Reminder: the original D&D edition had crashed alien spaceships with laser guns and was said to take place on an alternate Earth, with travel to IRL Earth possible.
Also Spelljammer exists. As does Eberron.
The push to eject "Science" from D&D and tell players who like steampunk, spellpunk, noir, or any of the other myriad of non-Tolkien fantasy genres to get lost is...not correct.
The term "species" being used to label different groups of creatures is extremely old. And, as Yurei said, even if it wasn't, D&D has had sci-fi stuff for almost its entire history.
As for the bioessentialism argument, I refer to this video. D&D's history of using "race" in a racist way goes way back to Tolkein. There's a reason why the Orcs of Thar Mystara Gazetteer has extremely racist depictions of "red" and "yellow" orcs.
While I have complaints about the changes they are making, and while I think changing to call races species is dumb, it's a whatever change. It's not going to impact me at all, so it's not worth getting worked up about. Its semantics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Hyperbolic posts like this are almost as nonproductive as those actively trying to preserve the problematic aspects of the game.
The real problems are things like “this race can never be as smart as another” or “this race is always evil.” Other, common sense mechanical elements are obviously sensible. A rabbit-folk should be better at jumping than a human; a sea elf should be able to swim better. Subterranean or nocturnal creatures should be better at seeing in the dark.
That is what Wizards is doing - rather than focus on penalties (“always worse at X” “always such and such morality”), they are focusing on giving everyone additive bonuses unique to their identity. That is the key difference between the Gygax system (which should be removed) and what Wizards is doing - these are things that add to the creatures, and not take away. Crossing the line to “let us also remove the additives also” is when you start moving away from the ultimate goal of positive representations of different species, and end up with a situation where your choice of species is little more than a coat of meaningless paint.
I am not being hyperbolic. I believe the correct path is to remove all fixed racial features from the game, including bonuses. Any of those features which are desirable can be moved to background and freely assigned to any species as feats. I acknowledge this will likely require a more in-depth feat system to maintain game balance.
It is not only pernicious to say that a given race is worse than others; it is equally pernicious to say that a given race is better than others. In real life, racialized oppression has often been justified based on alleged benefits the oppressed people supposedly had. Removing racial penalties is good, but racial bonuses are not an ideologically distinct phenomenon from penalties. They are the same thing. Both need to go.
"Positive representations of different species" is not a value-neutral goal, and biological "realism" is not a value-neutral method to achieve it. An alternative is that a rabbit person is not necessarily better at jumping than average, a nocturnal person is not necessarily better at seeing in the dark than average, and a dragon person is not necessarily more durable than average. We can easily imagine a world where some Harengon are good swimmers, some sea elves are good jumpers, some dwarves can breathe fire and some humans can fly, because it's all fantasy and it's absurd to base our ideas of what's reasonable on 19th century race science. If you feel that makes your choice of species meaningless, I'm sorry you think RP is meaningless.
Seems like you are denying a species it's uniqueness by wanting to remove what makes them different to each other personally I see that as a racist/xenophobic approach, instead those differences should be embraced and accepted.
why can't species be different from one another?? Why do they have to be humanized by removing what makes them different or changed to fit the concepts of a different species? Try not to become what your trying to prevent.
As for the bioessentialism argument, I refer to this video. D&D's history of using "race" in a racist way goes way back to Tolkein. There's a reason why the Orcs of Thar Mystara Gazetteer has extremely racist depictions of "red" and "yellow" orcs.
This is a bit of a myth - the problem with orcs stems from people like Gary Gygax fundamentally missing the point of Tolkien’s orcs and injecting racism.
Tolkien’s orcs are not built on racial stereotypes. They are not the tribalistic orcs of later fantasy, but a physical representation of the horrors of the First World War - the best the world had to offer, corrupted and broken by evil and mechanization; dirty, murderous entities whose entire existence is built around their military unit. Tolkien himself was an avowed anti-racist who regularly condemned those who tried to use his woks in their racist agendas and literally includes in LotR a significant b-plot about how racism is foolish.
