"Customizing your Origin in D&D"

[Xervous]

I'd not thought of that, but I suspect that you are correct.

Is it too cynical of me to observe that it fits with the minimal effort, maximize audience approach of 5e?

Multiple aspects of Eberron annoy me and I'd be very disappointed if it became the default but I have to concede it's popularity.

Eberron is odd in that I love certain parts of it dearly and find other portions anathema to my story desires. Generally speaking it’s themes I appreciate like Stormreach as a city of misfits and money chasers, xendrik for the blank slate exploration options and delineation of “cross this line and things get weird”, a great conflict having weakened most political entities and other more mobile organizations having great influence. I just don’t like the better half of the flavoring that makes Eberron what it is. Warforged, changelings, my hair thin tolerance for ham handed presentation of dragons...

Evil dream genies broadcasting 5G signals though... that’s a good one.

[Boci]

Earlier in this thread, there were people expressing the preference for the retconning of elements in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting to make it less problematic, and that's one of the things WotC seems to want to do with the setting anyway.

Ah okay I missed that. Yes, I feel that's a bad idea, its a bit too ingrained. Either continuing with new guidlines in mind and progress, or make a new setting, trying to whitewash FR doesn't seem like a good idea.

P.S. That last point is actually partially why I dislike when people compare Tolkein-Orcs to D&D-Orcs, since the former is never stated to be less intelligent than the Eldar or Edain. In fact, it'd be reasonable to say they're more technologically advanced in certain ways. The D&D-Orcs really only borrow a few aspects of the appearance from Tolkien-Orcs, and aside from appearance, only keep the "all evil". There are setting reasons for why they're all evil in Tolkien's world that are lazily used with broad strokes in D&D in general.

Plus Tolkien's orcs weren't good warriors. Tolkien is responsible for establishing orcs as part of mainstream fantasy, but of the Middle Earth races that have become a part od D&D, orcs are quite different, unlike elves, dwarves and halflings.

[RossN]

That ignores the main reason people were against Orcs in D&D (and why it was trending on Twitter for a while). It makes sense that some races (which in the PHB is equated to species) would be more or less intelligent than humans. In fact, with my "Hominids" example, I'd say it's reasonable to say that some of those might have a Constitution or Strength bonus while having an Intelligence or Charisma penalty when compared to Sapiens (irony not lost on me).

But in practice, reflavored humanity with "big but dumb" is treated as problematic because that has roots in racist thought.

P.S. That last point is actually partially why I dislike when people compare Tolkein-Orcs to D&D-Orcs, since the former is never stated to be less intelligent than the Eldar or Edain. In fact, it'd be reasonable to say they're more technologically advanced in certain ways. The D&D-Orcs really only borrow a few aspects of the appearance from Tolkien-Orcs, and aside from appearance, only keep the "all evil". There are setting reasons for why they're all evil in Tolkien's world that are lazily used with broad strokes in D&D in general.

From there, the major arguments against Tolkien-Orcs are the ways they're described, but as someone else said in the thread, "what a surprise that a man born in the 1800s might be racist!" What was not considered problematic writing back then is seen as problematic now.

I realise that this is a sensitive topic but "big but dumb" doesn't necessarily, or even primarily map onto modern racism. Polyphemus was a big, scary looking dumb guy who ate people. To the Romans the hairy, savage barbarians were the Gauls, Britons and Germans.

I suppose part of my feelings on this topic come from not being American (and yes I know D&D is an American game.) I'm from Ireland and for me the mental image of 'savage barbarian invader' conjures up something more like this:

[Boci]

I realise that this is a sensitive topic but "big but dumb" doesn't necessarily, or even primarily map onto modern racism. Polyphemus was a big, scary looking dumb guy who ate people. To the Romans the hairy, savage barbarians were the Gauls, Britons and Germans.

But that was racism. Not modern racism, but still racism.

Racism was a very common belief for a lot of human history, that's why its pops up in a lot of games as a deliberate theme, D&D is set in a time inspired by the real world were racism was much more common.

[Wildstag]

I just don’t like the better half of the flavoring that makes Eberron what it is. Warforged, changelings, my hair thin tolerance for ham handed presentation of dragons...

Evil dream genies broadcasting 5G signals though... that’s a good one.

I actually liked how the "Races of Eberron" book handled Changelings, since it actually shows the earliest inklings of the current discourse in WotC's productions. The Changeling chapter has an entire section on gender identity as a Changeling, and the whole "Becomer, Passer, Reality Seekers" divide provides for a different outlook on the issues from an intra-racial divide perspective.

