"Customizing your Origin in D&D"

[KorvinStarmast]

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

Yes, it is for my money a bit too cynical for you to paint 5e with that broad of a brush. They put a lot of effort into D&D Next/5e. The play testing with a lot of fan / community / player involvement was non trivial. (Their estimated numbers is 175 000 people took part in that to one layer of depth or another; if you check out the video in MaxWilson's signature, it's interesting to see some of the behind the scenes on "what does one do with player feedback" which we can still see in the feedback from various UA articles)

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

No. Racism, as a formulated and descriptive concept, is a child of fairly recent Western Civilization's philosophy. I find your post hoc / ex post facto assertion unsupportable. Since I found the response that refers to ethnocentrism a better reply than what I had to offer, I'll stop there.

I just had an idea, though. Maybe not a great one, but an idea.

Maybe, just maybe, the setting needs to be lethal. Like Darksun. It's a survivalist/post apocalyptic kind of setting. The world is just so darned dangerous that people (the various humanoids) can't afford the luxury of that kind of thinking. They need each other just to scrape by, to survive. Zhorn made a comment about a new/better setting to emphasize this kind of mind set. I think Dark Sun would be a fine vehicle for that.

Will they do that? I am not going to bet a lot in Vegas on that prospect.

[Zhorn]

I'm really going to regret this... it's just not worth the brain space:

what colour(s) of non-real and non-human fantasy creatures are going to be the non-problematic ones that won't result is someone claiming "this is clearly a not-so-subtle coding to represent such and such a group"?
or what bipedal creature with two arms than uses tools/weapons will be acceptable to be the bad guys in a game with fighting monsters?
how much of any level of culture is allowed before it is too close in some aspect to something that has existed in the incredibly broad spectrum of all of human history that is entirely immune to drawing any tenuous parallels that may cause offense?

as I said... this is just tiresome and unproductive.

[Boci]

No. Racism, as a formulated and descriptive concept, is a child of fairly recent Western Civilization's Philosophy. I find your post hoc attribution unsupportable. (I also found the response that refers to ethnocentrism a far better reply than what I think I had to offer, so I'll stop there).

I don't find "Its not racism, its ethnocentrism" a productive distinction for talking problematic elements in a game. Sure, you're right, but it doesn't really matter. Its ethnocentrism, still problematic by modern standards.

I'm really going to regret this... it's just not worth the brain space:

what colour(s) of non-real and non-human fantasy creatures are going to be the non-problematic ones that won't result is someone claiming "this is clearly a not-so-subtle coding to represent such and such a group"?

Probably the colours that aren't used to describe real world ethnicites. I believe that's green, blue, gold, silver, purple, that kind.

or what bipedal creature with two arms than uses tools/weapons will be acceptable to be the bad guys in a game with fighting monsters?

Probably non-humanoids. Demons, aberrations, fey.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

I'm really going to regret this... it's just not worth the brain space:

what colour(s) of non-real and non-human fantasy creatures are going to be the non-problematic ones that won't result is someone claiming "this is clearly a not-so-subtle coding to represent such and such a group"?
or what bipedal creature with two arms than uses tools/weapons will be acceptable to be the bad guys in a game with fighting monsters?
how much is any culture is allowed before it is too close in some aspect to something that has existed in the incredibly broad spectrum of all of human history that is entirely immune to drawing any tenuous parallels that may cause offense?

as I said... this is just tiresome and unproductive.

Why would I engage with you and answer any of your questions when you're starting off with "This isn't worth the brain space, this is tiresome and unproductive"? Not really conducive to a conversation of any kind.

I would like to just say one thing: To some people, these things are very important and it may be worth examining just why that is.

[Dork_Forge]

Probably the colours that aren't used to describe real world ethnicites. I believe that's green, blue, gold, silver, purple, that kind.

You mean green... like Orcs?

[diplomancer]

One thing I don't get about the "I want to play my character concept without being suboptimal" thing, usually coupled with "I'm not one of those *optimizers*, I just want to play the character I want without being penalized for it" is that, well, this change changes very little.

You are still penalized, except now, instead of being penalized for playing a mountain dwarf wizard, you are now penalized for playing a non-variant human anything (so if you have a "cool concept" for a human in a no feat game, you are out of luck). You are rewarded for playing a Yuan-Ti anything (which means you will feel behind if everyone chose the now most optimal mechanical races and you chose a subpar race for your cool concept, which is the exact situation that existed before this change).

