hidajiremi wrote:They're in there. They're just called "humans." One of my big setting goals with this version of the world was demystifying the Vistani, getting rid of the casual way they're referred to by an ethnic slur, and making it so they're less "superhumans who can do basically anything, even break the rules of the setting" and more "another tribe or ethnic group that happens to be thought of as mysterious because of their way of life."
An admirable goal to be sure, though I have to admit that, personally, I think I prefer the way it was done in 4e. Rather than de-mystify them, they de-Roma-fied them. Maybe I'm a curmudgeon, but I
like the concept of a mysterious group of wanderers with powers no one else has.
(Full Disclosure: I'm actually quite torn on this, because, while I recognize the potential for offense, I'm a firm believer that borrowing details from real-world sources paints a fuller picture and makes for more resonant world-building than wholly made up cultures. It's one of the reasons I like Ravenloft so much, because it echoes the tropes of our world while not being locked into our world. This is why I use Vistani as-is in my personal campaign. But I recognize it's a delicate balancing act, and if I had to choose one part of the vistani to lose, I'd lose the real-world Roma echoes before I'd lose the mysticism and powers.)
Really, I think the biggest mistake the 2e presentation of the vistani made was the Corvara tribe. There's nothing wrong with having an ethnic group persecuted and thought of as thieves and cheats, provided you show that the people doing the persecuting are misguided jerks. Once you include the "oh, and sometimes they're right," part, you've robbed the vistani of the moral high-ground. (Of course, the whole point is that ethnic groups aren't monolithic and every group has its good and bad apples, but giving them an established sect that lives up to all the bad stereotypes and none of the good was a bad call, IMHO.)
To put myself in the shoes of the Roma, if Ravenloft had a race and/or religion that reflected Jews, and their treatment in Europe of the middle ages/renaissance/Victorian era, (as some have suggested for halflings) I'd have no problem with it, even if they are moneylenders by trade. It's history, not a slur. But once there's a sub-tribe of that race that actually
does steal Ezran babies and bake bread from their blood... then I'm going to call foul.
Half-Vistani are no more a different race than half-Falkovnians or half-Mordentish.
See, here I agree,
but only in that I'd like to see half-Falkovnians and half-Mordentish get rules too. You're right that a different race (of the game-term meaning) is probably the wrong message. But backgrounds, traits, feats, whatever the game system provides (I don't know SW, remember) tailored to ethnicity is not a problem for me, and in fact would be a plus. Let's face it, SF&F has racial reductivism woven all through it. Dwarves like to mine, Elves are into nature, Lamordians are skeptics, Dementlieuse are cultured, Vulcans are logical, and Wookiees pull peoples arms out of their sockets when they lose. Giving a (maybe optional?) in-game bonus for playing into the culture you've chosen for a character isn't a terrible thing.
Just my opinion, of course. Nothing wrong with the way you decided to go for your book.