howdy! nice to see other folks talking about these issues. there are a lot of different solutions, with varying levels of success. But the fact that we are actually talking about it is the first step.
I have never really liked races in D+D. Picking different classes makes your play experience different. When you play a palli, it feels like you are playing a holy warrior. When you play a wizard, it feels like playing a studious magic wielder. Etc. Races never FELT different. When playing an orc, you SHOULD feel like the sort of being that can bust logs over their knee. If you play as an elf, you SHOULD feel like a graceful and long lived entity. And when the race is coupled with class, it should really feel unique. A rogue orc should feel vastly different from a rogue gnome. An elven sorcerer should feel vastly different from a halfling sorcerer. But this has not been the case, and it honestly is only made worse by recent changes.
I love this video. It is inspiring me to look at dnd races in a new light and try to change up some of the things in game to make them more interesting and take creative liberties. I will definitely be recommending this video to others. Great job!
I agree with you. In our games stuff like alignment is wholly cultural. We are also playing in Dungeon World where you don't really get racial bonuses in general. There are class benefits for some races (ranger elves come to mind) but most of your bonuses just come from class.
Kudos for leaning into this subject. There is, however, much more to this than meets the eye. The issue of race & racism suffuses the fantasy genre, to include books and movies as well as games, tabletop and otherwise. I encourage you to dig deeper. Don't be discouraged by people who play "gotcha" games or try to pigeonhole you.
I've certainly encountered other examples outside of D&D. We just all have to do our best to improve our artforms and make progress. Thank you for the kind and encouraging words!
Quick update! The day after I published this video, it seems Wizards of the Coast has decided to errata out content on the D&D beyond books including massive sections of lore from Volo's Guide to Monsters. While I understand some of these changes and think they are positive (including some removal of some problematic Orc material), some of it is certainly unwarranted. Changes were made to Mindflayers and Beholders to humanize them more, however there was no reason for this. Beholders and Mindflayers are not misunderstood or derived from any kind of real world cultures. They are Far Realms aberrations meant to inspire eldritch fear because of complex monstrous motivations. Additionally, this was the laziest kind of errata to problematic races as no new content was introduced. It simply deletes old content doing exactly what I warned of in the video 1) pushing all D&D races closer to humans and 2) making the races just stats on a piece of paper.
@@BeardedDevil-cn9tw Hey! Check out the History of Orcs section of the video (around 7:40 specifically) for the Tolkien quote about orcs. As for the justification for the conclusion, one would have to first look at the time period and society that Tolkien lived in when he came up with the Orcs. I'd recommend readings on martial race and the British Army or World War I "Yellow Peril." This is all to say not much about the orcs change from Tolkien to D&D (or WoW for that matter). So that's the basis!
@@thebountifulmimic that's an obvious attempt to avoid answering the question. Please try again. D&D orcs = the ______ race of real world humans? In other words, which specific ethnicity is supposed to be the analogy represented by orcs in Dungeons & Dragons. Provide explicit evidence within the material content of the source books (i.e., the various editions of the DMG's, Players Handbooks, Monster Manuals...etc). I'll wait... P.S.: I'm not asking for you to regurgitate what others have told you in regards to an out-of-contect bullet point written within a nearly 500 page collection of letters by a long dead author. It's 2022, not 1932. If orcs in D&D are supposed to be racial analogs for a specific ethnicity of real world humans...then what ethnic groups are Gnomes, Halflings, Dwarves, Kobolds, and Goblins representing? Who, in modern times, told you that orcs in D&D are _______ in real life? Oh, and I'd bet dollars to donuts the social circle you're currently parroting isn't comparing orcs to humans of Asian decent. Let's be real, even Tolkien wasn't directly making that comparison either...or any other specific ethnic group.
