The only naive mistake on any players' part would be playing with this guy in the first place
Pinging @UlyssesT@hexbear.net because I know you hate this stuff too
The only naive mistake on any players' part would be playing with this guy in the first place
Pinging @UlyssesT@hexbear.net because I know you hate this stuff too
The use of this word in DnD is extremely sus and always has been. If you want something to be fundamentally different from humans, that's a different species. I've always found the DnD "races" as social stand-ins for IRL races suspect because uhh black people are human beings
I've always used "species" or "people". Pathfinder using "ancestry" for species and "heritage" for the subspecies/ethnicity is cool too.
I always found it weird when I'd get online comments about how using "species" is supposedly too scifi and I honestly don't get it.
That's not even getting into the extremely tired rhetoric of "if you think the orcs/goblins/kobolds/etc are stand-ins for black/indigenous/etc people I think that makes you the real racist huh"
This is true but in a different way. I side-eye at using things that are definitely physiologically and anatomically different from human beings as a stand in for marginalized humans.
That too - same reason why racism allegories like
don't work so well. When you try to write a story as 1:1 parallel to real life using species with vast inherent physical disparities, things tend to get messy.
That's not to say you can't draw upon the history of racism, colonialism, etc., for your scifi or fantasy ofc, but it requires a little more effort and consideration than that to make a compelling story