D&D General Drow & Orcs Removed from the Monster Manual

[QuentinGeorge]

Isn't 3E also the edition that gave us a celestial paragon called Pistis Sophia, who was a giant blue winged woman with no clothing.

In all seriousness I assume the idea was to draw from Christian and Jewish mythology in the same way the names for the demon princes and archdevils do.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

We'd have to remove Asmodeus and pretty much most of the Archdevils.

I mean, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I certainly never use named fiends from real world religions in my own games*, and I preferred the 2nd edition made up terms for demons and devils. The Satanic Panic was a misrepresentation of what D&D was, but at it's root was a religious grouping being offended by the use of beings they believe are real being trivialised as gaming pieces.

But there are no easy answers here. We have a responsibility as decent people to try and respect vulnerable groups, and pragmatism means it's a good idea to respect groups that wield real power. But also, we want to be able to do stuff and have fun.

And, of course, meanings and connotations change. "Phylactery" was fine until the connection was made to a real world religion, but once that connection was made it can't be unmade. The meaning has changed.

And, of course, WotC has made a number of pig-ignorant blunders over the years.


*I should say this is more a matter of personal taste, I know my players do not believe in any of those religions.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Isn't 3E also the edition that gave us a celestial paragon called Pistis Sophia, who was a giant blue winged woman with no clothing.

I don’t think including entities from dead religions is as much of an issue. The Gnostic groups that believed in Sophia died out long ago.

It’s annoying how D&D used to make so many female characters and monsters be naked. And I’m pretty sure Sophia isn’t supposed to have a physical form.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

We'd have to remove Asmodeus and pretty much most of the Archdevils.

If D&D were to get rid of/change any of the Archfiends, Baphomet would probably be the first to go, given the main theory around the origin of his name is it’s a corruption of “Muhammad.” I personally don’t think it’s a problem, because D&D Baphomet clearly isn’t based on Muhammad and his followers in D&D are Minotaurs, not like fantasy Muslims or anything like that.

There was a Doctor Who episode where the Doctor killed Satan. I think it’s okay for D&D characters to kill Asmodeus, Beelzebub, Zariel, and other evil entities from real world religions.

What edition had the “Asmodeus is merely the avatar of Ahriman, an evil snake god that eats the souls of atheists” thing?

 

[Perky the Dragon]

As most monsters within D&D come from real world mythologies and thus extensions of real world cultures, it could be considered appropriate remove them as well.

Most weapons within D&D are also from real world cultures, so that too is appropriation.

The entirety of d&d cosmology is inspired by real world beliefs, so those too could be gone if it was could too disrespectful to have them.

I'm not saying anyone here wants to do this. But you can see how far it can go.

 

[Perky the Dragon]

I mean, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I certainly never use named fiends from real world religions in my own games*, and I preferred the 2nd edition made up terms for demons and devils. The Satanic Panic was a misrepresentation of what D&D was, but at it's root was a religious grouping being offended by the use of beings they believe are real being trivialised as gaming pieces.

But there are no easy answers here. We have a responsibility as decent people to try and respect vulnerable groups, and pragmatism means it's a good idea to respect groups that wield real power. But also, we want to be able to do stuff and have fun.

And, of course, meanings and connotations change. "Phylactery" was fine until the connection was made to a real world religion, but once that connection was made it can't be unmade. The meaning has changed.

And, of course, WotC has made a number of pig-ignorant blunders over the years.


*I should say this is more a matter of personal taste, I know my players do not believe in any of those religions.

I really think we should avoid a possible "the satanic panic was technically correct" angle.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There was a Doctor Who episode where the Doctor killed Satan.

The episode was a bit vague as to the true nature of that entity. And recently, Who called out Sutekh as cultural appropriation in show.

I think it’s okay for D&D characters to kill Asmodeus, Beelzebub, Zariel, and other evil entities from real world religions.

But D&D characters can also choose to worship Asmodeus...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I really think we should avoid a possible "the satanic panic was technically correct" angle.

Why? Offending people in a position of power is generally a bad idea, even when they are wrong. It could certainly happen again.

 

[Dire Bare]

As most monsters within D&D come from real world mythologies and thus extensions of real world cultures, it could be considered appropriate remove them as well.

Most weapons within D&D are also from real world cultures, so that too is appropriation.

The entirety of d&d cosmology is inspired by real world beliefs, so those too could be gone if it was could too disrespectful to have them.

I'm not saying anyone here wants to do this. But you can see how far it can go.

Oh come on.

Mythical creatures and weapons are a bit different from religious paraphernalia.

Phylactery is a word and concept from Jewish religion and it's easy enough to remove it from the game. I can't believe the push back from some folks on this.

 

[Perky the Dragon]

Why? Offending people in a position of power is generally a bad idea, even when they are wrong. It could certainly happen again.

Considering everything happening in today's political climate, I think offending people in a position of power could be a very good idea in some circumstances.