Half-Elves & Half-Orcs as we knew them are gone?

Quote from Snowtworf >>.

However, I've been doing some thinking about this. Admittedly something I had a lot of today while being bedbound. The fact is that 1DD's doing a lot of questionable changes and things I have immense doubts about. While I may be wrong, and I hope I am, I feel it's safe to say that 1DD is not the game for me and, I suspect, means I will either be staying with 5e or quitting D&D, and possibly TTRPG's if I can't find a new one, all together for at least a while. So I bit you adeu. I know you're heartbroken to see me leave. No, I won't be closing my account (I still use it for the 5e stuff I'm involved in that doesn't use roll20), but I won't be posting anymore for likely a long while.

 1D&D has not only not been finalised or had its details released yet, it hasn't even hasn't even finished solidifying what it is even going to look like. Rules are doing 180⁰ in between playtests because they're not even sure what they want to do with them. Respectfully, I submit that you can't know what it'll be like yet. All we have are a few questions from the Devs asking our opinions on a couple of concepts they have and a whole load of hot air from the forums, which is worse than nothing.

I don't know your thought processes on this and, let's face it, I'm just a guy on the internet to you. However, you (and all of us) know next to nothing about 1D&D, don't rule it out. If the forum isn't helping you, by all means pull back from it. I mean that in a non-gatekeeperish way - I've gone through a similar process due to the way people are treated here, and decided I'd stay, but only really post regarding game mechanics and to help people. You won't be the first to leave, nor the last. If you decide to stay, then that's great, honestly. If you decide that you're better off without the forums, then do what's right for you. The forums, like D&D itself, are only here to help, and if they're not helping you then, well, that's our loss.

However, I would encourage you to not make a decision about 1D&D just yet. Wait for it to come out, see what it's like, then see if you like it or not. It could be the best game you ever played, because we don't know anything about it yet, really. It's just too early days right now to know what's going to happen with any degree of certainty at all.

Quote from Marc_Ducorsky >>

I can live with creating an Elf and saying it looks human(ish) due to parents and calling it a half-elf.

I will miss +1/+1/+2 to stats.

 

 Annnnd...
Here it is...
The real issue in a nut-shell
Some players are still butthurt over losing this.

If you want to know why arguments get so inflamed and frustrated...that's why.

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Quote from kenclary >>

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Giving half elves and half orcs their own racial stats makes them into something mechanically and inherently different from other people, turning their biracial identities into gameable things, which serves to make them less then people and more like pedigreed stock animals.

That's a very elegant way of putting it.

To be, uh, "fair" to the devil's advocates in the room, the same can be said of making race a game thing, in general. Or any other "nature over nurture," the-bloodline-is-what-matters take on character-building. However, it's quite acute (on the nose, even) with biracial characters.

Yes, that's true as well. Having races as mechanically distinct things at all is bioessentialist. It's not something I think is going to change, however, and it's also something I'm used to. None of that means it's good, mind you, just ... status quo.

(Apologies if I'm keeping the thread going when people want it to stop. I'm hoping to just drill down a bit on this little sub-point.)

I think there's, potentially, a pattern of development here. It might not always be this way.

• 5e's background system has a "custom background" option, but it involves picking the background ability from an existing one and changing out the profiencies.
• Meanwhile, 1D&D's background system replaces the background abilities with "1st level feats," is balanced much more systematically, and the custom option is more front-and-center. Each and every prebuilt background strictly follows the custom rules.

Similarly, for racial rules:

• Tasha's Custom Lineage race option was a small step towards "replace racial abilities with a feat."
• 1D&D's race rules do, at least, clean up the distinctions between proficiencies, cosmetic traits, and actual racial abilities.
• In other words, 1D&D's race rules seem to have moved in the direction of 5e's background rules, and it stands to reason that they are considering (or will consider, in the future) following the same "path" as 1D&D's background rules.

I could easily see the current racial mechanics, plus a few of Xanathar's racial feats, getting rebuilt and rebalanced into a "biological feats" category. Then I could easily see a build-your-own race rule where you combine standardized ASIs, language, a couple proficiencies, etc., and one 1st-level-or-biological feat. Then (re)build all the classic races and whatnot as examples, but leave the custom rules front-and-center.

I see another reason for me not to buy into One DnD's cash grab crap.
I'll stick with 5e thanks.

Quote from Tex_Arcana >>

I see another reason for me not to buy into One DnD's cash grab crap.
I'll stick with 5e thanks.

Thank you for your heavily belated and largely unnecessary opinion.

While I understand and feel the concern from both sides in this thread, and I admittedly haven't read every post, some of the arguments brought up a way of thinking I haven't seen expressed in my skim of these posts. 

