will become.
I'm coin flipping on ether Kind or Type (Subtype). I guess we shall see what the changebringer has to say.
Still, if Wotc would give an early indication of what the survey trend is, people may decide to engage in the material and surveys more.
Personally, I think "Folk", or maybe "Type" works the best. It sounds best when compared to "Class", like:
"Oh, what's your Folk and Class?"
As opposed to:
"Oh, what's your Species and Class?"
I have nothing wrong with "Species", but I think "Type" or "Folk" works the best.
Folk is personally my favorite out of the options thrown around, with ancestry, bloodline and lineage being the most terrible i heard. But my opinion is based on thinking about the international versions of D&D that will be translated into their respective languages. I'm german and ancestry, bloodline, lineage translated simply doesn't convey what race, species, folk would do. As in "your are XYZ". Ancestry/bloodline/lineage would always translate to "you are descended from XYZ" making it ambiguous what you actually are, as you could still be a half-elf, tiefling, genasi, hybrid or a number of other things were it doesn't matter what your ancestors were. Heck, Gith used to be humans, but no one would call their folk human anymore even though their ancestry/bloodline/lineage would be human. Not to mention the issue with artificial creatures like warforged and autognomes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And who, exactly, is doing that? WOTC are changing the use of a term in their own product. How is that in any way controlling you or your speech? Why do you feel entitled to claim the speech of D&D as if they were yours? Because that's what this is. Entitlement. You somehow feel a sense of ownership over the terms that D&D uses. Why is that? It's a weird and weirdly fascinating trend I keep seeing here and I honestly don't understand it.
Of course, you're incorrect about this, but I am fatigued from having to explain this over and over again.
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!
As I said, feel free to look at early D&D publications and you will see them dripping with racism. For example, you'll see orcish cultures that heavily borrow from African sterotypes, with the orcs themselves depicted as animalistic and sub-human. You'll see other human cultures in early depictions based less on real world cultural groups and more on the harmful sterotypes of those groups. In 2005, Gygax gave an interview where he justified the killing of orcish women and children by quoting Col. John Chivington--specifically quoting Col. Chivington reveling in scalping Native American women and children. There are multiple instances of Gygax talking about his love for biological determinism, including making (obviously false) comments about how females were biologically incapable of enjoying D&D. You can look up the lawsuit against Ernest Gygax for examples of his blatant racism, and Ernest has given interviews about how upset he is that his and his father's game is having the racism removed from it.
However, despite all that well documented evidence of how awful a person Gygax was, Gygax is still remembered exactly as you said. Gygax--being a terrible person--consolidated power early at TSR around himself. Most notably, he forced the game's other founder Dave Arneson--the man who actually made D&D into D&D; Gygax created the wargame rules, but Arneson added the Roleplaying element that differentiated it from other wargames and turned D&D into the juggernaut it became. With Arneson gone, Gygax created the myth that still exists to this day of Gygax as the game's true founder and painting himself as the kindly father of the nerds. Even when his books were filled with negative stereotypes; even when he made racist comments in interviews; even when his son made objectively racist comments and an objectively racist rule system specifically noting those beliefs were in line with his father's legacy... the myth of Gygax remained.
Wizards knows all this--both that Gygax and the early D&D crew tainted the game with their questionable worldviews and that Gygax's self-created myth about himself is incredibly widespread. That is why they are clearly doing a dance with all these announcements--Wizards always talks about wanting to "move away from its history" but never talks about Gygax personally. It is why their first move was to remove strict racial alignments--this was something Gygax specifically used to justify hatred toward other cultures (it was in the context of strict racial alignments that he quoted a man hot for genocide); but, despite being something Gygax insisted be in the game, Wizards did not mention his name. It is why Wizards does not go back to Greyhawk, Dave Arneson's world that Gygax took over and made the first setting--they do not want Gygax's world to be at the forefront of 5e. It is why Wizards continues to talk about "evolving" language that they find problematic, instead of outright saying "that guy many of you respect was the problem" and we do not want his baggage anymore.
Would you perhaps mind sending a link to the interview or any of your sources? Not necessarily doubting you, I'm just interested. All I know of Gygax is that he made Chainmail and his son is a bigot.
[REDACTED]
If someone is a bigot, it doesn't serve anyone well to try to cover it up. Bigot is not a slur, it is an assessment of someone's actions or beliefs. So while it might be insulting if incorrect it isn't an insulting, vulgar, or obscene word. Please stop treating it like it is somehow a hurtful word on its own, that only serves to protect the feelings of bigots.
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!
This is a false equivalency - Will Smith acted violently when someone made fun of his wife’s medical condition; Gygax engaged in a decade’s long campaign of including racism in his game, a campaign which continues to this day through his son trying to steal Wizards’ intellectual property and add bigotry to it.
I would love for Gygax not to have been a bad person - but all facts point to a man who had no loyalty to his friends (forcing them out of the company they founded together) and whose views on race and sex were morally bankrupt even by the standards of his time. Don’t get me wrong - he did a lot of good for the game as well (even if his habit for taking credit for others’ contributions means he probably deserves slightly less credit than is attributed to him). But the reason we are having this conversation is because of him - because he infected the game with decades of problematic views on race and Wizards is finally getting around to removing traces of Gygax’s racial politics.