@@BeardedDevil-cn9tw If you want to have a real conversation we can, but don't assume my intent is poor or talk down to me like I'm a child. If you want to engage productively with content on UA-cam, you can. My assumption (which I could be wrong) is that you're not here to actually engage and learn but to talk from a point of ignorance. I haven't avoided the question. Go to 7:40 in the video. Orcs were conceived as a stereotype for Mongol people. As for your definition of "explicit" sources for analogous representation of ethnicities, I don't believe they exist in the nature that you describe. Considering the DMG's, Players Handbooks, Monster Manuals, etc wouldn't outright say "orcs are based on stereotypes of Mongol people." Is that what you mean by "explicit evidence?" Similarly, and very recently, the hadozee race in the D&D spelljammer books were heavily edited considering art, story, and descriptions were heavily derived from stereotypes of black people and minstrel shows. Did the spelljammer book outright say "hey these guys were derived from harmful stereotypes of black people?" No, of course not, but implicit evidence exists and is a great tool for critical analysis. As for the point about regurgitation, I disagree wholeheartedly that others have told me this information as if I had made this video with no research of my own. I decided to make this video on the basis of what I have experienced in D&D as well as other TTRPGs and video games over the years. I wondered why races were similar across mediums and read Beowulf, parts of Hereward the Wake, reread portions of Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion, R.A Salvatore books, the histories of Orcs and Drow in D&D, and full texts of the Tolkien letters to various people ranging from Milton Waldman to Forrest J. Ackerman. The evidence for the orcs analogue to Mongols goes beyond just the letter. Tolkien's time in WW1 had him exposed to yellow peril and martial race ideology. As I mentioned in the video, this wasn't meant to be a Tolkien deep dive but merely an overview of where my thoughts come from. I don't parrot a social circle. I make videos independently. As to whether or not Tolkien was directly making the comparison, I'd certainly argue he was for the above reasons. There are many great sources on this, but again it doesn't seem like you're interested. I am curious though. What is your problem with concepts like these?
@@thebountifulmimic it's actually quite simple. You've admitted that literally no where in any of the core rulebooks of any edition does it compare D&D orcs to any specific ethnicity of real world humans...then claim that there is loads of "implicit evidence". Great. Simply provide that evidence. Yes, you are parroting talking points. Case example is your blatantly racist view of hardozee. An alien race that goes back to the days of the original Star Frontiers rpg. It's like you've never seen Planet of the Apes...or do you think Cornelius was really just Roddy McDowall's attempt at low key blackface? Also, are you claiming that the artist who painted the Hardozee bard is 100% a racist? If so, please provide evidence. Otherwise you're no better than a flat earther who proudly proclaims "looks flat". There is such a thing as "reading into things" and if it weren't for your obvious recycling of other people's material...I'd almost certainly guarantee that you not one iota of this stuff ever entered you noggin
I don't really hold with separating biological traits from cultural ones for non-humans, because I think it detracts from the archetypal nature of them. But otherwise, I am 110% with you-- I share your concerns about D&D races being particularly blatant allegories for real-life colonialism, but I also agree that WotC removing mechanical differences from their existing races is _not the way._ The solution is exactly what you say it is-- call a moratorium on inventing new D&D races and spend some time and page count on making their existing races more complicated, fleshed out, and three dimensional. Instead of telling us they're "always evil", show us why they're evil... and what would motivate them, individually or collectively, to do more good.
I've been using a method similar to yours for almost a decade and it seems to have worked. What I did was remove the culturals from races and tie them into the nations of my world, so at the end of the day the, for example, Mountain Dwarves from the PHB represent the dwarves of the Scathian Federation, who know how to use all manners of weapons and armour because their entire shtick revolves around keeping the Gates of the World from the marauding hordes of the Borderlands. However, should you want to play a Dwarf from, say, the floating island of Tempest Keep, you would not get weapon, tool or armour proficiencies but a refluffed Sacred Flame spell because you'd be an apprentice Storm Rider, the equivalent of Stonecunning for reading weather phenomena (because Storm Riders are sort of skyship navigators) and a special feature that allows you to add a d4 damage to your lightning spells whenever you roll doubles on the damage.