The concept of different beings in a fantasy world is not comparable to "race" in the contemporary human concept in reality. All of the different "races" in D&D are comparable more to biologically diverse creatures that would be most comparable to earlier (now extinct) biologically distinct forms of humans, and/or alien beings.

Neandertals, Denisovians, Homo Florensiensis and other now extinct human types were biologically distinct species. Yet many of the later branches of this evolutionary tree could mate and reproduce with Homo Sapien Sapiens. (Denisovians were "discovered" through genetic analysis, not fossil records). 

It might be less contentious to consider fantasy "races" in a similar way which would take away some associations with the term "race" as it is used currently to describe people who are all part of the same species now. 

It's confusing why D&D even uses the term race to describe these different beings who quite obviously have different origins, biological characteristics, and physical attributes. There needs to be a new, more sensitive bit of "Fantasy Taxonomy" here. 

I don't know the part you're referring to. I did find these quotes, which seem to define what the term "race" means in a D&D context (according to Crawford at least). 

It also sounds like the term "race" will not change, likely meaning the conversations will continue since this word itself has connotations players will bring from outside the fantasy game genre without taking into consideration that it's not an equivalent term in D&D. 

Of course a lot goes back to Tolkein. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/993380067194556416?lang=id

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/993662338757574656

Quote from obvert >>

I don't know the part you're referring to. I did find these quotes, which seem to define what the term "race" means in a D&D context (according to Crawford at least). 

It also sounds like the term "race" will not change, likely meaning the conversations will continue since this word itself has connotations players will bring from outside the fantasy game genre without taking into consideration that it's not an equivalent term in D&D. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/993380067194556416?lang=id

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/993662338757574656

Those quotes are 5 years old. They've announced they intend to not use the term "race" in any future products, and are currently leaning towards "species." See https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1393-moving-on-from-race-in-one-d-d

One of the UA feedback polls asked about other non-"race" terms, and even-more-recent comments say they are still considering alternatives to "species," but they are committed to not using "race."

There have been several very long threads (most of which get locked) about this very topic.

Obvert, you are not making one single argument that hasn't already been made at least fifty times before by everyone ranging from well-meaning but underinformed folks to flaming radical right turbo racists.  This has been a constant forum fire issue since the announcement of Tasha's Cauldron three-odd years ago.  What it amounts to is a sea change in how D&D approaches race/species/lineage, chargen, and representation that is being opposed by old-timers who hate the fact that newer players are sometimes made uncomfortable by the fact that many of the Classic Fantasy Tropes old-head D&D players cherish and treasure are heavily laced with endemic exclusionism.

To old heads, those tropes are the fundamental building blocks of good stories and the framework that enshrines their fondest memories of playing D&D and engaging with fantasy in general.

To others, those tropes are painful lingering scars of a time when no one else had a voice and they're doing little but holding back the modern game.

It's an irreconcilable division that no one will shut up about.  Whatever your stance on the matter though, Wizards has made its stance clear.  Which means the rest of us can adapt or move on, as the case may warrant.

This thread went over 5 months without restarting the same tired flamewar. Maybe the mods should lock this one, too, for the sake of completeness.

This is all settled at WotC. They are doing what they are doing, and people complaining about "wokeness" or whatever are just looking for more places to vent.

This is my first time posting on a DnD forum, and I'm a little confused on how Half-Elves and/or Half-Orcs are "racist".  Calling them "half" is not making them "half of a person", as I read somebody else say.  No, they're just "half" of a race.  I mean, look at all of the biracial people, of this world.  They're still a person, even if they're "half" of one race, and "half" of another.  I mean, it's like saying just because one is not 100% one race, then they're "not a person", either.  It doesn't make any sense.  "Half" is just a fact.  Whatever emotional connotation one wants to add to the word, is on them.  I've spoken to many biracial folks that identify with these "half" races, and so does their identity not matter, either?  Or, are we more concerned with the "100%" folks as the "superior ones"?

If the description of these races is the issue than just re-word it.  Otherwise, there's no explaining away that this new game completely removed a race, and that the message, itself, promotes MORE racism, by alienating REAL biracial people, for NOT being "100%".  Absolutely appalling!

Quote from Aaeiyn >>

This is my first time posting on a DnD forum, and I'm a little confused on how Half-Elves and/or Half-Orcs are "racist".  Calling them "half" is not making them "half of a person", as I read somebody else say.  No, they're just "half" of a race.  I mean, look at all of the biracial people, of this world.  They're still a person, even if they're "half" of one race, and "half" of another.  I mean, it's like saying just because one is not 100% one race, then they're "not a person", either.  It doesn't make any sense.  "Half" is just a fact.  Whatever emotional connotation one wants to add to the word, is on them.  I've spoken to many biracial folks that identify with these "half" races, and so does their identity not matter, either?  Or, are we more concerned with the "100%" folks as the "superior ones"?

