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

[Remathilis]

This is going to be a challenge for WotC. How do you give each interpretation enough space to do it justice. The MM could end up pretty huge. And, possibly, more expensive. I wonder if it would be worth having a companion book that is as important as the PHB, MM and DMG that expands on these. Humanoids Handbook? Obviously, this wouldn't be a thing in the current iteration of the game. But I wonder if that might be where things are going.

The unfortunate* solution is that there will be fewer overall types of monsters, but more overall info per monster. You'd probably end up with a Monster Manual that focuses on the core monsters of D&D, but cuts all the newer or non-essential ones (like blights or nothics).

* unfortunate depending on if you like a smaller list of well-developed foes or a large buffet of options. YMMV.

 

[Cadence]

The unfortunate* solution is that there will be fewer overall types of monsters, but more overall info per monster.

If only there was a tradition of an MM 2 and MM 3 to put more of them in...

 

[Remathilis]

If only there was a tradition of an MM 2 and MM 3 to put more of them in...

Yeah, but people really got annoyed when they had to wait a year or more to get 4e versions of monsters like metallic dragons and such that we in the 3.5 MM

 

[Chaosmancer]

No. That would be impossible.

Pardon my french, but WTF? Right above me, literally the post before you this you just said

It's not that they [referring to Orcs] aren't linked to people. They are through half-orcs. They literally by definition can't be people, though.

So, how is it impossible to make them not-people if you are saying they literally by definition cannot be people?

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?

They've been people for decades Max, playable character with a culture, language, history and religion. As we said, that ship left a long time ago. You seem to be clinging to a version of them that hasn't been around for decades. That might be your problem.

I understand that lot of people say this in bad faith or in a tragic misunderstanding of the issue... but you do realize that we're talking about fictional creatures, right? If we stop fictionally portraying them with the traits of personhood... with their own language, their own culture, with friends and family... they will literally stop being people in the exact same way that fictional creatures that were never portrayed as people were never people in the fiction.

Literally all of the problem here is that they are being portrayed as fictional people that the in-game fiction then morally justifies treating as not people. You can remove the problem by changing either half of that equation equally well.

Yes, but...

The issue here is partially that these portrayals are offensive to some people, that they smack of racism and problematic language from out past. So, I imagine the scenario of doing what Max suggests, of turning to these people who are saying "hey, this group of humanoids you have here, love them, but a lot of the language you are using to describe them is a little uncomfortable for us" and WoTC going "Okay, we'll make them worse, we won't remove the problematic parts, we'll emphasize them, take away the good stuff, really make these things wretched and inhuman. Better?"

Somehow, I don't think that will be better. Even if it is meant as something completely different I imagine it wouldn't get taken that way.

And then, we are right back to the problems with Half-orcs.

In fact, Half-Orcs are really where this whole thing started, aren't they? People wanted to play orc characters, but the game designers wanted to keep orcs as enemies so they made Half-Orcs, or maybe half-orcs existed as some NPCs first. Problem is, everyone knows the situation Half-Orcs are born under in older editions of DnD. And that is a huge problem for some people. I had a friend who was deeply uncomfortable when another player wanted to play a half-orc, because he read the 4e description of them and made the obvious connection very quickly. He came to me, as the DM, and asked me what could be done.

The guy playing the half-orc? He wanted the mechanics, he didn't care about his parentage or any of that. He just wanted the abilities. So, I changed him. Said, "hey man, this is the implied backstory, it is making people uncomfortable, you mind just being a full orc with the same mechanics?"

He loved the idea, and my other friend thanked me. And, that solution was so elegant, and the problem was so potentially persistent, that it was one of my first house rules as a DM. There are no half-orcs, they are just orcs. And the few half-orcs I personally played? I gave them loving, happily married families.


And, I imagine I'm not the only one who has dealt with this, reading the half-orc lore from 3.5 to 4e to 5e, Orcs and Humans are becoming more and more likely to have settlements where they intermingle, because no one wants to cut half-orcs from the game, but they are a problem as they used to be presented. And, as orcs and humans have to be able to interact more and more, the orc has to get more focus on them, to be people more often than they are whatever you want to call them before.

So, I don't think going backwards here is really a workable solution.

 

[Mercurius]

I can go dig through the two threads-that-are-now-disposed-of, but iirc, others provided direct quotes from the racist literature of the early 1900s and lined it up almost word-for-word with the descriptions of the evil humanoids in the literature. The two-blog videos make a similar line-up the portrayals. If the line-up of quotes is there, it doesn't seem to me that "see[ing] the linkage" is the issue. It's either "seeing the linkage as being that strong" or "seeing the linkage as a problem". Anyway...

