I mean, the best solution is just to say what races you'll allow.

I myself am a fan of race-as-class though so i dont have to worry.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 22, 2021, 08:15:49 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 15, 2021, 02:47:23 PM

And yet you still, until now, have no evidence that there was any such "cultural shift" starting with 3e.
.... .

Except I did.

Quoting Johnathan Tweet's own words twice on the subject, and explaining my reasoning at length.

You choose to ignore it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 16, 2021, 04:10:56 PM

Maybe the D&D races did have parallels to racist propaganda. ...

I would say no. They were all originally based on myth and legend. And were allegorical representations of human vices.

Racist propaganda usurped the language of myth and legend in order to try and dehumanize specific groups of people.

Similar to the way SJW's try and usurp history to fit their narrative of systematic racism.

Anyone who says D&D races = Racist caricature, Is actually parroting the racist worldview. They actually believe the racist propaganda.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 16, 2021, 04:10:56 PM
Tolkien thought the concept of inherently evil races didn't make sense. If you look at the supposed origins of the orcs as being elves tortured and indoctrinated by Morgoth, then the closest real world parallel isn't people of color: it's child soldiers.

True, but going with Tolkien's actual concepts would not allow them to shame-leverage the control over mainstream 5e Lore the way that screeching Orcs=Blacks does.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 16, 2021, 04:10:56 PM

Yes, the monsters of myth and folklore were allegorical. It was D&D that made them increasingly more like Star Trek humanoid aliens with every edition.

Exactly. As D&D has gotten more and more self-referential, losing its connections to actual myths and legends, the game designers rob themselves and players of the allegorical archetypes the creatures represented.

And so as they design new "races" they lack the understanding to give the new race a proper mythological grounding. So instead of providing a classical archetype for players to riff off of - all we get is "Me so special with blue skin! Squeee!!"

My point is that stripping away the mythical connections and making them more, well, mundane does make them into something reminiscent of blood libel.

Orcs didn't actually exist in folklore, or at least nothing that survives today. They were pretty much invented by Tolkien. He took the Indo-European concept of goblins and then turned them into a race of mooks to serve the Dark Lords. Even then, there was still the question of whether they were truly irredeemable and whether killing them was the best option. Tolkien certainly wanted them to be redeemable, because it literally wasn't their fault they did bad things. Their souls were raped by Morgoth.

In D&D, they're a race of humanoids that exist solely to be killed for loot because it's a game. There's no problem in that. When you start pulling justifications out of your ass that killing them for XP and loot is morally right and blah, it starts treading the same territory as the cultural posturing and blood libel that humans invented to justify atrocities since time immemorial. Before you misunderstand me, let's be honest and admit that you can't be racist against fictional people.

AFAIK, folklore doesn't have entire races of people who it is okay to kill and loot. There aren't stories of heroes regularly going on genocide sprees against some despised race of subhumans and plundering their homes for loot. That seems to be more of an artifact of D&D imitating pulp fiction inspired by Manifest Destiny's genocide of Native Americans. (Though feel free to provide examples to the contrary. I'd love to see those.)

Like, Greek centaurs immediately come to mind as exactly the sort of race you'd think there'd be genocide tales about considering their rowdiness makes them ready antagonists in a number of stories. However, the Centauromachy is considered a tragedy. The centaurs aren't irredeemably evil beasts that must be exterminated and looted by heroes. They're just one of the many weird semi-human races wandering the mythic age.

And D&D players have pointed this stuff out for decades. "Is it moral to kill the baby orcs/goblins/whatever?" is a question that players have been asking for decades. And for just as long you've had settings where orcs (or whatever, not necessarily orcs) weren't inherently.

So the concept is a huge clusterfuck in the D&D writing history.

I think it's something worth examining.

But the reason why SJWs are interested in the first place is because they think depictions of evil orcs cause players to become racist.

There's no evidence of this. At all. Artists draw orc porn. It's trendy to depict orcs as not inherently evil or even as a persecuted minority.

