dfuller1138
Villager
The whole push for nebulously defined "heritage" and "inclusivity" - because there will always be someone to complain about something - reminds me of the Jacobins after the French Revolution. There, liberal assemblies contested with monarchists for power. Eventually, the Liberals - French Liberals from late 1700's - won. The French King & Queen were arrested and executed.
The aftermath was that the Liberals after the French Revolution became more extreme. Suddenly, the Liberals were not extreme enough for other Liberals. The new, more extreme liberals hacked off the heads of the less-extreme Liberals. And so on and so on. Eventually, The French ended up with a monarchy yet again. Full circle.
That is the most likely outcome of the current real world situation. A backlash will develop. People will become tired of it. Extremists will develop that view others as not extreme enough.
As for D&D?
"1) D&D Heritage. D&D heritage, as a whole, is meaningful and should be preserved, including the act of creative imagination for its own sake, and the nature of fantasy as distinct from reality.
2) Inclusivity. The D&D game should be welcoming and inclusive to anyone who wants to play it, no matter their ethnicity, gender, sexual preference or identity, ideology, disability, etc. "
Agreed. Others may object. Let's look at some issues:
Heritage of D&D? WARGAMES. Uh, oh. Promotion of war. Already, the heritage of D&D is war and preparation of war. The Prussians were adept at wargames.
Inclusivity? As an old time D&D player, we were cast as Satanists and such especially during the '80's. In the Army, lots of people played. We didn't keep people out because of their skin color or beliefs. Before the Army? School. We were geeks and nerds. I think Vin Diesel might have something to say about that. Actually, I was in school and playing D&D with soldiers. I started early.
D&D is built on stereotypes. Orcs came from The Lord of The Rings were they were explicitly creations of an evil power, for evil. Orcs? Bad. Half-orcs in D&D? Choose your alignment.
Another example: The Drow, as one poster put it on these forums? They are dark skinned (actually should be albino unless the magical light that pervades the Underdark somehow affects their skin color). They worship an evil goddess as a religion. They are murderous when it comes to advancement, as required by Lolth. The entire "people" of Drow are one big stereotype.
Drow society as depicted by AD&D is "evil" to us in the real world. And they are cool as villains. To Drow - if they were to exist? Our society would be "evil". It's a matter of perspective. Drow are discrminated against - in-game-wise - on the basis of their beliefs and religion. Religious freedom, NOW! I've played a Drow who worshiped Eilistaee. Though, Zinzerina was a close second. I'm contemplating running as a "good" worshiper of Lolth who looks down upon those who would destroy Drow society - those who are EVIL. it's a matter of perspective.
I'm going to introduce some hyperbole and exaggeration (and yes, there is someone out there who really believe what I'm about to write):
Elves. Fairies (derogatory).
Faerie Dragon? There's that derogatory word again. Someone will complain. Probably someone who doesn't play D&D. Injection of a real-world problem into a FANTASY GAME.
Goblins? Stereotyped. I think there was some mention of a Goblinoid high achieving society or maybe that was the Lizard Folk. This was actually a decent, unobjectionable change. I mean, seriously, Lizardmen? Back then, it was fine. However, stereotyping men as Lizards (as some one, somewhere undoubtedly pieced together)... I jest on the latter, but not the former. Tongue in cheek.
Every. "People". In. D&D. Is. A. Stereotype. Or, rather... ARCHETYPES consisting of characteristics given form.
Who here decided on the depictions of peoples in D&D? No one. The decisions were made long ago. Perhaps, centuries. It's like having slaveowners as ancestors. Should one feel ashamed of that? No. That's BLOOD LIBEL if one does. Are there some issues that still persist in real world society that should be dealt with that have had a long-reaching, negative affect? Yes. However - D&D is NOT THAT FORUM to deal with those issues. Some changes to D&D can be made within reason.
POLITICS is that forum. Protesting. Voting. REAL WORLD. D&D is part of the real world. It's a fantasy game. Players are inclusive. Players have been discriminated against by their social peers - nothing as serious as real world discrimination against Minorities in America. There is no comparison between the two. One is a fantasy game that will have little impact on the real world body politic. D&D is not a political party that will seize power over society to affect positive change. Other than the odd politician mentioning D&D as an "influencer of evil"...
