And just for the record - "my politics" has nothing to do with my gender. People only tie politics to gender equality when they're looking to make sure nobody has any. I don't particularly appreciate you targeting my gender to try and refute a point that has nothing to do with it, so I kindly ask that you not do so in the future, please.
Bra-*******-VA!!!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Ophidimancer has been stating since the Origins document dropped that he's uncomfortable with half-things being given their own stat block, as if they're not real people but instead this weird extra thing that doesn't merit inclusion in either of their parent cultures. I distinctly recall a tale from the early days of the whole "Tasha's is ruining everything FOREVER!" of a multiracial person who quit playing D&D because the game's depiction of half-orcs was Super Heccin' Sus and it made him feel excluded and unwelcome. You act like nobody real is being hit by this stuff, and yet the examples are there. You're just not seeing as many as you think because the people for whom this is an issue stopped playing D&D and thus don't post on the forums. If the issue is fixed? Maybe they'll come back.
Someone will always be offended by something. What is the number of people offended required before a change is made?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Someone will always be offended by something. What is the number of people offended required before a change is made?
This is a terrible attitude and exactly the wrong way to go about showing compassion to your fellow human beings. We should not be parsimonious in our efforts to change anything in our efforts to not harm people. Nobody is omnipotent so we cannot end all suffering but we can sure as heck try within the reasonable limits of our own power and stamina. Shame on you for even implying that we should look at it this way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Someone will always be offended by something. What is the number of people offended required before a change is made?
This is a terrible attitude and exactly the wrong way to go about showing compassion to your fellow human beings. We should not be parsimonious in our efforts to change anything in our efforts to not harm people. Nobody is omnipotent so we cannot end all suffering but we can sure as heck try within the reasonable limits of our own power and stamina. Shame on you for even implying that we should look at it this way.
So you're saying that the game should be changed each time any one thing offends or hurts any one person?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Ophidimancer has been stating since the Origins document dropped that he's uncomfortable with half-things being given their own stat block, as if they're not real people but instead this weird extra thing that doesn't merit inclusion in either of their parent cultures. I distinctly recall a tale from the early days of the whole "Tasha's is ruining everything FOREVER!" of a multiracial person who quit playing D&D because the game's depiction of half-orcs was Super Heccin' Sus and it made him feel excluded and unwelcome. You act like nobody real is being hit by this stuff, and yet the examples are there. You're just not seeing as many as you think because the people for whom this is an issue stopped playing D&D and thus don't post on the forums. If the issue is fixed? Maybe they'll come back.
Someone will always be offended by something. What is the number of people offended required before a change is made?
Interesting question. What number do you need to see before you begin to care about the suffering of others?
And I guarantee you the grognards will never allow a point builder-based species system for 5e.
Are you sure about that? Because if there's one thing that a grognard loves more than spending an entire day to conduct one turn of a 2mm Napoleonic wargame, it's crunch in his RPGs.
Ophidimancer has been stating since the Origins document dropped that he's uncomfortable with half-things being given their own stat block, as if they're not real people but instead this weird extra thing that doesn't merit inclusion in either of their parent cultures. I distinctly recall a tale from the early days of the whole "Tasha's is ruining everything FOREVER!" of a multiracial person who quit playing D&D because the game's depiction of half-orcs was Super Heccin' Sus and it made him feel excluded and unwelcome. You act like nobody real is being hit by this stuff, and yet the examples are there. You're just not seeing as many as you think because the people for whom this is an issue stopped playing D&D and thus don't post on the forums. If the issue is fixed? Maybe they'll come back.
Someone will always be offended by something. What is the number of people offended required before a change is made?
Interesting question. What number do you need to see before you begin to care about the suffering of others?
Should we change any rule every time one person is hurt by it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Ophidimancer has been stating since the Origins document dropped that he's uncomfortable with half-things being given their own stat block, as if they're not real people but instead this weird extra thing that doesn't merit inclusion in either of their parent cultures. I distinctly recall a tale from the early days of the whole "Tasha's is ruining everything FOREVER!" of a multiracial person who quit playing D&D because the game's depiction of half-orcs was Super Heccin' Sus and it made him feel excluded and unwelcome. You act like nobody real is being hit by this stuff, and yet the examples are there. You're just not seeing as many as you think because the people for whom this is an issue stopped playing D&D and thus don't post on the forums. If the issue is fixed? Maybe they'll come back.
