Here's an idea: why not make better options than Rogue for halflings and Barbarian for orcs?
It's far more problematic to have game mechanics that assume "all halflings are thieves" or "all orcs are barbarians" than it is to change the word used to categorize "halfling" and "orc".
I grew up playing with "rules" that said elves and dwarves hated each other. Nobody changed the wording in the rulebooks to fix that issue--they just started making cooler reasons for elves and dwarves to get along.
Here's an idea: why not make better options than Rogue for halflings and Barbarian for orcs?
It's far more problematic to have game mechanics that assume "all halflings are thieves" or "all orcs are barbarians" than it is to change the word used to categorize "halfling" and "orc".
I grew up playing with "rules" that said elves and dwarves hated each other. Nobody changed the wording in the rulebooks to fix that issue--they just started making cooler reasons for elves and dwarves to get along.
I feel that it's alienating and an insult to others when you tell them something they've been doing / saying is all of a sudden offensive to a group you'll have little to no interaction with, when it's been fine for decades.
When someone tells you that something harms them, the compassionate and human response is to listen to them at a bare minimum. To instead take offense is to literally put your own ego ahead of someone else's wellbeing and to say "it's been fine for decades" is either ignorant of the people who have been saying all along that it's not fine or maliciously accusing people of lying about their own hurt.
What you've said to me was insulting, and may have possibly been your own "insensitivities" showing.
Here's an idea: why not make better options than Rogue for halflings and Barbarian for orcs?
It's far more problematic to have game mechanics that assume "all halflings are thieves" or "all orcs are barbarians" than it is to change the word used to categorize "halfling" and "orc".
I grew up playing with "rules" that said elves and dwarves hated each other. Nobody changed the wording in the rulebooks to fix that issue--they just started making cooler reasons for elves and dwarves to get along.
Why are those the best options for those classes?
Technically, in 5e the "Rogue Halfling" trope is not as strong as it was in past versions, but it's still there. Same with the half-orc.
Personally, I don't care if they change the word... Although I think they could have done it without talking about it. I think if people are annoyed by the change, it's mostly just because it comes off as virtue signal pandering.
I feel like anyone who sees this as "pandering" is showing themselves to be insensitive to the pain of others at best, and deliberately cruel at worst.
If it were up to me, I'd tell people I changed it because it sounded cooler. But that's just my opinion. I think my group will still stick with the term race because it's easier.
You are, of course, free to do so.
I feel that it's alienating and an insult to others when you tell them something they've been doing / saying is all of a sudden offensive to a group you'll have little to no interaction with, when it's been fine for decades. What you've said to me was insulting, and may have possibly been your own "insensitivities" showing.
Back on topic though.. what about the word "being" as a replacement?
Dude, it's not "suddenly" offensive after being fine for decades. It was never fine. It's always been offensive. The difference is that society has changed to the point where people outside of the marginalized groups are paying attention to the fact that it's offensive, and since those are the people whose opinions matter to you, it suddenly has consequences. If you are insulted and alienated by someone telling you that your behavior is hurtful to other people, that's a sign that you're selfish and don't give a crap about whether or not you hurt others, which is entirely a you problem.
Also, calling something virtue signalling isn't the devastating argument you think it is. First off, no one really cares why the change was made, if it was a genuine, altruistic desire to do better, or if it was because they thought "virtue signalling" would increase profits, as long at the change got made. Second, if it is virtue signalling, that's just a sign that society has moved forward to the point where not treating marginalized groups like crap is considered a virtue, and that is a good thing.
Honestly, given that WotC and Hasbro are corporations, I pretty much assume anything and everything positive they do is "virtue signalling". The individuals on the D&D team might care, probably most or all of them do care, and some of them probably care a lot, but corporations are soulless, sociopathic entities motivated entirely by profit. If they thought making the change would have a negative impact on the bottom line, it would never happen. Instead, they recognize that the change will either be profit neutral, or result in increased profits. What that means is that at the end of the day, inclusivity is more profitable, and that's good.
