I've read every post in this thread up to this point and I have to say, I'm really confused about what is being discussed.
People are mad because WoTC is working to be non-discriminatory? People are mad because a book isn't getting published? People are mad because optional rules are being added to a game that is designed to be adjusted by the players to fit their own player experience? People are mad because a company is trying to make money? because that is what the thread seems like its been about to me.
What I've heard people say is that they think the optional species rules will remove individuality from characters and is caused by "SJW's" (I hate that term) or people on Twitter. I'm not one of those people, but this is what I have perceived form their arguments.
How in the F can someone be upset about something that is OPTIONAL.
The only objection I could see is that some players [1] expect to be able to use just about any optional rule ever provided it's in a book somewhere. That's more a social issue between players and the DM rather than a problem with the rules though.
[1] In my experience, your mileage may vary, I know this is anecdotal
4E wasn't a nightmare, and I hardly think "everything" is getting destroyed. A lot of the political correctness issues seem to stem from Hasbro, and - with all respect to diversity and inclusiveness - are in my opinion blown far out of proportion. Changing settings and game mechanics to remove racism from game themes and fluff is just weird. Nobody's racist for playing in a setting where racism exists. It exists, like nationalism, fascism, corruption, crime in general, and whatnot, pretending otherwise doesn't serve anything. But I doubt this is something WotC has a hand in. More likely Hasbro's legal department is cracking down on every subsidiary to abide by their corporate policies. That doesn't make the reality of the situation any better for us players, but let's not be too quick to assign blame. And if you're looking back towards the situation in the '80s, please, remember TSR did much, much worse and it was Wizards who saved D&D when they acquired the IP and released 3rd edition.
I'm completely unfamiliar with the Dragonlance story (didn't know it was a thing until this thread, as a matter of fact) but there are a lot of through-lines between this story and others that have been...controversial, to say the least. I think WotC is making a lot of their decisions in an effort to avoid social criticism. The problem is that a lot of the criticism coming their way is completely unfounded.
I want to be very careful here, because I'm DESPERATELY trying to avoid the ban hammer again. But, I think the conversation around social justice issues is happening on several different levels.
I think most people are basically well-intentioned. We don't want to make waves, and that includes being respectful of folks' demographics: gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality (I'm a gay man, myself), etc. We tend to be bothered by attacks against those things, and are right to speak out when it happens. We acknowledge that - while things aren't perfect - they're worlds better than they used to be. And the evolution of Dungeons and Dragons reflects that. We've seen successive editions of this amazing game become more thoughtful and inclusive when it comes to these issues. Heck, 5E's "Xanathar's Guide to Everything" devoted its entire last chapter to real-world human ethnic groups and how to incorporate those ideas into your own character concepts. The list of names is worth the price of the book ALONE, in my humble opinion.
Not to mention that the 5E "Player's Handbook" goes OUT of its way to state that Human characters can encompass any racial identity, ethnic background, or cultural element we as players want to bring to them. Statistically, the ONE thing that makes 5E Humans what they are is DIVERSITY and ADAPTABILITY. They bent over BACKWARDS to make that the case.
However, there is a second layer to this entire discussion. While I love, love, LOVE what we're getting in "Tasha's Cauldron of Everything" (PARTICULARLY the racial variants and the new Lineage system), I'm not a fan of the mentality that catalyzed the change.
Like I said, I think that most people are well-intentioned. But we DO have a subculture at work (I'd call it quasi-religious at this point) that REVELS in creating scandals where they don't exist. In a lot of cases, certain sub-groups gain status among their communities by crying foul over perceived slights, then weaponizing social media in order to make them look much larger. They'll pepper in phrases like, "perpetuating stereotypes in the real world" in an effort to head off legitimate discussion around the issue.
I have YET to see any rational evidence for that particular point. Has there EVER been a player who decided to racially or ethnically mistreat someone in the real world because of the Drow? I'm pretty sure no one EVER has thought to themselves, "You now what? Since the Drow worship a Chaotic Evil spider goddess and are nasty right down to the individual level because of it (with a few notable exceptions), that must make it okay for me to dunk on the nice Bangladeshi family down the street".
