Yeah it’s something that a lot of Natives already knew but don’t talk about much outside of friendly circles, since Western folks just dismiss it out of hand as “unreliable oral traditions”.
But one of the big clues that shouldn’t have ever been dismissed is simply the prevalence of a sacred place for horses in Native cultures with basically no pre-colonial relationships to eachother. To claim that those arose as a result of reintroduction, and were in place within a couple generations at most, should have required some very hefty evidence from the start, because it is quite a claim. And yet, it was accepted without any resistance at all in academia until quite recently.
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.
All this, "Well, then you can't use X..." shows people have not heard (or in the heat of argument, have forgotten) the point.
It isn't that you cannot borrow from real-world traditions. It is that you shouldn't do so willy-nilly, after reading a page of wikipedia thinking that makes you an expert. Inspiration can be taken respectfully, conscientiously, with a bit of scholarship, and perhaps the involvement of folks from the culture you're taking inspiration from.
All this, "Well, then you can't use X..." shows people have not heard (or in the heat of argument, have forgotten) the point.
It isn't that you cannot borrow from real-world traditions. It is that you shouldn't do so willy-nilly, after reading a page of wikipedia thinking that makes you an expert. Inspiration can be taken respectfully, conscientiously, with a bit of scholarship, and perhaps the involvement of folks from the culture you're taking inspiration from.
Exactly. And removing it actually lessens the diversity, imho, because then that is basically ignoring the rich stories other cultures have to offer. Even if the fantasy setting is entirely made up, with original gods and lands, there is inevitably going to be some inspiration from the real world.
Yvette Running Horse Collin’s recent dissertation may have rewritten every natural history book on the shelf. A Lakota/Nakota/Cheyenne scholar, Collin worked
I don't think Yvette Collins' claims are exactly taking the academic world by storm. There are numerous problems with her sources (their reliability and her interpretation) and her interpretations of archaeological evidence. She really hasn't changed the current consensus that horses were extinct until their reintroduction by the Spanish. But, to be fair, her dissertation was in 2017 and it takes longer than that for a paradigm shift to take hold. If Native Americans had access to horses since the ice age, one wonders why there isn't any evidence they employed draft animals.
I don't think Yvette Collins' claims are exactly taking the academic world by storm. There are numerous problems with her sources (their reliability and her interpretation) and her interpretations of archaeological evidence. She really hasn't changed the current consensus that horses were extinct until their reintroduction by the Spanish. But, to be fair, her dissertation was in 2017 and it takes longer than that for a paradigm shift to take hold. If Native Americans had access to horses since the ice age, one wonders why there isn't any evidence they employed draft animals.
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.
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.
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.
My thinking was more "leave the names of gods as a setting detail" - but that gets to a question of whether there needs to be a defaults setting. Which is off-topic for this thread.
I don't think Yvette Collins' claims are exactly taking the academic world by storm. There are numerous problems with her sources (their reliability and her interpretation) and her interpretations of archaeological evidence. She really hasn't changed the current consensus that horses were extinct until their reintroduction by the Spanish. But, to be fair, her dissertation was in 2017 and it takes longer than that for a paradigm shift to take hold. If Native Americans had access to horses since the ice age, one wonders why there isn't any evidence they employed draft animals.
You might wonder that, but you might then also wonder, if horses necessarily will be used as draft animals, why didn’t most Native cultures that used horses extensively post-colonization use them as draft animals?
And again, the claim that the Spanish (re)introduced horses was never actually supported by scientific study. It was just claimed and accepted.
After reading the whole thread, here are my thoughts on what to change.
For alignment, I think three things are needed:
1) Finish removing game mechanical effects of alignment. They are already mostly gone, so it shouldn't be too hard to get rid of them completely.
2) In the monster manual entries representing an entire species, simply don't list alignment. Alignment can still be included in the stat block for an individual. Also, the description of an organization or nation in a campaign setting book could still list the most common alignment of members/citizens. But an entire species simply doesn't get an alignment.
Some people have suggested using 3.5's system of declaring species to be "often" or "usually" a particular alignment. However, that doesn't really solve the issue, for a couple different reasons:
a)If the idea is that the society a particular race/species lives in encourages people to commit evil acts, and therefore they are usually evil, then it only makes sense to talk about the usual alignment of people who live in that society. For example, if the culture in The Underdark encourages people to commit evil acts, then you could expect that drow who live in the Underdark are usually evil. But if you meet a random drow who doesn't live in the Underdark, then there's no reason to expect them to lean towards any particular alignment due to a society they don't live in. Hence, putting "usually evil" in the stat block for the generic drow doesn't make sense. You could instead put the information about alignment tendencies in the description of the Underdark in the FR book.
b)Additionally, the core Monster Manual is supposed to be useful for all D&D settings. Even if most drow in the Forgotten Realms live in the Underdark, that information belongs in the FR book, not the Monster Manual.
