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

[FrogReaver]

It's one of the best known classic Chinese mythology stories, and more of a tragedy than a tale about good vs evil.

If you modify the lore to make Yuan-ti not always evil, you get around the main issue. But even in this thread I haven't seen anyone argue that we need to keep the evil races always evil (outside maybe fiends).

probably because this is a +thread and arguing against the premise is not allowed for +threads

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's interesting since horses went extinct in North America 10 to 15 thousand years ago, and were only reintroduced as an invasive species when Europe arrived on the scene.

Did they add horses to their religion after that, or did horses stay in their stories for 10 to 15 thousand years until their return?

That actually has been disproven, with the discovery of fossils in IIRC 2017 of horses from much later than that, as well as sightings of Natives with horse in the Carolinas in numbers before horses could possibly have gotten to there from escaped or lost Spanish horses, which would have had required the horses to escape or be lost, travel from what is now Mexico City, and repopulate, in 2 years or less.

In other words, the entire narrative that Europeans reintroduced natives to horses has always been bunk “science” based on Western biases.

Edit: a quick google helped me find a good article with links to sources. I’ll do the work for you this time, because I enjoy reading about it anyway.

Yes world, there were horses in Native culture before the settlers came

Yvette Running Horse Collin’s recent dissertation may have rewritten every natural history book on the shelf. A Lakota/Nakota/Cheyenne scholar, Collin worked

indiancountrytoday.com

 

[Thirteenspades]

I don't think I've ever seen someone reply to their own reply to their own reply before. That doesn't technically break any rules, so it isn't necessarily non-lawful indicating, but it sure feels more chaotic. Maybe I like obvious alignment indicators more than I thought I did.

I'll take the middle ground and say Neutral Good.

 

[Thirteenspades]

That's the fun of being DM.

But when you take out alignment, that also removes the built-in capacity for storytelling. How can a bugbear be Lawful Good if it chaotically, evily enjoys roasting the heads of its enemies? Ahh, more time spent trying to make up a history for Bob the nice-guy Bugbear.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Another thing, it's not okay to stat Jesus because that allows characters in a fictional universe to kill something a lot of people believe in real life.

He would be fine in three days though.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

But when you take out alignment, that also removes the built-in capacity for storytelling. How can a bugbear be Lawful Good if it chaotically, evily enjoys roasting the heads of its enemies? Ahh, more time spent trying to make up a history for Bob the nice-guy Bugbear.

What does it matter that's he's Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil? Both descriptions are boring. The important part is that he enjoys roasting heads! Saying that the bugbear is LG or CE adds absolutely nothing of interest.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Another thing, it's not okay to stat Jesus because that allows characters in a fictional universe to kill something a lot of people believe in real life. Also, one reason so many people these days are offended by random things is because they have this over-inclusive ideaology. Satan could be statted (I believe he has) because the only people who worship HIM are psychos. If people fight the flow, they'll eventually change this notion that D&D can't have anything to do with the real world.

I mean...I beleive in Odin IRL but I’m fine with him having interpretations in games and other fiction. Hell, sometimes he is nonsensically the bad guy.

But others care deeply about such things, and that should be respected.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Did renaming demons and devils in 2e get more evangelicals to play D&D? Bowldlerizing D&D isn't going to make a game that includes more people. It's going to make a game that more people find boring and uninspired. It's like trying make a cheeseburger everybody on earth likes equally.

Might as well take out the words "Dungeon" and "Dragon" for being too Eurocentric. Pretty much all the classes are "problematic" if not being equally drawn from/applicable to every culture is a problem. The weapon & armor system is built around European weapons. And no, "reskinning" doesn't work---there is no Zulu equivalent of plate armor, no Arab equivalent of the heavy crossbow, and certainly no Aztec equivalent of the mounted knight. The whole conceit of the game is drawn from the fantasy novel, a largely Anglophone innovation, and attempts to retrofit all cultures' forms of storytelling into the framework are going to be about as successful as trying to make sushi out of a Big Mac.

I get it, this is now a mass-market product that serves as a tentpole for a billion-dollar corporation, got to sand off all the edges and sanitize it, can't hit those growth targets if it's not selling in India or Brazil.

Eh, nobody cares what I think.

Well, I'm going to disagree a little bit.

See, for me there is a powerful difference in a person calling out "May Tymora smile on me" compared to "May The Changebringer smile on me." The titling of powerful forces makes them feel more powerful and less personal to me. The same thing with someone like Bane. I find there is a big difference between saying "They are cultists of Bane." compared to "They are cultists of the Strife Emperor, Lord of Chains."

Also. Tangent. Crossbow potentially developed in China, and the Arab countries did have it. A lot of them just thought it wasn't a warriors weapon according to a six second google search.

It might not be completely core for the mechanics but how will you know if something is actually evil? Not with the basic single paragraph lore 5e gives a heap of the time, anyway.

Really?

"Mind flayers, also called illithids, are the scourge of sentient creatures across countless worlds. Psionic tyrants, slavers, and interdimensional voyagers, they are insidious masterminds that harvest entire races for their own twisted ends. Four tentacles snake from their octopus-like heads, flexing in hungry anticipation when sentient creatures come near."

You couldn't tell these guys were evil unless you stuck a label on them specifically calling it out? I mean, scourge, tyrant, slaver, insidious mastermind, harvesting races for twisted ends.... I'm not exactly thinking they are going to be the good guys.
I don't need a two word label to spell it out for me.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I mean...I beleive in Odin IRL but I’m fine with him having interpretations in games and other fiction. Hell, sometimes he is nonsensically the bad guy.

But others care deeply about such things, and that should be respected.

I've played a (video) game where Thor was the ambassador of the US to Japan and ended up nuking Japan for reasons I don't really remember.

I think because YHVH told him to do it to stop people from summoning demons?
Shin Megami Tensei gets can get weird, but they are also great.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

5e has towed the line with generic, nonsensical style. At the cost of sense it simplifies to "appeal to a wider audience" and a lot of the art has sterile, safe style and blank, expressionless faces. I don't want my games sterile and safe. I want blood, guts, grit, and races that are actually evil. They're orcs, it better not offend anyone.

And absolutely no one is going to come to your table and force you to have good orcs. I'm not going to do it. I understand why you, and others, like easily defined bad guys. The thing is, the game is already readily inclusive for your preferred playstyle, but not mine and others who don't want black and white (in terms of good and bad. Editing just to clarify) humanoid races.