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

[TaranTheWanderer]

This is unbelievable.

You are telling people who are being offended by something, that they should ignore the fact that the symbol is offensive to them because the person using that symbol doesn't mean to be offensive?

Are you serious?

But what if it isn't a symbol of what you think it is?

I mean, you clearly think that it's a symbol of Black/Asian oppression. (or something like that - I forget your exact wording) I think you stated that in several threads

So, your own interpretation of the content is offensive to your sensibilities.

I actually don't think orcs represent that. If I were to make a real-life comparison, I'd say Norse Raider or, possibly, Celtic. I'm actually Scottish, so am I supposed to be insulted by it? I mean you, clearly, are. The point isn't whether I'm supposed to be insulted, the point is there are, obviously, different interpretations to the content. You can't tell me I'm wrong here. This is what I believe and I can actually draw parallels if I think on it hard enough.. So given that we have different views of the same content, it actually means you're getting offended by content that might not actually be what you think it is!

I think Frogreaver is trying to point out that he's not drawing the same lines you are. He's not saying he doesn't find the oppression of races offensive, he's saying he's never drawn the same parallels that you are and doesn't actually believe the content does what you are saying.

So, on a personal level, at a gaming table, if you were to play in his game, he would change or reskin orcs so as not to offend you because that's what an inclusive table does.

But does a whole gaming company need to reskin an entire part of their content because people are misinterpreting what the content actually represents?

Maybe that's what @FrogReaver is trying to say?

I'm not sure what the answer is. At the very least, they should clarify it to avoid confusion.

Edit: sorry to extend the argument. It wasn't my intention.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Heritage is important because it makes D&D recognizable through the editions.
Inclusivity is more important, as it means anyone can play.

But, like all rules, there are extents these go to. Heritage is important, until something from before is outdated or uninclusive. Inclusivity is important, until an aspect of the game becomes a symbol for a bad group of people, like the Crusade M:tG card becoming a symbol among white supremacists.

This is my take on it.

 

[The Green Hermit]

If someone is offended by the color green, do you feel that person is entitled to ask me not to ever wear green if there's a chance that they could see it?

My son is actually offended by the color green, because he can't differentiate it from yellow. (He has a rare form of color-blindness where he cannot see blue at all, even when it is mixed with other colors.)

 

[Helldritch]

It is not what is written in the book that is important, it is how you behave at your table.

I have always seen D&D as an inclusive game. I have had literally hundreds (well almost two hundred) of players during the 40 years that I have been playing and DMing. I can say that Ihave done my share to bring the hobby into mainstream by introducing so many people in the hobby. Some stayed, others did not.

The one driving thing at my table and a lot of other tables I have seen, is that D&D is not racist. It brings people together no matter their ethnicities or the color of their skin or their religious beliefs or their gender and their sexual preference.

If this mindset had only been at my table I might feel some of the concern that some people get on this forum. But throughout the years, this mindset was at every tables I have seen. Rich, poor, man, woman, black, white, asian, muslim, catholic, atheist sexual orientation or whatever comes to mind, everyone has always been welcomed. Everyone save those with a negative mindset about any of the above. Even then, we would try to educate first. It worked most of the time saved for the most closed minded persons I ever met.

So when I hear that the game that opened the eyes of so many people is racist or has racist connotations; I can't even begin to comprehend. I always fought these negative bias in the real world. Never did it crossed my mind to see an orc as something other than an imaginary creature, useful for story telling. Where some are making analogies, I simply don't. For me, such analogies are simply an incongruity stretched to the limits or any sanity. You believe that orcs are a secret representation of black people? Let me show you how this could relate to goth, ostrogoth, Maya, Huns, Romans, Mesopotamia and zounds of other people throughout history and continents.

Yes, sometimes, the game takes its inspiration from real world. Namely the Vistani that could be related to the Roma. Even I can see it. It is the DM's job to make sure that if someone at his table is from that ethnicity, to explain that it has nothing to do with him/her but that it is simply a thrope for story telling., nothing more. I would advise to avoid using Vistani if the person can't help but to feel bad or at the very least downplay the bad aspects and enhance the nobler aspects of the culture.

Creators use and find inspiration from around the world. At some point, you can find references to anything you want if you work, stretched what is written and dig far enough. We should stop trying to find racism and ugliness where there is not really enough to be really certain and fight the ugly parts of our real society. The fight for fairness for all is in the real world, not in our game.

Edit: added the word time that was missing at the end of third paragraph

 

[FrogReaver]

But what if it isn't a symbol of what you think it is?

I mean, you clearly think that it's a symbol of Black/Asian oppression. (or something like that - I forget your exact wording) I think you stated that in several threads

So, your own interpretation of the content is offensive to your sensibilities.

I actually don't think orcs represent that. If I were to make a real-life comparison, I'd say Norse Raider or, possibly, Celtic. I'm actually Scottish, so am I supposed to be insulted by it? I mean you, clearly, are. The point isn't whether I'm supposed to be insulted, the point is there are, obviously, different interpretations to the content. You can't tell me I'm wrong here. This is what I believe and I can actually draw parallels if I think on it hard enough.. So given that we have different views of the same content, it actually means you're getting offended by content that might not actually be what you think it is!

I think Frogreaver is trying to point out that he's not drawing the same lines you are. He's not saying he doesn't find the oppression of races offensive, he's saying he's never drawn the same parallels that you are and doesn't actually believe the content does what you are saying.

