I think you've gone even further into offensive territory here. You will it's one thing to talk about stereotypes, entirely another to be directly talking of racial stereotypes.
What you can't talk about, you can't resolve.
You mention 'Different wording could make this a really good concept. ' Such as?
Like I said before, express the attributes as those valued by the society or culture, typical attributes which may be found amount members in varying quantities.
Stereotype is a word with strong negative connotations, especially racial stereotype. They are not the same as generalisation or categorisation. As soon as you use the word, no matter what explanation you try to apply to it, it will be viewed in a negative light, and so it should because it is negative. The concept behind your description of the game sounds pretty good, but as soon as you call them stereotypes you bring all that baggage into it. Trying to destygmatise it will be a similar struggle to destygmatising the N word or the swastika.
I think it was best said when someone mentioned stereotypes are usually a power group's generalization of someone/thing, with little or no actual merit. Stereotypes would be things long the lines of "All Dwarves drink beer" while a generalization would be that "Beer is a very popular beverage in Dwarven communities" It's immensely difficult to use the word stereotype in a non-negative way, because it IS a negative term.
Whoever is insisting on it's use lacks either a grasp on our language or is trying to head off the complainers who will raise hell when you give an overview of the races (to be honest, SPECIES is more accurate for what we use in D&D) and scream that your stereotypes have limited my creativity!!!! I, for one, am more amused by folks taking up the HR banner for fictional creatures. It's great amusement reading people describe how Dragonborn, or Gnomes are being slighted and discriminated against......it's imaginary.
With that in mind, forcing you to use the word stereotype to describe this is a fail from the start, and juggling words will not make it acceptable to the care bears and hypersensitive, no matter HOW much you try. The word itself is negative and if this is something you will earn commissions of sales on, expect poor return. To explain how you use generalizations to show the "norm" for the different creatures would be not only more acceptable, but more accurate.
Well, the phrasing so far more resembles what you are calling a generalization.
I had a conversation with a co-worker about half an hour ago, prompted by this conversation. She's one of our consultants. Apparently the grant requirement isn't the only reason we have to use that terminology 'stereotype'. Our two sensitivity consultants both required it as well. One of them (the one I talked to) apparently made it a condition of her contract that if the word wasn't used her name would not be printed in the book.
Species was actually shot down because it was felt that it would create resistance to one of the selling points of the book; that this system allowed you to play characters of any mixed heritage, and the people from Wizards pointed out that all of the PHB races can mingle, weather with magic or not.
As a minor suggestion for what you're apparently trying to do: try changing your terminology. 'archetype' is a reasonably neutral term.
That's been suggested, and I would agree. Unfortunately, apparently they are being funded by someone who insists on "stereotype". If they don't use that, they don't get funded.
Urth> "Like I said before, express the attributes as those valued by the society or culture, typical attributes which may be found amount members in varying quantities." Well, we are doing that already. It was actually the specific reason I was included in this project, since it speaks to my background.
"Stereotype is a word with strong negative connotations, especially racial stereotype. They are not the same as generalisation or categorisation." Neurology and ontology disagree, and so do the psych & social justice folks. Either way, say what you want, that's how it's being done.
Species was actually shot down because it was felt that it would create resistance to one of the selling points of the book; that this system allowed you to play characters of any mixed heritage, and the people from Wizards pointed out that all of the PHB races can mingle, weather with magic or not.
I am fascinated that Wizards admitted that. I'm under the impression that they are too cagey to commit to that sort of answer.
This is so offensive and misguided I don't even know where to start.
I find it incredibly problematic that this is a thread for feedback, but that you're completely closed off to any feedback that relates to the idea that Stereotypes are hateful and hurtful and that the term should not be used in your text at all. Whether it's because of where the money is coming from for this project or own personal belief does not matter. No real dialogue can be had when every comment about how offensive your use of Stereotypes are is met with "well I can't do anything about it...money". That said, I have some things I feel the need to say even if it falls on deaf ears.
That’s part of why we’ve still included stereotypes here; because without a stereotype in a fictional setting there’s no racial identity at all.
This is very, very wrong. Stereotypes only detract from the ability to understand culture. Whether you realize it or not, this kind of rhetoric is used to justify hate and has no other purpose.
