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

[the Jester]

Just this week I was going through my Monster Manuals, when I came upon a race called the Lucifarians.

I'm curious- which book was this in (and which edition)? I'm pretty heavily into D&D's corpus of monsters, and I'm not familiar with this one. (Or, hmm, was it maybe a non-English version of the book?)

 

[Imaculata]

I'm curious- which book was this in (and which edition)? I'm pretty heavily into D&D's corpus of monsters, and I'm not familiar with this one. (Or, hmm, was it maybe a non-English version of the book?)

The D20 Modern, Menace Manual. So that is 3rd edition, and I should correct that they are called Luciferans. Pretty much the same thing.

 

[Mercurius]

@Mercurius , I was impressed by the way when you realized that the changes are actually quite minor, can be done with a minimum of fuss and really, really won't impact anyone else at all. Well done you. Kudos.

Thanks, although I'm not sure it was as much a "realization" as the simple fact that I generally embrace change as a general rule - if that change improves and broadens the game. As you know, I don't agree with the interpretation that orcs are inherently problematic and invoke racism, but I also like playing with the core archetype and have always customized creatures and races to fit whatever campaign ideas come to me (for instance, there are non-evil orcs in my campaign setting). So change has always been part of my creative process.

What I did realize in the course of this conversation is that there are minor changes that can be made that broaden the game, appease those who want change, and preserve traditional D&D tropes within a wider range of possibilities. That was the impetus behind this thread. Maybe that's what you're picking up on.

I still think, though, that doubling down on orcs invoking racism actually perpetuates the problem. It is not inherently problematic to create a monstrous race that is "brutal, savage and evil," especially when they are depicted in a variety of ways that don't have clear connections to a specific race (e.g. I've always related them more to Northern European or Slavic "barbarians" than any other real-world ethnic group).

I am less concerned about preserving specific aspects of D&D tradition, and more the idea that "Fantasy Land" remains a free and open tableau to play with imaginary ideas, without interpreting everything through the lens of critical and/or cultural theory. See, for instance, this article that discusses the kerfuffle around young adult author Amelie Wen Zhao's "cultural appropriation" of "Black narratives."

So I have always been arguing from a position of wanting to preserve the tradition of make-believe - of myth-making, story-telling, and the free use of imagination. In this context, D&D. So let's make changes (not that we here have any say in the matter ;-), but let's do so carefully, and with an idea of broadening the possibilities of the game, not limiting them so that there is an ever-decreasing range of what is deemed appropriate to depict.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

What about the ones who wanted to save souls? You accuse us of not being willing to look from the other perspective, but you show here that you are unwilling to do the same thing. The other perspective being the good act of trying to keep people out of Hell.

And I again equate this to ignorance. Ignorance is bliss when arguing, as you don't have to see the full story to violently argue your point.

That's not what we're doing here. I've seen both sides of the story, and have chosen mine.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

IMO nothing needs to be removed. Save the Vistani these are a clear unmistakable caricature of real life culture. Others are just a stretch of what is written for personal purposes or simply misinterpreted.

Why would people do this for personal reasons? What are "personal reasons" to claim offense to something. That makes no sense.

 

[DammitVictor]

View attachment 123205

The D20 Modern, Menace Manual. So that is 3rd edition, and I should correct that they are called Luciferans. Pretty much the same thing.

They're one of the alien species from the Dark•Matter campaign setting for Alternity. Basically decent blokes.

Unlike some other Alternity species, I'm not aware of them ever having been a part of the D&D multiverse. For... reasons.

 

[Helldritch]

Accusing "others" of "[stretching] what is written for personal purposes" is fundamentally accusing them of a bad faith argument. People are being quite genuine when they are pointing out the harmful rhetoric used to describe orcs and its parallels with real life harmful, racist rhetoric. You may find it a stretch, but I suspect that you are not someone whose people have been routinely subjected to this sort of language for the past several hundred years. But a number of staff members at WotC apparently share in our "misinterpretation" of orcs, so it will be changed regardless of how harmless you believe it to be. Just like a lot of misogyny and homophobia was slowly removed from the game too despite the protests of it all being a harmless fantasy game.