If, as you are, everyone was great with taking time to address things, even when they personally didn't see it as such a big deal -- well, it feels like that would fix a crapton of things in the real world!!! Thank you.

I think the frustration expressed by some of the "linkage folks" here is at those who find the need to take every chance to attack the legitimacy of some people feeling excluded - by adding doubts, disclaimers, what-abouts, and slippery slopes to answers where it isn't even relevant to the question at hand. For example, to say the proposed change people are asking are fine, but then add that they don't fix anything and to liken it other issues - feels like it is doing what I think you are saying bad because it is trying to illegitimize the concerns of those who see a linkage. At some point, it feels like it's starting to add to the problem.

You don't need to convince me that the linkage is there between the depiction of orcs and racist stereotypes - I get that. I can't speak for anyone else, but that isn't where my viewpoint differs from the Linkage People. It is that this linkage automatically leads to "orcs are mockeries of real ethnic groups, so we need to change orcs." Asserting that requires a second linkage, which is tying them to real ethnic groups, when in actuality all that is factual is that orcs share certains traits with stereotypes, not with the groups themselves (i.e. there is no orcish Aunt Jemima, no Fu Manchu).

That said, I don't mind changing orcs if the change comes about as broadening the definition of "orc," while still retaining the traditional type ("evil and brutish") as one approach, both because I think broadening is generally good, and because a seemingly large enough percentage of the community wants it.

And yes, I do think that some of the proposed problems don't really solve the problem, and may even perpetuate them further. This is why I have emphasized, again and again, that the problem is not in the link between orcs and certain traits (racists stereotypes), but between orcs and real world ethnic groups, which actually gives credence to the veracity of those stereotypes. If you sever that connection, then you are left with an imaginary race that is evil, which isn't inherently problematic on its own, except perhaps in a philosophical sense.

I read one of the long articles from James Mendez Hodes and while he provides a comprehensive argument, and is obviously deeply fluent in his own ideological language, my issue with it is very locked into a specific interpretive framework. Meaning, it is a clear instance of the adage, "If the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." At the very least, I'd like to see us broaden the scope and look at the issue from different perspectives - not just the one Mendez Hodes is coming from. The Linkage People seem very resistant to this idea, invalidating or largely ignoring other pespectives.

So where you see Non-Linkage People "attacking the legitimacy" of those who take offense, I see them trying to bring a different perspective to the table. Some of us are even saying, "I see what you're saying, but I don't interpret it the same way; and furthermore, I think there are other and better ways to accomplish the same goals without radically changing D&D ideas" (if the goal is to increase inclusivity).

Racism is obviously a very volatile subject. Even the definition is under debate. I do think that we need to clearly differentiate, at least, between ideological/behavioral racism and institutional racism, and that some of the problems--on both sides--come from a conflation of the two.

In a way, the more interesting discussion for me is not "D&D heritage vs. inclusivity," but "free use of imagination in the context of fantasy vs. sub-conscious socio-cultural assumptions," which is why i suggested a "Thematic Toolbox" book in another thread that plays with the underlying assumptions of the game, disentangling it from the colonialist narrative and opening it up to other thematic approaches, while still retaining the mythic qualities and free imaginative experience that we all cherish.

I would also suggest that we take a step away from racism and focus on the inclusivity part. My sense is that many people are using this context as a proxy to debate real world racism, when the more concrete problem in the TTRPG community is one of inclusivity (which may or may not be an expression of racism). If for no other reason, let's try to solve the problem that we can solve--making D&D inclusive for all....even those who hold different perspectives than our own.

 

[Cadence]

..
That said, I don't mind changing orcs if the change comes about as broadening the definition of "orc," while still retaining the traditional type ("evil and brutish") as one approach, both because I think broadening is generally good, and because a seemingly large enough percentage of the community wants it.
...
And yes, I do think that some of the proposed problems don't really solve the problem, and may even perpetuate them further. This is why I have emphasized, again and again, that the problem is not in the link between orcs and certain traits (racists stereotypes), but between orcs and real world ethnic groups, which actually gives credence to the veracity of those stereotypes. If you sever that connection, then you are left with an imaginary race that is evil, which isn't inherently problematic on its own, except perhaps in a philosophical sense.
..
In a way, the more interesting discussion for me is not "D&D heritage vs. inclusivity," but "free use of imagination in the context of fantasy vs. sub-conscious socio-cultural assumptions," which is why i suggested a "Thematic Toolbox" book in another thread that plays with the underlying assumptions of the game, disentangling it from the colonialist narrative and opening it up to other thematic approaches, while still retaining the mythic qualities and free imaginative experience that we all cherish.
...
I would also suggest that we take a step away from racism and focus on the inclusivity part.
...

