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

[Bedrockgames]

Whereas there is nothing at all "exotic" about the world of King Arthur, which is perfectly familiar to late-twentieth-century inhabitants of the American mid-west . . .

And that's before we get to the assumptions about who "the audience" is.

Lol. The past is another country. I would agree exotic would also be an apt description for the past. But I think most people feel at least somewhat familiar with the history of where they are from (and even people in the US say, would be familiar with King Arthur and not view England as too distant a place). But sure, if you wanted to call Pendragon a venture into the exotic world of King Arthur, I wouldn't say that is inaccurate. At the same time, I understand why someone wouldn't choose to use the word exotic for that but might use it for a setting in South Asia.

 

[pemerton]

Lol. The past is another country. I would agree exotic would also be an apt description for the past. But I think most people feel at least somewhat familiar with the history of where they are from (and even people in the US say, would be familiar with King Arthur and not view England as too distant a place). But sure, if you wanted to call Pendragon a venture into the exotic world of King Arthur, I wouldn't say that is inaccurate. At the same time, I understand why someone wouldn't choose to use the word exotic for that but might use it for a setting in South Asia.

As I've pointed out in some posts not far upthread, you use words like "people", "the audience", "someone" as if they refer only to a rather narrow group of Americans.

I don't think South Asian authors "tread on eggshells" when they write fiction about South Asia. Nor, I imagine, do they find it especially exotic.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It is interesting to me that when one side of the argument has learned that their previous arguments weren’t working and big companies like WotC have stuck with their current inclusive direction, they don’t for a second reconsider their stance. Many of the things they want to say are typical anti-inclusive talking points that are forbidden on this site so instead they double down and begin co-opting inclusive language, as it’s more popular. Apparently now it’s “harmful” to get rid of the term “phylactery.” Apparently blatant orientalism is a “cultural celebration,” and nothing should change because the original writers had good intentions (which is all that matters, I guess). Apparently the people complaining about racial stereotypes “care too much about historical accuracy.” And “it’s just an elf game” now means “you shouldn’t care about these issues.”

Because the language of progress and arguments in favor of inclusion are frankly better and more persuasive than those that ignore the issues and don’t want anything to change. There are a lot more people, at least on this site, who can see the issues and want change than there are of those that will cling to tradition and refuse to admit there’s any inclusivity problems in D&D.

Ironic, given how someone was just saying people were only pretending to be inclusive because it’s trending. Of course you think people are pretending to be inclusive to score points. That’s what you’re doing!

 

[Bedrockgames]

As I've pointed out in some posts not far upthread, you use words like "people", "the audience", "someone" as if they refer only to a rather narrow group of Americans.

I don't think I am doing that. Here I was saying people in general would view their own history as not exotic. I mentioned the US because I thought you might make the point that to people in the US, King Arthur would be exotic. But again, when OA was written, I think it was largely with an American and UK audience in mind. Plenty of other people read it, but I don't think it is crazy that he was imagining most of his audience was in places like the US and Canada

I don't think South Asian authors "tread on eggshells" when they write fiction about South Asia. Nor, I imagine, do they find it especially exotic.

I never said they did. And I never said they would find south asia exotic. I do think many would find England or the US exotic

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Is it? Or is that an assumption? A guess?

It has to be. At a point, in the extreme, you end up with no usable words. Remember, I'm not commenting on the words brought up in this thread. I could care less. But the idea that each and every time a person, who we don't know, is potentially offended by a word, we eliminate that word, the outcome is obvious - in the extreme.

So the question really is, where is the line? Earlier in this thread we had a person that is a part of a group cited in one of these changes. They said they didn't agree with the change. So we've already crossed from unanimous among the groups in question.

We can look at this a different way. If I am offended by the word "cheese" because I was born in Wisconsin, should we rename cheese to "Cow Custard" for me? What if 100 people are? Or 1,000? 10,000?

You are dealing with something subjective, in regards to people you don't know. It seems like you are chasing ghosts you can't possibly catch. And if you did catch all the ghosts, is your language still worth using afterwards?

I don't know if I can keep this apolitical if any further specifics are required. So hopefully this makes the point of my post clear.

 

[pemerton]

A puzzle about OA is that the "need" for it arises only because D&D, while in some sense presenting itself as "generic fantasy", in an obvious sense is not generic at all but rests on a number of assumptions about salient fantasy/mediaeval motifs.

If one looks at the technical design of the original OA classes, and brackets the use (in some cases, mis-use) of Japanese and Chines names, they are mostly just a series of enhancements to and developments of existing D&D classes: mechanically more interesting fighters and clerics, an elementalist wizard, some thief and assassin variants, etc. The only exception to this generalisation are the rules intended to support - to varying degrees of mechanical success - unarmoured and/or unarmed warriors ("martial artists").

But the "martial artist" as a fantasy character is no more "specialised" or "exotic" than the holy warrior, or the "druid". The recurring technical problems of integration have nothing to do with "Asian vs European" and everything to do with the way D&D handles armour as part of its PC build and combat resolution system.

 

[Scribe]

And “it’s just an elf game” now means “you shouldn’t care about these issues.”

To be fair, it is just an elf game to me, but I've said people can care about whatever they wish, and if they want the game to be more than that, deeper, and some how say more about whatever, and it serves them to have it do so? Great.

Meanwhile, I'll be rolling dice and killing (or not!) whatever the monsters or statblocks they represent, I'm up against.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think I am doing that. Here I was saying people in general would view their own history as not exotic. I mentioned the US because I thought you might make the point that to people in the US, King Arthur would be exotic. But again, when OA was written, I think it was largely with an American and UK audience in mind. Plenty of other people read it, but I don't think it is crazy that he was imagining most of his audience was in places like the US and Canada



I never said they did. And I never said they would find south asia exotic. I do think many would find England or the US exotic

When OA was released, Hong Kong was a crown colony of the UK. (Just sayin'.) Hawaii was a state of the US. Etc.

This is why I say that you are making assumptions in your references to "the audience", "people", etc.

There are some issues with the family, honour and loyalty rules in OA - technical infelicities as well as broader ones. But why do the rules for D&D set in mediaeval times not also include these things? As if honour and family didn't matter to mediaeval European warriors . . .

 

[pemerton]

We can look at this a different way. If I am offended by the word "cheese" because I was born in Wisconsin, should we rename cheese to "Cow Custard" for me? What if 100 people are? Or 1,000? 10,000?

Why would I look at things a ridiculous way, when I can instead look at them in an accurate way?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My point is we can lighten up a little on this stuff and be more charitable in how we interpret peoples efforts to include cultural inspiration outside their own

The counterpoint: once criticism about certain cultural depictions reaches a critical mass, outsiders no longer get a pass for being “just interpretations”.

It took decades to (mostly) end blackface & yellowface in western theater, movies and TV. A decade or two after that, stereotypes began to fall in comics, then RPGs.

So when (seemingly inevitable) pushback occurs in the against changes generally deemed positive by those cultures, it’s not a good look. It’s even worse when the remedy is as easy as asking for input/doing some research.