D&D 5E Do you think we'll see revised core books in 2024? (And why I think we will)

[Maxperson]

Part of what I mean is the implicit setting as laid out in the monster manual, which has all the well-know problems in the way they categorize humanoid groups ("savage," "feral," "bloodlust," etc). But patient zero for this kind of things is the Forgotten-f-ing-realms. There's not shortage of lore across several editions, along with an extensive novel series, and yet it continually defaults to one-dimensional, mono-chromatic fantasy tropes. Even the layout of the world is a lazy recreation of earth. As Gus L writes,

Before there was an Eberron, the Forgotten Realms had non-evil orcs who were not only accepted into human(and non-human) society by the thousands, but given positions of authority and respect. It's not nearly as one dimensional as you make it out to be.

 

[pemerton]

He explained it pretty clearly, that it is both can be true but partially true. Example, did Tolkien use the Mongolian hordes as the basis for the Orc hordes and their allies? Yes. Is it inherently racist? Not necessarily. Racist would be explicit denigration and suppression of Mongols based on their race. In replacing that idea with Orcs, the "archetype" of the Mongolian, Genghis Khan led hordes that ravaged Europe, becomes a fantasy story but not a story about Mongolians, but a story about Orcs

So "Perspective C" is an argument that racist tropes cease to be racist if we file off the serial numbers? If we keep the skin colour, eye shape and scimitars, but call them Orcs rather than Turks or Mongols, then we're no longer drawing on, and re-presenting, tropes of the "Asiatic" hordes threatening Europe?

(I would add: has anyone ever asserted that LotR is a story about Mongolians? I haven't, not in this thread or elsewhere; ultimately I would say it is a story about the Fall, although that's such a big topic that of course other themes get swept up and into it. What I have asserted is that when evil needs to be represented in the form of people, JRRT goes straight to a readily available set of tropes - and not serpents (he'd already done that one)!)

As I already posted, I have fully considered Perspective C well before @Mercurius posted it in this thread. And for the reasons I've already stated, in this post and in this thread, I don't agree with it. Apart from anything else, I think it's an incredibly shallow reading. (I mean, if it was true then - contrary to his evident intentions - JRRT would have completely failed to say anything about the English people in his account of Hobbits and their Shire.)

 

[imagineGod]

Here is a low budget TV series that showcases a slice of young adult fiction about Afro-futurism. It is not Utopia. Changing who is in charge does not by itself change the problems with human power dynamics.

Let us consider Into The Mother Lands RPG that flours itself as Fred from Colonial attitudes. If we give the creators a pass, then it is no different from giving Gary Gygax a pass when viewed from the perspective on the 70s and 80s.

Because Into The Mother Lans will be a fun game to play. It will not be perfect. It will likely gloss over problematic things from African cultures and empires. Several African cultures like Indian cultures has the outcasts and untouchables for various reasons. Historical records show black-on-black slavery. Recent cases of abuse of house help trafficked from African nations into Europe and America are a thing that happens. An African CNN journalist did an expose.

If we are honest, and the world was different, a global African Empire would not have been Utopia. It simply would have been human with the same greed and tragedies.

 

[Charlaquin]

If a film-maker was recreating an (insert non-European ethnicity) myth, would you take issue if they only cast people of that ethnicity?

European is not an ethnicity. Say white if that’s what you mean.

 

[pemerton]

Has anyone here watched a Chinese mythic movie or read mythical works from China translated into English?

Yes.

In the Jet Li and Jackie Chan films that are set in a somewhat mythical, or at least romanticised, 19th or early 20th century China, when they want to depict colonists they just cast white people!

The movies are sometimes show an overt Imperialist attitude. And almost all the cast are Asian. The enemies of the nascent Imperium are usually Asian too or more often monstrous humanoids.

<snip>

A goog vs evil trope is often times presented with the evil usually monstrous.

And? The point being made about Orcs and their cousins is that when JRRT wanted to depict "the monstrous", the most monstrous things he could reach for drew on stereotyped tropes of "Eastern" hordes.

if there is no objective good nor evil, nothing can be wrong.

This is a highly contentious claim in the philosophy of value. Prominent philosophers who disagree with it include Bertrand Russell and Jean Paul Sartre. So it's not exactly a stable platform from which to launch an argument.

 

[pemerton]

Let us consider Into The Mother Lands RPG that flours itself as Fred from Colonial attitudes. If we give the creators a pass, then it is no different from giving Gary Gygax a pass when viewed from the perspective on the 70s and 80s.

Because Into The Mother Lans will be a fun game to play. It will not be perfect. It will likely gloss over problematic things from African cultures and empires. Several African cultures like Indian cultures has the outcasts and untouchables for various reasons. Historical records show black-on-black slavery. Recent cases of abuse of house help trafficked from African nations into Europe and America are a thing that happens. An African CNN journalist did an expose.

