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

[S'mon]

How about the Monsters-Can-Be-People-Too Manual?

Joking aside, I like Volo's. It is a far more interesting read than the traditional MM. I'd love to see them supplement this approach with a occasional pocket reference book that compiles monsters from previous books of just stat blocks and pictures to use as table references, as the one downside of Volo's is that they don't including as many monsters.

What I don't like about Volo's is that my son reads it then tells me I'm doing it wrong if the races imc act differently from the WotC fluff.

Re the OP, I'm in favour of not portraying any real world ethnicity as inhuman monsters the way Hollywood often does with various groups - white Southerners, Arabs, white South Africans in the past, Russians and various Orthodox and Muslim east Europeans etc. Or Bollywood does with us Brits for that matter! I don't think that is relevant to orcs or drow, but the Vistani fot instance are clearly Bram Stoker's gypsies so I'd like to see a bit of care there.

 

[Imaculata]

I think as long as you are dealing with a fictional race, it doesn't matter how good or evil you portray them. I've never had a problem with Drow or orcs being pure evil. But I do have a problem with them being cliché and boring.

In the past I have taken inspiration from real world cultures, to inspire fictional races in my campaigns. But I take care to make them different enough to make them their own thing, and not a stereotype of real world culture. I do try to portray most of the cultures in my homebrew setting gray-ish. There are good and bad actors among all of them.

 

[electroraccoon]

At some point you have to exclude those who refuse to change, though. Do you want to be so inclusive that you have a table with a Leftist and an Alt-right and an LGBT ally and a homophobe, etc?

Inclusive means inclusive, so yes every body should be welcome whatever your personal opinions, With one condition : keep your opinions for yourself and don't let them ruin the game for others....

 

[Hussar]

@Hussar
How about Jack Chick-style Christians offended by demons & devils in D&D? In your view are we obligated to change the game to appease them as well? If not, why not? Their offense is surely real and intensely felt.

So, now we're equating taking offense at language used to dehumanize real world groups as an excuse to torture and murder them for centuries with far right Christian fundamentalists?

Interesting take there.

And note, TSR DID listen to the Jack Chick style Christians - that's how we got 2e D&D. So, I'm not real sure that's the example you want to go with.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

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.

The problem with lists like that is that the horrors of WWII greatly skew the numbers of all other wars combined. Take that out and the raw numbers will be way different. You try and tell a Jewish survivor that the attempted extermination of them was just because they were not blonde-haired and blue-eyed and not because of their religion too. Plus, if their book only counts military dead, then it is totally invalidated, as I was talking about civilian casualties too, including all the purges that do not count officially as a war.

 

[Hussar]

I agree it's a good business move - but why? Right now there's a squeaky wheel that makes a lot of noise and is very good at silencing any opposing voices and sanctioning those that go against their desires.

So by all means, WOTC made the right move for their Shareholders - but it's not obvious that the goodness of the decision is based on anything more than the bottom line of appeasing that squeaky wheel.
/snip

So, now, instead of a groundswell movement that has been growing for decades and encompasses millions of people from all around the world (after all, there HAVE been protests all over the world), it's just a "squeaky wheel" making a lot of noise?

And you wonder why you get accused of trivializing the issue and lack empathy?

In the last few pages, we've seen comparisons to evangelical Christians, squeaky wheels, and Bigfoot conspiracies. And that's just in the past couple of pages.

And now you're complaining that your voice is being silenced?

Good grief.

 

[Imaculata]

How about Jack Chick-style Christians offended by demons & devils in D&D? In your view are we obligated to change the game to appease them as well? If not, why not? Their offense is surely real and intensely felt.

The goal here is not to appease people who don't play the game, and have never read a D&D book.
But if people who DO play the game are offended, then maybe you should make a change.

I've played with devout Christians in my group, and I would always give them a headsup if the campaign that I was about to run contained subject matter that they may find objectionable. I want all my players to have a good time after all. And I can remove elements that are problematic for them, in order to make the campaign more accessible.

 

[TheSword]

[

The game as it stands is currently open to everyone. The latter is a snipe hunt. You can't have a game that doesn't offend anyone and attempting to do so will often alienate as many or more people than those you are trying not to offend.

The same was said about chainmail bikinis and gay characters in published products. The game changed and we got over it.

 

[Olrox17]

The same was said about chainmail bikinis and gay characters in published products. The game changed and we got over it.

I think the main difference between your example and the current controversy, is that women and gay people are actual human beings existing in our world, unsurprisingly offended by bad depictions of them.
Orcs are non-existent fantasy creatures.
Yes, the way they're described resembles the way dozens of RL cultures have been described in history. That's because the "scary invader" trope is a common human trope. It's not an inherently racist trope, although it can be used that way by racist idiots.

I'm ok with adding more to the game. By all means, let's add a pacifist orc culture to the game. Having multiple options is good. Just don't remove the standard chaotic evil, Gruumsh-worshipping orc from the game.

 

[TheSword]

I think the main difference between your example and the current controversy, is that women and gay people are actual human beings existing in our world, unsurprisingly offended by bad depictions of them.
Orcs are non-existent fantasy creatures.
Yes, the way they're described resembles the way dozens of RL cultures have been described in history. That's because the "scary invader" trope is a common human trope. It's not an inherently racist trope, although it can be used that way by racist idiots.

I'm ok with adding more to the game. By all means, let's add a pacifist orc culture to the game. Having multiple options is good. Just don't remove the standard chaotic evil, Gruumsh-worshipping orc from the game.

Please tell me you understand that the discussion is about how those elements of the game that make people of colour feel and not that this is about the imaginary feelings of orcs. This is about how people feel and not about a benign artistic choice.