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

[TaranTheWanderer]

Let's talk about heritage and pre-conceived notions:

In Mines of Phandelver, there are orcs attacking people on the triboar trail. (I haven't finished the adventure yet, so I'm sure there might be some spoilers here).

I know nothing about FR so, for arguments sake, lets say this is a generic fantasy campaign. There is no details about why it would be unusual for orcs to be attacking people. Like, if these were Eberon Orcs, you could make some guesses. So, let's play a game where people put in their preconceived notions and see why or how it isn't inclusive and how it might be made better. Think on each example for a moment.


A band of Orcs are attacking people on the road:

Spoiler: My thoughts

Orcs are bad. They are probably attacking people for food and money and, maybe, taking slaves. Probably not prone to mercy or talking. Probably lead by a Strong male figure. For a change in story, the leader might be a female. Other orcs are 100% male unless there's some kind of story twist.

Notice that you don't have to call them Orc Bandits. The assumption that they are orcs is bad enough.

A group of Elves are attacking people on the road:

Spoiler: My thoughts

If this is along a forest, probably this is a story about encroachment on their territory or an environmental story about civilization ruining their homes by taking their resources. Leader could be male or female. Followers could be male or female but probably, predominately male.

If you called them elven bandits, their cause might be less altruistic and, possibly, nationalistic. The elves that hate the other races and might have a vendetta.

Bandits are attacking people on the road:

Spoiler: thoughts

This group is primarily human, lead by a male leader. They are all white males. Maybe that's because I come from a predominately white community and that's what I relate to. Also lots of movies have bad guys as white guys, so that's what usually think about when I think about bandits.

You could add more ethnic groups, black, asian etc.. but then you run the risk of pegging those races as 'bandits'. It has to makes sense in the Lore of the campaign. For a generic medieval fantasy, you can safely make all your bandits white.

The 'bandits' could also be a mix of races but the majority would be human. There's no need to say, "humans are attacking people". Any human who attacks people on the road is pegged as a bandit.

The leader could be female. But one must be careful putting powerful woman figures as 'evil' or 'anti-heroes' as it can be seen as chauvinistic. You must balance it out with positive, strong female figures.

Edit: For the record, these are just the gut feelings/thoughts I have when I ponder those situations. As a DM I don't usually describe skin colour unless it's a draconic race or something unusual, like a creature with green skin. I might describe eye colour, hair, build.

Goblins are attacking people on the road:

Spoiler: thoughts

Goblins do this. It's common. I don't think anyone would question "why are goblins attacking people on the road.?" they just are. You can safely kill them to defend yourself. You might question one to see if they are working for someone else. They are mean pests.

Halfling are attacking people on the road:

Spoiler: thoughts

I have no idea. I imagine this as a quirky, fun adventure.

Owlbears are attacking people on the road.

Spoiler: thoughts

An agressive animal is guarding territory and needs to be removed. You might be able to kill this predator without any moral issues. Depends on your group's ranger or druid

Owlbears are attacking people going North on the road

Spoiler: thoughts

There's obviously some other plot happening. Why only North? Are the owlbears charmed. Do we kill them? They are still dangerous predators! This could be a moral issue for some groups. Mostly, though, I think owlbears are open to being slaughtered.

Edit 2: I'm doing this exercise because I'm curious on people's notions and how changing them can make things more inclusive but also trying see where changing them can be tricky to do well. (the human bandit situation, for instance)

OOh edit 3: all my assumptions on gender were Male/Female binary.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Nothing more needed to bring an end to the game. Just like the accusations of Satanism had a huge impact, so would this one.

First, the game didn't end in the Satanic Panic. Second, this won't end it either. The people complaining are the ones who like D&D and play it, this won't break the game. Stop pretending that this is the end of the world, and respond to the rest of my previous post quoting you.

Ahh, so only people who get offended by things you agree with matter and have foundation.

Well, arguments against something are meant to have a base and evidence supporting their side. The Satanic Panic had none, this one does. Vistani are offensive, so they're changing them.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I actually have a character who's a chef that specializes in locally sourced foods.

Krag: Hey, you want to get some locally-sourced owlbear steaks at Whole Foods?

Blart: More like Whole Platinum Piece, amirite?

