I was referring to canon lore both for tieflings and half-orcs. Tieflings are described as being capable of being born to a mix of tieflings and non-tiefling parents, even to two non-tiefling parents, so they're not 'devil spawn' in the literal sense. It is, per the lore, a manifestation of an ancient pact with asmodeus and not the product of fiendist union with a mortal.
As for half-orcs, I never said that orcs were no less dangerous or warlike or a threat to civilisation, I said the problematic origins of half-orcs have been downplayed, compared to how front and center they used to be. The unpleasant means by which we used to get half-orcs is no longer the only or default.
I was referring to canon lore both for tieflings and half-orcs. Tieflings are described as being capable of being born to a mix of tieflings and non-tiefling parents, even to two non-tiefling parents, so they're not 'devil spawn' in the literal sense. It is, per the lore, a manifestation of an ancient pact with asmodeus and not the product of fiendist union with a mortal.
As for half-orcs, I never said that orcs were no less dangerous or warlike or a threat to civilisation, I said the problematic origins of half-orcs have been downplayed, compared to how front and center they used to be. The unpleasant means by which we used to get half-orcs is no longer the only or default.
Per the lore, it could be either. The predominant circumstance is what you have described, which I'm not disputing. But the horns, the tail, the supernatural features, people make assumptions, and I think that underdog aspect is baked into the race. Its there if you want to explore it. This is literally in their PHB entry.
MUTUAL MISTRUST
People tend to be suspicious of tieflings, assuming that their infernal heritage has left its mark on their personality and morality, not just their appearance. Shopkeepers keep a close eye on their goods when tieflings enter their stores, the town watch might follow a tiefling around for a while, and demagogues blame tieflings for strange happenings. The reality, though, is that a tiefling’s bloodline doesn’t affect his or her personality to any great degree. Years of dealing with mistrust does leave its mark on most tieflings, and they respond to it in different ways. Some choose to live up to the wicked stereotype, but others are virtuous. Most are simply very aware of how people respond to them. After dealing with this mistrust throughout youth, a tiefling often develops the ability to overcome prejudice through charm or intimidation.
Arguing that racism is 'common sense' is a somewhat....problematic stance. I would argue that it's the opposite of sense, it's nonsense to discriminate against one another
You can set aside literally anything to make your table inclusive and welcoming. You don't have to, but you can. There's nothing to say you need to have any form of violence or discrimination at your table.
I agree with you here wholeheartedly. But I don't think it is necessarily wrong to have real-world elements at the gaming table, especially ones that are supported by the narrative. That is, as long as it can be handled in a mature way.
I know it's not what you're saying, but I don't think anyone makes the point that real-world elements don't have a place at a table. Simply that they should be used wisely, and not as a cheap way to seem edgy. Also, that if you want to tackle these elements, you should make sure your players are okay with it. Both as a form of respect towards them (not wanting to make them uncomfortable of feel unwelcome), but also as a way to make sure you want to play the same game.
I'm pretty sure you and I are in agreement here, I just thought it merited to be said.
Not to drag this down into word play but common sense is a cultural statement. A sense that is common among a population is not necessarily truth. It used to be believed that Greek was the only real language and any other was just "bar, bar, bar" and now we have barbarians. It was believed that warriors from North western Normandy were cutthroats now we have the term Brigand.
These terms arrive based on the story a populace has been sold. To a Normand a Brigand would via common sense be there to kill and/or rob him, Brigandia was in revolt after all. In my campaigns orcs raid and pillage but never sexually assault. Orcs crave strength, so procreation with some one weaker is an insult to the gods and the tribe. So to non orcs it is "common sense" that an orc or half orc is in town to take your wife or your cow (if he can tell the difference :D). This sense isn't as common in the north where humans and orcs live in close proximity and festivals are held when an orc tribe meets a village in honor of shared fertility gods.
If you have a good relationship with your players you can just throw around cultural terms like common sense. Tho if not or if you have a new player at the table it becomes important to out right state these things.
