| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Dec 2022 : 18:04:52
Moving On From 'Race' in One D&D
There's more to the post, but the essential information is:
quote:
In the next Unearthed Arcana containing playtest materials for One D&D, we are presenting a replacement for the term "race." That new term is “species.”
We know this is an important change to D&D—one that requires an open conversation with our community. And we want to be clear about a few things as we playtest the new term.
- We have made the decision to move on from using the term "race" everywhere in One D&D, and we do not intend to return to that term.
- The term "species" was chosen in close coordination with multiple outside cultural consultants.
- In the survey for this Unearthed Arcana playtest, which will go live on December 21, players will be able to give feedback on the term “species” along with everything else present in the playtest materials.
Given the way that some people's heads exploded at the note, a few years back, that characters could be LGBT, I'm sure this will cause heads to explode again.
I think it's a good idea, though... Even if you take all the real-world racial elements out of the equation, I've always thought it was awkward to use that word in D&D, for the simple fact that in the real world, racial differences are minor, if not entirely cosmetic -- but in D&D, elves and dwarves and such are very different from each other and from humans, yet the same term that described minor differences in the real world described major physiological differences in D&D.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Apr 2023 : 06:40:08
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
Where does this leave the inhabitants of the Yuirwood? They're distinctly half-elven as they are able to breed with eachother and produce half-elf children as a distinct species/race.
They are entirely unaffected, because the only change is that the books aren't going to say "all half-elf characters fit this particular mold." Look at my post above -- the rules still allow you to build ANY half-type you want; it's just not a template any more. |
| HighOne |
Posted - 08 Apr 2023 : 04:44:43
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
Where does this leave the inhabitants of the Yuirwood? They're distinctly half-elven as they are able to breed with eachother and produce half-elf children as a distinct species/race.
Half-elves and half-orcs aren't being removed from the lore, as Wooly said. They just won't exist as mechanically distinct races any more. In other words, if a player wants to play a half-elf, they can; they'll just have to choose between the elf or human statistics for their character.
Personally, I think this change is misguided and wrong, and Crawford's assertion that the "half-construction" is "inherently racist" is inherently ridiculous and harmful. But such are the times we live in. If I could boycott WotC any harder, I would. |
| Seravin |
Posted - 07 Apr 2023 : 20:38:07
Where does this leave the inhabitants of the Yuirwood? They're distinctly half-elven as they are able to breed with eachother and produce half-elf children as a distinct species/race. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 07 Apr 2023 : 19:46:32
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
So what descriptive will these people be called? Human with other species blood line/heritage or called just human? What of elf and orc parents, will they be called human as well?
From the link: https://archive.is/GLUkZ#selection-889.0-893.204
quote:
However, despite their removal from the Player’s Handbook, Crawford assured players that “If someone wants to play those character options, they’ll still be in D&D Beyond [and] they’ll still be in the 2014 Player’s Handbook”
It should be noted that though players may still be allowed to create Half- characters, thanks to their removal from the core materials, such characters can not be used in an officially-sanctioned event.)
So I guess they are banned from official games and ongoing new official lore (If any) it still leaves for me the questions of how old lore will be effected .
To Seravin, If one considers that it is reported that Russian troops are called orcs by Ukraine troops it can be very easy to see how some game material translates into the RW as a problem.
Old lore is never effected, since that's the lore you want to use. I know it's been said over a million times, but it doesn't effect any games that are ongoing. Tell the story however YOU want to tell it. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 07 Apr 2023 : 19:33:13
So what descriptive will these people be called? Human with other species blood line/heritage or called just human? What of elf and orc parents, will they be called human as well?
From the link: https://archive.is/GLUkZ#selection-889.0-893.204
quote:
However, despite their removal from the Player’s Handbook, Crawford assured players that “If someone wants to play those character options, they’ll still be in D&D Beyond [and] they’ll still be in the 2014 Player’s Handbook”
It should be noted that though players may still be allowed to create Half- characters, thanks to their removal from the core materials, such characters can not be used in an officially-sanctioned event.)
So I guess they are banned from official games and ongoing new official lore (If any) it still leaves for me the questions of how old lore will be effected .
To Seravin, If one considers that it is reported that Russian troops are called orcs by Ukraine troops it can be very easy to see how some game material translates into the RW as a problem.
|
| Seravin |
Posted - 07 Apr 2023 : 17:35:44
I don't mind officially switching out the term "race" to "species" when refering to humans, orcs, dwarves, elves, etc.
I think using race within a species, like dark elves vs high elves vs wood elves seems fine and also more or less correct?
