Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cadence" data-source="post: 8021931" data-attributes="member: 6701124"><p>The main argument that I've seen from those asking for changes doesn't necessarily involve a particular humanoid type in D&D matching a particular real world group of people**. I've seen a number of those in the two-now-closed-threads who support the change regularly having to point out that the argument isn't really about a particular real world group being caricatured. It seems to me that their argument is something like:</p><p></p><p>a) The language used to describe many humanoid races, to justify driving them from their land, and to kill them on sight, closely mimics the language used throughout history for groups in power to other, subjugate, and kill actual groups of people who primarily differed on external characteristics.</p><p></p><p>b) Having the game based around othering, subjugating, and killing groups of "people" (for the purpose of charm person and things like that which affect sentient humanoids, and which are supported for play as non-evil PCs) makes a number of players uncomfortable - particularly some of those whose ancestors were othered in those ways (and not necessarily that long ago as many alive today were alive for the civil rights movement).</p><p></p><p>c) Changing the game rules to not have sentient humanoid monster types/species/whatever be irrevocably evil and existing only to be killed as baseline doesn't feel like it actually change much in terms of how the game is played in a particular campaign. In any particular world there can still be tribes of evil orcs or evil elves or evil humans. There can also be good or neutral or advanced or primitive ones. Or them all living together. It doesn't take that option away, it just makes it not the default.</p><p></p><p>d) That change would make some folks much more comfortable as it would imply that mere external appearance isn't a reason to judge fellow people.</p><p></p><p>** The Vistani as you note. It has also been noted that the descriptions of the Orcs by Tolkien (who heavily influenced D&D) were based on the Mongols - although it has been also pointed out that the orcs change a lot between editions. Hobogoblins are regularly seen in Japanese (sometimes mishmashed with Chinese) armor and grooming. And the Drow are also mentioned, with some of the art used over the years clearly matching dark skinned humans rather than the descriptions given in the books themselves. </p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>It doesn't seem to me that the satanic-panic is a parallel to the current request for changes. Many of the folks complaining about "satanism" in the game weren't asking for minor edits to respect their sensitivity (the game already allowed them to play in a monotheistic, low magic world) or to not use terms about their particular religion in an offensive way (did it talk derisively about monotheism? regularly use names particularly from their religion in a derisive way? encourage folks to go after certain religions just because they were different?). Instead it feels like they didn't want the game have any content at all about magic or demons or devils or pantheism for any of the players anywhere. Not only did they not want it the default, they wanted it completely gone.</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>Given the background of some of the folks involved in making these decisions for the WotC line, it sounds like they've been considering these changes for a while. So, if they were in the works, the current climate seems like a time to bring them out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cadence, post: 8021931, member: 6701124"] The main argument that I've seen from those asking for changes doesn't necessarily involve a particular humanoid type in D&D matching a particular real world group of people**. I've seen a number of those in the two-now-closed-threads who support the change regularly having to point out that the argument isn't really about a particular real world group being caricatured. It seems to me that their argument is something like: a) The language used to describe many humanoid races, to justify driving them from their land, and to kill them on sight, closely mimics the language used throughout history for groups in power to other, subjugate, and kill actual groups of people who primarily differed on external characteristics. b) Having the game based around othering, subjugating, and killing groups of "people" (for the purpose of charm person and things like that which affect sentient humanoids, and which are supported for play as non-evil PCs) makes a number of players uncomfortable - particularly some of those whose ancestors were othered in those ways (and not necessarily that long ago as many alive today were alive for the civil rights movement). c) Changing the game rules to not have sentient humanoid monster types/species/whatever be irrevocably evil and existing only to be killed as baseline doesn't feel like it actually change much in terms of how the game is played in a particular campaign. In any particular world there can still be tribes of evil orcs or evil elves or evil humans. There can also be good or neutral or advanced or primitive ones. Or them all living together. It doesn't take that option away, it just makes it not the default. d) That change would make some folks much more comfortable as it would imply that mere external appearance isn't a reason to judge fellow people. ** The Vistani as you note. It has also been noted that the descriptions of the Orcs by Tolkien (who heavily influenced D&D) were based on the Mongols - although it has been also pointed out that the orcs change a lot between editions. Hobogoblins are regularly seen in Japanese (sometimes mishmashed with Chinese) armor and grooming. And the Drow are also mentioned, with some of the art used over the years clearly matching dark skinned humans rather than the descriptions given in the books themselves. --- It doesn't seem to me that the satanic-panic is a parallel to the current request for changes. Many of the folks complaining about "satanism" in the game weren't asking for minor edits to respect their sensitivity (the game already allowed them to play in a monotheistic, low magic world) or to not use terms about their particular religion in an offensive way (did it talk derisively about monotheism? regularly use names particularly from their religion in a derisive way? encourage folks to go after certain religions just because they were different?). Instead it feels like they didn't want the game have any content at all about magic or demons or devils or pantheism for any of the players anywhere. Not only did they not want it the default, they wanted it completely gone. --- Given the background of some of the folks involved in making these decisions for the WotC line, it sounds like they've been considering these changes for a while. So, if they were in the works, the current climate seems like a time to bring them out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity
Top