"Customizing your Origin in D&D"

[Wildstag]

Let's also not ignore the fact that the very concept at the core of D&D ("Go someplace dangerous, fight some monsters, take their stuff") is incredibly colonialist when you get right down to it. Like, yes, we can and should craft narratives that are more nuanced than that, but the whole structure of the game is pretty deeply tied to killing some "monsters" who were often just minding their own business and taking some "treasure" that didn't belong to you. It's so deeply ingrained in the game that half the time when I play an Adventurer's League game that's set in a city I have to get in an argument with someone at the table about how no, it's actually pretty wildly inappropriate for us to just take this stuff that's lying around in the house where we're solving a murder mystery or something.

I think your confusing the issue somewhat. The game was originally designed to provide mechanics for multiple playstyles. If you look through the named characters (Robillard, Tenser, Mordenkainen, etc.), a fair number are evil in alignment. The mechanics involving "taking some 'treasure' that didn't belong to you" were because the game was being designed so it wasn't *just* good guys in capes.

This is why you can see the Paladin class in AD&D but also see so many *evil* options for rogues (chances at picking pockets, opening locks, etc.)

Furthermore, the game was heavily designed around a medieval mindset where the neighboring barony was out for your blood, and enemies were around every corner. Dungeons were actual structures put together for explicit purposes, and generally had evil intent. Those monsters weren't *strictly* minding their own business: if you look at some of the archetypal dungeons, they were monsters in service of some greater evil up to nefarious ends.

It'd be one thing if the game was designed around killing civilians and only going after non-humans, but it's not, because it never was. Humans and humanoids of all types were waiting for you to let your guard down before they put a knife in your back. The "racist and colonial foundations" argument only works if you treat murder-hobo as the entire basis of D&D, and that's strictly untrue.

P.S. and even then the greater issue at the foundations was that races were divided by order and chaos moreso than by good and evil. This works as a better argument for "colonialism", but even then, elves were generally against order, and they're not treated as cannon fodder.

[zinycor]

I don't think saying orcs are aggresive is such a big deal. In fact is a cool and powerful ability that is easily understood and fits pretty well with what we understand from orcs.

As long as they aren't forced into any alignments, I believe is ok for characterization to happen, otherwise we eill end up with just bland humans that it will be wrong to categorize. And that would be boring af.

[cutlery]

Alternativly this will be a varient rule that is never touched again, at least for the rest of 5e's run. I feel state bonuses are too ingrained into D&D 5e for them to want to change anything. The actual erata to the PHB has been minor, making this rule official and then removing racial state bonus to replace them with a +2/+1 assigned as you please would not feel as minor, even if in practice it basically was.

They've moved away from how constrained class choices were, they've largely moved away from stat minuses (for core races; I suspect these will be gone for others eventually, too), and they've removed age categories having an impact on stats. Things have changed rather a lot since 2e. The races are much more alike now than they once were. I don't doubt for one second they will take this further in subsequent books and editions if it plays well.

They aren't going to errata the 5e books; but they might release a 5.5e.

Which is fine; 5e will still be there for the people that want it.

So long as "Orc Smash!" is part of the baked-in traits for the race and Drow society is evil in one of the flagship settings, people have an argument to make. I suspect they will make that argument; and ultimately sales will tell the tale.

I suspect these tweaks are nowhere near done, and that they will be highly central to new DnD products.

[Boci]

They aren't going to errata the 5e books; but they might release a 5.5e.

Most of the book published so far have been modules. Unless the changes for 5.5 are minor enough that you can elegantly print a module to be used with either version, I don't think they're going to split their own market that way. They did it with 3.5, but the 4e essentials weren't an official revamp, they were designed to be used parralel, even though the philosophy had changed significantly.

So long as "Orc Smash!" is part of the baked-in traits for the race and Drow society is evil in one of the flagship settings, people have an argument to make. I suspect they will make that argument; and ultimately sales will tell the tale.