You cannot divorce the idea of Stereotypes from a history of malicious intent and hateful social and political practices that rely on such ways of thinking to justify their existence. No matter what you say, that history behind the word is all that matters. Do you expect to be able to dress up other hateful words in nice clothing and convince people they're good or useful? I hope not. Stereotype is no different.
I can be left with no other thought than to be incredibly suspicious of the source of your funding. I highly doubt anyone that has experienced a life of hate fueled by Stereotypes is going to buy into this, let alone head such a project. It will only serve as an echo chamber for the hateful and ignorant to justify their world view.
If you want to give readers the ability to generalize what certain species are like, then take the time to write in depth lore on the cultures of your world. Then readers can draw their own conclusions. Relying on stereotypes is not only lazy, but serves to justify hatred. That is not okay. At all.
There is no series of words that will magically fix the fundamental problems in what you have presented. This is hateful rhetoric disguised as science. I suggest you look into the history of Phrenology, a pseudoscience used to justify sociopolitical discrimination. What you have presented is a pseudoscience that mirrors such practices in language and will mirror them in use.
I think it was best said when someone mentioned stereotypes are usually a power group's generalization of someone/thing, with little or no actual merit. Stereotypes would be things long the lines of "All Dwarves drink beer" while a generalization would be that "Beer is a very popular beverage in Dwarven communities" It's immensely difficult to use the word stereotype in a non-negative way, because it IS a negative term.
Whoever is insisting on it's use lacks either a grasp on our language or is trying to head off the complainers who will raise hell when you give an overview of the races (to be honest, SPECIES is more accurate for what we use in D&D) and scream that your stereotypes have limited my creativity!!!! I, for one, am more amused by folks taking up the HR banner for fictional creatures. It's great amusement reading people describe how Dragonborn, or Gnomes are being slighted and discriminated against......it's imaginary.
With that in mind, forcing you to use the word stereotype to describe this is a fail from the start, and juggling words will not make it acceptable to the care bears and hypersensitive, no matter HOW much you try. The word itself is negative and if this is something you will earn commissions of sales on, expect poor return. To explain how you use generalizations to show the "norm" for the different creatures would be not only more acceptable, but more accurate.
Well, the phrasing so far more resembles what you are calling a generalization.
I had a conversation with a co-worker about half an hour ago, prompted by this conversation. She's one of our consultants. Apparently the grant requirement isn't the only reason we have to use that terminology 'stereotype'. Our two sensitivity consultants both required it as well. One of them (the one I talked to) apparently made it a condition of her contract that if the word wasn't used her name would not be printed in the book.
Species was actually shot down because it was felt that it would create resistance to one of the selling points of the book; that this system allowed you to play characters of any mixed heritage, and the people from Wizards pointed out that all of the PHB races can mingle, weather with magic or not.
The only way I could see "racial stereotype" being in any way "sensitive" (and I doubt that any I know would consider it so) would be if they were called out as the view of other races, and usually wrong. So, a race may be viewed by other races as fat and lazy, but it is not normally the case, it's just an incorrect view that other races have of them.
As soon as you say the racial stereotypes are typically accurate, which is the impression you give, you are lending weight to real world racial stereotypes. You are at least saying that you agree with people when they say that Germans are humourless and stern, or Americans are fat and arrogant. You are saying: yes, most people are stereotypes, but there are rare exceptions and you can be one of those exceptions if you want.
I would honestly put in an explanation of why the grant funding requires you to use this wording. I'd like it here, so we can know your parameters/restrictions more clearly, but I think it needs to be clear to the people using the book, or some people are going to walk away.
I would especially change the last phrase: "because without a stereotype in a fictional setting there’s no racial identity at all." The whole thing reads as 'it's too hard to illustrate diversity in a fictional setting,' but this sentence doubles down on 'stereotypes are the only way to illustrate racial characteristics.'
The trend in social justice work these days is to de-stigmatize the word stereotype and talk about how stereotypes should or shouldn't be used. The whole book is about encouraging diversity, so I'm not concerned about that being a point of confusion. In a direct sense, any illustration of race itself is an act of stereotyping, so you literally can't do without it, even if you don't call it that. That point might do with being more explicit though.
I really don't think we're at a point where we can 'take back' the word stereotype (and I don't know if it's necessary -- it's useful to have a word for 'negative generalization,' but that's not an argument for here). Can you provide some links to examples of this, because it seems pretty alien to the academic materials I'm familiar with, so I'm interested in the larger context (in part for purely work reasons -- do I need to be looking into this for our library).
