"Customizing your Origin in D&D"

[Dork_Forge]

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?



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.

I have no issue with that stance, but you are debating/discussing apart from said stance. The insistance of Tolkienesque racism in D&D is not portraying your stance, you say it's because you understand why it is problematic for others, but to myself at least it just looks like you're arguing for that position yourself. As I don't see the modern relevance on the game we all share and enjoy, I commented on it, your declared stance is irrelevant to what I was replying to.

[Wildstag]

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'll field that! Because for someone who "just understands why others may still find them problematic", you seem awfully fond of constantly shoving that one point back into the conversation.

Not that there's anything wrong with you if it turns out that more than just "understanding", you actually believe in your point, but you're pretty aggressively reinserting the Tolkien element into the conversation when it doesn't really have a bearing on the current discussion.

For which see the whole skin-tone comment. We had clearly moved past that, and you reinserted the Tolkien-element into the conversation. So you either "don't mind and understand why" or you "do mind and want others to understand why".

Basically: your other comments and constant return to Tolkien indicates that the quoted comment isn't what you actually feel. We're just people. Why not be honest with yourself and everyone present? Nothing is gained from trying to downplay your feelings about Orcs.

[Dork_Forge]

I'll field that! Because for someone who "just understands why others may still find them problematic", you seem awfully fond of constantly shoving that one point back into the conversation.

Not that there's anything wrong with you if it turns out that more than just "understanding", you actually believe in your point, but you're pretty aggressively reinserting the Tolkien element into the conversation when it doesn't really have a bearing on the current discussion.

For which see the whole skin-tone comment. We had clearly moved past that, and you reinserted the Tolkien-element into the conversation. So you either "don't mind and understand why" or you "do mind and want others to understand why".

Basically: your other comments and constant return to Tolkien indicates that the quoted comment isn't what you actually feel. We're just people. Why not be honest with yourself and everyone present? Nothing is gained from trying to downplay your feelings about Orcs.

This is a much better expression of why I was replying, thank you WS!

[Boci]

I have no issue with that stance, but you are debating/discussing apart from said stance. The insistance of Tolkienesque racism in D&D is not portraying your stance, you say it's because you understand why it is problematic for others, but to myself at least it just looks like you're arguing for that position yourself. As I don't see the modern relevance on the game we all share and enjoy, I commented on it, your declared stance is irrelevant to what I was replying to.

Basically: your other comments and constant return to Tolkien indicates that the quoted comment isn't what you actually feel. We're just people. Why not be honest with yourself and everyone present? Nothing is gained from trying to downplay your feelings about Orcs.

You're both wrong. I keep mentioning Tolkien because, as I said, D&D owes a lot to Tolkien, and Tolkien introduced orcs to modern fantasy. I also feel its relevant to remeber's Gygax, the founder of the game, saying killing orc children was fine. And even in modern D&D, orcs are still generally portrayed as tribal, brutish warriors.

In my own games, I use orcs. Sometimes they're green, sometimes they're darker skinned. Sometimes I integrate them into the setting so aside from mechanics and appearance they are largerly indestinguishable from humans, others times they are more tribal and brutish, in ways I would understand if someone found a little questionable, but myself and the people I play with don't seem to, so its all good.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

I'll field that! Because for someone who "just understands why others may still find them problematic", you seem awfully fond of constantly shoving that one point back into the conversation.

Not that there's anything wrong with you if it turns out that more than just "understanding", you actually believe in your point, but you're pretty aggressively reinserting the Tolkien element into the conversation when it doesn't really have a bearing on the current discussion.

For which see the whole skin-tone comment. We had clearly moved past that, and you reinserted the Tolkien-element into the conversation. So you either "don't mind and understand why" or you "do mind and want others to understand why".

Basically: your other comments and constant return to Tolkien indicates that the quoted comment isn't what you actually feel. We're just people. Why not be honest with yourself and everyone present? Nothing is gained from trying to downplay your feelings about Orcs.

Hey can we calm it down a bit? This is getting a bit aggressive and honestly your tone is kind of uncomfortable at this point, you are very accusatory and I don't really understand why you're interrogating someone this harshly for saying that they understand why some may see orcs are problematic/racist. Let's please try to remain civil to one another.

