D&D 5E I thought WotC was removing biological morals?

[Micah Sweet]

The game is alienating fans as it is. That’s why these changes are being made.

Undoubtedly. I still wonder, however, just how many people who buy the products really feel strongly about these issues, and whether or not making these changes will effect sales (one way or the other). That's what its ultimately about for the people who own the brand, after all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, they won't.

Because the point they are working out isn't the one that you're talking about. It's the one that some people want to hijack the issue towards, but, it's not the issue.

Your first question, whenever this conversation comes up, should always be, "Has this element been used to denigrate anyone?" If the answer is no, then the element in question isn't what WotC is talking about.

I agree that these specific issues are being brought up for those reasons, and those will be the first changes made. But it won't end there.

 

[Hussar]

The thing is, I don’t think satyrs, giants, and whatever else are bad things to bring up in this conversation. They’re worth taking a look at too.

Why?

Are satyrs, giants and whatever else hurting anyone? Have they been used to hurt anyone? No? Then they're not worth taking a look at. Full stop. This huge expansion of the issue into things that have nothing to do with real people is just getting in the way of actually making real change.

Does anyone care that hill giants are evil? Do the descriptions of hill giants mirror real world racist descriptions/depictions? No? Then, they aren't a problem. Move on.

I'm rather tired of seeing this issue being hijacked into this much larger arena where it's a never ending roundabout of "Whatabouts". Because as soon as you go down this road, you can never stop. It's never ending and it's only clouding the real issues.

 

[MGibster]

See, @Charlaquin, this is why I'm saying that this "essentialism" stuff is just clouding the issue. It's a deep, deep rabbit hole and all it does is provide ammunition to those who want to do nothing but throw up roadblocks. It provides a never ending list of "whaddabouts" that will just tie things up in knots forever.

Actually I'm going to apologize here. I made a flippant comment without reading through the rest of the thread to "read the room." And given the topic, I should have known the conversation would have gotten heated and my typical good natured posting might not be taken as it was intended which is my fault. So my apologies. While I have no objections to orcs always being evil any more than I do to redcaps, I'm not bothered by orcs being good either. It'll probably provide better opportunities to create more interesting settings.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, it's not a "present" issue. It's something that has kind of tagged along for the ride of the actual issue - which is "Does this depiction of this fictional element mirror the racist depictions of real life people, harming real life people, within the fairly recent past?"

But it is a present issue, because it’s something many people earnestly think should be changed about the game. It’s a part of the conversation whether you want it to be or not.

Trying to expand the issue to "should anything in the game have alignment" is a much broader issue, the OVERWHELMING majority of elements of it have zero impact on real life people. Whether or not Satyrs are good, evil or something else doesn't actually matter to real life people because satyrs aren't being used to justify or promote racism. I'm having a tough time thinking that centaurs are going to feature prominently on Storm Front newsletters. I don't recall seeing Eladrin being held up as stand ins for dehumanizing anyone.

So, instead of trying to cloud the issue with a bunch of irrelevent garbage, how about we focus on the stuff that ACTUALLY impacts real people? If we're serious about making the game welcoming to all people, maybe not using the Tokyo Kid imagery might be a good start? I'm pretty sure though, that no one looks at Satyr's and thinks, Hrmmm, they're talking about me?!? Dressing up the Tokyo Kid in Japanese armor and making him a monster is kinda not the greatest way to promote the game to people?

Yes, we should absolutely address the depictions of races that are rooted in real-world racism. But the problem does not begin and end with that. And I’m sorry, but “Hrmmm, they're talking about me?!?” is the caricature of the actual critique that gets trotted out by people trying to make the critique look absurd.

 

[Hussar]

I agree that these specific issues are being brought up for those reasons, and those will be the first changes made. But it won't end there.

Is this another thing you are "sure" about?

Why not? Why wouldn't they stop? They can point to the changes, say, "Look, you told us that these things are racist, you provided all sorts of evidence as to why they are racist and offensive, we listened and we fixed the problem."