It shows that they were thinking about these things even back then, and it makes the race feel more "alive" than many other races in the "Races of X" product line. The only one that feels similarly "alive" is the Goliath race to me, and interestingly enough, both were new to 3E and the latter was entirely new to the sourcebook.

[RossN]

Ah okay I missed that. Yes, I feel that's a bad idea, its a bit too ingrained. Either continuing with new guidlines in mind and progress, or make a new setting, trying to whitewash FR doesn't seem like a good idea.



Plus Tolkien's orcs weren't good warriors. Tolkien is responsible for establishing orcs as part of mainstream fantasy, but of the Middle Earth races that have become a part od D&D, orcs are quite different, unlike elves, dwarves and halflings.

Somewhere along the way the idea of orcs as physically superhuman really took hold. I actually find kobolds and goblins much more interesting for exactly that reason - they have to be cunning to survive in a world where most of their enemies are taller and tougher than them.

[cutlery]

Ah okay I missed that. Yes, I feel that's a bad idea, its a bit too ingrained. Either continuing with new guidlines in mind and progress, or make a new setting, trying to whitewash FR doesn't seem like a good idea.

FR isn't history, it is a fictional setting. They can change it.

No, Drow used to be neutral evil, not chaotic. Lolth was chaotic yes, as a demon goddess, but drow society was neutral evil. They were structured to be chatoic.

This is wrong.

The books that essentially made them anything other than statblocks underscored the chaos of drow society at every turn. And you know that is exactly what Salvatore meant because he kept referring to characters by their class and spells and abilities by name.

In the 2e Monstrous Manual, Drow were CE.

The didn't even have a full entry in the 1e manual. They were originally capital C capital E. Some Drow NPCs in some crpg games (e.g. Baldur's Gate 2) were NE, but they are exceptions.

[Pex]

For those whom it would be a problem there is another problem that rivals Mountain Dwarf Anything.

Changeling Anything
+3 to any one ability score.
Using Point Buy anyone can have an 18 at first level for anything. I don't mind an 18 at 1st level, but it might bother others.

[cutlery]

For those whom it would be a problem there is another problem that rivals Mountain Dwarf Anything.

Changeling Anything
+3 to any one ability score.
Using Point Buy anyone can have an 18 at first level for anything. I don't mind an 18 at 1st level, but it might bother others.

If it bothers them, it's their own fault for playing in the Eberron setting.

[JackPhoenix]

For those whom it would be a problem there is another problem that rivals Mountain Dwarf Anything.

Changeling Anything
+3 to any one ability score.
Using Point Buy anyone can have an 18 at first level for anything. I don't mind an 18 at 1st level, but it might bother others.

Nope. You explicitly can't put the +2 and +1 in the same stat, per the OP: "If you’d like your character to follow their own path, you may ignore your Ability Score Increase trait and assign ability score increases tailored to your character. Here’s how to do it: take any ability score increase you gain in your race or subrace and apply it to an ability score of your choice. If you gain more than one increase, you can’t apply those increases to the same ability score, and you can’t increase a score above 20."

[Wildstag]

FR isn't history, it is a fictional setting. They can change it.

The campaign setting is not earth-and-human history, but it is a story setting that has existed in a relatively constant manner for close to half a century. To change it by saying "all the past edition lore was wrong, races were ALWAYS meant to be this way" would be changing it in a disgusting way, and that's apparently the direction that WotC is intending to go.

So yes, they can change it. Whether or not it is morally okay to do so is the issue. If you erase the past and pretend it never happened, and tell people that the past was always meant to be a new way, you end up with something akin to the Protestant Reformation: an attempted rewriting of the past and canon of a work to fit a more modern mindset. There is nothing to really prove that such a thing was good. It made some people more satisfied with what they had, but it wasn't a universal feeling.

Granted, WotC owns The Forgotten Realms, and there's probably contractual things going on behind the scenes that would allow them to outright change aspects of the setting (according to Greenwood, it's already been heavily edited to fit a more mainstream audience), but if it changes enough to not really be what it once was? Why not have just made an entirely new setting? Why change what exists instead of making something entirely new? Isn't that mindset why we even have a 5E in the first place, and not a 3.9.5?

[cutlery]

So yes, they can change it. Whether or not it is morally okay to do so is the issue. If you erase the past and pretend it never happened, and tell people that the past was always meant to be a new way, you end up with something akin to the Protestant Reformation: an attempted rewriting of the past and canon of a work to fit a more modern mindset. There is nothing to really prove that such a thing was good. It made some people more satisfied with what they had, but it wasn't a universal feeling.