Now, to be entirely clear on the point you've touched on: Orcs have a history as a problematic, racist concept. Some media rises above those origins and does enough to differentiate them from that to do its own thing, but DnD started out with Gygax inserting characters and concepts directly from Tolkein so we can't just pretend that history isn't applicable. There are a good number of people who are uncomfortable with these racist roots still having a clear link to the current day game, so the team is making an active effort to be more inclusive and distance themselves from some of the outdated problematic themes and mechanics of DnD's past. This is a good thing.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

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.

Actively fighting to keep racist tropes in the game does in fact make you a bad person.

[Boci]

Actively fighting to keep racist tropes in the game does in fact make you a bad person.

I think the racist tropes in FR go back pretty far, removing them would be awkward. "Each race has about 1 culture except humans" is a huge part of the setting, I think leaving FR as is for the people who enjoy it and building a new setting for D&D would be better, but I'm just skeptical of WotC doing that. Still, can always hope.

[OldTrees1]

I think the racist tropes in FR go back pretty far, removing them would be awkward. "Each race has about 1 culture except humans" is a huge part of the setting, I think leaving FR as is for the people who enjoy it and building a new setting for D&D would be better, but I'm just skeptical of WotC doing that. Still, can always hope.

fun trivia comment: Halflings get 2 cultures in FR. They get a nomadic hobbit culture and a Thieves Guild culture in different parts of FR.

[Boci]

Halflings get 2 cultures in FR. They get a nomadic hobbit culture and a Thieves Guild culture in different parts of FR.

I said "about one" precisely to cover t this, I knew a few got more than 1. Humans got waaay more than one, which was the main point there.

[OldTrees1]

I said "about one" precisely to cover t this, I knew a few got more than 1. Humans got waaay more than one, which was the main point there.

I meant that in a mix of a "fun trivia note" tone and an "exception that proves the generality" tone.

Although in a similar vein there is the Dwarven doo-dad

[Wildstag]

Hey can we calm it down a bit? This is getting a bit aggressive and honestly your tone is kind of uncomfortable at this point, you are very accusatory and I don't really understand why you're interrogating someone this harshly for saying that they understand why some may see orcs are problematic/racist. Let's please try to remain civil to one another.

Now, to be entirely clear on the point you've touched on: Orcs have a history as a problematic, racist concept. Some media rises above those origins and does enough to differentiate them from that to do its own thing, but DnD started out with Gygax inserting characters and concepts directly from Tolkein so we can't just pretend that history isn't applicable. There are a good number of people who are uncomfortable with these racist roots still having a clear link to the current day game, so the team is making an active effort to be more inclusive and distance themselves from some of the outdated problematic themes and mechanics of DnD's past. This is a good thing.

One, I am calm. Two, that is a wild misrepresentation of my comments. I mean, interrogation? This isn't Guantanamo dude, it's a friggin forum discussion. I'm not against them "saying that they understand why some may see orcs are problematic/racist." You'd have to completely skip my second paragraph to actually believe that's what's going on here.

D&D started with Gygax adding concepts from Tolkien (i before e!) and making them not what they once were. What Gygax did was take the concept of "evil race" without bringing over the context or most of the portrayal of the orcs. Basically, he flanderized the Orcs. Continuing to act like the current issue with orcs is built primarily upon Tolkien is bizarre.

The extent of what Tolkien did was make an inhuman race darker-skinned (well, swarthy, but that word was not limited to orcs). They were not "inherently evil" or evil solely due to their creator. That's basically all of the characterization orcs are actually given in Tolkien's work.

Everything else in this discussion is entirely a fabrication of D&D's orcs. The "divinely created and inherently evil" was not a Tolkien thing, but a Gygaxian thing. The "bigger and stronger but less intelligent" thing was not a Tolkien aspect, it was a Gygaxian creation. The "tribal culture of hunter-gatherers" was not even remotely a Tolkienian part of orcish lore, that was insterted by Gygax. And even more different, the orcs in Tolkien's work were basically human in appearance, as (depending on the era of his writing), they were fashioned from humans. In D&D they are given a porcine appearance, tusks, a heavy brow, etc.

The reason comparing the two isn't fair is that literally the only thing that D&D orcs have remotely in common with Tolkien's orcs is non-white skin tone. All the problematic cultural elements of orcs in D&D are not found in Tolkien's work.

[Boci]

The reason comparing the two isn't fair is that literally the only thing that D&D orcs have remotely in common with Tolkien's orcs is non-white skin tone. All the problematic cultural elements of orcs in D&D are not found in Tolkien's work.

That is a fair comment, but people may notice the similarities that both Tolkien's and Gygax's orcs were both problematic in that they were engative stereotypes, just in different ways.

