D&D 5E Rename the Monster Manual

[Benjamin Olson]

Looking worse than the Satanic Panic But approaching from another angle.

But won't someone please think of the children!

 

[Olrox17]

"Manual" isn't really a good term for an alphabetized reference resource. It should be called the Enemy Encyclopedia.

"Manual" also comes from the latin word "Manus", that means "Hand". Not everyone has functioning hands, ableist much?

 

[Benjamin Olson]

"Manual" also comes from the latin word "Manus", that means "Hand". Not everyone has functioning hands, ableist much?

I considered that issue. The Players Handbook is clearly the greater offender. Especially when we emphasize the "Hand" by abbreviating PHB rather than PH.

 

[jasper]

Xanathar's eXcellent XP

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This whole multithread discussion has reached the “jump the shark” level.

I know we could polish the game to a non offensive non problematic sheen if we really try. We can do it!

but do we want to play it? Really?

I am quite used to references to kidnapping murder, torture, theft, morning stars to the head, conquerors, heros, demons, usurpers.

do the people in these discussions clean all of this up? I just...never mind. I will just see where it ends up. Looking worse than the Satanic Panic But approaching from another angle.

my approach was to play 1st edition and ignore it. Here? Play fifth until some balance is restored. But stop here and be careful about new releases.

LOL come on, man, seriously?

You don’t see the difference between the things that have been discussed and “references to bad things happening” in the game?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Everything is subject to criticism and change. That's how life works. There's no point where we stop and say "OK everything is fine now, no need for further change".

That has been true of D&D in the past and it will continue to be true in the future.

Race level limits, alignment languages, lack of class options, homogenous monster alignments, "Fighting Man", lower strength maximums for women, no pictures of BIPOC in the PHB, "mongrel" half-orcs - all of these were criticised and, as a consequence, changed.

Absolutely everything in D&D has been criticised. Lots of it has changed. Any aspect of it may change in the future.

In principle I agree, but changing the name of one of the core books feels like it would affect the bottom line. That's a problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Richter Belmont: Die, monster. You don't belong in this world!
Dracula: The "monster" epithet is outdated and oppressive. Creatures are called "monsters" because their appearance doesn't conform to arbitrary humanocentric standards of beauty, they are called "monsters" because their social and cultural values are deemed "primitive", they are called "monsters" because they don't belong to the same "camp" as you. These are outdated ideas which should simply not exist in this day and age.
Richter Belmont: Huh.

Richter Belmont: Are you still going to drink my blood?

Dracula: ...yes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What makes one turn neutral? Is it the lust for power and wealth? Or are some just born with a heart full of neutrality?

All I know is my gut says maybe!

 

[DemoMonkey]

Huh. A book full of things we can murder with impunity and take their stuff?

"The Catharsis Codex".

 

[Warpiglet-7]

LOL come on, man, seriously?

You don’t see the difference between the things that have been discussed and “references to bad things happening” in the game?

If Real life minorities were not the Heroes of the game, it would be different.

having monsters as existential threats to all people does not necessarily mean it’s ok to describe certain groups of people as the monsters/existential threat. What’s more, I have seen no evidence that it encourages these beliefs irl anymore that pretend fighting makes us think of violence differently.

people are united against monsters.

now if we say: “but we can misapply the idea that there is an existential threat“ to include real groups of people we could also with equal logic say the same about justified violence.

I don’t think orcs will make eugenecists out of anyone anymore than pretend violence would make us more violent.

scrubbing the game for concepts with negative histories doesn’t do much other than restructure old game conventions that many people enjoy.

I can hear the argument very clearly but interpret the data differently. And in terms of data, the only data out there suggests people that play rpgs are less likely engage in negative attributions to other people.

But this has been argued to death and I will leave alone and let the light hearted joking be the focus here.