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

[S'mon]

Exactly. You shouldn't. Where is the "role" in this? Where is the morality? Where is the drama or self exploration? Now u can play a genocidal paladin wiping out the evil orcs and their babies BUT surely what makes this more than a xenophobic duck hunt is that the game system shouldn't explicitly tell you this was right with a flag that says evil.
Even in D&D evil primarily means self serving and selfish. Grounds for genocide? As a role, sure, but play the role, feel the death head on your cap.

Sorry, had to do it...

 

[Oofta]

Yes I am, and your post only demonstrates that you have failed to either read, listen, to the conversation or both, because you are doing a terrible job of actually presenting the argument at hand, but doing one fantastic job of straw-manning opposing viewpoints. Because the problem - as others have said before - is not orcs per se, but the rhetoric used to describe orcs. It's not that orcs are representative black people or any people, but, rather, that the rhetoric of orcs has parallels and undertones analogous to the rhetoric of white supremacists about non-whites. These are separate arguments. But if one fails to understand or comprehend that difference, I could see how that could get misconstrued. Maybe if we repeat it enough times, it will drive this point home. I hope that people can grasp this difference, because it's helpful for understanding the actual conversation that WotC and other gamers in favor of the changes are arguing. This is why the discussion of blackface, minstrel shows, and racist rhetoric gets brought up. It's not that orcs = black people, but, rather, that its one of the most obvious illustrations of the language of racism and how undertones of that rhetoric can be found in the description of orcs.

As to examples? People have been posting them and providing links. And yet when people post them, this evidence gets either dismissed, ignored, or internally rationalized via a Thermian argument. You want a discussion with more thoughts on the matter being considered? Yeah, that happened over that past few decades. This forum evidences that discussion happening in our community. This conversation has being going on for a long time now. Trying to invite further discussion is just kicking the can down the road to postpone or stonewall the changes from happening.

I've been following along on this and other conversations. When was the last time someone provided a link? When was the last time someone said anything other than "we've already shown you". Because I honestly don't remember.

I've tried multiple times to engage in a conversation either to be ignored or to be told the only option is to have orcs be humans (i.e. Keith Baker's depiction).

 

[Aldarc]

I've been following along on this and other conversations. When was the last time someone provided a link? When was the last time someone said anything other than "we've already shown you". Because I honestly don't remember.

I've tried multiple times to engage in a conversation either to be ignored or to be told the only option is to have orcs be humans (i.e. Keith Baker's depiction).

There are two closed racism and orc threads with links. Have at it.

 

[Cadence]

My hope is that D&D can find a happy medium and maintain that flexibility so different tables can tell different stories. If that includes some improvement to wording and imagery that makes some people feel unwelcome? Fantastic.

If we could we discuss what those changes might look like that would also be fantastic.

I'm imagining a big section in the MM, or perhaps a small separate book, full of humanoids. Maybe some of the current creatures (gnolls? lizard men?) aren't in it if they decide they're actually monstrous instead. But anything that they encourage people to be a PC of, that charm person works on, that you can reincarnate into. It has well thought out art on what they look like, it describes what distinguishes them in terms of attributes, abilities, and description. Says if some are particularly adapted to certain types of terrains - elves to forests, dwarves to underground, lizard men to swamps - or what terrain they're unlikely to be found in - humans underwater. It gives some brief examples of some different civilizations they might be in, maybe three each, chosen from combinations of good-neutral-evil x advanced-primitive x exclusive-mixed with others (maybe highlighting those in particular established worlds in sidebars). And it gives what you need to make them PCs or NPCs.

 

[Lanefan]

I find the exploration/expansion theme to be tricky. A big part of D&D heritage is exploring the unknown: Old Tombs, dark forests, strange people. Exploring Tomes and robbing from the dead is pretty on the nose. Especially if the tomb is of an elf or ancient race and the adventurers are a bunch of humans.

I've noticed in my own games that solutions to problems are different than they used to be when I was younger. I think part of it is because of my age but a big part is because of the world we live in. My druid who wants to help the forest by having the town use sustainable logging practices instead of going in and killing all the elves. Ironically, I don't find that younger players want to find other, more complex solutions. I think that's because many come to the game for the cool combat scenes.

