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

[Bedrockgames]

Sigh.

Who's claiming that the D&D players yelled racist slurs because they had orcs in their D&D games? Not @pemerton, not anyone else in these discussions.

Perhaps I misunderstood pemertons point, as I had to read that post a few times to respond to it. But I was replying to this part of his message (which seemed to draw a connection between the two things: otherwise I am unclear on what he was trying to say):

"Some of those students also played D&D. I don't think they worried about the racist implications of some fantasy tropes! But what does that tell us?"

 

[Dire Bare]

I remember being a bit flumoxed when the game went from Lizardman to Lizardfolk, but eventually migrated to using it, and prefer it now. I can't even remember when that happened now.

I've had a similar progression on a lot of this stuff. Annoyed at first, then realized the change is good and necessary, and haven't looked back since.

 

[Voadam]

If I hated myself enough to wade back into this debate, I'd point out that the fact that they chose OA as the product to re-introduce Comeliness is exactly the kind of exoticization and sexualization that the podcast hosts were talking about, and thus the stupid stat existing for different stupid reasons in earlier editions does nothing to negate the point they were making with OA there.

Not that a single minor and ultimately inconsequential factual inaccuracy should completely invalidate the entire rest of their argument or point of view, but then we are humans, and when we emotionally disagree with the topline argument we will do what we can to find and uncover any excuse to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

If there was a gap between comeliness in 1e dragon, Greyhawk, and Unearthed Arcana in the 80s, it being removed in 2e in the 80s and then reintroduced in 3e OA that context could be some evidence of 3e OA exoticizing and sexualizing Asians.

However it was not the 3e OA but the 1e OA, the literal next 1e AD&D hardcover after 1e Unearthed Arcana, that continued to use the then core 1e comeliness stat. That factual change of context seems consequential.

I felt the factual inaccuracy and the filling in of stuff they did not know with their own incorrect assumptions and presenting them as facts was quite consequential. And this was half of their two-hour long first episode discussion.

I edited my original post to make clear it was their video on critiquing 1e OA.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I felt the factual inaccuracy and the filling in of stuff they did not know with their own incorrect assumptions and presenting them as facts was quite consequential. And this was half of their two-hour long first episode discussion.

Some of my criticisms were in this ballpark as well (a number of the criticisms seemed built on an innacuracy or questionable assumption). Though again, a lot of the podcast was people reacting in real time to the book as it was being read

 

[Parmandur]

There is a story, not sure how true, that Gygax shared a pre-publication draft with four Japanese folks . . .

Cook, not Gygax, and they are credited in the book: apparently Gygax had his French buddy whose name escapes me submit an original draft that made Cook tear his hair out with how clichéd it was, hence why he insisted on getting as many books as he could and getting at least one Japanese playtest group.

So it could have been much, much worse...which is feightening.

 

[Gradine]

If there was a gap between comeliness in 1e dragon, Greyhawk, and Unearthed Arcana in the 80s, it being removed in 2e in the 80s and then reintroduced in 3e OA that context could be some evidence of 3e OA exoticizing and sexualizing Asians.

However it was not the 3e OA but the 1e OA, the literal next 1e AD&D hardcover after 1e Unearthed Arcana, that continued to use the then core 1e comeliness stat. That factual change of context seems consequential.

I felt the factual inaccuracy and the filling in of stuff they did not know with their own incorrect assumptions and presenting them as facts was quite consequential. And this was half of their two-hour long first episode discussion.

I edited my original post to make clear it was their video on critiquing 1e OA.

You are correct, and I was indeed mistaken. My apologies.

 

[Dire Bare]

If there was a gap between comeliness in 1e dragon, Greyhawk, and Unearthed Arcana in the 80s, it being removed in 2e in the 80s and then reintroduced in 3e OA that context could be some evidence of 3e OA exoticizing and sexualizing Asians.

However it was not the 3e OA but the 1e OA, the literal next 1e AD&D hardcover after 1e Unearthed Arcana, that continued to use the then core 1e comeliness stat. That factual change of context seems consequential.

