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

[Argyle King]

If ability scores are divorced from Ancestry/Lineage/etc selection, what effect would that choice have on character creation and why does the choice remain relevant?

If dwarves are functionally identical to elves, is there is a reason for both to exist?

 

[TheSword]

In fairness, it does look pretty steampunk lol.

I mean I know it isn’t but

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There is a balance to be struck, between being too proactive and demonizing things that are actually cause no harm.

I don’t think the phrase ‘the natives are restless tonight’ ever described the visigoths... it was a British Empire expression. There isn’t anything inherantly racist about the idea of a barbarian. That’s my point I guess. The trope of raging barbarians doesn’t fit native Americans or Zulu warriors without some serious twisting. It perfectly fits Viking warriors. Maybe the solution is to stop using barbarians to represent native American style characters.

When someone makes a convincing case that barbarians are systemically racist in the same way that orcs are then we can talk about it. Until that point it’s probably not worth stressing about.

I think that you hit the nail on the head. Using Barbarians for every culture that isn't "civilised" in a way easily recognizable from a Western POV is just silly. The Apache, so far as I know, never had berserkers of any kind. The Mongols didn't do drugs and work themselves into a frenzy. The various people of the Iroquois Federation didn't run mouth frothing into battle without care for self or tactics or sanity.

Instead, those are Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins, with different gear sets than their European counterparts.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If ability scores are divorced from Ancestry/Lineage/etc selection, what effect would that choice have on character creation and why does the choice remain relevant?

If dwarves are functionally identical to elves, is there is a reason for both to exist?

Do they become identical just because they don't have different stat bumps? All their other different traits (and dwarves are kinda short on actual traits in 5e, IMO) surely distinguish them, still?

 

[jmartkdr2]

If ability scores are divorced from Ancestry/Lineage/etc selection, what effect would that choice have on character creation and why does the choice remain relevant?

If dwarves are functionally identical to elves, is there is a reason for both to exist?

The second question is answered by: "if removing the ability adjustments made the races the exactly same, why have races at all? You could just re-create all of them using variant humans!" But there's more to races than ASIs - and most of the specific features (ie trance, stonecunnning) are more distinctive and therefore do a better job making races feel distinct from each other. Just geting rid of the ability adjustment does not, when I've used a houserule to do that, make the races all feel the same.

BUT, if we're looking at this purely from an inclusivity standpoint, it's a distinction without difference. Either racial features promote race-essentialist thinking or they don't. Ability adjustments aren't significantly different form other features in this regard. You could take that to mean the entire concept of races as a game mechanic is problematic, and your logic would be both valid and reasonable, but the only solution is to remove races as a game mechanic entirely, which I think crosses into not-D&D for a lot of people.

You could remove racial ability adjustments as a compromise option, because the other features tend to be more overtly magical/inhuman, but like most compromise option this doesn't really make anyone truly happy.

On the first point: there's whole other threads about this, but the gameplay advantage would be in opening up more 'viable' character concepts. Changing racial ASI's is one way to do this, and there are some really simple ways to implement it. But that's not really an inclusivity argument.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think that you hit the nail on the head. Using Barbarians for every culture that isn't "civilised" in a way easily recognizable from a Western POV is just silly. The Apache, so far as I know, never had berserkers of any kind. The Mongols didn't do drugs and work themselves into a frenzy. The various people of the Iroquois Federation didn't run mouth frothing into battle without care for self or tactics or sanity.

Instead, those are Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins, with different gear sets than their European counterparts.

This argument hinges on the idea that when you say "barbarian", the person you're talking to immediately thinks of the barbarian as described by the rules of DnD, or one of the cultures that archetype is based on.

For people who do not play DnD (the ones we're worried about excluding), I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make. I'm also not sure it's safe to assume any other perception - I'd need good statistics to believe any position on that. Otherwise we're just guessing there's a problem (or not).

 

[TheSword]

This argument hinges on the idea that when you say "barbarian", the person you're talking to immediately thinks of the barbarian as described by the rules of DnD, or one of the cultures that archetype is based on.

For people who do not play DnD (the ones we're worried about excluding), I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make. I'm also not sure it's safe to assume any other perception - I'd need good statistics to believe any position on that. Otherwise we're just guessing there's a problem (or not).

In the absence of evidence there is a problem I alway incline towards assuming there’s not a problem.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This argument hinges on the idea that when you say "barbarian", the person you're talking to immediately thinks of the barbarian as described by the rules of DnD, or one of the cultures that archetype is based on.

For people who do not play DnD (the ones we're worried about excluding), I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make. I'm also not sure it's safe to assume any other perception - I'd need good statistics to believe any position on that. Otherwise we're just guessing there's a problem (or not).

I think you're talking about something other than what I'm talking about.

I'm not saying it's problematic (although it is), I'm saying that it's stupid. Seriously, read my post. You're responding to some stuff I didn't even say.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think you're talking about something other than what I'm talking about.

I'm not saying it's problematic (although it is), I'm saying that it's stupid. Seriously, read my post. You're responding to some stuff I didn't even say.

Hold on, I'm confused:

The quoted text argues that the name isn't a problem. You open by agreeing with the quoted text: the name isn't a problem.

You then say "it's stupid to use the word barbarian to describe all non-European cultures" (which is true but is one way the word is used.) Implying the the reason the name isn't a problem is that it doesn't mean non-white.

So whether or not the name implies non-civilized is pretty relevant, I would think. Unless you think the name is the problem, in which case you're first sentence in the above post means the opposite of that.

 

[Remathilis]

I think that you hit the nail on the head. Using Barbarians for every culture that isn't "civilised" in a way easily recognizable from a Western POV is just silly. The Apache, so far as I know, never had berserkers of any kind. The Mongols didn't do drugs and work themselves into a frenzy. The various people of the Iroquois Federation didn't run mouth frothing into battle without care for self or tactics or sanity.

Instead, those are Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins, with different gear sets than their European counterparts.

I'm not sure your point actually bolsters the argument FOR barbarians the same way you think it does.

Clearly, the Barbarian class is supposed to represent more than Viking Berserkers, because that is a ridiculously narrow archetype for a class. What IS the class supposed to represent us not many types of primitive warrior tropes? Why was it included in 3.5 Oriental Adventures if they primarily represent European berserkers? If all those groups you suggest are not representative of the Barbarian class, what does that class represent and why does it need a full 20 level class to do it? Samurai and cavalier fit into a fighter sub, after all.

I don't see how moving Barbarian from "possibly racist trope" to "extremely narrow European origin trope" improves it's position much.