Racism for the sake of realism doesn't really make sense in a narrative based game like DnD. If it isn't in service to your narrative cut it. Your party goes into the American Deep South two days post civil war sure racism would realistically be rampant, but you wouldn't set your campaign two days post plantation apocalypse if wasn't part of your narrative.
I was going over the latest D&D beyond article about racial stats and am now of the opinion that you should do whatever you think is okay amongst your friends but don’t talk about it on the internet.
Now going against my own advice, at my table there is distrust of the “evil” races i.e. Tieflings, Drow in most areas. But please don’t make comparisons with real life and fantasy games.
I think you're right. Certain discussions cannot be maturely had in an open forum.
That said gonna open up some despite my gut instincts on the matter.
I think it's high time D&D dropped the term race, and changed the term to species. Different races in D&D are different species, not different races like we use the term in the real world. Race is a bunch of bullshit based on arbitrary crap. Species are actually different things with entirely different physiology.
The difference between a human and an orc can be as different as the difference between an ape and a boar. Comparing the two to a human who happens to have one skin shade to a person with another skin shade, or facial feature, or whatever shallow irrelevant difference a person wants to pretend is important and classify themselves or others under is not the same thing.
An ape and a boar could be friends, stranger animal friendships have happened, but no ape and no boar will ever have identical capabilities, nor do their brains function identically. They are different species, they are built different physically. No ape will be goring anyone with their nonexistant tusks, and no boars will be swinging from the trees any time soon.
There's nothing wrong with people exploring a world where humans aren't the only sentient species and share it with various other competing species with different capabilities and motivations.
I'm probably one of the few people on this site that thinks we do this already. We're just ahead of the curve a bit, and tend to have hands, while most of our best intellectual competitors do not, so we win by default. Plus we live on the surface, while most functional advanced inventions are impossible to create underwater.
Am I a racist because I believe there are other animals on this planet that are sentient, but don't believe we share the same capabilities? Because when I explore different races in D&D that's usually the perspective I'm doing it with.
Oh and before anyone gets any silly ideas, one of the key components I've observed from sentience is variety. The more sentient a species is, the more it varies in personality. This is why in my world of Yarning, there are multiple species in almost every culture, and division is often cultural rather than by species in most cases. That being said, every species has it's strengths and weaknesses and tendencies. The best part about a character that plays against type, is finding ways to overcome their weaknesses.
I miss when playing say an Orc wizard meant I would never hit the heights of other wizards, and would need to find ways to take advantage of my strengths to help really make my orc wizard shine. When my orc wizard could defeat other wizards by counter spelling just long enough to get close and take advantage of being an orc and while not as strong as other orcs, still be strong enough to go full orc on the nerdy human wizard in front of him. Now, just wait a few levels, I can get the same twenty intelligence as the elf wizard, while his elven fighter friend can get the same 20 strength as my orc fighter...
I think it's high time D&D dropped the term race, and changed the term to species. Different races in D&D are different species, not different races like we use the term in the real world. Race is a bunch of bullshit based on arbitrary crap. Species are actually different things with entirely different physiology.
Pathfinder uses the term "ancestries" in the recently-released 2nd edition, and I think it sounds great.
It's also great because they call their character creation ABC: you pick their Ancestries, then their Background, then their Class.
I miss when playing say an Orc wizard meant I would never hit the heights of other wizards, and would need to find ways to take advantage of my strengths to help really make my orc wizard shine. When my orc wizard could defeat other wizards by counter spelling just long enough to get close and take advantage of being an orc and while not as strong as other orcs, still be strong enough to go full orc on the nerdy human wizard in front of him. Now, just wait a few levels, I can get the same twenty intelligence as the elf wizard, while his elven fighter friend can get the same 20 strength as my orc fighter...
I don't, but that's easy to house-rule though. You could get ability flaw back, and you could even say that having a flaw reduces the max a stat can reach by the same amount.