Also, you are still penalized if your cool concept involves, say, dual-wielding clubs, because dual wielding clubs is a horrible mechanic choice.
You are penalized if your concept involves "green dragon origin sorcerer", because acid spells suck.
And heaven forbid if your cool concept is a strong Rogue that bashes people over their head.

[Boci]

You mean green... like Orcs?

Tolkien's orcs weren't green.

You are still penalized, except now, instead of being penalized for playing a mountain dwarf wizard, you are now penalized for playing a non-variant human anything (so if you have a "cool concept" for a human in a no feat game, you are out of luck). You are rewarded for playing a Yuan-Ti anything (which means you will feel behind if everyone chose the now most optimal mechanical races and you chose a subpar race for your cool concept, which is the exact situation that existed before this change).

To be fair you were always penalized for playing non-varient humans. There was always a better choice.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

You mean green... like Orcs?

The problem with orcs isn't their skin color, it's the "savage, stupid, dangerous, uncivilized barbarian race" part that directly maps to real life racist beliefs that's the problem.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't find "Its not racism, its ethnocentrism" a productive distinction

I don't find the careless use of the term 'racism' to be productive at all, and I see far too much of it in this thread's discussion.
See you in another thread, hopefully, I think this thread is in its terminal stages.

[Boci]

The problem with orcs isn't their skin color, it's the "savage, stupid, dangerous, uncivilized barbarian race" part that directly maps to real life racist beliefs that's the problem.

And the fact that Tolkien and D&D describe them as having dark skin doesn't help I feel.

I don't find the careless use of the term 'racism' to be productive at all, and I see far too much of it in this thread's discussion.

Racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group"

I don't think I'm being unfair calling the romans out for that.

I just had an idea, though. Maybe not a great one, but an idea.

Maybe, just maybe, the setting needs to be lethal. Like Darksun. It's a survivalist/post apocalyptic kind of setting. The world is just so darned dangerous that people (the various humanoids) can't afford the luxury of that kind of thinking. They need each other just to scrape by, to survive. Zhorn made a comment about a new/better setting to emphasize this kind of mind set. I think Dark Sun would be a fine vehicle for that.

There's a difference between intentional and unintentional racism. Intentionally exploring racism and even making the world racist to reflect that is fine, as long as everyone involved is okay with that game. Unintentional racism is where it becomes problematic. I imagine most people using the underdark drow cities don't want to explore the racist implications of them drow's design.

[Segev]

One thing I don't get about the "I want to play my character concept without being suboptimal" thing, usually coupled with "I'm not one of those *optimizers*, I just want to play the character I want without being penalized for it" is that, well, this change changes nothing.

You are still penalized, except now, instead of being penalized for playing a mountain dwarf wizard, you are now penalized for playing a non-variant human anything (so if you have a "cool concept" for a human in a no feat game, you are out of luck). You are rewarded for playing a Yuan-Ti anything (which means you will feel behind if everyone chose the now most optimal mechanical races and you chose a subpar race for your cool concept, which is the exact situation that existed before this change).

Also, you are still penalized if your cool concept involves, say, dual-wielding clubs, because dual wielding clubs is a horrible mechanic choice.
You are penalized if your concept involves "green dragon origin sorcerer", because acid spells suck.
And heaven forbid if your cool concept is a strong Rogue that bashes people over their head.

Thank you for putting it so clearly. The notion of this fixing a problem other than allowing optimizers to optimize harder is ... flawed.

[OldTrees1]

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.

I would still call that a tiny difference. Especially since it gets smaller when accounting the other sources of damage classes get. 2d6+5, or 1d8+3d8+5, or 5d6+5, or 1d8+1d6+4+5 instead of 1d8+5 tells a different story. (Although I do think it was wise to compare +4 vs +5 instead of +5 vs +5 when they both hit the cap. +1 LudicSavant).

If I want to make an Orc Wizard, under the old rules with not only a lack of a bonus (which is thematically fine) but with the penalty (which should not exist in 5E and should be also be removed for other reasons), I could. My Orc Wizard would have 13 Int and do just fine. Now 13 vs 16 is a bit of a jump but the character would still work. I was not prevented nor locked out from that characterization.

But I was talking about 15 vs 16 not 13 vs 16, and even then I was talking about how "only a 15" is not preventing or locking you out. It is a tiny difference and you can play without a problem. I had a character with only a 14. It was fine.