Someone will always be offended by something. What is the number of people offended required before a change is made?
Interesting question. What number do you need to see before you begin to care about the suffering of others?
Should we change any rule every time one person is hurt by it?
Categorically? Yes, of course! On the small scale this is what DM's are entrusted with and what the purpose of Session 0's and mid game checkups are for. On the larger scale this is what sensitivity readers are there to accomplish, something WOTC has committed themselves to do in perpetuity.
The fact that you're even asking these kinds of questions really says something about you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Ophidimancer has been stating since the Origins document dropped that he's uncomfortable with half-things being given their own stat block, as if they're not real people but instead this weird extra thing that doesn't merit inclusion in either of their parent cultures. I distinctly recall a tale from the early days of the whole "Tasha's is ruining everything FOREVER!" of a multiracial person who quit playing D&D because the game's depiction of half-orcs was Super Heccin' Sus and it made him feel excluded and unwelcome. You act like nobody real is being hit by this stuff, and yet the examples are there. You're just not seeing as many as you think because the people for whom this is an issue stopped playing D&D and thus don't post on the forums. If the issue is fixed? Maybe they'll come back.
Someone will always be offended by something. What is the number of people offended required before a change is made?
Interesting question. What number do you need to see before you begin to care about the suffering of others?
Should we change any rule every time one person is hurt by it?
I take it by your deliberate evasion that you came to realize that the question you asked was just gross.
To answer your question, yes, if there is any harm done, a compassionate person would seek to address and end that harm. A person who prioritizes their own entertainment at the expense of others clearly would be incapable of such an act.
Ophidimancer has been stating since the Origins document dropped that he's uncomfortable with half-things being given their own stat block, as if they're not real people but instead this weird extra thing that doesn't merit inclusion in either of their parent cultures. I distinctly recall a tale from the early days of the whole "Tasha's is ruining everything FOREVER!" of a multiracial person who quit playing D&D because the game's depiction of half-orcs was Super Heccin' Sus and it made him feel excluded and unwelcome. You act like nobody real is being hit by this stuff, and yet the examples are there. You're just not seeing as many as you think because the people for whom this is an issue stopped playing D&D and thus don't post on the forums. If the issue is fixed? Maybe they'll come back.
Have you considered that, maybe, it won't matter if it is fixed or not? Or at least it will only be a matter of time until they find something else and leave again? You've been a strong advocate for homebrew. If this person, presumably someone you know IRL, left and homebrew couldn't fix it, either the homebrew you're suggesting won't fix things like you think they will, or the person who left likely would have found some other issue or problem. I don't know them personally and I'm not expecting you to give a run-down of their life story; but I CAN safely say that removing several races and then giving them something that's little more than a side-bar to make up for it is bound to piss off a lot more people.
Furthermore, why do half-elves and half-orcs merit their own super special statblocks while everybody else has to content themselves with "a generic option"? Just because they were already there? Nah. Again - you can continue to use the R5e versions even in 1DD. Homebrew has always been an option in a large number of cases.
Not just 'they were already there', they were already there for a LONG TIME and are immensely popular. Half elves are, like, the number 2 or 3 most popular race and half-orcs, while less popular by a distinct margin, are still solidly popular. I would also argue that 'they were already there' is, in of itself, more than enough of a reason as removing content is almost never a good idea!
As for 'catering to transphobics'? There's a difference between trying to stay neutral and actively going out of one's way to put things in books that cause harm to folks. If Wizards started putting actively transphobic speech in their books, I'd be just a mite tweaked off, yes. As would a lot of other people who aren't trans. They haven't done that though. How else would you say they're supposed to 'cater to' transphobic sorts?
