D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Chaosmancer]

A species in a fantasy world, brought into being by an evil god, with a bloodline thinned to the point of having an option to be a player character, with the lore stigma of having ancestors of evil God spawn.
..Is racist?
Forcing a real world judgment on a fantasy concept to create a connection to be far more alike than it is, seems more of a bigoted thought.

Taking that lore away seems a perilous thing, like burning the history of a place because you're the new conqueror. Rewriting a history steeped in Tolkien fantasy, of orcs being fell creations. Drow being beholden to Lolth, etc.

A iteration of that needs to remain. Amending it to including a couple more background concepts of usually-fell races is a better idea than burning away their lore to put something completely different in its place.

sigh

Right, look. Lore is mutable, changeable, and has no bearing on what I was even talking about. You asked how people could find stuff in the PHB harmful. Well, here it is.

Half-Orcs: Mixed blood children of humans and a "low and brutish race". A race who before this edition, likely raped the women who bore half-orc children. The race that is tribal, violent, savage, along with features such as sloping foreheads. If the children are not raised in the violent orcish tribes, they are in the slums.

Tieflings: Also mixed blood, also of an evil race, also living in "the roughest parts" of towns, where they are swindlers, crime lords and thieves.

Both these races are depicted with a dark purple skin tone.

Half-Elves: Mixed blood, but with a good race. Also, the picture is white. Also wearing gold, red, and white clothes. They, like the tieflings and half-orcs don't have a society of their own so they... grow up between both worlds, sometimes forming small communities and being diplomats between their societies.


Additionally, none of the other phb racial options mention poverty or slums or crime at all. The only people specifically called out as poor and potentially criminal are the darker-skinned children of humans and evil races.

And sure, orcs are evil, so of course the children of orcs and humans are discriminated against, given fewer opportunities, and forced to live with lesser means.... but doesn't that sound an awful lot like some real world problems people might have? Might someone who has these real-world problems see this depiction and wonder why, since it is an option for anyone to be a street urchin or criminal, why these two races specifically get called out as such?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Mod Note:

You seem to want to have a discussion over whether slavery is good or bad. It is very hard to see your objection to that statement in any other light.

We are not having that discussion here. If you want to question why slavery is bad, have it on some other forum please.

That's not what I intended to say and am sorry if it sounded like that. I was talking strictly talking about how people felt 'objectionable themes' should be portrayed in published campaign settings and why.

 

[Hussar]

I commend to your attention the EnWorld Terms and Rules, especially the paragraph on Be Polite.

I’m sorry but what was impolite about my post? Strongly worded maybe but impolite?

Funny you call me out for board rules yet ignore the “HOA” comment right above mine.

So, would you care to discuss my point? That people are missing the issue? Slavery in DnD has always been depicted as evil. We’ve got four classic modules A1-4 about how the pcs are meant to go put those slavers in the ground.

Does Dark Sun present slavery as good or just? I don’t think so but as I said I’m not that familiar with the setting.

I’ve never read the 2e Rome sourcebook. How is slavery presented there?

 

[Hussar]

That's not what I intended to say and am sorry if it sounded like that. I was talking strictly talking about how people felt 'objectionable themes' should be portrayed in published campaign settings and why.

Ok, just to play the slippery slope card for a moment, where does that end?

Let's stick with Romans for a moment. So, in our putative sourcebook about Romans, slavery is presented as good and morally justified. Or, heck, even neutral for that matter. Ok. By the morality of the time, that would be true.

How about pedophilia? After all, that was also perfectly acceptable for the time. Your PC goes to a party, gets offered a little boy for the evening, and this is meant to be perfectly acceptable. After all, it was acceptable for the time.

Ritualized murder? Let's feed folks to the lions and this is presented as good and morally justified.

So on and so forth. You really don't think there's anything wrong with that?

See, there's absolutely nothing wrong with "objectionable themes". That's perfectly fine. What's wrong is presenting "objectionable themes" as morally good. You want to do that in your home game? Great. You want WotC to produce that? Not so great.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Ok, just to play the slippery slope card for a moment, where does that end?

Let's stick with Romans for a moment. So, in our putative sourcebook about Romans, slavery is presented as good and morally justified. Or, heck, even neutral for that matter. Ok. By the morality of the time, that would be true.

How about pedophilia? After all, that was also perfectly acceptable for the time. Your PC goes to a party, gets offered a little boy for the evening, and this is meant to be perfectly acceptable. After all, it was acceptable for the time.

Ritualized murder? Let's feed folks to the lions and this is presented as good and morally justified.

So on and so forth. You really don't think there's anything wrong with that?

See, there's absolutely nothing wrong with "objectionable themes". That's perfectly fine. What's wrong is presenting "objectionable themes" as morally good. You want to do that in your home game? Great. You want WotC to produce that? Not so great.

Some good points but I'm not allowed to talk about this.

 

[Mercurius]

There's a long history of RPGs including "objectionable things"--be it in a broad sense, or more narrowly to specific ideologies. That said, WotC is in a unique positon as the market leader, so have a much more visible and influential position than a hypothetical "Blood Bath Publishing," and should tread with care.

