That is probably the book I was referring to.

Which races from the real world are "degraded" by the Orcs ? or Drows ? or even Dwarves ? what race from the real world were used for the Elves, the Illithids, or most of the other non-human humanoid races ?

Last time I checked we don't have that many elves, Orcs or Goblins walking around nowadays, there are some Trolls on the Net but that's about it.

Yes there are the Vistani (which are a humans variant by the way and not a different "race" like Orcs & co) but I already answered about that previously, agreeing that when copying too closely an existing current culture special care/respect was needed.

And most of this thread was discussing about Orcs and Drow not them.

You were the one insisting on trying to uses real world science to justify that it wasn't really species but races and that therefore it was similar to "real world races" (if such a thing even exists), I just pointed how pointless it was to try to do something like that with fictions that was most often than not were written without any cares for scientific accuracy.

Again what real world peoples ? we were talking about the Orcs and Drows.

Because if you haven't noticed we don't have any other sapient race/species on this planet, I was just pointing that saying that a different race/species has different strength / weakness compared to humans doesn't necessarily means it is overgeneralizing, stereotyping, or even racists; and I took chimps because that's one closest species to our own available.

And again in a fictional settings, especially in fantasy, it doesn't matter at all how similar or different said races are to humans, or whenever it is possible or not to interbreed with them, if the author say they are different from humans then they are different from humans, if it is said they are stronger / smarter / dumber / lighter / etc... than humans then that's how it is, it's not a stereotype, racism or whatever.

You are not going to say that it's a harmful stereotype to say that halflings are small, no matter how much they might look and talk like humans.

Just read what I quoted from you (emphasis mine):

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 was just pointing that no, IMHO, it wouldn't necessarily automatically make the premise any more interesting to get rid of races specificities, you can have interesting characters with them and boring ones without them.

You keep saying that over and over again but I am still wondering which real world peoples "Orcs" or "Drow" are a racist depiction of ?

Good points once again. Well spoken as well.

This has bothered me. The result is that a game character's sex is completely cosmetic which, among other problems, invalidates pretty much all literature.

Whilst it is true that there are many women who are stronger than many men, the populations are a whole are well correlated by strength (in mammals). Think of Olympic sports which are almost exclusively segregated, lest the best women be out-competed by merely above-average men. (A notable exception is equestrian, where the skills of the rider and the training of the horse are the focus of the competition, and a male rider's strength has no advantage, so there is no gender discrimination.)

Importantly, other phyla have the opposite dimorphism, so the female of insects, for instance, and, say, giant squids are larger and stronger than the males (R-type reproduction strategies require little male contribution, so they can be insignificant).

So perhaps a better solution might be to have ON AVERAGE female elves be stronger than males,* but, still, less strong than a human, who are less strong than orcs. This is what the race / gender adjustments do.

The Shadowrun IP handles their orc/troll/elf "races" similarly (but they have no half- species). You can have a troll decker, with its penalty to maximum intelligence, who may still accomplish almost all what any other race might. (And, even then, there is no reason that a special case might not be allowed for an individual, depending on the plot, DM or developer.)

What WotC should have done to correct the original female strength penalty was a bonus to wisdom, constitution or charisma, or some combination of these.

________
* But perhaps the Drow might be reversed, otherwise "physical strength = political power" becomes the universal message, which is neither universally true nor particularly interesting.

This is a deeper issue.

I would think a better strategy would be the creation of a race where the opposite was true: the lighter group corresponded to the more evil. This is what the late David Bowie seemed to be attempting with his allusion to black ties and white noise.
I totally agree about orcs. Any resemblance to real people is a projection from the plaintive/s.

Also,the gender bias for Drow professions is not based on biology, but political. It is entirely a cultural construct. This is not a minor point as a lot of the argument about racism now (especially in the USA) encompasses culture.

Everyone needn't be identical to be treated humanely. (PETA wants people to use the Kantian imperative to protect animals.)

Part of the point of fiction is to help people explore their assumptions by placing them in a different context. The depictions of bias against orcs and trolls in Arcanum, for instance (emphasized by a player with a protagonist of such a race), ensures a player must confront this racism in order to navigate the game world. This will (for most people) grant them a degree of awareness that will hopefully let them see how racism in our (real) world is unfair. (I don't believe there are any racial penalties / bonuses in Arcanum, but the point still stands.)

