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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Obviously, the term radical can mean different things. Changing the d20 to a d100 for task resolution would be radical, but similarly a dozen small changes can add up to a radical change as well.

I'm not arguing that radical as a term doesn't exist, I'm saying it's a fallacy to call the other side radical.

Fourth, for example, did a small change called "assign each class a role" (defender, controller, leader, striker) that kindasorta mimicked the classic positions classes have played in D&D and were codified in countless MMOs. That alone shouldn't have been controversial. However, all classes were made to fit into those boxes, often limiting their use in other roles that 3e (and later 5e) could be built for. A fighter HAD to be a defender, his tools were built for taking hits and limiting foes. A bard HAD to be a leader; her tools were built around healing and buffing. Etc. Further, classes that could previously be other roles (like a druid leader or a fighter striker) were initially limited, weak, or required later splat-books and extremely specific builds or subclasses to work. So a small change (lets assign each class a role) lead to HUGE change in class design and identity.

That sounds like it made the game less open, which is the exact opposite of what is happening now.

Now, let's take a proposed example: remove evil alignments from all humanoids. Again, it makes sense in context; humanoids should be allowed to choose an alignment (if such a rule even continues to exist).

It does make sense, but more sense than the example you provided above. The game should be inclusive. Period. That's it. The core rules should be open, and the settings figure out how to move on from their. But, this isn't the start of a new edition, though I think a 6e would take these changes and make them the core of the game, if they work well in 5e.
I guess now I'm going to answer every single question answered in your post.

where do the good orcs live?

Probably with the other races, and also in their homeland (unless worldbuilding purposes disallow that). Think of Eberron.

where do the evil elves live?

Probably with the other races, and also in their homeland (unless worldbuilding purposes disallow that). Think of literally any evil person who lives in a society, or any evil country in fantasy or the real world.

If orcs can be equally good or evil, why not ogres?

Why not ogres? Why can't ogres be good or bad too? I've wanted an ogre player race for years now.
Also, I'm assuming your question was meant to be more broad than that. The "slippery slope" argument, right? Okay, so here's my answer to that:

Have the core rules as open as possible. Orcs and Ogres and Lizardfolk aren't pushed towards any alignment or culture in the core rules, the settings do that. In one setting, Lizardfolk could be high-tech artificers and crafters. In another world, they could be tribalistic and nature god worshippers. Again, think of Eberron.

Settings answer the hard questions, core D&D ignores them.

If orcs and goblins are no eviler than elves and dwarves, should the latter be in the PHB (and the latter the MM)?

Yes. There should probably be a section in the monster manual for general creatures of different player races, with monster stats for them.

Should campaign guides and module assume more halfling bandits and orc innkeepers?

Yes. In Eberron, there are gnome and halfling mafias, and a corporate family of half-orc and human bounty hunters. It depends on the setting.

Should every setting (including far darker ones like Greyhawk and Ravenloft) assume multi-species societies living in close proximity?

Don't most of them already have multi-species societies? There are Dusk Elves in Ravenloft, and Half-Orcs in Greyhawk, right?
It depends on the setting.

The ramifications of such a change are far more than just removing "Chaotic Evil" off the orc statblock.

And they should be more than that.

Which is why I worry about too many changes coming at once. For the last month, discussions about problematic areas of D&D (such as race, alignment, cultural appropriation, and lesser ones of stereotyping, ableism, misogyny, etc.) have been filling up messageboards and social media. The drumbeat is getting louder. Now, maybe things die down again eventually, but I can't shake the feeling that WotC will need to do more and more to "modernize" D&D, and the issues are going to be much more central to the game than promoting gender-fluid elven deities or removing some adjectives from the Monster Manual. I worry that WotC will make a dozen small changes that lead to a big change in the game, much like how 4e made dozens of "fixes" to outdated concepts and confusing lore that was soundly rejected.