No idea why anyone would think half-elf or half-orc is somehow real-world offensive. It's a human-centric view for Faerun to have instead of calling them half-man I suppose. But since elves and orcs don't exist IRL why would this have real world problems?
I don't understand and think this is a solution in search of a problem. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Apr 2023 : 15:22:45
I was just looking a bit more into this... And it turns out this was addressed in one of their Unearthed Arcana playtest releases months ago.
So they're not giving separate "this is what all half-elves are like" or "this is what all half-orcs are like" -- but they're not removing them, and they EXPLICITLY refer to them as common.
"CHILDREN OF DIFFERENT HUMANOID KINDS
Thanks to the magical workings of the multiverse, Humanoids of different kinds sometimes have children together. For example, folk who have a human parent and an orc or an elf parent are particularly common. Many other combinations are possible.
If you’d like to play the child of such a wondrous pairing, choose two Race options that are Humanoid to represent your parents. Then determine which of those Race options provides your game traits: Size, Speed, and special traits. You can then mix and match visual characteristics—color, ear shape, and the like—of the two options. For example, if your character has a halfling and a gnome parent, you might choose Halfling for your game traits and then decide that your character has the pointed ears that are characteristic of a gnome.
Finally, determine the average of the two options’ Life Span traits to figure out how long your character might live. For example, a child of a halfling and a gnome has an average life span of 288 years."
This is why I prefer to have all the information before reacting. People are getting all bent out of shape and screaming about something entirely non-existent.
And sadly, it's not the first time I've seen that.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Apr 2023 : 06:26:19
I read that the book will give people the option of mixing any two races -- they're just not presenting these as a separate race any more.
If this is correct, then they're not removing anything -- they're just not focusing on it.
I do like the idea of them giving the option of mixing any races... But I've mixed thoughts on them not detailing half-elves and half-orcs separately. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Apr 2023 : 03:21:05
Half-elves, half-orcs, and half-dragons don't bother me. It's half-humans who disappoint me. |
| BrennonGoldeye |
Posted - 07 Apr 2023 : 02:12:23
I'm sorry but people who don't like the reality of halfbreeds are known as a racist where I come from.
Stay away from my half-elves, half-orcs and half-dragons you bunch of full blooded gully dwarves.
 |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 06 Apr 2023 : 23:08:28
Tanis Multi-elven |
| Irennan |
Posted - 06 Apr 2023 : 21:10:49
quote:
Originally posted by deserk
WotC just keep getting more and more ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with half-elves and half-orcs. What's far more nefarious is implying their existence is problematic.
And let's be honest, WotC is really just doing this as a smokescreen in an attempt to appease the Twitter mob, and to control the conversation, rather than have people talking about their utterly greed-driven catastrophe with the OGL.
Why do people still care or follow behind D&D even after WotC showed their true colors and how they see the game with the OGL debacle? Why bother to talk about it? Why give a sh*t if WotC is listening to people who, in large part, probablly don't even play their game, and just want to policy stuff?
Less talk=less attention to WotC. The matter should just be left to die altogether. |
| Athreeren |
Posted - 06 Apr 2023 : 19:09:29
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
So it appears, humans and elves, two different species can not have children together. That will take out a lot of lore history.
That's not how I interpret it. In Tolkien, Eärendil and Elwing had two sons, but contrary to their half-elven parents, they had to choose their heritage. Elrond chose the elves and got to live for millenia, Elros chose the humans, and lived a measly 5 centuries. I think that's how they're going to have it, with any species being able to reproduce together, the result being one or the other, but with some traits of the other parent. |
| deserk |
Posted - 06 Apr 2023 : 18:17:41
WotC just keep getting more and more ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with half-elves and half-orcs. What's far more nefarious is implying their existence is problematic.
And let's be honest, WotC is really just doing this as a smokescreen in an attempt to appease the Twitter mob, and to control the conversation, rather than have people talking about their utterly greed-driven catastrophe with the OGL. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 06 Apr 2023 : 17:33:25
So it appears, humans and elves, two different species can not have children together. That will take out a lot of lore history. |
| HighOne |
Posted - 06 Apr 2023 : 16:38:47
Jeremy Crawford on half-elves and half-orcs recently: “The half construction is inherently racist so we simply aren’t going to include it in the new Player’s Handbook.” |
| Athreeren |
Posted - 06 Apr 2023 : 11:59:59
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Then there's this: https://archive.is/GLUkZ
But hey, continue to praise the retroactive wisdom of creatures from tumblr. At this point, why not?