Makes total sense and is incredibly intuitive! Just curious, have any cultures of your nations over the years changed? And if so, have you changed the ability? I think it would be interesting to have a player uphold cultural values from a long forgotten empire and have an ability from that culture.
@@thebountifulmimic I have them as Boons that can be picked up throughout game time and the only way to get them is by roleplaying or doing certain things. A player wants the "Honour of the First King" trait to be able to heal damage through uses of Divine Smite? They must swear never to wear armour again on the altar of the First Kin in Valholl, because this is how the members of the Heavenfall (Valholl's elite) have always done. If they break the oath, they lose the Boon.
What do you think the book should contain? I've always wanted a book that's just a compilation of interesting NPCs, villages, guilds, etc. I think adding various goblinoid creatures into that kind of book would make it so Orcs and others would be used in a more diverse set of ways.
Not really a fan of the floating ability score modifiers and their new changes. I don't view the races in the way some people may and don't see an analogue to real-world ethnicities. I myself am of mixed heritage and I do think races that draw too close to ethnicities are a negative thing for certain. Having diversity in the races in how they view the world (their alignment) and having non-stereotypical races is good too. That being said, I see nothing wrong with having monolithic evil races either, as long as it makes sense. The good thing is that you don't have to use their rules for One DnD. What about goblins? Just who do you think (traditionally) they represent. I'll give you a hint. They travelled a looooooong time in the desert. That being said, I do agree with your points and the openess to deviation from the norms. Keeping the biological traits and separating some into cultural traits is a good idea to address this.
Thank you for the comment! My problem with monolithic evil races is that it feels like they must necessarily be completely isolated from the rest of society in order to remain uniform in their beliefs. Which, of course, you can try to explain but often times I think this results from segmented and dare I say lazy worldbuilding. If your explanation falls back on curses, divine intervention, or the dreaded genetics argument, you enter the realm of a non-playable race pretty much considering you're forced to be unchanging and uniform. To your point about goblins, I was going to add them to the video and mention how much progress D&D, as well as other sources, have made but it ended up leaving the scope of Dungeons and Dragons and the point about Drizzt and the groups of good drow illustrated that point better as a way to move in the right direction. Thank you again for engaging!
The specific descriptions are not relevant. The problem is that the bigotry training is baked into the system. You learn how to identify "monsters" and "races" by sight and then respond to them by what you "know" about them based on that superficial description. Behavioral characteristics should be like tricks and traps and hidden doors, something to be learned. Not easily color coded.
Stop thinking of them as 'races' the way we think of human race is clearly a less meaningful thing. Race is a complicated and gray concept. They are species. Stop calling them races altogether.
I agree race isn't the most accurate description, but I'll push back slightly on that point because it's hard to tell where to draw the line. Absolutely if you're comparing the D&D world to our world, most of these are not 'races' relative to one another (even though race in our world is almost completely arbitrary). However, lots of them are not species either. Aasimar typically have 2 human parents, half-orcs and half-elves exist and can have children, and it's unclear where subraces fall into all of this. I know some in the community have proposed using "ancestry & culture" to describe race. I'm curious as to what you think?
@@thebountifulmimic I think the cause for it being called "Race" as a hybridization of species and culture is a stylization. Trying to give the terminology used at the table a bit more of an archaic tone, like in the Beowulf you mention; "The famous race of Spear-Danes. Lo! the Spear-Danes glory through splendid achievements The folk-kings former fame we have heard of, How princes displayed then their prowess-in-battle." In the times when your lineage and the traits derrived of it was considered more important than who you were as a person.
