I presume that, like myself, you are not a member of a minority.
That means neither you nor I have any right to dismiss someone else's concerns about aspects of racism within D&D, or any other game.
I presume then that you are suggesting that the OP is a Halfling living in Faerun, and therefore has the right?
Straw man.
How do you think POC might feel, being faced with Drow, who're dark-skinned because they are evil ...? Especially in light of the once-commonly-touted belief that Africans were dark-skinned because it was the mark of Cain ...?
How do you think POC might feel, being faced with Drow, who're dark-skinned because they are evil ...?
They're not black skinned because they're evil. They're black skinned because they adapted to the strange radiations of the underworld and it allowed them to camouflage themselves. Its why their Elven Cloak & Boots are black and why their mail armor is made of adamantine, that is also black in color.
Which evil races are light skinned? Which dark skinned races in D&D are traditionally described as good aligned? Be fair, there is, or at least historically has been a correlation there, intended or not.
Frost Giants have white skin and are Evil AF. Same with Derro. Vampires are pale. Foxwomen, in their Elven form, are pale skinned. And, of course, White Dragons, and Sivak Draconians (original batch) are Evil.
Or how about the evil (and racist AF) pale-skinned Sueloise humans of Greyhawk that are part of The Scarlet Brotherhood? Sure, not every Suel is Evil (just a whole bunch of them), but those that are part of the Brotherhood all are, and that's a good chunk of those pure-strain (which most peoples of the Flanaess tend to be admixtures of various Flan, Suel, Oeridian and Baklunish depending upon where they're from).The Cruskii, Fruztii and Schnaii Barbarians aren't known for their kindness, engaging in raiding and pillaging of the coasts along the northeastern Flanaess.
Deep Gnomes have medium brown to brownish-grey skin and are Neutral (with Good tendencies). Moon Dogs, also known as Black Hounds, are shadowy grey/black and are intelligent and have an alignment of neutral good. In fact, the entry from MM2 says they're often mistaken for baneful monsters. Shadowpeople of Sanction (on Krynn) have skin covered in smooth dark fur and they're Neutral (Good)
Dwarf is a Human/Common world for a race. They probably have a word for their race in Dwarven and another word for humans that may be as descriptive/rude. I love how in Warhammer Dwarfs (SIC!) call Humans "Umgi" in their own language which roughly translates as "something made hastly and half-competently which somehow still works if not reliably", so they're perfectly fine with Humans calling them Dwarfs, as their own word for Humans is even more insulting.
Another good example is in Discworld where Dwarfs call Humans Tallfolk and just cringe every time human SJW-equivalents try to dance around supposedly-offensive word "Dwarf". They don't see it as offensive. In fact they see it as a compliment, as acknowledgment of their short (compared to humans) stature they see as right and proper height. It's a value dissonanse between two species - with humans being tall means noble and powerful, but with dwarves being tall means quite literal headache (from bumping into doorframes and ceilings). They often (quietly) pity humans for their size and generally believe that size is the main reason for their short lifespan.
No, Frost Giants have blue skin. Not as dark as drow but nevertheless, darker than humans.
When there is not a skin colour prejudice involved there is almost always some other prejudice.
So, moving the goalpost I see. You asked, I provided. And no, Frost Giants aren't blue.
From the 1E Monster Manual:
Description: Frost giants have dead white or ivory skin color, blue-white or yellow hair, and pale blue or yellow eyes. Their build is basically similar to a muscular human, with appropriate size differences. Frost giants wear armor and bear arms similar to those of humans of the northern barbarian sort.
Social problems exist in campaign worlds. In the world in which I play, there is a culture where it is very common for a human and elf to fall in love, reproduce, and then realize that the different lifespans make a real relationship impossible. The majority of 1/2 Elf babies will "slip in the bath tub" while being bathed by their own human mother. If that doesn't happen, then they will become discarded and left as "orphans."
I play a 1/2 Elf from that culture who managed to beat the odds.
I think the injustices in a campaign setting do a great job to help build opportunities for character depth and growth.
I really, really dislike the idea of a campaign setting in which the GM has softened all the sharp edges. That includes things like getting rid of "halfling" because it might suggest to someone that the character is "half" of a man. Even IF it were true that a hegemony exists which is so strongly dominated by humans over halflings that it leads to halflings calling themselves by a name they believe means "half a man," (and I am by no means saying that it is true, only that IF it were true), that shouldn't be seen as something bad, but rather as opportunity for character depth and growth.
