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

[Maxperson]

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

Sure, but nobody is saying those things about half-orcs. They are a different race and have been able to be all alignments since 1e.

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).

It's not that they aren't linked to people. They are through half-orcs. They literally by definition can't be people, though. They are a monstrous race of humanoids. That's a game fact.

 

[Maxperson]

So, literally turn them into not-people.

No. That would be impossible.

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."

So your fix is to turn orcs, which were created as a monster race, into people so that the language used can be linked to real world offenses?

 

[Eltab]

BTW, the take upthread on Yuan-Ti caste names nailed something I had wondered about myself. I like it.
And the 'alternate cannibalism' echoes an IRL history event from near me:
At the beginning of the War of 1812, the American garrison of Chicago and the civilians evacuated. They were ambushed on the way out. One man, William Wells, ran to defend a wagon with the children in it. He faced odds of 10-to-1 against and finally fell. After the battle the victorious warriors went to his body, cut out his heart, and ate it. The few American survivors thought this was an atrocity. But the warriors saw it as a mark of respect: courage was in the heart, and getting even a little bit of Wells' would give them more bravery than had been in their whole body before.

 

[Hussar]

@Maxperson, whether you like it or not, the language is already linked. Real people are telling you that it’s linked. Telling them that you don’t see the link only makes you part of the problem.

They do not have to prove anything to you. You are not owed any proof nor are you in a position to demand proof.

Repeatedly ignoring these facts are not conducive to any sort of solution.

If you are unable or unwilling to accept the connection, that is 100% your problem. Stop making it about you.

 

[Cadence]

They literally by definition can't be people, though. They are a monstrous race of humanoids. That's a game fact.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "monstrous race of humanoids" as a "game fact".

5e has Humanoids and Monstrosities. Orcs are labeled in the MM as Humanoids. As such, in 5e, they are subject to Charm Person (Charm Person) and can be Reincarnated.

3.5 had Humanoids and Monstrous Humanoids. Orcs were labeled as Humanoids and not Monstrous Humanoids. As such, in 3.5, they were subject to Charm Person and could be reincarnated as a humanoid. The list of humanoids that PCs could be reincarnated as included Orcs.

 

[Cadence]

So your fix is to turn orcs, which were created as a monster race, into people so that the language used can be linked to real world offenses?

Isn't that they have already been linked the reason this thread and the two former-threads-that-shall-not-be-named exist? And doesn't the concern go beyond orcs?

The main argument that I've seen from those asking for changes doesn't necessarily involve a particular humanoid type in D&D matching a particular real world group of people**. I've seen a number of those in the two-now-closed-threads who support the change regularly having to point out that the argument isn't really about a particular real world group being caricatured. It seems to me that their argument is something like:

a) The language used to describe many humanoid races, to justify driving them from their land, and to kill them on sight, closely mimics the language used throughout history for groups in power to other, subjugate, and kill actual groups of people who primarily differed on external characteristics.

b) Having the game based around othering, subjugating, and killing groups of "people" (for the purpose of charm person and things like that which affect sentient humanoids, and which are supported for play as non-evil PCs) makes a number of players uncomfortable - particularly some of those whose ancestors were othered in those ways (and not necessarily that long ago as many alive today were alive for the civil rights movement).

c) Changing the game rules to not have sentient humanoid monster types/species/whatever be irrevocably evil and existing only to be killed as baseline doesn't feel like it actually change much in terms of how the game is played in a particular campaign. In any particular world there can still be tribes of evil orcs or evil elves or evil humans. There can also be good or neutral or advanced or primitive ones. Or them all living together. It doesn't take that option away, it just makes it not the default.

d) That change would make some folks much more comfortable as it would imply that mere external appearance isn't a reason to judge fellow people.

** The Vistani as you note. It has also been noted that the descriptions of the Orcs by Tolkien (who heavily influenced D&D) were based on the Mongols - although it has been also pointed out that the orcs change a lot between editions. Hobogoblins are regularly seen in Japanese (sometimes mishmashed with Chinese) armor and grooming. And the Drow are also mentioned, with some of the art used over the years clearly matching dark skinned humans rather than the descriptions given in the books themselves.

---

It doesn't seem to me that the satanic-panic is a parallel to the current request for changes. Many of the folks complaining about "satanism" in the game weren't asking for minor edits to respect their sensitivity (the game already allowed them to play in a monotheistic, low magic world) or to not use terms about their particular religion in an offensive way (did it talk derisively about monotheism? regularly use names particularly from their religion in a derisive way? encourage folks to go after certain religions just because they were different?). Instead it feels like they didn't want the game have any content at all about magic or demons or devils or pantheism for any of the players anywhere. Not only did they not want it the default, they wanted it completely gone.