I'm still not quite sure what your problem was with my stance. I was wrong to focus on Tolkien's problematic orcs when what makes D&D orcs problematic is Gygax? Okay, I can see that.

[Wildstag]

That is a fair comment, but people may notice the similarities that both Tolkien's and Gygax's orcs were both problematic in that they were engative stereotypes, just in different ways.

I'm still not quite sure what your problem was with my stance. I was wrong to focus on Tolkien's problematic orcs when what makes D&D orcs problematic is Gygax? Okay, I can see that.

Kinda. My issue with you bringing up Tolkien's orcs is like yours if I brought up the Urghals from Paolini's Inheritance series. The actual portrayal of something similar might be racist, but if it's not directly relevant to the discussion at hand, bringing it up is whataboutism at best. We're discussing the impacts of D&D's portrayal of orcs.

It's like when a kid designs a lego tower that is much wider at the top than it is at the base. D&D-orcs are the wide top; the Tolkien foundation is the miniscule foundation.

As a side note, I don't think that Gygax necessarily played his Orcs as "unintelligent"; if you read his "Up on a Soapbox" articles in Dragon Magazine, he tells a couple stories that indicate that even he strayed from the D&D base-lore. I think there's one story specifically about the use of the Fly spell in combat that shows that his Orcs weren't just "I hit it with my club" creatures.

[Boci]

Kinda. My issue with you bringing up Tolkien's orcs is like yours if I brought up the Urghals from Paolini's Inheritance series. The actual portrayal of something similar might be racist, but if it's not directly relevant to the discussion at hand, bringing it up is whataboutism at best. We're discussing the impacts of D&D's portrayal of orcs.

It's like when a kid designs a lego tower that is much wider at the top than it is at the base. D&D-orcs are the wide top; the Tolkien foundation is the miniscule foundation.

Sure, but I feel discussing the whole tower useful, and that begins at the foundations. But if you want to focus on the most recent and relevant stuff at top, that's fine.

My problem is, several people on this thread seem to be saying, "I use orcs largely as is in D&D and I'm not racist" which is fine I agree. However they then they go on to add "and anyone who thinks this portrayal could be possible be problematic is looking for an excuse to be offended". Which I disagree with, I feel people can reasonable object to a race of often darker skinned, brutish humanoids who is not dumber than humans are almsot always more primtiive and violent, and who were inspired by Tolkien, like elves, dwarves and hafling. Orcs just happened to have been changed more, but its still because of Tolkien that they're in D&D.

D&D has the advantage that it is typically played by 4-8 people, so it can be played however that smaller group of people want it to be played. I feel you can discuss the virtues of any playstyle, but when talking with others its important to remember that their feelings are valid too.

[diplomancer]

Sure, but I feel discussing the whole tower useful, and that begins at the foundations. But if you want to focus on the most recent and relevant stuff at top, that's fine.

My problem is, several people on this thread seem to be saying, "I use orcs largely as is in D&D and I'm not racist" which is fine I agree. However they then they go on to add "and anyone who thinks this portrayal could be possible be problematic is looking for an excuse to be offended". Which I disagree with, I feel people can reasonable object to a race of often darker skinned, brutish humanoids who is not dumber than humans are almsot always more primtiive and violent, and who were inspired by Tolkien, like elves, dwarves and hafling. Orcs just happened to have been changed more, but its still because of Tolkien that they're in D&D.

D&D has the advantage that it is typically played by 4-8 people, so it can be played however that smaller group of people want it to be played. I feel you can discuss the virtues of any playstyle, but when talking with others its important to remember that their feelings are valid too.

Tolkien orcs are also not more primitive. If anything, they are more advanced.

[RossN]

As a side note, I don't think that Gygax necessarily played his Orcs as "unintelligent"; if you read his "Up on a Soapbox" articles in Dragon Magazine, he tells a couple stories that indicate that even he strayed from the D&D base-lore. I think there's one story specifically about the use of the Fly spell in combat that shows that his Orcs weren't just "I hit it with my club" creatures.

I think this was part of a larger change Orcs went from being human-sized, roughly human strength Lawful Evil types to being Chaotic Evil, seven feet tall walking slabs of muscle.

2e Orcs had human level intelligence and were only very slightly stronger than humans (their Complete Book of Humanoids PC stats gave them +1 Strength and -2 Charisma.) It was only 3e that really ran with the idea of Orcs as brainless barbarians who think with their biceps - older edition Orcs were destructive raiders, ensalvers and prone to fighting among themselves but they were as capable of using strategy and tactics as anyone.

