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

[Parmandur]

I think it was a bit different in the UK, with demonology largely viewed as campy Hammer Horror stuff.

Gygqx and Arneson were watching Hammer horror stuff, too, but in the U.S. that was edgy "outsider art" like Anime or something, not mainstream by and large.

 

[Azzy]

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.

That slope is particularly slippery—you could use it as a water slide.

Sorry, but I assume you realize that there's room for a metric ton of nuance here and a slippery slope argument is not really helpful here. If one is going to reference real-world religions and culture, it should be done respectfully (and done by or with help from someone from that religion or culture to avoid potential landmines). WotC (or their sensitivity readers) have determined, like Paizo before them, have apparently felt that this was a landmine best to avoid. There is no blanket, one-size-fits-all approach that works in all cases—each case should be looked at individually.

 

[Bae'zel]

As a couple of earlier posters point out, a lot of the stuff has nothing to do with the Bible, it’s accreted myth. And as for the rest, like D&D it depends on which edition you use.

Fine then. Aprocryphal, Milton, Dante, Goetia whatever. From Earth mythology, not modern (ie, late 20th and early 21st century) fantasy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Fine then. Aprocryphal, Milton, Dante, Goetia whatever. From Earth mythology, not modern (ie, late 20th and early 21st century) fantasy.

Milton is relatively modern (1667) and was writing allegory, not mythology, as was Dante.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Gygqx and Arneson were watching Hammer horror stuff, too, but in the U.S. that was edgy "outsider art" like Anime or something, not mainstream by and large.

As I’ve mentioned before, Doctor Who is a good window into how things were viewed at that time in the UK. In particular, check out The Daemons (1971) which is a parody of Dennis Wheatley, with a touch of Ancient Astronautism. The TV series has been restored, and the novelisation is fun (although it loses a couple of the visual jokes, particularly the opening shot, which is straight outa Hammer).

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Is that what happened here? Were there complaints about the phylactery in D&D from the Jewish community? I hadn't heard anything about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My father's mother was Jewish and we grew up with celebrating certain Jewish holidays. I am not Jewish myself but definitely have a radar for anti-semitism and know plenty of Jewish people. I never really heard anything about this being an issue either (and it never really struck me as a problem). I did see there was an article written about and I think the writer was Jewish but the article also struck me as taking a somewhat uncommon position on the issue.

There is something about them mentioned in the Book of Matthew that another poster mentioned, but I don't think there is much connection to that with liches

Also someone mentioned that the Van Richten guide to lich is where this connection originates. I remember that book but not that element. The Guide Liches is generally highly regarded. I may take another look to remember the full context (but I think it was just more normal back then to borrow from religion and history for flavor and lore)

It's an amazing book, like the other old Van Richten's Guides. Still some of my favorite game supplements.

 

[Lord Twig]

I'm only halfway through this thread, but I will throw my 2cp in.

Personally, I don't like the 'solution' of moving humanoid creatures to other types. I have heard the official reason, but honestly probably couldn't repeat it accurately. Something about 'they fit better there'. As stated, I disagree, and it seems dishonest. It sounds like there are people on both sides of the fence believe they did it for moral reasons. There is, apparently, a belief that it is 'problematic'* that humanoids have a default alignment and that by making them fae, elemental, fiend, or whatever, that makes that okay.

Specifically on the topic of Evil Orcs, I play them that they are humanoid, they do have free will, but their free will is limited. D&D is a fantasy game, and there is more than genetics at work. Evil (capital E) is a real thing. It can be detected and measured. Gods actually exist and can be proven to exist. You can talk to them, and they talk back. You can even go visit them if you are powerful enough. So, if there is an actual real god (albeit in a make-believe world) that is Evil, and that god creates a species** then that god can create them however they want. In this case Gruumsh created Orcs and they are afflicted by his mark.

In the 2014 PHB, under half-orc it talks about the mark:

"The one-eyed god Gruumsh—lord of war and fury—created the first orcs, and even those orcs who turn away from his worship carry his blessings of might and endurance. The same is true of half-orcs. Some half-orcs hear the whispers of Gruumsh in their dreams, calling them to unleash the rage that simmers within them."

And that answers it right there. Gruumsh does bless the species he created with might and endurance, but he also influences their behavior. Orcs are violent because Gruumsh created them with powerful emotions and encourages them to unleash their rage. He glories in the violence that they perpetrate... Because he is EVIL!

Same with Lolth and Drow. Their goddess is Evil and she influences her people to be Evil. Because magic.

It’s not genetics. It’s not culture. It’s magic.

Anyway, that is my explanation for ‘usually Evil’ species. If you can get them away from the supernatural Evil that influences them, then they can choose to be Good. Of course, since they have free will, they might still choose to be Evil, but that is their choice.

*Saying something is problematic isn't a statement of objective fact. You can't just say something is problematic and expect everyone to agree. You have to explain why something is problematic.

**I agree with the change of race to species. I understand the argument that species is 'a little too high-tech', and I agree, but the fact is that other sentient species do not exist in the real world, so ancient humans had no need to create a word for them. If you look at the word race as in The Human Race, then having other races like elves and orcs makes sense, However, it has also been used to separate humans from other humans, which doesn't make sense. So yeah, species just makes it clearer.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Well, that's a little more complicated. Most of the demon and angel lore in D&D is based on real world demonology, but the origins of much of that lore is not based on religious texts, but on apocrypha (texts of a religious nature that aren't sanctified by the church). It's a mix of folklore, obscure references to religious names, old mythology and some modern fiction (Pazuzu). Further, their are so many different interpretations that D&D isn't doing anything more than any modern movie or book author is.

Long story short, D&D's specific angels and demons aren't really any more religious than frost giants and nymphs are.

That post is the most American-protestant brained thing I've ever read. And it seems others have already pointed out the issue with it, so I won't bother.

"Asmodeus is different just because I say it is." Ok.

 

[Bae'zel]

Milton is relatively modern (1667) and was writing allegory, not mythology, as was Dante.

Argh this is frustrating. I’m not debating pedantic terminology nor what is “really Biblical”. I’m saying that I find works derived from the Bible (whether allegorical, mythological, fantasy etc) more interesting as a basis for mythical devils and angels than what D&D writers have created in the past 50 years.

And it is ALL myth and folklore because I don’t believe in God or the literal Devil and I don’t care what theologists believe is the TRUE story or whatever. It’s fantasy storytelling tied to Judeo-Christian religions.

It’s all make believe, just some is older than others. So I’m not interested in debating theology with you.