Notice the context? I have not described getting a 16 as causing harm. I am describing having a 15 as not being the end of the world as it is being described as. People have described the new rule as unlocking or finally allowing character, but 15 did not prevent those characters, the player did.

---

Now is there harm if the Orc gets a 16 Dexterity? Well, no. My compromise of the Orc getting +1 Str and 2 floating +1s gives the Orc 16 Dex. But is there harm in the Orc getting +0 and PCs getting floating +2/+1? Well thematically it whitewashed all the races of any ability differences. There is nothing wrong with that per say, but it can be disliked. I would prefer Orcs with +1 Str and 2 floating +1s over everyone getting floating +2/+1.

And yet my first post on this thread was complementing the new rule for achieving its goal completely.

So, now you can see the nuance a bit more clearly.

[Wildstag]

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.

Well... Black skin, a rigid matriarchal society based on sadism, and pure white hair, but if you ignore the latter two, than sure! They were just black skinned elves!

The issue with your latter point in that paragraph is that in our own human history (in a grander sense), there were hominids with different physical (biological) potentials. And it is clear that the species that survived and won out was the one with the greatest intellectual potential. So to act like different humanoid creatures in fantasy being "superior to others based on genetic heritage which is similarly bad" is true ignores our own history as Homo Sapiens and our relationship with other species in our genus and to a lesser extent to other genera.

The fact of the matter is that if other species were to develop and be similar in body type but not identical, there would be inherent differences because concurrent evolution can only go so far towards making things similar. Bats and birds both fly, but there is a noticeable difference in agility (Dexterity) and stamina (Constitution) in the way they can fly. Heck, even within the overall "birds", there are some that are clearly able to make long-flight checks differently than others, and some that are more agile and quick in flight than alternatives. And even more to the point, some birds are clearly more intelligent than others and are probably capable of higher thought.

So to say that "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" you have to ignore a large part of reality in favor of an idealistic world where the only difference between different species is how they look in a mirror.

If dwarves and orcs were products of evolution (say, through lineages as different as canines and felines), would it be so bizarre to say that certain aspects of their mental capacity are inherent to them?

Tolkien's orcs weren't green.

Aside from their skin tone being described as darker (and in words I wouldn't use in casual conversation today), there wasn't anything functionally different about them from humans, even in culture they weren't that inhuman. And even then, the Uruks of Saruman weren't all dark-skinned either: they were mixed with the fair-skinned Dunlendings.

Overall, Tolkien's orcs weren't even really "inherently evil", they served their masters out of fear (generally). What little we know of the Fourth Age doesn't seem to indicate that Orcs carried on with their evil nature once their master was defeated.

And even then, injecting "Tolkien's Orcs hurr durr" into a conversation that was clearly not referencing them, but rather the D&D incarnation of Orcs only serves to weaken your argument. So what if a different representation of Orcs was one way? We're discussing the D&D version because this is (surprise surprise!) a D&D subforum.

[Dork_Forge]

Tolkien's orcs weren't green.

Why on earth does that matter? This is about D&D, not Tolkien and from the looks of my books, Orcs look green. Not that grey is a particularly common skin colour from in real life either, I'm not sure what the point of that remark was.

The problem with orcs isn't their skin color, it's the "savage, stupid, dangerous, uncivilized barbarian race" part that directly maps to real life racist beliefs that's the problem.

With the removal of the penalties there's nothing to indicate stupidity, the rest is setting specific and it's a game. The whole point is to have clearly defined monsters to fight, inevitably players will want to play one of those monsters and so rules are drawn up in one way or another supporting it. It would be one thing if they literally designed PC races in that fashion from the ground up, but they didn't.

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here (I think that I've done a decent job keeping up) is that all the negatives associated with ORcs and half Orcs can be directly attributed to the god that created them. It's literally stated this way in the phb, it's not like this is a group of humanoids that are just naturally savage barbarians (in some settings), they use the presence of a creator god to explain why Orcs typically=people to fight, not that they are inherently bad. Hell have an adventure to free ORc kind of that evil influence.

[LudicSavant]

I'm really going to regret this... it's just not worth the brain space:

what colour(s) of non-real and non-human fantasy creatures are going to be the non-problematic ones that won't result is someone claiming "this is clearly a not-so-subtle coding to represent such and such a group"?
or what bipedal creature with two arms than uses tools/weapons will be acceptable to be the bad guys in a game with fighting monsters?
how much of any level of culture is allowed before it is too close in some aspect to something that has existed in the incredibly broad spectrum of all of human history that is entirely immune to drawing any tenuous parallels that may cause offense?

as I said... this is just tiresome and unproductive.