I do regret striking a blow like that. I won't justify what I did as it was wrong. However I do feel that the point I was at least trying to make is important. D&D can't please 'everyone'. There will always be people who are offended. I'm pretty sure there's people out there who would find even the watered-down version of races in 1DD 'offensive'. The fact is, though, that D&D is *not* for everyone. We can talk about making it more 'general/neutral', but that also means that you need to give up some things; and in this case that thing might be accepting that some people want half-elves and half-orcs as distinct racial options.
And just for the record - "my politics" has nothing to do with my gender. People only tie politics to gender equality when they're looking to make sure nobody has any. I don't particularly appreciate you targeting my gender to try and refute a point that has nothing to do with it, so I kindly ask that you not do so in the future, please.
As I said, I won't. I do see what I did as being a low blow at best.
The fact that you're even asking these kinds of questions really says something about you.
It's not fair to make assumptions about people. You don't know me, or my life. I am making a point.
If the agreement is that any rule should be changed if even one person is hurt or offended by it, then you can never have a complete rule set. Everyone gets offended by something, sometimes we are justified, sometimes we are not.
But you've set the bar now, if even one person takes offence to any rule in the game it SHOULD be changed. Now, who becomes the arbiter of what is legitimate offence and what is not? You? Arei? ME? Because we aren't just talking about these D&D rules. Be consistent.
So, Ophidimancer, if I am offended by something in the game, should it be changed to suit me? That's a legitimate question, because you set the terms.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Ophidimancer has been stating since the Origins document dropped that he's uncomfortable with half-things being given their own stat block, as if they're not real people but instead this weird extra thing that doesn't merit inclusion in either of their parent cultures. I distinctly recall a tale from the early days of the whole "Tasha's is ruining everything FOREVER!" of a multiracial person who quit playing D&D because the game's depiction of half-orcs was Super Heccin' Sus and it made him feel excluded and unwelcome. You act like nobody real is being hit by this stuff, and yet the examples are there. You're just not seeing as many as you think because the people for whom this is an issue stopped playing D&D and thus don't post on the forums. If the issue is fixed? Maybe they'll come back.
Someone will always be offended by something. What is the number of people offended required before a change is made?
Interesting question. What number do you need to see before you begin to care about the suffering of others?
Should we change any rule every time one person is hurt by it?
I take it by your deliberate evasion that you came to realize that the question you asked was just gross.
To answer your question, yes, if there is any harm done, a compassionate person would seek to address and end that harm. A person who prioritizes their own entertainment at the expense of others clearly would be incapable of such an act.
Nope, but I'm trying to get to the point that when we have a fundamental difference of opinion about what constitutes offense or harm, who is the final arbiter?
If something in the game offends or hurts me shall we change it for everyone? Will you do that for me and defend me in that case?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Nope, but I'm trying to get to the point that when we have a fundamental difference of opinion about what constitutes offense or harm, who is the final arbiter?
If something in the game offends or hurts me shall we change it for everyone? Will you do that for me and defend me in that case?
This is nothing more than an attempt to obfuscate the entire issue. WotC is making large changes to address glaring issues that have plagued their games for years. They cannot please everyone but they can on a macro level make changes that correct large and lasting areas of harm. On a micro level, there is the session 0, as has already been offered. This is where the DM adjudicates more granular issues with the players. This is only difficult to understand if you are willfully committed to making it difficult, which seems to be the case here.
As for your harm, yes, of course. If you are being harmed by something I would of course take the complaint seriously. If however, you are just registering some insincere, false complaint because you dislike some change meant to mitigate the harm of others, obviously I would not be inclined to advocate on your behalf.
The fact that you're even asking these kinds of questions really says something about you.
It's not fair to make assumptions about people. You don't know me, or my life. I am making a point.
I'm not making assumptions, I'm pointing out that you are actively, right here and now, speaking about this with a bad attitude and are actively being a terrible person. Your point and all this \/ ...
If the agreement is that any rule should be changed if even one person is hurt or offended by it, then you can never have a complete rule set. Everyone gets offended by something, sometimes we are justified, sometimes we are not.