Times do change, but, remember when they tried to make the warlock int based? Giving up on FR is a big thing for WotC, it would have to be a lot of people making that argument.

And correct me if I'm wrong. "Orc Smash" as a racial trait is bad because orcs have a history embedded in racist stereotype, and being violent brutes is a real world racist stereotype. Correct?

So then, what trait would you feel ocmfortable saying all orcs have?

[tsuyoshikentsu]

And what traits would those be? I'm not asking for a final ready for publish write up, just a rough idea of what traits you would feel comfortable saying every orc has that wouldn't be racist?

Identifying a solution is not a prerequisite to identifying and acknowledging a problem.

With that said, using only existing traits that lean into established lore I personally would be comfortable with an orc that had some combination of relentless endurance (half-orc), hunter's intuition (mark of finding), brave (halfling), hunter's lore (lizardfolk--which also shows just how problematic orc is right now), powerful build, and/or any kind of martial weapon or armor training. Cunning artisan (lizardfolk) would be borderline for a setting in which orcs had a more hunter/gatherer bent; I would have to think more about it.

[cutlery]

Most of the book published so far have been modules. Unless the changes for 5.5 are minor enough that you can elegantly print a module to be used with either version, I don't think they're going to split their own market that way. They did it with 3.5, but the 4e essentials weren't an official revamp, they were designed to be used parralel, even though the philosophy had changed significantly.

They've done it (x.5 editions) before, I don't see why they wouldn't again.

Times do change, but, remember when they tried to make the warlock int based?

If anything, I'd hope they learned their lesson with warlocks. They have made a grave set of balance errors with how many charisma casters there are (and races that can easily stack charisma). The playtesters were the prime source of complaint there, and perhaps they'll do a better job selecting them in the future. While they are at it, they should make paladins wisdom casters again (while still gaining other bonuses from cha - they are supposed to be MAD).

Giving up on FR is a big thing for WotC, it would have to be a lot of people making that argument.

Or a paucity of people buying the FR stuff. FR only works if it keeps selling; and we are moving well past the age cohorts that will fondly remember the old TSR novels from their childhoods. FR will get used if it is the bog standard setting; but if they are doing their jobs they will be focus grouping this stuff and tracking which sourcebooks sell.

It's a pretty archaic setting, as far as that goes - oddly enough Greyhawk has aged better in part because it's so much less fleshed out (and not without its own problems).

They seem more than willing to let other settings have a chance - see Eberron (not a setting I particularly like).

So then, what trait would you feel ocmfortable saying all orcs have?

Half-orcs having what variant humans have sounds good to me.

[Boci]

Identifying a solution is not a prerequisite to identifying and acknowledging a problem.

With that said, using only existing traits that lean into established lore I personally would be comfortable with an orc that had some combination of relentless endurance (half-orc), hunter's intuition (mark of finding), brave (halfling), hunter's lore (lizardfolk--which also shows just how problematic orc is right now), powerful build, and/or any kind of martial weapon or armor training. Cunning artisan (lizardfolk) would be borderline for a setting in which orcs had a more hunter/gatherer bent; I would have to think more about it.

So orcs are primitive hunters (because hunters societies are primitive, more advanced society tend to gain food primarily from trade and agreculture). That still seems racist.

You're right, a solution isn't neccissary to point out a solution, but if you don't have a solution, and continue to use orcs, then you are in no position to critisize others.

They've done it (x.5 editions) before, I don't see why they wouldn't again.

They did it once with 3.5, 4th ed essentials weren't 4.5. For 3e they had the production to quickly build up and surplant 3.0, they can't do that now, so modules will need to address 5.0 and 5.5 both existing.

Or a paucity of people buying the FR stuff.

I don't think 5e has the release schedule to monitor a trend here. Define FTR stuff. Haven't we had one FR book so far?

Half-orcs having what variant humans have sounds good to me.

And then orcs are, what half-orcs currently are?

[Hael]

Even without clear parallels like "Oh, the Evil Barbarian Orcs are clearly modeled after X", the very idea that certain groups of people are, by nature of biology, better or worse at certain things is a racist one.