That's because that's a completely inaccurate representation of the argument. At no point has anyone attempted to argue that racist depictions of orcs and drow in D&D is going to result in people becoming racist in real life. What they have argued is that such depictions are offensive to a lot of people, not just ones who belong to the ethnic group being stereotyped and such depictions do nothing to add to the game and instead really detract from the enjoyment of those players. Since there aren't really a lot of counter-arguments beyond "but we've always done it that way" and "but orcs aren't real," there's little point in keeping it, since WotC changes game lore all the time anyway. And honestly, few companies jump on social issues just for the heck of it. Usually it's because they've done a cost-benefit analysis and have decided that trying to appeal to the group speaking out on the social issue is worth more than not doing so.
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've read every post in this thread up to this point and I have to say, I'm really confused about what is being discussed.
People are mad because WoTC is working to be non-discriminatory? People are mad because a book isn't getting published? People are mad because optional rules are being added to a game that is designed to be adjusted by the players to fit their own player experience? People are mad because a company is trying to make money? because that is what the thread seems like its been about to me.
What I've heard people say is that they think the optional species rules will remove individuality from characters and is caused by "SJW's" (I hate that term) or people on Twitter. I'm not one of those people, but this is what I have perceived form their arguments.
How in the F can someone be upset about something that is OPTIONAL.
The only objection I could see is that some players [1] expect to be able to use just about any optional rule ever provided it's in a book somewhere. That's more a social issue between players and the DM rather than a problem with the rules though.
[1] In my experience, your mileage may vary, I know this is anecdotal
This is why Session Zero matters. Or at least discussing the tone with players beforehand so they know what to expect, and giving reasons for your rulings. So long as something is established beforehand I find most players will not complain.
I used to have anything-goes type settings, but some players will appreciate a few more restrictions if it keeps a certain atmosphere to your game.
4E wasn't a nightmare, and I hardly think "everything" is getting destroyed. A lot of the political correctness issues seem to stem from Hasbro, and - with all respect to diversity and inclusiveness - are in my opinion blown far out of proportion. Changing settings and game mechanics to remove racism from game themes and fluff is just weird. Nobody's racist for playing in a setting where racism exists. It exists, like nationalism, fascism, corruption, crime in general, and whatnot, pretending otherwise doesn't serve anything. But I doubt this is something WotC has a hand in. More likely Hasbro's legal department is cracking down on every subsidiary to abide by their corporate policies. That doesn't make the reality of the situation any better for us players, but let's not be too quick to assign blame. And if you're looking back towards the situation in the '80s, please, remember TSR did much, much worse and it was Wizards who saved D&D when they acquired the IP and released 3rd edition.
I'm completely unfamiliar with the Dragonlance story (didn't know it was a thing until this thread, as a matter of fact) but there are a lot of through-lines between this story and others that have been...controversial, to say the least. I think WotC is making a lot of their decisions in an effort to avoid social criticism. The problem is that a lot of the criticism coming their way is completely unfounded.
I want to be very careful here, because I'm DESPERATELY trying to avoid the ban hammer again. But, I think the conversation around social justice issues is happening on several different levels.
I think most people are basically well-intentioned. We don't want to make waves, and that includes being respectful of folks' demographics: gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality (I'm a gay man, myself), etc. We tend to be bothered by attacks against those things, and are right to speak out when it happens. We acknowledge that - while things aren't perfect - they're worlds better than they used to be. And the evolution of Dungeons and Dragons reflects that. We've seen successive editions of this amazing game become more thoughtful and inclusive when it comes to these issues. Heck, 5E's "Xanathar's Guide to Everything" devoted its entire last chapter to real-world human ethnic groups and how to incorporate those ideas into your own character concepts. The list of names is worth the price of the book ALONE, in my humble opinion.
Not to mention that the 5E "Player's Handbook" goes OUT of its way to state that Human characters can encompass any racial identity, ethnic background, or cultural element we as players want to bring to them. Statistically, the ONE thing that makes 5E Humans what they are is DIVERSITY and ADAPTABILITY. They bent over BACKWARDS to make that the case.