[Wildstag]

D&D has the advantage that it is typically played by 4-8 people, so it can be played however that smaller group of people want it to be played. I feel you can discuss the virtues of any playstyle, but when talking with others its important to remember that their feelings are valid too.

It's a lot easier to talk about it when not throwing around words like "racist" though. You don't really use that word when you consider someone else's feelings to be valid. People use it to shut down other people's arguments, and that's mostly how it's been used in this thread, for which see comments like the ones IsaacsAlterEgo and tsuyoshikentsu have posted.

It's an all or nothing situation. Either all feelings are valid, or only ones that agree with you. And in general, it looks more like the latter than the former right now.

[Boci]

Tolkien orcs are also not more primitive. If anything, they are more advanced.

The primitive part was about D&D, Tolkien after that. "more primtiive and violent, and who were inspired by Tolkien"

As for Tolkien's orcs, yes, they kinda occupy this wierd hybrid of primitive and advanced. Mordor where they live is an empty wasteland, I believe they ar eoften described as living in caves, the few cities we do see them living in weren't built by orcs but by...elves, men? And yet they do have complex mechanics, in the hobit at least, able to rig hidden trap doors and construct elborate lairs in the mountain.

It's a lot easier to talk about it when not throwing around words like "racist" though.

I haven't used that word that much. I said "Tolkien made them (orcs) racist", but other than Tolkien, I haven't called a single person in this thread racist. Directly or indirectly. I am not those others posters you mentioned.

It's an all or nothing situation. Either all feelings are valid, or only ones that agree with you.

Not quite. Feelings that invalidate other's feeling are not valid.

"I don't use orcs, they're problematic, but I understand if you do" is fine. So is "I use orcs, but I understand if you find them problematic".

"I use orcs, if you find them problematic you're reaching for an excuse to be offended" is not fine, and neither is "Insisting its okay to have orcs with the aggresive trait is bad behavior", at least IMO.

[Dienekes]

The primitive part was about D&D, Tolkien after that. "more primtiive and violent, and who were inspired by Tolkien"

As for Tolkien's orcs, yes, they kinda occupy this wierd hybrid of primitive and advanced. Mordor where they live is an empty wasteland, I believe they ar eoften described as living in caves, the few cities we do see them living in weren't built by orcs but by...elves, men? And yet they do have complex mechanics, in the hobit at least, able to rig hidden trap doors and construct elborate lairs in the mountain.

Not quite. Tolkien’s Orcs are a bit more complex than that. The plains around Mt Doom is specified in his notes for being incredibly fertile because of the volcano. Apparently there were many Orc farmers that just don’t appear because they’re irrelevant to the story.

It’s worth noting that while Tolkien’s racial biases obviously creeped into the writing. Orcs were not intended to represent any one race. They were more an amalgamation of things Tolkien did not like about modern trends. The Orc speak Cockney a language Tolkien despised. They are intelligent but only when it comes to making things that are murderous and explosive. They are cowardly until they get a gang of people together to act as bullies. They live in a world of might makes right. They loathed comfort and beauty in all things. Their homes, as much as they had them, were either taken from others or were fashioned together in a rudimentary and uncomfortable way, often at the expense of nature.

[Boci]

Not quite. Tolkien’s Orcs are a bit more complex than that. The plains around Mt Doom is specified in his notes for being incredibly fertile because of the volcano. Apparently there were many Orc farmers that just don’t appear because they’re irrelevant to the story.

Yeah, because if there's one thing Tolkien is famous for, its cutting anything not directly relevant to the sotry :P

But no seriously that's cool, interesting to know. Regarding the Cockney bit, maybe yoiu already know this, Cockney is almost certainly a dialect, not a language, but yes it does appear he wrote orc dialogue in a way to capture that. As a linguist I can imagine he disliked the poorer, London based dialect.

[Wildstag]

I haven't used that word that much. I said "Tolkien made them (orcs) racist", but other than Tolkien, I haven't called a single person in this thread racist. Directly or indirectly. I am not those others posters you mentioned.

Not quite. Feelings that invalidate other's feeling are not valid.

"I don't use orcs, they're problematic, but I understand if you do" is fine. So is "I use orcs, but I understand if you find them problematic".

"I use orcs, if you find them problematic you're reaching for an excuse to be offended" is not fine, and neither is "Insisting its okay to have orcs with the aggresive trait is bad behavior", at least IMO.