Goodness, a silver back Gorilla is stronger than a human. If you want to make it more mathematically exact, you can talk about bimodal distributions and overlapping Bell curves. Such that the strongest human might be stronger than the weakest Gorilla, but that nevertheless there is a precise sense in which one is more likely to be strong than the other.

Similarly you can imagine a trait for magic, where one race has more magic propensity than another. Leopards vs humans for dexterity etc etc

I just don't understand the mindset that stating these things, and making them true for fictional characters/races in a fictional universe, somehow automatically implies that we are racists ourselves. It's just an absurd and fallacious proposition!

I also don't really care about what someones original intention was for xyz race and whether he or she was a closet xenophobe. It says nothing of peoples intentions or motives decades later. It's one of the standard fallacies of association.

[cutlery]

And then orcs are, what half-orcs currently are?

No, I'd make them mechanically the same race. Culturally, it would depend what their background was, and I don't think every band of hunter-gatherers would be mostly orcs. Or, really, that there would be many bands of hunter-gatherers, but that's a technology and economy problem.

That, or I'd make a grab-bag half-human race and let them select from a set of traits - which would cover half-elves, half-dwarves, etc.

But, I usually dispense with the base races entirely in my settings; especially races with traits like those (which includes elves, dwarves, etc).

They're pretty boring and more of a millstone around the system's neck than they are a feature.

An entire race that has "me smash!" as a defining racial and cultural trait is pretty tired. Folks should have seen this coming the minute half-orcs were added as a core player race.


We'll survive. We survived the removal of gender based strength maximums.

[JackPhoenix]

Giving up on FR is a big thing for WotC, it would have to be a lot of people making that argument.

A lot of people indeed, if the rumors of the content of the contract between Hasbro and Ed Greenwood I've heard are any accurate. As long as it's making any money, they won't get rid of it.

[Boci]

No, I'd make them mechanically the same race. Culturally, it would depend what their background was, and I don't think every band of hunter-gatherers would be mostly orcs. Or, really, that there would be many bands of hunter-gatherers, but that's a technology and economy problem.

So orcs and half-orcs are mechanically the same race, the current human varient race, but humans are different (presumably the default human race, or something new)? Why? Couldn't a half-orc be mechanically identical to the human parent rather than the orc?

But, I usually dispense with the base races entirely in my settings; especially races with traits like those (which includes elves, dwarves, etc).

This seems like a better solution to whatever I'm trying to wrap my head around above. And sure, you'd survive, but it is a loss. The game is now missing something it previously had.

I'm just picturing in my head a fairly standard scene, a tiefling addressing a hafling, and saying "We're both children of the Kaladun Empire, that's what matters", and thinking how much better that line would resonate if the game did have mechanical differences between the two races.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

So orcs are primitive hunters (because hunters societies are primitive, more advanced society tend to gain food primarily from trade and agreculture). That still seems racist.

No, they are skilled hunters (and possibly craftsmen). Having a racial trait does not mean their entire society needs to be based around it. You are also using the word "primitive," which I deliberately avoided.

You're right, a solution isn't neccissary to point out a solution, but if you don't have a solution, and continue to use orcs, then you are in no position to critisize others.

[rlc]

Should giants, as a rule, be stronger than halflings?
Should illithids, as a rule, be smarter than humans?

This just made me think of The Littlest Giant from Ren & Stimpy

[Boci]

No, they are skilled hunters (and possibly craftsmen). Having a racial trait does not mean their entire society needs to be based around it.

So then why is aggressive and primal intuition bad? Just because orcs have that trait doesn't mean their enitre society needs to be based around it.

You are also using the word "primitive," which I deliberately avoided.

You can't have a society that uses hunting as a primary means of gathering food that isn't primative. Its dangerous and unrealiable, a society that can get food through agriculture, domesticated animals and trade will because, its a better method. Oe are you saying your orcs are advanced enough to not need to hunt, but still due so as a cultural tradition common enough to be represented in a universal trait?

