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

[Hussar]

Excellent point @Dire Bare. And, the laugh was for your first paragraph, which actually did make me giggle. Otherwise, yeah, thumbs up to you.

That Arcanists Press book looks very interesting. Cool beans. Now, if they would just make a Fantasy Grounds .mod file for it, I'd be all over it.

 

[Imaculata]

although I agree those who started them didn't necessarily do so with honest intentions.

Hey, I joined in on those tangents, but my intentions are honest. I don't think this game of accusing other people of being dishonest just for going on tangents is constructive or fair.

For what it's worth, I don't disagree with WOTC's decission here. But I was mostly interested in understanding why people thought it was so offensive. I was trying to get a deeper understanding. And while I think I get the overall idea of why it is considered offensive, some of the arguments people brought up in this thread don't hold a lot of water to me. And this is how tangents start; we inquire further and question those specific reasons. Not in an attempt to derail, or with dishonest intentions, but because the things that we DO agree upon aren't worthy of discussion (since we agree).

So when I question the statement that dragons are people, I'm not doing so to try and deflect from the original topic. I don't disagree that the terminology around orcs and drow is problematic and echoes that used against real world people. And frankly I find the implications surrounding half-orcs a lot more problematic than the normal orcs themselves. So there definitely is some stuff here that is reason for concern and perhaps change. I can see that.

But I don't agree with some of the other arguments people brought up. Hence the tangent. And I'm aware that I didn't start the tangent, I merely joined in on what was already a pretty lengthy discussion. So perhaps your accusations aren't directed specifically at me.... but since I am taking part in the tangent, I feel this is an unfair accusation in general. If you don't feel like discussing a tangent, then don't. You don't need to block or ignore people. And you don't need to accuse them of arguing in bad faith.

11 pages, huh? Doesn't seem that bad when you have the most problematic posters on the ignore list, it all goes by so much quicker. But then you wonder why the posts you do see are all irritated . . . .

Also, you don't need to brag that you probably blocked/ignored several people in this topic already. Just don't take part in the discussion if it frustrates you in any way. Just leave it be.

 

[Hussar]

To be entirely fair, @Imaculata , I'm probably just as guilty as anyone for going off on tangents. And, fair enough, asking for further clarification is great. But, at a certain point, it does get frustrating when that clarification has had to be repeated ad nauseum because people cannot simply accept that other interpretations are valid.

I don't agree with your interpretation is perfectly fine. "I don't agree with your interpretation, therefore it's wrong" is not. ((Not that you have done that, I'll leave that one to people like @Derren (who, in the opening pages of this thread accused anyone who thinks that the writeups are problematic are simply making up things to be offended about) or @Maxperson who refuses to even listen to the explanations and has flat out said that these interpretations are wrong and repeatedly brings up overly pedantic points in order to "prove" that the interpretation are wrong.

Sorry, but, if you can support an interpretation using the text, it's not wrong. It might be a different one from the one you like, but, it's not wrong. Everyone pretty much agrees that the language used to describe orcs and drow are very close to the language used to denigrate all sorts of people. Now, I get that people want to draw a line here and say, well, it's okay to denigrate fictional characters, they don't have feelings. But, the problem is, if you have had this language used about you, and then you see that language used in the game, it makes the squick factor jump off the scale. Again, not because the writers are raging bigots or anything else. But, simply because that language is painful.

I mean, I'm not exactly in love with half-elf/orc/etc, but, it doesn't really bother me too much because, well, it just doesn't. But, when I see this in the Player's Handbook:

Half-orcs who were weaker than their orc comrades didn't last long among the Bloody Skulls or anyother orc tribe for that matter. But, it was often true that a bit of human blood gave a warroior just the right mix of cunning, ambition and self-discipline to go far indeed...

their human blood giving them an edge over their full-blooded orc rivals...

... The one-eyed god Gruumsh created the orcs, and even those orcs who turn away from his worship can't fully escape his influence. The same is true for half-orcs though their human blood moderates the impact of their orcish heritage

There's a level of squick there and outright racism that's pretty hard to ignore. An orc in the wild is stupid and savage, but, if you breed them just right, they get a bit smarter and they can be tamed. Yeesh, that's pretty bloody brutal. And that's the first introduction to orcs a new player will see. Again, the parallels with discussions about black slaves in the 19th century are pretty clear.

