Did Tasha's go far enough?

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

3)
A: It is not disrespectful for me to recognize you are an individual and have different preferences from my own. It is not disrespectful to recognize that even though others share your preferences, it would be wrong for me to presume to ask you to speak for them. I talk to you as an individual as a sign of respect!
B: Your need to have a 16 is frankly not shared by everyone that has the other issues you share. And your need to have a 16 is shared by others that don't share your other issues. Again I talk to you as an individual as a sign of respect, both for you and those that you want me to merge into you.

If you find this disrespectful, then I am sorry and I mean no disrespect. However I have been raised to treat people as individuals, so I hope you will forgive me for this respect I display that you find disrespectful.

It is however, disrespectful to point at a problem a large section of the player base has (to the point where wotc was compelled to fix it) and call it a "personal hangup" of mine. You may have been attempting to "respect individuality" but the end result was you attempting to diminish the problem and make it appear as though I were a lone outlier simply because my concerns did not line up with your own. I have been seeing a very disturbing trend recently of people dismissing the concerns of others out of hand simply because the problem doesn't effect them, so they attempt to paint the aggrieved as a loose collection of individuals all with their own inexplicable issues because they prefer the system as-is because it is easier to dismiss those concerns out of hand rather than engage with them.

1-2)
So are we still at the point where you, seeing races as ethnicities, and feeling a need for 16s, are saying it is not enough for both systems to exist, the old system must be demonized? Or are we at the point where you can see that those that see races as species, and might not see a need for a 16, can have their system too.

Because that is what you are getting pushback for. Plenty of us that don't personally like the new rule are glad something like it was made. We can be/are glad for you, but we push back if pushed.

Also: No, there are no race/class combos that are "heavily discouraged". You will need to moderate that language at least 2 more levels before I could agree. Yes there are multiple people that feel a need to hit the theoretical maximum. However 5E does not require it nor does it heavily discourage a 15.

Again, here you are again talking about me seeing connections to real-life groups as though it were some personal moral failing of mine and not a systemic problem so wide spread that the creators of the game felt it important enough to address it by putting out an article solely regarding it and drastically change major game systems in order to address these concerns. It is an issue. I'm sorry if you don't see it as an issue, but it is, but I am always going to feel extremely uncomfortable and unwelcome around those who would try to downplay my (and many others) concerns as a non-issue, that includes any DnD games that ban these new rules.

Also: No, there are no race/class combos that are "heavily discouraged". You will need to moderate that language at least 2 more levels before I could agree. Yes there are multiple people that feel a need to hit the theoretical maximum. However 5E does not require it nor does it heavily discourage a 15.

Giving you a lower cap on your races recommended stats (they are the recommended stats to make your highest in the quick build section for a reason) is discouraging. If you look at Orc, and you look at Wizard, you can see that orc's stats have no synergy with the recommended stats that the wizard class utilizes. When the game itself tells you to make your intelligent stat very high to play as a wizard, and you are looking at a race that gives no bonus to intelligence, that is the game discouraging you from playing that race as a wizard.

[Sigreid]

It is however, disrespectful to point at a problem a large section of the player base has (to the point where wotc was compelled to fix it) and call it a "personal hangup" of mine. You may have been attempting to "respect individuality" but the end result was you attempting to diminish the problem and make it appear as though I were a lone outlier simply because my concerns did not line up with your own. I have been seeing a very disturbing trend recently of people dismissing the concerns of others out of hand simply because the problem doesn't effect them, so they attempt to paint the aggrieved as a loose collection of individuals all with their own inexplicable issues because they prefer the system as-is because it is easier to dismiss those concerns out of hand rather than engage with them.