And funny picture, but misses a few key details. I have never said you cannot discuss the problem, I discuss the problem myself. I just said it was hypocritical of you to say "Its racist to say all orcs are aggresive and attuned to primal nature. In my setting I make them all good at hunting, strongly implying a primitive hunting based society applies to the whole race". Also society isn't a game. The peasant has no reasonable choice but to participate in a game. You could remove works from your D&D game, or play a different roleplaying game. Terrible comparison.

[zinycor]

This has derailed way too much.

People are giving thisvway too much thought.

Am pretty sure this whole customizing of origin has way more to do with people picking uncommon race/class combinations than it has to do with some sort of campaign for making orcs less racist.

There is already a super cool orc PC race let it go.

[Dork_Forge]

This has derailed way too much.

People are giving thisvway too much thought.

Am pretty sure this whole customizing of origin has way more to do with people picking uncommon race/class combinations than it has to do with some sort of campaign for making orcs less racist.

There is already a super cool orc PC race let it go.

The press release from earlier in the year would disagree with that notion. You don't just upend your established race system for uncommon character concepts that have always been possible.

[zinycor]

The press release from earlier in the year would disagree with that notion. You don't just upend your established race system for uncommon character concepts that have always been possible.

What press release from earlier in the year?

[Boci]

This has derailed way too much.

People are giving thisvway too much thought.

Am pretty sure this whole customizing of origin has way more to do with people picking uncommon race/class combinations than it has to do with some sort of campaign for making orcs less racist.

That has sort of been the point of me and others, though I don't think its unfair to discuss if D&D 6ed does cut/remove a race's mechanical effects in favour of a culture/upbringing one, this will likely be seen as the starting point.

As for the origional discussion, it may have run its course, there's only so many "I like it, it allows new combination to be optimal", "I dislike it, unusual combination aren't special now" version that can be shared, and there are several other threads focusing on the opportunities of this varient rule, winners/losers, let's try and break and also homebrew attempts to redesign races without attribute bonuses.

Ultimatly "Does this fix racism?" may be the only avenue left to discuss, and if so we should probably stop. I will now.

What press release from earlier in the year?

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/fea...ersity-and-dnd

[zinycor]

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/fea...ersity-and-dnd

Excellent. So now with that, I guess the discussion is settled.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

So then why is aggressive and primal intuition bad? Just because orcs have that trait doesn't mean their enitre society needs to be based around it.

Because the traits I mentioned are not rooted in traditional stereotypes.

You can't have a society that uses hunting as a primary means of gathering food that isn't primative. Its dangerous and unrealiable, a society that can get food through agriculture, domesticated animals and trade will because, its a better method. Oe are you saying your orcs are advanced enough to not need to hunt, but still due so as a cultural tradition common enough to be represented in a universal trait?

First of all, this is D&D, I can have a society however I please. Second, while I might consider the latter I am not particularly interested in discussing my hypothetical further. It was an off the cuff response on a web forum. I leave the more thorough solutions to the actual game's developers, with whom the responsibility lies.

And funny picture, but misses a few key details. I have never said you cannot discuss the problem, I discuss the problem myself. I just said it was hypocritical of you to say "Its racist to say all orcs are aggresive and attuned to primal nature. In my setting I make them all good at hunting, strongly implying a primitive hunting based society applies to the whole race". Also society isn't a game. The peasant has no reasonable choice but to participate in a game. You could remove works from your D&D game, or play a different roleplaying game. Terrible comparison.

[Evaar]

Which wouldn't be so notable if orcs normally were that smart, would it? WoW orcs, in general, aren't notably powerful spellcasters in the setting... the few that are are notable exception to the norm. And neither of them would be Int-caster anyway... Gul'dan is a warlock, Ner'zhul was a shaman (however you decide to portray that, still not a wizard) before switching to a warlock, Thrall and pretty much every other non-evil orc caster is also a shaman.