No, no it's a legitimate question that has a legitimate answer that can help one improve as a writer.

Part 1: What bipedal creature with two arms that uses tools/weapons will be an acceptable 'kill on sight' target?
Take a note from Doom. If you write your race like that, nobody's going to complain about killing them on sight.

Trouble is, goblins/orcs/whatever have never been written anything remotely like that in D&D. Heck, not even the demons in Forgotten Realms are written like that, there are clearly morally good fiends.

You know how goblins were written as 'acceptable targets'?

Elves are quick and clever and bold because they use guerilla tactics.
Goblins are cowardly cheats because they use guerilla tactics.

So now it's okay for elves to celebrate Agelong, which (and I'm not making this up, this was actually in the lore) is celebrated by elves ritually scarring themselves and competing to locate and slay as many people with green skin as possible during the night.

Yeah, no, that's not gonna fly.

Mind, for most stories, you don't need to have a justification for 'kill on sight.' Like, we justify using *humans* as villains all the time. It's not that hard. Just give a reason they're bad that isn't their race. It's super easy. Heck, even in DOOM, the demons are doing a bad thing (destroying and torturing all mankind) when you start killing them. Like, if humans were doing that, that'd be a good reason to fight that organization of humans and kill every single one wearing the uniform of that organization.

Part 2: what colour(s) of non-real and non-human fantasy creatures are going to be the non-problematic ones that won't result is someone claiming "this is clearly a not-so-subtle coding to represent such and such a group"?

People basically never complain about things like 'Legends of the Five Rings resembles Asian culture.' The resemblance is almost never the true root cause of the complaint. Find out what the root cause is and remove that, and you'll generally remove the associated complaints.

[Boci]

Why on earth does that matter? This is about D&D, not Tolkien and from the looks of my books, Orcs look green. Not that grey is a particularly common skin colour from in real life either, I'm not sure what the point of that remark was.

Because orcs are in D&D because of Tolkien, and Tolkien made them racist. The problematic elements of orcs, whilst maybe not all gone, would be lessened if Toliien had designed his orcs differently.

[x3n0n]

One thing I don't get about the "I want to play my character concept without being suboptimal" thing, usually coupled with "I'm not one of those *optimizers*, I just want to play the character I want without being penalized for it" is that, well, this change changes nothing.

You are still penalized, except now, instead of being penalized for playing a mountain dwarf wizard, you are now penalized for playing a non-variant human anything (so if you have a "cool concept" for a human in a no feat game, you are out of luck). You are rewarded for playing a Yuan-Ti anything (which means you will feel behind if everyone chose the now most optimal mechanical races and you chose a subpar race for your cool concept, which is the exact situation that existed before this change).

Also, you are still penalized if your cool concept involves, say, dual-wielding clubs, because dual wielding clubs is a horrible mechanic choice.
You are penalized if your concept involves "green dragon origin sorcerer", because acid spells suck.
And heaven forbid if your cool concept is a strong Rogue that bashes people over their head.

Small comments:

This raises the floor for race/class combination performance, with the admitted exception of standard humans, which were already mechanically suboptimal in almost all cases, and didn't improve at all. (The human thing sucks. No argument.)

Nearly all races get more versatile as a result of this, and any that used to be "held back" by niche modifiers are now going to make new top-tier combos (like Mountain Dwarf Wizards). However, since the floor is so much higher (excepting standard human), I expect the performance difference to be much smaller than it used to be. In guide terms, the "trap choices" should be even less painful than they used to be.

Regarding "there are still trap choices, just not the ones that are related to race/class combos due to modifier mismatches"... Yes. And?

Edit: to clarify my bit about performance, published material (in the vein of monster CRs) expects characters to have some baseline level of mechanical competence. From my understanding, that line is something like "you've got a +2 or +3 in your primary combat stat at level 1, and at least a +3 by 4th level." This change makes that baseline available to any race/class combo with point buy or standard array.

[Dork_Forge]

Because orcs are in D&D because of Tolkien, and Tolkien made them racist. The problematic elements of orcs, whilst maybe not all gone, would be lessened if Toliien had designed his orcs differently.

I think you would be best served in this conversation to look at ORcs in D&D and not cling to the Tolkien version written likely well before any of us were even born.