Gygax and others stripped out the WWI allegory. They then took the more militaristic divides of the orcs and changed that to being based on more generic, tribal stereotypes.
Tolkien did exactly what D&D should be - each of his species, be if hobbits, elves, dwarves, men, etc. all have distinct, unique traits… but every single one of them is celebrated and all of their traits are important parts of the party finding victory.
That is what D&D is trying to return to - they want their game to represent the ideal of the aggressively anti-racist Tolkien… and not the corrupted form of fantasy that sprang from the minds of Gygax and others who somehow missed Tolkien’s message of tolerance.
This is a bit of a myth - the problem with orcs stems from people like Gary Gygax fundamentally missing the point of Tolkien’s orcs and injecting racism.
Eh, no, whether and to what degree there's racism in Tolkien's works is best described as disputed, or maybe saying there's evidence on both sides. I certainly wouldn't call him "aggressively anti-racist", but I wouldn't call him aggressively racist either, just more or less what you'd expect from someone someone born in 1892.
This is a bit of a myth - the problem with orcs stems from people like Gary Gygax fundamentally missing the point of Tolkien’s orcs and injecting racism.
Eh, no, whether and to what degree there's racism in Tolkien's works is best described as disputed, or maybe saying there's evidence on both sides. I certainly wouldn't call him "aggressively anti-racist", but I wouldn't call him aggressively racist either, just more or less what you'd expect from someone someone born in 1892.
Tolkien was far and away before his times - he was very outspoken about how, having been born in South Africa, he held a particular distaste for racism. This manifested throughout his entire life. When the Nazis asked to publish the Hobbit in German, Tolkien responded with a lengthy letter explaining why their entire ideology was built atop ill-informed racism. He was outspoken about how his orcs were not supposed to exhibit some of the features white Europeans ascribed to them. He included a plot about two racists (Legolas and Gimli) realizing their bigotry was misplaced and stood in the way of friendship. When talking about men from other lands, who were antagonists, he was sure to point out that they probably were not evil, but mislead by those in power. He gave a speech about how he supported race-swapping characters some 35 years before Hollywood caught on.
Folks will, of course, look for racism in his works - that is fairly in vogue right now. But, I am guessing few of those scholars have chosen to forgo a lucrative book deal because they would rather write a fiery letter dressing down an actual evil empire for how racist that empire was.
And, even to the extent he was a product of his times, he was very clearly trying to be better and rise above the apartheid world to which he was born. I cannot think of a better example of what D&D should be than that - a game made by those who acknowledge the evils of their own past and both try to rise above them and specifically address them head on within their content.
Being outspoken against racism and Nazis doesn't mean that you are immune to the racial biases common in your time. I think it would be difficult to find a single person that didn't have any racial biases. As the video I posted shows, the appearance of the Orcs is very obviously based on racist Mongolian stereotypes that were widespread in England at the time. Tolkien admitted that the Dwarves are largely based on Jews (the diaspora, their language, etc). If Dwarves are stand-ins for Jewish people, then the aspect of Dwarves being greedy in the Hobbit that carries into D&D and similar fantasy media is obviously an issue.
I don't think that Tolkien was a raging bigot like some other authors from his time period (H.P. Lovecraft). I do think that he had some racial biases that leaked into his works. I also think that if he were alive today and you explained these issues that he would agree it was a problem and change it. From all that I've heard he was a very nice and polite person and would probably be open to this kind of criticism.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I don't think that Tolkien was a raging bigot like some other authors from his time period (H.P. Lovecraft). I do think that he had some racial biases that leaked into his works. I also think that if he were alive today and you explained these issues that he would agree it was a problem and change it. From all that I've heard he was a very nice and polite person and would probably be open to this kind of criticism.