But you've set the bar now, if even one person takes offence to any rule in the game it SHOULD be changed. Now, who becomes the arbiter of what is legitimate offence and what is not? You? Arei? ME? Because we aren't just talking about these D&D rules. Be consistent.
So, Ophidimancer, if I am offended by something in the game, should it be changed to suit me? That's a legitimate question, because you set the terms.
... can go take a flying leap for implying that it's just so hard and complicated to be compassionate to people.
We use our brains to make judgments as to how to implement new policies, but you're demonstrating a complete lack of a heart and soul for questioning the motivation of accommodating people and trying not to harm them. We use our brains to try and make plans and deal with limited resources, time, and energy but we use our hearts and souls to make compassion the priority over logistical questions. This all just sounds like an excuse to just keep the status quo because it serves you, or because you're used to it.
Get out of here with that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Nope, but I'm trying to get to the point that when we have a fundamental difference of opinion about what constitutes offense or harm, who is the final arbiter?
If something in the game offends or hurts me shall we change it for everyone? Will you do that for me and defend me in that case?
This is nothing more than an attempt to obfuscate the entire issue. WotC is making large changes to address glaring issues that have plagued their games for years. They cannot please everyone but they can on a macro level make changes that correct large and lasting areas of harm. On a micro level, there is the session 0, as has already been offered. This is where the DM adjudicates more granular issues with the players. This is only difficult to understand if you are willfully committed to making it difficult, which seems to be the case here.
As for your harm, yes, of course. If you are being harmed by something I would of course take the complaint seriously. If however, you are just registering some insincere, false complaint because you dislike some change meant to mitigate the harm of others, obviously I would not be inclined to advocate on your behalf.
So you are the arbiter of whether or not what I feel harmed by is actually harmful? In real life there is something about me that is a part of my identity and the last time I posted it in these forums I was reprimanded by the mods for being political, so I don't want to say it again for fear of being banned.
As for WotC addressing macro issue, what macro issue is it that requires removing the Half-Elf and Half-Orc as they exist? Because, and please correct me if I've got this wrong, but it seems like the order of events here is:
1. Half-Elves and Half-Orcs were offensive to at least one person.
2. It is assumed that the reason it is offensive is because of Bio-Essentialism (other people brought this up, not me).
3. It is assumed that bio-essentialism in all forms is bad, and you are bad if you disagree with that statement (as evidenced by the people who insist I am a bad person because I defend Bio-E in a game of make-believe)
4. Therefore we must remove the Half-Elf and Hlf-Orc so some subset of the population (which may only be 1) is offended.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Nope, but I'm trying to get to the point that when we have a fundamental difference of opinion about what constitutes offense or harm, who is the final arbiter?
If something in the game offends or hurts me shall we change it for everyone? Will you do that for me and defend me in that case?
Depends.
Is the fix for what's offending you to remove offensive content from the books, and/or to leave things open for the DM to include or disinclude elements in their game as they see fit? Sure. That's what we're trying to get to as a whole.
Is the fix for what's offending you to forcibly cram a bunch of objectionable content down everyone's throats with a steam hammer, force DMs to include things they find uncomfortable, distasteful, or painful in their games even if those things offer no benefit to the game they want to run, and if those DMs (and players) don't like it they can sod off, hang, and leave the hobby forever?
Nah.
That's what you're attempting to do, October. You're trying to cram content into my games, into my table and my circle, that we don't want, need or care for because you want those things in your games, and if they're in your game they need to be in EVERYONE'S game or yours is somehow no longer valid. That's not a sustainable or tolerable stance. It's not a stance you're ever going to see widespread support for. Hell, you've seen it here - Ophidimancer and I disagree on the idea that a species stat block shouldn't mechanically reflect a mixed-ancestry heritage. I'm not telling him he's a terrible person for it though, and I'm not trying to force him to put half-elves and half-orcs back in his game. Nor is he telling me it's not okay for me to build homebrew statblocks for mixed-ancestry characters for use at my own table. We have differing views, we each tailor our games to fit those views, and we remain cordial buddy-type folks. If I were playing at his table I would avoid that sort of homebrew, and if he were playing at mine I'd talk with him before deploying such a character.