I get that, it's why I mentioned other people's names.

We're digressing a lot, but in a discussion about tolerance, tolerant people will tolerate anything, including offensive comments. If we are to be inclusive, all types of thought must be welcome. If any thought is not allowed, it's intolerance or exclusivity. Same goes for validity. It's why inclusivity is a bad word to use in stances or positions, because then you HAVE to be open to opposition, otherwise you're not being inclusive.

The overall desire for races to be changed and for ability score generation to be changed means that every race (which again, is equated to species in the PHB) is equal. It's a boring trend, or at least I see it that way. Playing around and with differences is a good thing, it's what makes the "melting pot" mentality so nice. When applying strictly human standards and modern human morality to a fictional work, you devalue the potential of a setting. Especially if the setting is not such that modern morality works well on a 1:1 basis.

The way I see it, and I know I've used it repeatedly in the discussion, but the Hominid example works well, and people really haven't replied to it. Naturally, some creatures that evolve or develop in close proximity to each other are going to have different selective pressures that will cause their bodies to be different. In some, this will result in lower mental capacities than others. For others it may make more robust species. These differences should be applauded, rather than minimized by saying "well individuals can be different". Sure, they can, but here's the thing: that's where ability score assignment plays its part.

[diplomancer]

Not quite. Tolkien’s Orcs are a bit more complex than that. The plains around Mt Doom is specified in his notes for being incredibly fertile because of the volcano. Apparently there were many Orc farmers that just don’t appear because they’re irrelevant to the story.

It’s worth noting that while Tolkien’s racial biases obviously creeped into the writing. Orcs were not intended to represent any one race. They were more an amalgamation of things Tolkien did not like about modern trends. The Orc speak Cockney a language Tolkien despised. They are intelligent but only when it comes to making things that are murderous and explosive. They are cowardly until they get a gang of people together to act as bullies. They live in a world of might makes right. They loathed comfort and beauty in all things. Their homes, as much as they had them, were either taken from others or were fashioned together in a rudimentary and uncomfortable way, often at the expense of nature.

Pretty much this. I think it's in his letters to Christopher Tolkien, stationed with the RAF in South Africa during WWII, that he talks about "orcish behaviour" and how there were plenty of orc-minded people on the British side as well. Orcs are, for Tolkien, far more representatives of a mindset (and a specifically modern mindset at that, it really couldn't be further away from "primitive") than representatives of any real world race.

[Boci]

I get that, it's why I mentioned other people's names.

But then why is that relevant to me if I never called anyone in this thread racist, only Tolkien who we all seem to agree probably was?

We're digressing a lot, but in a discussion about tolerance, tolerant people will tolerate anything, including offensive comments.

Its the paradox of tolerance, which is pretty easily solved for a paradox. When it comes to something as trivial as playing a game, I don't tolerate viewpoints that dissmiss the other side's playstyle or feelings about the game, even if your own view point happens to agree with me. Its wrong to insist people who disagree with you are racist, but its also wrong to insist there's no possible reason a race with a problematic history could still be considered problematic.

The way I see it, and I know I've used it repeatedly in the discussion, but the Hominid example works well, and people really haven't replied to it. Naturally, some creatures that evolve or develop in close proximity to each other are going to have different selective pressures that will cause their bodies to be different. In some, this will result in lower mental capacities than others. For others it may make more robust species. These differences should be applauded, rather than minimized by saying "well individuals can be different". Sure, they can, but here's the thing: that's where ability score assignment plays its part.

Yeah, unlike the real world, in D&D you can certainly justify racial ability score, and that's my preference. But its important to never get too married to a concept and always consider what could be done without them. If 6e drops racial ability scores, as long as it is designed with that in mind to still keep races different without ability score modifers, I'll be happy.

Pretty much this. I think it's in his letters to Christopher Tolkien, stationed with the RAF in South Africa during WWII, that he talks about "orcish behaviour" and how there were plenty of orc-minded people on the British side as well. Orcs are, for Tolkien, far more representatives of a mindset (and a specifically modern mindset at that, it really couldn't be further away from "primitive") than representatives of any real world race.

Whilst that is true, he did also call them “Mongol-types” with “slant eyes". Important detail to consider, though as Dienekes said, likely more subconcious racism than a true hatred.

[Dienekes]

Yeah, because if there's one thing Tolkien is famous for, its cutting anything not directly relevant to the sotry :P

But no seriously that's cool, interesting to know. Regarding the Cockney bit, maybe yoiu already know this, Cockney is almost certainly a dialect, not a language, but yes it does appear he wrote orc dialogue in a way to capture that. As a linguist I can imagine he disliked the poorer, London based dialect.