Maybe whipping out the OED definition, which prefers to directly reference and prefer definitions having specifically to do with the stereotype machine, and compare it to something like the quick build suggestions in the PHB, or copy-pasted soldiers in a CGI battle might work as an illustrative model? (if not for the publication, at least for in the forums?) Emphasizing stereotype = template (like, maybe in that last phrase use template instead of stereotype - stereotype is still in the sentence, but you're reinforcing how you're using the word in its neutral meaning as part of the conclusion of the section). I'm grasping at straws, though, the word has just built up such a negative connotation.
This is so offensive and misguided I don't even know where to start.
I find it incredibly problematic that this is a thread for feedback, but that you're completely closed off to any feedback that relates to the idea that Stereotypes are hateful and hurtful and that the term should not be used in your text at all.
Species was actually shot down because it was felt that it would create resistance to one of the selling points of the book; that this system allowed you to play characters of any mixed heritage, and the people from Wizards pointed out that all of the PHB races can mingle, weather with magic or not.
I am fascinated that Wizards admitted that. I'm under the impression that they are too cagey to commit to that sort of answer.
Well, to be clear, this was not an official sanctioned meeting. This was 'some of group A know some of group B from mutual affiliations'. There's a lot of published material to support it anyway. If we can get it in under page count I want to include rules for characters outside the human body plan. Centaurs and such.
The biggest single problem with races in D&D is that orcs (and a bunch of other non-playable humanoids) don't really have a reason for existing other than 'provide people the PCs can kill without feeling bad'. There simply isn't a way of making that not offensive.
Don't take this badly as I'm genuinely curious, but can you please tell me to who this is offensive that some fantasy species exist mostly as adversaries ?
Not to put word in someone else's mouth, but I always thought it was an issue that any being be labeled as inherently evil. More so for a sentient being. That they can have non-evil alignments now is a step forward towards the general awareness of the nature of morality by the public. Part of my contribution to this book is an article about that, which I mentioned above. It's fine to play a campaign where you don't address moral concerns, but it should be done knowingly, and thus shouldn't be the default.
This is so offensive and misguided I don't even know where to start.
I find it incredibly problematic that this is a thread for feedback, but that you're completely closed off to any feedback that relates to the idea that Stereotypes are hateful and hurtful and that the term should not be used in your text at all.
Yep
OP: I want feedback
Others: Stereotype is offensive
OP: I don't want that feedback!
That was addressed already. There's constructive feed back and then there's the non-constructive kind. The constructive kind has been noted for inclusion, and that has been most of this thread.
Don't take this badly as I'm genuinely curious, but can you please tell me to who this is offensive that some fantasy species exist mostly as adversaries ?
It isn't necessarily -- as long as the race isn't defined in a way that makes it a reasonably transparent analog to a real-life group. Unfortunately, Tolkien-style orcs are readily identifiable as analogs for black people (Tolkien wasn't terribly big on describing them, but when he did, they were 'swarthy', as were the humans who worked for Sauron).
The easy way to avoid this is by having enemies who are sufficiently nonhuman that it's hard to view them as analogs. Simply deleting orcs and drow solves a lot of problems, as they are by far the most problematic.
This is so offensive and misguided I don't even know where to start.
I find it incredibly problematic that this is a thread for feedback, but that you're completely closed off to any feedback that relates to the idea that Stereotypes are hateful and hurtful and that the term should not be used in your text at all.
Yep
OP: I want feedback
Others: Stereotype is offensive
OP: I don't want that feedback!
That was addressed already. There's constructive feed back and then there's the non-constructive kind. The constructive kind has been noted for inclusion, and that has been most of this thread.
I can't say I'm surprised by this response.
If you can't see how problematic it is for you to recieve feedback that amounts to: "your use of the word Stereotype and ideas surrounding it are offensive" and label it as non-constructive then I have nothing else to say.
Racial stereotyping is offensive to many people. Supporting the idea that they are accurate, as you are doing by calling your quick builds stereotypes, is doubly so. You are not going to "take the word back" by supporting the negative connotations, even if you try to explain your way out of it. I doubt it is possible to "take back" or destygmatise it, and I don't see the reason to do so. We have other words we can use, and we can leave stereotype as the negative overgeneralisation it is widely known, used and defined as.