Fundamentally, this is what being anti-racist is all about, and why, though I acknowledged Tolkien was a product of his time, the label can be safely ascribed to him. Bring anti-racist does not mean being perfect; no one is ever going to be perfect. It is about acknowledging your flaws, being willing to work to fix them once you discover them, being willing to learn about them when you realize there might be flaws you did not notice, and standing up for what is right when push comes to shove.
That is what D&D is trying to be. They know their game is riddled with Gygax’s racism. And they know that they have biases and will make mistakes - the Hadozee incident immediately comes to mind. Wizards, with changes like removing racially set ASI and the word Race, both of which Gygax injected with his bigotry, is making some small progress. And this is only the surface level changes we see - they have been open about behind the scenes systemic changes designed to fix workplace culture issues within their campaign.
Tolkien wrote in his letters about how fascinated and honored he was that others were so enthralled with his creations that they wanted to take them and build off of them; he also wrote about his extreme distaste for people who tried to take things from literature and use them to further bigotry. I think, had he lived to see D&D, he would not have been all that fond of what Gygax did ostensively in Tolkien’s name; but would have been pretty giddy about what Wizards is now trying to do.
I don't think that Tolkien was a raging bigot like some other authors from his time period (H.P. Lovecraft). I do think that he had some racial biases that leaked into his works. I also think that if he were alive today and you explained these issues that he would agree it was a problem and change it. From all that I've heard he was a very nice and polite person and would probably be open to this kind of criticism.
I think, had he lived to see D&D, he would not have been all that fond of what Gygax did ostensively in Tolkien’s name; but would have been pretty giddy about what Wizards is now trying to do.
Not so sure about that, Tolkien was anti-technology and borderline a Socialist. Many of the issues with Wizards today doesn't come from a genuine need to do better, but a focused capitalistic view to make the company appealing to a larger audience. It's about profits, and not about generating equality. Which is why they take sweeping steps that miss the mark. Changing the Word Race to Species while not fundamentally removing the inherent Racism, or like the Hadozee incident you mention deleing all the pictures and lore, but not writing new lore or putting in good pictures. When the Issue was they copied and pasted 35 year old lore without reading it. Also on topic, they never changed the Anti-Semitism in the Gith lore, that is still fully on display for all to read at any time.
Do they mean well, when was the last time they used the Pinkertons? When was the last time they did something dumb in the name of profit? Once Hasbro stops being greedy and evil, and starts building good will with the community, maybe we'll think they are being genuine. But to many of us the Read is from a jaded point of view, and we don't trust they mean well.
I don't think that Tolkien was a raging bigot like some other authors from his time period (H.P. Lovecraft). I do think that he had some racial biases that leaked into his works. I also think that if he were alive today and you explained these issues that he would agree it was a problem and change it. From all that I've heard he was a very nice and polite person and would probably be open to this kind of criticism.
I think, had he lived to see D&D, he would not have been all that fond of what Gygax did ostensively in Tolkien’s name; but would have been pretty giddy about what Wizards is now trying to do.
Not so sure about that, Tolkien was anti-technology and borderline a Socialist. Many of the issues with Wizards today doesn't come from a genuine need to do better, but a focused capitalistic view to make the company appealing to a larger audience. It's about profits, and not about generating equality. Which is why they take sweeping steps that miss the mark. Changing the Word Race to Species while not fundamentally removing the inherent Racism, or like the Hadozee incident you mention deleing all the pictures and lore, but not writing new lore or putting in good pictures. When the Issue was they copied and pasted 35 year old lore without reading it. Also on topic, they never changed the Anti-Semitism in the Gith lore, that is still fully on display for all to read at any time.
Do they mean well, when was the last time they used the Pinkertons? When was the last time they did something dumb in the name of profit? Once Hasbro stops being greedy and evil, and starts building good will with the community, maybe we'll think they are being genuine. But to many of us the Read is from a jaded point of view, and we don't trust they mean well.
Ah yes, the conspiratorial “Wizards is not doing the right thing for the right reasons, they are doing this all for money” argument that is popular among those who are fighting against progress. Following that up by trying to equate other business decisions with Wizards’ diversity initiatives also checks the “non sequitur evidence” on the “anti-progress” bingo card. With bad science and bad linguistics already checked, I think I am close to a bingo.