Imagine an adventure where elves are preventing loggers from entering their forest and there have been some attacks. The town brings in adventurers to take care of the problem. I think that's a pretty common D&D trope. It has a lot more baggage these days with First Nations people blocking road access to pipeline workers. (not that there wasn't baggage back then, but I think it's more in the light now). Can we tell these kinds of stories? D&D is inherently a violent game with combat. I think a DM would have to be super careful how the adventure would be structured so as not to paint the elves in a bad way.

Is it possible to do these stories in a responsible, educational way or are they off the table?

It's very possible. Try this:

First, the assumption in most D&D settings the baseline assumption is that any given patch of land has been settled and lost and settled and lost numerous times over many thousands of years of history, by different peoples and different cultures. This is vastly different than real-life North America which has, as far as we know, only really been settled twice: once when people came over the then-land bridge from Siberia, and again when Europeans came across the Atlantic.

So here we have a patch of land about the size of Wyoming. Over the millennia each passing culture has left its mark on the land: the Lariana Elves planted the mighty trees whose descendents are still found here, then moved on; later the Calumna (Orc-like beings who took Dwarves as slaves) delved into the ground seeking who-knows-what and left behind many catacombs before their culture died out; then later the Ana'qari (peaceful Human) turned all the flat arable land to agriculture (but left most of the old Elf trees); and most of the above-ground ruins are leftovers of the Inadar (warlike Human) culture who held this ground most recently. The land, which lies to the east of the PCs' home realm, has been wild and unclaimed for over two centuries now; and monsters roam it freely.

I could mine that single paragraph for adventures enough to keep me going for years! And best of all, no worries about having to consider real-life concerns. Drop the puck!

The key thing is perhaps not to have all land be under someone's claim right now - have areas of land that are truly wild now but have gobs of history behind them.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think when a Sahuagin eats an Aarakocra it isn't cannibalism, but it's very close to the line. I don't think a Lizardfolk eating a human isn't "cannabalism" but it is crossing a major line. A dwarf eating an elf is cannabalism, though, IMO. Sure, they're different races/species, but a fleshy creature eating another fleshy should count as cannabalism.

By the reasonable definition of cannibalism, that of a sentient eating another sentient, yes, sahuagin are a cannibalistic species. In fact, if I remember correctly, sahuagin have been depicted as cannibalistic by any definition, by being perfectly willing to eat their own (the strong eat the weak). Sahuagin are an embodiment of our fear of sharks, and while sharks aren't themselves cannibalistic (I'm fairly sure), our fear of them as voracious predators makes the mythic shark so. Sahuagin culture doesn't define this act as wrong or evil, but sahuagin are one of those D&D species that are considered either inherently evil worshipers of an evil god, or at least a very alien species that doesn't play by the rules of civilization.

Does our portrayal of sahuagin need to change? Do we need to reexamine them as some of us are pushing for orcs and drow to be reexamined? Are sahuagin people? I actually think that these are good questions to ask of ANY D&D fantasy race, but the answers don't always have to be the same. Sahuagin are a sentient species, they are people, but they are also quite classically alien and removed from the morals of humanity (demihumanity). Orcs and drow are a lot closer to humans than the scary sharky-fish-people.

Your larger point, that a dwarf eating an elf is way more squicky than a sahuagin eating an elf (or dwarf), holds true. The closer a fantasy race is to humanity, the, well, more human they are and the more problematic it becomes when we dehumanize them to make them almost-people that are okay to hate and kill without moral qualms. And the squickier it gets when a near-human race is described as cannibalistic.

Conversely, the more monstrous a race is, the farther away from humanity it is . . . . it becomes less problematic to see them as monsters. It becomes less squicky (although not less scary) when they break norms like cannibalism. Of course, this is fertile grounds for some good sci-fi style storytelling. If sahuagin are unabashedly cannibals and have no issue eating humans, elves, dwarves and even other sahuagin . . . does that make them monstrous enough that our "heroes" can kill them on sight without much worry or moral quandary?

As is often the case, I love the way Eberron handles the sahuagin. Keith Baker, your gift to D&D never stops giving. Sahuagin aren't really portrayed as evil, but more as a terrifying force of nature. If you are going to cross the sea by ship, you have to be prepared to deal with the sahuagin. But those interactions aren't always violent, the sahuagin can be traded with, and hired as guides and guards. They are a people worthy of respect as any other, but a people you must be wary around as their cultural norms make it okay to eat you! Some sahuagin have no compunction about raiding sea vessels come dinner time, others realize that there can be more to be gained by not immediately eating the surface dwellers and by treating them as, well not equals, but beings worthy of peaceful interaction.

