D&D (2024) (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)

[Wishbone]

Yeah, I also prefer the PF's outsiders to the D&D ones. The CN Prometheans are so much cooler than the Slaadi!

Renbuu at least seems like a cool guy.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Denazification was a thing that happened to prevent that very sort of thing from happening again, which I guess isn't against your point but feels important to add in to the conversation.

But do taking steps to prevent something from happening again mean that germans are naturally predisposed to be genocidal maniacs? Especially since going by events going on around the same time that problem seems to be more of a "human being" thing rather than a "german" thing?

 

[Wishbone]

But do taking steps to prevent something from happening again mean that germans are naturally predisposed to be genocidal maniacs? Especially since going by events going on around the same time that problem seems to be more of a "human being" thing rather than a "german" thing?

No, of course they're not.

As I understand it the argument was conditions were ripe for the rise of a despot who took advantage of the situation and promoted fear in the people to achieve horrendous things against specific subsets of the population. The Holocaust was specifically a genocide carried out by members of the legitimate German government empowered by the people who elected them, and in the aftermath they determined to productively teach the citizens of the state to recognize the signs building to the specific sort of genocide their government had carried out. That other genocides happened doesn't abdicate the society who perpetrated the genocide from some kind of public reckoning with being complicit in the actions carried out.

 

[Wishbone]

So asian people using swastikas are racist until proven otherwise?

Missed this first part—as a Jewish person my gut reaction would certainly be to feel threatened by someone displaying a swastika. I'd accept it depending on the exact nature of representation and religious or cultural significance but a lot depends on the context and on how tone deaf the conversation is to my concerns. Also, if I'd be comfortable enough to even figure out the intent behind wearing a swastika is really going to depend on them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I have a hard time following the outrage train on this one.

We are discussing the place of aberrations in D&D because someone MIGHT connect aberrations to the Mythos and because the creator of the Mythos was racist, they might get offended by that.

Yet giving stats (including an alignment) to some real religious figure in neopaganism is ok, because comic book movie.

If there is one constant I find among all these threads, it's that I can never predict what things will incite torches and pitchforks and what will be greeted with a collective shrug.

I think it is simpler than that.

Personally, I don't connect most of the Aberrations to Lovecraft at all. And I think out of all of them in the books... only Cthulu is a direct reference to his work.

So, removing Lovecraft from DnD is pretty much just not using Cthulu. But Cosmic Horror is a genre with legs, and someone came up with the idea of moving them into the NE spot that is normally.... filled? with the very uninspiring Yugololths and we are running with it a bit because it is a great idea. And connecting Yugololths to abberrations to bio-weaponry and such is a great spot for them with lots of space to explore interesting themes and ideas.

Look, as someone who has argued pretty strongly for pulling Lovecraft's name out of the game, I have to say, I am also in the boat thinking that this is going too far.

Number one, beholders, as a specific example, aren't inspired by anything Lovecraftian, despite being aberrations. You can read the entirety of Lovecraft from front to back and not see a single reference to a beholder or anything resembling beholders. So, why would the Far Realms, where beholders are supposed to come from, (a "beyond known reality - a trope that Lovecraft certainly didn't invent) be problematic? Mind Flayers are Lovecraftian in the sense of being tentacle horrors, but, again, Lovecraft hardly has a monopoly on that.

Cthulhu is mentioned (AFAIR) a single time in the PHB under GOO warlocks. Pull that reference out and everything is fine.

The key here is SMALL changes. We don't need to completely rewrite things because, well, that's not answering specific issues. "Inspired by Lovecraft" is an unprovable position. Mind Flayers are just as much Japanese Hentai anime as they are Lovecraft. Sure, they are inspired by mythos stories (Brian Lumley was the inspiring author - google) but, again, Mythos stories aren't really the issue. I want to keep those - or at least those stories that aren't grounded in racism. I would just rather that direct references to Lovecraft were removed.

125% agree

So asian people using swastikas are racist until proven otherwise?

I hate to tell you, but there are many Hindus who have gotten in severe trouble for using the sauwastika which has been one of their holy symbols for centuries, because the Nazi's took it, literally twisted it (the sauwastika sits on an edge, the swastika on a point) and it become globally known.

And without some pretty extensive educating, there is really no way to "reclaim it" in the public conscious.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Missed this first part—as a Jewish person my gut reaction would certainly be to feel threatened by someone displaying a swastika. I'd accept it depending on the exact nature of representation and religious or cultural significance but a lot depends on the context and on how tone deaf the conversation is to my concerns. Also, if I'd be comfortable enough to even figure out the intent behind wearing a swastika is really going to depend on them.

By doing that, aren't you taking away from them more so than the nazis?

The swastika, as a symbol, has been around for literally thousands of years and is a major bit of iconography, particularly for eastern religions like Buddhism. By automatically assuming that someone with a swastika is a white supremacist, you are taking it away from people who have been using it for far long, and for far better reasons than then nazis.

And honestly, there is a fairly easy way to tell if someone with a swastika is a white supremacist. It's right there in the name, unless they are aggressively stupid.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I hate to tell you, but there are many Hindus who have gotten in severe trouble for using the sauwastika which has been one of their holy symbols for centuries, because the Nazi's took it, literally twisted it (the sauwastika sits on an edge, the swastika on a point) and it become globally known.

And without some pretty extensive educating, there is really no way to "reclaim it" in the public conscious.

I know that, and honestly, just letting nazis have it means that you're letting the nazis win.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I know that, and honestly, just letting nazis have it means that you're letting the nazis win.

But this isn't something that you can just decide.

If I walked into a school with a bandanna with a sauwastika on it, they aren't going to accept me saying that it is a hindu symbol that I'm wearing, they are going to say it is nazi propaganda, and I'd probably lose my position as a substitute teacher.

Is it sad? Yes, but it is reality. Because most Americans aren't highly educated on Hinduism or Buddhism and they will assume I'm lying and trying to cover up my Neo-Nazi beliefs before they will that this is a different symbol.

 

[Wishbone]

By doing that, aren't you taking away from them more so than the nazis?

The swastika, as a symbol, has been around for literally thousands of years and is a major bit of iconography, particularly for eastern religions like Buddhism. By automatically assuming that someone with a swastika is a white supremacist, you are taking it away from people who have been using it for far long, and for far better reasons than then nazis.

And honestly, there is a fairly easy way to tell if someone with a swastika is a white supremacist. It's right there in the name, unless they are aggressively stupid.

Firstly, I wanted to point out that this isn't a simple abstract conversation for me and it is far more affecting for me than it might be for anyone who doesn't have a relationship with the symbol of the Nazi party specifically targeting people who shared their religious identity and cultural background. Just to be clear on that.

We should never discount the power of aggressive stupidity when considering why someone may hate another person.

I'm not automatically assuming the person is a white supremacist. I'm recognizing the display of a symbol that has been coopted by a prominent white supremacist group and making a determination based on context about my own safety and proximity to someone who may wish to do me or my family harm.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Firstly, I wanted to point out that this isn't a simple abstract conversation for me and it is far more affecting for me than it might be for anyone who doesn't have a relationship with the symbol of the Nazi party specifically targeting people who shared their religious identity and cultural background. Just to be clear on that.

We should never discount the power of aggressive stupidity when considering why someone may hate another person.

I'm not automatically assuming the person is a white supremacist. I'm recognizing the display of a symbol that has been coopted by a prominent white supremacist group and making a determination based on context about my own safety and proximity to someone who may wish to do me or my family harm.

Honestly?
Fair.

you hit me in my "humans are natural idiots" spot.