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

[Maxperson]

We have been asking people to do this. Yes.

Why are you unwilling to do the same, then?

 

[Xenonnonex]

Why are you unwilling to do the same, then?

Are you serious. With everything that I have posted. Repeatedly have l called for input from groups. Diverse groups.
If this direction of "argument" is put forward no point in further discussion I do see.

 

[Catulle]

But hey, isn't it weird how people that have suffered so damn much regarding their hobbies can display so little empathy towards others who may have been excluded?

 

[DammitVictor]

But hey, isn't it weird how people that have suffered so damn much regarding their hobbies can display so little empathy towards others who may have been excluded?

Not really, no. They think they've "paid their dues" and earned the right to enjoy their hobbies, that anyone coming into the hobby new should have to pay the same dues, and they're willfully ignoring the evidence people are presenting that they already have.

There's nothing weird about it at all. If Dungeons & Dragons were honest, this would be a Human racial trait.

 

[Catulle]

No. Not even close, but that would be obvious if you were reading my posts to understand and not retort.

Cool, so we agree that there's no equivalence and that over-emphasising the impact of the panic on D&D is a wee bit harmful to the survivors of abuse by obviating their experience?

 

[Catulle]

Not really, no. They think they've "paid their dues" and earned the right to enjoy their hobbies, that anyone coming into the hobby new should have to pay the same dues, and they're willfully ignoring the evidence people are presenting that they already have.

There's nothing weird about it at all. If Dungeons & Dragons were honest, this would be a Human racial trait.

It'd be funny if it wasn't,so goddamn pathetic, wouldn't it?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Why are you unwilling to do the same, then?

I am unwilling to look through the perspective of the people who wanted to destroy D&D.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No. I wouldn't use orcs in games I run for that person.

But changing something at your table doesn't solve the problem overall.

 

[Mercurius]

Based on what I quoted. And Romani stereotypes. What do you think.

Orcs as others have posted examples are based on multiple real groups. If vistani can be examined. Why should orcs not be.

It doesn't bother me, but I'm not Romani and I rarely get offended. I personally don't think that such a characterization is harmful, in that there is no implication (that I'm aware of) that the Vistani are a statement on the Romani, as in "the Romani are like this."

That said, I have no issue with WotC altering them to be less caricaturing of Romani people.

Orcs are different - they are neither based on or consistently characterized by any specific group. It is orders of magnitude different, therefore whatever alterations occur should be different. But again, I don't mind the idea of expanding orcs to including a greater range of behavior and themes, as I said up-thread. Here's a repost, in case you missed it, with my suggested solutions:

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?

 

[Maxperson]

But hey, isn't it weird how people that have suffered so damn much regarding their hobbies can display so little empathy towards others who may have been excluded?

Has anyone put forth even one example of someone saying, "Hmm. Orcs. I would play this game but for the orcs."? I see people talking about offense, but I haven't seen anyone actually show exclusion.