Note, it's not enough for people to just say, "Well, this is offensive". That's not enough and never has been. You actually have to show HOW something is a problem. A problem in what way? You (and I mean the general you, not you specifically) have to be able to show how this is harming people. That's why orcs and drow and Vistani got changed. It was pretty obvious. There's been very clear comparisons made demonstrating exactly what the problems are.

But, this whole slippery slope thing is missing so much of the point. The point of these changes was never "oh well this is offensive we should change it". It was, "Here, look, here's a bunch of very clear examples of where what we've written in D&D mirrors, sometimes nearly word for word or image by image, incredibly racist, bigoted and harmful language that has been used over the past century or so to denigrate, harm and disenfranchise entire groups of people who have suffered incredible crimes against humanity."

"Oh, what about satyrs" becomes a rather weak, sad counter point in the face of that.

 

[Bardic Dave]

So let redcaps be criticized. Maybe that will lead to them being improved. What’s the problem?

Ah, so if we’re in agreement then why are we arguing? My whole shtick has been disagreeing with the people saying redcaps are different enough to escape criticism. I understood you to be one of those people.

 

[Hussar]

is the caricature of the actual critique that gets trotted out by people trying to make the critique look absurd.

That's because the critique is absurd. Or, rather it's absurd in the face of dealing with real world issues that directly impact real world people.

Is it a conversation to be had? Maybe? I guess. If people want to talk about it?

Is it a conversation to be had instead of, or at the same time as, we're trying to talk about making changes that directly impact real world people? Maybe not.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why?

Because biological essentialism is bad, and shouldn’t be validated by the game.

Are satyrs, giants and whatever else hurting anyone? Have they been used to hurt anyone?

Directly? Probably not, but harm doesn’t begin and end with direct, overt displays of bigotry.

No? Then they're not worth taking a look at. Full stop. This huge expansion of the issue into things that have nothing to do with real people is just getting in the way of actually making real change.

They do have to do with real people. And I don’t agree that discussing the issue broadly gets in the way of real change. We can (and in my opinion, should) pursue this issue from more than one angle at once.

Does anyone care that hill giants are evil?

Yes.

Do the descriptions of hill giants mirror real world racist descriptions/depictions?

Again, not directly, but essentializing their moral character on the basis of their biology does mirror real world racism.

I'm rather tired of seeing this issue being hijacked into this much larger arena where it's a never ending roundabout of "Whatabouts". Because as soon as you go down this road, you can never stop. It's never ending and it's only clouding the real issues.

And I’m rather tired of an issue that I and many others earnestly take with the depiction of race in D&D dismissed as “hijacking the issue” and something “no one has a problem with.”

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is this another thing you are "sure" about?

Why not? Why wouldn't they stop? They can point to the changes, say, "Look, you told us that these things are racist, you provided all sorts of evidence as to why they are racist and offensive, we listened and we fixed the problem."

Note, it's not enough for people to just say, "Well, this is offensive". That's not enough and never has been. You actually have to show HOW something is a problem. A problem in what way? You (and I mean the general you, not you specifically) have to be able to show how this is harming people. That's why orcs and drow and Vistani got changed. It was pretty obvious. There's been very clear comparisons made demonstrating exactly what the problems are.

But, this whole slippery slope thing is missing so much of the point. The point of these changes was never "oh well this is offensive we should change it". It was, "Here, look, here's a bunch of very clear examples of where what we've written in D&D mirrors, sometimes nearly word for word or image by image, incredibly racist, bigoted and harmful language that has been used over the past century or so to denigrate, harm and disenfranchise entire groups of people who have suffered incredible crimes against humanity."

"Oh, what about satyrs" becomes a rather weak, sad counter point in the face of that.

They wouldn't stop because Orcs, Drow and Vistani are not the only things people care about; they're just the most obvious. A critical eye has been turned to D&D in recent years, and IMO (no, I'm not "sure") that eye is not going to turn away when and if these more clear issues are addressed. Its going to keep looking, and people are going to keep demanding change.