And I hope changes do happen, and I don't think the people calling for these changes will suddenly not buy D&D after the changes happen. If/when they happen, D&D will be changed, and hopefully for the better.

Put another way, the road to Baator is paved in Good Intention.

And this is more than a bit offensive. Please stop calling my side of the argument devils or radicals.

 

[Remathilis]

Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Humans, Gnomes, Dragonborn, Goliaths, ect ect are all already equally likely to be good or evil per RAW. Where do the evil Elves live? Where they have always lived, same with everything else.

Not quite. Elves are traditionally CG. Dwarves and Halflings are LG. Gnomes are NG. Dragonborn run to both extremes (Good for metallic-aligned, evil for chromatic aligned). Goliaths are LN. All of them? No. Enough of them that thier society, culture and religion reflects those alignments? Damn straight. Evil deities per the PHB have a stronger grip on races than the G or N ones, but every race has alignment tendencies in 5e for a reason.

Go to an elven village and poll the population of them for thier ethical and moral stance and you'll find a majority poll CG. The evil elves are outcasts. They are pariahs from a society that frowns harshly on evilness. At best, they hide amongst the populace in secret. At worst, they are exiles, ex-pats, or actual villains to the society they have turned from.

It was humanity's unique place, bereft of a creator deity and a single unifying culture, which made them diverse. Humans had no predisposition to good or evil, law or chaos. They had no single culture, no unifying faith, not even a universal tongue (though common gets close to that role) that made them adaptive, flexible, and provided the brightest heroes and darkest villains. Humanity's drive is what allowed them to outcompete with dwarves, elves, orcs, and even dragons to become the dominant force in nearly every campaign setting.

But now everyone gets be the same. Everyone is humans, just with different visual skins.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not quite. Elves are traditionally CG. Dwarves and Halflings are LG. Gnomes are NG. Dragonborn run to both extremes (Good for metallic-aligned, evil for chromatic aligned). Goliaths are LN. All of them? No. Enough of them that thier society, culture and religion reflects those alignments? Damn straight. Evil deities per the PHB have a stronger grip on races than the G or N ones, but every race has alignment tendencies in 5e for a reason.

Go to an elven village and poll the population of them for thier ethical and moral stance and you'll find a majority poll CG. The evil elves are outcasts. They are pariahs from a society that frowns harshly on evilness. At best, they hide amongst the populace in secret. At worst, they are exiles, ex-pats, or actual villains to the society they have turned from.

It was humanity's unique place, bereft of a creator deity and a single unifying culture, which made them diverse. Humans had no predisposition to good or evil, law or chaos. They had no single culture, no unifying faith, not even a universal tongue (though common gets close to that role) that made them adaptive, flexible, and provided the brightest heroes and darkest villains. Humanity's drive is what allowed them to outcompete with dwarves, elves, orcs, and even dragons to become the dominant force in nearly every campaign setting.

But now everyone gets be the same. Everyone is humans, just with different visual skins.

You are applying old lore and old standards.

Every humanoid race is possible for the statblocks and are unaligned. Elves and such "tend" towards alignments, but they were still fully capable of running the gamut.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not arguing that radical as a term doesn't exist, I'm saying it's a fallacy to call the other side radical.

Large changes to the game, be it for good or ill, are radical. Third edition made the radical change of removing level limits and race/class restrictions from the game. These are both both viewed today as good changes by many, but they are still Radical ones. They changed the lore and the worldbuilding. Suddenly, dwarves could be wizards, gnomes could be bards, half-orcs could be paladins. That is RADICAL for a game that spent 20 years prior justifying why those things couldn't happen.

Sometimes a radical change is accepted, like with race/class restriction. Sometimes it's not, like with class roles.

That sounds like it made the game less open, which is the exact opposite of what is happening now.

Open is another loaded term though.