I must say I'm more of the opinion that I regret that making a Tiefling Barbarian because you find it cool will result in your character under-performing, and losing on the fun during battle because of that, so I'm going to house-rule that every race gets a floating +2 bonus to ability scores, that can't bring a stat bonus higher than +2 (so a tiefling couldn't use that to boost their charisma, a drow could get an additional point in charisma, and a dwarf could get a +2 charisma, for instance).
And if I'm being completely honest, I don't think any of us is more right than the other. I play the game I want to play, and so do you, as long as everyone have fun, that's what house rules are for.
I think it's high time D&D dropped the term race, and changed the term to species. Different races in D&D are different species, not different races like we use the term in the real world. Race is a bunch of bullshit based on arbitrary crap. Species are actually different things with entirely different physiology.
Pathfinder uses the term "ancestries" in the recently-released 2nd edition, and I think it sounds great.
It's also great because they call their character creation ABC: you pick their Ancestries, then their Background, then their Class.
I miss when playing say an Orc wizard meant I would never hit the heights of other wizards, and would need to find ways to take advantage of my strengths to help really make my orc wizard shine. When my orc wizard could defeat other wizards by counter spelling just long enough to get close and take advantage of being an orc and while not as strong as other orcs, still be strong enough to go full orc on the nerdy human wizard in front of him. Now, just wait a few levels, I can get the same twenty intelligence as the elf wizard, while his elven fighter friend can get the same 20 strength as my orc fighter...
I don't, but that's easy to house-rule though. You could get ability flaw back, and you could even say that having a flaw reduces the max a stat can reach by the same amount.
I must say I'm more of the opinion that I regret that making a Tiefling Barbarian because you find it cool will result in your character under-performing, and losing on the fun during battle because of that, so I'm going to house-rule that every race gets a floating +2 bonus to ability scores, that can't bring a stat bonus higher than +2 (so a tiefling couldn't use that to boost their charisma, a drow could get an additional point in charisma, and a dwarf could get a +2 charisma, for instance).
And if I'm being completely honest, I don't think any of us is more right than the other. I play the game I want to play, and so do you, as long as everyone have fun, that's what house rules are for.
I agree. Where my issue is where some people call people racists for having different species be different. Play how you want. Some people take judgements a bit far though. Racist is a term thrown around all too easily these days.
Well. I do not think one should just ignore all the lore just to be PC. This is another world, where life is harder and knowledge and understanding is not as widespread. Adventurers are not affected by it since they by are explorers and often share and gather information. Most of the worlds people never leave their lands and therefore are often influenced by it.
At most I think that people do respect and know the adventurers are powerful enough to slay a few dozen people at least and are therefore holding their tongue against other races, so the adventurers often do not get to hear any racism directed against them(unless the one who says it are an idiot). But there should be at least some snide remarks of their racism, because there are races who are commonly disliked (Tieflings and Half-Orcs). Like for example: An inn owner raises a brow as he see your half-orc companion and says "Is that guy gonna behave himself while you are here?". Or there could be something like: The guard took a look at you, and for a second, his face twisted like he did not like what he saw and told you "Do you have a permit, Tiefling?" He put much emphasis on the name "Tiefling".
Those are racism hidden in words and could be easily be settled with by using arguments as "That is your race" or "Some adventurers are overly violent, that is why I asked that". That should be at least have happened once for those who have traveled multiple cities and nations in DnD
Well. I do not think one should just ignore all the lore just to be PC. This is another world, where life is harder and knowledge and understanding is not as widespread. Adventurers are not affected by it since they by are explorers and often share and gather information. Most of the worlds people never leave their lands and therefore are often influenced by it.