Yes, all people should be treated equally, but denying physical reality for the purpose of social programming will only lead to more trouble.

This goes both ways though, to some degree. If you buy into dwarves as permanently being a stand-in for Scottish people then you're very restricted in what you can do with them. One of the best dwarf characters I've ever seen was Varric from Dragon Age, and he was one of the few to break from that paradigm. There's also been a ton of quests over the years which said "hey orcs aren't all stupid" or "hey elves can be just as petty as humans" and whatever else.

I think this statement by the D&D people was bad in a number of ways, but the general idea of not being beholden to certain strict Tolkien archetypes is fine by me.

I don't explain things to people over and over if i've explained it a few times clearly before.

Well then stop feigning ignorance so much (you're clearly smart enough to get what I mean and these questions are likely being asked for the wrong reasons).

Again, who are you talking about?

And I am not promoting injustice or inequality for pointing out businesses manipulating serious issues for money is a bad thing. Because it is a bad thing(corporate greed).

If you honestly think that way based on what I have said then you are closeminded, and if you don't think that way and are saying such about me anyhow then you are intentionally mis-framing myself and my beliefs.

I've told you about this several times so far. Have you been listening?

They are 'victims' in the sense that companies are using the issue they hold dear to make a quick buck. THEY...ARE....BEING...MANIPULATED.

I think you know this but choose to ignore it as your own issues are being promoted in such changes, hence I again iterate I think you are 'playing dumb' here.

Are you essentially saying "It's ok to be racist or bigoted or mean to others as long as I dislike or disagree with them?"

How is that not intolerance?

Yes others can be prejudiced and bigoted towards such people, and such is bad to anyone such is done to.

Others doing such to people they feel are bad or wrong doesn't make what they are doing magically ok to do.

And even if you find a belief intolerant you should let people have that belief(abhorrent as it may be) and not mock or deride them for having it.

Else you yourself are being intolerant yourself.

*
*
*

And back to the topic. You and others like you appear to act as if there is a major issue with how such games depict fictional races, as if to say it is making people have fits akin to the ones people suffering PTSD or 'shell shock' did over the decades.

Put your dinar where your mouth is then.

Show me then some examples of how this majorly harmed or impacted people negatively. And I mean beyond them saying they were bothered or offended in a few social media posts online.

Actually, if they didn't want to eliminate the penalty to female characters, they should have given male characters a similar penalty to dexterity or constitution.

Alternatively, use bonuses instead of penalties.

The problem when you give all the bonuses and penalties to one option is that the one without the bonuses and penalties ends up being seen as the default; giving separate but equal bonuses avoids that problem. (Of course, that phrase "separate but equal" has a specific connotation when it comes to racial inequality in the US; maybe think about that?)

Bringing it back to race, I note that humans are usually the race that gets no bonuses or penalties; as a result, humans are essentially the default, which then leads to the idea of the world being more human-centric than I am comfortable with (at least for games with lots of playable non-human races). (With that said, at least it's not as bad as the racial level limits of early D&D editions, where it basically meant "past this level, only humans are viable"; just look at the recommended parties for the game Pools of Darkness, where humans are the only race that's at least decent.)

Actually, I just remembered something: Wizards of the Coast wasn't the one who fixed the problem, as gender stat differences were gone in 2e, which was still TSR. (3e is the first WotC edition of the game.)

You really shouldn't use psychological terminology until you understand it.

Whilst the specific instance quoted (Vistani and Romani) is certainly poor, there is no reason to link the Vistani with Romani. It would be better to break this link, rather than create a stronger link and then change the characteristics of the fictional representation in order to export different qualities into the real world. (This is projection: the WotC identifying the Vistani with Romani.)

Having said that, how is this relevant to Orcs having a bias for strength and a penalty to intelligence? (You have avoided answering this question, even though it has been asked of you many times in this topic. I expect you will Dismiss, Distort, Distract, or Dismay readers instead, as usual.)