Again, here you are again talking about me seeing connections to real-life groups as though it were some personal moral failing of mine and not a systemic problem so wide spread that the creators of the game felt it important enough to address it by putting out an article solely regarding it and drastically change major game systems in order to address these concerns. It is an issue. I'm sorry if you don't see it as an issue, but it is, but I am always going to feel extremely uncomfortable and unwelcome around those who would try to downplay my (and many others) concerns as a non-issue, that includes any DnD games that ban these new rules.




Giving you a lower cap on your races recommended stats (they are the recommended stats to make your highest in the quick build section for a reason) is discouraging. If you look at Orc, and you look at Wizard, you can see that orc's stats have no synergy with the recommended stats that the wizard class utilizes. When the game itself tells you to make your intelligent stat very high to play as a wizard, and you are looking at a race that gives no bonus to intelligence, that is the game discouraging you from playing that race as a wizard.

Speaking for myself, the issue I have is your presenting your view as a universal and obvious truth. Regardless of how many people agree with you, or me, neither of our perspectives is that.

[Luccan]

It's really nice that they've said they want to move away from the whole "CE evil because gods made them do it" thing, they've said they're going to change that going forward so all humanoid sentient races will be able to be whatever alignment they wish.

...Except gnolls. Arbitrarily, gnolls are all horrible, evil monsters and can never be good still. Even after WotC recognized always-evil races were wrong, they just had to leave an exception there, because they just can't have DnD without a sentient race you are morally justified in killing on sight. Sigh.

I know they have humanoid typing, but 5e gnolls are basically demon-zombies. Is killing demons a problem?

[OldTrees1]

It is however, disrespectful to point at a problem a large section of the player base has (to the point where wotc was compelled to fix it) and call it a "personal hangup" of mine. You may have been attempting to "respect individuality" but the end result was you attempting to diminish the problem and make it appear as though I were a lone outlier simply because my concerns did not line up with your own. I have been seeing a very disturbing trend recently of people dismissing the concerns of others out of hand simply because the problem doesn't effect them, so they attempt to paint the aggrieved as a loose collection of individuals all with their own inexplicable issues because they prefer the system as-is because it is easier to dismiss those concerns out of hand rather than engage with them.



Again, here you are again talking about me seeing connections to real-life groups as though it were some personal moral failing of mine and not a systemic problem so wide spread that the creators of the game felt it important enough to address it by putting out an article solely regarding it and drastically change major game systems in order to address these concerns. It is an issue. I'm sorry if you don't see it as an issue, but it is, but I am always going to feel extremely uncomfortable and unwelcome around those who would try to downplay my (and many others) concerns as a non-issue, that includes any DnD games that ban these new rules.




Giving you a lower cap on your races recommended stats (they are the recommended stats to make your highest in the quick build section for a reason) is discouraging. If you look at Orc, and you look at Wizard, you can see that orc's stats have no synergy with the recommended stats that the wizard class utilizes. When the game itself tells you to make your intelligent stat very high to play as a wizard, and you are looking at a race that gives no bonus to intelligence, that is the game discouraging you from playing that race as a wizard.

It is always unfortunate when miscommunication occurs. You have seen many inferences that I did not imply. Since communication is a 2 person activity, that is both of our faults.

1) You seeing D&D races as ethnicities is not a moral failing. Nor is seeing them as species. It is just a description of the different perspectives and how they inform how we see other details.
2) I have a personal hangup about vancian casting. Many people also have that hangup. My hangup is still a personal hangup despite how many have similar/identical hangups. However if you were talking to me about vancian casting, I would understand if you respected me enough to talk about my hangup rather than about Jane's hangup. I can't speak for Jane.
3) You ought to have noticed I only called your need for a 16 a personal hangup. I did not say anything like that about your views about racial essentialism. You ought to have noticed that distinction.
4) As I said before, I see no reason for there to be mechanical differences between ethnicities. However I do value how mechanical differences between species can help those species feel different. Thus, like almost everyone, I am glad a rule like Tasha's came out, even if I will not personally use it.
5) You are much more readily discouraged than I think is normal. I could easily play an Orc Wizard. You only need a 12-14 starting Int and I could have a 14-15 Int. Maybe have a wandering librarian that carries a bookcase (hmm closed or open?). Oh and they could readily move twice a round. And Orcs are quite knowledgeable (+2 skills).