This is an example of narrative. A campaign set in dangerous, less enlightened times where the players broader outlook sets them apart from the narrow minded society. Adventurers are almost always treated as misfits and outcasts because of their travels. In a world where few people ever go more than a few miles from home those who do are fools, running from something, or up to something. This is seen often in movies and books as the young hero is told by his or her parents that they need not leave home, everything they need to be happy is right here. People will take any step to get rid of perceived trouble makers. Maybe this time they target the half-orc and tiefling, maybe next time they target Rambo because they heard of the atrocities that happened in Vietnam.
Well. I do not think one should just ignore all the lore just to be PC. This is another world, where life is harder and knowledge and understanding is not as widespread. Adventurers are not affected by it since they by are explorers and often share and gather information. Most of the worlds people never leave their lands and therefore are often influenced by it.
This is an example of narrative. A campaign set in dangerous, less enlightened times where the players broader outlook sets them apart from the narrow minded society. Adventurers are almost always treated as misfits and outcasts because of their travels. In a world where few people ever go more than a few miles from home those who do are fools, running from something, or up to something. This is seen often in movies and books as the young hero is told by his or her parents that they need not leave home, everything they need to be happy is right here. People will take any step to get rid of perceived trouble makers. Maybe this time they target the half-orc and tiefling, maybe next time they target Rambo because they heard of the atrocities that happened in Vietnam.
Exactly. This is all part of the narrative that our characters live in, to experience the story and an alternate world that does not exist in our own reality
Well. I do not think one should just ignore all the lore just to be PC. This is another world, where life is harder and knowledge and understanding is not as widespread. Adventurers are not affected by it since they by are explorers and often share and gather information. Most of the worlds people never leave their lands and therefore are often influenced by it.
This is an example of narrative. A campaign set in dangerous, less enlightened times where the players broader outlook sets them apart from the narrow minded society. Adventurers are almost always treated as misfits and outcasts because of their travels. In a world where few people ever go more than a few miles from home those who do are fools, running from something, or up to something. This is seen often in movies and books as the young hero is told by his or her parents that they need not leave home, everything they need to be happy is right here. People will take any step to get rid of perceived trouble makers. Maybe this time they target the half-orc and tiefling, maybe next time they target Rambo because they heard of the atrocities that happened in Vietnam.
Exactly. This is all part of the narrative that our characters live in, to experience the story and an alternate world that does not exist in our own reality
Exactly what if something is interfering from our own reality with the game we want to play if racing a car faster than a goblin makes it politically correct to call someone a racist it makes it less fun to make a campaign to empower racists who are being discriminated upon just for playing a game that's different from what every "dungeon master" is used to running campaign wise and what makes the dungeon master who is implied to be the best at dungeon crawling etc any better from racist master who just wants to race a wagon around in a dnd game but because of the stigma of what a racist is you cant and I don't think that is very fair.
like for example in a heated race of like dungeon cart if I was about to cross the finish line ahead of a goblin and moderator says no you cant that is racism against goblins because your game has a racism master. and lets say another example in a race of dungeon cart im about to cross the finish line ahead of a goblin and then the moderator says ok you can do it even if its racist to keep the goblin back with magic missile etc because this time your game has a dungeon master and its a better word so that campaign is ok.
ya I was not making as much sense in the post above but clearly theres some sense in the common sense of everyone about what is ok to be better than everyone else as I.E dungeon master or game master but does that common sense take away from people imagination in a game of dungeon cart because of what they bring from the world I.E meta gaming makes it unacceptable to be a race master or other words that are just words but what makes it matter is the creativity it gives to your campaign.
At this point I'm like 95% sure Felbarn is a bot, or a troll using predictive text to fill their messages. The fact that the bot can't distinguish between race as the olympic sport and race as the social concept is very confusing until you understand it for what it is.
tldr: the post is saying you can be racist for dungeon cart or dungeon and dragon tactics or any games regardless of what the word "racist" mean. but what im saying is if you look at who is a expert in something from a perspective of the dnd world and not bringing meta gaming into it you could be a master who is a racist without bringing what it means to people in RL to your game
it was put pretty simple dungeon master = ok to be a racist
racist master = not ok to be a racist
the irony is obvious the dungeon master is not a expert on racism (racing wagons or cars) and the racist master likely a expert in such things is not allowed by the rules in dnd to run a campaign without getting called a homebrew.