You are completely correct. I mistyped.

I get that, it's why I mentioned other people's names.

We're digressing a lot, but in a discussion about tolerance, tolerant people will tolerate anything, including offensive comments. If we are to be inclusive, all types of thought must be welcome. If any thought is not allowed, it's intolerance or exclusivity. Same goes for validity. It's why inclusivity is a bad word to use in stances or positions, because then you HAVE to be open to opposition, otherwise you're not being inclusive.

You know you’re going to get someone to post that stupid cartoon that completely that misrepresents the work of Karl Popper right?

Regardless though. Tolerance itself has its limits. A tolerant person may well listen to what someone says. And has no desire to lock them up for their beliefs. While also arguing against the views of that person. That’s not intolerance. That’s discourse.

And I don’t think anyone has tried to get their opposition locked up or banned in this discussion, yet.

Whilst that is true, he did also call them “Mongol-types” with “slant eyes". Important detail to consider.

True. As I said, his racial bias are there. But I would note that this was a physical description to express that he found them ugly. The character presented of orcs in the book don’t really match at all with what even the early 1900s thought of “Mongol” people and cultures.

And at the same time, actually in the books we get the note that on their travels to the lands of the Far East. People were found with the same ratio of good or evil as was found anywhere else in Middle Earth.

Essentially, if we take his writings at face value. Tolkien did not think eastern people were more evil than Europeans.

He did think they looked ugly though. Especially with their features exaggerated.

[Boci]

True. As I said, his racial bias are there. But I would note that this was a physical description to express that he found them ugly. The character presented of orcs in the book don’t really match at all with what even the early 1900s thought of “Mongol” people and cultures.

Yeah, reguarding orcs being Mongol, they seem to use bows a fair bit, but so does Rohan, and lots of cultures used bows, they were useful. Certain't its hard to imagine a race being Mongols of the Ghenkis Khan era inspired when they don't ride horses. Did orcs ever ride horses in LotR? I remember one Rohan character said they would raid and steal horses, only black ones and take them to Sauron. he would have needed 9 and some spare for his Nazgul and other servants, did he do anything else with them?

[Segev]

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.

I don't think the floor was below the baseline mechanical competence before, and I don't think the floor is raised here, at all. In fact, it's been lowered. Yes, you have to make sub-optimal choices, but you now have more freedom to do so. The dismissal of the presence of "trap choices" is a poor representation of the point raised: it didn't say there were trap choices, but rather that there still was optimization that would happen centered around racial traits. Traits which still will be associated with the races. And still will "punish" people who don't choose the "right" ones. (I dispute the "punish" interpretation, since there are no negative stat mods in 5e. With a couple exceptions that I agree should be rectified.)

The whole notion of being "'held back' by niche modifiers" was a balancing point.

Frankly, I don't see how it wouldn't be better to just tell everybody that they get one 20 and one 19 at chargen and do away with racial mods altogether by the way this is being discussed. Why have a +2 and a +1 and punish people by not letting them have a 20 and a 19, instead?

[Finney]

I like the new customization options. I don't think the new rules will be problematic, unless you also allow your players to roll for starting stats instead of using the standard array or point buy method.

I imagine variant human will likely still be very popular at most tables (mine included) because of the free feat. However, I have one player that only plays gnomes so she will likely be very happy that she can customize the ability score increase trait.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Yeah, because if there's one thing Tolkien is famous for, its cutting anything not directly relevant to the sotry :P

I just want to take a second and acknowledge this wonderful moment.

[Warpiglet-7]

Oh, the motivation for this drivel is absolutely driven by a desire to cater to the professionally-offended.

Because some absolute cretins on the internet decided that Orcs = PoC. Of course, there was no actual evidence for this beyond the blatant racism of those actually making the accusation.

However, every large company has apparently undergone a mandatory spine-removal, so rather than calling these people out on their racism and absolute nonsense, WotC instead bent the knee, first making orcs no longer evil, just misunderstood; and then removing racial bonuses and penalties altogether. Because why would different species with markedly different appearances also have different characteristics?

And that, children, is how WotC ended racism forever.

Hooray!

My take as well.

Oh well. Participation trophies and fun for all.

[Boci]

I just want to take a second and acknowledge this wonderful moment.

I have my moments, though even here I'm managed to ruin it with a typo