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

[Sadras]

One of the earlier discussions were about the word Shaman and to perhaps replace that with Holy Person. Holy Person is ok, but it doesn't evoke the same coolness/imagery as the word Shaman in the same way the word Skald is such a richer word to describe a northern Bard.

 

[Sadras]

Given that you're writing this as a white South African, I'd consider that your context requires a degree of denmonstrating good faith that you have, thus far, not provided. You sound a lot like deKlerk, to be honest, and I would reconsider that were I you.

Not cool and unnecessary.

 

[Aldarc]

What about inherently good races (e.g. non-Kender Hobbits); or inherently lawful (e.g. Dwarves), or inherently chaotic (e.g. Elves and Gnomes)? If inherent evil has to go (and I'm not at all convinced that it does) then by extension so must those other three - right?

Is this meant to pose a dilemma?

 

[Dire Bare]

What about inherently good races (e.g. non-Kender Hobbits); or inherently lawful (e.g. Dwarves), or inherently chaotic (e.g. Elves and Gnomes)? If inherent evil has to go (and I'm not at all convinced that it does) then by extension so must those other three - right?

Yes.

We are focused on the more negative portrayals of orcs and drow, but we should be re-examining how we talk about race regarding ALL D&D creatures. IMO, having a race that is inherently good or lawful is just as bad as having a race that is inherently evil or chaotic, if not quite so obvious.

We should be looking at the near-human races (drow, orcs) and also monstrous races such as dragons, outsiders . . . . any creature that is sentient and could be considered people, we should re-examine how we treat that creature/race.

There was a pretty good Order of the Stick cartoon about a not very evil dragon whose children were murdered and made into equipment by the adventurers, this dragon was driven to become the evil nemesis that the adventurer's assumed it was in the first place. It was hilarious, but also thought-provoking.

 

[Imaculata]

In general I think it is best to avoid uncritical use of colonialism tropes whether they resemble the Roman Empire, the British Empire, American Imperialism, etc. Basically fiction where you play the instrument of a powerful civilization and face off against savage uncivilized folk that are assumed to be lesser than you in some ways will always tend to reflect the experiences of marginalized people in a negative light. Basically avoid punching down.

This makes me reflect on some of the more sensitive subjects that feature occasionally in my pirate campaign. My campaign is inspired by real pirate history and pulp adventure stories. As such it does feature depictions of slavery, although not so much based on race but as a part of war. I am careful not to put my players in the position of taking part in the slavery, but I do use the theme of slavery to frame some of my villains. Among real life pirates were historically a lot of ex-slaves, so it makes sense to have the players (playing the role of heroic pirates themselves) fighting against slavers from time to time. My campaign also features cannibals, which are depicted by me as dark skinned primitive tribal cultures who worship an evil god. And this leans more towards the pulp side of pirate stories. While I have heard no complaints from any of my players, I am still curious how others feel about this: Are any of these things problematic?

 

[Sadras]

My campaign also features cannibals, which are depicted by me as dark skinned primitive tribal cultures who worship an evil god.

I'm sure you didn't do this intentionally, but this leans far far more into a colonialist trope than say the discussion of orcs.
Once you make this humans PoC with all those other tropes (uncivilised, tribal, evil deity, cannibals) well that is what it is.
Personally for me, changing them to humanoids undoes all of that, because then you're dealing with 'aliens' as opposed to humans.
Especially if your pirate coves are a melting pot of people and cultures, which I assume they would be.

 

[Imaculata]

Especially if your pirate coves are a melting pot of people and cultures, which I assume they would be.

They are. Although because it takes place in a sort of carribean setting, most of the cultures are of tinted skin of one degree or the other. I have a very wide and mixed representation of ethnicities, all fantasy. The cannibals however are pure blackhat, and straight out of old pulp adventure books, and inspired heavily by the tribes in the movie the 13th warrior, with a flavor of Indiana Jones or King Kong (but without a cauldron). But they are stereotypical cannibals, meant to be the baddies, with very little nuance.

While the cannibals aren't inherently evil, they are indoctrinated by an evil deity, and their culture is very barbaric. Their savage behavior has displaced and wiped out some of the other indiginous (peaceful) tribes. So, they are the bad guys. No different from orcs or mindflayers in that regard.

I'm curious to see how others feel about this.

 

[Eric V]

Well, 5e seems to disagree. Celestials can fall, Zariel can be redeemed from devil to angel, there's a chaotic good devil in Descent into Avernus, and Acq. Inc. has a "good" lich.
I think most fiends should be evil most of the time. I think most celestials should be good most of the time. Aberrations are alien and can be evil all the time. Humanoids and other creatures aren't so clear cut.

This really messes up the idea of an "Always [fill in the blank] alignment," doesn't it? If a devil can become chaotic good, if an angel can turn evil...having anything be "always..." seems to be against what WotC has in mind for the game.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

In general I think it is best to avoid uncritical use of colonialism tropes whether they resemble the Roman Empire, the British Empire, American Imperialism, etc. Basically fiction where you play the instrument of a powerful civilization and face off against savage uncivilized folk that are assumed to be lesser than you in some ways will always tend to reflect the experiences of marginalized people in a negative light. Basically avoid punching down.

This makes me reflect on some of the more sensitive subjects that feature occasionally in my pirate campaign. My campaign is inspired by real pirate history and pulp adventure stories. As such it does feature depictions of slavery, although not so much based on race but as a part of war. I am careful not to put my players in the position of taking part in the slavery, but I do use the theme of slavery to frame some of my villains. Among real life pirates were historically a lot of ex-slaves, so it makes sense to have the players (playing the role of heroic pirates themselves) fighting against slavers from time to time. My campaign also features cannibals, which are depicted by me as dark skinned primitive tribal cultures who worship an evil god. And this leans more towards the pulp side of pirate stories. While I have heard no complaints from any of my players, I am still curious how others feel about this: Are any of these things problematic?

I brought this up earlier. There is so much more to this thread than just monstrous races. There are so many themes in D&D that are based on actual things that happen in the real world: war, slavery, injustice. The things PCs usually fight against. Does it mean exploring those themes are now off the table? Obviously, you can do what you want with your own table. I tackle lost of sensitive and serious stuff in my games but the players are on-board.

I'm curious to know what this means for published adventures and new settings as far as the variety of content we will get. Will hiring sensitivity editors increase the price of the books? (I think it's worth the investment). But, then, will it make the game even less accessible to those who are poorer? On average, white men probably have higher disposable income.

Edit: @Campbell I just noticed your emphasis on "uncritical use" - so, that is definitely a factor.

 

[DammitVictor]

Inherently evil races belong in D&D as much as Race-as-class, Gold for EXP, and Thaco

I disagree entirely.

...

...

Race-as-Class and Gold for XP are functional game mechanics that are still viable in the 21st century, and should be cherished.