This has been covered in thread after thread after thread. Social problems existing in campaigns is fine and, as you say, a good thing. When those 'social problems' are treated as genetic or otherwise defined and enforced by Divine edict as being universal, not fine.
The difference is 'some individuals persecute Halflings because they are considered to be inferior due to their short size' vs 'Halflings are inferior due to their short size and therefore persecuting them is justified.' In character individual opinion vs DM fiat from outside the campaign world.
I once played in a game where the world was ruled by benevolent Elves who fought an endless war against the barbaric and evil humans. All humans in that game were evil, they did evil things for evils sake, and although they were extremely powerful and feared warriors, they were not in the least benevolent. They were the polar opposite of the Elves of that world.
The person who ran that game had created a homebrew world where humans were created by an evil god, and were created specifically to spread evil, hatred, malice and fear across the world. As a result, all humans were irreversibly evil. Although there was differences between individuals of how evil and tolerant of others they were, all humans were evil, because that was how their god had made them.
I played a human in that game, who had been raised by Elves, as part of an experiment, to see if nurture could overcome nature, and to a certain extent it did. My character struggled against his nature, and although he could not be said to be good, he tried and eventually gained some measure of control over his urges to be evil. That did not mean that he was not evil though, or that he no longer had evil thoughts, only that he had learned to recognise that those thoughts or actions were evil, and had gained enough control that most of the time meant he was able to keep his nature in check.
As a human though, he was still evil. Only instead of being chaotic evil like a lot of kin, he was neutral evil.
The game was really good and I enjoyed playing that character because I got to play out the struggle of wanting to do the right thing, of wanting to be good, been naturally drawn to the “dark side”, and the war he raged against the evil within.
So, saying that having an entire race, who can’t simply be evil because that is how they were made, doesn’t make sense to me. Just because you are a character from an evil race; just because you are evil, doesn’t mean you have to an idiot or a murderhobo.
Anyway, none of that really has anything to do with the names of races, I just wanted comment on your remarks that having an entire race be evil because they were created that way, was wrong. You can have evil races, just as you can have prejudice.
An example of prejudice is a dwarf I once played. He came from a noble house and he hated any dwarf that was a lower caste than him, but especially those dwarves who had been branded as outcastes. He despised the outcastes for no other reason than they had no family, no caste, and no place in society. He considered them less than dwarves, little more than animals with no rights whatsoever. When he caught an outcaste stealing food to feed their child, he killed them, and didn’t feel any remorse, or even believed that he had done anything wrong. To him, that outcaste was an animal that had become a problem and needed to be put down for the good of society. He felt no pitty for them, or for the child that would now most likely starve to death because of his actions.
The child did not starve to death however. They in fact survived and grew up, and became my character in another game, and started off that campaign imprisoned after getting caught attempting to commit acts of terrorism against the family whose patriarch had killed her father.
She was prejudiced against all nobility and those who supported them, just as the noble character has been prejudiced against all outcastes.
I also once played a Tiefling Warlock, who became a Warlock, only after being refused admittance into a magic school based solely upon his race. He really wanted to be a wizard, and as a child had studied hard, but despite making the grade he was not allowed to join the school because he was a Tiefling, and so he pretty much said, “you deny me entry because of who I am, you call me a monster, a devil; then so be it, a devil I shall become!”
Having prejudice in your game does make you a bad person. Playing a character who is prejudice against others, is not a bad thing. It does not make you a bad person, or mean that you believe in or support such things in real life.
Many stories and movies would not be the same without prejudice or struggle. Prejudice and struggle are nothing but tools, that when used properly can and do transcend the human condition, and allow people to explore thoughts and philosophies that are often alien to them, through the safe medium of story and play. It is how we learn, how we grow, and how we become better people. Take that away and you are left with bothuny but bare bones and a dice game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Ok, fair enough. You found an exception. Other than the fact that they dress as barbarians so instead of skin colour connotations they have 'barbaric tribe' connotations....
If Orcs, for example, are defined as 'must be evil because Orc god' then you cannot make one a hero, at least not in any conventional sense of the term.
What makes you think you could not be an evil hero? Hell, the very first hero in recorded fiction - Gilgamesh - would be very much Nutral Evil by DnD standards.
If Orcs, for example, are defined as 'must be evil because Orc god' then you cannot make one a hero, at least not in any conventional sense of the term.