It does make sense, but more sense than the example you provided above. The game should be inclusive. Period. That's it. The core rules should be open, and the settings figure out how to move on from their. But, this isn't the start of a new edition, though I think a 6e would take these changes and make them the core of the game, if they work well in 5e.
I guess now I'm going to answer every single question answered in your post.

I'm speaking primarily to a 6e. 5e will make some minor course corrections, but any changes of this level has to be with an edition change.

Probably with the other races, and also in their homeland (unless worldbuilding purposes disallow that). Think of Eberron.

Probably with the other races, and also in their homeland (unless worldbuilding purposes disallow that). Think of literally any evil person who lives in a society, or any evil country in fantasy or the real world.

As I brought up prior, Elven society is strongly CG. Orc society is strongly CE. We are doing away with that. Does this imply the evil and good live together in the same villages, or that their are good orc tribes and evil elf villages? What does it mean to be an evil elf village or a good orc tribe?

I wish Eberron would quit being the example though; it's a world very different culturally than Faerun, Oerth, and the traditional assumptions. It works because a single continent-wide empire ruled everything for centuries and then fought a century-long war over it. I love Eberron (running it now) but its not a good model for core assumptions, unless you want necromancer elves, dino-rider halflings, aberrant-wearing dwarves, humanoid golems are part of the core rules.

Why not ogres? Why can't ogres be good or bad too? I've wanted an ogre player race for years now.
Also, I'm assuming your question was meant to be more broad than that. The "slippery slope" argument, right? Okay, so here's my answer to that

Have the core rules as open as possible. Orcs and Ogres and L

izardfolk aren't pushed towards any alignment or culture in the core rules, the settings do that. In one setting, Lizardfolk could be high-tech artificers and crafters. In another world, they could be tribalistic and nature god worshippers. Again, think of Eberron.

Then what is a lizardfolk? Just a scaly-tailed human? If there is no single elf, dwarf, orc, or lizardfolk culture, I fail to see the need for them period. If playing an elf is just "pick a human and add pointed ears", it's a cosmetic skin, not a species.

And EBERRON DOESN"T WORK LIKE THAT!!! Lizardfolk have a culture. Orcs have a culture. Elves have three cultures (one per subrace). Some live amongst the human cultures and adapt to that, but most live in the society they grew up in and assume those traits. Lizardfolk in particular are a bad example because they are very close to their MM counterparts, only with added dragon influence and different tribes with different physical characteristics playing a role. They may not all be evil, but they are still mostly antagonists.

Settings answer the hard questions, core D&D ignores them.

Bland boring SRD-like core rules. Got it.

Yes. There should probably be a section in the monster manual for general creatures of different player races, with monster stats for them.

ALL of them? How many races are we talking in the PHB? We got nine right now. How many more get in? Or maybe we can just put the PC stats for every creature in the MM so that people can play whatever they want.

Yes. In Eberron, there are gnome and halfling mafias, and a corporate family of half-orc and human bounty hunters. It depends on the setting.

How many modules really use that? I can't think of too many where the PC races are the bad-guys and the MM races are the distressed villagers.

Don't most of them already have multi-species societies? There are Dusk Elves in Ravenloft, and Half-Orcs in Greyhawk, right?
It depends on the setting.

In some domains in Ravenloft, being non-human is punishable by death. Is that going to change because we need to be open and inclusive now? And you can't convince most Greyhawk players to accept the current list of PHB races in the setting, good luck getting them to accept monstrous ones.

And I hope changes do happen, and I don't think the people calling for these changes will suddenly not buy D&D after the changes happen. If/when they happen, D&D will be changed, and hopefully for the better.

Depends on the changes. Racial changes alone, maybe not. But there are voices calling for the removal of certain classes, or changing the core ability scores due to ableism. How much will the audience accept before it hits that magic "this doesn't feel like D&D anymore" threshold?

4e says its possible. 5e had to do some significant un-doing to win back goodwill.

And this is more than a bit offensive. Please stop calling my side of the argument devils or radicals.