The reality? Wizards makes lots of dumb choices, but they have consistently shown they care about making their games welcoming to all. When the Chinese government told Wizards to include less diversity in their products, Wizards told the largest market in the world to kick rocks. When a bigot stole Wizards IP and exposed a fatal flaw with D&D’s current licensing, Wizards took action to patch the hole (though the bigots managed to trick enough sensible people to their side, that Wizards lost that fight to bigotry). They have changed their tournament rules to explicitly fight against bigotry. They have been actively recruiting diverse voices to ensure more folks have something to identify with. They are regularly top donors to many charities. And they have told their bigoted players to take a hike; they don’t need them.
There are lots of valid things to complain about with Wizards—but trying to say their attempts at equity are based on capitalism rather than a guanine desire to change? Either you are not paying attention or you are trying to push a false narrative to advance your own agenda.
This is also the first I've heard of "Gith are antisemetic," and I consider myself pretty well versed in the racism in D&D's history. Githzerai are very clearly East Asian/Buddhist-coded. Githyanki are more complicated, but I always thought they were more Viking/Pirate flavored with a bit of Samurai mixed in.
I would be interested in gothicshark's stance on this, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Also on topic, they never changed the Anti-Semitism in the Gith lore, that is still fully on display for all to read at any time.
Wait, the what? I’m Jewish, never noticed that. I mean stuff gets by me, and I’m not speaking to the larger conversation. Just, I never heard that.
Ok.. first look up the first art for the Githyanki... if you look up historic Jewish Temple garb, namely the Breastplate – The Urim and Thummim, and compare with the art on the fendish folio. Then read the ancient lore of the Gith, how they overthrow Pharaoh the Mind Flayers and took hold of their own destiny. Oh and they are evil semi-undead monster looking to steal your souls in the astral plane. Really upping the game on Blood Libel.
This is also the first I've heard of "Gith are antisemetic," and I consider myself pretty well versed in the racism in D&D's history. Githzerai are very clearly East Asian/Buddhist-coded. Githyanki are more complicated, but I always thought they were more Viking/Pirate flavored with a bit of Samurai mixed in.
I would be interested in gothicshark's stance on this, though.
When 1st introduced, their back story was taken right out of the pages of Exodus, and their traditional clothing was based on Ancient Jewish armor. The Cover art the Famous art of the Githyanki with leather Armor with all those Gems, that is the Old Temple outfit with the Urim and Thummim on them. Same outfit used in Indian Jones when the Nazis tried to open the Ark. It was not too subtle, and they even added blood libel into their lore. But ironically, a lot of us older Jewish players like them, as they were kind of hardcore and cool even if they were not intended to be cool, so we let it slide. The fact that in the 40 years since Githyanki came out, no one at TSR and WotC bothered to go "did you realize this was straight up a Jewish Allegory?" Is both a bit insulting and funny.
looking at the images..... i still cant see it... all i see is some inspiration from india, greece, asia with a little mayan/aztec/african thrown in
but thats the beauty in pictures, we all see different things depending on our own interpretations and how our brains image association decides to work
I'm in the camp of "species is not my preferred term but it's ultimately a whatever call." I understand the reasons behind the change and don't have a problem with them.
Bringing it back to ability scores: to me, the ONLY ability score which should be affected by species is Strength (as I've said before). Yes, this is a game with wizards and dragons and gods. No, I refuse to accept that the strongest kobold is equal in strength to the strongest goliath. (And don't tell me the ability scores are pure abstractions because that kobold with the 20 STR can, by game rules, carry as much as weight as the goliath with 20 STR. Which is flat out absurd.)
I'm in the camp of "species is not my preferred term but it's ultimately a whatever call." I understand the reasons behind the change and don't have a problem with them.