I for one am a fan of evil orcs like 40k space orks or WC2 orc conquistadors because I'm tired of the current trendy native american stereotypes.

If you're interested in RTS games, there's this RTS in development called Edge of Chaos which includes evil orcs as one of its playable sides. I am totally looking forward to see the orc campaign.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2021, 04:03:47 PM
AFAIK, folklore doesn't have entire races of people who it is okay to kill and loot. There aren't stories of heroes regularly going on genocide sprees against some despised race of subhumans and plundering their homes for loot. That seems to be more of an artifact of D&D imitating pulp fiction inspired by Manifest Destiny's genocide of Native Americans. (Though feel free to provide examples to the contrary. I'd love to see those.)

Folklore, or as I like to call it History, is filled with races of people who it is ok to kill and loot.  Many of them come down to us as words like Vandals and Barbarians.

For those of us that like English history the Vikings were particularly terrifying invaders but people like the Barbary Pirates were also pretty bad for those living on the continent.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 23, 2021, 04:47:18 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2021, 04:03:47 PM
AFAIK, folklore doesn't have entire races of people who it is okay to kill and loot. There aren't stories of heroes regularly going on genocide sprees against some despised race of subhumans and plundering their homes for loot. That seems to be more of an artifact of D&D imitating pulp fiction inspired by Manifest Destiny's genocide of Native Americans. (Though feel free to provide examples to the contrary. I'd love to see those.)

Folklore, or as I like to call it History, is filled with races of people who it is ok to kill and loot.  Many of them come down to us as words like Vandals and Barbarians.

For those of us that like English history the Vikings were particularly terrifying invaders but people like the Barbary Pirates were also pretty bad for those living on the continent.

Sure, but there's this double standard in play. In D&D adventures writers and players are open to discussion with human enemies but rarely offer the same consideration to humanoids.

Nowadays vikings are pretty romanticized, too. In fact, I remember in school playing a simple edutainment game that loosely simulated the economics of running a viking raiding party.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2021, 04:58:11 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 23, 2021, 04:47:18 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2021, 04:03:47 PM
AFAIK, folklore doesn't have entire races of people who it is okay to kill and loot. There aren't stories of heroes regularly going on genocide sprees against some despised race of subhumans and plundering their homes for loot. That seems to be more of an artifact of D&D imitating pulp fiction inspired by Manifest Destiny's genocide of Native Americans. (Though feel free to provide examples to the contrary. I'd love to see those.)

Folklore, or as I like to call it History, is filled with races of people who it is ok to kill and loot.  Many of them come down to us as words like Vandals and Barbarians.

For those of us that like English history the Vikings were particularly terrifying invaders but people like the Barbary Pirates were also pretty bad for those living on the continent.

Sure, but there's this double standard in play. In D&D adventures writers and players are open to discussion with human enemies but rarely offer the same consideration to humanoids.

Nowadays vikings are pretty romanticized, too. In fact, I remember in school playing a simple edutainment game that loosely simulated the economics of running a viking raiding party.

What do you imagine Vikings were being taught to make them think it was Good to go Rape, Murder and Pillage if there were no stories about how Valhalla was waiting for them if they gloriously died in battle?

Why do you have a double standard for white-washing violence out of Folklore?

Historical Fact: Romans would shank you for your pants.

Pants Romina? 

ahem.

As for there being allways evil races in forlkore. Anyone saying there isn't any such thing is either woefully ignorant, willfully ignorant, or a liar.

No really. Go read up on some folklore of various cultures on some of the hostile beings that plagued people.

Part of the problem is that over time various people have either deliberately or mistakenly merged into one what were before different races of creatures.

And again. Orcs in D&D were originally not allways evil and anyone claiming they were IS a liar.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 22, 2021, 09:42:03 PM
...
Therefore, there was no cultural shift with 3e.  ...  As Mr Tweets quote states 3e is completely self referential to the existing DnD Lore.

