That's very unfortunate! As you suggested, perhaps that portion of people can go and play some other game, then.

I know, right? :D

Flip this a bit. Having things people see as either in a game setting's canon does not stop people from changing it themselves if they choose.

It may be basically correct, but exaggerated or simplified.

And in case of the female (biological female, not persons with male bodies that identify as females) strength stereotype, almost entirely correct.

In the same way that it is "quite lazy" to portray dragons are giant flying lizards or Halfling as being small, it's fictional races or more correctly species, just because in the real world we all belong to a single race/species and such difference doesn't exists for us doesn't mean that it has to be the same for fictional races.

If the Elf are said to be super-intelligent compared as human and Orcs to be dump as rocks is not any more "lazy" or "stereotypes" than making them carbon copies of human, and honestly peoples being offended by that should really reexamine their priorities, we already have enough issue with our own species without wasting time and energy being offended by fictional or mythological creatures and races.

Yes cool and what ? what is the issues ?

Different species have different abilities, it's the case in the real world too, a chimp is less intelligent than a standard human, no matter how much you try teaching it quantum physics, no matter how much "nurturing" you push don't its throat, but on the other side it will be much stronger, why is it then that different fictional species should have the same amount of intelligence / force / etc... than humans ?

Most are likely too lazy or afraid to go out and solve actual racism and sexism in places like the middle east and south america and such, so they focus on "racism" and "sexism" in games and other media.

And yes as stated previous, some seem to like to find things to 'correct'. Including games.

Like...1+1=2,0869 --- it's basically correct, just exaggerated?

Reality: Men are stronger than women, on average.
Stereotype: Any man is stronger than any woman. Exaggerated or simplified? Yes. Basically correct? ...

Clever...mixing an exact science with something as muddled as language. :-)

Except nobody ever claimed any man is stronger than any woman (well, except if you're one of those tedious persons who always max out all stats in the old AD&D Gold Box games, then any man would indeed be stronger than any woman.)

Maybe you should look up the word "straw man"?

Every 7-10 years there's a new version of DnD. It's been 6 years since 5th edition came out. This is just marketing using current world events to validate a reason for a new version to be released.

I presume you're talking 5th Edition, because Skills and Powers offers no such option for the Cleric class - the closest would be Wizardly Priests (costing 15 out of 125 available points) which allowed access to one school of wizard spells which could then be treated as priest spells - even with that Wish would be inaccessible since it was a 9th level spell and 1-2nd edition priest/cleric spells only went up to level 7.
At that point you put down your D&D rulebook and look for a more flexible RPG system. RuneQuest allowed healing via Spirit Magic as well as Divine Magic, and Rolemaster included two specific classes (Healer and Lay Healer) that could heal without divine support.
(a) The maximum strength penalty was not balanced by a bonus elsewhere (females "on average" have better endurance for example) meaning female < male to min-maxers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hstatistically-centered players.

(b) Current statistics are based on a (largely) modern society with less manual labour (and minimal hunting for survival). Medieval and (particularly) barbarian societies that require everyone to be more physically active could present different results.

(c) Role-playing is more about aspiration than reality, hence the prevalence of magic in fantasy/medieval settings and FTL travel in far-future ones. Whilst rules should be plausible, statistical real-world equivalence should not be necessary unless strict realism is a main objective.
Agreed - you can have a game setting that includes racism (the Witcher games/books being a sterling example here) without rules creating an artificial bias.

So wait. The company is likely responding to something that they believe was demanded of them. By providing the necessary changes.

And you're saying the people who demanded these changes (or that the company thinks they demanded) are victims now? They're really silly and gullible and easily manipulated? How do you come to that conclusion?

Sorry GameRager, you seem to speaking for entire demographics and assuming they are the victims, or want to be victims, without any reason.

Have you ever considered that the company *wants*, on its own, to be more inclusive?

No, I am actually talking 2e with Skills and Powers.

You forgot the ability to take a granted power, which allows you to choose an arbitrary spell that you can cast a certain number of times per day, independent of your main spellcasting ability. If the DM doesn't say otherwise, you can choose any spell, even one as powerful as Wish.

(It's reasonable to not allow the player to take a granted power that would be of a level higher than half the level at which it is obtained, rounded up, to prevent the game from being broken this way.)

I think there is a real disconnect here in this thread regarding humanoid species and races.

First, I think it can be easily argued that in the fantasy world, the main 'species' are actually races, seeing as how similar they are, all speaking the common tongue or other overlapping languages, all have abilities to do similar tasks etc. This could be further evidenced by how many so called 'species' such as Orcs and Humans, can inter-breed and produce offspring like half-Orcs or half-Elves.

In light of that, this variety in the shape, form and colour (heh) is not as drastic as you portray it to be. For many of the races thus, it's an issue of actual minor variation within the species, like colour is often portrayed to be IRL where it is known that race is actually a social construct, not useful in science.

The issue then is, why do they attribute such large differences and traits to these small variations? Are these stereotypes remotely accurate?

That's not even the real point - the point is that it's plain mistaken to assume 100% of a race is inherently better at one task, than another. If we accept that that is true, then we can easily say that certain races can be attributed inferior qualities, such as people of certain colour having a greater probability to commit crime, or never to be as succesful in academia due to lower intelligence. That is the message it sends.

Here, what the DnD creators are saying (for specific examples, like the Vistani or Romani that they were based on) is that it's wrong and they want to move away from that.

In comes the triggered squad feigning outrage of something that barely affects them.

I've checked and not found any reference to granted powers in PO:S&P - could you post a page number?

Granted Powers are referenced in the (2E) Complete Priest's Handbook with the option of adapting other spells mentioned on page 27. However this comes with a number of restrictions, including a maximum level of 5 for wizard spells and 4 for priest spells. So I can't see Wish (9th level) coming in here either.

(edit: Another possibility could be the Faiths and Avatars expansion - I don't have it but some reviews do mention overpowered specialty priests).

You are just trying, via a very convoluted route, to force real worlds issue into a totally fake and fantasy settings.

There is nothing to argue, it is fictional, the only reality is the reality is the story itself, do you remember that in D&D you have half dragons, as in a oviparous reptile interbreeding with mammals. Are you going to say that Dragons are actually just a different "race" of humans ?

It's as silly as saying that cow are a race of humans because in Greek Mythology Zeus was able to impregnate a human woman while in bull form. It's just a case of peoples writing those stories not knowing how genetic works, not caring, or using magic to justify it.

Again you are trying to mix real world issues into fantasy, as in "if we accept that fictional races/species in a totally fictional world might have genetic advantages/disadvantages over others then it means that we also accept that, in real world, with real humans, it's also the case and therefore it's racist/problematic/whatever'ism", that's the textbook definition of a straw man.

Superman is able to reproduce with Lois, so following your reasoning you can say that Kryptonians are not a "species" but just a different "race" of humans and therefore it's a harmful stereotypes assume that 100% of Kryptonians are inherently better at flying at supersonic speed or resisting bullets that normal humans.

IMHO not being able to make the difference between reality and fiction is a much more dangerous message to send that all the other imaginary ones some peoples are desperately trying to be offended by.

Imagine being offended at trans people playing a RPG.