D&D Orcs aren't Tolkien Orcs, they aren't tortured and corrupted Elves, they are their own race. The more you cling to that route the more out of touch with the modern discussion you are.

You can't very well talk about the problems of something when you aren't really talking about that thing, just something vaguely related.

[Boci]

I think you would be best served in this conversation to look at ORcs in D&D and not cling to the Tolkien version written likely well before any of us were even born.

D&D Orcs aren't Tolkien Orcs, they aren't tortured and corrupted Elves, they are their own race. The more you cling to that route the more out of touch with the modern discussion you are.

You can't very well talk about the problems of something when you aren't really talking about that thing, just something vaguely related.

I know all this, I've made these points before in this thread. But as different as D&D and Tolkiens orcs are, they are still both orcs.

I said green was probably a decent colour for a race. And it is, just a race that doesn't have its roots in real world prejudice likes orcs. You can't change the skin colour of orcs and expect people to forget what the man responsible for introducing them to the genre said about them.

And remember, or know if you didn't read this either, I don't actually mind orcs mechanically or visually in their current form in D&D. I just wish they had better culture, am aware of the problematic roots of the race, and can understand why others still find them problematic to this day.

[OldTrees1]

No, no it's a legitimate question that has a legitimate answer that can help one improve as a writer.

Part 1: What bipedal creature with two arms that uses tools/weapons will be an acceptable 'kill on sight' target?
Take a note from Doom. If you write your race like that, nobody's going to complain about killing them on sight.

To dive into this point a bit. The enemies in Doom are described as Demons. In Planescape Torment (different universe from Doom) there is a Demon named Fall-from-grace. Same kind of creature (broadly speaking) written differently. Not everyone would complain about kill on sight towards Fall-from-Grace, but some would.

If you write them as a force of nature then people tend to be okay slaughtering them.
If you write them as people then people tend to have mixed opinions about slaughter.
If you write them as humans then people tend to have mixed opinions about representations.

[Boci]

To dive into this point a bit. The enemies in Doom are described as Demons. In Planescape Torment (different universe from Doom) there is a Demon named Fall-from-grace. Same kind of creature (broadly speaking) written differently. Not everyone would complain about kill on sight towards Fall-from-Grace, but some would.

But would they complain because of problematic implications, or because its limits storytelling potential?

[Dork_Forge]

I know all this, I've made these points before in this thread. But as different as D&D and Tolkiens orcs are, they are still both orcs.

I said green was probably a decent colour for a race. And it is, just a race that doesn't have its roots in real world prejudice likes orcs. You can't change the skin colour of orcs and expect people to forget what the man responsible for introducing them to the genre said about them.

And remember, or know if you didn't read this either, I don't actually mind orcs mechanically or visually in their current form in D&D. I just wish they had better culture, am aware of the problematic roots of the race, and can understand why others still find them problematic to this day.

They are both still Orcs is an empty statement, Orcs exist in many IPs in different forms and appearances. Whilst Tolkien may have popularised fantasy, he himself was influenced by other works (such as The Princess and the Goblin). This isn't Tolkien, this is D&D, the issues with Tolkien's depictions and letters aren't going to be resolved by WotC or anyone else, it is what it is, but it isn't D&D.

[Boci]

They are both still Orcs is an empty statement, Orcs exist in many IPs in different forms and appearances. Whilst Tolkien may have popularised fantasy, he himself was influenced by other works (such as The Princess and the Goblin). This isn't Tolkien, this is D&D, the issues with Tolkien's depictions and letters aren't going to be resolved by WotC or anyone else, it is what it is, but it isn't D&D.

But given that D&D owes so much to Tolkien, its behooves us fans to understand just what that entails, much like the Mythos and Lovecraft's racism.

[LudicSavant]

To dive into this point a bit. The enemies in Doom are described as Demons. In Planescape Torment (different universe from Doom) there is a Demon named Fall-from-grace. Same kind of creature (broadly speaking) written differently. Not everyone would complain about kill on sight towards Fall-from-Grace, but some would.

Exactly.

D&D doesn't even write its demons in a way that makes them categorically acceptable targets.

That, right there, is the issue. It's that we're told that a race can be an acceptable target for reasons that are entirely insufficient.

[Boci]

Exactly.

D&D doesn't even write its demons in a way that makes them categorically acceptable targets.

That, right there, is the issue. It's that we're told that a race can be an acceptable target for reasons that are entirely insufficient.