At the risk of a thread warning, putting my big toe into politics, we could hear similar language used by the alt-right and white supremacists groups around the time of the Charlottesville rally. And following that rally, I looked deeper into the alt-right, its language, and other white supremacist rhetoric (e.g., the Great Replacement, inherent violence, "race realism," etc.), and afterwards it was difficult not to see the similar undertones in the description of orcs. And when you read the language of pro-slavery voices, it's chilling and horrifying that a lot of similar language is (again) what we find in some of the descriptions about orcs: e.g., bestial, subhuman, inherently violent, requiring domestication, tribal, lacking intelligence, incapable of civilizing, etc. And as a Southern white man whose lineage stretches back to the South even in Revolutionary times, this sort of harmful language is something that I want to see discarded from my fantasy elf game. I remember being told that whites were outraged that were being told that minstrel shows were regarded as offensive, and they demanded that black people tell them what the harm is. This is one reason why minstrel shows and blackface lasted as long as they did in the United States. I'm currently living in Europe where there is still blackface aplenty and being told that it's harmless and that we Americans are just overly sensitive. Racism is alive and well.

Are you really serious?
If someone comes and say that orcs are depicted as black I would like see proof of his reasoning in the texts. I would go on and show him that this behavior has been in many cultures and unfortunately, in a lot of "white" cultures too. Does this mean that orcs are representative of white people? or Asian? or Cri? Shoshone? Aztec? Inca? Eurasian? Nope. Orcs are orcs. Instead of accepting a missperception as a truth, I would truly try to explain that it is not a caricature of black people or any other type of people or culture for that matter. Just like I explained, decades ago, to religious people in my area, that D&D was not promoting satanism.

This is not what is happening here. We take these accusations at face value and we act on it immediately. Our justice system presumes that you are innocent until proven guilty. I claim the same for the orcs. They certainly do not want to be compared to puny humans, no matter their color. Comparing this to the black face... Read my other posts, I have friends that are victims of racism and I did and will continue to step forward to help them IRL. Fight racism (and all the other ism) in the real world. This is where it matters.

WotC is acting fast in light of the social context that we know. It is sad that they do so. More thougths on the matter should have been considered and weighted.

D&D has always been an inclusive game. Always. Accusing it of being uninclusive is inconceivable in my mind. Nowhere have I seen a good solid argument that proves without interpretation that this is the case (of being uninclusive). The game is not racist, sexist, homophobic or any other ism and obe that some would like to put in it.

PS: Save for the Vistani, these were clearly out of place. The author only gave bad depiction of them and did not even tried to emphasis the good points of their society. This time around, they were clearly inspired by only one culture and not a mic mac of many. It was a really bad move in my eyes and in the eyes of many others. It will be a good thing if they change them. I did.

Edit: Added (of being uninclusive) in the third sentence of the last paragraph for clarity.

 

[gnarlygninja]

People have been arguing about this for the entire time I've been in the hobby, and from my understanding for a looooong time before that. I'd hardly call this acting immediately.

 

[Helldritch]

Why would people do this for personal reasons? What are "personal reasons" to claim offense to something. That makes no sense.

Ho but it does. Just like some people accuse themselves of a crime they did not commit. Sometimes some people feel offended for someone because they feel he/she/they should be. With reasons or not.

Sometimes you are offended because you perceive something in such a light that it becomes offensive to you. After you get a good explanation, you might change your mind and with the explanation you suddenly admit that you were wrong. I know it did happen to me. Can it happen to other people as well?

People have been arguing about this for the entire time I've been in the hobby, and from my understanding for a looooong time before that. I'd hardly call this acting immediately.

Of course, but I have been in the hobby for four decades now. There never was a solid proof (save for the Vistani) that is why it was never acted upon. Now the move is way too fast.

 

[Umbran]

Words mean things. I'm not going to expand the definition of cannibalism just because you guys think it's cool to do so.

When a dwarf sees a human eating the flesh of another dwarf, "Technically, it isn't cannibalism," is not going to keep that human from getting an axe lodged in his head. And that rhetoric is not going to endear the jury to that human when considering whether the dwarf's act was justified.

The situation under discussion has not had a real-world equivalent in tens of thousands of years, so our language does not have a word for it. Then, we reconsider the definition of cannibalism, not because "it is cool," but because we need a linguistic bridge to the situation.

By flatly rejecting the extension with no consideration or support other than "that's the definition," you assume the conclusion of your argument, which is weak sauce.

Tell us why, within the fantasy world, they would definitely not define it broadly, please.