Just wanted to thank for their time and input on the issue. While it's been great to run our own campaigns and work together on the 'group' games where multiple tables will tackle larger threats, we're embracing the 'round table' strategy from this point forward simply because I am getting older and I want the other DMs to pick up the torch and run with it, as they'll be more connected with what the younger children get engaged with, rather than ye olde paleogamer trying to be 'hip and with it'.
In regards to the young man, we've had to make a sad decision to remove him from the groups due to his attitude and some of the younger players figuring out who my D&D Beyond username belongs to and contacting me with some footage taken at Sunday's game. They were concerned that the young man was being given special treatment considering how much time he'd spent with the DMs and group leaders, and were quick to respond when they realised that the young man didn't have any special treatment.
I mean, no? There are certainly many evil humanoids all over. Often the most evil. But the vast majority are just good people who want to be left to live life. The only "evil races" in my worlds are the few that have been twisted for centuries by beholders, like the Gith. Orcs aren't evil, humans aren't evil, but many individuals are evil.
The problem you have identified is not a new one, for years many people have called out the unintentional racial element of not just DnD but fantasy in general, the article above is just the latest in what has been a growing voice within parts of the community.
While Tashas has solved part of this by no longer linking specific attribute increases to each race, meaning the Half orc can equally be just intelligent, or the elf strong, it has not addressed the issues inherent in the monster manual and other connected sourcebooks. It is largely down to individual DMs such as yourself to shape the material in a way that is less black and white and more shades of many greys.
I think you have done the right thing in shaping your campaign this way, for me things are much more enjoyable if there is a bit of ambiguity. That giant you killed, had a giant baby bottle meant for a child somewhere, that orc tribe, just want to be left alone and are attacking humans because they are killing all the Buffalo and risking starvation for them. When you nuance things and give your antagonists real reasons to do what they do rather then simply, they are all evil they kill it makes for a richer world that players can understand. I mean they might still have moments where they go a bit murder hobo but still they may feel bad about it later :).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just wanted to thank for their time and input on the issue. While it's been great to run our own campaigns and work together on the 'group' games where multiple tables will tackle larger threats, we're embracing the 'round table' strategy from this point forward simply because I am getting older and I want the other DMs to pick up the torch and run with it, as they'll be more connected with what the younger children get engaged with, rather than ye olde paleogamer trying to be 'hip and with it'.
In regards to the young man, we've had to make a sad decision to remove him from the groups due to his attitude and some of the younger players figuring out who my D&D Beyond username belongs to and contacting me with some footage taken at Sunday's game. They were concerned that the young man was being given special treatment considering how much time he'd spent with the DMs and group leaders, and were quick to respond when they realised that the young man didn't have any special treatment.
I mean, no? There are certainly many evil humanoids all over. Often the most evil. But the vast majority are just good people who want to be left to live life. The only "evil races" in my worlds are the few that have been twisted for centuries by beholders, like the Gith. Orcs aren't evil, humans aren't evil, but many individuals are evil.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/dandd-must-grapple-with-the-racism-in-fantasy/amp
The problem you have identified is not a new one, for years many people have called out the unintentional racial element of not just DnD but fantasy in general, the article above is just the latest in what has been a growing voice within parts of the community.
While Tashas has solved part of this by no longer linking specific attribute increases to each race, meaning the Half orc can equally be just intelligent, or the elf strong, it has not addressed the issues inherent in the monster manual and other connected sourcebooks. It is largely down to individual DMs such as yourself to shape the material in a way that is less black and white and more shades of many greys.
I think you have done the right thing in shaping your campaign this way, for me things are much more enjoyable if there is a bit of ambiguity. That giant you killed, had a giant baby bottle meant for a child somewhere, that orc tribe, just want to be left alone and are attacking humans because they are killing all the Buffalo and risking starvation for them. When you nuance things and give your antagonists real reasons to do what they do rather then simply, they are all evil they kill it makes for a richer world that players can understand. I mean they might still have moments where they go a bit murder hobo but still they may feel bad about it later :).