I wish more people understood this. It is truly sad that the people in charge of WotC have so little knowledge of the history of D&D and why things were made the way they were made. There is always room for improvement, but if you don't know the roots, it is very difficult to improve upon what came before.
Not to mention the logical fail of saying that different races can't have different ability score modifiers, yet they can have different racial abilities. They are either all created equal, or they aren't. If they aren't all created equal, then it isn't more or less racist to chose which things are different between the races.
I understand the point that you are making.
The issue with racial bonuses and disadvantages isn't merely their existence, but the troubling trend of aligning bonuses with races that resemble white Europeans or Americans, while assigning disadvantages to those resembling Indigenous peoples, people of colour, or cultural minorities. This is the crux of the problem with racial bonuses and disadvantages. By fostering such disparities based on racial allegories, we perpetuate divisive notions that can impede the potential for a fair and balanced narrative.
In addition to the above, the analogy holds true for the shift in portraying races as inherently good or evil.
Recognising that individuals, irrespective of their racial heritage, possess the capacity for both positive and negative traits, and allowing players to assign their bonuses based on their characters background and training, rather than on their choice of race, is a step towards greater inclusivity and dispelling longstanding stereotypes.
For a long time, I was resistant to these changes myself, but I have since come to realise that they are necessary and correct, if we are to foster a new generation and advance the game we love into the future.
I find it more insulting for people to say any of us are like unto the none human races. That racists say orc are like my people because they’re “overly” aggressive and they think people who look like me are overly aggressive is not alleviated by changing the words to species. It is that old school racism of othering folk; ie if the proverbial you thought real world people were like goblins or dwarves or orcs, calling them a separate species is only going make it easier to imagine the real world people are more different from you than seeing them as a different species or kind of human subspecies. It is the attempt to other the races that has been the tool of eugenists and their ilk to that have got people thinking of race in terms of races as something alienating, when it once was that the race, the American race, that united its people in a melting pot. Race was not just bloodlines but also culture, religion, and philosophy. The racists of Europe and Asia called Americans a mongrel race, but not a kennel of races, for even they recognized that there was more to race than a genetic group.
As for a race in D&D being innately Evil, and Chaotic, Good, or Lawful, for that matter. I find it hard to find a person raised into the Carthaginian ideology and religion, and who maintained that identity, as anything other but Evil, but in the version of D&D where I learned of the category of “always Evil” it was made clear this is not immutable or 100%, so it has been a long time if ever that there was no exception to this rule. Now, in a world without Christian ideas of the equality and redeemable nature of all people, a race that is always Evil is not only reasonable, but to be expected, and it is reasonable to expect that resisting or even attacking such is justified and wise. This has the benefits of verisimilitude and expediting people’s venturing. The expectations also give people the opportunity to against type the evil brutish high elf and the sophisticated good orc, either philosophically motivated to my cultural change. I personally enjoyed playing a kindly 3.5 full orc monk, something that would have been far less compelling if he didn’t have to deal with the orc impulses toward selfishness and cruelty, or the debate over does he try to get people to be more excepting of the possibility of others like him, or does he do more harm getting people to take the time to evaluate each orc encounter individually,; thus using precious moments needed to prepare to fight or fly.
I suspect playing in an egalitarian utopia would be quit boring. At my table I have someone play a homebrew orc and dhampir both of which have racial penalties (Int and Con respectively) and both seem to prefer it. Maybe this is what the majority want, an my tables are the minority, but I suspect this is a case where two minorities are vocal, and the majority is rather neutral, at least for now, the question is if this will make the game more or less interesting. If the former, why have other games that have been built that way are less popular? Maybe it is genre and a major fantasy game was never attempted. If the latter, who and why are people moving for this change? Are they earnest good will fans who feel ostracized by these mechanics? Are they on an ideologically crusade lead by feeling founded cognitive reasoning, who won’t remain once they are satisfied, nor support the material when they’ve alienated other thinking founding cognitive reasoning? Or vice versa? They’re legitimate questions that I fear I almost, if not, never see asked. I hate that there aren’t any well made, well known, studies we could defer to. I hate being stuck in a battle of anecdotes. I know of people it has so far run off and none it has attracted, but what value are personal experiences? Little and less.
All successful inter species breeding, by definition result in a mule equivalent ie a sterile hybrid.