Otherwise? The Monarchy-French Revolution-Monarchy cycle.
There is need to for some changes. Nothing wrong with the use of "people" instead of "race". Though, given the genetic definition of race, that one is more politics than actual change. Some things may (probably) do need changing.
Let's examine the defintion of race (Oxford only).
5. (countable] a group of people who share the same language, history, culture, etc.
6. (countable) a breed or type of animal or plant
Humans beings are animals. Quite frankly, I find number 5. to be inaccurate and objectionable now that science is here to inform us about genetics, but it is Oxford. Let's go by genetics - scientific reasoning. Peoples is quite fine. Flan. Oeridian. Suel. Baklunish. Etc. They are not "races", they are people sharing genetics. With differing cultures, languages, and practices. Who can forget "preparation of heads" in Perrenland (LG).
Elves and Orcs share genetics with humans in D&D though I did see a half-dwarf mentioned at some time... Humans + Dwarf = half-dwarf. Then we can have Dwarf + Elf, Dwarf + Orc, etc. Until we become bogged down by rules and exceptions and on and on and on. D&D does have half dragons.
Want to have s*x in D&D? There was a book for that. If you wanted to be offended? FATAL, now THAT system was OFFENSIVE. Wait, but there are others who would decry that depicting a medieval society realistically, complete with s*xual impropriety or immoral practices = immorality. Then again, they might have issues with how America truly was before the arrival of The Puritans. Kickin' society! Piraty! Back to the '80s "D&D Satanists" stereotype. Yes, I've been in games were a PC will gasp visit a bordello or brothel. That DM was rather detailed-oriented, though not excessively. The player forked over gold and that was it. Though, the PC finding the brothel was an adventure in itself. And do make the CON check.
Inclusivity? Many refrain from playing becuase they don't want to be stereotyped. They have to be in the "cool" crowd. This was a real world consequence of how others views people who play RPGs. D&D is not B&B (B*obs & Bikinis). Though, there are players who do like to inject their masculinity into the game. They are what polymorph other spells are for.
The only objections I've seen in a long "career" of playing RPG's? RULES LAWYERS. Rule Zero takes care of them. OFFENSIVE PLAYERS - language, crassness, real world politics, religious discrimination, or some such display. Occasionally, players have been offensive. That's why they don't get invited back. Top 3 in games - s*xual crassness, religious discrimination (both sides), politics (this last a rarity).
Okay, there is one campaign I've seen another player participate in. 1930's rip-off of Harry P*tter in America, where the DM was obsessive about characters falling in love and having s*x with each other. WAAAAAAY over the top. I won't mention the gender or s*xual orientation of the DM... the players all left. The DM is DMing NO ONE. What is a shame is that the prior campaign and game world run by that DM? Was top notch. Suddenly, the new campaign disolved into some s*xual fetish. No one knows WTF happened there with the DM... my guess is mental instability.
D&D is a fantasy game that relies on stereotypes to illustrate the struggle between Good & Evil & Neutrality. Dragonlance and Dark Sun were illustrative of this. Or of simply the struggle between Good & Evil. The "peoples" are there to clearly define boundaries.
There is perhaps (as in - IMHO - definitely) an issue with? ART IN THE FANTASY GAMES. Seriously, chainmail bikinis and b*ob-boosting armor? That, if IIRC, is now on the outs - sort of. I'm a fan of Boris Vallejo. Nice art. I like the style, shading, and use of color. Really hyper-masculine, but it was the 70's and 80's.
What is objectionable about D&D Heritage? Overall, NOTHING.
What about inclusivity? Got that. Barring the occasional OFFENSIVE PLAYER who would be summarily ejected.
Hindsight is 20/20. What was unobjectionable back then? Is now objectionable. Much like most of humanity are against slavery, which was acceptable (not to the slaves, of course) for many societies quite some time ago. Actually, Brazil was the last country to formally renounce slavery around 1895. Yet, today there are greater numbers of people who would be considered "enslaved" - by traditional definition and otherwise - than ever before in history.