Well, it is consistent with their move toward making species (or whatever you may call it) a cosmetic choice, with the bonuses in the background. It's true that it would make little sense to have half elves with this set of rules: they're just people with slightly pointy ears. And it's not as if people like Arilyn Moonblade would stop to exist (except for the fact that this would require having people still writing novels and lore of course), it's just that all she had to endure about never belonging to the human or elven world is just background with no mechanical impact. It's still weird that a pixie fighter would crush a titan mage at arm wrestling though.
Talking about racist and speciesist terms, when are they going to stop using the word "humanity" for everything that's good in people? That is a word that actually bothers me. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 06 Apr 2023 : 11:47:41
Okay, I just can't ignore when comments are from a place of "why change it, it's not that bad!".
Yes. Yes, it is THAT bad. When certain things make people feel uncomfortable and prevent them from playing an otherwise very inclusive game, then you make changes to remove that uncomfortable feeling. Not just from a marketing standpoint, but from a human decency standpoint. And, hey, if you don't like the changes, there's plenty of others that don't as well, and they play their own games. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 06 Apr 2023 : 09:29:54
Then there's this: https://archive.is/GLUkZ
But hey, continue to praise the retroactive wisdom of creatures from tumblr. At this point, why not? |
| Starshade |
Posted - 06 Apr 2023 : 09:07:08
The correct option for this time and place in history is "Multiracial" elves, and "Multiracial" orcs, honestly, Id give it as feedback if they insisted, as they still do, half elf is racist. O.o
Honestly nobody uses the odd terms of full blood or half race for real life right? Unless it's a child of a full massai and an inuit living in Denmark in a TINY place where the one kid absolutely give no sense at all, "umm australia? papua? oh, is those two your parents! Oh I got it!"
Positive side, it might be legal to be multiracial orc elf human and thiefling?  |
| Azar |
Posted - 07 Feb 2023 : 17:48:22
quote:
Originally posted by Outlaw Pope
wanting to simplify stuff to appeal to "current socio-political matters" as to make stuff clean or some guy in corporate who thinks they can use it to generate controversy for free advertisement while "looking good".
Bingo. There's less D&D and more "presently popular movement" in the mix. |
| Starshade |
Posted - 02 Feb 2023 : 16:35:55
Ive been thinking about what I think about this move, um, from my view, the "biology" science uses both the term subspecies and race, equally, we use it both as "funny lumps of random animals we breed with to get more animals looking like there", dogs, cats, etc. and neither is problematic. the term has been used when racial studies was a big no-no, and so far into the future the normal, day to day use of the most archaic and non spesific term is bad? tbh its just a random move, also nonsensical, but of no consequence. |
| Outlaw Pope |
Posted - 25 Jan 2023 : 22:15:34
I am entirely skeptical because I am cynical about the role of capitalism in social movements. Companies and holders of power I do not think are honest or reliable actors when it comes to social justice as they are usually also the perpetrators of oppression. I am especially critical on the matter when it comes to WOTC/Hasbro due to their willingness to chase the bottom line at the expense of their consumer base and how they basically fired, let go, and downsized a lot of talent when they acquired the DnD property. Some of whom were/are very talented female artists and writers.
Like I said earlier in the thread - I really do not care what they decide to call the "options" for character customization and I do not think it is a bad thing to be more clear cut rather than leaving it to reading comprehension or critical thinking. Like as far as settings go I think Forgotten Realms, despite some TSR copy pasting of real life human cultures, has been pretty decent when it comes to peoples in the Realms and avoiding too much IRL weight. But as far as "setting neutral game material" goes, it being completely sanitary is fine. Honestly, it should be as generic as possible as to be accessible (so players have a reason to buy setting content or make up their own stuff).
I do not think their change is bad. I just do not see what they are doing as revolutionary nor as particularly honest. It just seems (to me) typical business of the day where companies pretend to be people. Like I can see it as simply WOTC wanting to further simplify the game (also not bad) but look good while doing so. Given how a lot of the active DnD people are a small group of white men, I still lean more toward the "SILENCE BRAND" meme.