As an aside, three of my favorite fantasy comics are Slightly Damned, The Roommate From Hell, and UnDivine, so I don't see why angels or demons need to be treated differently than elves or drow.
3)In the introductory published adventures, include a bunch of neutral and good NPCs who are the same race/species as the main villain. If the main villain of the adventure is a dwarf, then have multiple good dwarves that the PCs meet in town. If the main villain of the adventure is a lich, than include a good lich or two as NPCs the PCs can meet. Any way you slice it, the authors of the early published adventures should make it clear that the villain is a villain based on what they do, not based on their race or species.
As another aside, I find it amusing how, whenever someone suggests decoupling race from alignment, someone else says "You're saying we aren't allowed to have evil villains any more! That will ruin the game!" Putting aside the fact that neither forumites nor WotC can stop your gaming group from playing how you like, the idea many people have proposed (including me) is to eliminate evil races, not evil characters. If you want to run an adventure where the PCs have to stop Azkola the Conqueror, a lich who is trying to conquer the kingdom and enslave all its people, while torturing and killing anyone in her way, then Azkola is clearly evil based on what she does. It doesn't matter whether liches are "always evil," "usually evil," or if 99.999% of all liches are good. That one lich is evil, so she can be the villain of your campaign.
If you have trouble wrapping your head around how to make villains obviously evil without them being members of an evil race, I recommend looking at fantasy fiction outside the D&D bubble. For example,
In The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (and many of its adaptions), the Wicked Witch of the West is unambiguously evil. We know this, because she enslaves an entire species of winged monkeys, uses them to enslave an entire country of winkies, and tries to kill a child on several occasions. She is not morally ambiguous or sympathetic. She is also a human, the same race/species as the protagonist (okay, maybe you could argue that Oz humans are a distinct race from Earth humans, but there are also good Oz humans). And yes, Oz is in the public domain, so there are later writings by other authors where she is morally ambiguous (Wicked by Gregory Maguire, or Namesake by Isabelle Melancon and Megan Lavey-Heaton), or good (Wicked the musical by Stephen Schwartz and Winnie Holzman), but those aren't in Baum's original writings.
In Peter and Wendy (and most adaptions), Captain Hook is unambiguously evil. We know this because he kidnaps and tries to murder children. He is not morally ambiguous or sympathetic. He is also a human, the same race/species as the protagonists.
In Star Wars (1977), Tarkin is unambiguously evil. We know this because he blows up a planet full of civilians. He is not morally ambiguous or sympathetic. He is also the same species as the protagonist.
In Roald Dahl's Matilda (and all of its licensed adaptions), Agatha Trunchbull is unambiguously evil. We know this, because she physically assaults the children she is supposed to protect on a regular basis, and because she
murdered her brother-in-law so she could steal all his stuff and abuse her niece.
. She is not morally ambiguous or sympathetic. She is also the same race/species as the protagonist.
I could keep going, but I think you should get the idea by now. Having evil villains does not require having evil races.
Aside from alignment, there are two other changes I'd recommend for inclusiveness:
1) Replace the name "race" with "species." I don't think "ancestry" (used by Pathfinder 2) is any better than race, because that word also has a real-world use which is very different from what Pathfinder 2 uses it to mean. Humans, elves, and dwarves are different species, so call them species.
2)Hire a diverse group of writers for both the game rules and the setting books. That's the best way to ensure we get good inclusive content.
I'm also in favor of removing racial species ability score modifiers for reasons that have nothing to do with inclusiveness, and I think a new edition is the easiest time to make the change. I wont' delve into why I want this change here, because it isn't really on-topic.
You might wonder that, but you might then also wonder, if horses necessarily will be used as draft animals, why didn’t most Native cultures that used horses extensively post-colonization use them as draft animals?
And again, the claim that the Spanish (re)introduced horses was never actually supported by scientific study. It was just claimed and accepted.
science can’t really support the non-existence of something from hundreds of years ago. most science could say was that we have no evidence of horses in NOrth America before Europeans arrived.
