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

[Hussar]

Bingo (but probably not for the reasons people such as yourself think of as reasons)!

So, you think that we should only have images of white people in the game? That we should not include images of anyone else?

Or, do you think that in an RPG, where we make fantasy characters to play our game with, things like having art which reflects ALL players and not just one subset, might be a good idea?

Again, considering this is getting tied to real world religions, in a "gotcha" that was visible a mile away, I really don't think you want to go there.

See, again, things like the orc issue isn't because we are complaining that orcs are representative of real world minorities. That's the lie that people keep fabricating and pushing in order to confuse the issue. The orc issue is because the language used to describe orcs is virtually the same as the language that was used to dehumanize various minorities and many points in time, around the world. I dunno about you, but, I don't want my D&D books sounding like Klan textbooks. Call me silly. Maybe other people are comfortable with the language, I don't know. But, you now know, without any equivocation, why the language should be changed.

So, do you still think that we shouldn't change the language in the books? Do you believe that retaining this language somehow makes the game more welcoming to minorities? Do you think that the game is improved by having direct links to the language of bigotry and eugenics?

See, it's actually pretty easy to gain consensus.

 

[Hussar]

I agree that it has nothing to do with inclusivity but the the people who are arguing for it disagree. You cannot just ignore people you disagree with (especially as there is significant amount of them) and devlare that consensus has been reached.

I have seen very few people saying that no changes should or could be made. People are simply disagreeing about the amount of changes that are needed.

Again, you would be mistaken. When the subject at hand is inclusivity, anything that "has nothing to do with inclusivity" can be ignored. Heck, not only should it be ignored, it should be called out for derailing the discussion from what is the actual issue at hand - inclusivity. And, when you cut out the folks who aren't actually discussing the issue at hand - inclusion - then yes, you can quite easily declare consensus because, frankly, those of us who have stayed on task and not dived down rabbit holes of hyperbole and hypotheticals, have quite nicely managed to resolve the problems.

There's a reason you don't see a lot of people saying that no changes should be made. Those folks have already earned holidays from the boards. En World has made a stand, and it's one that I whole heartedly support - gaming should be as inclusive as absolutely possible. Folks that insist that we're just "making ourselves feel good" be damned.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

See, again, things like the orc issue isn't because we are complaining that orcs are representative of real world minorities. That's the lie that people keep fabricating and pushing in order to confuse the issue. The orc issue is because the language used to describe orcs is virtually the same as the language that was used to dehumanize various minorities and many points in time, around the world. I dunno about you, but, I don't want my D&D books sounding like Klan textbooks. Call me silly. Maybe other people are comfortable with the language, I don't know. But, you now know, without any equivocation, why the language should be changed.

Even if one doesn't find issue with the flavor text, a seed (can't use race) of purely evil savages is incredibly boring from a story perspective. Calling all orcs evil by nature is lazy and trite. While I don't find current the flavor of orcs "problematic" in the slightest (orcs are not real; insisting we categorizing humans into groups is an unsettling proposition), I find many of the suggested replacements more compelling than the original and an overall improvement.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

So, you think that we should only have images of white people in the game?

Not one poster has even suggested such; why would you propose such a loaded question?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, you would be mistaken. When the subject at hand is inclusivity, anything that "has nothing to do with inclusivity" can be ignored. Heck, not only should it be ignored, it should be called out for derailing the discussion from what is the actual issue at hand - inclusivity. And, when you cut out the folks who aren't actually discussing the issue at hand - inclusion - then yes, you can quite easily declare consensus because, frankly, those of us who have stayed on task and not dived down rabbit holes of hyperbole and hypotheticals, have quite nicely managed to resolve the problems.

There's a reason you don't see a lot of people saying that no changes should be made. Those folks have already earned holidays from the boards. En World has made a stand, and it's one that I whole heartedly support - gaming should be as inclusive as absolutely possible. Folks that insist that we're just "making ourselves feel good" be damned.

You and I both think that ability bonuses are not about inclusivity. But neither of us is the ultimate judge of that. I wouldn't be so confident to declare my preferred outcome to be the perfect and rational consensus approach while anything more is hyperbole and hypotheticals and anything less is out of touch conservative grognardism. I would love if the situation was as simple as you describe, but it really doesn't appear to be like that to me.

(I notice that a moderator had an issue with my earlier post. I am not exactly sure why, but if it came across as hostile or insulting I apologise. That certainly was not my intention.)

 

[Sadras]

As someone who uses Christianity as the major religion in his games, I'm convinced world religious symbology has no place whatsoever in the core rules. Using Christianity in my world makes many players incredibly uncomfortable. They generally feel unsettled, nervous, and on edge when interacting with members of the clergy (which is exactly what I want).

My intention for my next campaign after we finish the current one (early next year hopefully), will be to run a Translyvannia/Dracula game using A Guide to Transylvania pulling ideas from:

• 5e's Curse of Strahd;
• I6 Ravenloft;
• Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill;
• 3.5e's Expedition to Castle Ravenloft; and

perhaps even something from VtM line.

I will very much be using Christianity, Judaism and Islam in those games - converting the class of the cleric to a Priest, Rabbi or Imam respectively. There will be a number of other changes as well ofcourse. Definitely be using a Faith and Sanity score.

 

[Azzy]

This one always strikes me as a bit odd. I agree in many ways but have one point to bring up. There's a desire by many to have people like them represented in the game products and art. I'm not sure why real world religious people get excluded from that same kind of representation.

I think that it's because many people become rather tetchy when it comes to religion (especially their own). Even within a single religion, it can be quite sectarian and what is a respectful to one person can be extremely offensive to another. So, I don't think that representing real-world religions is the best idea. Rather, I think the cleric class and the DMG should express how different types of religion can look and work within the game and the game's fiction, and provide some examples of different types of religions from monotheism to animism and everything in between.

 

[Azzy]

the only question was about whether that was actually about inclusivity or player advocacy for their characters.

Both.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

I think that it's because many people become rather tetchy when it comes to religion (especially their own)

Maybe due to them being referred to as "tetchy", especially if it's "their" own.

 

[Azzy]

Maybe due to them being referred to as "tetchy", especially if it's "their" own.

But since no one reffered to them as tetchy, that shouldn't be the case.