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

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

If you are going to set out to offend them, you better be ready to back it up with some power of your own.

 

[Perky the Dragon]

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.

Still appropriating aspects of people's culture. I'm not saying it would happen, but it's a direction it could go.

 

[Dire Bare]

Has it really? I can't think of any phylactery illustrated to look like a tefillin.

Yes, really. Even the illustration you chose is similar in concept. A box with mystical or sacred writing within.

Hmmm, ok, I've got to confess I've never read the 3E description. Is that the first time it appears? It doesn't seem to match any actual named phylacteries that appeared over the years.

EDIT: I found this post which says they didn't start to resemble tefflins until 3E, but the change may have been presaged by Van Richten's Guide to the Lich. So looks like some author started conflating them late in 2E, and that got carried over. Can't blame this one on Gygax...

EDIT2: Checking Van Richten's guide, it calls it a "usually a box-shaped amulet", (but not always) but doesn't say anything about paper inside.... looks like that bit got added in 3E.

So it seems to problem isn't the name, but how they suddenly changed to a very specific thing in 3E.

Yes, the problem is the word (or name) and how it evolved to more closely resemble the Jewish phylactery over time. It's both.

No need to blame anyone, Gygax or otherwise. Like so many things in fantasy literature and gaming, it's easy to use something from another culture without understanding why you shouldn't.

The use of the word phylactery is problematic. So the designers removed it. Easy and correct solution to the problem.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

Yes but.

I have to admit one of the reasons I like that goblins are now fey is I feel that My own cultural heritage - that of non-Saxon Northern England, was pretty much obliterated by Tolkienism, to the extent that I have only just started to learn about it myself.

 

[Perky the Dragon]

If you are going to set out to offend them, you better be ready to back it up with some power of your own.

Causing offence can be power in itself.

And what I mean by causing a offence - some people believe that others mere existence or way of life is an offence.

If the belief that we should submit to other groups simply because they hold the power was universal, then we might as well tell every progressive social movement to give up.

 

[Dire Bare]

Still appropriating aspects of people's culture. I'm not saying it would happen, but it's a direction it could go.

No. No, it's not. Sigh.

Cultural appropriation isn't a binary thing, always okay or always wrong. Taking something from another culture that is sacred and using it out of context or in an elf game is the bad kind of cultural appropriation. Like the use of phylactery for a lich box.

Knowing what is and what is not okay when "appropriating" things from another culture can be tricky, which is why we ended up with the phylactery problem in the first place. But when folks from the affected culture tell you . . . you listen and you fix the problem. Like WotC did with the phylactery problem.

But fears of having, well, everything removed from D&D . . . that's just ridiculous.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No need to blame anyone, Gygax or otherwise.

I think this gets to the nub of the issue. A lot of the resistance to change seems to come from people who see it as a personal attack on their heroes.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Causing offence can be power in itself can be a power.

It can. Is D&D intended to be an instrument of political change? Does WotC want to put itself on the front line? Does Hasbro have the resources to go up against much wealthier corps? Do we want our hobby to become a casualty in the culture wars? How much is it worth to you, and how much is it worth to the other people who play D&D?

And what I mean by causing a offence - some people believe that others mere existence or way of life is an offence.

Sure. And it boils down to two options: kill them or convince them they are wrong. Here is a hint: no one ever won an argument by resorting to insults.

If the believe that we should submit to other groups simply because they hold the power was universal, then we might as well tell every progressive social movement to give up.

Or maybe just pick the fights wisely.

David Sheridan:
What was the first lesson I ever taught you?

Captain John Sheridan:
Never start a fight; but always finish it.

 

[Perky the Dragon]

Yes but.

I have to admit one of the reasons I like that goblins are now fey is I feel that My own cultural heritage - that of non-Saxon Northern England, was pretty much obliterated by Tolkienism, to the extent that I have only just started to learn about it myself.

Big fan of the direction WOTC is going with the goblins. Hopefully they keep pushing the folkloric angle.

I guess part of the issue with orcs is that they don't really have any real world folklore origins.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I guess part of the issue with orcs is that they don't really have any real world folklore origins.

Apart from the vague "ogre" connection that was used in the legal dispute with the Tolkien estate. But we know Tolkien himself was troubled by his orcs, which were irredeemably corrupted elves, and WoW has pretty much redefined what an orc is in pop culture, taking advantage of the same legal loophole.