A red herring (which I see I misspelled) fallacy is:
diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first. It can be intentional or unintentional.
So I would definitely label the lateral maneuver to having a side conversation about the validity of evil races as a metaphor for non-human threats a red herring, as that is not relevant to the topic at hand.
>Wether or not they were meant to be evil to be walking speedbumps (not XP, thats not how old games used to work) is irrelevant to the question.
Yes, that is irrelevant. I’m not sure why you are making that point, because I certainly didn’t. I said that they were mooks to demonstrate that they weren’t metaphors.
Yes, Orcs and Drow were originally designed to be evil. I don’t understand what your point is there. The setting already has evolved. Orcs and Drow are now playable races, and can be any alignment. This isn’t new. The new policy is a continuation of the trajectory which WotC was already on. There will still be evil Orcs, but there could also be communities of neutral Orcs living as pastoral herdsmen away from civilization. There will still be evil Drow. I’m pretty sure Lolth will be as cruel as she ever was and that the places where she reigns will be as inhospitable as ever. Now, however, there will be more nuance in how the inhabitants of these communities are characterized. I don’t see the controversy here.
Do you play Dungeons & Dragons with lots of people in the “California crowd?” If you do, a good story teller often adapts their story for their audience. If you don’t, what makes you suspect they would even know or care about what you put into your campaigns?
Again, much ado about nothing.