Overall on the word id feel insulted if someone of another race started naming me as a species (oh lookie here this is the Hispanic species and this ones the Asian species), it sounds like the most dehumanizing thing i could think of, which i guess is accurate when you talk in terms of creatures like actual lizard people,cat people, owl people whod logicaly would have be pretty far removed
Overall on the word id feel insulted if someone of another race started naming me as a species (oh lookie here this is the Hispanic species and this ones the Asian species), it sounds like the most dehumanizing thing i could think of, which i guess is accurate when you talk in terms of creatures like actual lizard people,cat people, owl people whod logical would have be pretty far removed
Which is part of the reason the change is a good one. The meaning of race in the fantasy setting is different than the meaning in our world. Fantasy race is closer to species and real world race is closer to ethnicity. Look at the human fantasy race in the PHB, there is a long list of ethnicities, clearly the definitions are distinct.
Overall on the word id feel insulted if someone of another race started naming me as a species (oh lookie here this is the Hispanic species and this ones the Asian species), it sounds like the most dehumanizing thing i could think of, which i guess is accurate when you talk in terms of creatures like actual lizard people,cat people, owl people whod logical would have be pretty far removed
This is a good point, although I think the bigger point is that "race" is no longer a word with one single definition.
"Hispanic" literally translates to "speaking Spanish", but is frequently used to categorize people who speak Portugese. It has very little to do with the physical form of the person speaking (and I personally know a lot of people who don't like being categorized that way) but most official forms still use it interchangeably with "race". Asian is even more obtuse. I know a guy from India and a guy from China. Both are "Asian" but both look completely different, talk completely different, and come from completely different backgrounds. By these standards, an orc and an aasimar could both be categorized as the same "race".
The funny thing here is that I believe WOTC is trying to use the Aardling like a single "category" to lump all their half-animal "races" (and they have used that term as recently as Monsters of the Multiverse) into a couple of pages in the new PHB. I honestly think this is why they started using "species"--because it's okay to have half-elves, but when you start trying to license the half-rabbit and half-cat PCs, suddenly they need to find a new word for what those differences are between forms.
Hmmm. Maybe something with "form" in the description would be a better term...
I love it, the decision, for it being an archaic term best not used when talking about intelligent beings and for being to stop nonsensical half/x proposals I've seen popping up left and right like half Ooze half Centaur amongst others.
I get that race was inaccurate for what are species divisions... So go for it.
But now are Rashemi/Thayaan/Cormyrian just races? Are gold vs silver elves races? I feel like we are just moving the word around.
I also am troubled about the trend to remove each groups' Identity. Why is my character exceptional now as a dwarf choosing to be a wizard? We talk of the beauty of characters going "against type" and then we remove "type."
Please note that the definition of species implies they are viable as a self propagating group, but it doesn't rule out interspecies breeding, this is a common misconception which I shared also until recently.
I get that race was inaccurate for what are species divisions... So go for it.
But now are Rashemi/Thayaan/Cormyrian just races? Are gold vs silver elves races? I feel like we are just moving the word around.
I also am troubled about the trend to remove each groups' Identity. Why is my character exceptional now as a dwarf choosing to be a wizard? We talk of the beauty of characters going "against type" and then we remove "type."
Please note that the definition of species implies they are viable as a self propagating group, but it doesn't rule out interspecies breeding, this is a common misconception which I shared also until recently.
But now are Rashemi/Thayaan/Cormyrian just races? Are gold vs silver elves races? I feel like we are just moving the word around.
Right but we are moving it to a place more consistent with normal usage. Variations in elves within the species fits the use of the typical use of the word "race." That said, I expect we are going to find them continuing to use Legacy instead as it can reflect not only intra-species variation (the have visible differences) but cultural distinctives as well.
But it isn't where I would "make my stand" as a DM.
That's one of the things I like about the first OneDND publication. The half/half combos are mechanically balanced automatically. You are mechanically one race, and aesthetically a hybrid of your choosing.
My Npcs are certainly going to give a lot of strange looks at the bizarre PC, though.
This is D&D, how dare we have weird magical hybrid creatures! I demand only sensible realistic creatures like Chimeras and owlbears.