However, this isn't what you want to hear, and you're going to use the word anyway. I wish you luck: I think you are going to need a lot of it. However, given that you won't listen to what pretty much everyone is telling you... I'm out.
Approaching this from a different angle. Hopefully this amounts to something . . .
Does this even matter? Seriously, does it matter at all whether or not I think D&D is "racist" or not? If you're playing the game, having fun as a group, and are not actively harming someone physically or emotionally, why should you care about this at all? So many of you old school players are getting riled up and trying to make a panic about the new kids that are playing the game and that are trying to make it something that they like. Who cares?!?! You have 5+ editions of D&D that you have played and enjoyed up until this point with no problem, besides other people being jerks and taking away/burning your D&D books 30ish years ago. That has stopped, and it won't happen again. If people try to take away your books and burn them, tell them to go away and report them to the respective authorities for harassing you. Whether or not orcs are evil at your table is no one's business except for your table and you. If they're being ******** and telling you that you're racist/sexist/bigoted, ignore them and return to your table playing the game that all of us know and love. Seriously. There's no problem. If people are trying to convince you that you're playing the game wrong and being rude about it, that's just a pesky distraction that can be solved through the click of a button.
Furthermore, why does it matter if D&D officially changes to be more inclusive? You probably have older editions and groups of players already, you likely know the mechanics of multiple editions of the game, and a place to play any edition of D&D that you want. Why not sit back, take it easy, and let the newer people take the wheel for a bit? A lot of people want this change (no one will ever convince me that some Twitter mob is making a second Satanic Panic, that is plain BS, as many, many people on this forum, ENWorld's, Reddit's, and many others truly and honestly want this change), so let them have it. You're not losing anything, can go about freely playing D&D in the style that you like, and the other side gets a win. Our win does not equal your loss. We're evening out the field and letting people who want this style of D&D to play it easily and officially (and, yes, officiality does matter. It matters for D&D Beyond, Roll20 and other VTTs, Adventurer's League, and other tables/platforms that are strictly RAW).
And, finally, if we trust WotC's most recent UA, your opinion doesn't matter. Wizards of the Coast has already made up their mind. Races are now lineages, and thus will no longer have racially assigned ASIs, alignment suggestions, and cultural mechanics. They have made up their minds and stated that they want D&D to be inclusive. They have changed Vistani in Curse of Strahd (even if it was just a few small changes), have published TCoE's Customize your Origin feature, and will likely be officializing the Gothic Lineages in the soon-to-be-announced D&D book.
No one is calling you bigoted/racist/sexist/transphobic/anything-ist for disliking/not-incorporating these changes, no one is forcing you to use these rules and options, and no one is burning your prized D&D books. Stop painting us as crazed, deranged idiots that don't understand the game and have no interest in it. It's not polite, and is likely one of the major reasons why this ongoing debate will not end.
P.S. If you do find people who are calling you bigoted or otherwise harassing you for any opinion you have on this matter, feel free to tell me about it, and I will happily call them out. I am more than willing to criticize people on "my side" when they are being jerks and spouting BS. If they are doing that, they aren't on my side and don't represent me or my opinion.
And, finally, if we trust WotC's most recent UA, your opinion doesn't matter. Wizards of the Coast has already made up their mind. Races are now lineages, and thus will no longer have racially assigned ASIs, alignment suggestions, and cultural mechanics.
No, they have not, sorry. Wishing for it does not make it true. All lineages are options and options only. All the races are unchanged on the DDB beyond page here, including ASI. Please stop spreading misinformation and confusing people about this subject.
And Unearthed Arcana is nothing official, and will probably be vaporware in one form or another.
Third probably meant that your opinion doesn't matter for future races, if the UA were to become official.
Design Note: Changes to Racial Traits In 2020, the book Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything introduced the option to customize several of your character’s racial traits, specifically the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, and traits that give skill, armor, weapon, or tool proficiencies. Following in that book’s footsteps, the race options in this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical realities of being a player character who’s a member of a particular lineage. Such traits include things like darkvision, a breath weapon (as in the dragonborn), or innate magical ability (as in the forest gnome). Such traits don’t include cultural characteristics, like language or training with a weapon or a tool, and the traits also don’t include an alignment suggestion, since alignment is a choice for each individual, not a characteristic shared by a lineage. Finally, going forward, the term “race” in D&D refers only to the suite of game features used by player characters. Said features don’t have any bearing on monsters and NPCs who are members of the same species or lineage, since monsters and NPCs in D&D don’t rely on race or class to function. Moreover, DMs are empowered to customize the features of the creatures in their game as they wish.