I hope this message reaches you with less garbled than the last one.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Speaking for myself, the issue I have is your presenting your view as a universal and obvious truth. Regardless of how many people agree with you, or me, neither of our perspectives is that.

Very much agreed. It's all preferences. And preferences are free and completely subjective.

I'm strongly opposed to hecklers' veto powers--reducing everything to pander to the most-easily offended. Since the spectrum of "things that people can get upset over" is unbounded, that leads to not having a game at all. Because anyone can find something to be offended by if they look hard enough, even if that thing wasn't really there to begin with.

Being offended is a personal decision. No one can offend someone, although they can present things in a way intended to provoke offense. The receiver has to choose to be offended; as a corollary, people can choose to be offended by any message. Someone being offended does not mean that the message was at fault in any way.

[KorvinStarmast]

I know they have humanoid typing, but 5e gnolls are basically demon-zombies. Is killing demons a problem?

In D&D, it has never been a problem, but it's usually been dangerous.

[OldTrees1]

Very much agreed. It's all preferences. And preferences are free and completely subjective.

Yes, preferences are subjective.

Being offended is a personal decision. No one can offend someone, although they can present things in a way intended to provoke offense. The receiver has to choose to be offended; as a corollary, people can choose to be offended by any message. Someone being offended does not mean that the message was at fault in any way.

I would disagree here. Emotions tend to be controllable, not controlled. There are few things I will hate, but I will hate those things no matter what I do. I can control my reaction to that emotion, but I can't prevent that emotion. So while being offended is a personal reaction I don't think it is a decision. As a result that reaction can be provoked by outside forces (like when the doctor tests your knee reflexes).

I know they have humanoid typing, but 5e gnolls are basically demon-zombies. Is killing demons a problem?

Ugh. Yeah I really don't like that 5E turned them into demons.
However I would point out that D&D constantly avoids having all demons necessarily and inherently be evil.
So this is more complicated than it first looks.

Back in 3E (or earlier) they made sure to clarify that "always evil" does not mean always evil and made sure to list things like gnolls as only "usually chaotic evil" (which meant 50% instead of usually chaotic evil).

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

I know they have humanoid typing, but 5e gnolls are basically demon-zombies. Is killing demons a problem?

Yes. Mainly because they are sentient creatures. Killing any kind of sentient creature sight-unseen simply because of the circumstances of it's birth is always going to be evil. If you're running an evil campaign, sure, but don't try to excuse it as a morally neutral or good act.

Even demons are not entirely evil in 5th edition DnD. Several have managed to be redeemed. So you can't just lump all demons into the "kill on sight" basket because they are thinking, feeling creatures and if you kill them without provocation, there is a chance however slight that you have just slain an innocent. Which is why it's crap that the DnD team are saying that because Gnolls have 'demonic influence' they're all crazy murdering evil psychos that you can kill without hesitation and can never be playable.

[Lord Raziere]

I know they have humanoid typing, but 5e gnolls are basically demon-zombies. Is killing demons a problem?

Careful with that line of reasoning. Once upon a time on another website's forum (won't name it here), people came down hard on me for arguing to not spare a mindflayer when I said I would spare an orc, got banned for "being a poor fit for the community". just to give you an idea of how different the views on DnD were/are elsewhere.

[Anymage]

Giving you a lower cap on your races recommended stats (they are the recommended stats to make your highest in the quick build section for a reason) is discouraging. If you look at Orc, and you look at Wizard, you can see that orc's stats have no synergy with the recommended stats that the wizard class utilizes. When the game itself tells you to make your intelligent stat very high to play as a wizard, and you are looking at a race that gives no bonus to intelligence, that is the game discouraging you from playing that race as a wizard.

