Their fantasy was clearly inspired by the real world, as per their own statements. Hence why they (themselves) realised and acknowledged that in the whole Vistani and Romani situation.

You mentioned them as separate species, remember? But many of them, like Orcs and Humans, can interbreed, which by definition cannot make them separate species. I was just picking up on what you said.

The biological definition of a species vs race or subspecies from the real world, and if its at all applicable in the fantasy world, is just one of many points in a discussion regarding whether there should be major generalising and stereotypical differences between minor variations in 'species/subspecies/races'. That was the whole point of my argument, that you cannot assume Orcs are in vast majority all dumber than Humans etc. It shows how stereotypes are propagated, and how the 'easy' road was taken to depict those characters. Far more complexity could be added by the player controlling to some degree those initial attributes and traits and skills advantages and disadvantages. So forget about conflating real world racism with fantasy story-telling racism for a minute (we'll come to that again with Romani depiction) - and talk about how these fantasy races are stereotyped and pigeonholed into certain classes and proficiencies to be effective, and how adding complexity would make the whole premise more interesting.



I don't think that's actually a strawman. If I were stating that it was what you were actually arguing for, maybe it could be loosely intrepreted as a strawman and an attack at the weaker position. But I alluded to no such thing, never pretended that is what you were arguing.

If you want your fantasy world to be completely devoid of any relation to the real world, maybe you need to stop relating your fantasy to the real world?

Just a thought.

Your whole argument can be countered by the fact that the creators already admitted to basing one of their people and characters off of a minority in the real world and used stereotypes (degrading ones against the Romani people) to depict them. But you keep pretending it's all fantasy and innocent, and in no way relates to the real world. Despite what the creators themselves are saying.

That's actually the point. A Saint Bernard dog will always be bigger and stronger than a chihuahua or poodle. Those are races. Really different kinds of breeds, but still the species. The same with cats, cows or horses.

The thing is: Humans don't have that. The genetic variance is not that big to define clear groups. In fact the genetic variance between a black person and a white person is with some probability smaller than between two black or two white people. The concept of "human race" is like comparing white house cats to black, spotted, striped, checkered house cats. There are no actual human races (except maybe for really remote "inbred" tribes like the pygmees). So for humans a concept like "background" or "culture" would be a determining factor, not "race". A culture that values physical prowess more than brainy things might bring about mighty warriors but weak mages (it's lacking the infrastructure to educate them, not because the people are thick per se). And a great culture of science and stuff might have trouble to develop "brutes" because they rely on tech or magic for menial (or gory) tasks.

In Fantasy you can actually have races with different traits - like with dogs. Some might be more intelligent per se, some more muscular. And why not. The trouble starts when RL clichés translate into those universes and people get offended by that. There is no "Gypsy gene" in real life that makes people better thieves. The real life problem with tribes like that is that a) they've always been outcasts who had to rely on those skills to survive, and b) within their groups they had a different concept of "property".
Or - to load this up even more - the Jews. Not allowed to own land they couldn't be farmers, not allowed to be craftsmen - what happened? They became traders and later bankers. Being outcasts and subjects to many persecutions in Christian Europe required them to work together, to be suspicious, to work in secret. They became (generalizing) masters of trade and finances, and sometimes underhanded action, for lack of choice. Add to that the religious problems.
They lived a very different life from the rest of the "natives", and not by choice. But this cemented the notion of them being different by the descendants of the same people who originally cast them out. From the middle ages (when the first progroms took place) to the 19th century this fermented, until it ultimately lead to "racial" warfare and annihilation under Nazi rule. But genetically chances were "The Jew" next door was genetically more "your brother" than the blonde "pure Aryan" boy downstairs.

Fantasy worlds live in a field of tension mixing all that up. Creating a race/species like the Ferengi in today's climate would be very difficult, because of how easily someone would feel offended. Fantasy races are a thing, a tool to easily allow the player to assess, either who they are or who they're dealing with. But this means they are often based on RL cultures and societies, because that makes it way easier to relate. And that in turn perpetuates the clichés we grew up with, wrong as they might be.

