New York Times gift articles

962 readers

366 users here now

Share your New York Times gift articles links here.

Rules:

Only post New York Times gift article links.

Info:

The NYT Open Team. (2021-06-23). “A New Way to Share New York Times Stories”. open.nytimes.com.
“Gift Articles for New York Times Subscribers”. (n.d.). help.nytimes.com.

Tip:

Google "unlocked_article_code" and limit search results to the past week.
Mastodon: Use control-F or ⌘-F to search this page. (ref)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Dungeons & Dragons Rolls the Dice With New Rules About Identity (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not that all traits have been separated from species. Just the traits that come across as racist.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

They didn't just "come across" as racist. Racial traits were racist in previous editions, by definition, because it was about the differences between races. Tying differences to race is always racist, that's literally what racism is. I like the change to "species."

But if they're different species, I don't really think those differences are racist anymore? I don't really see how "elves have more magic than mountain dwarves" is still racist when they're entirely different species. I guess it can be problematic for there to be one species that specializes in Int, Wis, and Cha since they'd just be inherently smarter and more beautiful? There's probably no way to make that work. But why shouldn't the elvish species be greater spellcasters? It's just an odd choice.