What makes you think you could not be an evil hero? Hell, the very first hero in recorded fiction - Gilgamesh - would be very much Nutral Evil by DnD standards.
Exactly! Quij, Lord Robilar's trusty sidekick, was an Orc hero. He was Lawful Evil. There is literally nothing that says you cannot be Heroic and be Evil. Now, you're less likely to be heroic if you Chaotic Evil....but...well...there is Elric. From my trusty 1st printing of Deities & Demigods...
ELRIC (hero) ARMOR CLASS: 6 or -6 (see below) MOVE,: 6" or 75" (see below) HIT POINTS: 45 (variable) NO. OF ATTACKS: 2 DAMAGE/ATTACK: See below SPECIAL ATTACKS: See below SPECIAL DEFENSES: Nil MAGIC RESISTANCE: Standard or 85% (see below) SIZE: M (6') ALIGNMENT: Chaotic evil CLERIC/DRUID: 10th level cleric/5th level druid FIGHTER: 15th level fighter MAGIC-USER/ILLUSIONIST: 19th level magic-user/10th level illusionist THIEF/ASSASSIN: 10th level assassin MONK/BARD: Nil PSIONIC ABILITY: Nil Attack/Defense Modes: Nil S:6(15) I: 18 W: 17 D: 17 C:3(15) CH: 18
Really comes down to how you define 'heroic.' In 1st Ed, though, simply being an assassin was considered evil, regardless of context.
Because D&D was built on the assumptions of Swords & Sorcery more than High Fantasy. There is a reason Greyhawk is basically a more fantastical version of Lieber's Newhon and Vance's Dying Earth. Heroes are more in the vein of Classical mythology, where what made you a hero had less to do with doing good for the sake of the community and more to do with courage in the face of adversity. You're supposed to play Conan, not St. Joan of Arc (well, you play St. Joan of Arc in DragonLance, since its Heroic Fantasy).
my point was that unless you play the evil character as not 'reaaaaaaaly' evil
"Good-Evil" axis in DnD alignment system is not about what you do but about why you do it. You may run concentration camps brutally brainwashing people "for their own good" China-style and still count as 100% LG or you can save the world for personal gain and power (or just because you don't have a spare world to escape to) and be capital "E" Evil.
The end justifying the means is Machiavelli and generally held up as prototypical LE.
The "end justifying means" is archenypical Lawful. If your ends are for your own selfish benefit it's LE. If your end is for the benefit of others it's LG. You of course could be entirely delusional as to what would benefit others, but your motives would still be good.
The writers seem to simply assume that society at large is good, or something. Lawful Good "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society," so in a LE society, the LG can be counted on to be LE. In a CE society, the LG can be counted on to be..... CE......
Seems right to me. We have too many historical examples of general populace made of mostly normal good well-meaning people going along with whatever crazy course the leadership of a country/community went with out of assumption that the people in power know what they're doing.
Except Conan was a thief much of his early career and not especially the 'heart of gold' kind
Did you NOT read what I just wrote? Conan would STILL count as a Hero in D&D, because it was built on the assumptions of Heroism being more in the Classical sense. Its why the early game was far more Swords & Sorcery than High Fantasy. From my handy-dandy copy of OD&D Gods, Demigods & Heroes:
CONAN Armor Class — As a normal man Alignment: Neutral Move: 12" Magic Ability: None Hit Points: 117 Fighter Ability: 15th Level Str: 18/100 Int: 16 Wis: 10 Con: 17 Dex: 18 Cha: 15
You can absolutely play a Hero of any alignment in D&D. You CAN be a Hero and be Evil in D&D Heroic Fantasy too. Raistlin Majere is one of the Heroes of the Lance and he's Chaotic Evil.
Not sure how many would agree that counts as LG. The end justifying the means is Machiavelli and generally held up as prototypical LE.
There is a Goblin village nearby to where my Lawful Good Fighter starting a settlement to attract peasants to come stake a claim and build a community. Its entirely Lawful and Good for me to lead a band of my retainers and wipe out that Goblin village, putting every last one of them (males, females, the young and the old) to the sword. They're Goblins and are Monsters, irrespective of age (goblin children are just small monsters) or gender (female goblins often fight just as hard as their mates and are just as capable). They are Evil and the creation of Evil gods who have malintent towards all others not like them. Its not Evil to put them to the sword because its preventing future harm to my settlement and Goblins cannot be reasoned with to hold up any bargain to NOT raid.