Ruling out Gul'dan as an Int-caster isn't really accurate. For one, Warlocks in Warcraft are intellect based. Of course, that's because there is no Charisma stat.

But also, the way Gul'dan is written is clearly not high Charisma. He's got a decent Deception score, but he is not going to succeed as the frontman for any broad group of people with free will. That's why he never became the Warchief - he picked Blackhand as a puppet, instead. People do not trust him and do not find him inspiring. He's written as a high Intelligence character, with deep knowledge of fel magic (i.e. Arcana).

And lastly, D&D Warlocks aren't really analogous to Warcraft Warlocks. They share a name, and some D&D Warlocks deal with fiends, but that's about it. I think there's a greater argument to make that they are a specialized Wizard utilizing a combination of Necromancy, Conjuration, and Evocation (fire) based spells - Summon Lesser Demon, Summon Greater Demon, Infernal Calling, are not very effective options for D&D Warlocks because they can't upcast.

Shaman I do think is most analogous to a Nature Cleric, so yes all those shaman are Wisdom based. And no, there aren't a ton of high intelligence orcs in the canon - it's probably just Gul'dan and Teron Gorefiend. Plus Ritssyn Flamescowl and Neeru Fireblade, if you want to count some lesser known characters.

But Gul'dan provides a great case for altering the Orc stat bonuses - born into a body considered "twisted" and "weak" by his clan, he was abused and bullied until he found his way to fel magic. This is a dude who could hardly walk without a cane (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3QJ...zMA&index=4932 ). It makes sense for him to start with an 8 in Strength. (And yes later he's quite swole, but that's clearly depicted as unnatural felroids and not typical orcish might.)

Let's also not ignore the fact that the very concept at the core of D&D ("Go someplace dangerous, fight some monsters, take their stuff") is incredibly colonialist when you get right down to it. Like, yes, we can and should craft narratives that are more nuanced than that, but the whole structure of the game is pretty deeply tied to killing some "monsters" who were often just minding their own business and taking some "treasure" that didn't belong to you. It's so deeply ingrained in the game that half the time when I play an Adventurer's League game that's set in a city I have to get in an argument with someone at the table about how no, it's actually pretty wildly inappropriate for us to just take this stuff that's lying around in the house where we're solving a murder mystery or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLUl...1u5UD&index=13

[Theoboldi]

Because the traits I mentioned are not rooted in traditional stereotypes.

Holy crud. Yes, they are. They absolutely are. Are you unaware about the sort of tribal stereotypes applied to the people you claim to be defending?

Look, snappy comebacks and political cartoons aside, you need to actually educate yourself. If you are that unaware about the stereotypes you wish to fight, you will end up only causing harm to the people you wish to defend in the long run.

I am legitimately shocked that you do not know this.

[Boci]

Because the traits I mentioned are not rooted in traditional stereotypes.

Yes they are. Reducing an entire ethnicity to being hunters is not measurably less racist than reducing an entire ethnicity to being aggresive, or stupid.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Holy crud. Yes, they are. They absolutely are. Are you unaware about the sort of tribal stereotypes applied to the people you claim to be defending?

As a member of a completely different minority group, yes, it is entirely possible that I am not aware of how those might be problematic. I am interested in educating myself about how they might be; if you feel able to do so, please PM me the relevant information. Of the list I originally generated I should hope that Brave, Relentless Endurance, and martial weapon training of some sort are acceptable? Regardless, it was a quick response to a forum post. I am certainly open to the idea that I may not have thought all possible implications through.

Regardless, however, I now regret bringing up the example in the first place. Despite their claim of not needing perfectly-reviewed material to the contrary, Boci is evidently more interested in denying any possibility that their position (or their rhetorical approach) is problematic than having a real conversation. They are quite literally paraphrasing the arguments posted in those images; I am not sure what they hope to gain by continuing to do so.

