D&D (2024) (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)

[Remathilis]

Hopping in late, sorry if this was already covered.

If 6e is going to be more inclusive; it's time to hit the third rail: classes.

Assuming we keep classes in D&D, there are a few names that need rethinking.

• Barbarian: "a person from an alien land, culture, or group believed to be inferior, uncivilized, or violent" The class has all the negative connotations that we have associated with Orcs and other "savage" humanoids.
• Druid: Very culturally specific and doesn't have any connection to shapechanging nature-priests in game. In addition, it refers to a living religion (as part of the neopagan/Wiccan tradition).
• Monk: Obviously, a stand-in for Shaolin/Eastern mysticism, it is a sliver of all the OA troublesome tropes put in a single class.
• Paladin: Probably the least offensive of the list, but very specific to a certain time/era and deserves to remain a class about as much as samurai, cavalier/chevalier, and any other single order of warriors does.
• Warlock: Assuming the masculine of witch, we run into similar problems with neopaganism and add on a dose of negative stereotyping of being "evil devil worshippers"

(As an aside, the fact that 5e seems unable to provide rangers and sorcerers with a strong mechanical niche probably would mean if we are removing the above classes, those two could also go not for inclusionary purposes but for mechanical redundancy.)

Now, to replace these options, we have a few choices: One is to rename them (barbarian = berserker, paladin = champion) but that seems a band-aid at best. Some could become sub-classes to much more flexible/broader archetype classes (warrior, cleric, rogue, mage) or possibly builds in a more "build your own class" system (akin to 2e's skills and powers or even Mutants and Masterminds).

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Hopping in late, sorry if this was already covered.

If 6e is going to be more inclusive; it's time to hit the third rail: classes.

Assuming we keep classes in D&D, there are a few names that need rethinking.

I'd love to see some suggestions related to inclusivity that make the game more flavorful and evocative rather than less?

 

[FrogReaver]

So, short definitions are handy, but they lose connotation. Lets try to find it, since you seem to have left it lying on the floor back there somewhere.

"bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. "

The extra qualifiers and examples make a difference.

The rest of your post goes on explaining how some bigotry is bad and some isn't isn't! I fully agree there. But it takes qualifiers outside the listed definition to make it so. It's not about being intolerant toward any given group - which is the expanded definition of bigotry that you provided. It's about having prejudices and intolerance toward a group that doesn't deserve it. But who or what determines which group deserves it and which group doesn't? The simple answer is that your worldview does and that is the problem.

Suppose there is a situation where two worldviews are fundamentally opposed. The one that fundamentally opposes your worldview is the one it is okay to be intolerant toward. It's essentially justified bigotry - just like in the case of rapists that I brought up. Except to those that don't share that worldview that justifies it, it is unjustified bigotry.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'd love to see some suggestions related to inclusivity that make the game more flavorful and evocative rather than less?

Flavorful is a matter of one's personal tastes. I'm sorry if some of the recommended changes make the game seem less fun for you. I know a lot of them would make it more fun for me, and my players.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Hopping in late, sorry if this was already covered.

If 6e is going to be more inclusive; it's time to hit the third rail: classes.

Assuming we keep classes in D&D, there are a few names that need rethinking.

• Barbarian: "a person from an alien land, culture, or group believed to be inferior, uncivilized, or violent" The class has all the negative connotations that we have associated with Orcs and other "savage" humanoids.
• Druid: Very culturally specific and doesn't have any connection to shapechanging nature-priests in game. In addition, it refers to a living religion (as part of the neopagan/Wiccan tradition).
• Monk: Obviously, a stand-in for Shaolin/Eastern mysticism, it is a sliver of all the OA troublesome tropes put in a single class.
• Paladin: Probably the least offensive of the list, but very specific to a certain time/era and deserves to remain a class about as much as samurai, cavalier/chevalier, and any other single order of warriors does.
• Warlock: Assuming the masculine of witch, we run into similar problems with neopaganism and add on a dose of negative stereotyping of being "evil devil worshippers"

(As an aside, the fact that 5e seems unable to provide rangers and sorcerers with a strong mechanical niche probably would mean if we are removing the above classes, those two could also go not for inclusionary purposes but for mechanical redundancy.)