This is getting off-topic but I'd like to mention the Star Frontiers situation. That is blatant bigotry, and I strongly encourage you to read up:
https://www.thegamer.com/wizards-of-the-coast-injunction-tsr-racist-star-frontiers-new-genesis/
https://kotaku.com/wizards-coast-star-frontiers-racist-trans-bigotry-suit-1849537890
https://techraptor.net/tabletop/news/tsrs-star-frontiers-new-genesis-playtest-contains-racist-content
(I don't know how biased these particular media outlets are, but they don't seem too biased from the phrasing and content)
[REDACTED]
Please keep commentary on-topic and relevant to the thread title. Personal arguments and side conversations can be started as a new thread or taken to Private Messages.
They have gone back, well a little bit, but I should point out that Forgotten Realms is Ed Greenwood, and Ed Greenwood has on multiple occasions condemned Racism, Bigotry, and Sexism (Even if he has an oddly hippy view on sexuality, and Elminster hooks up with ... well he's wizard with a larger little black book than any bard.) Ed has stated Trans Rights on a few occasions and reminded everyone that Being Gender Fluid in his setting is supported by the Gods, and the 1st level spell Ceremony can be used for Transition for characters needing that.
I haven't heard what Ed has said about one D&D and removing "Race" for character creation, but I'm sure he would be in great support of the change and would probably write a whole novel on how Elminster hates the use of race, as he runs around with an (insert random species) woman, saving the world and ... yeah.
When this change was first made, I thought "Yay. Removing harmful elements of the game in order to make it safer for everyone is always a good change. The best part of it though is that it helps people while hurting no one, so clearly there is no way that anyone will be able to complain."
24 pages and a bunch of different angry discussions later, it seems obvious that I hold humankind to a much higher standard than many of us can meet.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I believe the time for the change was long overdue. The way the change was made however, could have been handled better. Wotc could have created a poll with several terms that could be used as a replacement term, with the limiting factor being one term could be chosen when voting, and open it to the D&D playerbase and general community to determine the term to be used.
Would we have gotten 24 pages of heated discussions? Probably?
Would we have gotten a better picture of what terms the community might be willing to accept? Definitely!
Is it too late for Wotc to poll the D&D community for what term might be better accepted? NO, there is still significant time before Wotc has to finalize a term for the SRD and final determination.
I say, Let the community decide. Let the community see where the majority sits, then discuss the merits or fallacy of what the possibility would be.
Umm yes, that's exactly what's happening. It's currently a question on the latest playtest survey. WOTC is interested in hearing people's thoughts. I mean currently it looks like they're debating between Species, Kind, and Type (Subtype). If you want to let them know what you think, go check out the playtest and take the survey afterwards. Personally I picked Type (Subtype) as my highest choice of the three because if we're trying to go with something that is detached, mechanical, and devoid of any untoward associations we might as well go all the way. Something that is nakedly only a rules term.
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!
I'm testing the UA material thoroughly. As for the surveys I personally find they are as limiting as the playtest material, mainly because as I suspected from the second release all we are doing is confirming the contents of the SRD for what "OneD&D" will become.
I'm coin flipping on ether Kind or Type (Subtype). I guess we shall see what the changebringer has to say.
Still, if Wotc would give an early indication of what the survey trend is, people may decide to engage in the material and surveys more.
Personally, I think "Folk", or maybe "Type" works the best. It sounds best when compared to "Class", like:
"Oh, what's your Folk and Class?"
As opposed to:
"Oh, what's your Species and Class?"
I have nothing wrong with "Species", but I think "Type" or "Folk" works the best.
If anybody would like my GMing playlists
battles: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2mRp57MBAz9ZsVpw895IzZ?si=243bee43442a4703
exploration: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0qk0aKm5yI4K6VrlcaKrDj?si=81057bef509043f3
town/tavern: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/49JSv1kK0bUyQ9LVpKmZlr?si=a88b1dd9bab54111
character deaths: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6k7WhylJEjSqWC0pBuAtFD?si=3e897fa2a2dd469e
Maybe "Race" could be changed to "Type", and "Subrace" could be changed to "Species".
For example, Dragonborn is the Type and Gold Dragonborn is the Species.
If anybody would like my GMing playlists
battles: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2mRp57MBAz9ZsVpw895IzZ?si=243bee43442a4703
exploration: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0qk0aKm5yI4K6VrlcaKrDj?si=81057bef509043f3
town/tavern: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/49JSv1kK0bUyQ9LVpKmZlr?si=a88b1dd9bab54111
character deaths: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6k7WhylJEjSqWC0pBuAtFD?si=3e897fa2a2dd469e
The thing is the sentance “what were they” could work just as easily as “what _____ were they”.
Mx. Otter (They/them/theirs)
Terry Pratchett & Brian Jacques. Best authors of all time. Change my mind.
Extended Signiture
That was supposed to be a reply to something specific.
Mx. Otter (They/them/theirs)
Terry Pratchett & Brian Jacques. Best authors of all time. Change my mind.
Extended Signiture
D&D Beyond is kinda dumb with the replies. Using the Quote button works better.
[REDACTED]
Folk is personally my favorite out of the options thrown around, with ancestry, bloodline and lineage being the most terrible i heard. But my opinion is based on thinking about the international versions of D&D that will be translated into their respective languages. I'm german and ancestry, bloodline, lineage translated simply doesn't convey what race, species, folk would do. As in "your are XYZ". Ancestry/bloodline/lineage would always translate to "you are descended from XYZ" making it ambiguous what you actually are, as you could still be a half-elf, tiefling, genasi, hybrid or a number of other things were it doesn't matter what your ancestors were. Heck, Gith used to be humans, but no one would call their folk human anymore even though their ancestry/bloodline/lineage would be human. Not to mention the issue with artificial creatures like warforged and autognomes.