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

[Remathilis]

Does there need to be consistency?

For a while we had a degree of consistency, since most of the OSR and other fantasy heartbreakers borrowed so heavily from D&D. But if different games are using different words for a lich's soul box or to describe a character's ancestry, is that a problem?

I admit, it bothered me at first that different games were using all sorts of term to replace "race" . . . heritage, ancestry, species, origin, etc, etc . . . but now, it doesn't.

It's really only a bother when you are either intermixing rules or talking on a board like this where no one realizes a soul vessel and a spirit jar are the same thing.

 

[Parmandur]

There is no hill to die upon…I don’t think

Yet some people seem eager to do so...?

this is a market decision? Lots of people are offended by this and won’t buy due to the same?

I don’t “buy” that conclusion.

It doesn't matter what you buy about why, it only matters that WotC didn't want the noise of continuing to make the connection. Why should they risk it? What is the benefit to WotC to connect Jews to undead serial killers...?

 

[Parmandur]

@Warpiglet-7 no joke, that is a serious question: what does it benefit WotC to make that connection? What is the positive case for doing that?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Asked this before, but does it need to be a problem for Jewish people to be a problem? Maybe it is being too sensitive, but I can say that as a non-jew the idea that I could be using a term for a Jewish holy artifact or practice, and connecting it to an undead serial killer monster, which is very reminiscent of hateful things said of jewish people and their practice... leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I don't like that connection. I'm not offended on behalf of them, they say it is fine, good for them... but I'm still not 100% blase about this.

I can't tell you what to think or feel. But I don't think the sour taste in this case is warranted and while no one gets final say here, I do think you have to ask yourself, does you feeling this way about liches in any way help Jewish people? Obviously it can still be an issue if it doesn't bother Jewish people but I think whether or not it bothers them is pretty central to whether it is a problem. I mean I get why you are concerned about historically negative stereotypes towards Jews. And think combating that in reality is a good thing. But I don't think the lich has really been part of that. I also think when you go after peoples entertainment in this way, it often has the opposite of the intended effect

And changing the name of the amulet, receptacle whatever you want to call it doesn't have to mean a loss of flavor. It could lead to an INCREASE in connections and flavor. Okay, the name they chose was pretty on the nose. But Liches are based on Koshchei, at least in part, so we could look there. His spell that gave him immortality might have been inspired by Turkish amulets in the shape of eggs. So... what if we called it that? Now instead of losing flavor, we've gained it, and made a connection to a cool mythological figure.

I haven't heard that they are based on Koschei before. But if that is the case, I don't think you have to connect the lore 100% to the source. Perhaps turkish amulets would work. But again, the phylactery is one of those 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it' things for me. Where it already achieves flavor and it is established lore. Again, i think the idea that we need to keep perfecting these things is part of what people are taking issue with.

Don't get me wrong. Looking up Koschei that is a really cool bit of flavor. I am not saying that isn't flavorful.

Yes, I know they didn't do that. They gave it a very generic name that can fit into any possible cultural setting, but instead of constantly demanding people prove if anyone was offended enough to make the change worthwhile (and how could you ever measure if any group is "offended enough") we could use this as an opportunity to play with ideas. Maybe Soul Cage is the generic name, but a lich from a culture based loosely on ancient egypt might refer to his as a Canopic Jar, referencing the mummification process. There is a chance to make something BETTER, instead of just going on about how every change is always for the worst and the first idea anyone had for something was clearly the best possible version of that idea.

Again I think the point is people are just tired of this. I mean if they want to make a change that is an actual improvement in flavor, I doubt many would object. Monsters in D&D have been adjusted and evolved over time. But because the priority always seems to be removing problematic content rather than than just focusing on what would make the thing interesting and cool, I just don't think you are going to get a lot of energy behind this. Also as much as a canonic jar sounds great, I can already hear the complaints about it. You've simply moved it from one culture to another. And that is part of the problem with this approach: it is all about filling down the problems. The best comparison I can make is the state of a lot of design and game criticism today feels a bit like a friend who is way, way to into self help books.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Yet some people.seem eager to do so...?

It doesn't matter what you buy about why, it only matters that WotC didn't want the noise of continuing to make the connection. Why should they risk it? What is the benefit to WotC to connect Jews to undead serial killers...?

I don’t mean to be rude. But really? Jews are Jeffrey dahmer because Skelton wizards wear phylacteries? I just can’t.

 

[Parmandur]

I don’t mean to be rude. But really? Jews are Jeffrey dahmer because Skelton wizards wear phylacteries? I just can’t.

I am not the one making the connection...but it is there, it has been pointed out, and several companies, including WotC, Paizo and EN Publishing have decided to distance the connection very consciously.

The burden of proof is on why they should choose to plant a flag on the hill of connecting real world Jewish religous practice with horrific villainy, not on whether the connection is there (because it is, it is right there). What material benefit would it be for a company to stick with even potentially offending anyone on that level...?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Let’s dial back the rhetoric a wee bit, please. Things are getting a bit testy in here.

 

[MGibster]

And changing the name of the amulet, receptacle whatever you want to call it doesn't have to mean a loss of flavor. It could lead to an INCREASE in connections and flavor. Okay, the name they chose was pretty on the nose. But Liches are based on Koshchei, at least in part, so we could look there. His spell that gave him immortality might have been inspired by Turkish amulets in the shape of eggs. So... what if we called it that?

I don't know why it didn't occur to me earlier, but they could have just changed phylactery to amulet. It solves the problem and it sounds better than a soul jar.

 

[MGibster]

The burden of proof is on why they should choose to plant a flag on the hill of connecting real world Jewish religous practice with horrific villainy, not on whether the connection is there (because it is, it is right there). What material benefit would it be for a company to stick with even potentially offending anyone on that level...?

Obviously WotC isn't going to backtrack anytime soon. Why would they? Either way, it's wouldn't present sales of D&D. I still think it's a silly change even if other companies did the same.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I don't know why it didn't occur to me earlier, but they could have just changed phylactery to amulet. It solves the problem and it sounds better than a soul jar.

I honestly think the only reason Gygax didn't choose the word "amulet" was his love of archaic language (cf dweomer). The link to Judaism would have never even factored into it. (AFAIK anti-semitism is one thing that Gygax hasn't been accused of)