[Boci]

Regardless, however, I now regret bringing up the example in the first place. Despite their claim of not needing perfectly-reviewed material to the contrary, Boci is evidently more interested in denying any possibility that their position (or their rhetorical approach) is problematic than having a real conversation. They are quite literally paraphrasing the arguments posted in those images; I am not sure what they hope to gain by continuing to do so.

I apologize if you feel this way, it wasn't my intention. I rather trying to show how difficult it would be to assign actual mechanical features to orcs given your earlier objections. Basically, if you're going to limit yourself based on what real world racists have said, you'll find they salted a lot of ground, because racism is dumb and doesn't make sense and therefor can say a lot of stuff and even contradict itself.

My point wasn't you were a bad person, but do I feel you should be more careful about accusing others, given that your own idea to fix the problematic portrayal of orcs was arguiably just as problematic. It was a honest mistake and I'm sure its all coming from the right place. No one on this thread likes racism.

I do still maintain that D&D at this point is removed enough from reality to make racism in it not problematic, much like how I don't feel bad committing genocide in 40k, but I don't begrudge you if you want to do that yourself.

[Dork_Forge]

As a member of a completely different minority group, yes, it is entirely possible that I am not aware of how those might be problematic. I am interested in educating myself about how they might be; if you feel able to do so, please PM me the relevant information. Of the list I originally generated I should hope that Brave, Relentless Endurance, and martial weapon training of some sort are acceptable? Regardless, it was a quick response to a forum post. I am certainly open to the idea that I may not have thought all possible implications through.

Regardless, however, I now regret bringing up the example in the first place. Despite their claim of not needing perfectly-reviewed material to the contrary, Boci is evidently more interested in denying any possibility that their position (or their rhetorical approach) is problematic than having a real conversation. They are quite literally paraphrasing the arguments posted in those images; I am not sure what they hope to gain by continuing to do so.

Whenever a specific set of traits are to be assigned to a set of people as a whole it can be stereotyping and problematic. Picking less controversial keywords doesn't change the fact the entire race is being tarred with the same brush so to speak.

This is a game and certain concessions need to be made in order for it to function as such, as long as choosing to be a human, dwarf, orc or whatever else is to be part of the game and a meaningful choice then traits will need to be assigned to them to have mechanical weight and identities. Whilst we should distance ourselves from the missteps of the past we should also recognise that this is a fantasy game with differing species for all intents and purposes and not try and politicise them unnecessarily.

Ethnicities within the game are clearly given detail in the Human section of the PHB, sometimes we shouldn't be so fast to see real life equivalences in fictional beings only to seek offense.

To clarify, if anyone actually does feel offended by any of this, I do not intend to invalidate your feelings or point of view.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

I apologize if you feel this way, it wasn't my intention. I rather trying to show how difficult it would be to assign actual mechanical features to orcs given your earlier objections. Basically, if you're going to limit yourself based on what real world racists have said, you'll find they salted a lot of ground, because racism is dumb and doesn't make sense and therefor can say a lot of stuff and even contradict itself.

My point wasn't you were a bad person, but do I feel you should be more careful about accusing others, given that your own idea to fix the problematic portrayal of orcs was arguiably just as problematic. It was a honest mistake and I'm sure its all coming from the right place. No one on this thread likes racism.

I completely misunderstood you, then. I accept your apology; I, too, am sorry for mischaracterizing you. Given this context, it is far easier to understand what you are trying to say.

I do still maintain that D&D at this point is removed enough from reality to make racism in it not problematic, much like how I don't feel bad committing genocide in 40k, but I don't begrudge you if you want to do that yourself.

My only point is that neither I, many others, nor (according to their press release) Wizards feel that that is the case. I understand your point of view, but I do disagree with it.

Whilst we should distance ourselves from the missteps of the past we should also recognise that this is a fantasy game with differing species for all intents and purposes and not try and politicise them unnecessarily.

Ethnicities within the game are clearly given detail in the Human section of the PHB, sometimes we shouldn't be so fast to see real life equivalences in fictional beings only to seek offense.