I always have new thoughts whenever I try to make sense out of this basic idea and that's the problem I just type up what im thinking and I guess theres a difference from what im thinking and what im saying so I create a lot of nonsense to you but it makes sense to me.
with that said I was "thinking" that a lot of *bleep* get away with to much you probably just did with your post because you must be a dungeon master so you can cuss but I cant probably
At this point I'm like 95% sure Felbarn is a bot, or a troll using predictive text to fill their messages. The fact that the bot can't distinguish between race as the olympic sport and race as the social concept is very confusing until you understand it for what it is.
lots of upset cybernetic android would take offence to that.
a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.
-ist. Added to words to form nouns denoting: a person with a particular creative or academic role;.
So if i make a game where you have to drive the red wagon to get past level 1 and to get to level 2 you have to drive the green wagon to get to level 2. Is that considered racism because its a distintive philosophy to get from one level two the next in a dnd game? and that would make a person playing in such a game a racist if there a adventurer who has a role to play in picking the right wagon to get to the next level
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@HyperViper
I was referring to canon lore both for tieflings and half-orcs. Tieflings are described as being capable of being born to a mix of tieflings and non-tiefling parents, even to two non-tiefling parents, so they're not 'devil spawn' in the literal sense. It is, per the lore, a manifestation of an ancient pact with asmodeus and not the product of fiendist union with a mortal.
As for half-orcs, I never said that orcs were no less dangerous or warlike or a threat to civilisation, I said the problematic origins of half-orcs have been downplayed, compared to how front and center they used to be. The unpleasant means by which we used to get half-orcs is no longer the only or default.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Per the lore, it could be either. The predominant circumstance is what you have described, which I'm not disputing. But the horns, the tail, the supernatural features, people make assumptions, and I think that underdog aspect is baked into the race. Its there if you want to explore it. This is literally in their PHB entry.
Ah yeah, I wasn't saying there wasn't racial animosity, just that the 'literal devil spawn' is a bit off the mark.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
I know it's not what you're saying, but I don't think anyone makes the point that real-world elements don't have a place at a table. Simply that they should be used wisely, and not as a cheap way to seem edgy. Also, that if you want to tackle these elements, you should make sure your players are okay with it. Both as a form of respect towards them (not wanting to make them uncomfortable of feel unwelcome), but also as a way to make sure you want to play the same game.
I'm pretty sure you and I are in agreement here, I just thought it merited to be said.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
I appreciate your candor.
Not to drag this down into word play but common sense is a cultural statement. A sense that is common among a population is not necessarily truth. It used to be believed that Greek was the only real language and any other was just "bar, bar, bar" and now we have barbarians. It was believed that warriors from North western Normandy were cutthroats now we have the term Brigand.
These terms arrive based on the story a populace has been sold. To a Normand a Brigand would via common sense be there to kill and/or rob him, Brigandia was in revolt after all. In my campaigns orcs raid and pillage but never sexually assault. Orcs crave strength, so procreation with some one weaker is an insult to the gods and the tribe. So to non orcs it is "common sense" that an orc or half orc is in town to take your wife or your cow (if he can tell the difference :D). This sense isn't as common in the north where humans and orcs live in close proximity and festivals are held when an orc tribe meets a village in honor of shared fertility gods.
If you have a good relationship with your players you can just throw around cultural terms like common sense. Tho if not or if you have a new player at the table it becomes important to out right state these things.
Racism for the sake of realism doesn't really make sense in a narrative based game like DnD. If it isn't in service to your narrative cut it. Your party goes into the American Deep South two days post civil war sure racism would realistically be rampant, but you wouldn't set your campaign two days post plantation apocalypse if wasn't part of your narrative.
I think you're right. Certain discussions cannot be maturely had in an open forum.