However, there is a second layer to this entire discussion. While I love, love, LOVE what we're getting in "Tasha's Cauldron of Everything" (PARTICULARLY the racial variants and the new Lineage system), I'm not a fan of the mentality that catalyzed the change.
Like I said, I think that most people are well-intentioned. But we DO have a subculture at work (I'd call it quasi-religious at this point) that REVELS in creating scandals where they don't exist. In a lot of cases, certain sub-groups gain status among their communities by crying foul over perceived slights, then weaponizing social media in order to make them look much larger. They'll pepper in phrases like, "perpetuating stereotypes in the real world" in an effort to head off legitimate discussion around the issue.
I have YET to see any rational evidence for that particular point. Has there EVER been a player who decided to racially or ethnically mistreat someone in the real world because of the Drow? I'm pretty sure no one EVER has thought to themselves, "You now what? Since the Drow worship a Chaotic Evil spider goddess and are nasty right down to the individual level because of it (with a few notable exceptions), that must make it okay for me to dunk on the nice Bangladeshi family down the street".
That's because that's a completely inaccurate representation of the argument. At no point has anyone attempted to argue that racist depictions of orcs and drow in D&D is going to result in people becoming racist in real life. What they have argued is that such depictions are offensive to a lot of people, not just ones who belong to the ethnic group being stereotyped and such depictions do nothing to add to the game and instead really detract from the enjoyment of those players. Since there aren't really a lot of counter-arguments beyond "but we've always done it that way" and "but orcs aren't real," there's little point in keeping it, since WotC changes game lore all the time anyway. And honestly, few companies jump on social issues just for the heck of it. Usually it's because they've done a cost-benefit analysis and have decided that trying to appeal to the group speaking out on the social issue is worth more than not doing so.
I don’t think the argument was represented quite like that. Speaking just for myself, it’s more that racism existing in games doesn’t normalize it in real life, nor does it make it more acceptable. I get that it can be offensive or hurtful to those who feel - justified or not - it might be directed at them in some way, but that is not inherent in the theme being present. It takes, respectfully, a somewhat deliberate and willful outlook on D&D species (species, not even races) being presented as evil, brutish, stupid or whatever you want as a slight towards specific real life ethnicities, cultures or groups. I get these themes might be distasteful to some as well, but that arguably just means campaigns that touch on those are not for them. The bottom line to me is that any serious theme being represented can rub someone the wrong way - religion, militarism, politics, ethics and so on. That being possible however in no way imposes an intent behind them being incorporated in a game, nor does it have to suggest a moral or other opinion of them being present (never mind prevailing) among the players. On the flip side of all this, scrubbing sensitive themes from roleplaying games seems to run counter to the evolution and maturation of the genre. Nothing against the occasional hack & slash dungeon crawl, but a lot of us enjoy more serious themes being present - not to indulge in amoral attitudes, but because they are part of the human experience. Some RPGs go as far as embracing one or more of these themes at their core, and that is a good thing *provided it’s done well*. That, in the end, is what it comes down to: not that they are present, but how themes are presented and used.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If you believe that entire races can be stereotyped, you believe entire races can be stereotyped.
The stereotypes about Orcs and Drow are arguably cultural more than racial. And that makes a difference. Stereotyping genetics is a whole other animal than stereotyping upbringing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I want to clarify this. While there might have been some racism in Tolkien (describing Orcs as Mongols), Lovecraft was explicitly and horribly racist. He was scared to death of African Americans, Jewish people, and basically every other group of people that was not him. Lovecraft's hatred influences his writing as well; the fear of the unknown and far away are major themes of his. I enjoy his work, and the ideas and foundations he laid for cosmic horror are excellent, but there is no denying that he was a horrible person in many ways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I want to clarify this. While there might have been some racism in Tolkien (describing Orcs as Mongols), Lovecraft was explicitly and horribly racist. He was scared to death of African Americans, Jewish people, and basically every other group of people that was not him. Lovecraft's hatred influences his writing as well; the fear of the unknown and far away are major themes of his. I enjoy his work, and the ideas and foundations he laid for cosmic horror are excellent, but there is no denying that he was a horrible person in many ways.
