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

[Cadence]

I go with the narrower version myself.

So just humans?

 

[Maxperson]

I can't believe I'm defending MaxPerson's point, but . . . .

I take this from a sci-fi angle. If the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise encountered the aboleth on some watery planet out there . . . would Kirk and crew consider the aboleth "people" or "monsters"? Certainly, the aboleth are alien, their thought processes, morality, and drives are inimical to our own understanding. But what about them disqualifies them as a sentient species worthy of just as much respect as humans, dwarves, and orcs?

Now, if my starship crew and I encountered the aboleth, and they tried to eat and/or enslave us . . . we would not consider them a friendly or "good" species, they would certainly be antagonists, and it would certainly be OK to take steps to protect ourselves against being eaten/enslaved.

Are the aboleth "evil"? Are they free-willed? Are they people (sentient)? As described in D&D, I would argue they certainly are sentient and free-willed, although not inherently evil, just alien to us and with a culture perfectly willing to treat us as non-people that are okay to eat up and/or enslave. I think you can view the aboleth as both "alien" and "people" and at the same time maintain their status as scary and awesome antagonists.

Same would go for other D&D aberrations such as mind flayers, beholders, and other "alien" species. I think viewing these creatures as people is just as important, and more interesting, than labeling them simply as "monsters" worthy of nothing but extermination.

Heck, we have several examples of various aberrations interacting (somewhat) peacefully with humanoid culture in D&D. There's the good old Xanathar (beholder) who runs a thieves guild in Waterdeep. We've had mind flayers partnering up with various humanoids, sometimes villains, but not always.

EDIT: To add . . . I can totally imagine a "D&D in Space" science fantasy campaign where aboleths and mind flayers are legal citizens in the space empire with all the same rights as the more populous humans, elves, dwarves, and orcs. But there are strict laws against eating and enslaving other sentients, which some aboleth have adapted to just fine, but it's rumored that many aboleths secretly indulge their ancestral habits . . . .

Perhaps the mind flayers grow brains in labs so they don't have to extract them from living sentients, perhaps they grow non-sentient humanoid clones to undergo ceremorphosis to perpetuate the species . . . .

There's also Large Luigi, the beholder bartender on the Rock of Braal.

 

[Maxperson]

So just humans?

Definitionally, yes. However, I've played D&D for so long that the PHB races all feel like people to me, though. Are Orcs people? I can see the argument for it, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. But where do you draw the line? Dopplegangers? Beholders? Giants? If everything intelligent is a person, does personhood really mean much in D&D?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

No. I do not. I do not think there needs to be any sort of compromise here.

I stated all the way back on the second page of this thread that I thought there should be no compromise. That given the choice between inclusivity or tradition, inclusivity wins every time.

Do I think this is some sort of slippery slope where orcs get replaced by another race? No, I don't. Because no one has ever really complained about those other races. Orcs and drow have been complained about for DECADES. If other races were going to be problematic, they would already BE problematic. Will they be problematic in the future? I don't know. I left my crystal ball at home.

What I am not going to do is pretend that future problems that don't exist right now are justifications for blocking changes to problems that DO exist right now.

Thanks for your response. I don't remember saying I wanted to block changes but that's fine, sometimes people misinterpret things on forums. I see you don't want to have a discussion and that's okay.

Also, I clipped this excerpt out and wanted to comment on it separately,

You are inventing problems (demons, undead or gnolls) where none exist. No one has said we need to change any of those things. Well, maybe gnolls. But, instead, we've spent the last four pages trying to explain why we want to change ORCS and again, being derailed into endless "whatabouts".

1st: I'm not inventing problems. I'm just curious on where the game will go from here on out and was asking an honest question regarding people's opinions and thoughts. Because asking people's opinions on questions you have is a way to learn. You're not the only person I've asked for an opinion from. That's fine if you don't want to participate.

2nd: this isn't a thread about why orcs should or shouldn't change. I think two threads were shut down due to this exact issue. Taking four pages to Constantly talk about 'whether Orcs are People' is what is actually derailing the thread.

This is a thread about whether the heritage of D&D and inclusiveness can live together. The purpose of my question was to see your opinion on how the changes would affect the heritage of D&D going forward. Once again, it's fine if you don't want to discuss it. Thanks anyways.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm pointing out the arbitrary nature of the arguments you guys put forth.

So, arguing for the sake of arguing?

I mean, watch sci-fi. You've just made every alien in the Cantina scene in Star Wars not a person. Alien = not human and/or from somewhere else, so elves, orcs, goblins, dwarves, etc. are aliens, too.

Star Wars isn't D&D. Don't use arguments that aren't applicable here. We're talking about the definition of person in D&D terms.

In the lore can you point to something that says that they don't have these emotions? We know beholders and illithids have emotions, so why not Aboleths?

Uhh, they have emotions, but never really the good emotions. Aliens don't have normal emotions in D&D terms.

You really think that something that produces asexually cannot have an emotional attachment to its offspring?

A whole species that has been shown to have alien emotions, not care about other members of its species, and reproduces asexually is very unlikely to have emotional attachments to their offspring.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Actually, looking closer, the MM says that non-humanoids are people, too. The humanoid section says this, "Humanoids are the main peoples of the D&D world, both civilized and savage, including humans and a tremendous variety of other species." If they're the main people, being the most populous, the rest of the intelligent monsters would be the secondary people, including Aboleths. The MM says that they're people.

It said the main peoples, not that everything else is a person. By this logic, Owlbears and Phase Spiders are people. It never says anything about intelligence.

 

[Mercurius]

It is worth pointing out (if it hasn't been mentioned already; I've kind of glazed over this whole sub-conversation) that in many languages, the name for one's people is some variant of The People, and the name for others is something like Not-People. This was a common conception in more tribalistic, ethno-centric contexts.

The point being, it would be an interesting aspect of world-building and game-play: incorporating this distinction among different cultures.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I find the discussion about what Monsters are people to be kind of hilarious.

It sounds like a strange, philosophical discussion between members of PETA, but for monsters. PETM?

 

[Maxperson]

Uhh, they have emotions, but never really the good emotions. Aliens don't have normal emotions in D&D terms.

You're going to have to prove that statement. Nothing I've read says that they can't be happy and joyful as they pull the brains out of your head.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Definitionally, yes. However, I've played D&D for so long that the PHB races all feel like people to me, though. Are Orcs people? I can see the argument for it, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. But where do you draw the line? Dopplegangers? Beholders? Giants? If everything intelligent is a person, does personhood really mean much in D&D?

In your games aberrations are people?