Bringing it back to ability scores: to me, the ONLY ability score which should be affected by species is Strength (as I've said before). Yes, this is a game with wizards and dragons and gods. No, I refuse to accept that the strongest kobold is equal in strength to the strongest goliath. (And don't tell me the ability scores are pure abstractions because that kobold with the 20 STR can, by game rules, carry as much as weight as the goliath with 20 STR. Which is flat out absurd.)
I’d say DEX and CON are in a similar boat; some species physiologies will be geared for fine muscle control and bursts of speed, others might have a bit more redundancy to their vital systems. But ultimately it at least puts a bit less hard numbers behind matching race/species to class for optimization and avoids the mess of implications people can attempt to make from the mental stats.
The thing about Dex and Con is I think it's far less hard to imagine an extremely klutzy elf and a very dextrous dwarf, or a very hardy goblin and a sickness-prone goliath.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Reminder: the original D&D edition had crashed alien spaceships with laser guns and was said to take place on an alternate Earth, with travel to IRL Earth possible.
Also Spelljammer exists. As does Eberron.
The push to eject "Science" from D&D and tell players who like steampunk, spellpunk, noir, or any of the other myriad of non-Tolkien fantasy genres to get lost is...not correct.
Please do not contact or message me.
The term "species" being used to label different groups of creatures is extremely old. And, as Yurei said, even if it wasn't, D&D has had sci-fi stuff for almost its entire history.
As for the bioessentialism argument, I refer to this video. D&D's history of using "race" in a racist way goes way back to Tolkein. There's a reason why the Orcs of Thar Mystara Gazetteer has extremely racist depictions of "red" and "yellow" orcs.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
While I have complaints about the changes they are making, and while I think changing to call races species is dumb, it's a whatever change. It's not going to impact me at all, so it's not worth getting worked up about. Its semantics.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Seems like you are denying a species it's uniqueness by wanting to remove what makes them different to each other personally I see that as a racist/xenophobic approach, instead those differences should be embraced and accepted.
why can't species be different from one another?? Why do they have to be humanized by removing what makes them different or changed to fit the concepts of a different species? Try not to become what your trying to prevent.
This is a bit of a myth - the problem with orcs stems from people like Gary Gygax fundamentally missing the point of Tolkien’s orcs and injecting racism.
Tolkien’s orcs are not built on racial stereotypes. They are not the tribalistic orcs of later fantasy, but a physical representation of the horrors of the First World War - the best the world had to offer, corrupted and broken by evil and mechanization; dirty, murderous entities whose entire existence is built around their military unit. Tolkien himself was an avowed anti-racist who regularly condemned those who tried to use his woks in their racist agendas and literally includes in LotR a significant b-plot about how racism is foolish.
Gygax and others stripped out the WWI allegory. They then took the more militaristic divides of the orcs and changed that to being based on more generic, tribal stereotypes.
Tolkien did exactly what D&D should be - each of his species, be if hobbits, elves, dwarves, men, etc. all have distinct, unique traits… but every single one of them is celebrated and all of their traits are important parts of the party finding victory.
That is what D&D is trying to return to - they want their game to represent the ideal of the aggressively anti-racist Tolkien… and not the corrupted form of fantasy that sprang from the minds of Gygax and others who somehow missed Tolkien’s message of tolerance.
Eh, no, whether and to what degree there's racism in Tolkien's works is best described as disputed, or maybe saying there's evidence on both sides. I certainly wouldn't call him "aggressively anti-racist", but I wouldn't call him aggressively racist either, just more or less what you'd expect from someone someone born in 1892.
Tolkien was far and away before his times - he was very outspoken about how, having been born in South Africa, he held a particular distaste for racism. This manifested throughout his entire life. When the Nazis asked to publish the Hobbit in German, Tolkien responded with a lengthy letter explaining why their entire ideology was built atop ill-informed racism. He was outspoken about how his orcs were not supposed to exhibit some of the features white Europeans ascribed to them. He included a plot about two racists (Legolas and Gimli) realizing their bigotry was misplaced and stood in the way of friendship. When talking about men from other lands, who were antagonists, he was sure to point out that they probably were not evil, but mislead by those in power. He gave a speech about how he supported race-swapping characters some 35 years before Hollywood caught on.