If the description of these races is the issue than just re-word it.  Otherwise, there's no explaining away that this new game completely removed a race, and that the message, itself, promotes MORE racism, by alienating REAL biracial people, for NOT being "100%".  Absolutely appalling!

...what? Why the hell did you put "not a person" and "superior ones" in quotes? Nobody said or implied those things.

WotC is certainly not removing the concepts of inter-species mixing. If those biracial friends of yours are more comfortable with playing a bispecies character, then nothing's stopping them. It's just that there's now a more formulaic and logical way to make them that actually includes more possibilities. In 5e, if you want to make a mix besides half-elf and half-orc, you are likely to be shot down by the DM because of the lack of stats for anything besides those two options. Now, no such restrictions can apply.

Historically, the implication that being biracial means you have traits that are distinct of being "half" reeks of "breeding" logic and eugenics, that is generally considered racist. I'm not the right person to go into greater detail, but that's the gist as I understand it.

(Also consider the various racist laws places in the US have had about "just what percentage of 'blood' makes you really white/whatever" and you can understand that having hard and fast rules about defining "what you are" based on your "blood" is sketchy and problematic.)

Of course, you could just read the thread to get all of this, instead of posting question that look like concern-trolling to an old discussion.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Obvert, you are not making one single argument that hasn't already been made at least fifty times before by everyone ranging from well-meaning but underinformed folks to flaming radical right turbo racists.  This has been a constant forum fire issue since the announcement of Tasha's Cauldron three-odd years ago.  What it amounts to is a sea change in how D&D approaches race/species/lineage, chargen, and representation that is being opposed by old-timers who hate the fact that newer players are sometimes made uncomfortable by the fact that many of the Classic Fantasy Tropes old-head D&D players cherish and treasure are heavily laced with endemic exclusionism.

To old heads, those tropes are the fundamental building blocks of good stories and the framework that enshrines their fondest memories of playing D&D and engaging with fantasy in general.

To others, those tropes are painful lingering scars of a time when no one else had a voice and they're doing little but holding back the modern game.

It's an irreconcilable division that no one will shut up about.  Whatever your stance on the matter though, Wizards has made its stance clear.  Which means the rest of us can adapt or move on, as the case may warrant.

 I dunno, to me, it's exactly like renaming devils into tanar'ri and demons into baatezu, so that a certain group of people stopped getting triggered over nomenclature. Once that certain group slipped out of zeitgeist and into irrelevance, things got back to how they were.

I mean, there are fiends in this game, intelligent beings that are inherently sadistic, domineering and destructive by their very nature. Isn't that in itself racist, to presume someone inherently evil because of their place of origin? Chromatic dragons are also bad and it's indicated by their skin color. Does anyone actually give a damn about that issue, or are we here to just have fun slaying dragons with no pangs of conscience?

Quote from kamchatmonk >>

I mean, there are fiends in this game, intelligent beings that are inherently sadistic, domineering and destructive by their very nature. Isn't that in itself racist, to presume someone inherently evil because of their place of origin? Chromatic dragons are also bad and it's indicated by their skin color. Does anyone actually give a damn about that issue, or are we here to just have fun slaying dragons with no pangs of conscience?

It's like a AI tried to summarize all the threads complaining about MMM making it so player races species don't have predefined alignments.

In short, yes it's pretty racist, which is why PC species no longer have specified alignments. Actual (non-playable) planar beings are currently different, as (non-playable) monsters. Maybe in the future they'll ditch required alignments for them, too.

Quote from Quar1on >>

Quote from Aaeiyn >>

This is my first time posting on a DnD forum, and I'm a little confused on how Half-Elves and/or Half-Orcs are "racist".  Calling them "half" is not making them "half of a person", as I read somebody else say.  No, they're just "half" of a race.  I mean, look at all of the biracial people, of this world.  They're still a person, even if they're "half" of one race, and "half" of another.  I mean, it's like saying just because one is not 100% one race, then they're "not a person", either.  It doesn't make any sense.  "Half" is just a fact.  Whatever emotional connotation one wants to add to the word, is on them.  I've spoken to many biracial folks that identify with these "half" races, and so does their identity not matter, either?  Or, are we more concerned with the "100%" folks as the "superior ones"?

If the description of these races is the issue than just re-word it.  Otherwise, there's no explaining away that this new game completely removed a race, and that the message, itself, promotes MORE racism, by alienating REAL biracial people, for NOT being "100%".  Absolutely appalling!

...what? Why the hell did you put "not a person" and "superior ones" in quotes? Nobody said or implied those things.