 

[Oofta]

There are two closed racism and orc threads with links. Have at it.

I read (or skimmed) those as well. Same pattern. "It's wrong" and "we've already proven it". Repeat. I remember 1 post that explained a person's POV and then they never posted again. Keith Baker's orc vision was posted.

That's pretty much been it. Otherwise it's been non-answers like this one which is a variation of "we've already proven it".

 

[Helldritch]

Yes I am, and your post only demonstrates that you have failed to either read, listen, to the conversation or both, because you are doing a terrible job of actually presenting the argument at hand, but doing one fantastic job of straw-manning opposing viewpoints. Because the problem - as others have said before - is not orcs per se, but the rhetoric used to describe orcs. It's not that orcs are representative of black people or any people, but, rather, that the rhetoric of orcs has parallels and undertones analogous to the rhetoric of white supremacists about non-whites. These are separate arguments. But if one fails to understand or comprehend that difference, I could see how that could get misconstrued. Maybe if we repeat it enough times, it will drive this point home. I hope that people can grasp this difference, because it's helpful for understanding the actual conversation that WotC and other gamers in favor of the changes are arguing. This is why the discussion of blackface, minstrel shows, and racist rhetoric gets brought up. It's not that orcs = black people, but, rather, that its one of the most obvious illustrations of the language of racism and how undertones of that rhetoric can be found in the description of orcs.

As to examples? People have been posting them and providing links. And yet when people post them, this evidence gets either dismissed, ignored, or internally rationalized via a Thermian argument. You want a discussion with more thoughts on the matter being considered? Yeah, that happened over that past few decades. This forum evidences that discussion happening in our community. This conversation has being going on for a long time now. Trying to invite further discussion is just kicking the can down the road to postpone or stonewall the changes from happening.

And that is an other side of the problem. Racists will use anything to diminish and remove inclusivity by using arguments like the ones you are describing. D&D has always been inclusive and accepting of people from all walks of life. They will use the words of the bible, the constitutions, a game and whatnot to justify themselves. By caving in to their argument, you're giving credits to their usage of the texts. I will not cave in to these monsters.

 

[Cadence]

I've been following along on this and other conversations. When was the last time someone provided a link?

I've posted these two previously twice, either or here or in the other two threads when people asked what was going on. They were posted at least a couple other times by other folks. I might have posted them more often, but at some point it feels repetitive. They aren't everyone's argument, but they're one of them.

Orcs, Britons, and the Martial Race Myth, Part I: A Species Built for Racial Terror — James Mendez Hodes

This is the first installment of a two-article series about the racist origins, nature, and ramifications of orcs, a malevolent humanoid species from English author John Ronald Reuel Tolkien’s Middle-earth fantasy setting. I started researching this article with the hypothesis that a collection of n

jamesmendezhodes.com

Orcs, Britons, and the Martial Race Myth, Part II: They're Not Human — James Mendez Hodes

This is the complement to my previous article , “Orcs, Britons, and the Martial Race Myth, Part I: A Species Built for Racial Terror.” In the previous article, we learned how racist myths from the British academy and army fueled JRR Tolkien’s creation of orcs as an analogue for Asian people. Today

jamesmendezhodes.com

When was the last time someone said anything other than "we've already shown you". Because I honestly don't remember.

I tried to explain in post #615 in this thread, and a few other times in the other threads. It's all stuff I got from other people in those threads. This arrow should go there:

The main argument that I've seen ...

 

[Doug McCrae]

When was the last time someone provided a link?

You're looking for comparisons between quotations from genocidal and colonialist racists and the evil humanoids in D&D? Stuff like this?

"The capacity of the crania of the Mongol, Indian, and Negro, and all dark-skinned races, is smaller than that of the pure white man. And this deficiency seems to be especially well-marked in those parts of the brain which have been assigned to the moral and intellectual faculties." - Josiah C Nott, Two Lectures on the Connection Between the Biblical and the Physical History of Man (1849)

I'm working on this type of stuff but it takes time to source the quotations, and I don't know if ENWorld wants more of it. The threads on it tend to get locked. Strictly speaking it's actually thread crapping in this thread, which is supposed to be about solutions.