There is simply no easy way out of this. We have to accept that while we require "prejudice" to function (because our brain works this way), we should always question our views, or at least be ready for it. We should be aware that all we think we know as truth is actually a mix of actual observations and bias distorting and backfilling it.

IMO the creators of fantasy worlds should be very aware of where they're drawing from and act responsibly. At the same time the SJW types should remember that most people don't act out of malice and actually mean no harm and that antagonizing people is only counter-productive.

Fantasy races are often given extreme human traits and used as a mirror to the extremities of our behavior, ethics, morality, etc. They are a mirror...

... but not...

... a true representation of humanity. Elves are not a human "race." Orcs are not a human "race." Etc.

It is a fantastic world, not direct representation of our reality.

But this is the problem I see over-and-over again... the inability of some to understand and / or accept context.

With that said, many of the "morality" alignments of modern fantasy role playing (although not all) come from a Tolkien-esque world-view... and Tolkien was specifically making Biblical allusions that tended toward absolutes -- Good vs Evil.

IMHO this D&D change isn't particularly a big deal...

... but...

... it is more pandering than anything else. It's WotC trying to make PR points (when we all know alignment changes happen all the time in games). I have to laugh when I hear a company making a statement like this. Because I don't agree? No... but because I know that corporations don't really care about societal issues as people do. Corporations will "believe" whatever they feel will make them additional sales at any given moment.

Is it a problem that someone might want to play a differently aligned Orc in D&D? Not really.... but making a big PR point of "inclusiveness" is just a bit much.

That is the reason, Games like fallout 76 happened because people got offended!

Also I wanted to show you this Youtube Video

To piggy back off Gersen here, I'm going to be blunt. Sometimes, I literally do not give a frick about whether or not the things I kill have depth or character or culture. I do not care about whether or not that goblin I murdered in Diablo, or the possessed I slaughtered in Grim Dawn, or the cannibals I waste outside Lioneye's Watch in Path of Exile had lives before they became dead. I'm frankly fatigued by every dipshit writer out there thinking that by adding unnecessary depth to war games, complete with limp wristed hand wringing about it, they're making a less stereotypical game out of it, instead of padding the hours with crap I'm going to skip.

I don't want to be misconstrued. Options are great! Options are good. I play some games to not have to think about any of that. I play some games to blow off steam. Many writers have already done the adding "humanity" to enemies angle, and most of them have been done better in the past. I'm over it. Unless the game is adding some unique twist that hasn't been done before by better writers, stop.

This is one area I'll actually agree with dtgreene on: unless you're bringing something actually unique to racial differences to the table, then there's not much point.

You mention dogs as an argument to how races within species can vary immensely, compared to humans. Dogs are actually an extreme example of course - scientists are still unsure why there is so much variation between different breeds, where does that capacity come from.

This ties directly into my point though. There *should* be great variability within a species or race, like Orcs. There should be the ability to account for scrawny frail Orcs who chose to focus on magic from an early age, or the lean mean dextreous lockpicker Orc. Because, as you say, there is great variability within the species/race. We can't just say all Orcs are born with +2 to Might and call it a day, that's too generalising and often wrong.

The human race genetic variation you then discuss, I can completely agree with. Race as a concept in science is wholly unuseful, and it has been stated in many journals it is merely a social construct. Geographical origin has some uses in genetics though, not race. But this veers off too much from the topic I think.

Because actually, it generalises and oversimplifies the whole situation as mentioved before. You are pigeonholed into cookie cutter stereotypes for efficient class and skill combos, from a gaming perspective. From a big picture point of view, it sends the wrong message regarding how races can be stereotyped and troped.

But this is exactly what happened with the Vistani or Romani people recently here. This is the whole reason why they are making these changes.

Um, not gonna touch this. Some of what you say is reasonable, some of it not.

I think that's all that people actually want (even if they never voiced that desire) - for content creators to responsibly depict aspects of race, and have increased awareness about offensive content. This is extremely current and actual - what is happening now across the world couldn't have escaped anyone's attention and this event in history will mark how people are treated and portrayed in society more favourably. It will permeate through all aspects of society, as it has been clearly doing, and this DnD maker got caught in it and decided to change it up in the future. For the better I think.