The aftermath was that the Liberals after the French Revolution became more extreme. Suddenly, the Liberals were not extreme enough for other Liberals. The new, more extreme liberals hacked off the heads of the less-extreme Liberals. And so on and so on. Eventually, The French ended up with a monarchy yet again. Full circle.
That is the most likely outcome of the current real world situation. A backlash will develop. People will become tired of it. Extremists will develop that view others as not extreme enough.
As for D&D?
"1) D&D Heritage. D&D heritage, as a whole, is meaningful and should be preserved, including the act of creative imagination for its own sake, and the nature of fantasy as distinct from reality.
2) Inclusivity. The D&D game should be welcoming and inclusive to anyone who wants to play it, no matter their ethnicity, gender, sexual preference or identity, ideology, disability, etc. "
Agreed. Others may object. Let's look at some issues:
Heritage of D&D? WARGAMES. Uh, oh. Promotion of war. Already, the heritage of D&D is war and preparation of war. The Prussians were adept at wargames.
Inclusivity? As an old time D&D player, we were cast as Satanists and such especially during the '80's. In the Army, lots of people played. We didn't keep people out because of their skin color or beliefs. Before the Army? School. We were geeks and nerds. I think Vin Diesel might have something to say about that. Actually, I was in school and playing D&D with soldiers. I started early.
D&D is built on stereotypes. Orcs came from The Lord of The Rings were they were explicitly creations of an evil power, for evil. Orcs? Bad. Half-orcs in D&D? Choose your alignment.
Another example: The Drow, as one poster put it on these forums? They are dark skinned (actually should be albino unless the magical light that pervades the Underdark somehow affects their skin color). They worship an evil goddess as a religion. They are murderous when it comes to advancement, as required by Lolth. The entire "people" of Drow are one big stereotype.
Drow society as depicted by AD&D is "evil" to us in the real world. And they are cool as villains. To Drow - if they were to exist? Our society would be "evil". It's a matter of perspective. Drow are discrminated against - in-game-wise - on the basis of their beliefs and religion. Religious freedom, NOW! I've played a Drow who worshiped Eilistaee. Though, Zinzerina was a close second. I'm contemplating running as a "good" worshiper of Lolth who looks down upon those who would destroy Drow society - those who are EVIL. it's a matter of perspective.
I'm going to introduce some hyperbole and exaggeration (and yes, there is someone out there who really believe what I'm about to write):
Elves. Fairies (derogatory).
Faerie Dragon? There's that derogatory word again. Someone will complain. Probably someone who doesn't play D&D. Injection of a real-world problem into a FANTASY GAME.
Goblins? Stereotyped. I think there was some mention of a Goblinoid high achieving society or maybe that was the Lizard Folk. This was actually a decent, unobjectionable change. I mean, seriously, Lizardmen? Back then, it was fine. However, stereotyping men as Lizards (as some one, somewhere undoubtedly pieced together)... I jest on the latter, but not the former. Tongue in cheek.
Every. "People". In. D&D. Is. A. Stereotype. Or, rather... ARCHETYPES consisting of characteristics given form.
Who here decided on the depictions of peoples in D&D? No one. The decisions were made long ago. Perhaps, centuries. It's like having slaveowners as ancestors. Should one feel ashamed of that? No. That's BLOOD LIBEL if one does. Are there some issues that still persist in real world society that should be dealt with that have had a long-reaching, negative affect? Yes. However - D&D is NOT THAT FORUM to deal with those issues. Some changes to D&D can be made within reason.
POLITICS is that forum. Protesting. Voting. REAL WORLD. D&D is part of the real world. It's a fantasy game. Players are inclusive. Players have been discriminated against by their social peers - nothing as serious as real world discrimination against Minorities in America. There is no comparison between the two. One is a fantasy game that will have little impact on the real world body politic. D&D is not a political party that will seize power over society to affect positive change. Other than the odd politician mentioning D&D as an "influencer of evil"...