Now, to replace these options, we have a few choices: One is to rename them (barbarian = berserker, paladin = champion) but that seems a band-aid at best. Some could become sub-classes to much more flexible/broader archetype classes (warrior, cleric, rogue, mage) or possibly builds in a more "build your own class" system (akin to 2e's skills and powers or even Mutants and Masterminds).

Those are nice recommendations. I'll add them to the list.

Also, I think naming Barbarians "Berserkers" in 6e would fit, and be a nice change. Paladin could be called the Knight or Sworn Champion. Warlock could be a Pactkeeper or something like that if it changes. What would you recommend for the Monk or Druid?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Given the rather hostile reaction I got to my ideas, I am thinking there is no possible way to fix D&D so that people can play whatever character concept they want and still have a positive experience and contribute meaningfully to the party's success. The whole culture of munchkin min-maxers and those who have a personal favorite character build and expect to be catered to and be superior to the rest of the party is just too strong within the D&D community.

To me, it really seems that if one wants to play a Rogue of any race, use whatever weapon you think exemplifies your character concept, be an acrobat or a suave seductress or a discerning detective or a clever scholar-- your level and class alone is what determines what you roll for attack rolls and damage rolls and for your class specific battle abilities. The race, the theme of your character-- that comes into play when it comes to skill challenges in specific regions and specific situations.

But it seems like there are those who are far too attached to the idea that there should be One True Build and, if you aren't that one build, you need to suck and feel terrible about yourself. There are those who are violently hostile to the idea of people playing characters with green skin and tusks or red skin and cat-like eyes or dark skin at all.

Honestly, I would even be satisfied with the idea that one goes back to a "basic D&D" and an "advanced D&D" where the basic version is for narrative play and you are free to play any sort of character concept you like because the game is super mechanically light and the advanced version caters to those who want to create a munchkin build by finding the loophole the designers accidentally left in the character creation process that allows them to be super powered while the rest of the party can suck it for not abusing rule loopholes and rule lawyering-- and those 50+ year olds who are hostile to anyone playing any character who is not precisely like a character who was a featured protagonist in Lord of the Rings.

But maybe those of us who want a more inclusive game should just create a new RPG and let the Grognards drive the name of Dungeons and Dragons into the grave. Really, I can't help but feel more and more ashamed about the attitudes of so many players who are in the hobbies I enjoyed. It is hard to really understand why what always struck me as the hobbies of the outsiders became the realm of well.... disclusionary people. In the very least, I thought those people peeled off long ago to be funneled into various OSR games.

But maybe what we need is the opposite of an OSR game. I have seen 13th Age and Dungeon World make steps in the right direction, though I cannot say I totally agree with everything they have done. Even Pathfinder 2 seems to be ahead of Dungeons and Dragons in fixing the worst aspects.

I understand that we are all attached to the D&D name and concept but... maybe it is time to let it go. Maybe it is time to let it crash and burn. It was the first, and for that it deserves respect, but by being the first it seems that it attracted and attached to itself far too many people who, after being mistreated by others, desire nothing more than to pass that mistreatment onto other people so as to feel superior. And maybe it is theirs-- they can have it and bring it down with them. And all those 55+-year old people can drag the whole D&D name with them into the sea and drown it as they all die away.

Maybe a new game entirely needs to replace D&D.

I'm going to push back on this, because I think you're missing a thing:

Part of the fun of rpg's is immersing yourself in a different world. A world where magic is real and elves are just down the street drinking tea. In order to immerse yourself in the world, you need the feeling that it plays by a set of rules. Different rules, maybe, and you might not know all of them, but rules that apply there. And those rules, to feel like real rules, need to always apply unless a specific exception is made. Or else the whole thing falls apart because the curtain came crashing down.

And one of the ways you can ruin it for some people is to have different rules for pc's. Many don't mind, but many players very much do.

Which cycles back to racial ability score adjustments: if the rules state that halfings and orcs have the same strength, or even the same range of strength, that's going to feel weird - but the worse answer is for the rules to say orcs are stronger than halflings unless they're pc's - that's going to break the entire idea that this is a real-ish place.