And anyway, Alignment has become irrelevant to D&D 5E for all intents and purposes for reasons that I don't comprehend other than most players (or DMs) can't understand that when you try cramming modern morality into D&D, you create havoc with the system.
All of which is to say that there is nothing remotely wrong with the term Dwarf or Halfling. If you don't want to use them, either think up new ones, use the ones I provided that come from Greyhawk or grok that a lot of D&D fans (especially us older ones) don't appreciate being called racists or bigots in a backhanded manner by people who wouldn't even be able to enjoy this hobby if we hadn't put up with a bunch of crap from society at large like the Satanic Panic when the game was still fresh and new.
There is a Goblin village nearby to where my Lawful Good Fighter starting a settlement to attract peasants to come stake a claim and build a community. Its entirely Lawful and Good for me to lead a band of my retainers and wipe out that Goblin village, putting every last one of them (males, females, the young and the old) to the sword. They're Goblins and are Monsters, irrespective of age (goblin children are just small monsters) or gender (female goblins often fight just as hard as their mates and are just as capable)
This is where I have a problem. You can play it that way if you like, but to me this is horrific. You have decided to take that land away from the people who live there, and are happy to commit genocide to do so. This is an Evil act, even if those you are removing from their home are Evil.
This is without considering the ramifications of encouraging people to view an entire group as Evil. This has led to atrocities throughout the ages, and will not be part of a game I am playing. "That whole group is evil, so we are allowed to do whatever we want to them" is a horrific viewpoint to take, and is a path to Evil in itself.
Straw man.
How do you think POC might feel, being faced with Drow, who're dark-skinned because they are evil ...? Especially in light of the once-commonly-touted belief that Africans were dark-skinned because it was the mark of Cain ...?
http://www.weregeek.com/2020/02/18/
They're not black skinned because they're evil. They're black skinned because they adapted to the strange radiations of the underworld and it allowed them to camouflage themselves. Its why their Elven Cloak & Boots are black and why their mail armor is made of adamantine, that is also black in color.
Frost Giants have white skin and are Evil AF. Same with Derro. Vampires are pale. Foxwomen, in their Elven form, are pale skinned. And, of course, White Dragons, and Sivak Draconians (original batch) are Evil.
Or how about the evil (and racist AF) pale-skinned Sueloise humans of Greyhawk that are part of The Scarlet Brotherhood? Sure, not every Suel is Evil (just a whole bunch of them), but those that are part of the Brotherhood all are, and that's a good chunk of those pure-strain (which most peoples of the Flanaess tend to be admixtures of various Flan, Suel, Oeridian and Baklunish depending upon where they're from).The Cruskii, Fruztii and Schnaii Barbarians aren't known for their kindness, engaging in raiding and pillaging of the coasts along the northeastern Flanaess.
Deep Gnomes have medium brown to brownish-grey skin and are Neutral (with Good tendencies). Moon Dogs, also known as Black Hounds, are shadowy grey/black and are intelligent and have an alignment of neutral good. In fact, the entry from MM2 says they're often mistaken for baneful monsters. Shadowpeople of Sanction (on Krynn) have skin covered in smooth dark fur and they're Neutral (Good)
Dwarf is a Human/Common world for a race. They probably have a word for their race in Dwarven and another word for humans that may be as descriptive/rude. I love how in Warhammer Dwarfs (SIC!) call Humans "Umgi" in their own language which roughly translates as "something made hastly and half-competently which somehow still works if not reliably", so they're perfectly fine with Humans calling them Dwarfs, as their own word for Humans is even more insulting.
Another good example is in Discworld where Dwarfs call Humans Tallfolk and just cringe every time human SJW-equivalents try to dance around supposedly-offensive word "Dwarf". They don't see it as offensive. In fact they see it as a compliment, as acknowledgment of their short (compared to humans) stature they see as right and proper height. It's a value dissonanse between two species - with humans being tall means noble and powerful, but with dwarves being tall means quite literal headache (from bumping into doorframes and ceilings). They often (quietly) pity humans for their size and generally believe that size is the main reason for their short lifespan.
Do they get to pay half the usual taxes, though? I can see stereotypical Dwarves and Haflings rolling with it just fine.
So, moving the goalpost I see. You asked, I provided. And no, Frost Giants aren't blue.
From the 1E Monster Manual:
Description: Frost giants have dead white or ivory skin color, blue-white or yellow hair, and pale blue or yellow eyes. Their build is basically similar to a muscular human, with appropriate size differences. Frost giants wear armor and bear arms similar to those of humans of the northern barbarian sort.