Moving the game to being completely self-referential to the existing DnD Lore. races, monsters, classes, items, etc.  IS the cultural shift.

Because his design decision when it came to the creation of D&D lore was a distinctly different shift from what designers would use as references in previous editions.

I highly doubt Mr. Tweet thought he was making some cultural shift – he just probably thought it was a cool idea at the time. But making all the game lore completely self-referential was by his own admission a departure from how the world building was done in every previous edition!

Quote from: Mr. Tweet Changing the game on February 22, 2021, 09:45:41 PM
In 2nd Ed, the rules referred to history and to historical legends to describe the game...

This was also done in past editions. Mr. Tweet didn't like this part of D&D.

Quote from: Mr. Tweet Changing the game on February 22, 2021, 09:45:41 PM
When writing roleplaying games, I enjoy helping the player get immersed in the setting, and I always found these references to the real world to be distractions.

So he set about "fixing" D&D Lore.

Quote from: Mr. Tweet Changing the game on February 22, 2021, 09:45:41 PM
Personally, one part of the process I enjoyed was describing the world of D&D in its own terms, rather than referring to real-world history and mythology.

... For example, 2E took monks out of the Player's Handbook, in part because martial artist monks have no real place in medieval fantasy.
We put them back in because monks sure have a place in D&D fantasy. The same goes for gnomes. The 3E gnome is there because the gnome was well-established in D&D lore, not in order to represent real-world mythology.

Descriptions of weapons in 2E referred to historical precedents, .... We dropped the historical references....

D&D had such a strong legacy that it could stand on its own without reference to Earth history or mythology.

In a relatively short article, he explicitly mentions dumping references to real world history or mythology no less than four times. Specifically contrasting his new direction to what previous editions of D&D did.

I explained at length in previous posts why this shift away from referencing and understanding real world mythology contributed to "...the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard"  Post 3e.

Note these key words form my original post: becoming standard.

Becoming: The process of coming to be something or of passing into a state.

Not instantly transforming the game when changes are first introduced.

Standard: Uniform and established.

Everyone knows I'm referring to standard player options in the core PHB.

Not a claim that more PC options were never available in supplementary material.

Not a claim that PC's did not play monster races before 3e, or that mary sue characters never existed.

It's not that hard. Reading comprehension is a thing.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 22, 2021, 09:45:41 PM

Ha, Drow Rangers are so 80s.

Wait that does not fit your narrative!

Your projection is showing.

Once again referencing supplementary material from past editions to counter claims no one is making.

"...the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard" This concept is evidently beyond you.

You could not play a Drow straight out of the PHB in past editions. It was not a standard option.

You can in 5e.

Thus; being able to play a Drow PC became standard in D&D.

Only you and a few others seem completely unable to grasp what I am saying.

Dealing with the stubbornly stupid indeed.

QuoteAs for there being allways evil races in forlkore. Anyone saying there isn't any such thing is either woefully ignorant, willfully ignorant, or a liar.

Depends what we call races.
I mean there is hardly any races in Slavic mythology for instance - there is large and insane bestiary but it would be hard to call something a race from beasts known to me.
Germanic mythology on the other hands - have gods, elves, and giants basically as separate races each owning own worlds.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 24, 2021, 03:37:20 PM
You could not play a Drow straight out of the PHB in past editions. It was not a standard option.

You can in 5e.

Thus; being able to play a Drow PC became standard in D&D.

You're defining that only the Player's Handbook is standard - and therefore (for example) it was not standard to take a barbarian character in 1e.

But the barbarian was created by Gary Gygax and published in a hardbound book described as official new rules. When kids watched the D&D cartoon, they saw the barbarian, cavalier, and thief-acrobat alongside other classes like ranger and wizard. In his article on "The Future of the Game" (Dragon #103), Gygax reported that in his plan for a second edition, he would incorporate material from Unearthed Arcana into the new Player's Handbook.