@@kastor6647 That's a fantastic point and citation! Race has a definition that has changed overtime and our modern conception of the term may not be the way they wishes the word to be used in D&D. Maybe a large world of various intelligent humanoid lifeforms would use 'race' to describe the different groups. I'll probably still call them races since it's really difficult to come up with something that encompasses what we mean in a clearer way. But I definitely plan on removing cultural features from races anyway. Thanks for the comment!
The entire D&D community should watch this video. Most are hyper resistant to criticism of the sacred cow so backlash would be frantic and hyperbolic, but I think the way you present this world get through to at least a portion of them.
Thank you! I really hope so. The D&D community means a lot to me and as people all interested in telling great stories, I would hope finding ways to express ourselves in different ways would be welcome.
Meh. You complain about homogenization, but then make a video about racism. I understand that you're trying to de-other-ify the races, but homogenization and anti-racism are correlated. In order to create a society where everyone is on equal footing the lowest common denominator must be found and adhered to. In the case of WOTC, the lowest common denominator is the human race. You can't offend any race if everyone is the same race.
Perhaps my explanation in the video was not strong enough so I hope I can explain better here. Homogenization is certainly a way to remove explicit or implicit racism, but it's a lazy way. As someone interested in telling complex and interesting stories, I don't agree with the way WoTC is deciding to fix the problem. There is not only one way to solve the racism problem in D&D. For instance, adding more than one civilization of a certain race with varied cultural traits, even if they're somewhat derived from biology, can bring a wealth of lore and depth to races. Sure there can be a "survival of the fittest, strongest rules" Orc clan, but it shouldn't be presented as the inborn choice when there are plenty of other options. I'd encourage you to listen to the solutions part again at 12:56 and see if any of this changes the way you feel about the video. Thank you for the feedback!
howdy! nice to see other folks talking about these issues. there are a lot of different solutions, with varying levels of success. But the fact that we are actually talking about it is the first step.
Wow thanks so much for weighing in! I watched your video on Bioessentialism in Gaming and it brings of fantastic points and great insights.
I have never really liked races in D+D. Picking different classes makes your play experience different. When you play a palli, it feels like you are playing a holy warrior. When you play a wizard, it feels like playing a studious magic wielder. Etc.
Races never FELT different. When playing an orc, you SHOULD feel like the sort of being that can bust logs over their knee. If you play as an elf, you SHOULD feel like a graceful and long lived entity.
And when the race is coupled with class, it should really feel unique. A rogue orc should feel vastly different from a rogue gnome. An elven sorcerer should feel vastly different from a halfling sorcerer.
But this has not been the case, and it honestly is only made worse by recent changes.
I love this video. It is inspiring me to look at dnd races in a new light and try to change up some of the things in game to make them more interesting and take creative liberties. I will definitely be recommending this video to others. Great job!
Thank you so much for the kind comments. I'm so glad I could inspire some positive change.
I agree with you. In our games stuff like alignment is wholly cultural. We are also playing in Dungeon World where you don't really get racial bonuses in general. There are class benefits for some races (ranger elves come to mind) but most of your bonuses just come from class.
Kudos for leaning into this subject. There is, however, much more to this than meets the eye. The issue of race & racism suffuses the fantasy genre, to include books and movies as well as games, tabletop and otherwise. I encourage you to dig deeper. Don't be discouraged by people who play "gotcha" games or try to pigeonhole you.
I've certainly encountered other examples outside of D&D. We just all have to do our best to improve our artforms and make progress. Thank you for the kind and encouraging words!
Quick update! The day after I published this video, it seems Wizards of the Coast has decided to errata out content on the D&D beyond books including massive sections of lore from Volo's Guide to Monsters. While I understand some of these changes and think they are positive (including some removal of some problematic Orc material), some of it is certainly unwarranted. Changes were made to Mindflayers and Beholders to humanize them more, however there was no reason for this. Beholders and Mindflayers are not misunderstood or derived from any kind of real world cultures. They are Far Realms aberrations meant to inspire eldritch fear because of complex monstrous motivations. Additionally, this was the laziest kind of errata to problematic races as no new content was introduced. It simply deletes old content doing exactly what I warned of in the video 1) pushing all D&D races closer to humans and 2) making the races just stats on a piece of paper.