Folks will, of course, look for racism in his works - that is fairly in vogue right now. But, I am guessing few of those scholars have chosen to forgo a lucrative book deal because they would rather write a fiery letter dressing down an actual evil empire for how racist that empire was.
And, even to the extent he was a product of his times, he was very clearly trying to be better and rise above the apartheid world to which he was born. I cannot think of a better example of what D&D should be than that - a game made by those who acknowledge the evils of their own past and both try to rise above them and specifically address them head on within their content.
Being outspoken against racism and Nazis doesn't mean that you are immune to the racial biases common in your time. I think it would be difficult to find a single person that didn't have any racial biases. As the video I posted shows, the appearance of the Orcs is very obviously based on racist Mongolian stereotypes that were widespread in England at the time. Tolkien admitted that the Dwarves are largely based on Jews (the diaspora, their language, etc). If Dwarves are stand-ins for Jewish people, then the aspect of Dwarves being greedy in the Hobbit that carries into D&D and similar fantasy media is obviously an issue.
I don't think that Tolkien was a raging bigot like some other authors from his time period (H.P. Lovecraft). I do think that he had some racial biases that leaked into his works. I also think that if he were alive today and you explained these issues that he would agree it was a problem and change it. From all that I've heard he was a very nice and polite person and would probably be open to this kind of criticism.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Fundamentally, this is what being anti-racist is all about, and why, though I acknowledged Tolkien was a product of his time, the label can be safely ascribed to him. Bring anti-racist does not mean being perfect; no one is ever going to be perfect. It is about acknowledging your flaws, being willing to work to fix them once you discover them, being willing to learn about them when you realize there might be flaws you did not notice, and standing up for what is right when push comes to shove.
That is what D&D is trying to be. They know their game is riddled with Gygax’s racism. And they know that they have biases and will make mistakes - the Hadozee incident immediately comes to mind. Wizards, with changes like removing racially set ASI and the word Race, both of which Gygax injected with his bigotry, is making some small progress. And this is only the surface level changes we see - they have been open about behind the scenes systemic changes designed to fix workplace culture issues within their campaign.
Tolkien wrote in his letters about how fascinated and honored he was that others were so enthralled with his creations that they wanted to take them and build off of them; he also wrote about his extreme distaste for people who tried to take things from literature and use them to further bigotry. I think, had he lived to see D&D, he would not have been all that fond of what Gygax did ostensively in Tolkien’s name; but would have been pretty giddy about what Wizards is now trying to do.
Not so sure about that, Tolkien was anti-technology and borderline a Socialist. Many of the issues with Wizards today doesn't come from a genuine need to do better, but a focused capitalistic view to make the company appealing to a larger audience. It's about profits, and not about generating equality. Which is why they take sweeping steps that miss the mark. Changing the Word Race to Species while not fundamentally removing the inherent Racism, or like the Hadozee incident you mention deleing all the pictures and lore, but not writing new lore or putting in good pictures. When the Issue was they copied and pasted 35 year old lore without reading it. Also on topic, they never changed the Anti-Semitism in the Gith lore, that is still fully on display for all to read at any time.
Do they mean well, when was the last time they used the Pinkertons? When was the last time they did something dumb in the name of profit? Once Hasbro stops being greedy and evil, and starts building good will with the community, maybe we'll think they are being genuine. But to many of us the Read is from a jaded point of view, and we don't trust they mean well.
Ah yes, the conspiratorial “Wizards is not doing the right thing for the right reasons, they are doing this all for money” argument that is popular among those who are fighting against progress. Following that up by trying to equate other business decisions with Wizards’ diversity initiatives also checks the “non sequitur evidence” on the “anti-progress” bingo card. With bad science and bad linguistics already checked, I think I am close to a bingo.