To which I say "so what" ? Most of the authors that you will find in the past are guilty of this to some extent because no-one can escape their eduction and culture, including unfortunately the people protesting against them today. Lovecraft was indeed a bigot and racist, but not only was it not as bad as what you describe (for example he married a jewish woman), but it was an attitude that was prevalent in the society where it came from at the time. Just because he stands out for being a writer, why must he be singled out as a particularly horrible person ? Because out of the thoudands of people if not more who shared his ideas and expressed them verbally at the time, his are the only ones that remain in writing ?
And, more importantly, being at least a bit educated, I can enjoy the wealth of what he produced while still being aware that there are unpleasant aspects behind it. I totally reject what some rabid fanatics want to impose on everyone, their single view which is exactly as biased and extreme as those they pretend to despise (and the direction it takes are very precise and targeted, for example you don't hear them raving against Jack London, who is much better known than Lovecraft, because it does not serve their fight). And I can express nuance in my appreciation of things, and distinguish between a man and his works. Just as I can distinguish between race/ethnicities in the real world who, despite everything are still one species, and race/species in a roleplaying game which is based on imagination. We should resist very strongly being dragged into these controversies, there are clear limits between them and we should not play the game of those who just want to muddy up things to draw attention to specific issues.
I enjoy reading Lovecraft. I enjoy from not only a genre fiction standpoint, but also literary. I don't think that people should not read his work because of the horrible things he said and thought. I just wanted to inform people that he was not a good person, and knowing this about him can help you understand his works better. I encourage people to read Lovecraft, but to also understand how his personal beliefs, environment, and upbringing influenced his writings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
If you believe that entire races can be stereotyped, you believe entire races can be stereotyped.
The stereotypes about Orcs and Drow are arguably cultural more than racial. And that makes a difference. Stereotyping genetics is a whole other animal than stereotyping upbringing.
When discussing racism, the term rarely involves literal genetics. Attempts at genetic arguments (invariably involving bad science) are used to try to justify persecution over culture just as often as persecution based on literal genetics (also invariably involving bad science). Obvious genetic differences such as skin colour get singled out because they are obvious, but it really comes down to different flavours of xenophobia.
In game, the arguments often go even deeper down that rabbit hole, trying to equate culture and genetics. 'Orcs and Drow are like that because they were made that way' goes the argument, completely ignoring the implications on sentience and free will, or lack thereof. It goes deeper still with people arguing that unless such races are treated so, it will break the game somehow.
The implications on sentience and free will are exactly the point. There are canonical examples of drow who are different due to not being under the influence of Menzobarranzan society and the cult of Lolth. Orcs, ogres and goblins do occasionally show up in “human” cities without necessarily being relegated to a life of violent crime. All of them are available as player character options. There is no genetic or just plain racial imperative on their morality. And all of this has been the case for a few decades already, it’s not something that just started to change.
I would agree with species ability score mods if the species were more distinct. To me, they are all very similar and are basically reskinned humans. If a world actually tried to make them unique, I would be more amicable to species ability score mods.
(Lyxen, I saw that you used the term "coloured" in your post. Some people find that offensive, and prefer the term "person of colour.")
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
(Lyxen, I saw that you used the term "coloured" in your post. Some people find that offensive, and prefer the term "person of colour.")
Yes. For some reason “colored people” is often seen as offensive, but “people of color” is not. I know, that makes little sense, especially since English is a second or third language for you, but it is what it is. I don’t want to see you get in trouble for something that simple to correct.
(Lyxen, I saw that you used the term "coloured" in your post. Some people find that offensive, and prefer the term "person of colour.")
Yes. For some reason “colored people” is often seen as offensive, but “people of color” is not. I know, that makes little sense, especially since English is a second or third language for you, but it is what it is. I don’t want to see you get in trouble for something that simple to correct.
I think it may have to do with the dehumanization of people, by making their race more important than the fact that they are people. By saying "people of colour," you are reinforcing the word people first. Anyways, this is a bit off topic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Statistically, there is as much variety with a +2 to one stat than with a +1 and a +0 for a given species. Also, an adult gorilla is always much stronger than a member of the human species. Can you please explain, if I was playing a gorilla in a RPG (I have, actually), how diversity would be served by allowing a human to be as strong as a gorilla or restricting a gorilla to a human range ? A halfling is by its very definition shorter than a human, will I need to have human-sized halflings or halfling-sized humans ? And when I play Eberron together with my GM (who happens to be coloured, by the way), we both makes jokes about my halflings being short, does that make us racists ?
