Unfortunately this is a political topic. The problem is a socially created one.

The "blank slate" argument of socialists is just as fallacious as the belief that of genetic fatalism. It was always coming, though.

The first step was to remove random variety (see the character creation process of AD&D3) and enforce a uniform rule whereby each exceptional trait would require a penalty to other traits, so adding a point to an ability to raise it above 14 costs at least twice that required to increase the same stat to reach 14. As a bonus, this makes it much easier to balance the game. Tolkien is a fight waiting to happen.

Tolkien wrote specifically of the various OBSERVABLE differences between the classes (and of humans, too). Those who had more elven blood were better (cleverer, longer lived, more adroit) than those with less. And, apart from the Uruk-hai, there is no reference to any half-orcs in LotR. (Goblins are different to orcs, but it is never specified how.)

But, Tolkien also used the fallen ranger to demonstrate corruption can twist even elvish traits. (The Second Age began after Sauron was defeated with his cohort of elvish believers.)
If you read the source material, Tolkien is very specific about the story related in the novels, which were the written retelling of an epic battle through the recollections of the survivors. This means any nuance (regarding the actual motives and characters of the vanquished, for instance) are hidden, lost in the fog of war.

This also means he was quite right to absolutely categorize the horde of orcs as evil, since that was the fact. (Orcs were named for the Classical Roman underworld figure, Orcus, who devoured corpses. There is evidence of this heritage in the blood-derived restorative given to Meriadoc when they have been captured.)
This is the current Freudian impulse to explain evil as a reaction to some earlier evil. Whilst this is undeniably true, it completely avoids the equally true, deliberate sociopathy. Sure, some might (disingenuously) ascribe higher ideals to their behaviour: removing the weak and thinning the herd, etc. This is the dark side of eugenics. There is a positive side of eugenics (all socialists are guilty of this, because they desire to change the individual, only to make them "better".)

You'd be surprised how many transgender people, in particular, play these sort of games; it's a lot more common than you'd expect.

(I've been avoiding posting here in case the topic gets locked or deleted, but I felt I *had* to make this point.)

Edit: Why the low rating here?

Agreed
LGBT+ players are massively common in the roleplaying community, noticeably much higher than the general populous.

I think the "vocal minority not even playing the game" meant "people who get offended by everything and whine about it on twitter", not gay people or black people or anything like that. At least that's how I understood it.

I assume all minority D&D players (who may as well be a majority in the RPG circles now for all I know and care) are sensible people and nerds of a feather who facepalmed as hard as I did when they heard this news.

Actually, now that I think of it, how disrespectful of those players is this? Here's a game they have been playing and enjoying, presumably for years, and now a bunch of people are telling them "no no no, you can't play this game you love as it is! We know better how to make it right for you!" and they mess up core elements of the game. Now THAT is offensive.

Anyone playing these games for years, unless they're playing it like a computer-less version of World of Warcraft, would have already been doing much of these alterations.

Every couple of months Dungeon magazine would have an article regarding the Morality and ethics of various races.

This really isn't anything new.

That was my point exactly! It's people with their own agenda starting to cause problems where there were none before. Looking at some of the international Black Race Matters demos, the same people demonstrating for that, the next day they are on the street to demonstrate for female rights, and the day after that they are hitting it to demand installation of gender-neutral toilets ... They are causing all that public outrage, negative comments about LGBT+ people, because it isn't people from that community getting their voices heard, but those who scream loudest. Even though there would be more to say about this, for the sake of not risking this topic to be locked and/or derail more than it already has BLAME ME![/i] I would like to leave it at that.

dtgreene: You'd be surprised how many transgender people, in particular, play these sort of games; it's a lot more common than you'd expect.

(I've been avoiding posting here in case the topic gets locked or deleted, but I felt I *had* to make this point.)

mechmouse: Agreed
LGBT+ players are massively common in the roleplaying community, noticeably much higher than the general populous.