IOW, people aren't making this naughty word up.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I agree with you that some posters in this thread aren't engaging honestly, they are just stirring the pot and playing troll. But, that doesn't mean that some of the points they have raised aren't valid, ironically.

I hope this statement isn't leveled at me. I have been trying hard to engage honestly. But maybe people have been misunderstanding my intentions. Sometimes asking questions or having an alternate perspective isn't actual trolling which may be why their points seemed valid....

@Hussar I couldn't find the post you were referring to - maybe I have more/less posts per page. What post # were you referring to? I appreciate that you see where I'm coming from now, thanks.

What more would you like to see about orcs or drow or other close-to-human races? In game design and in our home games, we need to, 1) watch out for and avoid language that mirrors racist colonial tropes (which is tough, as it's deeply embedded in the game and the source literature), 2) avoid classing entire races as evil, savage, bestial, and "non-people", at least races that aren't outsiders or spirits of some kind ("mortal" races), 3) drop ability adjustments and racial traits that play into those racist tropes (maybe even drop them all together), and 4) give orcs (and other races) more cultural variety both to buck the mono-culture trend that too easily leads to racist tropes and to also give more player variety . . . .

In my home game, I'm starting with Arcanist Press' "Ancestry and Culture" which tweaks the racial system from the PHB and tries to separate inherited traits (biology or magical) from learned traits (cultural). I'm going to tweak it further by making all ability adjustments as cultural suggestions only, and every character, regardless of race, gets to put +3 towards any abilities they want (either +2 and +1 or three +1 adjustments). This product only gives the crunch for OGL races/subraces, so I'm starting to work on converting the other races from the PHB and other D&D sources. At the same time, I'm going to try and come up with some reworked cultures and mayhaps some new ones . . . . rewrite the Gruumsh and Lolth stories to make those deities (and the cultures they inspire) more realistic and less cartoonishly evil.

EDIT: I'll add a bit about another newish product I like from the DM's Guild, "Grazzilax's Guide to Ancestry". I prefer "Ancestry and Culture", but Grazilaxx's Guide provides a bunch of alternate rules to deal with those pesky racial ability adjustments. The book gives detailed breakdowns for assigning those extra three points by class, or by background, or by simply using point-buy and increasing the points . . . and some others I forget off the top of my head. Worth a look if you are not happy with assigning ability adjustments by race (or culture).

I'll have a look - seems interesting. I've never been a huge fan of racial bonuses, but not for the reasons that have been stated here. Mostly because the munchkin in me screams when I make subpar character choices for the sake of story. I'd rather keep stat boosts out of the decision making when making a character. I like the idea of separating Nature from Nurture as far as character generation goes. It's going to be tricky doing both in a way that won't offend someone because the moment you talk about 'behavior from how you were raised', you have to start talking about culture, which can be tricky. I'm glad I'm not the one having to do the writing.

My impression, in the long term, the changes are going to change the face of how people play their typical games. For instance: if Orcs are no longer seen as the inherently evil 'other', but then they make Gnolls fiends whose nature is of violence and evil - a lot of the D&D tropes (read: heritage) will involve Gnolls instead of Orcs. Whether or not people will be ok with that, I don't know.

Edit: For the record: I'm all for tangents because they can be interesting, and I'm guilty of them too, but it gets frustrating when no-one engages you when you try make an on-topic comment because of a tangent.

 

[Oofta]

From a philosophical standpoint, I think any creature that meets some minimum threshold of intelligence, is self aware, has a complex language and manufactures tools should be considered a person.

From a mental standpoint I don't see any difference between bullywugs, centaurs, dopplegangers, giant kind, goblinoids, myconoids, orcs, rakshasa, sahugin, yuan-ti and another dozen or so. They all meet the basic standards. They all have an alignment stated in the MM. They are thinking, living, breathing intelligent creatures and there's nothing that really differentiates them.