And, finally, if we trust WotC's most recent UA, your opinion doesn't matter. Wizards of the Coast has already made up their mind. Races are now lineages, and thus will no longer have racially assigned ASIs, alignment suggestions, and cultural mechanics.
No, they have not, sorry. Wishing for it does not make it true. All lineages are options and options only. All the races are unchanged on the DDB beyond page here, including ASI. Please stop spreading misinformation and confusing people about this subject.
And Unearthed Arcana is nothing official, and will probably be vaporware in one form or another.
(Not yelling, just emphasizing to get my point through.)
YES THEY HAVE. Though the mechanical parts of Unearthed Arcana documents are not official, any statement made by Wizards of the Coast in that form (typically marked by "Design Note" or a similar title) is "official".
Following in that book (Tasha's Cauldron of Everything)'s footsteps, the race options in this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical realities of being a player character who’s a member of a particular lineage.
This is an explicitly official statement made by Wizards of the Coast. My post is not spreading misinformation, yours is. Unless WotC suddenly decides to flip-flop from this official statement, this is going to be the status quo of the future.
As a minor suggestion for what you're apparently trying to do: try changing your terminology. 'archetype' is a reasonably neutral term.
Like I said before, express the attributes as those valued by the society or culture, typical attributes which may be found amount members in varying quantities.
Stereotype is a word with strong negative connotations, especially racial stereotype. They are not the same as generalisation or categorisation. As soon as you use the word, no matter what explanation you try to apply to it, it will be viewed in a negative light, and so it should because it is negative. The concept behind your description of the game sounds pretty good, but as soon as you call them stereotypes you bring all that baggage into it. Trying to destygmatise it will be a similar struggle to destygmatising the N word or the swastika.
Well, the phrasing so far more resembles what you are calling a generalization.
I had a conversation with a co-worker about half an hour ago, prompted by this conversation. She's one of our consultants. Apparently the grant requirement isn't the only reason we have to use that terminology 'stereotype'. Our two sensitivity consultants both required it as well. One of them (the one I talked to) apparently made it a condition of her contract that if the word wasn't used her name would not be printed in the book.
Species was actually shot down because it was felt that it would create resistance to one of the selling points of the book; that this system allowed you to play characters of any mixed heritage, and the people from Wizards pointed out that all of the PHB races can mingle, weather with magic or not.
That's been suggested, and I would agree. Unfortunately, apparently they are being funded by someone who insists on "stereotype". If they don't use that, they don't get funded.
Urth> "Like I said before, express the attributes as those valued by the society or culture, typical attributes which may be found amount members in varying quantities."
Well, we are doing that already. It was actually the specific reason I was included in this project, since it speaks to my background.
"Stereotype is a word with strong negative connotations, especially racial stereotype. They are not the same as generalisation or categorisation."
Neurology and ontology disagree, and so do the psych & social justice folks. Either way, say what you want, that's how it's being done.
I am fascinated that Wizards admitted that. I'm under the impression that they are too cagey to commit to that sort of answer.
This is so offensive and misguided I don't even know where to start.
I find it incredibly problematic that this is a thread for feedback, but that you're completely closed off to any feedback that relates to the idea that Stereotypes are hateful and hurtful and that the term should not be used in your text at all. Whether it's because of where the money is coming from for this project or own personal belief does not matter. No real dialogue can be had when every comment about how offensive your use of Stereotypes are is met with "well I can't do anything about it...money". That said, I have some things I feel the need to say even if it falls on deaf ears.
This is very, very wrong. Stereotypes only detract from the ability to understand culture. Whether you realize it or not, this kind of rhetoric is used to justify hate and has no other purpose.
You cannot divorce the idea of Stereotypes from a history of malicious intent and hateful social and political practices that rely on such ways of thinking to justify their existence. No matter what you say, that history behind the word is all that matters. Do you expect to be able to dress up other hateful words in nice clothing and convince people they're good or useful? I hope not. Stereotype is no different.
I can be left with no other thought than to be incredibly suspicious of the source of your funding. I highly doubt anyone that has experienced a life of hate fueled by Stereotypes is going to buy into this, let alone head such a project. It will only serve as an echo chamber for the hateful and ignorant to justify their world view.