---

Given the background of some of the folks involved in making these decisions for the WotC line, it sounds like they've been considering these changes for a while. So, if they were in the works, the current climate seems like a time to bring them out.

.

And so, in your opinion @Maxperson , what is hurt by having the MM no long specify that the various humanoids are evil by default, and having it note that their religions, cultures, and motivations can differ greatly from world to world (with examples from the variety of published settings to show the possible differences)? What makes that unacceptable as a bridge between heritage and exclusivity?

 

[Maxperson]

If you are unable or unwilling to accept the connection, that is 100% your problem. Stop making it about you.

How about you stop trying to make this about me making it about me. If you are unable to respond to me without twisting my arguments into something that they are not, don't respond to me.

 

[Maxperson]

And so, in your opinion @Maxperson , what is hurt by having the MM no long specify that the various humanoids are evil by default, and having it note that their religions, cultures, and motivations can differ greatly from world to world (with examples from the variety of published settings to show the possible differences)? What makes that unacceptable as a bridge between heritage and exclusivity?

Nothing is hurt, but nothing is gained, either. People have the ability to make orcs into whatever they want for their games, so those that are offended can just change orcs, just as those that are offended by murder can get rid of murder in their game, and those who are offended by grave robbing can get rid of that for their game.

I have no issue with setting creating different lore for orcs. Settings exist to change the default of the game in interesting and new ways. Creating new settings such as Eberron with different lore is a great way for you guys to have what you want, while still leaving those of us who like orcs the way they are with what we want. Everyone gets included that way.

 

[Mercurius]

@Maxperson, whether you like it or not, the language is already linked. Real people are telling you that it’s linked. Telling them that you don’t see the link only makes you part of the problem.

They do not have to prove anything to you. You are not owed any proof nor are you in a position to demand proof.

Repeatedly ignoring these facts are not conducive to any sort of solution.

If you are unable or unwilling to accept the connection, that is 100% your problem. Stop making it about you.

This is going too far, Hussar (and I think overly conflates this issue with real world race issues, and perpetuates the notion that those not on the same page with the "linkage interpretation" are inherently gatekeeping, rather than just coming from a different interpretative framework).

Leaving racism aside, if the problem is exclusion in the D&D community, then one isn't necessarily "part of the problem" if they disagree about this interpretative link. This would imply that for those non-white people who don't see the linkage, or don't think it is a problem, that they're also part of the problem. It also implies that there is a Right Way of seeing this issue, all others are shades of wrong. That's called fundamentalism.

That said, if you are saying that telling them that the linkage isn't there is part of the problem, I think there is truth to that. Or at least, if we tweak your wording to be more like "telling them that what they feel is wrong." If they feel the way they feel, there is a problem that should be addressed (although how is a matter of debate...obviously). Just because I personally don't think that the depiction of orcs perpetuates racism, doesn't mean that I don't think changes are warranted. The problem is real for some people, so needs to be addressed in some way, and to some degree. Real people feel excluded, so that needs to be addressed. Emphasis on "in some way."

But telling the Linkage People that you don't see the linkage, no, that doesn't automatically make one part of the problem (of exclusion). Unless, of course, I'm running around in gatherings of Linkage People and shouting, "you're all wrong!" One can say, "I don't agree with your interpretation for these reasons, but I don't think you or anyone should feel excluded, so let's find a way to change that."

On the other hand, pummeling the Non-Linkage People--or anyone who isn't lock-step with Linkagism--again and again, with accusations of exclusion or, worse, racism, doesn't help. At all. And it doesn't facilitate real understanding between the two camps, and also ignores that there aren't really just two camps, but a wide range of perspectives.

This is a discussion board, and the topic at hand is how to come up with creative solutions. The linkage (Linkagegate?!) is impossible to separate from discussion unless we all agree on that linkage. Obviously we don't, and there probably won't ever be full agreement. But what we can do is come up with solutions. We can all agree that there is a problem (because for some, there is a problem), and we can all agree (I think/hope) that everyone who wants to play D&D should feel like they're part of the community.

As an aside, I would guess that seeing the linkage is more ideological than it is based on one's ethnicity. It is an interpretation of data based upon a certain ideological framework. It most certainly is not POC/inclusionists/allies vs. whites/exclusionists/racists, and let's not make it that.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Good thing Wizards is already working on solutions.