If I were to expand a bit, I see the same mental capacity in dragons, lamias, hags and so on. Fiends? Yeah they're creatures created from the abyss, but orcs were created by a pissed off god. So?

If the argument is that creatures that could have free will, that should be able to distinguish between right and wrong should not have alignment then probably over half the creatures in the MM should not have alignment.

If you think orcs are somehow different and special, fine. You're entitled. I just think that slapping an artificial classification on an artificial monster to justify it doesn't help the argument any.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree with you that some posters in this thread aren't engaging honestly, they are just stirring the pot and playing troll. But, that doesn't mean that some of the points they have raised aren't valid, ironically.

You keep wanting the discussion to circle back to orcs and drow, but that wasn't actually part of the OP specifically. I don't see a reason why the discussion can't expand to include races/creatures that are farther from humanity than elves, dwarves, and orcs. IMO, that makes the discussion more interesting and valid.

I don't see the aboleth discussion as ludicrous . . . . but then again, I'm missing half of the posts as some of those jokers have long been on my ignore list (sometimes I'm clicking on "show ignored content" just to see what they said most recently to get folks all riled up).

There is no irony as I'm not trolling. Don't call me a troll again.

 

[Maxperson]

For the record, I don't have a dog in this race (see what I did there?), but I do find myself agreeing with some of his points.

Brought the conversation around to Gnolls?

 

[Xenonnonex]

There is no irony as I'm not trolling. Don't call me a troll again.

You ignored my question. Aberrations. Are they considered people in your games.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't agree with your interpretation is perfectly fine. "I don't agree with your interpretation, therefore it's wrong" is not. ((Not that you have done that, I'll leave that one to people like @Derren (who, in the opening pages of this thread accused anyone who thinks that the writeups are problematic are simply making up things to be offended about) or @Maxperson who refuses to even listen to the explanations and has flat out said that these interpretations are wrong and repeatedly brings up overly pedantic points in order to "prove" that the interpretation are wrong.

Sorry, but, if you can support an interpretation using the text, it's not wrong. It might be a different one from the one you like, but, it's not wrong. Everyone pretty much agrees that the language used to describe orcs and drow are very close to the language used to denigrate all sorts of people. Now, I get that people want to draw a line here and say, well, it's okay to denigrate fictional characters, they don't have feelings. But, the problem is, if you have had this language used about you, and then you see that language used in the game, it makes the squick factor jump off the scale. Again, not because the writers are raging bigots or anything else. But, simply because that language is painful.

I'm not going to slog through hundreds of pages of other threads looking for this support you mentioned. So far one person has shown me two quotes that had to be stretched pretty far to apply to orcs and the rest of you haven't shows this support in this thread. You make claims, but that's it. There's no reason for me to alter my view over claims and a couple very stretched examples.

There's a level of squick there and outright racism that's pretty hard to ignore. An orc in the wild is stupid and savage, but, if you breed them just right, they get a bit smarter and they can be tamed. Yeesh, that's pretty bloody brutal. And that's the first introduction to orcs a new player will see. Again, the parallels with discussions about black slaves in the 19th century are pretty clear.

There's nothing there that talks about breeding orcs just right or taming orcs. Hell, it doesn't even talk about human blood making them smarter. It also specifically says that half-orcs are often disadvantaged and end up dead. This is the kind of stretching that I'm talking about.

Orcs are cunning, so the "smarts" you mention come from the orc side. The ambition and self-discipline come from being less chaotic and less influence from Gruumsh's whispers and control. The creation aspect is present in many mythologies and are not inherently racist. Gruumsh created them one way, but he did not create humans, so the human blood mitigates things, but still leaves half-orcs with Gruumsh whispering to them and inciting rage, just not as strongly as full blooded orcs.

IOW, people aren't making this naughty word up.

But so far all examples I have seen, including the half-orc language you just posted, have been a stretch.

 

[Maxperson]

You ignored my question. Aberrations. Are they considered people in your games.

No, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that according to the MM WotC considers non-humanoids to be people and there's nothing that says that aliens are inherently non-people, so you can't exclude them simply based on the MM language.

We have the MM stating that non-humanoids are people, and nothing that says that Abberations are not among them.