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

[doctorbadwolf]

As Umbran recently put it:

This is an unsupported assertion that cannot be debated under the rules of this forum.

While it's possible that your position cannot be stated under the rules of this forum, the (very well supported) assertion that bigotry doesn't become less bigoted just because one makes it part of one's faith certainly can be debated. I mean, it's an odd thing to want to debate, but you can do so.

 

[FrogReaver]

While it's possible that your position cannot be stated under the rules of this forum, the (very well supported) assertion that bigotry doesn't become less bigoted just because one makes it part of one's faith certainly can be debated. I mean, it's an odd thing to want to debate, but you can do so.

not according to umbran

 

[Ancalagon]

I will say it before and I will say it again.

Dwarves having different bonuses than humans is a PROFOUNDLY ANTI RACIST STATEMENT.

In D&D humans are all the same. Your ethnicity doesn't matter, game stat wise. I don't know if that was the intent, but that's what the rules are.

Race is a social construct. It has no scientific basis. This is reflected by the D&D rules. The big mistakes was calling elves, dwarves etc "races". They aren't different races, they are different species.

"But Ancalagon, that can't be because elves and humans can have babies!!!"

Nope. Polar bears and grizzly bears can have babies too, but they still are different species.

So that is what I would say. Change the word "race" to "species". (there are other changes needed of course).

 

[Aldarc]

none of what was support of that assertion.

He listed at least two actual positions of bigotry in US history that was concretely supported by Christian theological justifications. You can’t just claim that it was an unsupported assertion just because the actual historical evidence contradicts your thesis.

 

[Wishbone]

Reviewing my Dungeon Master's Guide one thing glaringly jumps out at me that can and should be improved on for any new edition—this whole thing is out of order! It reads more like a how-to-manual for designing a setting rather than a run-through of how to actually DM the game.

Running the Game shouldn't be way back in Chapter 8, but in Chapter 1 since it puts the rules at the forefront and further highlights the value of inclusivity and mutual respect among people at the table. Hiding the rules that far back when they're likely to be the most commonly referenced thing in the book is just poor design work.

 

[FrogReaver]

He listed at least two actual positions of bigotry in US history that was concretely supported by Christian theological justifications. You can’t just claim that it was an unsupported assertion just because the actual historical evidence contradicts your thesis.

when the evidence cited doesn’t actually support the position he’s taking I can.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I will say it before and I will say it again.

Dwarves having different bonuses than humans is a PROFOUNDLY ANTI RACIST STATEMENT.

In D&D humans are all the same. Your ethnicity doesn't matter, game stat wise. I don't know if that was the intent, but that's what the rules are.

Race is a social construct. It has no scientific basis. This is reflected by the D&D rules. The big mistakes was calling elves, dwarves etc "races". They aren't different races, they are different species.

"But Ancalagon, that can't be because elves and humans can have babies!!!"

Nope. Polar bears and grizzly bears can have babies too, but they still are different species.

So that is what I would say. Change the word "race" to "species". (there are other changes needed of course).

The analogy I'd use (and have used) is comparing the different races in D&D to breeds of dog. They are all the same basic thing (dogs/humanoids) and can generally interbreed and produce new things, but they still are profoundly different in many ways. Enough to reasonably separate them and have it not feel arbitrary and bigoted.

 

[FrogReaver]

The analogy I'd use (and have used) is comparing the different races in D&D to breeds of dog. They are all the same basic thing (dogs/humanoids) and can generally interbreed and produce new things, but they still are profoundly different in many ways. Enough to reasonably separate them and have it not feel arbitrary and bigoted.

good analogy. However...

I’m waiting for someone to come in and speak with some righteous indignation about how you just compared humans to dogs.

 

[Umbran]

Once people agree on first principles deciding on how to implement a solution becomes the next hurdle.

And... isn't the job of third parties not actually involved in the content creation.

We, as consumers, get to look at the final result, and decide if we like what we see. However, we don't generally get to dictate the detailed production process, any more than a player of Overwatch gets to dictate the details of the software development process.

 

[Aldarc]

when the evidence cited doesn’t actually support the position he’s taking I can.

How does the historical evidence DannyAlcatraz cited not support the position he is taking?