That said gonna open up some despite my gut instincts on the matter.
I think it's high time D&D dropped the term race, and changed the term to species. Different races in D&D are different species, not different races like we use the term in the real world. Race is a bunch of bullshit based on arbitrary crap. Species are actually different things with entirely different physiology.
The difference between a human and an orc can be as different as the difference between an ape and a boar. Comparing the two to a human who happens to have one skin shade to a person with another skin shade, or facial feature, or whatever shallow irrelevant difference a person wants to pretend is important and classify themselves or others under is not the same thing.
An ape and a boar could be friends, stranger animal friendships have happened, but no ape and no boar will ever have identical capabilities, nor do their brains function identically. They are different species, they are built different physically. No ape will be goring anyone with their nonexistant tusks, and no boars will be swinging from the trees any time soon.
There's nothing wrong with people exploring a world where humans aren't the only sentient species and share it with various other competing species with different capabilities and motivations.
I'm probably one of the few people on this site that thinks we do this already. We're just ahead of the curve a bit, and tend to have hands, while most of our best intellectual competitors do not, so we win by default. Plus we live on the surface, while most functional advanced inventions are impossible to create underwater.
Am I a racist because I believe there are other animals on this planet that are sentient, but don't believe we share the same capabilities? Because when I explore different races in D&D that's usually the perspective I'm doing it with.
Oh and before anyone gets any silly ideas, one of the key components I've observed from sentience is variety. The more sentient a species is, the more it varies in personality. This is why in my world of Yarning, there are multiple species in almost every culture, and division is often cultural rather than by species in most cases. That being said, every species has it's strengths and weaknesses and tendencies. The best part about a character that plays against type, is finding ways to overcome their weaknesses.
I miss when playing say an Orc wizard meant I would never hit the heights of other wizards, and would need to find ways to take advantage of my strengths to help really make my orc wizard shine. When my orc wizard could defeat other wizards by counter spelling just long enough to get close and take advantage of being an orc and while not as strong as other orcs, still be strong enough to go full orc on the nerdy human wizard in front of him. Now, just wait a few levels, I can get the same twenty intelligence as the elf wizard, while his elven fighter friend can get the same 20 strength as my orc fighter...
Pathfinder uses the term "ancestries" in the recently-released 2nd edition, and I think it sounds great.
It's also great because they call their character creation ABC: you pick their Ancestries, then their Background, then their Class.
I don't, but that's easy to house-rule though. You could get ability flaw back, and you could even say that having a flaw reduces the max a stat can reach by the same amount.
I must say I'm more of the opinion that I regret that making a Tiefling Barbarian because you find it cool will result in your character under-performing, and losing on the fun during battle because of that, so I'm going to house-rule that every race gets a floating +2 bonus to ability scores, that can't bring a stat bonus higher than +2 (so a tiefling couldn't use that to boost their charisma, a drow could get an additional point in charisma, and a dwarf could get a +2 charisma, for instance).
And if I'm being completely honest, I don't think any of us is more right than the other. I play the game I want to play, and so do you, as long as everyone have fun, that's what house rules are for.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
I agree. Where my issue is where some people call people racists for having different species be different. Play how you want. Some people take judgements a bit far though. Racist is a term thrown around all too easily these days.
Well. I do not think one should just ignore all the lore just to be PC. This is another world, where life is harder and knowledge and understanding is not as widespread. Adventurers are not affected by it since they by are explorers and often share and gather information. Most of the worlds people never leave their lands and therefore are often influenced by it.
At most I think that people do respect and know the adventurers are powerful enough to slay a few dozen people at least and are therefore holding their tongue against other races, so the adventurers often do not get to hear any racism directed against them(unless the one who says it are an idiot). But there should be at least some snide remarks of their racism, because there are races who are commonly disliked (Tieflings and Half-Orcs). Like for example: An inn owner raises a brow as he see your half-orc companion and says "Is that guy gonna behave himself while you are here?". Or there could be something like: The guard took a look at you, and for a second, his face twisted like he did not like what he saw and told you "Do you have a permit, Tiefling?" He put much emphasis on the name "Tiefling".
