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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I personally find differing racial norms far more interesting than human with pointed ears, human, short human, stocky human probably with beard, dragonish breath weapon Human, etc.

Does the base race for all of D&D have to fit into the racial norms of settings? Shouldn't the base races be left without of the normal society traits of the others, and have the settings add on the rest of it?

Currently it's the opposite. The racial norms are standard, and different settings change them to be more interesting.

 

[Cadence]

Another possibility might be something along the lines of "Godforged". Orcs were literally created for a specific purpose, to wage never-ending war against other races. Depending on your campaign, some orcs can free themselves from their god and be used as a PC race. Orcs aren't inherently less intelligent, but their intellect is actively suppressed by Gruumsh. After all, as an evil god, Gruumsh wants slaves to do his bidding, not children who can grow and develop their own thoughts and ideas.

I can picture a campaign where the players all play orcs who had broken free, trying to set off to free the rest of their people from this...

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The whole BS "slippery slope" debate tactic, they are not engaging honestly in the conversation. I got no respect for that.

I agree with this. Whenever someone asks "Where does it end?" always can be answered with this one word:

Somewhere.

It ends somewhere. We're obviously not going to implement rules for butterfly catching or hug benefits. D&D is a game designed around conflict, and needs villains, but not all races and monsters have to be universally evil.

 

[Maxperson]

For centuries across every land on the map, people have pointed to their neighbors and said "these are not people, they are monsters in people's skin, it is kill or be killed". Sometimes they are monsters just because, sometimes because they worship "dark gods" or "evil spirits"

So again, those were real people. Not orcs, which are not only not real, but literally not people at all. They're orcs and are a different race/species/insert term here.

So is it any wonder that if I went to my college aged players, who are taking a class on say, colonialism, and I say "okay, Orcs are a vicious and brutal people, who slaughter civilized folk, all because they worship the evil god Gruumsh" one of my players might think back to the real atrocities they just read about and be conflicted? Because I just spun the exact same narrative that okayed the slaughter of [X].

This has happened at my tables, this discussions have come up, multiple times. And I can't just dismiss them by saying "well, orcs aren't humans anyways, so it is fine."

So maybe don't call them people. Maybe call them orcs. Maybe describe them like this, "Orcs are a vicious and brutal, and slaughtering those that oppose them, because their god Gruumsh has commanded it." If you're going to create an association by using a term that will connect them to people, that's not the game's doing.

 

[Cadence]

Are dragons people? They aren't humanoid by any definition. Do they have souls?

Is this testable in D&D worlds by spells such as a reincarnation spell? It feels like the rules could at least make it clear.

The change from 1e/2e to 3.5 to 5 seems pretty big in this regard. 1e/2e was bascially any living thing combing back as anything. iirc 3.5 was anything coming back as as anything of the same monster classification (so PC races could come back as any humanoid). 5e is humanoids coming back as PC races.

 

[Cadence]

So maybe don't call them people. Maybe call them orcs. Maybe describe them like this, "Orcs are a vicious and brutal, and slaughtering those that oppose them, because their god Gruumsh has commanded it." If you're going to create an association by using a term that will connect them to people, that's not the game's doing.

Even if you throw out all of the stuff that inspired the game, the game itself has connected orcs and people -- half-orcs.

If you want to separate Orcs from people, the hard part might be trying to do so without using terms that reflect how humans in real history didn't try to separate themselves from other groups of humans in real history. Or, say, how the offspring of those with a parent in each group have been viewed even in the lifetime of some of our parents.

It feels like the ship that would have allowed for separating orcs from people sailed a while ago and WotC missed it (maybe the one for gnolls and lizardfolk is still in dock).

 

[Xenonnonex]

Most important issue. Is working on baggage of racist tones. Of racist depictions. In heritage of D&D. By working with groups. Can be some solutions in this thread.
Then work with groups. Discuss monsters from their cultures. Discuss if there are issues with racism in depictions of monsters. If more nuance is needed. Then work from there.
No to mixing issues. No to diminishing the issue of racism.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Or, say, how the offspring of those with a parent in each group have been viewed even in the lifetime of some of our parents.

/snip

Parents? The Japanese word for someone of mixed heritage is hafu - as in half-breed. You think that doesn't make me want to kneecap people with a tire iron every time I hear it about my children? Fortunately, it seems to have fallen out of use once the history of the word was explained to people. Change can happen.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So maybe don't call them people. Maybe call them orcs. Maybe describe them like this, "Orcs are a vicious and brutal, and slaughtering those that oppose them, because their god Gruumsh has commanded it." If you're going to create an association by using a term that will connect them to people, that's not the game's doing.

So, literally turn them into not-people. That is your solution for potentially offensive language being used, that was once used to de-humanize people, "just refuse to acknowledge personhood and the issue goes away."

I'm, I'm literally stunned. The only analogy I can think of is turning to someone worried about dying of cancer and saying "well, if we kill you, the cancer isn't a problem."

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm, I'm literally stunned. The only analogy I can think of is turning to someone worried about dying of cancer and saying "well, if we kill you, the cancer isn't a problem."

100% this.

"It's not a problem if we change the problem to be worse" is essentially the argument being used there.

People were upset with the portrayal of orcs, so of course making them even worse will fix the problem.