D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[Charlaquin]

I have no problem with making changes to be more inclusive. I do so at my table. I do not feel the need for a book or company to dictate to me, either way, what I can or cannot do. The responsibility to make players comfortable at my table is on those at my table and ONLY those at my table. WOTC isn't responsible for it, nor CAN they be, really? It simply isn't possible.

But that isn't QUITE what is happening here in this thread.

It is not 'They should change this to be more inclusive' it is 'they should change this to be more inclusive and if you cannot see it or disagree you are a racist/bigot and I dont want to play with you.'

I don’t see anyone saying the latter at all. The former is absolutely what’s being argued.

Changing the alignment in a monster manual will have no effect on how minorities in real life are treated or viewed. To argue otherwise is to make the same arguments that the Satanic Panic folk did in the 80's. There arguments were, on the face, ridiculous, but they played into the politics and cultural struggles of the day. The same thing is happening here.

This is a deeply flawed analogy for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that no one is saying that changing the alignment in a monster manual will have an effect on how minorities in real life are treated or viewed.

I guess I just don't like bullies. /shrug

So much so, you seem to be looking for bullies where none exist.

 

[Oofta]

Who are you quoting in this thread? I haven't read all 30+ pages of posts, but I definitely don't recall anyone accusing someone of racism or bigotry in the manner you describe. Such posts are usually followed by bright red text, courtesy of a moderator.

I wouldn't say it's so much accusations of bigotry as much as the one and only solution is to get rid of alignment for humanoids. No other option is worth discussing. If you don't accept that, well too bad you're being left behind and you are out of step with reality.

The problem I see is that if you get rid of alignment then you have to also redo all the fluff text. Rewrite all the lore, get rid of Gruumsh and Maglubiyet and Yeenahu.

 

[Charlaquin]

The problem I see is that if you get rid of alignment then you have to also redo all the fluff text. Rewrite all the lore, get rid of Gruumsh and Maglubiyet and Yeenahu.

Why would you have to do that?

 

[Lanefan]

@Oofta I agree with you on almost every point on these boards. However in this case I hope you can see the difference between a mindflayer and someone who walks, talks, mates, eats, matures, Builds, forms societies and acts... not to mention superficially looks like a person.

Except given that mindflayers also walk, talk (with their minds, perhaps), eat, mate (or reproduce somehow), mature, build, form societies, and act - and other than the tentacles they even superficially look like people - this line of argument falls a bit flat.

As such, should mindflayers also then be given the "any alignment" tag?

A broader question is, if the general societial tendencies of all these different creatures (and gawd knows, D&D has a lot of 'em!) can no longer be stated even in broad terms in order to differentiate them, then the only real differentiators become physical size/appearance and preferred environment (e.g. temperate, arctic, jungle, marine, etc.). Given this, it becomes easy to ask why there's so many different creatures - particularly of the two-armed two-legged one-headed variety - and whether 75% of them even have relevance any more.

This won't sit well with the publishers, however, for whom having lots of different creatures/monsters helps sell books.

 

[HJFudge]

Who is saying that?

I'm gonna be honest, and I want to be very clear that I'm not saying you are doing this. Most often, when I see discussions about equality or inclusiveness, and someone says, "I got no problem with it, I just don't like people calling me a bigot if I don't agree with them (when no one has actually said that).", it's just a cop out for not admitting that yeah, they do have a big problem with equality and inclusiveness, but are gaslighting others based on a strawman.

You, amongst others. You are doing it. You are implying that if people do not agree with you, not only are they wrong, but they are wrong in such a way that they are actively supporting racism.

I believe you also mentioned the 'dunning kruger' effect earlier, as well? Perhaps it was another.

But yes, there is a definite subtext here, one in which that... and let me be very clear...you are implying anyone who does not agree with your changes are aiding and abetting real, actual racism.

It is quite the clever trick. To bully others, to browbeat them and then scream 'Im being attacked!' when someone calls you out on it? Clever indeed.

But of course, since YOU don't see it happening and it's not affecting you in particular...must not be happening right?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I wouldn't say it's so much accusations of bigotry as much as the one and only solution is to get rid of alignment for humanoids. No other option is worth discussing. If you don't accept that, well too bad you're being left behind and you are out of step with reality.

Once again, no one is saying you have to get rid of alignment (some have said they'd like to, but that's not what's being argued. What's being argued is changing it to any alignment). When something says "any alignment", that means you get to chose what alignment you want to give them, based on your preference. Alignment is still there.

Why do you keep ignoring this and repeating the same strawman?

 

[Sacrosanct]

You, amongst others. You are doing it. You are implying that if people do not agree with you, not only are they wrong, but they are wrong in such a way that they are actively supporting racism.

I believe you also mentioned the 'dunning kruger' effect earlier, as well? Perhaps it was another.

But yes, there is a definite subtext here, one in which that... and let me be very clear...you are implying anyone who does not agree with your changes are aiding and abetting real, actual racism.

It is quite the clever trick. To bully others, to browbeat them and then scream 'Im being attacked!' when someone calls you out on it? Clever indeed.

But of course, since YOU don't see it happening and it's not affecting you in particular...must not be happening right?

Dunning Kruger has nothing to do with calling someone a bigot. I suggest you google it because clearly you don't know what it's in reference to.

Secondly, quote me. Where did I say anything of the sort. in fact, there are several quotes of mine where I've said liking old school d&D or how it was presented doesn't make you a bigot. Heck, I'm one of them. So if you're going to accuse me of something, quote it.

 

[HJFudge]

Dunning Kruger has nothing to do with calling someone a bigot. I suggest you google it because clearly you don't know what it's in reference to.

Secondly, quote me. Where did I say anything of the sort. in fact, there are several quotes of mine where I've said liking old school d&D or how it was presented doesn't make you a bigot. Heck, I'm one of them. So if you're going to accuse me of something, quote it.

This is remarkably easy to do!

Who is saying that?

I'm gonna be honest, and I want to be very clear that I'm not saying you are doing this. Most often, when I see discussions about equality or inclusiveness, and someone says, "I got no problem with it, I just don't like people calling me a bigot if I don't agree with them (when no one has actually said that).", it's just a cop out for not admitting that yeah, they do have a big problem with equality and inclusiveness, but are gaslighting others based on a strawman.

You are accusing me right here of being a bigot.

 

[Oofta]

Why would you have to do that?

I just think it would be pointless if you didn't. The lore describes a CE culture for orcs and explains why they are the way they are. They were created a pissed off god to kill and destroy. Removing alignment is just removing one tiny, tiny part of their lore that can be derived from the lore for anyone that cares.

For campaign specific groups like Eberron you can tell a richer story.

 

[Mecheon]

The problem I see is that if you get rid of alignment then you have to also redo all the fluff text. Rewrite all the lore, get rid of Gruumsh and Maglubiyet and Yeenahu.

Don't tempt me with good things.

Imagine these actually being written as characters rather than plot devices for you to kill. Imagine we get God Eater Yeenoghu, who became a demon prince by eating his way to the top rather than just 'oops demon prince exists'. Imagine a Gruumsh with actual thought put into reasons to worship him. Imagine D&D having actual thought put into its religions and the type of history that lead Ishtar becoming two forms of Aphrodite in Sparta, losing her war connetations in mainland Greece, before accidentally getting them back in Rome and being worshipped as Venus

But yes, there is a definite subtext here, one in which that... and let me be very clear...you are implying anyone who does not agree with your changes are aiding and abetting real, actual racism.

Mate, I think you're looking a bit too hard into it as you're doing a pretty hefty jump from "Consider other people's opinions about this" to be jumping that far