Sociology is the problem here (dare I say "once again"?). (And, read the definition again: the stereotype may be an exaggeration.) Remember all generalizations are wrong. :)

The fantasy lore is NOT using stereotypes. I would categorize them as (Jungian) archetypes: a universally recognizable image, or pattern of thinking, which represent a typical human experience.

These are devices to enhance the story-telling process for the reader, not real sentient beings who are being discriminated against by other beings! If someone sees their character, or a team member, treated unfairly then they will be more inclined to recognize that unfairness, don't you think? Isn't that the point? To make people avoid antisocial behaviour?

The "moral and cultural complexity" was ALWAYS a part of the universe. If anything, it is the simplistic alignment system at fault.
I completely agree. (And thank you for the correction about TSR.)

You just answered your own question. And in addition, agreed that DnD creators didn't have 'special care or respect' when depicting the Vistani and basing them off of a real world people, with degrading stereotypes.

Again, "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."

And you seem still caught up on the side tangent discussion of species vs races vs subspecies...

Let's try again:

You must have missed a bunch of it then. But the jist of it is that "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 feel like I'm not making myself clear. And that's ok. Repetition makes a master. Or however that particular saying went.

So if you managed to read some of that (again), you'll notice how I say and have said multiple times now that the whole species vs race vs subspecies discussion is completely irrelevant and a side diversion to my point. It doesn't actually matter whether or not you think Orcs vs Humans have minor differences or have great differences, both I suppose could be argued though my money is clearly on minor differences.

Regardless, the main issue and my main point is to not generalise and stereotype these races based on 'inherited' traits and genetics. From my previous reply to someone else:"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."

And if the race/people are more prone to crime, low intelligence and evil disposition, so be it, right? Their relation to real world people is just unfortunate, right? Who cares about the Romani? (Obviously ignoring the whole species vs race points again...)

It's a pretty far cry to have dragon wings (which isn't even relevant for playable characters) and the ability to fly, and getting a slight Might bonus as a Human, which is largely what is being discussed. Hyperbolic analogies aside, you would have the possibility to add depth to the character creation process by making the origin story more complex. I get it, you want all orcs to get big sticks and go brrrr, it's easy and convenient to pigeonhole them and assess their character before learning anything about them. But that's clearly less complex that what they are proposing now.

In summary to clarify, to me there are these points of discussion:

1. The depiction of races (including the RL social term here, though this would be more accurately people originating from a specific region with a distinct culture) with crude and degrading stereotypes based off of the real world. The depiction of the Vistani people drawn degradingly from Romani stereotypes is the example here, that caused this whole mess to begin with.

2. The new proposed changes (as a result of the above) to allow more complex origins and starting conditions, and the reasons for those changes. These being wanting to move away from pigeonholing characters into cookie-cutter caricatures, and wanting to add an additional layer of depth during the character creation process.

sidepoint not deserving a number: The similarity of the playable humanoid races to each other.

I'm sorry, what exactly regarding VtM 5th Edition makes it 'Twilight: The Roleplaying Game'? Speaking as someone who has been running a game using the system for almost a year now, it's absolutely nothing like Twilight.

As for the main topic, I don't see anything in the article or the original announcement that's all that controversial. All they really state is that they're going to make more of an effort to depict fictional races as just as complex as humans are. They don't even claim that there won't be Lolth worshipping drow or warmongering orcs, so it's not like anything has been lost. The greater customisation when it comes to stat bonuses is also hardly radical in this day and age, considering both past and present D&D editions provided so many racial variants that allowed you to use something other than the base statline of almost any race to begin with.

That said, I'll believe that WotC is trying to change when I see it, especially considering they had no qualms with homophobia when it suited them.

So if consumers demand vanilla ice cream from a company, and the company 'panders' to their demands, the consumers ARE BEING MANIPULATED? (caps are so unnecessary btw)

Your entire premise is wrong, and shows a complete lack of awareness of how market economies work.

Again, you don't have to be tolerant of intolerance. I know this is a difficult concept for you, but there's no great Referee upholding some rule that you cannot call yourself absolutely tolerant by not tolerating prejudists, bigots and racists. You are not being prejudiced against prejudists (or however many levels into that rabbit hole you want to go). The contradiction you allude to does not exist. You don't have to be tolerant of intolerance. It's fine. It's just them shouting 'free speech' and 'hahaha you're not so tolerant yourself!' whilst continuing to hate on people.

