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

[abirdcall]

These changes to the way creature types are used has broadened the creative space.

The only humanoids in the MM are the NPC groups - mage, pirate, tough, etc.

This means that when there are orcs in an adventure the writer needs to specify what their professions/roles are instead of just 'orc'. Now we get orc pirates. That's great.

Additionally, many of the creatures have gotten more flavourful with more developed themes.

The 2 lizardfolk in the book are elementals because they have been influenced by elemental earth. Their entry starts by saying most are humanoid but then gives us 2 more flavourful stat blocks than we got before.

 

[Maxperson]

5.5e D&D never had the word phylactery in it. So that word was not taken away from it.

There's this game. It's called Dungeons and Dragons. It had the word in it in 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e and 5e. Now it's gone in 5.5e. Dungeons and Dragons took the word away from the game.

Why are you fighting so hard to make A=B when A is simply A? Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that they removed the word, taking it away from the game?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I have no problem with AI art. My wife is a graphic artist and she has no problem with it - and she’s much better informed than I am. I defer to her.

 

[Dire Bare]

Good, at least we agree on that. My opinion is that AI art, until it can be ethnically sourced, has no place other then proof of concept and amateur hobbiests. It's high concept Lorem ipsum. Once we can figure out a way for AI to properly site (and compensate) it's sources, then we can see about using it for anything else.

Agree.

AI generated art can have a place in an artists process . . . if ethically sourced, which none of the currently available tools are.

But even with "ethically sourced" AI generative tools, there is something souless and cheap about using art generated by a computer, even if the "artist" feels that their "fine-tuned" prompting is in itself artistic.

I have no issues with hobbyists using AI-generated art for their own personal projects to share with their friends and even the hobbyist community. But if you are publishing your work for sale . . . it is unethical to take the cheap and easy way out and use AI-art instead of paying human artists. IMO. Even if the publisher/writer has limited resources. I refuse to support media projects that use AI-generated art, whether it be visual art, music, or text. And even if/when we get ethically sourced tools, that won't change for me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There's this game. It's called Dungeons and Dragons. It had the word in it in 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e and 5e. Now it's gone in 5.5e. Dungeons and Dragons took the word away from the game.

Why are you fight so hard to make A=B when A is simply A? Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that they removed the word, taking it away from the game?

Besides, while I don't agree with their argument, their point seems to be it should be removed from the game because it is a problem.

Just to use another example that is less emotionally charged now, for 2E they took out the monk, the assassin and the half-orc. I think the monk was removed to make the game lean more European, but I am pretty sure the Assassin and Half-Orc were removed because the game was under scrutiny after the Satanic Panic. They also took our demon names and replaced them with new names (I think terms like changed, swapped out, took out are pretty interchangeable in this case: because it is a change where that name is no longer in the current version of the game). I don't think it is inaccurate or controversial to say these things were removed. However, importantly, it has almost nothing to do with the discussion at hand, because this is a semantic argument over how to describe the changes. At the end of the day the important point is the phylactery is not in the game anymore as a term, and for many of us, that diminishes the flavor, takes away something that was an important part of lich lore and replaces it with a word that sounds way more boring. People don't have to agree with that at all. Some people might like the removal and the change. But quibbling over this feels like debating the meaning of the definite article

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just like if we could only see, we would see the chilling effect on creativity?

For someone who keeps complaining about being painted with a broad brush, you've certainly managed to frame the conversation in interesting ways. People are "academic", not just every day people. Despite zero actual evidence, there is a chilling effect among creatives. Now we're delving into Satanic Panic territory with vague claims of religiosity. Oh, we're too fixated on historical accuracy, but, also not aware enough of history. This problem is only in the past ten years or so, but, has also existed for decades.

This is just hillarious.

I don't think this is your intention, and I have said many times, I think the people making this argument have good intentions, think they are making the world better, and believe in what they are doing. When the Satanic Panic happened my D&D books were taken away. I didn't blame my parents. They were trying to protect me from something they thought was a harmful influence. They were still good people. So I can juggle the idea that the development of this mindset is a bad idea, that is stifling creativity, while also understanding that just because someone believes in an idea I think is bad, it doesn't make them bad. Good people can believe in bad ideas (our understanding of things is so far from perfect, most people believe in faulty ideas in some part of their life, including myself I am sure).

 

[Maxperson]

Now I imagine you are imagining my children as white, and that this is part of their moral education. But it's not my duty to remind you that not everyone in the world is white. I just didn't want my children to be exposed to material that might encourage self-hatred or self-alienation, or just make them feel a little bit worse than they need to.

Why would I imagine you or your children as any ethnicity when you haven't said anything about it that I have seen? Even with this implication that you are not white, I still wouldn't imagine you as any particular ethnicity, because you didn't give us one. And I wouldn't imagine your children at all because I don't interact with them.

Recently I spent a lot of time with someone whose grandparents were tortured by colonial authorities. I don't think this person plays RPGs or video games inspired by them. I don't know if they have even encountered the dungeon motif. I think, though, that they would not be likely to warm to a game that frames "savages" (ie people who live in small villages of relatively simple structures, much like their grandparents did) as violent hordes ripe to be killed to eliminate the threat that they post to "civilised" peoples. That was exactly the language and framing that was used to "justify" the torture of their grandparents.

These sorts of facts don't necessarily give any individual a reason not to play dungeon-crawl D&D. But they might give WotC a reason to think about what it is publishing.

I believe that at least one Jewish RPGer was affronted by the fact that one of the few references to a Jewish cultural artefact in the game is in the context of a lich's soul object - I posted the link to D&D Beyond upthread. Why would WotC not want to make that RPGer feel more comfortable in engaging with their books?

Then WotC is wildly inconsistent, because there are people who have been badly victimized by violence, robbery, murder in the family, etc. and who would also not be likely to warm to a game that has those things in it, yet WotC has yet to remove violence and robbery from the game, or even acknowledge those things as issues that need to be addressed in their game.

Why would WotC not want to make those RPGers feel more comfortable in engaging with their books?

 

[Maxperson]

Besides, while I don't agree with their argument, their point seems to be it should be removed from the game because it is a problem.

Just to use another example that is less emotionally charged now, for 2E they took out the monk, the assassin and the half-orc. I think the monk was removed to make the game lean more European, but I am pretty sure the Assassin and Half-Orc were removed because the game was under scrutiny after the Satanic Panic. They also took our demon names and replaced them with new names (I think terms like changed, swapped out, took out are pretty interchangeable in this case: because it is a change where that name is no longer in the current version of the game). I don't think it is inaccurate or controversial to say these things were removed. However, importantly, it has almost nothing to do with the discussion at hand, because this is a semantic argument over how to describe the changes. At the end of the day the important point is the phylactery is not in the game anymore as a term, and for many of us, that diminishes the flavor, takes away something that was an important part of lich lore and replaces it with a word that sounds way more boring. People don't have to agree with that at all. Some people might like the removal and the change. But quibbling over this feels like debating the meaning of the definite article

I don't agree, because his statements would be something to the effect of, "The word was taken away because it was problematic," not "Hence why I deny that anything is being taken away." which is a direct quote of his. He denies that it is gone from the game.

 

[Maxperson]

I can see how political correctness has robbed us of the next Orcs of Thar. Truly the game is poorer for it.

And I can see how we went 37 years without another Orcs of Thar, and yet still had orcs in the game. It's almost as if your statement there just is designed to be inflammatory and nothing more.

 

[Gradine]

What other chestnuts can we tackle in this thread, while we're at it? Death of the author? Transgender elves? Pronouns?