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

[Thirteenspades]

Is it against the law where they're at to eat their enemies? Is it lawful in a sense to confirm to one's true nature? Is it evil if the meal would have died and not gotten back to it's kin for a funeral anyway, it doesn't stop them from achieving the right place in the afterlife, and it saves a bit more of the local wildlife and livestock?

(Asking for one of my PCs who was a Bugbear and would with hold from eating humanoid where it was illegal or if he found through discussion that it would disturb his allies).

Dm's choice and PC's choice is a balance so hard to maintain. Is it up to the DM? Is it up to the PC? What is law, chaos, good, evil, and RPG rules, anyway? I know that the decisions are up to individual groups but show discretion when deciding whether the evil creature type should be redeemed. What caused him to turn? Why? Was he/she born good? Why did they go against their race's ideas?

 

[Alzrius]

Thanks for that. It was a very interesting read and filled a gap in my knowledge.

For what it's worth, there's at least one rebuttal to this (albeit an informal one) out there.

 

[FrogReaver]

For what it's worth, there's at least one rebuttal to this (albeit an informal one) out there.

nice article. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Cadence]

Posts elsewhere on ableism in D&D have pointed out that some of the condition descriptions and/or pictures in the PhB and the madness condition descriptions in the DMG might need some revision. This feels like one of those places I'd like WotC to hire a sensitivity reader trained in that area for 6e - not to remove the conditions or the idea of mental affliction as a thing induced by some monsters, but so that they can be done with care.

 

[clearstream]

That only works in the case of wizards, and I wouldn't want a special rule for assigning ability scores to a particular class. Easier to leave it out of classes entirely.

The point about muscle wizards was really that I don't want to try to fill in all the boxes of class x ability score. It was bad enough when 4e tried to fill in all the boxes for power source x role. In general, trying to fill all the boxes will get bad results.

If one sets aside any specific need for each class to have the same number of choices, it works for all classes. Fighters benefit from Str, Dex or Con; Rogues from Dex or Int; etc.

The "easier" argument doesn't seem right. It is easier - especially for novices - if the choices are narrowed and aligned with the mechanical consequences.

 

[SehanineMoonbow]

Go one step further: I think it's time for Thor, Apollo, Set, and Lugh to all say goodnight and retire from the PHB and planes. Remove all the Earth-based deities, even the "mythical" ones.

This might be taking it a bit too far. I mean, books, shows, games, and other media uses gods and figures from real world mythology all the time. D&D isn't unique in that regard.

A thought I had - do we even need to have named deities in the Player's Handbook? 13th Age get by without any, and clerics really just need the domains spelled out. Even the current book only has them in the appendix.

(I would probably leave the gods in existing settings alone for now - just because someone in Egypt might be offended by how we portray Horus doesn't mean they are and doesn't mean they don't want the god included at all.)

As fan of the deities, I wouldn't want them to be reduced to nameless entities (and that wouldn't make sense in the settings where the gods are actively worshiped by the races/species of the setting).

Also, just as a general thought, don't at least some of the settings, like Forgotten Realms and Planescape, have some connections to Earth? I know On Hallowed Ground features deities from some real world mythologies.

 

[Wishbone]

Posts elsewhere on ableism in D&D have pointed out that some of the condition descriptions and/or pictures in the PhB and the madness condition descriptions in the DMG might need some revision. This feels like one of those places I'd like WotC to hire a sensitivity reader trained in that area for 6e - not to remove the conditions or the idea of mental affliction as a thing induced by some monsters, but so that they can be done with care.

Doesn't the issue then become simply hiring a sensitivity reader to launder ableist mechanics into less obviously ableist language? Putting people in a position to call out bad things without explicitly empowering them to change those things is not going to help WotC meaningfully alleviate anyone's concerns.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Are there any peer reviewed articles looking at those claims? I'm only on my phone and didn't turn any up. And I'd love to see the DNA tests on the horses for example (I'd love to contribute to a patreon/GoFundMe if they haven't been done yet because solid evidence to overturn the long time consensus would be really cool.) Anyway, a single dissertation by itself doesn't generally feel like it is taken as sufficient evidence to overturn much of anything. (See the problems psychology has had with even peer reviewed papers that weren't replicated or revisited). Given the excitement I know from some anthropologists I know who study sites that push dates back, and how those who do phylogenetics on animals would probably love to be able to take claim for establishing evidence for her claim, it feels like any evidence of that type would get a lot of people anxious to get work published on it so they could get tenured or a good annual review.

One post I pulled up on it brought up some questions on selective use of sourcing and claims of reliability of oral tradition that felt a little difficult to credit. (It isn't my area though, and my experience is limited to reading about it in light of Norse myths and some things about the Bible). In any case, if the scientists with a vested interest in horses dying off and being reintroduced have possible biases, it feels like someone attempting to back up their cultures traditions does too. And that waiting for more replication, review, and parallel evidence before being firmly declarative might be a thing.

(And seriously, I'll have to look more into the DNA testing of her horses and if they're looking into or opposed to it, and how they're seeking funds if so).

The only part of the article relevant to modern horse DNA is the horse sanctuary stuff, which is really relevant to my point. It’s also not really a scientific claim made by Collin, but is rather just an interesting addendum about conserving horse lineages believed to be descended from ancient horses.

So far as I know, they haven’t done any tests to check whether that belief is true or not, yet.

As for biases, the western/Spanish narrative has been getting debunked and then recontextualised since at least the 1800’s. It never had any particular weight of evidence to support it, but now that it’s being more publicly challenged, folks act like Native folk are the ones making extraordinary claims.

The Spanish never proved that introduced, or later reintroduced, horses to North America. They just claimed it and it was accepted by Western scholarship as truth.

 

[FrogReaver]

The only part of the article relevant to modern horse DNA is the horse sanctuary stuff, which is really relevant to my point. It’s also not really a scientific claim made by Collin, but is rather just an interesting addendum about conserving horse lineages believed to be descended from ancient horses.

So far as I know, they haven’t done any tests to check whether that belief is true or not, yet.

As for biases, the western/Spanish narrative has been getting debunked and then recontextualised since at least the 1800’s. It never had any particular weight of evidence to support it, but now that it’s being more publicly challenged, folks act like Native folk are the ones making extraordinary claims.

The Spanish never proved that introduced, or later reintroduced, horses to North America. They just claimed it and it was accepted by Western scholarship as truth.

the use of sources by the author of the original article was well documented and it leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Umbran]

A balance so hard to maintain. Is it up to the DM? Is it up to the PC? What is law, chaos, good, evil, and RPG rules, anyway?

Mod Note:

Next time, read the moderator notes before posting. This nonsense is not constructive, and you're done in the thread.