For some players, racial ability scores aren't a trope - they're a defining feature of the setting and removing them makes the setting less real. Verisimilitudinous, I guess would be the better word.

That's a tough compromise to manage. It also, I feel, has little to do with inclusivity unless the races code as real world races a little too well, and that's a problem being actively worked on as we change the lore for orcs and such.

 

[Remathilis]

Those are nice recommendations. I'll add them to the list.

Also, I think naming Barbarians "Berserkers" in 6e would fit, and be a nice change. Paladin could be called the Knight or Sworn Champion. Warlock could be a Pactkeeper or something like that if it changes. What would you recommend for the Monk or Druid?

It's tricky. I'm partial to how Arcana Evolved did it: the class names are more descriptive than archetypal (Oathsworn, Greenbond, Magister, etc).

Classes are going to be a twofold issue though. The two parts that need to be addressed is a.) Does this class warrant a full class or is it narrow enough to be a subclass and b.) If it does, what do we do with the archetype attached to it? For example, perhaps a 6e fighter will be more flexible and could encompass a ranger, berserker, paladin, samurai, martial artist and knight set of archetypes. In that case, I see less of an issue with the name paladin since it emulates one archetype of many.

This is also predicted on D&D wanting a clean break from it's traditions. A dangerous concept considering 4e's attempt at modernization and the reaction to it. No guarantee that it will want to go this far. However, if we have to look at race, alignment, even ability scores to determine if they have problematic elements, I think classes need a similar heart to heart moment.

Maybe it's all for nothing, but I expect there will need to be a good look at some of the classic class archetypes to make sure they aren't doing the same thing CE orcs are.

 

[Alzrius]

Also, I think naming Barbarians "Berserkers" in 6e would fit, and be a nice change.

Inspiring bards everywhere to sing, "my love for you is ticking clock, berserker..."

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It's tricky. I'm partial to how Arcana Evolved did it: the class names are more descriptive than archetypal (Oathsworn, Greenbond, Magister, etc).

Classes are going to be a twofold issue though. The two parts that need to be addressed is a.) Does this class warrant a full class or is it narrow enough to be a subclass and b.) If it does, what do we do with the archetype attached to it? For example, perhaps a 6e fighter will be more flexible and could encompass a ranger, berserker, paladin, samurai, martial artist and knight set of archetypes. In that case, I see less of an issue with the name paladin since it emulates one archetype of many.

This is also predicted on D&D wanting a clean break from it's traditions. A dangerous concept considering 4e's attempt at modernization and the reaction to it. No guarantee that it will want to go this far. However, if we have to look at race, alignment, even ability scores to determine if they have problematic elements, I think classes need a similar heart to heart moment.

Maybe it's all for nothing, but I expect there will need to be a good look at some of the classic class archetypes to make sure they aren't doing the same thing CE orcs are.

I personally think that there should be more than one weapon focused class, and they shouldn't all be wrapped up into one "Fighter" class. Paladins, are, and should be distinct in D&D from clerics and fighters, IMO. Same with Rangers, Barbarians, and Sorcerers.

 

[Remathilis]

I personally think that there should be more than one weapon focused class, and they shouldn't all be wrapped up into one "Fighter" class. Paladins, are, and should be distinct in D&D from clerics and fighters, IMO. Same with Rangers, Barbarians, and Sorcerers.

It's kinda a debate beyond the scope of this thread. Going by 5e standards, I totally agree. However, a potential 6e could do a lot to expand the scope and interaction of subclasses, the ability to swap class features (from the UA) and even some class identity. Mearls, before he became persona non grata, floated the idea of druids behing more focused on shape shifting rather than spellcasting. It might be possible to make a natural shape changer class and then use cleric or another spellcaster to emulate the nature-magic druid. Plenty of former classes got regulated to subclasses (assassin, illusionist, and warlord to name a few) and it might be possible to slide a few more in.

The point was to consider if certain class names or archetypes might be rooted in similar tropes that people raised with OA and orcs.