An Ape stat block is higher strength than a human commoner stat block. Realism preserved.
After that: You are playing heroic fantasy. Stories of heroes who can wrestle giants are nearly as old as time itself. A halfing with 20 STR is an outlier. All heroes in the game, played by player characters, are outliers. From level 1 to level 20, they are exceptional individuals.
The generic or default options for every race will still be there, and their forgotten realms baseline political and societal structures will still be there. Tasha's does not make every halfling have a +2 STR bonus. It makes your player character - an exceptional and inherently unique halfling - have a +2 STR bonus.
Halflings could already quite easily end up with 20 STR regardless. A halfling being stronger than an Ape is not suddenly somehow new, created by Tasha's. It has been a part of D&D for as long as D&D has existed that any player character can end up with absolutely absurd strength, and that their racial modifiers at character creation only play a minor part in their final stat block. You could always make a halfling that's stronger than an ape. Nothing about this has changed.
And finally: You will notice that height is not included in the new proposals for Racial ability modifiers. Heights are a strawman here.
Small species will still have disadvantage on wielding heavy weapons, and I doubt that that will change.
But isn't that ableist? Shouldn't halflings be able to wield a lance one handed if they feel they can? Is it right to cast all halflings as being tiny, why do they all have to be small? Can't some of them be tall or really strong?
I'm just going through the logic leaps that people will do to see how much they can get away with pushing WotC to do what they say. WotC apparently is going through the Social Media Panic and is beyond bending the knee phase, they appear to be going beyond the pale. A complete Dragonlance setting with an actual campaign would have made a decent amount of money for WotC, but they balked. The recent changes to character creation are uninspiring and will tend to homogenize out the races more cutting down on the flavor in the setting. I honestly would not be surprised if they put out that a character can exchange a tool proficiency to increase in height before everything is set and done. I could easily see there being complaints on Twitter and an errata coming out where WotC states height increase is possible for small races.
Small species will still have disadvantage on wielding heavy weapons, and I doubt that that will change.
But isn't that ableist? Shouldn't halflings be able to wield a lance one handed if they feel they can? Is it right to cast all halflings as being tiny, why do they all have to be small? Can't some of them be tall or really strong?
I'm just going through the logic leaps that people will do to see how much they can get away with pushing WotC to do what they say. WotC apparently is going through the Social Media Panic and is beyond bending the knee phase, they appear to be going beyond the pale. A complete Dragonlance setting with an actual campaign would have made a decent amount of money for WotC, but they balked. The recent changes to character creation are uninspiring and will tend to homogenize out the races more cutting down on the flavor in the setting. I honestly would not be surprised if they put out that a character can exchange a tool proficiency to increase in height before everything is set and done.
You can grow stronger by lifting weights and running. You can stretch and practice acrobatics. Endurance training improves constitution. Studying puzzles and maths, intelligence. Wisdom, reading philosophy and observing the world. Charisma, practicing speaking.
You see what I am getting here? All of these ability scores can be improved by training. And the point of the variant system is that it presumes your character either trained or was an outlier form their normal species. If you compared and average dwarf and average elf, the dwarf would be stronger.
You can't train to change your height. And it would certainly be more difficult to use a six-foot greatsword if you are four feet tall. So I do not think that heavy weapons rules will be changed.
The argument that "since Wizards is changing something now, they will obviously keep on changing for the worse" is a slippery slope fallacy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
All of the parallels to real world racial and ethnic discriminations aside, I think the problem comes down to the actual stat generation. In my games we use a modified version of point buy where the players can assign their stats however they want as long as their pre-racial bonuses equal 72, max of 18 again before racial bonuses. This allows for 12s across the board and a lot of customization. In this situation, the racial bonus are negligible, and just as often get used to cancel negatives as it is to give bonuses. In this situation the bonuses were already free floating within character creation. I guess that was the problem I have/had with Tasha's, is that the change seems unnecessary because it ultimately doesn't matter.