If we are honest, and the world was different, a global African Empire would not have been Utopia. It simply would have been human with the same greed and tragedies.

Suppose that some or all of this were true. What would it tell us, at all, about the racial aspects of the Orc et al tropes found in LotR and transmitted from there to D&D?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

1E to 2E style change would be my prediction.

I guarantee though that if the change is anything short of 3E to 4E people will be downplaying it and saying it's just a half edition or whatever lol. If its 1E to 2E level at least one poster here will probably try to claim "the changes are smaller than 3E to 3.5E!". Mystic Meg has spoken!

Though to be honest I'm not sure there's a whole lot of difference between say a 3E to PF type change (frequently called 3.75E) and 1E to 2E so some debate might be fair.

I do think backwards compatibility will be a major goal, particularly with DM-facing materials, as realistically in most groups most of the burden of buying stuff either ends up on or is channelled through the DM and no-one wants to lose all those cool adventures one had bought but not yet run. 1E to 2E was pretty good for this.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't even see a 5.2, I see complete compatibility refresh with additional options and the optional rules from Tasha's implemented with the "standard" approach as examples of how to build a cultural heritage, keeping legacy races intact while giving a new option. I see new subclasses added with no major overhauls to existing subclasses except for tweaks here and there. Maybe another bonus popular race like Goblin, Orc or Firbolg added in. I see an expanded Monster Manual with some unpublished classic monsters added but with TOF and Volo's Guide remaining in print. Maybe monsters from adventures. I see expansions to the DMG being new magic items, chase rules, seafaring rules, & vehicle rules brought in. Mostly an art refresh with fancy covers. a 5.0125.

You've literally described a change far larger than 3E to 3.5E and are calling it less than 5.2E lol. Amazing.

 

[imagineGod]

Yes.

In the Jet Li and Jackie Chan films that are set in a somewhat mythical, or at least romanticised, 19th or early 20th century China, when they want to depict colonists they just cast white people!


And? The point being made about Orcs and their cousins is that when JRRT wanted to depict "the monstrous", the most monstrous things he could reach for drew on stereotyped tropes of "Eastern" hordes.


This is a highly contentious claim in the philosophy of value. Prominent philosophers who disagree with it include Bertrand Russell and Jean Paul Sartre. So it's not exactly a stable platform from which to launch an argument.

Again you make the assumption, wrongly, because you do not know my lived experience or educational background. I have written a Master's thesis with Harvard referencing so understand the academic peer review process and research methods, including statistical analysis.

Hence quoting to correct sets up failure.

Good and evil are shorthand for frames of reference used across human traditions and cultures. You could consider it the most rudimentary set theory. Basically, evolutionary survival encoded into symbology.

We may ask why are diseases considered bad when they are useful natural parts of the ecosystem that serve a purpose?

From the human perspective, due to the negative effect of disease on human populations, disease is considered bad and this is seen globally across cultures and populations. Ancient gods linked to pestilence and plague are considered evil.

One of the challenges of the modern interconnected world is the loss of a common frame of reference, hence so many arguments online.

For example, if there is objective bad-wrong-fun, then all wil agree. Yet, all do not, so when one group tries to state it unequivocally, you get resistance.

We can look into some mythic traditions of the dead. In African culture, a connection to ancestors makes the spirits of the dead more like guardian angels of Western myths. Yet in Western based RPGs, ghosts are not do considered. However, fear of The Other is also common in African tribal folklore, for valid reason. The unknown stranger could be a plague bearer. Our current pandemic showcased how bringing the unknown home brought disease home.

Obviously, with modern science, we can re-evaluate ancient customs for the better. But this too is subjective. The early shelter at home orders for the pandemic were good for society but bad for individual households with infected members. This brings unto play that Ursula Le Guinn trope from The Left Hand of Darkness about socially approved sacrifice. Then you may ask why two tropes were linked negatively. Left hand and darkness Modern science tells us both left and right hands are equal. Ancient tropes are not perfect, the fear of darkness comes from ancient times when light was scarce at night and humans lacked night vision. Moving at night was risky, many predators hunted at night. It then became shorthand for evil.

 

[pemerton]

Again you make the assumption, wrongly, because you do not know my lived experience or educational background. I have written a Master's thesis with Harvard referencing so understand the academic peer review process and research methods, including statistical analysis.

I didn't make an assumption. I made an assertion, in response to yours.

Good and evil are shorthand for frames of reference used across human traditions and cultures.

This claim is extremely contentious. I've met many moral philosophers and don't think I've ever met one who adopted this view. Again, therefore, I don't think this is a very stable platform from which to launch an argument.

Ancient tropes are not perfect, the fear of darkness comes from ancient times when light was scarce at night and humans lacked night vision. Moving at night was risky, many predators hunted at night. It then became shorthand for evil.

And what does this tell us about the continued place of Orcs in D&D and similar FRPGing?