D&D orcs = the ________ race of real world humans?
Please fill in the blank, and provide actual justification for your conclusion.
Thanks
@@BeardedDevil-cn9tw Hey! Check out the History of Orcs section of the video (around 7:40 specifically) for the Tolkien quote about orcs. As for the justification for the conclusion, one would have to first look at the time period and society that Tolkien lived in when he came up with the Orcs. I'd recommend readings on martial race and the British Army or World War I "Yellow Peril." This is all to say not much about the orcs change from Tolkien to D&D (or WoW for that matter). So that's the basis!
@@thebountifulmimic that's an obvious attempt to avoid answering the question. Please try again.
D&D orcs = the ______ race of real world humans?
In other words, which specific ethnicity is supposed to be the analogy represented by orcs in Dungeons & Dragons. Provide explicit evidence within the material content of the source books (i.e., the various editions of the DMG's, Players Handbooks, Monster Manuals...etc).
I'll wait...
P.S.: I'm not asking for you to regurgitate what others have told you in regards to an out-of-contect bullet point written within a nearly 500 page collection of letters by a long dead author. It's 2022, not 1932. If orcs in D&D are supposed to be racial analogs for a specific ethnicity of real world humans...then what ethnic groups are Gnomes, Halflings, Dwarves, Kobolds, and Goblins representing? Who, in modern times, told you that orcs in D&D are _______ in real life?
Oh, and I'd bet dollars to donuts the social circle you're currently parroting isn't comparing orcs to humans of Asian decent. Let's be real, even Tolkien wasn't directly making that comparison either...or any other specific ethnic group.
@@BeardedDevil-cn9tw If you want to have a real conversation we can, but don't assume my intent is poor or talk down to me like I'm a child. If you want to engage productively with content on UA-cam, you can. My assumption (which I could be wrong) is that you're not here to actually engage and learn but to talk from a point of ignorance. I haven't avoided the question. Go to 7:40 in the video. Orcs were conceived as a stereotype for Mongol people. As for your definition of "explicit" sources for analogous representation of ethnicities, I don't believe they exist in the nature that you describe. Considering the DMG's, Players Handbooks, Monster Manuals, etc wouldn't outright say "orcs are based on stereotypes of Mongol people." Is that what you mean by "explicit evidence?" Similarly, and very recently, the hadozee race in the D&D spelljammer books were heavily edited considering art, story, and descriptions were heavily derived from stereotypes of black people and minstrel shows. Did the spelljammer book outright say "hey these guys were derived from harmful stereotypes of black people?" No, of course not, but implicit evidence exists and is a great tool for critical analysis.
As for the point about regurgitation, I disagree wholeheartedly that others have told me this information as if I had made this video with no research of my own. I decided to make this video on the basis of what I have experienced in D&D as well as other TTRPGs and video games over the years. I wondered why races were similar across mediums and read Beowulf, parts of Hereward the Wake, reread portions of Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion, R.A Salvatore books, the histories of Orcs and Drow in D&D, and full texts of the Tolkien letters to various people ranging from Milton Waldman to Forrest J. Ackerman. The evidence for the orcs analogue to Mongols goes beyond just the letter. Tolkien's time in WW1 had him exposed to yellow peril and martial race ideology. As I mentioned in the video, this wasn't meant to be a Tolkien deep dive but merely an overview of where my thoughts come from.
I don't parrot a social circle. I make videos independently. As to whether or not Tolkien was directly making the comparison, I'd certainly argue he was for the above reasons. There are many great sources on this, but again it doesn't seem like you're interested. I am curious though. What is your problem with concepts like these?