Yes. For money. They should be doing it for the RIGHT reasons. Because it is the right thing to do, or because it improves the story.

But you don't seem to be okay with being manipulated by greedy companies as long as the things you want come about.

You know how. I explained it clearly a few times here.

Stop playing dumb like you seem to do from time to time on this forum, and asking leading questions(which are likely posed to just turn the answers back around on the one replying.).

Who are you talking about? I think you have me confused with some one else. But no matter. Some answers.

To the query here. They are 'victims' in the sense that they are being emotionally manipulated to buy a game or other product because the company put x or y thing in it.

You know how they weren't victims? Just because a FICTIONAL race in said games was stronger or smarter or faster than another.

So they all are doing it now? Across the board? And making money from it is merely a side benefit?

One more time. Stop playing dumb. You and I know why most of them are doing it. Why they do it whenever a hot topic issue comes up they can capitalize upon.

As Pete Griffin would say 'Who the hell cares?"

It's a FANTASY SETTING.

No, that would be the ones who complained to get this kind of change in games and other media in the first place.

*
*
*

Look maybe you have (or think you have) good intentions by defending near every single 'progressive' thing mentioned on the board(gaming or not), but by supporting your own things so fervently and so quickly disregarding any criticisms or concerns or opposing you are being closeminded towards such said by other people here and also (even worse) you are marginalizing their concerns as trivial or not worth getting upset over.

If you are open minded and tolerant (as you seem to act like you are) you would not cast aside such things so readily and dismissively, and give such words and things equal consideration.

For instance you seem to not see a problem with such changes (done for profit) in games. But how is that not as bad as shows and games adding "token" characters decades back to act progressive and skirt the eyes of those who might complain then?

Your entire posting was spot on. Well spoken.

This post section and the rest is also well spoken and my feelings on the matter as well to a large degree.

(Underlining mine)

These are also how I feel as well.

Well, modern DnD sucks, VtM 5ed could be called "Twilight: the roleplaying game" and so on. I don't personally care what kind of changes these games introduce, I'll just keep sticking to the good old RPGs and editions.

Dogs are selectively bred, humans are not.

If humans were selectively bred we could probably have both real hobbits and giants.

The human "races" are the product of evolution, and by non-blacks having neanderthal genes as the result of inbreeding between the two sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

As I said earlier most fantasy worlds / creatures are inspired by history, legends, existing or extinct civilizations, the Necrons in 40k and their pyramid shaped tombs were probably not to totally original idea (same with the goa'uld esthetics), it's something common, but as I said earlier just because some fictional races / species / creatures are originally loosely or not so loosely based on real world things doesn't make them any less fictional.

Now of course there can be some fringe cases where it's more than just an "inspiration" but a nearly 1:1 copy and paste of an existing culture like it might be the case with the Vistani, but it's a special case and not a blanket statement on how to treat all fantasy races / species / culture.

And by the way we were talking mostly about Orcs.

Again it's fictional, the peoples who wrote those stories don't have a single clue how genetics works or, like I said, don't care (and they most often don't know the difference between race, species or subspecies).

If it can make a story to have a half-dragon have kids with a half-gelatinous cube, nobody really cares how it would be even possible from a genetic point of view.

Again, no, of course you absolutely can and it is NOT stereotypes or over-generalization. If an author said "in this fantasy world Elf are a lot smarter than humans, 5 meters tall and only them can uses magics and Orc spend their days hitting themselves on the head with clubs while screaming Waaaa" it's not an over generalization, it's not a stereotypes, it's not racist, it's world building, it becomes the "truth" of this world.

In the same way in the real world we can say "A chimp is a lot stronger than a normal human but not as smart", it's not an insult toward chimpkind, it's not a harmful stereotypes, and sorry for the poor chimp whose life aspiration is to become a quantum physicists.