Otherwise? The Monarchy-French Revolution-Monarchy cycle.
There is need to for some changes. Nothing wrong with the use of "people" instead of "race". Though, given the genetic definition of race, that one is more politics than actual change. Some things may (probably) do need changing.
Let's examine the defintion of race (Oxford only).
5. (countable] a group of people who share the same language, history, culture, etc.
6. (countable) a breed or type of animal or plant
Humans beings are animals. Quite frankly, I find number 5. to be inaccurate and objectionable now that science is here to inform us about genetics, but it is Oxford. Let's go by genetics - scientific reasoning. Peoples is quite fine. Flan. Oeridian. Suel. Baklunish. Etc. They are not "races", they are people sharing genetics. With differing cultures, languages, and practices. Who can forget "preparation of heads" in Perrenland (LG).
Elves and Orcs share genetics with humans in D&D though I did see a half-dwarf mentioned at some time... Humans + Dwarf = half-dwarf. Then we can have Dwarf + Elf, Dwarf + Orc, etc. Until we become bogged down by rules and exceptions and on and on and on. D&D does have half dragons.
Want to have s*x in D&D? There was a book for that. If you wanted to be offended? FATAL, now THAT system was OFFENSIVE. Wait, but there are others who would decry that depicting a medieval society realistically, complete with s*xual impropriety or immoral practices = immorality. Then again, they might have issues with how America truly was before the arrival of The Puritans. Kickin' society! Piraty! Back to the '80s "D&D Satanists" stereotype. Yes, I've been in games were a PC will gasp visit a bordello or brothel. That DM was rather detailed-oriented, though not excessively. The player forked over gold and that was it. Though, the PC finding the brothel was an adventure in itself. And do make the CON check.
Inclusivity? Many refrain from playing becuase they don't want to be stereotyped. They have to be in the "cool" crowd. This was a real world consequence of how others views people who play RPGs. D&D is not B&B (B*obs & Bikinis). Though, there are players who do like to inject their masculinity into the game. They are what polymorph other spells are for.
The only objections I've seen in a long "career" of playing RPG's? RULES LAWYERS. Rule Zero takes care of them. OFFENSIVE PLAYERS - language, crassness, real world politics, religious discrimination, or some such display. Occasionally, players have been offensive. That's why they don't get invited back. Top 3 in games - s*xual crassness, religious discrimination (both sides), politics (this last a rarity).
Okay, there is one campaign I've seen another player participate in. 1930's rip-off of Harry P*tter in America, where the DM was obsessive about characters falling in love and having s*x with each other. WAAAAAAY over the top. I won't mention the gender or s*xual orientation of the DM... the players all left. The DM is DMing NO ONE. What is a shame is that the prior campaign and game world run by that DM? Was top notch. Suddenly, the new campaign disolved into some s*xual fetish. No one knows WTF happened there with the DM... my guess is mental instability.
D&D is a fantasy game that relies on stereotypes to illustrate the struggle between Good & Evil & Neutrality. Dragonlance and Dark Sun were illustrative of this. Or of simply the struggle between Good & Evil. The "peoples" are there to clearly define boundaries.
There is perhaps (as in - IMHO - definitely) an issue with? ART IN THE FANTASY GAMES. Seriously, chainmail bikinis and b*ob-boosting armor? That, if IIRC, is now on the outs - sort of. I'm a fan of Boris Vallejo. Nice art. I like the style, shading, and use of color. Really hyper-masculine, but it was the 70's and 80's.
What is objectionable about D&D Heritage? Overall, NOTHING.
What about inclusivity? Got that. Barring the occasional OFFENSIVE PLAYER who would be summarily ejected.
Hindsight is 20/20. What was unobjectionable back then? Is now objectionable. Much like most of humanity are against slavery, which was acceptable (not to the slaves, of course) for many societies quite some time ago. Actually, Brazil was the last country to formally renounce slavery around 1895. Yet, today there are greater numbers of people who would be considered "enslaved" - by traditional definition and otherwise - than ever before in history.