I just felt like I needed to clarify I am not on team REEE CHANGE BAD, I am just skeptical of why. I also understand I am not the only person who plays. Renaming the Player Character option label is entirely fine and may even be 'good' for the core rules/players handbook. But in terms of world building I think the bigotries in a setting can enhance storytelling if presented meaningfully and I suppose avoiding binaries from presentation, at least indicate the lore or perspective is from an unreliable narrator to leave stuff up to interpretation. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 25 Jan 2023 : 16:50:12
I find it hard to believe that the very people who hardcore pushed those tropes in D&D, who went out of their way to ridicule and remove the few elements that were there to reduce those issues, and whose company had been reported for discriminatory practices against its own emplyees, suddenly made a 180. WotC's statement wasn't preceded by a steady stream of changes that denoted a gradual and natural shift--so much that they were forced to axe and rewrite lots of text from books that had been written and published shortly before said statement. If they hadn't received huge backlash back in 2020, which prompted their statement, I really doubt their stance would have changed. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 25 Jan 2023 : 14:18:26
quote:
Originally posted by Outlaw Pope
I have just always felt that most of this stuff already existed - at least in the context of FR's product line. A lot of villainous individuals had more human or flawed ideas. Many of the monsters have implied opportunities to "leave the dark" but are just bound up in their societies. There is an Orog (orc) paladin /of Torm/ in the court and company of Queen Zaranda, there is an entire goddess who exists solely as the metaphysical hope for Drow escaping their dark gods, there are deities like Ilmater who encourage compassion for anyone and anything to the point even many monsterous races leave those priests alone because they know they will get free healing from them. An entire subrace of Orcs who were raised and molded by Eldath. A LN priest of Oghma in Skullport who is a Mindflayer.
I have always seen the "alignment" things are general guidelines of how these things usually are but as far as mortals are concerned they have entire free form and will to change or be different. But the battle of metaphysical alignment made literal in the mortal realm sees Chaos, Law, Good, and Evil smashing into each other and thus the world is very much a mess. Which is why there is high adventure.
But that is probably because DnD pre 3e had actual writers and newer products were made by smaller and smaller teams of constantly shifting people. You eventually get people who do not even have anything to do with DnD and especially subsettings like the realms who do not care or even know about how this stuff existed and you just get someone on staff either wanting to simplify stuff to appeal to "current socio-political matters" as to make stuff clean or some guy in corporate who thinks they can use it to generate controversy for free advertisement while "looking good".
But yeah, I do not think it's a "new concept" - its always been there without big red letters or genericized rewrites that sanitize any conflict.
It's not "current socio-political matters" or trying to look good, it's finally acknowledging issues that have existed for decades, but were ignored because those who were affected were too small a part of the audience to pay any attention to. |
| Outlaw Pope |
Posted - 25 Jan 2023 : 11:48:47
I have just always felt that most of this stuff already existed - at least in the context of FR's product line. A lot of villainous individuals had more human or flawed ideas. Many of the monsters have implied opportunities to "leave the dark" but are just bound up in their societies. There is an Orog (orc) paladin /of Torm/ in the court and company of Queen Zaranda, there is an entire goddess who exists solely as the metaphysical hope for Drow escaping their dark gods, there are deities like Ilmater who encourage compassion for anyone and anything to the point even many monsterous races leave those priests alone because they know they will get free healing from them. An entire subrace of Orcs who were raised and molded by Eldath. A LN priest of Oghma in Skullport who is a Mindflayer.
I have always seen the "alignment" things are general guidelines of how these things usually are but as far as mortals are concerned they have entire free form and will to change or be different. But the battle of metaphysical alignment made literal in the mortal realm sees Chaos, Law, Good, and Evil smashing into each other and thus the world is very much a mess. Which is why there is high adventure.
But that is probably because DnD pre 3e had actual writers and newer products were made by smaller and smaller teams of constantly shifting people. You eventually get people who do not even have anything to do with DnD and especially subsettings like the realms who do not care or even know about how this stuff existed and you just get someone on staff either wanting to simplify stuff to appeal to "current socio-political matters" as to make stuff clean or some guy in corporate who thinks they can use it to generate controversy for free advertisement while "looking good".
But yeah, I do not think it's a "new concept" - its always been there without big red letters or genericized rewrites that sanitize any conflict. |
| Athreeren |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 19:57:09
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
*sigh*
DM: "Yes, the goblinoids are overwhelmingly evil: a scourge of civilization."
Players: "Okay. We're ready to play."
There. See? Not so hard. No need to jump down the rabbit hole.