Seriously, I don't think there is any hybrid of creatures that are to silly to be in d&d. Sloth-Troll? Sure. Butterfly-seal? Neat. Orchid-T-Rex? Awesome!
This is D&D, how dare we have weird magical hybrid creatures! I demand only sensible realistic creatures like Chimeras and owlbears.
Seriously, I don't think there is any hybrid of creatures that are to silly to be in d&d. Sloth-Troll? Sure. Butterfly-seal? Neat. Orchid-T-Rex? Awesome!
Yes, this DnD not ****** 101. Something I'm seeing more and more.
I find it interesting that this decision was reached after consulting with "outside cultural consultants." Outside meaning people who dont play and with no vested interest in D&D?
I am one of those who is irritated because this feels like virtue signaling and pandering to me. I recognize that there is racism in our cruel world, and that racism in all forms need to be fought. We are still working to overcome the economic disadvantages brought on by centuries of slavery and discrimination.
However, most of us who use the word race in relation to D&D place zero real world connotations on the term in relation to our game. For us, D&D race is a legacy of classic fantasy literature referring to a multitude of make believe cultures and ancestries, both good and evil. A number of us feel vilified for preferring a term that we do not see as evil but that Hasbro and others obviously do.
Also, I would question how much real world impact changes like this truly make, and how much of it is to make a percentage of current players feel good and avoid the potential for criticism of WotC. If one truly wants to make meaningful change, then I would challenge you to volunteer to host after school groups in communities of color and introduce a new population to the hobby we all love.
Here's an idea: why not make better options than Rogue for halflings and Barbarian for orcs?
It's far more problematic to have game mechanics that assume "all halflings are thieves" or "all orcs are barbarians" than it is to change the word used to categorize "halfling" and "orc".
I grew up playing with "rules" that said elves and dwarves hated each other. Nobody changed the wording in the rulebooks to fix that issue--they just started making cooler reasons for elves and dwarves to get along.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
Why are those the best options for those classes?
When someone tells you that something harms them, the compassionate and human response is to listen to them at a bare minimum. To instead take offense is to literally put your own ego ahead of someone else's wellbeing and to say "it's been fine for decades" is either ignorant of the people who have been saying all along that it's not fine or maliciously accusing people of lying about their own hurt.
Nope, you won't catch me in the Paradox of Tolerance.
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!
Technically, in 5e the "Rogue Halfling" trope is not as strong as it was in past versions, but it's still there. Same with the half-orc.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
Dude, it's not "suddenly" offensive after being fine for decades. It was never fine. It's always been offensive. The difference is that society has changed to the point where people outside of the marginalized groups are paying attention to the fact that it's offensive, and since those are the people whose opinions matter to you, it suddenly has consequences. If you are insulted and alienated by someone telling you that your behavior is hurtful to other people, that's a sign that you're selfish and don't give a crap about whether or not you hurt others, which is entirely a you problem.
Also, calling something virtue signalling isn't the devastating argument you think it is. First off, no one really cares why the change was made, if it was a genuine, altruistic desire to do better, or if it was because they thought "virtue signalling" would increase profits, as long at the change got made. Second, if it is virtue signalling, that's just a sign that society has moved forward to the point where not treating marginalized groups like crap is considered a virtue, and that is a good thing.
Honestly, given that WotC and Hasbro are corporations, I pretty much assume anything and everything positive they do is "virtue signalling". The individuals on the D&D team might care, probably most or all of them do care, and some of them probably care a lot, but corporations are soulless, sociopathic entities motivated entirely by profit. If they thought making the change would have a negative impact on the bottom line, it would never happen. Instead, they recognize that the change will either be profit neutral, or result in increased profits. What that means is that at the end of the day, inclusivity is more profitable, and that's good.
Overall on the word id feel insulted if someone of another race started naming me as a species (oh lookie here this is the Hispanic species and this ones the Asian species), it sounds like the most dehumanizing thing i could think of, which i guess is accurate when you talk in terms of creatures like actual lizard people,cat people, owl people whod logicaly would have be pretty far removed
Which is part of the reason the change is a good one. The meaning of race in the fantasy setting is different than the meaning in our world. Fantasy race is closer to species and real world race is closer to ethnicity. Look at the human fantasy race in the PHB, there is a long list of ethnicities, clearly the definitions are distinct.