@@thebountifulmimic it's actually quite simple. You've admitted that literally no where in any of the core rulebooks of any edition does it compare D&D orcs to any specific ethnicity of real world humans...then claim that there is loads of "implicit evidence". Great. Simply provide that evidence.
Yes, you are parroting talking points. Case example is your blatantly racist view of hardozee. An alien race that goes back to the days of the original Star Frontiers rpg. It's like you've never seen Planet of the Apes...or do you think Cornelius was really just Roddy McDowall's attempt at low key blackface? Also, are you claiming that the artist who painted the Hardozee bard is 100% a racist? If so, please provide evidence. Otherwise you're no better than a flat earther who proudly proclaims "looks flat". There is such a thing as "reading into things" and if it weren't for your obvious recycling of other people's material...I'd almost certainly guarantee that you not one iota of this stuff ever entered you noggin
I don't really hold with separating biological traits from cultural ones for non-humans, because I think it detracts from the archetypal nature of them. But otherwise, I am 110% with you-- I share your concerns about D&D races being particularly blatant allegories for real-life colonialism, but I also agree that WotC removing mechanical differences from their existing races is _not the way._
The solution is exactly what you say it is-- call a moratorium on inventing new D&D races and spend some time and page count on making their existing races more complicated, fleshed out, and three dimensional. Instead of telling us they're "always evil", show us why they're evil... and what would motivate them, individually or collectively, to do more good.
I've been using a method similar to yours for almost a decade and it seems to have worked.
What I did was remove the culturals from races and tie them into the nations of my world, so at the end of the day the, for example, Mountain Dwarves from the PHB represent the dwarves of the Scathian Federation, who know how to use all manners of weapons and armour because their entire shtick revolves around keeping the Gates of the World from the marauding hordes of the Borderlands.
However, should you want to play a Dwarf from, say, the floating island of Tempest Keep, you would not get weapon, tool or armour proficiencies but a refluffed Sacred Flame spell because you'd be an apprentice Storm Rider, the equivalent of Stonecunning for reading weather phenomena (because Storm Riders are sort of skyship navigators) and a special feature that allows you to add a d4 damage to your lightning spells whenever you roll doubles on the damage.
Makes total sense and is incredibly intuitive! Just curious, have any cultures of your nations over the years changed? And if so, have you changed the ability? I think it would be interesting to have a player uphold cultural values from a long forgotten empire and have an ability from that culture.
@@thebountifulmimic I have them as Boons that can be picked up throughout game time and the only way to get them is by roleplaying or doing certain things.
A player wants the "Honour of the First King" trait to be able to heal damage through uses of Divine Smite?
They must swear never to wear armour again on the altar of the First Kin in Valholl, because this is how the members of the Heavenfall (Valholl's elite) have always done.
If they break the oath, they lose the Boon.
The solution is play GURPS.
5e D&D would benefit from a book solely dedicated to Orcs. Never mind the other so-called "goblinoid" races.
What do you think the book should contain? I've always wanted a book that's just a compilation of interesting NPCs, villages, guilds, etc. I think adding various goblinoid creatures into that kind of book would make it so Orcs and others would be used in a more diverse set of ways.
Not really a fan of the floating ability score modifiers and their new changes. I don't view the races in the way some people may and don't see an analogue to real-world ethnicities. I myself am of mixed heritage and I do think races that draw too close to ethnicities are a negative thing for certain. Having diversity in the races in how they view the world (their alignment) and having non-stereotypical races is good too. That being said, I see nothing wrong with having monolithic evil races either, as long as it makes sense. The good thing is that you don't have to use their rules for One DnD.
What about goblins? Just who do you think (traditionally) they represent. I'll give you a hint. They travelled a looooooong time in the desert. That being said, I do agree with your points and the openess to deviation from the norms. Keeping the biological traits and separating some into cultural traits is a good idea to address this.