As for the legacy stuff, I have been staying away from most information in Tasha's because, being honest, I'm going to buy it regardless of what is in it because its a sourcebook and I want those options available to me even if I don't use them and I would like to be pleasantly surprised by what is in the book.
You aren't going with a post modern mind frame, facts don't matter, identity matters. A lot of the complaints that WotC are bowing to are hedged in that philosophy. Tell me that you believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that if a concerted effort was made to make WotC look ableist for not putting wheel chair, height, mute and deafness as defining character traits and giving players the ability to change them to strengths not flaws isn't being done now. It's a post modern argument, and I get where you are going.
There is an effort now to get wheelchairs put into D&D, neverminded the Regeneration spell, Heal Spell or Wish Spell making that condition not logical in D&D for an adventurer with money, power and high level clerical friends. If they cast a spell and heal it, its considered ableist. Its going to come in most likely not in Tasha but in the next source book. Fantasy Logic doesn't matter to post modern logic. Isn't the blindness/deafness spell ableist, isn't it wrong to use that spell as a negative effect? This is coming to the game and if WotC doesn't start saying no for game balance, we are going to get some really wonderful new "optional" rules that will take hold in adventure league games because its in the book and its legal.
If you believe that entire races can be stereotyped, you believe entire races can be stereotyped.
The stereotypes about Orcs and Drow are arguably cultural more than racial. And that makes a difference. Stereotyping genetics is a whole other animal than stereotyping upbringing.
When discussing racism, the term rarely involves literal genetics. Attempts at genetic arguments (invariably involving bad science) are used to try to justify persecution over culture just as often as persecution based on literal genetics (also invariably involving bad science). Obvious genetic differences such as skin colour get singled out because they are obvious, but it really comes down to different flavours of xenophobia.
In game, the arguments often go even deeper down that rabbit hole, trying to equate culture and genetics. 'Orcs and Drow are like that because they were made that way' goes the argument, completely ignoring the implications on sentience and free will, or lack thereof. It goes deeper still with people arguing that unless such races are treated so, it will break the game somehow.
The implications on sentience and free will are exactly the point. There are canonical examples of drow who are different due to not being under the influence of Menzobarranzan society and the cult of Lolth. Orcs, ogres and goblins do occasionally show up in “human” cities without necessarily being relegated to a life of violent crime. All of them are available as player character options. There is no genetic or just plain racial imperative on their morality. And all of this has been the case for a few decades already, it’s not something that just started to change.
And yet when there is a move to make that variety and free will more explicit, such as seems currently the case, there is massive resistance from those who seem to consider such a thought some sort of blasphemy.
What move would that be, specifically? Racial modifiers are pretty much meaningless compared to the variety stats allow for, and removing references to racism hardly makes free will more explicit. I probably missed a few other things, I’m hardly scouring the media for Tasha’s spoilers or other less readily available insights in the inner workings of WotC, but I’d welcome more info.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The only objection I could see is that some players [1] expect to be able to use just about any optional rule ever provided it's in a book somewhere. That's more a social issue between players and the DM rather than a problem with the rules though.
[1] In my experience, your mileage may vary, I know this is anecdotal
That's because that's a completely inaccurate representation of the argument. At no point has anyone attempted to argue that racist depictions of orcs and drow in D&D is going to result in people becoming racist in real life. What they have argued is that such depictions are offensive to a lot of people, not just ones who belong to the ethnic group being stereotyped and such depictions do nothing to add to the game and instead really detract from the enjoyment of those players. Since there aren't really a lot of counter-arguments beyond "but we've always done it that way" and "but orcs aren't real," there's little point in keeping it, since WotC changes game lore all the time anyway. And honestly, few companies jump on social issues just for the heck of it. Usually it's because they've done a cost-benefit analysis and have decided that trying to appeal to the group speaking out on the social issue is worth more than not doing so.
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.
It's not just one person: http://nkjemisin.com/2013/02/from-the-mailbag-the-unbearable-baggage-of-orcing/
https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-and-dragons-orcs-racist/
https://medium.com/@scottgladstein/are-orcs-racist-1b37cdbf06da
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 why Session Zero matters. Or at least discussing the tone with players beforehand so they know what to expect, and giving reasons for your rulings. So long as something is established beforehand I find most players will not complain.