The only moral value that matters to WotC here is money.

Anyway; huge regions of the FR are unmapped, and that includes the Underdark. Adding in some non-evil cultures of various races wouldn't be that hard. They have already moved well away from the "good vs evil" setup in previous renditions. The setting has been constantly changing. They would be best served to do it carefully, but it would not be that hard to do.

[RossN]

But that was racism. Not modern racism, but still racism.

Racism was a very common belief for a lot of human history, that's why its pops up in a lot of games as a deliberate theme, D&D is set in a time inspired by the real world were racism was much more common.

I think there is a distinction between 'modern' Enlightenment onwards racism and the ethnocentrism of Classical Antiquity and the Dark Ages. And to be honest I'm sure very few people would care if they saw the Orcs as the Germans in Gladiator or the ridiculously anachronistic 'Celts' in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves.

I've seen many, many depictions of Vikings who'd map very easily onto Orcs.



(From 'The Secret of Kells'.)

[Boci]

FR isn't history, it is a fictional setting. They can change it.

Yes they can, but that could touch on whitewashing territory, pretending it never happened. It would mroe elegent to start a new I feel, make sure there is a setting is fresh and largely unmarred by old ideas.

This is wrong.

Not in 3e, the edition Wizards of the Coast made. The majority of drow were NE, not CE.

I think there is a distinction between 'modern' Enlightenment onwards racism and the ethnocentrism of Classical Antiquity and the Dark Ages.

There obviously is, but parralels can still be drawn. "Big, strong and dumb" is certainly someting you'll find in modern racism. And it basically be code for "too stupid to reason with, too dangerous to ignore.

[cutlery]

Yes they can, but that could touch on whitewashing territory, pretending it never happened. It would mroe elegent to start a new I feel.

They'll never stop selling those books. It's not too terribly difficult to advance the setting a few decades and shift the focus elsewhere.

Not in 3e, the edition Wizards of the Coast made.

You can have all of FR stuff be canonical or it can me remade as we wish, but it can't be both.

If all of the stuff relating to the drow prior to 3e doesn't matter, then they can retcon all they like.

[Wildstag]

The only moral value that matters to WotC here is money.

Anyway; huge regions of the FR are unmapped, and that includes the Underdark. Adding in some non-evil cultures of various races wouldn't be that hard. They have already moved well away from the "good vs evil" setup in previous renditions. The setting has been constantly changing. They would be best served to do it carefully, but it would not be that hard to do.

This argument would hold more water if they were not hyperfocused (tunnel-vision-ing) on the Sword Coast, which has specific Underdark and Surface communities. If they chose to make a campaign set on the Sea of Fallen Stars or the Dalelands, or Halruaa, or even further east where things weren't as set in stone or well-known, it would be less of an issue to the large majority of those against the current setting changes.

In general, the cultures of the Sword Coast haven't changed throughout the editions its been published, it's remained relatively constant. What's changed is the landscape and political maps (country borders, new countries, etc.). Spontaneously rewriting cultures is just bizarre to me.

[Boci]

They'll never stop selling those books. It's not too terribly difficult to advance the setting a few decades and shift the focus elsewhere.

"20 years pased and the world stopped being racist" is arguably not a good solution.

You can have all of FR stuff be canonical or it can me remade as we wish, but it can't be both.

I don't want both. I really don't care about FR. I'm just saying its got recognition and I feel WotC would need quite a big uproar from their fanbase to majorly shake it up.

If all of the stuff relating to the drow prior to 3e doesn't matter, then they can retcon all they like.

Its not all or nothing, you can make small changes, like drow alighment, whilst keeping the major stuff. Removing the problematic elements of FR would likely be a very big change, very difficult to do elegantly.

[cutlery]

Spontaneously rewriting cultures is just bizarre to me.

Easy - just a sourcebook from a different culture's perspective.


I wouldn't mind a new setting, but of course they can retcon the snot out of FR as they like. They've already done it.

[Zhorn]

There's a whole lot of sub components of this discussion that I think if they could be kept in isolation would be much easier to get a handle on WHAT people actually think about each aspect, and would be much more reasonable in getting a solution that can give all parties what they want.