Missed the subtle joke; TSR reacted to social pressure in the 80s to remove religious imagery by changing Hell to Baator. It was not a well-received change. WotC should be careful to make sure when updating the game to become more inclusive, they don't destroy key parts of it in the process.

 

[Remathilis]

You are applying old lore and old standards.

Every humanoid race is possible for the statblocks and are unaligned. Elves and such "tend" towards alignments, but they were still fully capable of running the gamut.

Correct. I am using the lore as it stood until just recently. It appears WotC will be abandoning that lore, slowly to start. Where it ends up will be an interesting sight to see.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Large changes to the game, be it for good or ill, are radical. Third edition made the radical change of removing level limits and race/class restrictions from the game. These are both both viewed today as good changes by many, but they are still Radical ones. They changed the lore and the worldbuilding. Suddenly, dwarves could be wizards, gnomes could be bards, half-orcs could be paladins. That is RADICAL for a game that spent 20 years prior justifying why those things couldn't happen.

Sometimes a radical change is accepted, like with race/class restriction. Sometimes it's not, like with class roles.



Open is another loaded term though.



I'm speaking primarily to a 6e. 5e will make some minor course corrections, but any changes of this level has to be with an edition change.



As I brought up prior, Elven society is strongly CG. Orc society is strongly CE. We are doing away with that. Does this imply the evil and good live together in the same villages, or that their are good orc tribes and evil elf villages? What does it mean to be an evil elf village or a good orc tribe?

I wish Eberron would quit being the example though; it's a world very different culturally than Faerun, Oerth, and the traditional assumptions. It works because a single continent-wide empire ruled everything for centuries and then fought a century-long war over it. I love Eberron (running it now) but its not a good model for core assumptions, unless you want necromancer elves, dino-rider halflings, aberrant-wearing dwarves, humanoid golems are part of the core rules.

I guess I'm not replying to all of this post until the formatting nonsense is fixed.

Edit: I guess I'll make do with that it's at now.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Large changes to the game, be it for good or ill, are radical. Third edition made the radical change of removing level limits and race/class restrictions from the game. These are both both viewed today as good changes by many, but they are still Radical ones. They changed the lore and the worldbuilding. Suddenly, dwarves could be wizards, gnomes could be bards, half-orcs could be paladins. That is RADICAL for a game that spent 20 years prior justifying why those things couldn't happen.

Sometimes a radical change is accepted, like with race/class restriction. Sometimes it's not, like with class roles.

I honestly don't know what this point was about, so I guess I have no comment.

Open is another loaded term though.

Thanks for doing a strawman, I guess? Open is not really up for debate in that one circumstance. 4e took away player choice and the uniqueness between classes, and therefore made the game less open. This will make the game more open, because it's going to make some races more open to use.

I'm speaking primarily to a 6e. 5e will make some minor course corrections, but any changes of this level has to be with an edition change.

I'm speaking about 5e and 6e, but the major changes should come with a 5.5e/6e.

As I brought up prior, Elven society is strongly CG. Orc society is strongly CE. We are doing away with that. Does this imply the evil and good live together in the same villages, or that their are good orc tribes and evil elf villages? What does it mean to be an evil elf village or a good orc tribe?

I mean, in real life, don't evil people and good people live in the same places?

I wish Eberron would quit being the example though; it's a world very different culturally than Faerun, Oerth, and the traditional assumptions. It works because a single continent-wide empire ruled everything for centuries and then fought a century-long war over it. I love Eberron (running it now) but its not a good model for core assumptions, unless you want necromancer elves, dino-rider halflings, aberrant-wearing dwarves, humanoid golems are part of the core rules.

Eberron is an example because it shows the races can be depicted in different ways from the core races for Greyhawk and FR and the other settings. Sure, Eberron has its own cultures and stereotypes of the races, but it is used as an example by me because of how it shows the races in different ways, not saying that it's the perfect campaign setting for open-ness. It isn't, there are still problems, but it's better than Ravenloft or Forgotten Realms.