I used to have anything-goes type settings, but some players will appreciate a few more restrictions if it keeps a certain atmosphere to your game.
I don’t think the argument was represented quite like that. Speaking just for myself, it’s more that racism existing in games doesn’t normalize it in real life, nor does it make it more acceptable. I get that it can be offensive or hurtful to those who feel - justified or not - it might be directed at them in some way, but that is not inherent in the theme being present. It takes, respectfully, a somewhat deliberate and willful outlook on D&D species (species, not even races) being presented as evil, brutish, stupid or whatever you want as a slight towards specific real life ethnicities, cultures or groups. I get these themes might be distasteful to some as well, but that arguably just means campaigns that touch on those are not for them. The bottom line to me is that any serious theme being represented can rub someone the wrong way - religion, militarism, politics, ethics and so on. That being possible however in no way imposes an intent behind them being incorporated in a game, nor does it have to suggest a moral or other opinion of them being present (never mind prevailing) among the players. On the flip side of all this, scrubbing sensitive themes from roleplaying games seems to run counter to the evolution and maturation of the genre. Nothing against the occasional hack & slash dungeon crawl, but a lot of us enjoy more serious themes being present - not to indulge in amoral attitudes, but because they are part of the human experience. Some RPGs go as far as embracing one or more of these themes at their core, and that is a good thing *provided it’s done well*. That, in the end, is what it comes down to: not that they are present, but how themes are presented and used.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The stereotypes about Orcs and Drow are arguably cultural more than racial. And that makes a difference. Stereotyping genetics is a whole other animal than stereotyping upbringing.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I want to clarify this. While there might have been some racism in Tolkien (describing Orcs as Mongols), Lovecraft was explicitly and horribly racist. He was scared to death of African Americans, Jewish people, and basically every other group of people that was not him. Lovecraft's hatred influences his writing as well; the fear of the unknown and far away are major themes of his. I enjoy his work, and the ideas and foundations he laid for cosmic horror are excellent, but there is no denying that he was a horrible person in many ways.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I enjoy reading Lovecraft. I enjoy from not only a genre fiction standpoint, but also literary. I don't think that people should not read his work because of the horrible things he said and thought. I just wanted to inform people that he was not a good person, and knowing this about him can help you understand his works better. I encourage people to read Lovecraft, but to also understand how his personal beliefs, environment, and upbringing influenced his writings.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
The implications on sentience and free will are exactly the point. There are canonical examples of drow who are different due to not being under the influence of Menzobarranzan society and the cult of Lolth. Orcs, ogres and goblins do occasionally show up in “human” cities without necessarily being relegated to a life of violent crime. All of them are available as player character options. There is no genetic or just plain racial imperative on their morality. And all of this has been the case for a few decades already, it’s not something that just started to change.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would agree with species ability score mods if the species were more distinct. To me, they are all very similar and are basically reskinned humans. If a world actually tried to make them unique, I would be more amicable to species ability score mods.
(Lyxen, I saw that you used the term "coloured" in your post. Some people find that offensive, and prefer the term "person of colour.")
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Lyxen,
Yes. For some reason “colored people” is often seen as offensive, but “people of color” is not. I know, that makes little sense, especially since English is a second or third language for you, but it is what it is. I don’t want to see you get in trouble for something that simple to correct.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think it may have to do with the dehumanization of people, by making their race more important than the fact that they are people. By saying "people of colour," you are reinforcing the word people first. Anyways, this is a bit off topic.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I am unqualified to speculate, and it is indeed off topic.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
An Ape stat block is higher strength than a human commoner stat block. Realism preserved.
After that: You are playing heroic fantasy. Stories of heroes who can wrestle giants are nearly as old as time itself. A halfing with 20 STR is an outlier. All heroes in the game, played by player characters, are outliers. From level 1 to level 20, they are exceptional individuals.
The generic or default options for every race will still be there, and their forgotten realms baseline political and societal structures will still be there. Tasha's does not make every halfling have a +2 STR bonus. It makes your player character - an exceptional and inherently unique halfling - have a +2 STR bonus.