You don't see any harm in depicting minorities in a degrading stereotypical way? Hm. Appalling history would like a word with you.

Nice of you to butt in. Because I really wanted another person to discuss these super important things with.

So just for context, I said: "In comes the triggered squad feigning outrage of something that barely affects them."
to which he replied: "No, that would be the ones who complained to get this kind of change in games and other media in the first place. "

I'm certainly no expert, but from the RationalWiki for projection:

"Another common forum for projection is in internet arguments, where it is usually pathetically obvious to everyone except the projector.[2] In that context, the phenomenon may be called mirror-imaging. "

And the example they bring forth (how quaintly relevant btw)

"Racists who claim that anyone who criticises them must also be racially prejudiced."

So to go back to what was originally said, GameRager 'denied the existence in themselves while attributing them to others' (from your Wikipedia definition), by turning my (abrasive) statement around and accusing themselves of it.

You'll next start quoting me Freud and psychology theories, but I think that what we are actually talking about in this context is the logical fallacy, an error in reasoning in debates, and as such a concept that's different than the theoretical psychological projection that you will undoubtedly go on about.

Except they already admitted to it.

Except they already admitted to it.

Your allusions to me arguing in bad faith aside - I already answered that on several occasions. It's a separate issue whether or not Orcs as a race or a species, are incredibly similar to Humans and should be blanket stereotyped in the roleplaying game. So once again,

"
1. The depiction of races (including the RL social term here, though this would be more accurately people originating from a specific region with a distinct culture) with crude and degrading stereotypes based off of the real world. The depiction of the Vistani people drawn degradingly from Romani stereotypes is the example here, that caused this whole mess to begin with.

2. The new proposed changes (as a result of the above) to allow more complex origins and starting conditions, and the reasons for those changes. These being wanting to move away from pigeonholing characters into cookie-cutter caricatures, and wanting to add an additional layer of depth during the character creation process.

sidepoint not deserving a number: The similarity of the playable humanoid races to each other."

Dude, you said it yourself ONE of their people and characters, and nobody was talking about the Vistani before you desperately try to push them everywhere, they were mentioned once maybe, peoples were talking about the Orcs and Drown.

And as I asked multiples times already but apparently you always manage to "miss" show me what real world race and culture the Orcs are based one and which race culture was degraded by their representation instead always rambling about the Vistana that were never really the main discussion of this thread.

You are the one who originally brought this subject, not me, the only thing I did was calling them races/species and calling it a day, you are the one that started making a big deal about it so it's a little easy to now say "it's irrelevant" and not worth talking about.

And my main issue and main point is that it is not a stereotype, wrong, racist, or over-generalization, it's just world building in a fictional setting.

If for example a species has five times the muscle mass of humans and a less developed brain, then they will be stronger but less intelligent than human, period. There might be some fringe cases but at the end of the day a member of this race will never be as smart as a smart human and a strong human will never be stronger than a strong member of this race.

If species A and species B were very similar in both strength and brain but species A considered member of species B as being dumb brutes then yes it would be stereotypes and speciesism, but if it's true from a genetic perspective, or from world building point of view, then it is not stereotypes, just facts.

Of course, again FICTIONAL races/species, if peoples see Orcs and Illithid and are offended by them then it's totally their problem and a problem they should seek professional help and counseling for. You can have a fictional race that is "evil", by human standard at least, the same way you can have a fictional race that is pacifist and will never resort to violence, or one that is dumb as a rock that can only barely be considered as being sapient. Because it's not real, again fiction should never be bound by reality.

And, because you love pushing them every were, Vistani are an exception as they were based directly on a still existing culture.

My point was never that fantasy races needs to always be stuck forever in specific tropes or roles far from it, if there is a world where Orcs are highly educated and smarter than most other race I am all for it.

My point is just that saying "This fictional race cannot be dumber / smarter / evil'er / whatever than humans because <<insert random real world issue here>> and must be changed" was both silly and incredibly dangerous for creativity.