This reminds me of my experience playing Icewind Dale 2. You start as a team of mercenaries hired to protect Targos. You find some goblins trying to tunnel in, and you kill them: that's normal. Then the goblin army attempts a full assault on the town: of course you're going to protect the town! The next plot point regards retaking a bridge. There is a lot of creatures to kill, but the strategic importance of the bridge is clear and everyone in the Ten Town is going to be killed if the heroes don't succeed. So the mission is entirely justified within the context of the war, although we may wonder why it's always up to the heroes to do everything themselves, especially considering the size of the army posted there. And because the heroes are the only ones allowed to do anything in this coalition, they are also the force sent to rescue two scouts from enemy territory. This involves killing hundreds of goblinoids who are living in their fortress, far away from humans. Yes, they are the ones sending all those armies toward Ten Towns, but at this point I am starting to wonder what the end goal of this war is for the humans. And the more the story progresses, the further we get from Targos and any justification to kill anyone who gets in our way - not that it will stop us. They're there, they're attacking, and they represent XP. Why are they still attacking heroes who have single-handedly defeated whole armies and their strongest leaders? Unclear, I guess they suddenly got tired of living. In any case, there is no option given to ask for their surrender. By the end of the game, your group of six (or one even) has killed thousands of enemies, and everyone among the few bystanders we still meet that far away is congratulating them for how good they are at being murder hoboes. The whole thing is grotesque, the world does not feel real at all.
It's hard to care about the world when hordes of monsters throw themselves at enemies to die, and so little is done to explain where they come from or their goals. They're here, they're evil, and they must be killed. At this point it's even tempting to hide for a bit, let them win, and see them die as they have fulfilled their purpose and they are incapable of doing anything further to survive, so we can rebuild after them. Because for them to survive, that would require imagining a functioning evil society, and if you look too closely, you realise that everyone who gets the society running is basically doing the same thing as their good equivalent. And if there's no way to evilly grow crops (not even sacrificing innocents to their evil gods, since everybody has been killed at this point), how are they different from the farmers we were trying to protect in the first place? And why should we care which side has won? |
| Irennan |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 18:01:02
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
Furthermore - and here's the part so many seem to be missing or plainly dodging - if you have monsters who are all or mostly evil, you yourself are not some sort of real-life racist and no amount of shifting the focus is going to change that.
Only people who conflate writers with their characters are able to believe that including evil races in your game automatically makes you racist. And I say this as someone who really dislikes the idea of "racial alignment", especially given that fantasy races tend to ultimately be humans with funny looks and comically exaggerated aspects of normal human behaviors/worldviews. |
| Azar |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 17:33:20
quote:
Originally posted by Athreeren
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
Furthermore - and here's the part so many seem to be missing or plainly dodging - if you have monsters who are all or mostly evil, you yourself are not some sort of real-life racist and no amount of shifting the focus is going to change that.
And this requires a definition of inherently evil that doesn't negate free-will (nobody has any issues with killing zombies or non-sentient robots, but that severely limits the number of stories you can tell). If the creatures are born evil and nothing can be done to make them different, you have a setting where it's morally justified to kill babies, which should at least raise an eyebrow. If the culture is one that perverts everyone, then you might want to think about what makes it so compelling that no one is going to question it, even if you attempt to proselitise the monsters. And in any case, if the adventurers are the ones killing everyone in sight, how are they not the baddies?
Even if the rules of the games tell you that a given species or culture is "pure evil", you cannot take their word for it, because that is a statement for any similar culture in the real world, and the previous conclusions should hold here too. When we consider that such statements have been made about real cultures (followed by parodies of such cultures becoming short hand for evil tribes, and that stereotype became the template based on which species such as orcs were imagined), I think it's better to have the game circumvent this issue in the first place.
*sigh*
DM: "Yes, the goblinoids are overwhelmingly evil: a scourge of civilization."
Players: "Okay. We're ready to play."
There. See? Not so hard. No need to jump down the rabbit hole. |
| Athreeren |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 16:33:30
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
Furthermore - and here's the part so many seem to be missing or plainly dodging - if you have monsters who are all or mostly evil, you yourself are not some sort of real-life racist and no amount of shifting the focus is going to change that.
And this requires a definition of inherently evil that doesn't negate free-will (nobody has any issues with killing zombies or non-sentient robots, but that severely limits the number of stories you can tell). If the creatures are born evil and nothing can be done to make them different, you have a setting where it's morally justified to kill babies, which should at least raise an eyebrow. If the culture is one that perverts everyone, then you might want to think about what makes it so compelling that no one is going to question it, even if you attempt to proselitise the monsters. And in any case, if the adventurers are the ones killing everyone in sight, how are they not the baddies?
Even if the rules of the games tell you that a given species or culture is "pure evil", you cannot take their word for it, because that is a statement for any similar culture in the real world, and the previous conclusions should hold here too. When we consider that such statements have been made about real cultures (followed by parodies of such cultures becoming short hand for evil tribes, and that stereotype became the template based on which species such as orcs were imagined), I think it's better to have the game circumvent this issue in the first place. |
|
|