Assuming we're using Eberron orcs (no Int penalty, no "they're intrinsically evil because their evil gods made them that way" sidebar), they're exactly as "bad" at wizardry as dragonborn, hill dwarves, or wood elves are. Nobody really plays wizards of those races, but nobody really gets upset about them either.

Look. I've seen people in 3.5 who insisted that you needed to buy an 18 in pointbuy, because otherwise you'd always be behind your theoretical max. If you want a game where everybody has the same cap at first level that's fine, but then you either have to make race effectively meaningless or else think up different ways for race to be meaningful. Be upfront about that. Talk about hill dwarf bards or dragonborn clerics instead of always defaulting to orc wizards, and acknowledge that just turning all racial ASIs into a free-for-all might be a bit kludgey if it's just shoved in. But don't try to hide it behind implications of real-world racism.

If you are concerned about problematic real-life inferences, I'll note that Harry Potter goblins would likely get an Int boost if they were translated to the game, and would make fine wizards if you then avoided Potterverse fluff of how magical creatures have their own types of magic instead of wizardry. They'd also risk running afoul of real-world stereotypes. Like I said before, that's solved by having better writers who are aware of common pitfalls, not by worrying overmuch about who has what sort of bump to what stats.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Assuming we're using Eberron orcs (no Int penalty, no "they're intrinsically evil because their evil gods made them that way" sidebar), they're exactly as "bad" at wizardry as dragonborn, hill dwarves, or wood elves are. Nobody really plays wizards of those races, but nobody really gets upset about them either.

Look. I've seen people in 3.5 who insisted that you needed to buy an 18 in pointbuy, because otherwise you'd always be behind your theoretical max. If you want a game where everybody has the same cap at first level that's fine, but then you either have to make race effectively meaningless or else think up different ways for race to be meaningful. Be upfront about that. Talk about hill dwarf bards or dragonborn clerics instead of always defaulting to orc wizards, and acknowledge that just turning all racial ASIs into a free-for-all might be a bit kludgey if it's just shoved in. But don't try to hide it behind implications of real-world racism.

If you are concerned about problematic real-life inferences, I'll note that Harry Potter goblins would likely get an Int boost if they were translated to the game, and would make fine wizards if you then avoided Potterverse fluff of how magical creatures have their own types of magic instead of wizardry. They'd also risk running afoul of real-world stereotypes. Like I said before, that's solved by having better writers who are aware of common pitfalls, not by worrying overmuch about who has what sort of bump to what stats.

Racial ASI's are not the only way to differentiate the races even in the current game system as-is.

That said, I really don't appreciate the implication that I'm "hiding" behind real world racism. That's... just wrong.

[BerzerkerUnit]

...
For most tables Tasha's is bringing no new positive racial options. What it is potentially doing is giving some players a sense of entitlement to something that was once negotiated between players and DMs. Even for DMs that usually rubber stamp all such requests this erodes the idea that there are norms of what Elves and Dwarves are like. This may be okay if you want to run kitchen sink fantasy, but off the top of my head 4 of the top 6-7 settings are vaguely Tolkienesque and are shaped by the racial norms in the PHB as are are large portion of homebrew settings.

...

The Tasha's racial rules are taking away flavor and moving authority from the DM to a book.

The fact that you think there needs to be “norms” for elves and dwarves is exactly the reason any and all rules and rulings made to erode that notion need to be made. It’s a hard pill to swallow, but once you do, the realization “norms for elves and dwarves trends toward necessitating norms for Orcs and other ‘evil races’ and those are consistently bad and ultimately allow a shallow fictional representation to reinforce actual racist thinking in reality” should help you accept and even champion such changes.

Do we need another 54 page thread about it? No, it’s an optional rule you can just ignore.

Also, probably far more prevalent than tolkien elves are Santa’s elves and more than once have I had a player ask to play such and scratch their head when told to play a rock gnome.