You can put what you want in your games. No one's gonna stop you, no one's gonna say you nay. Stop trying to put what you want in OUR games, if you would be so kind.
The fact that you're even asking these kinds of questions really says something about you.
It's not fair to make assumptions about people. You don't know me, or my life. I am making a point.
I'm not making assumptions, I'm pointing out that you are actively, right here and now, speaking about this with a bad attitude and are actively being a terrible person. Your point and all this \/ ...
If the agreement is that any rule should be changed if even one person is hurt or offended by it, then you can never have a complete rule set. Everyone gets offended by something, sometimes we are justified, sometimes we are not.
But you've set the bar now, if even one person takes offence to any rule in the game it SHOULD be changed. Now, who becomes the arbiter of what is legitimate offence and what is not? You? Arei? ME? Because we aren't just talking about these D&D rules. Be consistent.
So, Ophidimancer, if I am offended by something in the game, should it be changed to suit me? That's a legitimate question, because you set the terms.
... can go take a flying leap for implying that it's just so hard and complicated to be compassionate to people.
We use our brains to make judgments as to how to implement new policies, but you're demonstrating a complete lack of a heart and soul for questioning the motivation of accommodating people and trying not to harm them. We use our brains to try and make plans and deal with limited resources, time, and energy but we use our hearts and souls to make compassion the priority over logistical questions. This all just sounds like an excuse to just keep the status quo because it serves you, or because you're used to it.
Get out of here with that.
First of all, you've called me a terrible person for believing that rules should be applied consistently and for questioning who gets to be the final arbiter of what is offensive. That's not fair, but I won't make assumptions about what kind of person you are.
As I've posted previously, and will do again: I believe 100% in the equality of all people. Period. I am very GLAD that D&D has become as inclusive as it has. I LOVE to see people joining the game and finding it a fun and safe place to be.
I disagree about what constitutes a legitimate level of offense, and apparently if something offends me, that doesn't offend you you won't agree to have it changed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Is the fix for what's offending you to remove offensive content from the books, and/or to leave things open for the DM to include or disinclude elements in their game as they see fit? Sure. That's what we're trying to get to as a whole.
Is the fix for what's offending you to forcibly cram a bunch of objectionable content down everyone's throats with a steam hammer, force DMs to include things they find uncomfortable, distasteful, or painful in their games even if those things offer no benefit to the game they want to run, and if those DMs (and players) don't like it they can sod off, hang, and leave the hobby forever?
But who gets to decides what's offensive and what's not?
They could have said "Choose X number of abilities from each parent" and it would be moot. But they didn't, they made multi-racial characters mechanically irrelevant.
Some of us what mechanical options for our choices, not just story choices. They could make it an optional rule, why not?
It's like you're saying me wanting a rule is cramming it down your throat, but you removing the rule isn't cramming that down mine? They're the same thing.
Give me an optional rule to mechanically combine the different D&D races, then you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Nope, but I'm trying to get to the point that when we have a fundamental difference of opinion about what constitutes offense or harm, who is the final arbiter?
If something in the game offends or hurts me shall we change it for everyone? Will you do that for me and defend me in that case?
This is nothing more than an attempt to obfuscate the entire issue. WotC is making large changes to address glaring issues that have plagued their games for years. They cannot please everyone but they can on a macro level make changes that correct large and lasting areas of harm. On a micro level, there is the session 0, as has already been offered. This is where the DM adjudicates more granular issues with the players. This is only difficult to understand if you are willfully committed to making it difficult, which seems to be the case here.
As for your harm, yes, of course. If you are being harmed by something I would of course take the complaint seriously. If however, you are just registering some insincere, false complaint because you dislike some change meant to mitigate the harm of others, obviously I would not be inclined to advocate on your behalf.
So you are the arbiter of whether or not what I feel harmed by is actually harmful? In real life there is something about me that is a part of my identity and the last time I posted it in these forums I was reprimanded by the mods for being political, so I don't want to say it again for fear of being banned.
