D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Malmuria]

Yeah . . . I'm really confused by when people say "So, Beholders and Mind Flayers aren't evil anymore!?!"

Like . . . no. Have you guys even read the errata and the context for it? What they got rid of was redundant description text for these monsters. What the sections they got rid of said was already stated in other parts of the same chapters.
.

People exaggerate to support their own speculations. I saw someone on twitter conclude that “6e” was going to be a “narrative game” with no combat based on the art they released depicting a satyr.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

People exaggerate to support their own speculations. I saw someone on twitter conclude that “6e” was going to be a “narrative game” with no combat based on the art they released depicting a satyr.

Let's see. They used Xanathar.

Xanathar is a beholder.

Another beholder is a bartender ....

6e is not going to have combat, because it's going to be a drinking game!!! Connect the dots, SHEEPLE!

 

[Hussar]

Disclaimer in PHB or dump inspiration list.

Or simply amend the list to actually be stuff to read to be inspired to play D&D. Like I said, it's not a bibliography and D&D is hardly an academic work. There's no need for the list to be complete (and it obviously isn't as is). Put stuff in that is actually inspirational instead of just shotgunning every big name in the genre regardless of history.

One of the biggest ironies in this thread is seeing how people said that 4e drove them away from the game. That the rhetoric surrounding 4e made them feel unwelcome. Almost as if the rhetoric and words we use in and around the game matter...

But, all that aside, having taken a very deep breath and lurked for a couple of days, I do think that the question of "what to do" is a fair one. Now, that being said, what I, personally, dude with no actual power can do? Not much more than I am - agitate and promote particular viewpoints and contribute (hopefully constructively) to the conversation. There realistically isn't a whole lot more I could do.

If I was WotC though, this would be what I would do:

1. Keep the disclaimers. They raise awareness. They aren't the be all and end all, but, they do serve a function. There's no reason not to do it, frankly.

2. I would hire a genre historian, like, say, Amy H. Sturgis to write a regular column in Dragon+ talking about the history of the genre and about how that intersects with D&D. This would be an ongoing column.

3. I would not go back into the library and start editing material. The historical argument is a very strong one and I don't think it serves a purpose to try to rewrite history.

4. Related to 3 - However, since profiting off of this material is pretty icky, I would take the entire library of Pre-WotC, TSR, and put it online for free in some sort of format like Anyflip (where you can't just download it, at least pay lip service to protecting the material) for historical purposes. That way the material is there, it can be referenced, but, no one is profiting from it. And, it links back to 2 where it becomes very easy to clearly demonstrate where the problematic material is.

Anyway, I was asked what I would do, and, yeah, if I had the power, this is my solution.

 

[Malmuria]

Let's see. They used Xanathar.

Xanathar is a beholder.

Another beholder is a bartender ....

6r is not going to have combat, because it's going to be a drinking game!!! Connect the dots, SHEEPLE!

…dnd isn’t already a drinking game?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Heck, not even two editions. There's been more editions with playable gnolls than without. One of the playable gnolls is from this very book

Good point!

To drag it back to Mystara, Mystara had good and playable gnolls. Sure they were hanging out with elves, but they were nice. 5E's the odd one in not having them

Yeah it’s just a weird hill (get it? a knoll is a hill! I’m hilarious) to die on.

Yeah . . . I'm really confused by when people say "So, Beholders and Mind Flayers aren't evil anymore!?!"

Like . . . no. Have you guys even read the errata and the context for it? What they got rid of was redundant description text for these monsters. What the sections they got rid of said was already stated in other parts of the same chapters.

And if Beholders and Mind Flayers suddenly do become not-always-evil . . . so what? Large Luigi from Spelljammer wasn't evil (at least, he was able to restrain his beholder instincts enough to be a freaking bartender). Gnome Ceremorphs are already stated to be able to be any alignment. Just because not all of them are evil doesn't mean that you can't still use them as villains or enemies in your games. Not all humans are evil, but they're a super common enemy to face in most D&D adventures (as bandits, evil mages, evil nobles, etc).

Yeah. As John Oliver put it, the answer to "when does it stop!?!" is always "freaking somewhere!"

It stops somewhere. It won't continue on forever. It will continue (I'd be surprised if Giants, for example, were listed as any specific alignment in the revised Monster Manual that's coming out in 2024), but it won't continue on forever.

Ditto. Eberron and Exandria in 5e are already stated to have non-evil gnolls and hint at them being playable . . . but there's no official playable Gnoll race Explorer's Guide to Wildemount or Eberron: Rising from the Last War. It's really disappointing that we don't have one yet, IMO.

Eeeexactly.

That actually comes from waaay early in AD&D. There was an article in Dragon #63 that talks about their origins as the creations of demon prince Yeenoghu (unlike the other humanoids, who have actual gods) and has the 1e stats for the shoosuvas. I guess that for 5e they really leaned into that origin and dialed it up a few notches.

Personally, I'm kind of torn. If the 5e gnolls were called anything other than gnolls (and were officially fiends rather than humanoids), I'd be fine with them. But I like gnolls as a people too much.

Flinds are right there, too. Why not just make them demonic Gnolls, but most Gnolls are just people.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Flinds are right there, too. Why not just make them demonic Gnolls, but most Gnolls are just people.

Heck, Gnoll Fangs of Yeenoghu from the Monster Manual are already classified as Fiends, so if they want "Demon Gnolls" while still giving the fanbase playable gnolls, they can literally just do both. I'm not sure why WotC doesn't think that they can't have their cake and eat it too with this matter, because they absolutely can.

 

[MGibster]

I gotta say, I'm really surprised by all the Gnoll love as they were always creatures I barely used over the years. Don't get me wrong, go on with your Gnoll loving selves and have a good time. I'm just surprised is all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I gotta say, I'm really surprised by all the Gnoll love as they were always creatures I barely used over the years. Don't get me wrong, go on with your Gnoll loving selves and have a good time. I'm just surprised is all.

I underutilized them myself, until I started designing a post-apocalyptic homebrew. They were perfect for being one of the main remaining powers.

…then 4Ed got announced.

 

[Hussar]

I gotta say, I'm really surprised by all the Gnoll love as they were always creatures I barely used over the years. Don't get me wrong, go on with your Gnoll loving selves and have a good time. I'm just surprised is all.

I wonder if it's in the same sort of category as the gnome effect. I'm with you on this. I've barely seen them used, like, ever. I can't think of a single adventure that features gnolls as a main bad guy.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

The backstory for the Points of Light setting has an aspect of Yeenoghu called White Ruin and his army of gnolls and demons as the reason for the fall of the last human empire, Nerath.

Beyond that gnolls weren't really given a special place in the setting, so it kind of feels like the people working on D&D at the time just wanted to make this army of evil unique by having it be made up of gnolls.