I once played in a game where the world was ruled by benevolent Elves who fought an endless war against the barbaric and evil humans. All humans in that game were evil, they did evil things for evils sake, and although they were extremely powerful and feared warriors, they were not in the least benevolent. They were the polar opposite of the Elves of that world.
The person who ran that game had created a homebrew world where humans were created by an evil god, and were created specifically to spread evil, hatred, malice and fear across the world. As a result, all humans were irreversibly evil. Although there was differences between individuals of how evil and tolerant of others they were, all humans were evil, because that was how their god had made them.
I played a human in that game, who had been raised by Elves, as part of an experiment, to see if nurture could overcome nature, and to a certain extent it did. My character struggled against his nature, and although he could not be said to be good, he tried and eventually gained some measure of control over his urges to be evil. That did not mean that he was not evil though, or that he no longer had evil thoughts, only that he had learned to recognise that those thoughts or actions were evil, and had gained enough control that most of the time meant he was able to keep his nature in check.
As a human though, he was still evil. Only instead of being chaotic evil like a lot of kin, he was neutral evil.
The game was really good and I enjoyed playing that character because I got to play out the struggle of wanting to do the right thing, of wanting to be good, been naturally drawn to the “dark side”, and the war he raged against the evil within.
So, saying that having an entire race, who can’t simply be evil because that is how they were made, doesn’t make sense to me. Just because you are a character from an evil race; just because you are evil, doesn’t mean you have to an idiot or a murderhobo.
Anyway, none of that really has anything to do with the names of races, I just wanted comment on your remarks that having an entire race be evil because they were created that way, was wrong. You can have evil races, just as you can have prejudice.
An example of prejudice is a dwarf I once played. He came from a noble house and he hated any dwarf that was a lower caste than him, but especially those dwarves who had been branded as outcastes. He despised the outcastes for no other reason than they had no family, no caste, and no place in society. He considered them less than dwarves, little more than animals with no rights whatsoever. When he caught an outcaste stealing food to feed their child, he killed them, and didn’t feel any remorse, or even believed that he had done anything wrong. To him, that outcaste was an animal that had become a problem and needed to be put down for the good of society. He felt no pitty for them, or for the child that would now most likely starve to death because of his actions.
The child did not starve to death however. They in fact survived and grew up, and became my character in another game, and started off that campaign imprisoned after getting caught attempting to commit acts of terrorism against the family whose patriarch had killed her father.
She was prejudiced against all nobility and those who supported them, just as the noble character has been prejudiced against all outcastes.
I also once played a Tiefling Warlock, who became a Warlock, only after being refused admittance into a magic school based solely upon his race. He really wanted to be a wizard, and as a child had studied hard, but despite making the grade he was not allowed to join the school because he was a Tiefling, and so he pretty much said, “you deny me entry because of who I am, you call me a monster, a devil; then so be it, a devil I shall become!”
Having prejudice in your game does make you a bad person. Playing a character who is prejudice against others, is not a bad thing. It does not make you a bad person, or mean that you believe in or support such things in real life.
Many stories and movies would not be the same without prejudice or struggle. Prejudice and struggle are nothing but tools, that when used properly can and do transcend the human condition, and allow people to explore thoughts and philosophies that are often alien to them, through the safe medium of story and play. It is how we learn, how we grow, and how we become better people. Take that away and you are left with bothuny but bare bones and a dice game.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
So. What.
You're gonna continue to move the goalpost?
Mighty hypocritical of you to assume white as defalut Human...
Call the races by a name you prefer in your campaign.
Describe skin colors (textures, tints, shades) as you wish in your campaign.
What makes you think you could not be an evil hero? Hell, the very first hero in recorded fiction - Gilgamesh - would be very much Nutral Evil by DnD standards.
Exactly! Quij, Lord Robilar's trusty sidekick, was an Orc hero. He was Lawful Evil. There is literally nothing that says you cannot be Heroic and be Evil. Now, you're less likely to be heroic if you Chaotic Evil....but...well...there is Elric. From my trusty 1st printing of Deities & Demigods...