As for WotC addressing macro issue, what macro issue is it that requires removing the Half-Elf and Half-Orc as they exist? Because, and please correct me if I've got this wrong, but it seems like the order of events here is:
1. Half-Elves and Half-Orcs were offensive to at least one person.
2. It is assumed that the reason it is offensive is because of Bio-Essentialism (other people brought this up, not me).
3. It is assumed that bio-essentialism in all forms is bad, and you are bad if you disagree with that statement (as evidenced by the people who insist I am a bad person because I defend Bio-E in a game of make-believe)
4. Therefore we must remove the Half-Elf and Hlf-Orc so some subset of the population (which may only be 1) is offended.
Again, this is an attempt to obfuscate - muddy the waters. I.e. an argument in bad faith. It is also a strawman, as I never said I am the arbiter of whether something has harmed you. You cannot address any arguments actually being made, so you must fashion ones more easily addressed and then fight those. It may be the wiser move for me to simply flag and then add you to my ignore list; I see little benefit to being disgusted whenever I scroll these forums.
Do you sincerely believe that WotC made changes based on the feedback of a single person? A for-profit company catering to an individual? If you have nothing to contribute, why post on this noted sensitive issue? You do not seem genuinely curious or making any attempts to understand perspectives other than your own. What are you trying to accomplish other than to make people uncomfortable and possibly even drive others from these forums?
There is a lot of hostile behaviour and attack posting going on here, with people sniping each other and a lot of people being outright awful in their conduct. This will not be tolerated. Remain civil or do not post, it is that simple.
D&D is for everyone Compassion is a free action Wangrods will have banishment cast on them, no saving throw
Bra-*******-VA!!!
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Someone will always be offended by something. What is the number of people offended required before a change is made?
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
This is a terrible attitude and exactly the wrong way to go about showing compassion to your fellow human beings. We should not be parsimonious in our efforts to change anything in our efforts to not harm people. Nobody is omnipotent so we cannot end all suffering but we can sure as heck try within the reasonable limits of our own power and stamina. Shame on you for even implying that we should look at it this way.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
So you're saying that the game should be changed each time any one thing offends or hurts any one person?
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Interesting question. What number do you need to see before you begin to care about the suffering of others?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Are you sure about that? Because if there's one thing that a grognard loves more than spending an entire day to conduct one turn of a 2mm Napoleonic wargame, it's crunch in his RPGs.
Should we change any rule every time one person is hurt by it?
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Categorically? Yes, of course! On the small scale this is what DM's are entrusted with and what the purpose of Session 0's and mid game checkups are for. On the larger scale this is what sensitivity readers are there to accomplish, something WOTC has committed themselves to do in perpetuity.
The fact that you're even asking these kinds of questions really says something about you.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I take it by your deliberate evasion that you came to realize that the question you asked was just gross.
To answer your question, yes, if there is any harm done, a compassionate person would seek to address and end that harm. A person who prioritizes their own entertainment at the expense of others clearly would be incapable of such an act.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Ophidimancer has been stating since the Origins document dropped that he's uncomfortable with half-things being given their own stat block, as if they're not real people but instead this weird extra thing that doesn't merit inclusion in either of their parent cultures. I distinctly recall a tale from the early days of the whole "Tasha's is ruining everything FOREVER!" of a multiracial person who quit playing D&D because the game's depiction of half-orcs was Super Heccin' Sus and it made him feel excluded and unwelcome. You act like nobody real is being hit by this stuff, and yet the examples are there. You're just not seeing as many as you think because the people for whom this is an issue stopped playing D&D and thus don't post on the forums. If the issue is fixed? Maybe they'll come back.
Have you considered that, maybe, it won't matter if it is fixed or not? Or at least it will only be a matter of time until they find something else and leave again? You've been a strong advocate for homebrew. If this person, presumably someone you know IRL, left and homebrew couldn't fix it, either the homebrew you're suggesting won't fix things like you think they will, or the person who left likely would have found some other issue or problem. I don't know them personally and I'm not expecting you to give a run-down of their life story; but I CAN safely say that removing several races and then giving them something that's little more than a side-bar to make up for it is bound to piss off a lot more people.