For example: I'm in full support of another setting being made with any/all of the changes people want.
Get all you're muscle-gnomes, dex-dwarfs and brain-orcs going on there. All the more power to you. And with the amount of complaints I hear along the line of "eww Forgotten Realms, why can't we play a different setting"
Play a different setting. Promote it, share it, make THAT setting as popular and dominant as you like.

Don't like Forgotten Realms and the depictions and fantasy tropes it uses? Don't play it. But don't try and tear it down, some of us like that. And that doesn't make anyone a bad person for wanting to maintain a setting with the tropes used in it as is.


Floating racial ASIs I don't like because it adds to the erosion of what makes the races different from one another. I hate slippery slope arguments, but you just know the next thing will be a push for floating racial features too. There's already people asking for that. Why bother playing with fantasy races if you're stripping out all the things that make them different from one another.
This is nothing to do with "more diverse options", the options already exist.
This floating stats/features thing is just min-max nonsense


"...but Tolkien something something problematic..."
Take literally any fictional genre and trace back over a few dozen iterations, you'll find skeletons in anyone's closet if you're intending to find them.
The modern day thing we are enjoying isn't that other thing.
Put your energy into making something new, you'll get more support.
The preaching and attacking (be it against a specific media or the people that enjoy said media, or a thing several creations removed) is tiresome and unproductive.


"...but the diversity and dragons article..."
was a mixed bag and was all over the place
Vistani negative stereotypes? Fair point, worth at least a bit of attention.
Racist orcs and dark elves? Fantasy race, not human allegories, move on to something productive.
Changing heritage? min-max nonsense, don't care, it's not 'fixing' anything of the above points.


"...characters are useless with less than a 17 stat..."
nope, 14's and 15's are perfectly viable for level's 1-4, and as long as your DM is sticking close to the recommended encounter difficulties and adventuring days, you can get pretty dang far in less than a 16 primary.
3d6 down the line can actually be pretty fun.

[RossN]

There obviously is, but parralels can still be drawn. "Big, strong and dumb" is certainly someting you'll find in modern racism. And it basically be code for "too stupid to reason with, too dangerous to ignore.

The issue is that reading modern racism into a trope doesn't necessarily make it true or appropriate.

Again I think this gets back to cultural difference. If your standard image of a "big, strong and dumb" warrior is more like a Viking or a Saxon (as it would be for Ireland and most of Europe) then should it be treated in the same manner as an American perception of same?

[Boci]

"...but Tolkien something something problematic..."
Take literally any fictional genre and trace back over a few dozen iterations, you'll find skeletons in anyone's closet if you're intending to find them.
The modern day thing we are enjoying isn't that other thing.
Put your energy into making something new, you'll get more support.
The preaching and attacking (be it against a specific media or the people that enjoy said media, or a thing several creations removed) is tiresome and unproductive.

So you aknolwedge that Tolkien was problematic, but feel its tiresome and unproductive to talk about it? You can talk about it without attacking anyone. I have a friend who likes the Cthulu Mythos, and will happily discuss Lovecraft's racism and how it seemed to influence his work.

The issue is that reading modern racism into a trope doesn't necessarily make it true or appropriate.

Doesn't neccissarily, but nor do I think its impossible that in the Roman time, "big, dumb and strong" wasn't taken to mean "too stupid to reason with, too dangerous to ignore".

[Segev]

Easy - just a sourcebook from a different culture's perspective.


I wouldn't mind a new setting, but of course they can retcon the snot out of FR as they like. They've already done it.

Not impossible to do, and, in fact, can be a great way to depict different cultures as "good guys" and "bad guys." The various Clan books in L5R tended to be from that Clan's perspective, and painted that Clan as having the Right Philosophy and the others as being more or less wrong depending on how much the Clans' philosophies differed from the one whose book you were reading.

The best example of this, I think, that I've seen is sadly incomplete. C^ontinuum is a game about time travelers, and at first the bias is either so subtle or so complete and played so straight that it takes a while to realize, but I'm 95% sure that there was a conscious decision in writing the core book that it would be thoroughly from the perspective of the Inheritors and "Loyal Spanners" (who believe that time is destined to lead to the Inheritors, and that disloyalty to this cause is doomed to failure and misery for themselves), and is in fact propaganda wherever it touches on the nature of time travel, fixed timelines, etc. It covers the rules objectively, but not the setting reasons behind them. However, it does it so thoroughly that you could believe it is the in-universe lesson given, with an expectation that people would honestly believe it. (A lot of the time, writers of this sort of thing go over-the-top or semi-sardonic to show that they, the author, know it's full of nonsense and indicate to the reader that they should think so, too. Not so, here.)

