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

[FrogReaver]

So let’s get down to the nitty gritty. the real contentious issue is caused by the incompatibility of 2 different viewpoints.

1. This thing we are talking about is most definitely representative of racism. Therefore, it’s offensive and should be immediately remedied.

2. This thing we are talking about is not representative of real world racism. Therefore, it’s offensive that it is demanded to be removed on false grounds.

Whether this is due to symbols of southern heritage or of dumb evil orcs it doesn’t actually matter. The root cause is the same. People have different takes on what symbols represent - even people who otherwise share similar values.

The way to come together is to acknowledge that symbols are subjective and have different meanings to everyone. To those that are offended by a symbol stop assuming that the only use of it is to offend. To those that use a symbol stop assuming others oppose the non-racist reason you are using the symbol.

IMO those that take offense at someone regardless of the intention of the other should learn how to avoid such perceived offense or learn ways of dealing with it. One way is to voice your perception without demanding the other change their actions.

In terms of orcs that means saying You find orcs to represent racism and that offends you. Even if I don’t fully agree with your assessment I can see how you reached that conclusion and why that would offend. if you tell me that I’m not going to use orcs in a game with you or if I do I will homebrew some alternate ones. But the question isn’t about how we interact with one another, it’s whether your perception should dominate what a company does more than mine. Your offense shouldn’t be greater than my non-offense especially when I view your offense as not based on the full picture IMO.

 

[Mark Hope]

I looked up the monster PC rules for 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e before posting. 1e was silent on alignment for PCs. 2e specifically said that a monster PC was the alignment of the monster unless it said the monster had X tendencies. Orcs were evil through and though, so in 2e at least, a PC orc would have had to be evil.

As I cited earlier in this thread (and as others have cited below), the Complete Book of Humanoids gives rules for orc and half-orc PCs that update the guidelines from the DMG, whereby they neither have an Intelligence penalty nor need to be of evil alignment.

 

[Oofta]

Well, this just makes it sound like you only have two roles: generic humans with rubber masks and evil generic humans with rubber masks. Which sounds like a personal problem.

I humbly submit that all of D&D's sundry races are varied and interesting in their own right, independent of their typical/required assignments.



I mean, except for the Drow, of course

But if orcs (or whatever humanoid race) is only evil because they are in a specific region where they worship Gruumsh, why not just have humans or any other race in a specific region where they worship some evil god?

I mean, I regularly reskin NPCs if I find a stat block that works. So that cleric uses the stats for an Eye of Gruumsh even though the cleric is a gnome.

I think the back story and lore for orcs is kind of interesting, even if I do have some empathy for Gruumsh. On the other hand I use orcs (or other humanoid monsters) so infrequently it doesn't really have a big impact on my campaign. The bad guys are usually humans or gnomes (it's the beady little eyes like the pits of hell) because of the types campaigns that I run.

 

[tommybahama]

One of the problems with this, when compared to the real world, is that a vast majority of "evil" done by humans in war and expansionism is done in the name of religion.

That is not true.

From the Huffpo in 2012:

In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

That is not true.

From the Huffpo in 2012:

In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare.

Thank-you for posting this. I was going to comment on the previous statement but I had no references to back it up. I imagine most wars are a result of conflict over resources.

 

[Libramarian]

Perhaps the "two underlying truths" are nothing less than the two forces balanced in all creative works: the Dionysian vs. the Apollonian. Creativity vs. Rationality. Yes vs. No. Live-and-let-live hippie-style tolerance vs. the paradoxically fascistic persecution of the intolerant.

Heritage vs. inclusivity reflects this inasmuch as the heritage elements of D&D of course were introduced in periods of intense Dionysian creativity, while inclusivity is fundamentally an Apollonian grid-filling urge.

The D&D zeitgeist appears to be tilting hard towards the Apollonian. Those who want to "fix" D&D are ascendant again. This bodes ill for 6e, but it fits the established pattern for even-numbered editions.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Your offense shouldn’t be greater than my non-offense especially when I view your offense as not based on the full picture IMO.

So, in other words, your imaginary friends are more important to you than the real people who are being driven away from the hobby by the descriptions of your imaginary friends. Whether it's chainmail bikinis, lack of presentation of non-cis individuals, inclusion of descriptions pulled straight out of racist screeds, doesn't matter. It's more important to you that your imaginary friends are kept as is, rather than changed to reflect the feelings of real, living people who are telling you that the inclusion (or lack of inclusion) of these elements makes them feel unwanted in the hobby.

Is that about the right of it? I haven't justified my offense sufficiently to you, so, you feel free to dismiss it because it's "not based on the full picture". So, it's okay to force me from the hobby or make me feel bad because you want to preserve the "heritage" of pretend characters that don't actually exist.

Did I miss anything there?

 

[FrogReaver]

So, in other words, your imaginary friends are more important to you than the real people who are being driven away from the hobby by the descriptions of your imaginary friends. Whether it's chainmail bikinis, lack of presentation of non-cis individuals, inclusion of descriptions pulled straight out of racist screeds, doesn't matter. It's more important to you that your imaginary friends are kept as is, rather than changed to reflect the feelings of real, living people who are telling you that the inclusion (or lack of inclusion) of these elements makes them feel unwanted in the hobby.

Is that about the right of it? I haven't justified my offense sufficiently to you, so, you feel free to dismiss it because it's "not based on the full picture". So, it's okay to force me from the hobby or make me feel bad because you want to preserve the "heritage" of pretend characters that don't actually exist.

Did I miss anything there?

I refuse to take the bait.

For everyone else, here is the pertinent part of my post:

“In terms of orcs that means saying You find orcs to represent racism and that offends you. Even if I don’t fully agree with your assessment I can see how you reached that conclusion and why that would offend. if you tell me that I’m not going to use orcs in a game with you or if I do I will homebrew some alternate ones.”

 

[TheSword]

I refuse to take the bait.

For everyone else, here is the pertinent part of my post:

“In terms of orcs that means saying You find orcs to represent racism and that offends you. Even if I don’t fully agree with your assessment I can see how you reached that conclusion and why that would offend. if you tell me that I’m not going to use orcs in a game with you or if I do I will homebrew some alternate ones.”

Offense is the wrong word. It’s that elements of the game that remind people of racism they have experienced in real life, makes the game not fun for them.

 

[Hussar]

IMO those that take offense at someone regardless of the intention of the other should learn how to avoid such perceived offense or learn ways of dealing with it. One way is to voice your perception without demanding the other change their actions.

Ok, if I'm baiting, again, how is this not telling people who are being made to feel bad so that you can have what you want to sit down and shut up? Thank you for so graciously telling me that I can voice my opinion, but, actually ask that things be changed? That's a bridge too far.

Again, how is this not telling people that your imaginary friends are more important than their feelings? They're "allowed" to tell you that they don't like something and that something makes them feel unwelcome in the hobby, but, are not "allowed" to ask you to change it? Seriously?