WotC is certainly not removing the concepts of inter-species mixing. If those biracial friends of yours are more comfortable with playing a bispecies character, then nothing's stopping them. It's just that there's now a more formulaic and logical way to make them that actually includes more possibilities. In 5e, if you want to make a mix besides half-elf and half-orc, you are likely to be shot down by the DM because of the lack of stats for anything besides those two options. Now, no such restrictions can apply.

https://**********************/2023/04/04/dungeons-dragons-to-remove-half-species-from-players-handbook-claims-entire-the-entire-idea-is-inherently-racist/

Quote from Chaosrex >>

Quote from Quar1on >>

Quote from Aaeiyn >>

This is my first time posting on a DnD forum, and I'm a little confused on how Half-Elves and/or Half-Orcs are "racist".  Calling them "half" is not making them "half of a person", as I read somebody else say.  No, they're just "half" of a race.  I mean, look at all of the biracial people, of this world.  They're still a person, even if they're "half" of one race, and "half" of another.  I mean, it's like saying just because one is not 100% one race, then they're "not a person", either.  It doesn't make any sense.  "Half" is just a fact.  Whatever emotional connotation one wants to add to the word, is on them.  I've spoken to many biracial folks that identify with these "half" races, and so does their identity not matter, either?  Or, are we more concerned with the "100%" folks as the "superior ones"?

If the description of these races is the issue than just re-word it.  Otherwise, there's no explaining away that this new game completely removed a race, and that the message, itself, promotes MORE racism, by alienating REAL biracial people, for NOT being "100%".  Absolutely appalling!

...what? Why the hell did you put "not a person" and "superior ones" in quotes? Nobody said or implied those things.

WotC is certainly not removing the concepts of inter-species mixing. If those biracial friends of yours are more comfortable with playing a bispecies character, then nothing's stopping them. It's just that there's now a more formulaic and logical way to make them that actually includes more possibilities. In 5e, if you want to make a mix besides half-elf and half-orc, you are likely to be shot down by the DM because of the lack of stats for anything besides those two options. Now, no such restrictions can apply.

 

https://**********************/2023/04/04/dungeons-dragons-to-remove-half-species-from-players-handbook-claims-entire-the-entire-idea-is-inherently-racist/

Ahh so this is the culprit of an article that has been sending people frothing onto the forums and the Discord server. The framing of that as an "accusation" is already indication enough of the lack of understanding and lack of empathy to the feedback and pain of real people.

Quote from kamchatmonk >>

 I dunno, to me, it's exactly like renaming devils into tanar'ri and demons into baatezu, so that a certain group of people stopped getting triggered over nomenclature. Once that certain group slipped out of zeitgeist and into irrelevance, things got back to how they were.

I mean, there are fiends in this game, intelligent beings that are inherently sadistic, domineering and destructive by their very nature. Isn't that in itself racist, to presume someone inherently evil because of their place of origin? Chromatic dragons are also bad and it's indicated by their skin color. Does anyone actually give a damn about that issue, or are we here to just have fun slaying dragons with no pangs of conscience?

 
First key difference - a DM can choose to not include fiends, or celestials, in their game.  They can choose not to include dragons.  They can freely choose to alter the traits and natures of those beings, in a way players are very rarely allowed to do.  And even then, Wizards has been veering away from hard-coded, hard-locked characterizations and explicitly allowing and encouraging the DM to do their own thing.

Second key difference - none of those things are, under ordinary circumstances, playable.  They are not things a player is expected to embody them, to align with them and immerse themselves in the persona and culture of those things.  The rules concerning things that are playable are different from the rules concerning things that are not. 

Is it great?  No.  But perfect has ever been the enemy of good, and the argument "nothing is exclusionist unless you go out of your way to actively make it exclusionist so stop doing that" has never been a valid one.  That is simply not how this has ever worked.

Quote from kenclary >>

Quote from kamchatmonk >>

I mean, there are fiends in this game, intelligent beings that are inherently sadistic, domineering and destructive by their very nature. Isn't that in itself racist, to presume someone inherently evil because of their place of origin? Chromatic dragons are also bad and it's indicated by their skin color. Does anyone actually give a damn about that issue, or are we here to just have fun slaying dragons with no pangs of conscience?

It's like a AI tried to summarize all the threads complaining about MMM making it so player races species don't have predefined alignments.

In short, yes it's pretty racist, which is why PC species no longer have specified alignments. Actual (non-playable) planar beings are currently different, as (non-playable) monsters. Maybe in the future they'll ditch required alignments for them, too.

 I hope they don't ditch required alignments for higher-level beings; or those otherwise embroiled in those conflicts. Some storytelling benefits from having clearly defined "good" and "evil" in it. Nobody is supposed to feel sympathy for someone like Snidely Whiplash or Senator/Chancellor/Emperor Sheev Palpatine. Mustache-twirling evil has its place.