Middle Earth was great for what it was and the role it played in the birth of a hobby I adore, but it can politely tie itself to a post and self immolate if others are going to insist it’s existence is justification for the perpetuation of stereotyping, real or imagined.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ugh. Yeah I really don't like that 5E turned them into demons.
However I would point out that D&D constantly avoids having all demons necessarily and inherently be evil.

In this edition, they are though.
It's right there in the basic rules. Page 36.

Even demons are not entirely evil in 5th edition DnD.

Incorrect. Demons are fiends, by definition. This isn't 3.5e, this is 5e. They (WoTC) changed their minds again.

Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn’t tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.

The same goes for demons, and on the other end celestials.

They authors do, however, in the MM remind the DM that a DM can modify stuff like this for a given creature ... and with that caveat, they allow for a loophole of a redeemed demon or a fallen angel. (Case in point being Zariel)

Which takes us back to the inherent nature of this game: it's final form varies by table, not by the Word of {Pick a Deity} from WoTC.

This isn't a video game that has identical lines of code in every instance.

I invite you to read up on my take on black dragons of good alignment here

[OldTrees1]

In this edition, they are though.

They authors do, however, in the MM remind the DM that a DM can modify stuff like this for a given creature ... and with that caveat, they allow for a loophole of a redeemed demon or a fallen angel. (Case in point being Zariel)

Which takes us back to the inherent nature of this game: it's final form varies by table, not by the Word of {Pick a Deity} from WoTC.

This isn't a video game that has identical lines of code in every instance.

Oh, right.

...
I must not derail the thread by chewing WotC out of that.
...

I invite you to read up on my take on black dragons of good alignment here

Thank you for the palette cleanser.

Yes, I am glad there is variance from table to table.

[Segev]

If you think the rest of us can't recognize a straw argument, you haven't been paying attention. If you want to passionately argue for a completely modular game rule system, feel free. Why D&D would have to do so, when GURPS and Hero System already exist, I can't say. I put forth a very simple and straightforward position -- this alternate rule seems to have a very low footprint, only shuffles who the winners and losers in the system are (not creates the situation where there are winners and losers in the game system), and solves the most-pressing issue WotC is facing, where people who feel (IMO, and as I've previously posited, at least somewhat correctly) that orcs have been conflated with various IRL ethnicities can now play the 'smart' character concept without major hurdles. If you want to discuss or offer a counterposition to that point, I'd be more than happy to do so. If, instead, you want to falsely conflate it with a more hyperbolic and harder-to-support position, I have no incentive to engage.

It wasn't a straw man. It was an analogy.

And if the problem is orcs, specifically, then why insist that lizardmen and gnomes have to have the same stat distribution in order to solve a problem with orcs, specifically?

[EggKookoo]

Sometimes an evil monster is just an evil monster.

If you can distinguish fantasy from reality, then it's easy to understand how it's morally reprehensible to harm another human while it's perfectly okay to kill an orc. They're actually two entirely separate concepts.

If your ability to make that distinction is compromised, then it's easy to be confused why it's not okay to hate another person because of where they came from or who they're related to, but it's okay to hate a made up evil fairy tale creature.

[Lord Raziere]

Sometimes an evil monster is just an evil monster.

If you can distinguish fantasy from reality, then it's easy to understand how it's morally reprehensible to harm another human while it's perfectly okay to kill an orc. They're actually two entirely separate concepts.

If your ability to make that distinction is compromised, then it's easy to be confused why it's not okay to hate another person because of where they came from or who they're related to, but it's okay to hate a made up evil fairy tale creature.

Okay.

