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

[WayOfTheFourElements]

The warlock, a class that can make a pact with an archdevil, and doesn't have to be of evil alignment, is the most un-Christian content that has ever appeared in D&D imo.

I disagree. The warlock might be Chaotic good, make a deal with the devil as a route to advancing Christian values of mercy, charity, and forgiveness, but is ultimately and hopelessly damned at death.

 

[Sadras]

The warlock, a class that can make a pact with an archdevil, and doesn't have to be of evil alignment, is the most un-Christian content that has ever appeared in D&D imo.

Currently playing that scenario now, where the pre-warlock made such a pact in a moment of weakness, years later, after having recruited other warlocks to his cause (one PC and an NPC), he now seeks a way to destroy his patron thus ending his evil influence.

 

[Sadras]

Personally I do not like ability penalties. Much prefer flaws to take their place. Can have same roleplaying prompts. And crafting of stories. Without the hindrances.

Sure, more than 1 way to skin a cat. Traits/Flaws are another way.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Sure, more than 1 way to skin a cat. Traits/Flaws are another way.

I love skinning cats. The more cats skinned the better. Skinned cats all around!

 

[Hussar]

I'll take a poke.

That is my issue with this being offended, how much must be changed:

Intellect Penalty

I get the idea, but, really, it should go. For one, making a race actually less intelligent than baseline has all sorts of connotations. There's a pretty high squick factor on this one, so, maybe it should go the way of female strength limitations. Particularly in light of 5e where no other race actually has a penalty.

Fecundity

I'm not a culture sensitivity expert, but, I don't think this one's really a problem. Very low squick factor.

Savage
Raider

These two kind of get lumped together. "Raiding" species is a pretty high squick factor. I mean, it's pretty one dimensional. Can orcs be raiders? Sure, no problem. Should orcs be depicted as ONLY raiders - well, that's pretty lazy and poor writing.

Tribal

Being tribal isn't a negative thing. Doesn't really carry any negative connotations on its own. Again, depends on how it's presented, but, the squick factor isn't terribly high here.

Strong

I don't think anyone sees being strong as a negative.

Evil

Again, this kinda links into the raider thing. If all orcs are presented as evil, it's pretty one dimensional and ramps up the squick factor a LOT. Let's get some positive images in there as well. Round it out. Bring some more to the table.

Other words

Do they all have to go? Can some be discarded? Where does offense begin?

I don't think they all have to go. I honestly don't think anyone is advocating that. Just present orcs and other humanoids in a more rounded manner, give them more than the one dimensional "Urg, we evil and have "kill me" sign hovering over our heads" and I think you go a long way to resolving this.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

These two kind of get lumped together. "Raiding" species is a pretty high squick factor. I mean, it's pretty one dimensional. Can orcs be raiders? Sure, no problem. Should orcs be depicted as ONLY raiders - well, that's pretty lazy and poor writing.

"We do not sow."

 

[Xenonnonex]

"We do not sow."

Only reap.

 

[Dire Bare]

I'll take a poke.



I get the idea, but, really, it should go. For one, making a race actually less intelligent than baseline has all sorts of connotations. There's a pretty high squick factor on this one, so, maybe it should go the way of female strength limitations. Particularly in light of 5e where no other race actually has a penalty.



I'm not a culture sensitivity expert, but, I don't think this one's really a problem. Very low squick factor.



These two kind of get lumped together. "Raiding" species is a pretty high squick factor. I mean, it's pretty one dimensional. Can orcs be raiders? Sure, no problem. Should orcs be depicted as ONLY raiders - well, that's pretty lazy and poor writing.



Being tribal isn't a negative thing. Doesn't really carry any negative connotations on its own. Again, depends on how it's presented, but, the squick factor isn't terribly high here.


I don't think anyone sees being strong as a negative.


Again, this kinda links into the raider thing. If all orcs are presented as evil, it's pretty one dimensional and ramps up the squick factor a LOT. Let's get some positive images in there as well. Round it out. Bring some more to the table.



I don't think they all have to go. I honestly don't think anyone is advocating that. Just present orcs and other humanoids in a more rounded manner, give them more than the one dimensional "Urg, we evil and have "kill me" sign hovering over our heads" and I think you go a long way to resolving this.

The problem isn't any of these factors in isolation, but taking all of them together. Describing an entire race of people as a warrior race; strong, savage, primal, tribal, etc . . . as has been pointed out in these threads multiple times, this is the same language European colonialists used to dehumanize indigenous peoples across the globe.

While overall the stereotype is negative, even positive aspects of it exhibit racist thinking. African-Americans still struggle today with this warrior race stereotype, especially the "positive" aspects such as the idea that African-Americans are inherently good at athletics. Native Americans still struggle today with the "noble savage" stereotype.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Only reap.

And rape.

 

[Xenonnonex]

And rape.

Can we damn not. Not something to joke about.