 

[Oofta]

Earlier on that page is one that might be changing... "Almost as numerous but far more savage and brutal, and almost uniformly evil, are the races of the goblinoids (goblins, hobogoblins, and bugbears), orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds."

Was surprised the DMG doesn't even have alignment in the index.

Yeah, I think more discussion in the DMG could also help. I'm not against changes, change is inevitable. I also think it will be a mistake if every intelligent creature in any book ever published has no alignment.

It's not going to change much for my personal campaign; orcs will continue to be a rarely used nebulous threat relegated to "there be monsters here".

On a side note, when it comes to published campaigns in 5E it's not like there are many published by WOTC. Most have been set in FR*, Eberron has always been it's own thing and of course Wildermont is primarily just published by WOTC.

IIRC Greyhawk had universally evil orcs. Robilar had an orc butler, but Robilar was evil.

*Did FR have any significant number of non-evil orcs pre 4E? I don't recall but I'm not a huge FR fan beyond reading the Chrystal Shard and a handful of sequel books.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, arguments against something are meant to have a base and evidence supporting their side. The Satanic Panic had none, this one does.

What are you talking about. The game of D&D had demons, devils, possession, worship of other gods, and much more that would even as a game, be offensive to religious people. There's plenty of supporting evidence.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeah, I think more discussion in the DMG could also help.

No one* reads the DMG.


*Approximate value; some one must have read it, after all, some one wrote it. But other than specific sections like magic items, it seems like very few people have really read it.

 

[Cadence]

Yeah, I think more discussion in the DMG could also help. I'm not against changes, change is inevitable. I also think it will be a mistake if every intelligent creature in any book ever published has no alignment.

It's not going to change much for my personal campaign; orcs will continue to be a rarely used nebulous threat relegated to "there be monsters here".

I'm wondering if the path they'll take is to decide which stay humanoid and which get reclassified as monstrosities, and then give revised treatment to the former.

 

[Oofta]

No one* reads the DMG.


*Approximate value; some one must have read it, after all, some one wrote it. But other than specific sections like magic items, it seems like very few people have really read it.

Yeah, I guess that makes me "no one".

But I'm weird, I actually read (well skim) the owners manuals for new cars.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But I'm weird, I actually read (well skim) the owners manuals for new cars.

As someone who both loved Ford v. Ferrari and is currently watching Hyperdrive because, hey, CARS, I can honestly say ...

WHAT?

 

[Mercurius]

I just want to say, in case this thread devolves and/or is closed for some reason, as the writer of the OP, while I was disappointed at first with the initial tone of the thread mirroring the other two threads, I am quite pleased that it evolved from there and has now been--for a few pages, at least--more in the spirit of the intention of the OP. It is nice to see that we, as a community, are capable of discussing such matters in a constructive and respectful manners. Kudos to us .

Whoops. Oh well.

Anyhow, after reading through the last dozen or so pages, I am struck by how the solutions of the "two sides" are closer than the interpretation around the question of racism in D&D tropes. Think about that for a moment. If we're somewhat close on solutions, why not just agree to disagree on the rest? If person A interprets the connection of x-trope with racism differently, it doesn't mean they don't care about people or are racist; if person B wants to see changes, it doesn't mean they want to destroy D&D or legislate your game.

The point being, let's stop arguing over interpretation and focus on solutions, which are far easier to come to agreement on. So here goes:

Most of us seem to agree on broadening the presentation of orcs to provide for a wider range of orcish theme and behavior. Gruumsh orcs remain as a viable monster race, but options are provided for non-all-evil orcs. OK? Can we all agree on that?

Drow might be a bit trickier, but I think the same applies. Fully excise the "cursed=black skin" thing, keep traditional drow otherwise as-is, but re-frame them not as "fallen elves" but "fallen drow" - meaning, they are a sub-sub-race, and non-evil (daerk-skinned) drow exist and are actually the "true" original drow, but exist in secret because of the association with the bad drow (I like the idea of the original drow being more neutral-aligned). I actually like the idea that the original drow are black skinned, with the fallen drow being shades of gray -- which better fits the idea of a subterranean race, anyway.

Vistani? Again, I don't know them enough to have an opinion, but it sounds like the parallels with a real world culture are more obvious. Seems to be a cultural consultant--preferably of Romani descent--is in order. Let's leave it to them.

OK? Does anyone actually disagree with these solutions?