Thats your point of view. you view it as an escape from killing people for hateful reasons.

but for some people its just a reminder that they happen at all. its too similar and they'd prefer an escape where no one is killed for hateful reasons. your not going to persuade them with that line of reasoning. you'll never sell them on "the escape is that prejudice is good in this world" because they want to escape from prejudice entirely see?

like, why are trying to sell me an opportunity to hate something in the first place? I don't want to feel hate for things. thats a negative emotion. I don't have some desire deep down to hate something at the first excuse. I don't need some substitute to hate so that I don't hate real people, I just don't hate. There is no reason for me to think thats beneficial or that its an escape I want. This offer of an escape is mystifying to me, because if I want to escape, escaping to an emotion I've been taught my entire life is bad is not really something I want.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would disagree here. Emotions tend to be controllable, not controlled. There are few things I will hate, but I will hate those things no matter what I do. I can control my reaction to that emotion, but I can't prevent that emotion. So while being offended is a personal reaction I don't think it is a decision. As a result that reaction can be provoked by outside forces (like when the doctor tests your knee reflexes).

You may or may not have the choice to feel the emotion. You do have the choice to react to it or not. And that's what I care about. Subjective emotions, meh. Those aren't under outside control or not--your emotional triggers are your business. I can't know them a priori. And it's really hit or miss, just like any other emotional response. Things that are absolutely outrageous insults just tend to make me want to laugh, while I'm much more sensitive, for instance, to intimations that I've not met someone's expectations. Even if those expectations are entirely perceived on my part, not actual. Other people are different. There are some broad categories of things that are likely (but not guaranteed) to provoke the emotion of offense.

Now I'm morally blameworthy if I intend to provoke a negative response regardless if such a response is actually elicited. But you (impersonal, not personal) are just as responsible for reacting negatively, even if provoked. Blame is not conserved--both parties can be anywhere from 0% to 100% responsible. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, not those of anyone else.

As it turns out with "offense", there are lots of cases where offense is taken where none is intended. And that is 100% on the shoulders of those who take offense. A much better route, both for individuals and societies, is default deny offense--seek to not knowingly provoke offense and seek to take no offense even if offense is intended. And people who can't (or won't) control themselves when it comes to taking (or intentionally giving) offense are just as much socially dangerous as those who can't (or won't) control themselves in many other antisocial ways.

Furthermore, those who weaponize taking offense as a way to control others are, in my opinion, the most dangerous. Choosing to look for reasons to be offended so that you (again, impersonal) can manipulate others' desire not to give offense is contemptible and causes societal friction in whatever sphere those people happen to be. Same as (in the game context) being a rules-lawyer of the munchkin variety.

[RifleAvenger]

Being offended is a personal decision. No one can offend someone, although they can present things in a way intended to provoke offense. The receiver has to choose to be offended; as a corollary, people can choose to be offended by any message. Someone being offended does not mean that the message was at fault in any way.

"What's that, Goblin Bob? Adventurers killed your family? Well, your kind are mostly subhuman criminals anyways; were any of your family acting suspiciously? What are you getting upset at me for?! It's your choice to be offended; I bet you're only mad because it's true."

"So what if I made a crass and suggestive comment in front of a subordinate? I meant it as a joke! They should have leaned into it, and it's their fault if they're offended!"
-------
Power dynamics cannot be ignored when assessing social interaction. Deflecting responsibility for offense onto disempowered groups only enables those in positions of relative power to act with reduced or no consequences. Which leads to normalization of oppressive and abusive behaviors. Suddenly those who suffer most from problematic, harmful, or outright hateful statements, ideas, and media depictions are slanted with a moral failing for not stoically withstanding or brushing them off.

Ethics does not boil down to discreet individuals saying bad things to discreet individuals 'choosing' to be offended. Social/political/economic systems, distribution or power, and historical memory have a lot of weight, including what we can even reasonably choose to do.

Such systems include, as a small part of the greater whole, TTRRPG genre memory retaining tropes suspiciously adjacent to eugenics and reactionary ideas about racial determinism.
----------------

As it turns out with "offense", there are lots of cases where offense is taken where none is intended. And that is 100% on the shoulders of those who take offense.