Those are racism hidden in words and could be easily be settled with by using arguments as "That is your race" or "Some adventurers are overly violent, that is why I asked that". That should be at least have happened once for those who have traveled multiple cities and nations in DnD
This is an example of narrative. A campaign set in dangerous, less enlightened times where the players broader outlook sets them apart from the narrow minded society. Adventurers are almost always treated as misfits and outcasts because of their travels. In a world where few people ever go more than a few miles from home those who do are fools, running from something, or up to something. This is seen often in movies and books as the young hero is told by his or her parents that they need not leave home, everything they need to be happy is right here. People will take any step to get rid of perceived trouble makers. Maybe this time they target the half-orc and tiefling, maybe next time they target Rambo because they heard of the atrocities that happened in Vietnam.
Exactly. This is all part of the narrative that our characters live in, to experience the story and an alternate world that does not exist in our own reality
Exactly what if something is interfering from our own reality with the game we want to play if racing a car faster than a goblin makes it politically correct to call someone a racist it makes it less fun to make a campaign to empower racists who are being discriminated upon just for playing a game that's different from what every "dungeon master" is used to running campaign wise and what makes the dungeon master who is implied to be the best at dungeon crawling etc any better from racist master who just wants to race a wagon around in a dnd game but because of the stigma of what a racist is you cant and I don't think that is very fair.
like for example in a heated race of like dungeon cart if I was about to cross the finish line ahead of a goblin and moderator says no you cant that is racism against goblins because your game has a racism master. and lets say another example in a race of dungeon cart im about to cross the finish line ahead of a goblin and then the moderator says ok you can do it even if its racist to keep the goblin back with magic missile etc because this time your game has a dungeon master and its a better word so that campaign is ok.
ya I was not making as much sense in the post above but clearly theres some sense in the common sense of everyone about what is ok to be better than everyone else as I.E dungeon master or game master but does that common sense take away from people imagination in a game of dungeon cart because of what they bring from the world I.E meta gaming makes it unacceptable to be a race master or other words that are just words but what makes it matter is the creativity it gives to your campaign.
At this point I'm like 95% sure Felbarn is a bot, or a troll using predictive text to fill their messages. The fact that the bot can't distinguish between race as the olympic sport and race as the social concept is very confusing until you understand it for what it is.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
I can further simplify what I was trying to say
racist master = unable to be racist
dungeon master = acceptable to be racist
tldr: the post is saying you can be racist for dungeon cart or dungeon and dragon tactics or any games regardless of what the word "racist" mean. but what im saying is if you look at who is a expert in something from a perspective of the dnd world and not bringing meta gaming into it you could be a master who is a racist without bringing what it means to people in RL to your game
What the flug are you saying? I cannot comprehend your language...
it was put pretty simple dungeon master = ok to be a racist
racist master = not ok to be a racist
the irony is obvious the dungeon master is not a expert on racism (racing wagons or cars) and the racist master likely a expert in such things is not allowed by the rules in dnd to run a campaign without getting called a homebrew.
I always have new thoughts whenever I try to make sense out of this basic idea and that's the problem I just type up what im thinking and I guess theres a difference from what im thinking and what im saying so I create a lot of nonsense to you but it makes sense to me.
with that said I was "thinking" that a lot of *bleep* get away with to much you probably just did with your post because you must be a dungeon master so you can cuss but I cant probably
lots of upset cybernetic android would take offence to that.
I looked up what some stuff means
So if i make a game where you have to drive the red wagon to get past level 1 and to get to level 2 you have to drive the green wagon to get to level 2. Is that considered racism because its a distintive philosophy to get from one level two the next in a dnd game? and that would make a person playing in such a game a racist if there a adventurer who has a role to play in picking the right wagon to get to the next level