ELRIC (hero)
ARMOR CLASS: 6 or -6 (see below)
MOVE,: 6" or 75" (see below)
HIT POINTS: 45 (variable)
NO. OF ATTACKS: 2
DAMAGE/ATTACK: See below
SPECIAL ATTACKS: See below
SPECIAL DEFENSES: Nil
MAGIC RESISTANCE: Standard or 85% (see below)
SIZE: M (6')
ALIGNMENT: Chaotic evil
CLERIC/DRUID: 10th level cleric/5th level druid
FIGHTER: 15th level fighter
MAGIC-USER/ILLUSIONIST: 19th level magic-user/10th level illusionist
THIEF/ASSASSIN: 10th level assassin
MONK/BARD: Nil
PSIONIC ABILITY: Nil
Attack/Defense Modes: Nil
S:6(15) I: 18 W: 17 D: 17 C:3(15) CH: 18
Because D&D was built on the assumptions of Swords & Sorcery more than High Fantasy. There is a reason Greyhawk is basically a more fantastical version of Lieber's Newhon and Vance's Dying Earth. Heroes are more in the vein of Classical mythology, where what made you a hero had less to do with doing good for the sake of the community and more to do with courage in the face of adversity. You're supposed to play Conan, not St. Joan of Arc (well, you play St. Joan of Arc in DragonLance, since its Heroic Fantasy).
"Good-Evil" axis in DnD alignment system is not about what you do but about why you do it. You may run concentration camps brutally brainwashing people "for their own good" China-style and still count as 100% LG or you can save the world for personal gain and power (or just because you don't have a spare world to escape to) and be capital "E" Evil.
The "end justifying means" is archenypical Lawful. If your ends are for your own selfish benefit it's LE. If your end is for the benefit of others it's LG. You of course could be entirely delusional as to what would benefit others, but your motives would still be good.
Seems right to me. We have too many historical examples of general populace made of mostly normal good well-meaning people going along with whatever crazy course the leadership of a country/community went with out of assumption that the people in power know what they're doing.
Did you NOT read what I just wrote? Conan would STILL count as a Hero in D&D, because it was built on the assumptions of Heroism being more in the Classical sense. Its why the early game was far more Swords & Sorcery than High Fantasy. From my handy-dandy copy of OD&D Gods, Demigods & Heroes:
CONAN
Armor Class — As a normal man
Alignment: Neutral
Move: 12"
Magic Ability: None
Hit Points: 117
Fighter Ability: 15th Level
Str: 18/100 Int: 16 Wis: 10 Con: 17 Dex: 18 Cha: 15
You can absolutely play a Hero of any alignment in D&D. You CAN be a Hero and be Evil in D&D Heroic Fantasy too. Raistlin Majere is one of the Heroes of the Lance and he's Chaotic Evil.
There is a Goblin village nearby to where my Lawful Good Fighter starting a settlement to attract peasants to come stake a claim and build a community. Its entirely Lawful and Good for me to lead a band of my retainers and wipe out that Goblin village, putting every last one of them (males, females, the young and the old) to the sword. They're Goblins and are Monsters, irrespective of age (goblin children are just small monsters) or gender (female goblins often fight just as hard as their mates and are just as capable). They are Evil and the creation of Evil gods who have malintent towards all others not like them. Its not Evil to put them to the sword because its preventing future harm to my settlement and Goblins cannot be reasoned with to hold up any bargain to NOT raid.
And anyway, Alignment has become irrelevant to D&D 5E for all intents and purposes for reasons that I don't comprehend other than most players (or DMs) can't understand that when you try cramming modern morality into D&D, you create havoc with the system.
All of which is to say that there is nothing remotely wrong with the term Dwarf or Halfling. If you don't want to use them, either think up new ones, use the ones I provided that come from Greyhawk or grok that a lot of D&D fans (especially us older ones) don't appreciate being called racists or bigots in a backhanded manner by people who wouldn't even be able to enjoy this hobby if we hadn't put up with a bunch of crap from society at large like the Satanic Panic when the game was still fresh and new.
Raistlin Majere is more of an anti-hero than anything, but that’s just by-the-by. He was the antagonist as much as a protagonist in Legends.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is where I have a problem. You can play it that way if you like, but to me this is horrific. You have decided to take that land away from the people who live there, and are happy to commit genocide to do so. This is an Evil act, even if those you are removing from their home are Evil.
This is without considering the ramifications of encouraging people to view an entire group as Evil. This has led to atrocities throughout the ages, and will not be part of a game I am playing. "That whole group is evil, so we are allowed to do whatever we want to them" is a horrific viewpoint to take, and is a path to Evil in itself.