I heard they planned to release a supplement book for the primary rival faction, and I suspect that it would have been written from their perspective just as thoroughly.

Writing books like that for various cultures and regions in a fantasy setting would work well for conveying their view on how things work, and would also be interesting for readers who see multiple such works to determine the real truth from the conflicting views given by the propaganda-laden lenses and biases of the perspectives.

[Zhorn]

So you aknolwedge that Tolkien was problematic, but feel its tiresome and unproductive to talk about it? You can talk about it without attacking anyone. I have a friend who likes the Cthulu Mythos, and will happily discuss Lovecraft's racism and how it seemed to influence his work.

It's tiresome to insist modern D&D settings are problematic because of things in Tolkien being problematic; different fictions.
Sure they are under the same umbrella of fantasy with orcs and elves, but so is warhammer and warcraft, and they are all VERY different takes
If talking about playing a LotR setting, sure, go nuts about that, but Tolkien didn't write forgotten realms.

[RossN]

So you aknolwedge that Tolkien was problematic, but feel its tiresome and unproductive to talk about it? You can talk about it without attacking anyone. I have a friend who likes the Cthulu Mythos, and will happily discuss Lovecraft's racism and how it seemed to influence his work.

We've had people in this thread who implied that wanting to keep mental Attribute bonuses for different fictional non-human species was at best a sign of insensitivity and at worst actual racism.

[Boci]

It's tiresome to insist modern D&D settings are problematic because of things in Tolkien being problematic; different fictions.

Different fictions yes, but no one argues D&D isn't indebted to Tolkien, or if they do, they're wrong. I don't mind orcs having an int penalty, because they're fantasy races, but I do feel its improtant people understand the roots of this. People should probably know the founder of D&D said "nits produce lice" to justify killing orc children, a quote origionally attributed to an army officer involving native americans. D&D has come a long way from there, but I don't feel we should talk about what it use to be. We can still enjoy what orcs have become and aknolwedge what they once were.

We've had people in this thread who implied that wanting to keep mental Attribute bonuses for different fictional non-human species was at best a sign of insensitivity and at worst actual racism.

I know, I got called that too, because I don't mind orcs with int penalties. My point is I feel there is some middle ground between "orcs are racist" and lets never talk about the racist roots of modern fantasy".

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Racist orcs and dark elves? Fantasy race, not human allegories, move on to something productive.

Hi, there's a lot of offensive and inflammatory language in your post but I just want to hyperfocus on this for a second to respond to it.

Orcs and dark elves are absolutely coded as human allegories. Orcs specifically as the barbaric "other". A lot of the same things you can say about Orcs are the same thing racists have been saying about other human races on this planet for years. You cannot use the exact same logic racists use ("they're stupid, strong, violent, and a danger to society!") and then act like there's no baggage there. DnD and the fantasy races therein were not designed in a vacuum, they were designed by humans and they have a lot to say about the way humans view other cultures and society.

And Drow were literally designed as the "evil elf" race, and the main visual differentiator between them and other elves was...black skin. You really can't just paper over that with "It's all fantasy!", that's being deliberately obtuse. There's a reason there's a big push towards getting rid of any "always evil" humanoids, and its because this sort of thing is just outright unacceptable when it maps towards real-world racism so very easily. Stat bonuses for races are a similar problem where you're declaring unilaterally that certain races are outright superior to others based on their genetic heritage which is similarly bad and is being left behind as this newer, more diverse generation is getting into DnD and recognizing the implicit racism in many of its mechanics that went unnoticed or even appreciated before.

[Boci]

And Drow were literally designed as the "evil elf" race, and the main visual differentiator between them and other elves was...black skin. You really can't just paper over that with "It's all fantasy!", that's being deliberately obtuse. There's a reason there's a big push towards getting rid of any "always evil" humanoids, and its because this sort of thing is just outright unacceptable when it maps towards real-world racism so very easily.

For humanoids there is also the children concern is you have an always evil race. Easily dealt with for DM, just never have orc children appear in the story, but its still going to be an world building question. Demons being always evil is fine, since they come into existence fully grown, plus being literal monsters helps them to be removed from real world racism.

As for dark = bad, that a thing in fantasy. How much should it be eliminated if you don't mind me asking? Should Graz'zt go or be redesigned to look less like a black guy with horns? Should black magic and white magic be dropped (did D&D drop it? I can't think of a specific example, but I feel the theme is still part of the game)? Black knight/white knight? Or is this only a problem when applied to skin colour?