If Goblin Bob takes offense to me complimenting his Common, because he grew up with Common as a first language and is tired of people assuming he must be foreign (must be other) because he is a goblin, it is still my responsibility to apologize. Because it is my assumption, instilled in me through a culture that treats goblins as other, that is the problem here. Not Goblin Bob's weary irritation at it, not even my specific utterance. The underlying assumption is the problem, and it will go unexamined and unchallenged if Goblin Bob and his friends do not speak up about it. And that speaking out is not required to be polite, since the harm it does to goblins sure isn't (except maybe in the most superficial, LE manner).

A much better route, both for individuals and societies, is default deny offense--seek to not knowingly provoke offense and seek to take no offense even if offense is intended.

This is a wonderful way to allow dogwhistling bad actors to gleefully feign ignorance and escape consequences for their actions. It's also a great way for harmful assumptions and stereotypes to go unchallenged, because there is no social backlash allowed in response to their spread; those harmed aren't supposed to take offense at them, after all.

[Sigreid]

Okay.

Thats your point of view. you view it as an escape from killing people for hateful reasons.

but for some people its just a reminder that they happen at all. its too similar and they'd prefer an escape where no one is killed for hateful reasons. your not going to persuade them with that line of reasoning. you'll never sell them on "the escape is that prejudice is good in this world" because they want to escape from prejudice entirely see?

like, why are trying to sell me an opportunity to hate something in the first place? I don't want to feel hate for things. thats a negative emotion. I don't have some desire deep down to hate something at the first excuse. I don't need some substitute to hate so that I don't hate real people, I just don't hate. There is no reason for me to think thats beneficial or that its an escape I want. This offer of an escape is mystifying to me, because if I want to escape, escaping to an emotion I've been taught my entire life is bad is not really something I want.

Yes, because the only option to your view is hate filled racism...

[OldTrees1]

You may or may not have the choice to feel the emotion. You do have the choice to react to it or not. And that's what I care about. Subjective emotions, meh. Those aren't under outside control or not--your emotional triggers are your business. I can't know them a priori. And it's really hit or miss, just like any other emotional response. Things that are absolutely outrageous insults just tend to make me want to laugh, while I'm much more sensitive, for instance, to intimations that I've not met someone's expectations. Even if those expectations are entirely perceived on my part, not actual. Other people are different. There are some broad categories of things that are likely (but not guaranteed) to provoke the emotion of offense.

Now I'm morally blameworthy if I intend to provoke a negative response regardless if such a response is actually elicited. But you (impersonal, not personal) are just as responsible for reacting negatively, even if provoked. Blame is not conserved--both parties can be anywhere from 0% to 100% responsible. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, not those of anyone else.

Though here I agree. Although I should mention English is a messy language. "Offended" can mean that emotion occurred rather than a reaction to that emotion.

After here I think it is messier than your depiction, but I will leave it at that. My point was about the emotions.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Furthermore, those who weaponize taking offense as a way to control others are, in my opinion, the most dangerous.

Ah, yes. The dangerous ones are not the openly bigoted, but those who dislike open bigotry.

[Lord Raziere]

Yes, because the only option to your view is hate filled racism...

Only option to what? I never said it was the only option I was responded to Eggkookoo who said that its okay to "hate evil fairy creatures" meaning DnD is offering me the opportunity to hate something, I'm just asking why should I hate something at all?

are you saying that this not the fantasy DnD offers? if so good, then we can get rid of the hateful parts to focus on that fantasy better. I'd love to play my smart orc/bugbear/goblin/etc in it.

[Petrocorus]

Racial ASI's are not the only way to differentiate the races even in the current game system as-is.

But you haven't actually answer my point about racial features.
If it is bad to have orcs not being able to be as smart as a gnomes, and if it's bad to have gnomes not being able to be as strong as orcs, then why is it not bad to have gnomes not being able to be as fast as orcs?