If I were WotC, I would shy away from the more obviously objectionable themes. But I don't see anything wrong with depicting a certain culture--such as ancient Rome--in a realistic manner. I mean, some object to the inaccurate depiction of Asian cultures, so shouldn't the same logic apply to Rome? There are ways to do so without glorifying certain aspects of Roman culture, and some areas (e.g. pedophilia) probably don't need to be touched at all.

WotC also wants to produce books that have wide appeal, so are simply through economic practicalities, insulated from the more objectionable themes. But if Blood Bath Publishing wants to produce Colonize the Savages: the Tabletop RPG, I see no reason that they shouldn't be able to. We can all vote with our dollar (or, in this case, not).

 

[Curmudjinn]

sigh

Right, look. Lore is mutable, changeable, and has no bearing on what I was even talking about. You asked how people could find stuff in the PHB harmful. Well, here it is.

Half-Orcs: Mixed blood children of humans and a "low and brutish race". A race who before this edition, likely raped the women who bore half-orc children. The race that is tribal, violent, savage, along with features such as sloping foreheads. If the children are not raised in the violent orcish tribes, they are in the slums.

Tieflings: Also mixed blood, also of an evil race, also living in "the roughest parts" of towns, where they are swindlers, crime lords and thieves.

Both these races are depicted with a dark purple skin tone.

Half-Elves: Mixed blood, but with a good race. Also, the picture is white. Also wearing gold, red, and white clothes. They, like the tieflings and half-orcs don't have a society of their own so they... grow up between both worlds, sometimes forming small communities and being diplomats between their societies.


Additionally, none of the other phb racial options mention poverty or slums or crime at all. The only people specifically called out as poor and potentially criminal are the darker-skinned children of humans and evil races.

And sure, orcs are evil, so of course the children of orcs and humans are discriminated against, given fewer opportunities, and forced to live with lesser means.... but doesn't that sound an awful lot like some real world problems people might have? Might someone who has these real-world problems see this depiction and wonder why, since it is an option for anyone to be a street urchin or criminal, why these two races specifically get called out as such?

facepalm

Half-elves are the spawn of.. Elves, right? A civilized species from a civilized deity. They are also Gold, Blue, White, Gray, Black, etc. Depending on their environment.

Half-orcs and Tieflings are the spawn of monsters. Demons, devils and a fell race of a dread God of slaughter.
They're MONSTERS, no matter how you or the outrage crowd want to dress it up to be socially acceptable.
If they were half-spiders, they'd be similarly terrifying to civilized races. And likely shunned and likely of a darker skin tone.
That's just fact, not racism.

I'm Native American. When I make a character of a wild background, I enjoy the plains warrior theme, Apache-like. Darker skin due to being in warmer climate in the hot sun constantly.
I can't have that represented in a official book though, because someone who isn't Native American is going to tell me they're offended, and I should pick a side or I'm in the wrong.
That's really ridiculous.
People are just making decisions for others and telling them like it or you're my enemy

It's getting a little too Sith Lord for my tastes.

Instead of changing Half-races, they should add Blooded races, where monstrous features are minimal.

 

[Curmudjinn]

An example of why things shouldn't just be removed:
One of my offline group members is of Roma descent.
His favorite setting? Ravenloft.
The reason? Vistani

He loves their Romani touch(due to his heritage) and their supernatural atmosphere.

Another Roma thinks they're insensitive and wants them removed.
The issue is, the crowd of judges/juries of that dilemma are not Roma.
Who is right? Who makes the decision of what stays?

Another example.
The elves of my homebrew campaign are a take on my Native American heritage. With a mix of Cherokee and Sioux vibe.
If they were in the PHB, some person who feels their opinion matters more may want it removed. And in this day and age, the company is going to be attacked on social media for not removing them.

 

[Mecheon]

Half-orcs and Tieflings are the spawn of monsters. Demons, devils and a fell race of a dread God of slaughter.
They're MONSTERS, no matter how you or the outrage crowd want to dress it up to be socially acceptable.

They're sapient beings capable of their own choices. They're not monsters and have been playable sapient races for years.

Blaming everything on deities is the literal worst counter-argument to this I've ever heard. You'll never complain about how dare someone play an evil elf or a whole bloody civilisation of naughty word elves, yet turning that around so orcs have variance and suddenly people tear their hair out at how dare I suggest such.

Monsters are made by their actions, not their race. Choices make you that.

Also, Kill the gods and shatter their thrones.

Speaking of, isn't the only canonical FR purely human-orientated god unquestionably evil (And also linked to Pelor, the Burning Hate)? C'mon. Apply it to everything. If orcs can't be good and have multi-layered things because they have an evil god, apply it to humans. See how far that gets you

 

[Oofta]

They're sapient beings capable of their own choices. They're not monsters and have been playable sapient races for years.

Blaming everything on deities is the literal worst counter-argument to this I've ever heard. You'll never complain about how dare someone play an evil elf or a whole bloody civilisation of naughty word elves, yet turning that around so orcs have variance and suddenly people tear their hair out at how dare I suggest such.

Monsters are made by their actions, not their race. Choices make you that.

Also, Kill the gods and shatter their thrones.

Speaking of, isn't the only canonical FR purely human-orientated god unquestionably evil (And also linked to Pelor, the Burning Hate)? C'mon. Apply it to everything. If orcs can't be good and have multi-layered things because they have an evil god, apply it to humans. See how far that gets you

Unless, if course, those monsters are friends, aberrations, dragons, giants ... well the list goes on.