Thank you for the comment! My problem with monolithic evil races is that it feels like they must necessarily be completely isolated from the rest of society in order to remain uniform in their beliefs. Which, of course, you can try to explain but often times I think this results from segmented and dare I say lazy worldbuilding. If your explanation falls back on curses, divine intervention, or the dreaded genetics argument, you enter the realm of a non-playable race pretty much considering you're forced to be unchanging and uniform.
To your point about goblins, I was going to add them to the video and mention how much progress D&D, as well as other sources, have made but it ended up leaving the scope of Dungeons and Dragons and the point about Drizzt and the groups of good drow illustrated that point better as a way to move in the right direction. Thank you again for engaging!
The specific descriptions are not relevant. The problem is that the bigotry training is baked into the system. You learn how to identify "monsters" and "races" by sight and then respond to them by what you "know" about them based on that superficial description. Behavioral characteristics should be like tricks and traps and hidden doors, something to be learned. Not easily color coded.
Stop thinking of them as 'races' the way we think of human race is clearly a less meaningful thing. Race is a complicated and gray concept. They are species. Stop calling them races altogether.
I agree race isn't the most accurate description, but I'll push back slightly on that point because it's hard to tell where to draw the line. Absolutely if you're comparing the D&D world to our world, most of these are not 'races' relative to one another (even though race in our world is almost completely arbitrary). However, lots of them are not species either. Aasimar typically have 2 human parents, half-orcs and half-elves exist and can have children, and it's unclear where subraces fall into all of this. I know some in the community have proposed using "ancestry & culture" to describe race. I'm curious as to what you think?
@@thebountifulmimic I think the cause for it being called "Race" as a hybridization of species and culture is a stylization. Trying to give the terminology used at the table a bit more of an archaic tone, like in the Beowulf you mention;
"The famous race of Spear-Danes.
Lo! the Spear-Danes glory through splendid achievements
The folk-kings former fame we have heard of,
How princes displayed then their prowess-in-battle."
In the times when your lineage and the traits derrived of it was considered more important than who you were as a person.
@@kastor6647 That's a fantastic point and citation! Race has a definition that has changed overtime and our modern conception of the term may not be the way they wishes the word to be used in D&D. Maybe a large world of various intelligent humanoid lifeforms would use 'race' to describe the different groups. I'll probably still call them races since it's really difficult to come up with something that encompasses what we mean in a clearer way. But I definitely plan on removing cultural features from races anyway. Thanks for the comment!
The entire D&D community should watch this video.
Most are hyper resistant to criticism of the sacred cow so backlash would be frantic and hyperbolic, but I think the way you present this world get through to at least a portion of them.
Thank you! I really hope so. The D&D community means a lot to me and as people all interested in telling great stories, I would hope finding ways to express ourselves in different ways would be welcome.
FWOTC.
I see it as all humanoids can interbreed but a humanoid can't breed with a giant. There are exceptions such as with dragons.
Meh. You complain about homogenization, but then make a video about racism. I understand that you're trying to de-other-ify the races, but homogenization and anti-racism are correlated. In order to create a society where everyone is on equal footing the lowest common denominator must be found and adhered to. In the case of WOTC, the lowest common denominator is the human race. You can't offend any race if everyone is the same race.
Perhaps my explanation in the video was not strong enough so I hope I can explain better here. Homogenization is certainly a way to remove explicit or implicit racism, but it's a lazy way. As someone interested in telling complex and interesting stories, I don't agree with the way WoTC is deciding to fix the problem. There is not only one way to solve the racism problem in D&D. For instance, adding more than one civilization of a certain race with varied cultural traits, even if they're somewhat derived from biology, can bring a wealth of lore and depth to races. Sure there can be a "survival of the fittest, strongest rules" Orc clan, but it shouldn't be presented as the inborn choice when there are plenty of other options. I'd encourage you to listen to the solutions part again at 12:56 and see if any of this changes the way you feel about the video. Thank you for the feedback!