The reality? Wizards makes lots of dumb choices, but they have consistently shown they care about making their games welcoming to all. When the Chinese government told Wizards to include less diversity in their products, Wizards told the largest market in the world to kick rocks. When a bigot stole Wizards IP and exposed a fatal flaw with D&D’s current licensing, Wizards took action to patch the hole (though the bigots managed to trick enough sensible people to their side, that Wizards lost that fight to bigotry). They have changed their tournament rules to explicitly fight against bigotry. They have been actively recruiting diverse voices to ensure more folks have something to identify with. They are regularly top donors to many charities. And they have told their bigoted players to take a hike; they don’t need them.
There are lots of valid things to complain about with Wizards—but trying to say their attempts at equity are based on capitalism rather than a guanine desire to change? Either you are not paying attention or you are trying to push a false narrative to advance your own agenda.
Wait, the what? I’m Jewish, never noticed that. I mean stuff gets by me, and I’m not speaking to the larger conversation. Just, I never heard that.
This is also the first I've heard of "Gith are antisemetic," and I consider myself pretty well versed in the racism in D&D's history. Githzerai are very clearly East Asian/Buddhist-coded. Githyanki are more complicated, but I always thought they were more Viking/Pirate flavored with a bit of Samurai mixed in.
I would be interested in gothicshark's stance on this, though.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Ok.. first look up the first art for the Githyanki... if you look up historic Jewish Temple garb, namely the Breastplate – The Urim and Thummim, and compare with the art on the fendish folio. Then read the ancient lore of the Gith, how they overthrow
Pharaohthe Mind Flayers and took hold of their own destiny. Oh and they are evil semi-undead monster looking to steal your souls in the astral plane. Really upping the game on Blood Libel.When 1st introduced, their back story was taken right out of the pages of Exodus, and their traditional clothing was based on Ancient Jewish armor. The Cover art the Famous art of the Githyanki with leather Armor with all those Gems, that is the Old Temple outfit with the Urim and Thummim on them. Same outfit used in Indian Jones when the Nazis tried to open the Ark. It was not too subtle, and they even added blood libel into their lore. But ironically, a lot of us older Jewish players like them, as they were kind of hardcore and cool even if they were not intended to be cool, so we let it slide. The fact that in the 40 years since Githyanki came out, no one at TSR and WotC bothered to go "did you realize this was straight up a Jewish Allegory?" Is both a bit insulting and funny.
Link to screenshot of both the cover art and Ancient Jewish Temple garb. https://i.imgur.com/TE12Ca7.png
looking at the images..... i still cant see it...
all i see is some inspiration from india, greece, asia with a little mayan/aztec/african thrown in
but thats the beauty in pictures, we all see different things depending on our own interpretations and how our brains image association decides to work
A reminder to stay on topic please, said topic being the discussion of the terminology change from race to species.
Another reminder that the following topics are not appropriate per site rules and guidelines:
I'm in the camp of "species is not my preferred term but it's ultimately a whatever call." I understand the reasons behind the change and don't have a problem with them.
Bringing it back to ability scores: to me, the ONLY ability score which should be affected by species is Strength (as I've said before). Yes, this is a game with wizards and dragons and gods. No, I refuse to accept that the strongest kobold is equal in strength to the strongest goliath. (And don't tell me the ability scores are pure abstractions because that kobold with the 20 STR can, by game rules, carry as much as weight as the goliath with 20 STR. Which is flat out absurd.)
I’d say DEX and CON are in a similar boat; some species physiologies will be geared for fine muscle control and bursts of speed, others might have a bit more redundancy to their vital systems. But ultimately it at least puts a bit less hard numbers behind matching race/species to class for optimization and avoids the mess of implications people can attempt to make from the mental stats.
The thing about Dex and Con is I think it's far less hard to imagine an extremely klutzy elf and a very dextrous dwarf, or a very hardy goblin and a sickness-prone goliath.