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

For humanoids there is also the children concern is you have an always evil race. Easily dealt with for DM, just never have orc children appear in the story, but its still going to be an world building question. Demons being always evil is fine, since they come into existence fully grown, plus being literal monsters helps them to be removed from real world racism.

As for dark = bad, that a thing in fantasy. How much should it be eliminated if you don't mind me asking? Should Graz'zt go or be redesigned to look less like a black guy with horns? Should black magic and white magic be dropped (did D&D drop it? I can't think of a specific example, but I feel the theme is still part of the game)? Black knight/white knight? Or is this only a problem when applied to skin colour?

Yeah, Gygax is on record saying that there was no issue with a lawful good paladin would be morally obligated to kill an orcish child, which is... morally repugnant, to say the least. There's a lot of really bad stuff in the history of DnD and all fantasy stuff, really, and we should work as hard as we can to excise it and be as inclusive as possible.

As for the second question, I'm not really sure. I personally don't see as much of a problem with say, black magic/white magic (I guess I see them more as a Yin/Yang type thing, than having racial connotations) but I also feel like I'm not really qualified to make a statement there. I'm not a member of any historically marginalized group, I just have friends who are and I've heard them speak on some of these issues before, so I'd rather hear the opinions from people in those groups on whether it's okay or not before I came down either way. My personal feeling is that the source of some of those things, like black knight/white knight might not be rooted in racist ideology but I'm just not educated enough on that to speak definitively.

[LudicSavant]

The difference between a 15 and a 16 isn't tiny, though. If you're talking about dex, for example, that's +1 to your initiative, to what is arguably the most common (maybe 2nd most? not sure) save in the game, to a suite of some of the most important skill rolls in the game (including stealth which is basically necessary for a rogue and directly contributes to DPR in some situations), to your armor class, to your to hit chance, and to your damage. That all adds up in a very significant way, it isn't just a "new player" issue. Even just focusing on DPR instead of the other fringe benefits, it's a huge benefit! Look at what LudicSavant posted earlier in the thread:



A ~22 % DPR increase is by no means tiny. Its frankly ridiculous to throw a player 20% behind other players based off their racial choice, it just plain should not function like that. Honestly, just rid the game of ability scores altogether and make everything scale off a larger proficiency bonus to compensate. That way no one is left in the dust because they chose an "incorrect" race/class combo like orc wizard.

Even if you want to maintain after all of this, that the difference is negligible... Then what is the harm in letting that orc wizard make up the "negligible" difference? There is none.

Yep. It's a pretty impactful difference. And that was just the difference to attack; your primary stat will affect a bunch of other things about your character too, and they all tend to have a compounding effect like that.

Getting the wrong statline is a big deal unless you're getting something very valuable in exchange. There's only a few examples of that... Yuan-Ti, Goblins, and Jorasco Halflings have benefits that are synergistic enough for certain classes that they can offset having the wrong statline, for example. But they are very much the exception to the rule.

And (for reasons well-established earlier in the thread) it doesn't even do anything flavorwise, other than your flavor being that you're a worse character overall who contributes less to the party.

[Boci]

And (for reasons well-established earlier in the thread) it doesn't even do anything flavorwise, other than your flavor being that you're a worse character overall who contributes less to the party.

As I said, I feel the state line I had for my drow druid was influenced by the race's stat mods. It was more flavourful in that it gave the drow druid a different stateline than a druid of another race would have. I was quite happy with it.

Yeah, Gygax is on record saying that there was no issue with a lawful good paladin would be morally obligated to kill an orcish child, which is... morally repugnant, to say the least. There's a lot of really bad stuff in the history of DnD and all fantasy stuff, really, and we should work as hard as we can to excise it and be as inclusive as possible.

Yeah, he said a quote attributed to an army offical on the matter. I was shocked when I first heared it. Also, edited this in, incase you missed it and don't mind talkign about it:

As for dark = bad, that a thing in fantasy. How much should it be eliminated if you don't mind me asking? Should Graz'zt go or be redesigned to look less like a black guy with horns? Should black magic and white magic be dropped (did D&D drop it? I can't think of a specific example, but I feel the theme is still part of the game)? Black knight/white knight? Or is this only a problem when applied to skin colour?

As for drow, would a quick and easy fix be to go the warhammer route, and make the difference purely political? Appearance-wise they look like high elves (with maybe violet eyes as a tell/side effect of their superior darkvision and sunlight sensitivity)?