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

[abirdcall]

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.

Words aren't just sounds. People aren't offended about a sound. They are offended by sounds that are threats. I think words carry meaning that is lost on you because those meanings just aren't important to you.

You have told us here that you 'could care less' and are taking this opportunity to have an intellectual exercise, but for others the way words are used is important for their safety.

It isn't a matter of number of people. If a threat is made against 1 person then that is enough that those words shouldn't be used.

It is trivially easy to identify bad faith actors. And if you can't, just pick a different word until you find out. It's also trivially easy to just be courteous.

What you are doing right now is communicating to us that you are not a safe person.

 

[Faolyn]

Well again, I’m back to the dog whistles. If one uses every other word other than evil (their gods are evil, the plane they go to when then die is evil, their traits are evil, they want to kill other civilized races), I’m not going to give the author a pass because they dance around whether they explicitly say orcs are evil. They demonstrated it in their words.

Saying orcs are all inherently evil might be too much. However, being created by an evil god I think orcs should have a tendency toward that direction.

Super late to this discussion, but. The thing is, the orc gods, if you look at their portfolios and whatnot, don't even have to be evil. Gruumsh is a leader who wants his people to prosper (especially if you go by the old creation story where the other gods took all the good land). Bhagtru is a god of strength and battle. Ilneval is a god of strategy and thinking over brute strength. Luthic is a goddess of healing, fertility, and the hearth. Shargass and Yurtus are evil, but they can easily be evils as imagined by the orcs--their people's boogeymen or devils who prey on orcs--not "we're evil so of course we have gods of disease and darkness."

It would be super-easy to keep their gods and just lean into their not-evil aspects. (Of course, their pantheon is woefully underdeveloped, but that's a problem D&D has with all their pantheons in general; it's not an orc thing.)

 

[Remathilis]

What harm has been done by WotC publishing a book that uses the term "soul jar" rather than "phylactery"?

For a lot of people here, the harm is "WotC publishing a book."

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

But we aren't going after entertainment. We haven't canceled liches. We have simply changed the name of a thing. That's it. And I don't know whether or not having a bunch of Christians standing up and saying they don't want to have things in their media that makes it look like they are being anti-semitic helps Jewish people or not. How could I possibly measure such a thing?

But I don't see how changing the name hurts them either. The only possible way seems to be that it retroactively becomes offensive to them if we change it? As stated by a single person on this forum (and those who constantly claim that any and all changes make the game blander, flatter and greyer). And frankly, I don't even need to change anything. It is already changed. I just have to decide whether or not to accept the change. And since it seems to not matter... I can accept it and take this opportunity to recognize that I learned a little sliver of something interesting about the Jewish religion.

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.

There is nothing wrong with continuously seeking to improve.

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.

And you've said the exact same thing about every single change that WoTC has made, and people have said the exact same thing about hundreds of franchises for the past fifty years. And frankly, hearing the exact same argument every single time, with no evidence other than "wait and see" for decades... I just don't care about that argument anymore. People have been "tired of this" since "this" started. They were never for "this", they were always saying it was unnecessary and gratuitous and going to ruin the things they care about and love... and there is still no evidence that it ever has.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

My only issue with amulet, is that the Lich's Soul Jar is always most interesting when it is something weird. The stone of everflowing water that keeps a desert city alive, the mangrove forest that houses an elvish sacred site. Whenever it is just a magical item sitting on a shelf, it is at its most boring. And saying they need an amulet locks the form in a bit too much for me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But we aren't going after entertainment. We haven't canceled liches. We have simply changed the name of a thing. That's it.

Yes, you are going after entertainment. It may be one small piece, but these pieces all add up to change the overall quality and aesthetic of the game

And I don't know whether or not having a bunch of Christians standing up and saying they don't want to have things in their media that makes it look like they are being anti-semitic helps Jewish people or not. How could I possibly measure such a thing?

I doubt that many Christians are doing such a thing because I think they wouldn't see the lich as doing that (part of the debate on this thread is how many people even regard the lich as posing this problem, and I would argue it is not a widespread concern among Christians or Jews).

You might not be able to measure it, but you could at least see if there is any evidence it is improving things. My point is, I don't think taking out phylactery is going to change the world for the better for anyone. There won't be less antisemitism because of it (there are many more constructive things the gaming community could be doing if it wants to reduce antisemitism)

There is nothing wrong with continuously seeking to improve.

There can be, if you are taking the wrong steps to improvement and making things worse. This is fundamentally what we are debating. Are these kinds of changes actually making the game better. Some of us think these aren't solving the problems they set out to solve, while also make the game less interesting

And you've said the exact same thing about every single change that WoTC has made, and people have said the exact same thing about hundreds of franchises for the past fifty years. And frankly, hearing the exact same argument every single time, with no evidence other than "wait and see" for decades... I just don't care about that argument anymore. People have been "tired of this" since "this" started. They were never for "this", they were always saying it was unnecessary and gratuitous and going to ruin the things they care about and love... and there is still no evidence that it ever has.

This isn't part of a fifty year thing. These are changes we started to see to media in the past ten years or so

 

[Chaosmancer]

We kind of covered this when it came up before. I don’t think the books are perfect but I also think they were pretty good for their times. I probably have more criticisms of the second one but like them both.