@dtgreene I don't wonder in the least! The more the merrier and around the table it doesn't matter who you are or what you are irl. because in game you could always be who you wanted to be and what. A godlike squirrel for instance! :-)

OH FFS does it really matter what "Gender" someone is, How about we just fuck gender off completely problem solved!

Last time I checked Gender had nothing to do with video games and the made up characters don't have any gender because they are NOT REAL PEOPLE!

...

But those alterations are oft mostly people playing the game on their own, not the ip owners changing canon.

So mayhaps waving it off because it doesn't seem like such a big deal? Fair enough.

When such things in the future possibly affects something you or others care more about in the gaming world, I will proceed to wave such off as well. Sound fair?

According to the WotC blog entry the article is based on, this isn't what is happening. Instead, players will be given a choice about what racial bonus to have:

Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own.

Flexibility being generally a good thing - few players should have any objection. Plus this happened as far back as 2nd Edition AD&D with the Players Option: Skills and Powers rulebook.

There is also a parallel with removing gender-bias - 1st Edition AD&D had attribute limits linked to race and gender where females had lower maximum strength scores (e.g. M/F Dwarf maximum strength was 18/17, M/F Halfing maximum strength was 17/14) with no bonuses elsewhere to compensate.

2nd Edition AD&D removed any gender bias, putting females on an equal footing with males.

There is more of a valid point over the "black = evil" trope that the Drow (Dark Elves) can represent. Gary Gygax apparently drew upon previous mythology on dark elves so we can blame the ancients for any colour bias. However they had a gender bias in 1st Edition (removed in 2nd) with females being better clerics/fighters and males better wizards.

Orcs being a completely fantastic (as in made-up) race shouldn't perpetrate any tropes whatsoever.

So I would suggest that WotC has a partial point in trying not to perpetuate racial stereotypes, just as TSR decided not to perpetuate gender stereotypes with 2nd Edition. There is a risk in going too far as others have noted - but D&D (and RPGs generally) without a "adversary" race of some type (undead, demons, orcs, etc) would be far less involving for most players, so if WotC do fumble there will be plenty of other companies able to take their place..

These ideas were published in the official TSR Dungeon/Dragon magazine. They were coming from the IP owners.

The greatest affect it will have is making people consider why the Orc raiding party is attacking the village.

"Evil races" is just lazy, unimaginative and ultimately boring story telling.

To be honest I am shocked over this; shocked that having done the ground work for this 20 years ago its only now being put into the core rules.

And as I mentioned earlier, most races borrow heavily from real world cultures, and they should be handled with the respect they're due and not just racist caricatures based on out dated assumptions.

Why?

Bland is
"You're attacked by 2D6 Orcs", whose sole purpose in life is to give you XP and equipment.

I disagree, who cares what real world culture originally inspire them or from whom some lore was borrowed from, at the end of the day they still are fictional races/species, a lot of fictional races/creatures/specie/monsters/worlds were inspired one way or another by some real world culture, legends, tropes, etc..., but I doubt most peoples playing as or against Orcs, Illithid or Gelatinous cubes gives a single damn about what real world culture might have vaguely inspired them 30+ years ago and if said representation is respectful or not.

Just because something fictional is somehow inspired by something real doesn't make it "real" and doesn't mean it deserve any of the respect real person, culture, civilization, could deserves. Fiction shouldn't be bound by reality.

Vampires borrows heavily from real world legends or culture, does it means that from now on we need to be careful every-time a new vampire movies/game/book/etc... is created we have to make sure that said representation is respectful enough ?

Of course, these options did come with a cost, and that is that game balance wasn't always preserved. For example, if one uses the rules as written, once could create a Cleric who, and 1st level, can cast Wish (or any other single spell of your choice) once per day.

Furthermore, there's still one option that's lacking: There's no option to play a healing-focused character (at least Cleric-level healing) who does not have a focus on religion or other beliefs.