Not necessarily, in D&D Dragon can fly, humans cannot (without using magic), would giving all humans the ability to fly necessarily make the whole premise more interesting ? Maybe, maybe not it depends of the story not on having or not class advantages / limitations.

And honestly if you apply that to fiction then I think it's the most incredibly toxic and dangerous thing that can happens for creativity. If every time you create a story you have to wonder, "can my fictional race of 20 foot evil brain eating purple humanoid aliens end up being considered by as problematic/racist by some angry twitter hate mob. It's not progress, far from it, and it doesn't do anything to alleviate real world issues. Again fiction can be inspired by reality but it should never be bound by it.

These all just seem like excuses for DnD creators to have the option to depict races from the real world in a degrading fashion (like what happened already). I get it that writers write what they know, but if the whole DnD world is that of stereotyping races then what can they actually write about races if inspired by real world ones? The whole system is rigged in DnD, skewed towards stereotypes atm. That's why they're providing the option to determine starting traits and attributes for races. This adds a layer of depth clearly to me.

And it's exactly the same as female vs male attributes and traits and skills. Do we give women more endurance and campside cooking skills? I think we're all trying to move away from that...

You quoted me specifically stating that this is all besides the point, and in no way is crucial to my main point. Why then respond to it ignoring that? I don't get it.

If only the races weren't based off of real world people, maybe you would have a point. I feel it's futile to point out the Vistani example that started this whole issue.

You can take artistic license all you want in fantasy - but if you're not even a little bit subtle and depict real world people deplorably and stereotypically, then expect people being offended by that. If that's the image you want as a company to send to the world I feel like it's a losing business model.

And you keep bringing up chimpanzees vs humans as an equivalent analogy to orcs/drows vs humans, when it's clearly not. The playable humanoid races of DnD are incredibly similar actually in almost all manner, whereas chimpanzees can't even speak our language. But this is yet again completely irrelevant to my main point.

How do you go from 'provide additional options for starting attributes and skills' to 'give all humans wings and ability to fly'? Are dragons even a playable race in DnD, or are they just monsters or occassionally NPCs?

That's hyperbole and belittles the real issue of a racist depiction of a real world people in DnD. Which is how this whole thing started.

To end, I feel like people are going off on tangents and not talking about OP and the original blog post, i.e. what DnD creators have said they will be doing going forward, and what mistakes they have made. It's all good and well to pretend, exaggerate and sensationalise these statements to something that is easy to argue against (raawwwrrr humans get dragon wings and flyyyyy go brrrr) but if you stick to the points it's easy to realise their response is reasonable considering what they did in the past.

But if all companies only operate for profit, then they will only 'do the right thing' for 'the right reasons' if the right thing makes them some money. I.e. they will NEVER do it for the right reasons.

So what's your point again, in light of that impossibility?

No you didn't. And even if you did, it costs you exactly 0 dollars to write a sentence or two to clarify something (or to answer a direct question posed to you in the first place).

And I resent you telling me to stop playing dumb.

Listen GameRager, I don't know why you're pretending to be some Canadian dude. I don't care. All I know is if you lack the courage to anonymously post as a particular alias on a vidya gaming forum, promoting injustice and inequality is the least of your worries.

And customers cannot be 'victims' for requesting a good or a service to be a certain way. That's called demand. That's not called 'playing the victim'.

You didn't even a little bit get what the main point was. Not even a little bit.

Textbook projection.

You don't have to be tolerant of intolerance. THat's like tolerantirism 101. Once you understand that, you realise that you're not actually being prejudist towards prejudice, or bigoted towards bigots. It doesn't work that way, and if anything *that* IS playing the victim card.

I know of exactly one person on these forums who quotes entire posts by other people and says stuff like 'spot on' and 'i agree'.

His name is....

dun dun duuuunn

WeAllKnowWhoYouAre

How's Canada treating ya? How about them beaver tails?

Generally no (though I think 2e may have had one book that gave rules for this, and the 2e Dark Sun setting provides rules that allow an epic level defiler/psionic to become a dragon), but it would be interesting if there were a tabletop RPG that allowed that. (After all, there is a tabletop RPG where you get to play as a vampire, right?)