Furthermore, why do half-elves and half-orcs merit their own super special statblocks while everybody else has to content themselves with "a generic option"? Just because they were already there? Nah. Again - you can continue to use the R5e versions even in 1DD. Homebrew has always been an option in a large number of cases.
Not just 'they were already there', they were already there for a LONG TIME and are immensely popular. Half elves are, like, the number 2 or 3 most popular race and half-orcs, while less popular by a distinct margin, are still solidly popular. I would also argue that 'they were already there' is, in of itself, more than enough of a reason as removing content is almost never a good idea!
As for 'catering to transphobics'? There's a difference between trying to stay neutral and actively going out of one's way to put things in books that cause harm to folks. If Wizards started putting actively transphobic speech in their books, I'd be just a mite tweaked off, yes. As would a lot of other people who aren't trans. They haven't done that though. How else would you say they're supposed to 'cater to' transphobic sorts?
I do regret striking a blow like that. I won't justify what I did as it was wrong. However I do feel that the point I was at least trying to make is important. D&D can't please 'everyone'. There will always be people who are offended. I'm pretty sure there's people out there who would find even the watered-down version of races in 1DD 'offensive'. The fact is, though, that D&D is *not* for everyone. We can talk about making it more 'general/neutral', but that also means that you need to give up some things; and in this case that thing might be accepting that some people want half-elves and half-orcs as distinct racial options.
And just for the record - "my politics" has nothing to do with my gender. People only tie politics to gender equality when they're looking to make sure nobody has any. I don't particularly appreciate you targeting my gender to try and refute a point that has nothing to do with it, so I kindly ask that you not do so in the future, please.
As I said, I won't. I do see what I did as being a low blow at best.
It's not fair to make assumptions about people. You don't know me, or my life. I am making a point.
If the agreement is that any rule should be changed if even one person is hurt or offended by it, then you can never have a complete rule set. Everyone gets offended by something, sometimes we are justified, sometimes we are not.
But you've set the bar now, if even one person takes offence to any rule in the game it SHOULD be changed. Now, who becomes the arbiter of what is legitimate offence and what is not? You? Arei? ME? Because we aren't just talking about these D&D rules. Be consistent.
So, Ophidimancer, if I am offended by something in the game, should it be changed to suit me? That's a legitimate question, because you set the terms.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Nope, but I'm trying to get to the point that when we have a fundamental difference of opinion about what constitutes offense or harm, who is the final arbiter?
If something in the game offends or hurts me shall we change it for everyone? Will you do that for me and defend me in that case?
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
This is nothing more than an attempt to obfuscate the entire issue. WotC is making large changes to address glaring issues that have plagued their games for years. They cannot please everyone but they can on a macro level make changes that correct large and lasting areas of harm. On a micro level, there is the session 0, as has already been offered. This is where the DM adjudicates more granular issues with the players. This is only difficult to understand if you are willfully committed to making it difficult, which seems to be the case here.
As for your harm, yes, of course. If you are being harmed by something I would of course take the complaint seriously. If however, you are just registering some insincere, false complaint because you dislike some change meant to mitigate the harm of others, obviously I would not be inclined to advocate on your behalf.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I'm not making assumptions, I'm pointing out that you are actively, right here and now, speaking about this with a bad attitude and are actively being a terrible person. Your point and all this \/ ...
... can go take a flying leap for implying that it's just so hard and complicated to be compassionate to people.
We use our brains to make judgments as to how to implement new policies, but you're demonstrating a complete lack of a heart and soul for questioning the motivation of accommodating people and trying not to harm them. We use our brains to try and make plans and deal with limited resources, time, and energy but we use our hearts and souls to make compassion the priority over logistical questions. This all just sounds like an excuse to just keep the status quo because it serves you, or because you're used to it.
Get out of here with that.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
So you are the arbiter of whether or not what I feel harmed by is actually harmful? In real life there is something about me that is a part of my identity and the last time I posted it in these forums I was reprimanded by the mods for being political, so I don't want to say it again for fear of being banned.