Seems like a positive change. It made some people uncomfortable seems and easy fix. Species feels more accurate.
This is a good point, although I think the bigger point is that "race" is no longer a word with one single definition.
"Hispanic" literally translates to "speaking Spanish", but is frequently used to categorize people who speak Portugese. It has very little to do with the physical form of the person speaking (and I personally know a lot of people who don't like being categorized that way) but most official forms still use it interchangeably with "race". Asian is even more obtuse. I know a guy from India and a guy from China. Both are "Asian" but both look completely different, talk completely different, and come from completely different backgrounds. By these standards, an orc and an aasimar could both be categorized as the same "race".
The funny thing here is that I believe WOTC is trying to use the Aardling like a single "category" to lump all their half-animal "races" (and they have used that term as recently as Monsters of the Multiverse) into a couple of pages in the new PHB. I honestly think this is why they started using "species"--because it's okay to have half-elves, but when you start trying to license the half-rabbit and half-cat PCs, suddenly they need to find a new word for what those differences are between forms.
Hmmm. Maybe something with "form" in the description would be a better term...
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
I love it, the decision, for it being an archaic term best not used when talking about intelligent beings and for being to stop nonsensical half/x proposals I've seen popping up left and right like half Ooze half Centaur amongst others.
I get that race was inaccurate for what are species divisions... So go for it.
But now are Rashemi/Thayaan/Cormyrian just races? Are gold vs silver elves races? I feel like we are just moving the word around.
I also am troubled about the trend to remove each groups' Identity. Why is my character exceptional now as a dwarf choosing to be a wizard? We talk of the beauty of characters going "against type" and then we remove "type."
Please note that the definition of species implies they are viable as a self propagating group, but it doesn't rule out interspecies breeding, this is a common misconception which I shared also until recently.
So you're okay with the Ooze/Centaur Hybrid?
Right but we are moving it to a place more consistent with normal usage. Variations in elves within the species fits the use of the typical use of the word "race." That said, I expect we are going to find them continuing to use Legacy instead as it can reflect not only intra-species variation (the have visible differences) but cultural distinctives as well.
Not really... Sounds absolutely absurd.
But it isn't where I would "make my stand" as a DM.
That's one of the things I like about the first OneDND publication. The half/half combos are mechanically balanced automatically. You are mechanically one race, and aesthetically a hybrid of your choosing.
My Npcs are certainly going to give a lot of strange looks at the bizarre PC, though.
Fair point! I'm mathematician. I'm all for logical consistency.
This is D&D, how dare we have weird magical hybrid creatures! I demand only sensible realistic creatures like Chimeras and owlbears.
Seriously, I don't think there is any hybrid of creatures that are to silly to be in d&d. Sloth-Troll? Sure. Butterfly-seal? Neat. Orchid-T-Rex? Awesome!
Yes, this DnD not ****** 101. Something I'm seeing more and more.
I find it interesting that this decision was reached after consulting with "outside cultural consultants." Outside meaning people who dont play and with no vested interest in D&D?
LOL gotta love the internet.
Edited: I thought someone was responding to something else.
I am one of those who is irritated because this feels like virtue signaling and pandering to me. I recognize that there is racism in our cruel world, and that racism in all forms need to be fought. We are still working to overcome the economic disadvantages brought on by centuries of slavery and discrimination.
However, most of us who use the word race in relation to D&D place zero real world connotations on the term in relation to our game. For us, D&D race is a legacy of classic fantasy literature referring to a multitude of make believe cultures and ancestries, both good and evil. A number of us feel vilified for preferring a term that we do not see as evil but that Hasbro and others obviously do.
Also, I would question how much real world impact changes like this truly make, and how much of it is to make a percentage of current players feel good and avoid the potential for criticism of WotC. If one truly wants to make meaningful change, then I would challenge you to volunteer to host after school groups in communities of color and introduce a new population to the hobby we all love.