So, on a personal level, at a gaming table, if you were to play in his game, he would change or reskin orcs so as not to offend you because that's what an inclusive table does.

But does a whole gaming company need to reskin an entire part of their content because people are misinterpreting what the content actually represents?

Maybe that's what @FrogReaver is trying to say?

I'm not sure what the answer is. At the very least, they should clarify it to avoid confusion.

Edit: sorry to extend the argument. It wasn't my intention.

This was very well said and summarizes most of my major points. I don't wish to extend any argument either but I don't think this will as it's directed to you and for your understanding of my position.

There is some nuance to what I'm trying to say that I don't find above. Primarily that symbols lack an objective reality. That's the whole foundation for my reasoning on them. That isn't to say that some interpretations of them may not be better than others, but I believe there's a wide range of takes on any symbol that are valid. Why is this so important? Because it doesn't force me to deny someone's feelings about a symbol and what it represents to them. I can fully respect that while maintaining that I have a different view that also should be respected as well. When we both have that mutual respect that's where true inclusivity occurs IMO.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

We should stop trying to find racism and ugliness where there is not really enough and fight the ugly parts of our real society. The fight for fairness for all is in the real world, not in our game.

I don't think anyone is looking for the racism in the game. I'm sure someone noticed the Romani's bad representation in D&D as the Vistani, instead of someone searching for the books for a single phrase that is less than inclusive.

Then, you said "the fight for fairness in the real world", but WotC isn't in charge of the real world. They're in charge of the rules and books of D&D, and can change them. I hope WotC will donate to Black Lives Matter or another organization supporting the cause of fairness among everyone, but that's not what WotC's job is. Their job is to make sure that we play D&D, buy the books, and make us happy and therefore more likely to buy the books. If taking away a penalty to intelligence from Orcs makes the community happy overall, this helps their company.

Additionally, it literally hurts no one to make D&D more inclusive.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think anyone is looking for the racism in the game. I'm sure someone noticed the Romani's bad representation in D&D as the Vistani, instead of someone searching for the books for a single phrase that is less than inclusive.

Then, you said "the fight for fairness in the real world", but WotC isn't in charge of the real world. They're in charge of the rules and books of D&D, and can change them. I hope WotC will donate to Black Lives Matter or another organization supporting the cause of fairness among everyone, but that's not what WotC's job is. Their job is to make sure that we play D&D, buy the books, and make us happy and therefore more likely to buy the books. If taking away a penalty to intelligence from Orcs makes the community happy overall, this helps their company.

Additionally, it literally hurts no one to make D&D more inclusive.

The other sides perspective:

How does discounting their opinions and essentially calling them anti-inclusion make D&D a more inclusive hobby?

 

[TheSword]

I just realized something. I'm a little slow and thick sometimes, so, it does take a while. This conversation is entirely pointless. WotC has already taken a stand and made its decision. And that decision is that the feelings of those who feel that the language makes them feel bad are more important than people's imaginary friends.

Those that are arguing otherwise are basically just whistling in the wind. They can't change anything and, just like every other time this sort of thing has come up, once the dust settles and things move on, they're going to be relegated to the same dustbin that is home to those who defended chainmail bikinis and various other opinions that have kept our hobby from being more inclusive.

It's a good day. Let's just appreciate the win.

You are right the fight has been won by more persuasive people than us and this ground work has been going on for years to try and change the hobby. I just didn’t see it. Glad it’s finally got some traction.

I’d go further than that and say it’s pointless trying to make someone who doesn’t care, care. It’s a natural reaction to try and tell someone why they are wrong when they are affected when someone does something that’s unpleasant (particularly unintentionally). JMH has several stories on his blog about experiences at conventions where people are just don’t get him and then try and tell him he’s wrong to see this as an issue. With arguments equating being asian or black with having a rare form of colour blindness for instance (an ironic choice as being colour blind is probably not the best way to deal with racism and is often an attempted defense against racism - “I don’t see her as black”) you should be able to tell you’re fighting a losing battle.

If you point the issue out, explain why it’s wrong and people don’t care, just drop it and walk away. They will either digest, reflect and adapt their world view or they won’t in which case they’ll be left isolated like the homophobes and the misogynists.

 

[TheSword]

The other sides perspective:

How does discounting their opinions and essentially calling them anti-inclusion make D&D a more inclusive hobby?

It’s interesting that you cast this as an issue with sides. I must say it’s a fairly brave position to take considering some of the people standing either side of you. Good luck with that!

 

[Xenonnonex]

You are right the fight has been won by more persuasive people than us and this ground work has been going on for years to try and change the hobby. I just didn’t see it. Glad it’s finally got some traction.

I’d go further than that and say it’s pointless trying to make someone who doesn’t care, care. It’s a natural reaction to try and tell someone why they are wrong when they are affected when someone does something that’s unpleasant (particularly unintentionally). JMH has several stories on his blog about experiences at conventions where people are just don’t get him and then try and tell him he’s wrong to see this as an issue. With arguments equating being asian or black with having a rare form of colour blindness for instance (an ironic choice as being colour blind is probably not the best way to deal with racism and is often an attempted defense against racism - “I don’t see her as black”).

If you point the issue out, explain why it’s wrong and people don’t care, just drop it and walk away. They will either digest, reflect and adapt their world view or they won’t in which case they’ll be left isolated like the homophobes and the misogynists.

Agree. Changing the mind of one who has set their mind. Who does not care. Who does not see. Or refuses. Is pointless.