Then what is a lizardfolk? Just a scaly-tailed human? If there is no single elf, dwarf, orc, or lizardfolk culture, I fail to see the need for them period. If playing an elf is just "pick a human and add pointed ears", it's a cosmetic skin, not a species.

And its up to the settings to decide what a Lizardfolk or Elves are there, not up to core D&D.

And EBERRON DOESN"T WORK LIKE THAT!!! Lizardfolk have a culture. Orcs have a culture. Elves have three cultures (one per subrace). Some live amongst the human cultures and adapt to that, but most live in the society they grew up in and assume those traits. Lizardfolk in particular are a bad example because they are very close to their MM counterparts, only with added dragon influence and different tribes with different physical characteristics playing a role. They may not all be evil, but they are still mostly antagonists.

See my comment above in this same post on why I use Eberron as an example.

Bland boring SRD-like core rules. Got it.

If you want to put it that way, sure. If you want to actually argue against it, by all means, do so.

ALL of them? How many races are we talking in the PHB? We got nine right now. How many more get in? Or maybe we can just put the PC stats for every creature in the MM so that people can play whatever they want.

I would personally leave it up to the setting books to give standard examples of monster stats for certain races, while the Monster Manual gives a NPC stats that can be cut and pasted for any race, like we have now.

How many modules really use that? I can't think of too many where the PC races are the bad-guys and the MM races are the distressed villagers.

I don't know. I never played the previous editions, and know near to nothing about a lot of the modules from back then. There are no 5e Eberron campaign books, so I can't answer this question.

In some domains in Ravenloft, being non-human is punishable by death. Is that going to change because we need to be open and inclusive now? And you can't convince most Greyhawk players to accept the current list of PHB races in the setting, good luck getting them to accept monstrous ones.

Maybe leave those settings the same, I honestly don't have much of an opinion on this. The community decides whether or not those settings live, die, or change to accommodate the edition's changes with buying the content if they like it, or not buying it if they don't.

Depends on the changes. Racial changes alone, maybe not. But there are voices calling for the removal of certain classes, or changing the core ability scores due to ableism. How much will the audience accept before it hits that magic "this doesn't feel like D&D anymore" threshold?

4e says its possible. 5e had to do some significant un-doing to win back goodwill.

I haven't heard anyone calling for classes to be changed. Can you give any specifics?

Missed the subtle joke; TSR reacted to social pressure in the 80s to remove religious imagery by changing Hell to Baator. It was not a well received change. WotC should be careful to make sure when updating the game to become more inclusive, they don't destroy key parts of it in the process.

So, you weren't comparing us to devils, but instead to the Satanic Panic, like so many people in this thread before have done? Okay. I refer you to read the earlier parts of the thread to understand why these changes are not the same, won't bring about the end of D&D, and won't cause another 4e if done correctly.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

It was humanity's unique place, bereft of a creator deity and a single unifying culture, which made them diverse. Humans had no predisposition to good or evil, law or chaos. They had no single culture, no unifying faith, not even a universal tongue (though common gets close to that role) that made them adaptive, flexible, and provided the brightest heroes and darkest villains. Humanity's drive is what allowed them to outcompete with dwarves, elves, orcs, and even dragons to become the dominant force in nearly every campaign setting.

/snip

Do people really not see what's problematic in the above paragraph? Seriously? Am I the only one that sees it?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Do people really not see what's problematic in the above paragraph? Seriously? Am I the only one that sees it?

I see it's problematic, but what you're referring to probably is not obvious to me.

 

[JEB]

And its up to the settings to decide what a Lizardfolk or Elves are there, not up to core D&D.

Just to make sure I understand what you're suggesting here, the PHB (and Monster Manual and DMG) should contain no suggestions about how humans, dwarves, orcs, lizardfolk, etc. behave? What should be contained in the core rules about races/people/folk, then?