PF had a planar city, Basrakal, for outsiders whose alighment did match their race. My demon killing inquisitor went there and was very confused.

[Dork_Forge]

But given that D&D owes so much to Tolkien, its behooves us fans to understand just what that entails, much like the Mythos and Lovecraft's racism.

You can understand the past without it holding a grasp on the current state of an entirely different intellectual property. They are not the same Orcs, they do not share appearance for the most part, they do not share a creation story and they do not share a universe.

The implication that if you were to just sever Gruumsh's ongoing influence on the Orcs, they would cease to be such black and white enemies in some settings. Again, some settings. Eberron is what, over a decade old and their Orcs are nothing like the FR version. They also seem to lack an evil god dictating their behaviours and negatively influencing their personalities and culture.

[OldTrees1]

But would they complain because of problematic implications, or because its limits storytelling potential?

I consider it problematic for any being to be treated as a moral agent and inherently irredeemable. Which is why I was glad to learn in the 3E monster manual that "always evil" did not mean literally always.

It is fine to say these individuals happen to be irredeemable or even these individuals should be killed on sight, but I don't want it to be because of their inherent nature.

Exactly.

D&D doesn't even write its demons in a way that makes them categorically acceptable targets.

That, right there, is the issue. It's that we're told that a race can be an acceptable target for reasons that are entirely insufficient.

Yup. I think it is reasonable to even paint generalizations in cases. Demons from hell generally are irredeemable, but not inherently irredeemable. Not inherently kill on sight. Just likely to be kill on sight.

PF had a planar city, Basrakal, for outsiders whose alighment did match their race. My demon killing inquisitor went there and was very confused.

Neat.

[Wildstag]

D&D doesn't even write its demons in a way that makes them categorically acceptable targets.

That, right there, is the issue. It's that we're told that a race can be an acceptable target for reasons that are entirely insufficient.

I'm confused by this statement. Traditionally, D&D has written their demons in a way that makes them categorically acceptable targets. The existence of a handful of exceptions among many consistently written evil examples doesn't make it "insufficient" at all.

Demons are consistently written as targeting the weak and desperate, which in modern society is generally seen as wrongful behavior. Few people look at Pyramid Schemes and scams as "good behavior". Demons are portrayed as bullies that abuse and beat those that are weaker than them. They hurt others for fun and sport, not out of defense.

It is possible for a few demons to be not Evil. The only examples I know of are succubi though: Eludecia the Succubus Paladin, Fall-From-Grace, and Arueshalae. You would be hard-pressed to find a Balor that had turned to Good.

[Boci]

You can understand the past without it holding a grasp on the current state of an entirely different intellectual property. They are not the same Orcs, they do not share appearance for the most part, they do not share a creation story and they do not share a universe.

I don't quite understand what you want from me. I told you I don't mind the current aethetic and mechanic of orcs, I just understand why others may still find them problematic. What exactly is your problem with that stance?

I'm confused by this statement. Traditionally, D&D has written their demons in a way that makes them categorically acceptable targets. The existence of a handful of exceptions among many consistently written evil examples doesn't make it "insufficient" at all.

If demons can be good you shouldn't kill them on sight. You do understand how serious "kill on sight" is? It makes the creatures mere existence a crime punishable by death. If any member of that creature type can be good, you risk killing an innocent.

[OldTrees1]

I'm confused by this statement. Traditionally, D&D has written their demons in a way that makes them categorically acceptable targets. The existence of a handful of exceptions among many consistently written evil examples doesn't make it "insufficient" at all.

Demons are consistently written as targeting the weak and desperate, which in modern society is generally seen as wrongful behavior. Few people look at Pyramid Schemes and scams as "good behavior". Demons are portrayed as bullies that abuse and beat those that are weaker than them. They hurt others for fun and sport, not out of defense.

It is possible for a few demons to be not Evil. The only examples I know of are succubi though: Eludecia the Succubus Paladin, Fall-From-Grace, and Arueshalae. You would be hard-pressed to find a Balor that had turned to Good.

You might notice that the demons that are written as acceptable targets are doing something that makes them acceptable targets. The exceptions demonstrate they are not categorically acceptable targets. If a Balor was minding their business while fishing in a lake, they would not be kill-on-sight.


Edit:
Now I do understand when campaigns shift towards a more "beer and pretzel" "color coded for your convenience" "kick in the door" and "anything you find is an enemy" style of play. However I am glad when the game does not take those shortcuts itself.