[zinycor]

Look, if one of my players ever has a problem with the way I depict orcs or whatever other race, I'll handle it. Otherwise.... I just don't care... All this "Orcs represent this or that" is very tiresome.

Am just happy Tabaxi can get a bonus to wis instead of cha cause it opens builds and fits better with MY idea of a cat. I don't care for the big social implications of that.

[EggKookoo]

Okay.

Thats your point of view. you view it as an escape from killing people for hateful reasons.

I... what?

but for some people its just a reminder that they happen at all. its too similar and they'd prefer an escape where no one is killed for hateful reasons. your not going to persuade them with that line of reasoning. you'll never sell them on "the escape is that prejudice is good in this world" because they want to escape from prejudice entirely see?

Having evil creatures to kill isn't necessarily an expression of hatred. Sometimes it fulfills a need for clarity. Reality is, as we all know, messy and ambiguous and filled with gray areas. A sane person navigates that ambiguity because to do otherwise risks harming people who don't really deserve it and denies the nuance that life is filled with. At the same time, it can be tiring or even exhausting. Sometimes it would be nice if the decision was clear -- that the good and bad things were painted in stark relief. To have such a desire doesn't make one intolerant or bigoted or simple-minded or anything. It's just a desire, contrasted with the reality one must face that life simply isn't that way.

So, escapism. You get to play an unambiguously good hero defeating unambiguously evil villains. It's not about hatred but rather catharsis, and it's IMO a very good thing we have forms of entertainment where we can satisfy that. It lets us go back to our regular lives refreshed and ready to do the heavy lifting of seeing things from multiple sides, compromising to bring about the best overall results, and all the other things that being a functional adult requires.

This is what I mean about distinguishing fantasy from reality. I don't mean it in the sense of understanding that D&D is a game. We all mostly get that. But Isaac himself said "it's never just a game" and that's an attitude I find dangerous, or at least uncomfortable. How do we escape if our escapism is still mired in reality? That, also, is why I asked "where does it end?" I want to know where I can go relax the yoke a bit. Where I can, briefly, take off my "functional adult" hat and let myself just enjoy the experience of playing pretend, without some moral guardian standing over my shoulder. Am I not allowed to have that?

[Sigreid]

Only option to what? I never said it was the only option I was responded to Eggkookoo who said that its okay to "hate evil fairy creatures" meaning DnD is offering me the opportunity to hate something, I'm just asking why should I hate something at all?

are you saying that this not the fantasy DnD offers? if so good, then we can get rid of the hateful parts to focus on that fantasy better. I'd love to play my smart orc/bugbear/goblin/etc in it.

Oh, I don't hate anything in D&D. It's just a game. But some things are automatically legit targets.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Oh, I don't hate anything in D&D. It's just a game. But some things are automatically legit targets.

Tends to be a problem when something is automatically a legit target solely because of it's race.

If it's a mindless monster with no resemblance to humanity, like an ooze, go hog wild. If it walks and talks and can make choices for itself and you're killing it just for the way it's born, rather than it's actions... Well. There are some uncomfortable parallels there. Ones that me, and many other newer players find unacceptable. You can do it in your home game, but I'm not going to play with you, and WotC should definitely not be endorsing it unless they want to alienate large portions of their new player base.

[EggKookoo]

Oh, I don't hate anything in D&D. It's just a game. But some things are automatically legit targets.

I don't hate anything, especially make-believe things that don't really exist.

I will admit it's fun to sometimes play a PC who is capable of indulging in an uncompromising desire to take out a loathsome, vile creature that only exists to cause pain and terror (sentient or otherwise).

[zinycor]

You can do it in your home game, but I'm not going to play with you

Again, that's the only thing you have said that makes sense.

Let people play the game in whatever way they want, while you play the game you want. Is a game, nothing more than that.