Halflings could already quite easily end up with 20 STR regardless. A halfling being stronger than an Ape is not suddenly somehow new, created by Tasha's. It has been a part of D&D for as long as D&D has existed that any player character can end up with absolutely absurd strength, and that their racial modifiers at character creation only play a minor part in their final stat block. You could always make a halfling that's stronger than an ape. Nothing about this has changed.
And finally: You will notice that height is not included in the new proposals for Racial ability modifiers. Heights are a strawman here.
Small species will still have disadvantage on wielding heavy weapons, and I doubt that that will change.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
But isn't that ableist? Shouldn't halflings be able to wield a lance one handed if they feel they can? Is it right to cast all halflings as being tiny, why do they all have to be small? Can't some of them be tall or really strong?
I'm just going through the logic leaps that people will do to see how much they can get away with pushing WotC to do what they say. WotC apparently is going through the Social Media Panic and is beyond bending the knee phase, they appear to be going beyond the pale. A complete Dragonlance setting with an actual campaign would have made a decent amount of money for WotC, but they balked. The recent changes to character creation are uninspiring and will tend to homogenize out the races more cutting down on the flavor in the setting. I honestly would not be surprised if they put out that a character can exchange a tool proficiency to increase in height before everything is set and done. I could easily see there being complaints on Twitter and an errata coming out where WotC states height increase is possible for small races.
You can grow stronger by lifting weights and running. You can stretch and practice acrobatics. Endurance training improves constitution. Studying puzzles and maths, intelligence. Wisdom, reading philosophy and observing the world. Charisma, practicing speaking.
You see what I am getting here? All of these ability scores can be improved by training. And the point of the variant system is that it presumes your character either trained or was an outlier form their normal species. If you compared and average dwarf and average elf, the dwarf would be stronger.
You can't train to change your height. And it would certainly be more difficult to use a six-foot greatsword if you are four feet tall. So I do not think that heavy weapons rules will be changed.
The argument that "since Wizards is changing something now, they will obviously keep on changing for the worse" is a slippery slope fallacy.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
All of the parallels to real world racial and ethnic discriminations aside, I think the problem comes down to the actual stat generation. In my games we use a modified version of point buy where the players can assign their stats however they want as long as their pre-racial bonuses equal 72, max of 18 again before racial bonuses. This allows for 12s across the board and a lot of customization. In this situation, the racial bonus are negligible, and just as often get used to cancel negatives as it is to give bonuses. In this situation the bonuses were already free floating within character creation. I guess that was the problem I have/had with Tasha's, is that the change seems unnecessary because it ultimately doesn't matter.
As for the legacy stuff, I have been staying away from most information in Tasha's because, being honest, I'm going to buy it regardless of what is in it because its a sourcebook and I want those options available to me even if I don't use them and I would like to be pleasantly surprised by what is in the book.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
You aren't going with a post modern mind frame, facts don't matter, identity matters. A lot of the complaints that WotC are bowing to are hedged in that philosophy. Tell me that you believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that if a concerted effort was made to make WotC look ableist for not putting wheel chair, height, mute and deafness as defining character traits and giving players the ability to change them to strengths not flaws isn't being done now. It's a post modern argument, and I get where you are going.
There is an effort now to get wheelchairs put into D&D, neverminded the Regeneration spell, Heal Spell or Wish Spell making that condition not logical in D&D for an adventurer with money, power and high level clerical friends. If they cast a spell and heal it, its considered ableist. Its going to come in most likely not in Tasha but in the next source book. Fantasy Logic doesn't matter to post modern logic. Isn't the blindness/deafness spell ableist, isn't it wrong to use that spell as a negative effect? This is coming to the game and if WotC doesn't start saying no for game balance, we are going to get some really wonderful new "optional" rules that will take hold in adventure league games because its in the book and its legal.
What move would that be, specifically? Racial modifiers are pretty much meaningless compared to the variety stats allow for, and removing references to racism hardly makes free will more explicit. I probably missed a few other things, I’m hardly scouring the media for Tasha’s spoilers or other less readily available insights in the inner workings of WotC, but I’d welcome more info.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].