It seems like splitting hairs to me to call Unearthed Arcana non-standard. It was official Gygax-written material that was sold as core rules - not optional or setting-specific.

Because their narrow little narrative window can't allow for things like facts get in the way of blaming WOTC for every evil.

Watch em grab those goal posts and run like their little religion depended on it.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 24, 2021, 05:18:20 PM

QuoteAs for there being allways evil races in forlkore. Anyone saying there isn't any such thing is either woefully ignorant, willfully ignorant, or a liar.

Depends what we call races.
I mean there is hardly any races in Slavic mythology for instance - there is large and insane bestiary but it would be hard to call something a race from beasts known to me.
Germanic mythology on the other hands - have gods, elves, and giants basically as separate races each owning own worlds.

Does the mythology call for open season on them like humanoids in D&D?

I recall that while the Aesir have many fights with the Jotun, they also have many non-violent encounters and even marriages.

Yup, it would be hard to make any RACE of beings in Nordic Mythology as always evil.

On the other hand vampire or striga in Slavic mythology is always kinda evil - but those are not races.

Quote from: jhkim on February 24, 2021, 05:26:43 PMYou're defining that only the Player's Handbook is standard - and therefore (for example) it was not standard to take a barbarian character in 1e.

But the barbarian was created by Gary Gygax and published in a hardbound book described as official new rules. When kids watched the D&D cartoon, they saw the barbarian, cavalier, and thief-acrobat alongside other classes like ranger and wizard. In his article on "The Future of the Game" (Dragon #103), Gygax reported that in his plan for a second edition, he would incorporate material from Unearthed Arcana into the new Player's Handbook.

It seems like splitting hairs to me to call Unearthed Arcana non-standard. It was official Gygax-written material that was sold as core rules - not optional or setting-specific.

To me, Standard is whatever you can play using the minimum amount of material released originally as "the game".

For D&D, that means the PHB, DMG and MM. For Warhammer FRP, it's just the one core book. Same for Star Wars in its D6 and D20 iterations (FFG has three core books, so you could have different Standards depending on which book you were using), so on and so forth.

Any books released after the core original release are supplements. It doesn't matter if they were written by the original author, if he decides to slap "Core Rules" on the cover or whatever else. Many groups will play with nothing but the original core, specially in places where the investment to get the books in the first place is substantial.

So no, for me Barbarians and Cavaliers are not standard AD&D classes, Monk is not a standard AD&D 2E class, and Drow are definitely a monster humanoid race until 5E (not sure if the 4E abomination had them in the PHB).

Quote from: Omega on February 24, 2021, 05:32:04 PM
Because their narrow little narrative window can't allow for things like facts get in the way of blaming WOTC for every evil.

Watch em grab those goal posts and run like their little religion depended on it.

The projection is heavy in this thread.

Sniping out one liners = The cornerstone of all non-arguments.

The only ones trying to move goalposts are posters who have no argument and are just throwing red herring spaghetti at the wall hoping something sticks.

Behold the latest example:

Quote from: jhkim on February 24, 2021, 05:26:43 PM
...Blah deblah all books are core books nonsense...

It seems like splitting hairs to me to call Unearthed Arcana non-standard. It was official Gygax-written material that was sold as core rules - not optional or setting-specific.

The only one splitting hairs to try for a gotcha points is you.

Everyone knows what people are talking about when they reference the core books vs everything else. The difference between the 3 core books and everything else is a common rules distinction many posters before me have made and many after me will make.

Even as much as he tried to obfuscate things by constantly bringing up supplemental material, Shasarak knew I was referring to the core books as standard when he was puzzled why a shift that lead to something becoming standard didn't happen instantly:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 15, 2021, 02:47:23 PM
...
Indeed the 3e Core rules had no more or less monster races then there were in the original ADnD rules written thirty years previously.

Even the revised 3.5 Core rule books had no extra monster races.
...

You are the only one I have seen try to say that it is not a thing.

+ bronze dragon's post.