I felt the factual inaccuracy and the filling in of stuff they did not know with their own incorrect assumptions and presenting them as facts was quite consequential. And this was half of their two-hour long first episode discussion.

I edited my original post to make clear it was their video on critiquing 1e OA.

The Asians Represent podcast isn't a review of Oriental Adventures, or even an analysis really, it is a reaction.

And they made more "errors" than just when Comeliness was introduced to the game.

Doesn't matter.

I mean, the D&D nerd in me wanted to point out the errors made too, but . . . doesn't matter.

Intent is important, but results are what impact people.

Comeliness wasn't added to Oriental Adventures because Cook felt it necessary in an "Asian" book, but as you pointed out, it was simply the next book developed after Unearthed Arcana.

But due to the specific nature of Asian stereotypes, adding Comeliness to OA added more ick to the ick sandwich. Which they do discuss in the podcast.

None of what Cook intended was meant to be racist or stereotyped. As @Parmandur pointed out, Cook himself blanched at an earlier draft that was even more stereotyped than what we got. His intent was positive. Sadly, in this regard, he failed. But he failed in context of TSR, D&D, and society at the time, so I don't hold it against him.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not a semantic argument. It's pointing out that nothing has been "taken away". You still have all your books that talk about liches and their phylacteries. You can talk about liches' phylacteries to your heart's content. In the games that you play in, you can describe liches as being kept "alive" by their phylacteries.

As far as I can tell, your complaint is that a book has been published that describes things in a way that differs from how you would prefer to describe it, and therefore some other people are likely to take up that different description. What is that taking away from you?

What books we own is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they took phylacteries away from 5.5e. What we can add in to 5.5e is entire irrelevant to whether or not they took away phylacteries.

Are they in 5.5e? No. Were then in 5e? Yes. They took them away. It's really that easy.

 

[Maxperson]

It doesn't tell me that they shouted those racist epithets because of orcs. It tells me you went to school with racists. In the 80s blatant racism was more common. I saw it too when I was living in California (and I saw it to a lesser extent in Massachusetts). The vast majority of racist people I met, didn't play D&D and had no clue what an orc was. The people I knew who read Tolkien or played D&D were way, way less likely in my experience to be racist

Huh! In the 80's I also went to school in California and I really didn't see any racism. What I did see was a ton of homophobia and homophobic slurs.

 

[gban007]

People keep saying that creativity is stifled today, but most of the people who say that are comedians who are upset they can't rely on tired cliches about women and minorities for cheap laughs. Which is the problem, isn't it? It's not that you have to walk on eggshells to avoid offending people, it's that the things that people found offensive came off as funny to you. (Editorial, not personal you). Ditzy blonde bimbos with big racks and small brains was funny, not demeaning. Homosexual men with heavy lisps were comedy gold! Who couldn't be amused by a Chinese doctor named Won Hung Lo. Can't you take a joke?!

We laughed because the humor was directed at us. White, male, straight, Christian, Middle class, American. The whole of media was made for us. And if you weren't us, well, don't take it to hard, it's just a joke. Or a little fan service to get the guys on board. I mean, how could you take a badass woman fighting off a hoard of inhuman aliens seriously if you didn't get to see her in her panties first?

And market was correcting for that. Did it overcorrect? Probably at times. Was the backlash that followed itself an overcorrection? Absolutely. When you are privileged, equality seems like oppression. But, as you said, the pendulum seems to swinging back at a higher velocity. Which means less people of color in prominent roles, more tokenism, more women reduced to eye candy roles, LGBT erasure, etc. at the rate we're going, slurs might even be back on the menu.

Or maybe we'll take those self-imposed "restrictions" to heart and find new ways to create art. I'm told D&D is best when not every option is on the table, and that curation is a key to creating interesting ideas. Consider this a curation. Do better. Create something new that's out of your comfort zone. And accept that it's all bigger than anyone's personal preferences.

Might be slow response to this, but whole Hays Code wholesale took certain things out that did limit creativity, it feels more like the current complaints are people wanting to not be creative - why can't we do what we've always done? Why are you making me have to come up with new things/ be creative?