Incorrect. Many species of animals can successfully produce hybrid offspring that are fully fertile- brown bears and polar bears, for example, or common chimpanzees and bonobos (it took decades to even figure out that they were even two species). Things get more complex when you get out of the animal kingdom and into the plant kingdom. But this is D&D, which barely pays lip service to the idea of reproduction and while 5E may not have the ridiculous number of half X hybrid templates that Third Edition had, it's still perfectly possible for a human and an anthropomorphic campfire to produce fertile offspring.
Unless they’ve changed definition since I was in Uni, that means they are same species, but really I’m sorry I didn’t make it clearer that I was more than a bit tongue-in-cheek.
No worries. And last time I'd checked, the argument over what constituted a distinct species was still ongoing. Nature loves to produce exceptions to pretty much every rule humans invent to define nature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I find it more insulting for people to say any of us are like unto the none human races. That racists say orc are like my people because they’re “overly” aggressive and they think people who look like me are overly aggressive is not alleviated by changing the words to species. It is that old school racism of othering folk; ie if the proverbial you thought real world people were like goblins or dwarves or orcs, calling them a separate species is only going make it easier to imagine the real world people are more different from you than seeing them as a different species or kind of human subspecies. It is the attempt to other the races that has been the tool of eugenists and their ilk to that have got people thinking of race in terms of races as something alienating, when it once was that the race, the American race, that united its people in a melting pot. Race was not just bloodlines but also culture, religion, and philosophy. The racists of Europe and Asia called Americans a mongrel race, but not a kennel of races, for even they recognized that there was more to race than a genetic group.
As for a race in D&D being innately Evil, and Chaotic, Good, or Lawful, for that matter. I find it hard to find a person raised into the Carthaginian ideology and religion, and who maintained that identity, as anything other but Evil, but in the version of D&D where I learned of the category of “always Evil” it was made clear this is not immutable or 100%, so it has been a long time if ever that there was no exception to this rule. Now, in a world without Christian ideas of the equality and redeemable nature of all people, a race that is always Evil is not only reasonable, but to be expected, and it is reasonable to expect that resisting or even attacking such is justified and wise. This has the benefits of verisimilitude and expediting people’s venturing. The expectations also give people the opportunity to against type the evil brutish high elf and the sophisticated good orc, either philosophically motivated to my cultural change. I personally enjoyed playing a kindly 3.5 full orc monk, something that would have been far less compelling if he didn’t have to deal with the orc impulses toward selfishness and cruelty, or the debate over does he try to get people to be more excepting of the possibility of others like him, or does he do more harm getting people to take the time to evaluate each orc encounter individually,; thus using precious moments needed to prepare to fight or fly.
I suspect playing in an egalitarian utopia would be quit boring. At my table I have someone play a homebrew orc and dhampir both of which have racial penalties (Int and Con respectively) and both seem to prefer it. Maybe this is what the majority want, an my tables are the minority, but I suspect this is a case where two minorities are vocal, and the majority is rather neutral, at least for now, the question is if this will make the game more or less interesting. If the former, why have other games that have been built that way are less popular? Maybe it is genre and a major fantasy game was never attempted. If the latter, who and why are people moving for this change? Are they earnest good will fans who feel ostracized by these mechanics? Are they on an ideologically crusade lead by feeling founded cognitive reasoning, who won’t remain once they are satisfied, nor support the material when they’ve alienated other thinking founding cognitive reasoning? Or vice versa? They’re legitimate questions that I fear I almost, if not, never see asked. I hate that there aren’t any well made, well known, studies we could defer to. I hate being stuck in a battle of anecdotes. I know of people it has so far run off and none it has attracted, but what value are personal experiences? Little and less.
My Brews:
Race: Tropical Dwaves Spells: Summon Spirits Rites of Mummification
Monster: Osprey Feat: Skill Mastery–Animal Handler (Provides DCs for training animals applicable to those with and without this feat)
Absolutely! Shrek is very lore friendly.
My Brews:
Race: Tropical Dwaves Spells: Summon Spirits Rites of Mummification
Monster: Osprey Feat: Skill Mastery–Animal Handler (Provides DCs for training animals applicable to those with and without this feat)
No worries. And last time I'd checked, the argument over what constituted a distinct species was still ongoing. Nature loves to produce exceptions to pretty much every rule humans invent to define nature.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
My personal favorite to that concept in particular, is all the life forms that skip the middle man and just pop out clones😂
My Brews:
Race: Tropical Dwaves Spells: Summon Spirits Rites of Mummification
Monster: Osprey Feat: Skill Mastery–Animal Handler (Provides DCs for training animals applicable to those with and without this feat)