Thank you for your patient reply. And yes moving on to inclusivity and leaving the two-threads-that-shall-not-be-named behind us (which would probably make the moderators happy too ).

 

[Imaculata]

I personally have no issues with some monsters simply being inherently evil. I've always considered orcs to be monsters. Intelligent organised monsters with some human features, but still irredeemable evil monsters. Perhaps in my head they are still Tolkiens orcs, and perhaps that is also the angle that Max is seeing, although I cannot speak for him. But D&D orcs have changed a lot over the many editions. Not only can they be a playable race now, but we also have half-orcs. I think that idea in itself is a bit problematic, due to their evil nature and the implication of how they are born. The only solution is to humanize orcs, or cut half-orcs entirely (and I don't see that happening). In my opinion things are so much easier if they are just evil monsters. But I get that we can't just chuck all of that development and lore to the side. So the only solution may be to change the language and get rid of what ever gives offense.

 

[Sadras]

I wonder how Trevor Noah feels about that classification...

He identifies as "mixed" according to this article.

But in any event there are people who are proud to be known as coloureds and wouldn't want the word to change and of course there are others who do not care much for the word. I will not presume to know the amount on either side. It is a complex issue with many many facets that cannot be summed up in one line or paragraph. And yet it is not considered a derogatory term, the same way it may be viewed in the States. We are nearly thirty years after the change in SA. It could indeed change down the line.

EDIT: One other reason perhaps for why the word has not disappeared (yet) besides those that have a strong identification towards it, is that the term coloured and black are distinctly treated differently in certain AA/BBBEE policies here.

 

[Sadras]

And then, we are right back to the problems with Half-orcs.

In fact, Half-Orcs are really where this whole thing started, aren't they? People wanted to play orc characters, but the game designers wanted to keep orcs as enemies so they made Half-Orcs, or maybe half-orcs existed as some NPCs first. Problem is, everyone knows the situation Half-Orcs are born under in older editions of DnD. And that is a huge problem for some people. I had a friend who was deeply uncomfortable when another player wanted to play a half-orc, because he read the 4e description of them and made the obvious connection very quickly. He came to me, as the DM, and asked me what could be done.

The guy playing the half-orc? He wanted the mechanics, he didn't care about his parentage or any of that. He just wanted the abilities. So, I changed him. Said, "hey man, this is the implied backstory, it is making people uncomfortable, you mind just being a full orc with the same mechanics?"

He loved the idea, and my other friend thanked me. And, that solution was so elegant, and the problem was so potentially persistent, that it was one of my first house rules as a DM. There are no half-orcs, they are just orcs. And the few half-orcs I personally played? I gave them loving, happily married families.


And, I imagine I'm not the only one who has dealt with this, reading the half-orc lore from 3.5 to 4e to 5e, Orcs and Humans are becoming more and more likely to have settlements where they intermingle, because no one wants to cut half-orcs from the game, but they are a problem as they used to be presented. And, as orcs and humans have to be able to interact more and more, the orc has to get more focus on them, to be people more often than they are whatever you want to call them before.

So, I don't think going backwards here is really a workable solution.

Thanks for sharing this story.

Real life ugliness inspires the birth of the idea of the half-orc, which is cool for nerds during the early years of D&D. As D&D becomes increasingly more mainstream, suddenly the origin of the cool idea begins to affect more and more victims of this real life ugliness. Those luckily enough to still live in a bubble of safety where such ugliness has not affected their lives still enjoy the idea of playing a half-orc without giving the issue too much or ANY thought.

Then there is the option where one plays a half-orc specifically to explore their character's past, perhaps in an attempt to right a wrong or come to terms with it - like Tanis did in the Tanis, The Shadow Years novel by Barbara Siegel.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But in my opinion things are so much easier if they are just evil monsters. But I get that we can't just chuck all of that development and lore to the side. So the only solution may be to change the language and get rid of what ever gives offense.

I can't speak for the people who are complaining about the depiction of orcs, but how I view this subject is that they are being offended by the fact that orcs are dehumanized. If we were to make them complete monsters and no longer people, I think that's totally the wrong direction to go.