As for WotC addressing macro issue, what macro issue is it that requires removing the Half-Elf and Half-Orc as they exist? Because, and please correct me if I've got this wrong, but it seems like the order of events here is:
1. Half-Elves and Half-Orcs were offensive to at least one person.
2. It is assumed that the reason it is offensive is because of Bio-Essentialism (other people brought this up, not me).
3. It is assumed that bio-essentialism in all forms is bad, and you are bad if you disagree with that statement (as evidenced by the people who insist I am a bad person because I defend Bio-E in a game of make-believe)
4. Therefore we must remove the Half-Elf and Hlf-Orc so some subset of the population (which may only be 1) is offended.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Depends.
Is the fix for what's offending you to remove offensive content from the books, and/or to leave things open for the DM to include or disinclude elements in their game as they see fit? Sure. That's what we're trying to get to as a whole.
Is the fix for what's offending you to forcibly cram a bunch of objectionable content down everyone's throats with a steam hammer, force DMs to include things they find uncomfortable, distasteful, or painful in their games even if those things offer no benefit to the game they want to run, and if those DMs (and players) don't like it they can sod off, hang, and leave the hobby forever?
Nah.
That's what you're attempting to do, October. You're trying to cram content into my games, into my table and my circle, that we don't want, need or care for because you want those things in your games, and if they're in your game they need to be in EVERYONE'S game or yours is somehow no longer valid. That's not a sustainable or tolerable stance. It's not a stance you're ever going to see widespread support for. Hell, you've seen it here - Ophidimancer and I disagree on the idea that a species stat block shouldn't mechanically reflect a mixed-ancestry heritage. I'm not telling him he's a terrible person for it though, and I'm not trying to force him to put half-elves and half-orcs back in his game. Nor is he telling me it's not okay for me to build homebrew statblocks for mixed-ancestry characters for use at my own table. We have differing views, we each tailor our games to fit those views, and we remain cordial buddy-type folks. If I were playing at his table I would avoid that sort of homebrew, and if he were playing at mine I'd talk with him before deploying such a character.
You can put what you want in your games. No one's gonna stop you, no one's gonna say you nay. Stop trying to put what you want in OUR games, if you would be so kind.
Please do not contact or message me.
First of all, you've called me a terrible person for believing that rules should be applied consistently and for questioning who gets to be the final arbiter of what is offensive. That's not fair, but I won't make assumptions about what kind of person you are.
As I've posted previously, and will do again: I believe 100% in the equality of all people. Period. I am very GLAD that D&D has become as inclusive as it has. I LOVE to see people joining the game and finding it a fun and safe place to be.
I disagree about what constitutes a legitimate level of offense, and apparently if something offends me, that doesn't offend you you won't agree to have it changed.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
But who gets to decides what's offensive and what's not?
They could have said "Choose X number of abilities from each parent" and it would be moot. But they didn't, they made multi-racial characters mechanically irrelevant.
Some of us what mechanical options for our choices, not just story choices. They could make it an optional rule, why not?
It's like you're saying me wanting a rule is cramming it down your throat, but you removing the rule isn't cramming that down mine? They're the same thing.
Give me an optional rule to mechanically combine the different D&D races, then you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Again, this is an attempt to obfuscate - muddy the waters. I.e. an argument in bad faith. It is also a strawman, as I never said I am the arbiter of whether something has harmed you. You cannot address any arguments actually being made, so you must fashion ones more easily addressed and then fight those. It may be the wiser move for me to simply flag and then add you to my ignore list; I see little benefit to being disgusted whenever I scroll these forums.
Do you sincerely believe that WotC made changes based on the feedback of a single person? A for-profit company catering to an individual? If you have nothing to contribute, why post on this noted sensitive issue? You do not seem genuinely curious or making any attempts to understand perspectives other than your own. What are you trying to accomplish other than to make people uncomfortable and possibly even drive others from these forums?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
There is a lot of hostile behaviour and attack posting going on here, with people sniping each other and a lot of people being outright awful in their conduct. This will not be tolerated. Remain civil or do not post, it is that simple.
D&D is for everyone
Compassion is a free action
Wangrods will have banishment cast on them, no saving throw
Find my D&D Beyond articles here