I think the whole cultural consultant and sensitivity reader thing isn’t helpful. I mean a cultural consultant can be useful sometimes. But it also became this thing where it’s sold purpose was to avoid controversy rather than just make the games interesting. Having designers who know the culture is I think often useful but it depends on the nature of the project. I kind of want everyone to be free to play with whatever culture or historical era interests them. Boxing people on based on their identity is one of the things I was thinking of when I said this stuff is sometimes more regressive than progressive. Having more Asian writers and designers is I think a good thing but I don’t think we should assume they all want to work on Asian themed project (some might and some might not). I just think we have gone too far in the direction of walking on eggshells. Which means instead of being open and curious about non-western settings, people feel a bit paralyzed, out of fear they will do it wrong

No

 

[Chaosmancer]

I wouldn't use the term orient anymore as I stated. But I think exotic is a perfectly acceptable word to describe a culture the audience isn't as familiar with. It isn't a pejorative. To people outside the west, the west is an exotic place. Maybe if the book was written for an audience living in China or Japan, calling an asian location exotic, would be off. But OA was written for an audience that was largely in places like the US, Canada and the UK (obviously people in places like Australia too but by and large, the audience was perceived as being in Europe or the Americas). So I think it is an apt description, that isn't trying be judgmental about Asian culture. My wife is from Thailand and to her a lot of our media is exotic. Again I think things like intent matter here. If someone is going out of their way to be offensive or denigrate Asian people, that is one thing. If someone is just trying to express the wonder of a distant location with colorful language, and they are doing it out of a sense of admiration for the culture, the culture media or source material from the culture, I don't see a big issue.

Intent matters.... but so does context. And I've never seen Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter, or Waterdeep described as "exotic locales" despite them being lands of magic filled with species never seen on Earth, and therefore MORE exotic that any place on Earth.

But they are Western-Coded... so they are not Exotic lands.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't think anyone here would fail to recognize that historical iterations of the game contain certain ...problematic.. elements when viewed through a modern lens; the question becomes one of degree, and in which dimensions: to what extent are we permissive or censorious of legacy traditions, and what should our governing framework be with regard to admission, exclusion, or revision of those components.

I don't claim to be particularly forward-looking in my own gaming practices: my personal aesthetic tends to trump what I recognize as desirable - more progressive - language, expression and sensitivity. It's why I remain on the fence during many of these exchanges: I acknowledge that times have changed, values have shifted, and - rather inevitably - I am incapable of fully grasping that change. There is a kind of wry hypocrisy which nags at me - I might advocate for a certain kind of expression, knowing that it is for the best, but I also like what I like; maybe the difference between me and some other posters here is that I don't try to justify my preferences.

I think it is possible to set aside an attachment to legacy traditions (practices, nomenclature, understanding - whatever) and see the game as a dynamic phenomenon, reflective of contemporary values and sensitivities: this is neither good nor bad, from my perspective. The change is inevitable. But I tend to take a rather longue durée view of all of these things: I'm confident that in 30 years, our successors in RPGs will be horrified by some of the things which we accept today, and brand us as regressive heathens. What are those things? We don't know yet; and that's kind of the point. Although my inkling is that it might involve a general rejection of imagined violence in the game space - who knows?

For me, my love of the game is rooted in the earlier editions. I love AD&D because of its baroque language and its evocative power. I love 3.X because - despite its many failings - it has near-limitless material and is infinitely customizable. I love B/X because it is simply perfect, and I'll fight anyone who claims otherwise.

I'll take these games, with all of their historical warts, their lack of sensitivity, their naivete and their absence of modern values because I'm of that age, and I'm sufficiently discerning to separate the wheat from the chaff - whether it be explicit or implied. I don't need the guardrails.

But I don't, honestly, think that this is the way for the game to flourish and succeed. It needs to move and change. That change has already left me behind - really 15 years ago. And I'm okay with that, because I like what I like, and play what I want.

You know, I see this argument a lot. This idea that those who push for change now, will find themselves confused and unable to grasp the things found offensive in the future. That we will be "left behind" as the world rushes forward finding more and more absurd things offensive.

And I look to what is currently seen as offensive. Sexism. Racism. Transphobia. Homophobia. Add in some dashes of Corporate Greed and Environmental catastrophe to the mix just to cover some other bases. And I think about those things. The fight against Racism is hundreds of years old, if not older. The fight against sexism is hundreds of years old, if not older. The fights against Homophobia and Transphobia were largely invisible, but still you can find evidence where cultural practices that accepted these things were snuffed out by invading forces imposing their own culture on those they subjugated, going back hundreds of years.

And I wonder... if these fights have been going on since before I was born, and we are still so far from their end points, where we finally no longer have these disparities baked into our cultures and psyches... how long do you expect me to live? Why in the world would I be saddened by the world "leaving me behind" when it means we finally, finally achieved the goals of an uphill battle spanning centuries, with constant setbacks? Or do you think that I will be incapable of being able to learn why something we hadn't considered yet is racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic? I know plenty of people older than me, sometimes quite a bit older than me, that can have current issues explained to them, and they grew up with less of these fights being had in the open. So, why would I be left behind, unable to understand?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Super late to this discussion, but. The thing is, the orc gods, if you look at their portfolios and whatnot, don't even have to be evil. Gruumsh is a leader who wants his people to prosper (especially if you go by the old creation story where the other gods took all the good land). Bhagtru is a god of strength and battle. Ilneval is a god of strategy and thinking over brute strength. Luthic is a goddess of healing, fertility, and the hearth. Shargass and Yurtus are evil, but they can easily be evils as imagined by the orcs--their people's boogeymen or devils who prey on orcs--not "we're evil so of course we have gods of disease and darkness."

It would be super-easy to keep their gods and just lean into their not-evil aspects. (Of course, their pantheon is woefully underdeveloped, but that's a problem D&D has with all their pantheons in general; it's not an orc thing.)

Oh yeah, lot of great stuff can come from just... not having them be evil.

Of course, then people will complain because you are changing Canon, but what can you do.