If you want to give readers the ability to generalize what certain species are like, then take the time to write in depth lore on the cultures of your world. Then readers can draw their own conclusions. Relying on stereotypes is not only lazy, but serves to justify hatred. That is not okay. At all.
There is no series of words that will magically fix the fundamental problems in what you have presented. This is hateful rhetoric disguised as science. I suggest you look into the history of Phrenology, a pseudoscience used to justify sociopolitical discrimination. What you have presented is a pseudoscience that mirrors such practices in language and will mirror them in use.
The only way I could see "racial stereotype" being in any way "sensitive" (and I doubt that any I know would consider it so) would be if they were called out as the view of other races, and usually wrong. So, a race may be viewed by other races as fat and lazy, but it is not normally the case, it's just an incorrect view that other races have of them.
As soon as you say the racial stereotypes are typically accurate, which is the impression you give, you are lending weight to real world racial stereotypes. You are at least saying that you agree with people when they say that Germans are humourless and stern, or Americans are fat and arrogant. You are saying: yes, most people are stereotypes, but there are rare exceptions and you can be one of those exceptions if you want.
I really don't think we're at a point where we can 'take back' the word stereotype (and I don't know if it's necessary -- it's useful to have a word for 'negative generalization,' but that's not an argument for here). Can you provide some links to examples of this, because it seems pretty alien to the academic materials I'm familiar with, so I'm interested in the larger context (in part for purely work reasons -- do I need to be looking into this for our library).
Maybe whipping out the OED definition, which prefers to directly reference and prefer definitions having specifically to do with the stereotype machine, and compare it to something like the quick build suggestions in the PHB, or copy-pasted soldiers in a CGI battle might work as an illustrative model? (if not for the publication, at least for in the forums?) Emphasizing stereotype = template (like, maybe in that last phrase use template instead of stereotype - stereotype is still in the sentence, but you're reinforcing how you're using the word in its neutral meaning as part of the conclusion of the section). I'm grasping at straws, though, the word has just built up such a negative connotation.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Yep
OP: I want feedback
Others: Stereotype is offensive
OP: I don't want that feedback!
Well, to be clear, this was not an official sanctioned meeting. This was 'some of group A know some of group B from mutual affiliations'.
There's a lot of published material to support it anyway. If we can get it in under page count I want to include rules for characters outside the human body plan. Centaurs and such.
Not to put word in someone else's mouth, but I always thought it was an issue that any being be labeled as inherently evil. More so for a sentient being. That they can have non-evil alignments now is a step forward towards the general awareness of the nature of morality by the public. Part of my contribution to this book is an article about that, which I mentioned above. It's fine to play a campaign where you don't address moral concerns, but it should be done knowingly, and thus shouldn't be the default.
That was addressed already. There's constructive feed back and then there's the non-constructive kind. The constructive kind has been noted for inclusion, and that has been most of this thread.
It isn't necessarily -- as long as the race isn't defined in a way that makes it a reasonably transparent analog to a real-life group. Unfortunately, Tolkien-style orcs are readily identifiable as analogs for black people (Tolkien wasn't terribly big on describing them, but when he did, they were 'swarthy', as were the humans who worked for Sauron).
The easy way to avoid this is by having enemies who are sufficiently nonhuman that it's hard to view them as analogs. Simply deleting orcs and drow solves a lot of problems, as they are by far the most problematic.
I can't say I'm surprised by this response.
If you can't see how problematic it is for you to recieve feedback that amounts to: "your use of the word Stereotype and ideas surrounding it are offensive" and label it as non-constructive then I have nothing else to say.
Right, here's the thing.
Racial stereotyping is offensive to many people. Supporting the idea that they are accurate, as you are doing by calling your quick builds stereotypes, is doubly so. You are not going to "take the word back" by supporting the negative connotations, even if you try to explain your way out of it. I doubt it is possible to "take back" or destygmatise it, and I don't see the reason to do so. We have other words we can use, and we can leave stereotype as the negative overgeneralisation it is widely known, used and defined as.
However, this isn't what you want to hear, and you're going to use the word anyway. I wish you luck: I think you are going to need a lot of it. However, given that you won't listen to what pretty much everyone is telling you... I'm out.
Approaching this from a different angle. Hopefully this amounts to something . . .