Again, look at Wizards' own reply. The Vistani is the clearest example (as they call out the Romani equivalency by name), but the orc and drow portrayals are tabbed as problematic as well. This is not unnecessary politicization--this is a very real issue that the game's creators are attempting to address.

[Amechra]

You can't have a society that uses hunting as a primary means of gathering food that isn't primative. Its dangerous and unrealiable, a society that can get food through agriculture, domesticated animals and trade will because, its a better method. Oe are you saying your orcs are advanced enough to not need to hunt, but still due so as a cultural tradition common enough to be represented in a universal trait?.

The funny/sad thing here is that the opinion that a society that runs on agriculture/domestication/trade is necessarily "less primitive" than a society that doesn't is in and of itself quite problematic. Agricultural/pastoral societies are, by their very nature, hungry for land - and what better way of getting it than taking it from those guys over there that aren't using their land "properly"?

The thing is, it's more of a spectrum than a binary thing. A lot of hunter/gatherer cultures engage in trade, perform some land husbandry, or have some domesticated animals. And that's before you get to stuff like nomadic herders or people who subsist primarily on fishing, who don't fit too cleanly into one category or the other.

But yeah - at the end of the day, our sedentary/hierarchical/literate society is going to prize those things and call them "advanced" and "civilized". That doesn't necessarily mean that they actually are.

[Boci]

I completely misunderstood you, then. I accept your apology; I, too, am sorry for mischaracterizing you. Given this context, it is far easier to understand what you are trying to say.

As for how to portray orcs, someone else mention using vhuman stats, which works because that mechanic has no specific identity, but ofcourse its limited in that you can only assign to identity to 2 maybe 3 races. Martial weapons and bold are better, but still go to the warrior culture that does have some real world ties. I considered survivor themed abilitities, I use it for humans, but for other races it has the same issue, since cockroaches are assoaicated with survival and its a common slur.

My prefered method would still be to shift the focus from racial traits to cultural traits. Pick 6 or so major nations/factions in your world and decide what a member of anyrace growing up in that enviroment would elan, but it is quite a big change and a fair bit of work.

My only point is that neither I, many others, nor (according to their press release) Wizards feel that that is the case. I understand your point of view, but I do disagree with it.

The press release is interesting. As a Magic the Gathering fan as well it has been good to see the drive for diversity giving really cool art for characters often neglected in visual representation for fantasy. However I do wonder how far they intend to go with it:

"We present orcs and drow in a new light in two of our most recent books, Eberron: Rising from the Last War and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples."

This to me read they feel that for orcs and drow at least, it mission accomplished. The Eberron and Wildemount orcs are the fixed version. They even say "We will continue that approach in future books". For the first point at least, it seems they already done what they wanted to do, they've set a new standard that they will maintain.

Its good that they're fixing problematic portayals, Romani especially. I don't not what was problomatic about Tomb of Annihilation, but given the jungle setting I can take a guess, and the revised module can only be better.

The funny/sad thing here is that the opinion that a society that runs on agriculture/domestication/trade is necessarily "less primitive" than a society that doesn't is in and of itself quite problematic.

I can sort of sea that, but I was going with the definition: "very basic or unsophisticated in terms of comfort, convenience, or efficiency."

Isn't that still true? I don't think hunting is as comfortable, convienient or efficient as other methods of getting food. I apreciate it can often be more complicated than that, but that just life, you can right books and books on the smallest aspect of it.

[Zhorn]

The Vistani thing I see as the only point that is relevant to the whole "let's avoid negative race based stereotypes"

For any of the other fantasy races/species/heritages that are not humans, I've ceased to care about the argument of the perceived problem.
They are not human, humans are humans, the rest are make believe.
The people arguing they are human allegories are not interested in a discussion unless the response is "you are right and every person that disagrees has some deep rooted internalised <blank>-ist attitude"

just no

The people enjoying this game are not bad people for enjoying fantasy tropes

Take you activism and leave it in the real world where it belongs.