Does this even matter? Seriously, does it matter at all whether or not I think D&D is "racist" or not? If you're playing the game, having fun as a group, and are not actively harming someone physically or emotionally, why should you care about this at all? So many of you old school players are getting riled up and trying to make a panic about the new kids that are playing the game and that are trying to make it something that they like. Who cares?!?! You have 5+ editions of D&D that you have played and enjoyed up until this point with no problem, besides other people being jerks and taking away/burning your D&D books 30ish years ago. That has stopped, and it won't happen again. If people try to take away your books and burn them, tell them to go away and report them to the respective authorities for harassing you. Whether or not orcs are evil at your table is no one's business except for your table and you. If they're being ******** and telling you that you're racist/sexist/bigoted, ignore them and return to your table playing the game that all of us know and love. Seriously. There's no problem. If people are trying to convince you that you're playing the game wrong and being rude about it, that's just a pesky distraction that can be solved through the click of a button.
Furthermore, why does it matter if D&D officially changes to be more inclusive? You probably have older editions and groups of players already, you likely know the mechanics of multiple editions of the game, and a place to play any edition of D&D that you want. Why not sit back, take it easy, and let the newer people take the wheel for a bit? A lot of people want this change (no one will ever convince me that some Twitter mob is making a second Satanic Panic, that is plain BS, as many, many people on this forum, ENWorld's, Reddit's, and many others truly and honestly want this change), so let them have it. You're not losing anything, can go about freely playing D&D in the style that you like, and the other side gets a win. Our win does not equal your loss. We're evening out the field and letting people who want this style of D&D to play it easily and officially (and, yes, officiality does matter. It matters for D&D Beyond, Roll20 and other VTTs, Adventurer's League, and other tables/platforms that are strictly RAW).
And, finally, if we trust WotC's most recent UA, your opinion doesn't matter. Wizards of the Coast has already made up their mind. Races are now lineages, and thus will no longer have racially assigned ASIs, alignment suggestions, and cultural mechanics. They have made up their minds and stated that they want D&D to be inclusive. They have changed Vistani in Curse of Strahd (even if it was just a few small changes), have published TCoE's Customize your Origin feature, and will likely be officializing the Gothic Lineages in the soon-to-be-announced D&D book.
No one is calling you bigoted/racist/sexist/transphobic/anything-ist for disliking/not-incorporating these changes, no one is forcing you to use these rules and options, and no one is burning your prized D&D books. Stop painting us as crazed, deranged idiots that don't understand the game and have no interest in it. It's not polite, and is likely one of the major reasons why this ongoing debate will not end.
P.S. If you do find people who are calling you bigoted or otherwise harassing you for any opinion you have on this matter, feel free to tell me about it, and I will happily call them out. I am more than willing to criticize people on "my side" when they are being jerks and spouting BS. If they are doing that, they aren't on my side and don't represent me or my opinion.
Got it?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Third probably meant that your opinion doesn't matter for future races, if the UA were to become official.
Departing this thread now.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Design Note: Changes to Racial Traits In 2020, the book Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything introduced the option to customize several of your character’s racial traits, specifically the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, and traits that give skill, armor, weapon, or tool proficiencies. Following in that book’s footsteps, the race options in this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical realities of being a player character who’s a member of a particular lineage. Such traits include things like darkvision, a breath weapon (as in the dragonborn), or innate magical ability (as in the forest gnome). Such traits don’t include cultural characteristics, like language or training with a weapon or a tool, and the traits also don’t include an alignment suggestion, since alignment is a choice for each individual, not a characteristic shared by a lineage. Finally, going forward, the term “race” in D&D refers only to the suite of game features used by player characters. Said features don’t have any bearing on monsters and NPCs who are members of the same species or lineage, since monsters and NPCs in D&D don’t rely on race or class to function. Moreover, DMs are empowered to customize the features of the creatures in their game as they wish.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
(Not yelling, just emphasizing to get my point through.)
YES THEY HAVE. Though the mechanical parts of Unearthed Arcana documents are not official, any statement made by Wizards of the Coast in that form (typically marked by "Design Note" or a similar title) is "official".
The most recent UA says on the top-right of the second page, this:
This is an explicitly official statement made by Wizards of the Coast. My post is not spreading misinformation, yours is. Unless WotC suddenly decides to flip-flop from this official statement, this is going to be the status quo of the future.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms