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

[Thirteenspades]

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

I guess 6E should take out all references to horses, in order to respect Eastern cultures and properly represent them, because some (probably imaginary) people out there worship flamingos and we need to accept them. Or, even better, we can make up animals to put into our culturally relevant RPGs...
so no one knows what's real and what's imaginary... so fascists can take control of the world...

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Removing alignments is like removing hit points, enemies, or magic. It's at the core of the gameplay experience.

It really is not. Alignment wasn't in D&D when it was first introduced (hit points, enemies, and magic were), and is not essential to D&D. Also, I don't think the game would change a whole ton if it became an optional rule in the DMG besides Flanking.

 

[Thirteenspades]

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 humanoid races.

It really is not. Alignment wasn't in D&D when it was first introduced (hit points, enemies, and magic were), and is not essential to D&D. Also, I don't think the game would change a whole ton if it became an optional rule in the DMG besides Flanking.

And when D&D was first made, rules were theoretical. Alignment and all. Both clearly defined and abstract.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

It really is not. Alignment wasn't in D&D when it was first introduced (hit points, enemies, and magic were), and is not essential to D&D. Also, I don't think the game would change a whole ton if it became an optional rule in the DMG besides Flanking.

Yes it was:

Men & Magic, page 9.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

When the necromancer starts raising undead and killing the local villages, you'll know they're evil without a marker saying that they're evil. When a Gold Dragon flies down to a city and starts incinerating it just because they felt like showing off their power, you know they're evil. If a human goes to a goblinoid settlement that has done nothing to provoke them, and starts slaughtering all of them, you know they're evil.

Good and bad can exist in D&D without alignment.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

When the necromancer starts raising undead and killing the local villages, you'll know they're evil without a marker saying that they're evil. When a Gold Dragon flies down to a city and starts incinerating it just because they felt like showing off their power, you know they're evil. If a human goes to a goblinoid settlement that has done nothing to provoke them, and starts slaughtering all of them, you know they're evil.

Good and bad can exist in D&D without alignment.

Bigot! Zombies were people too, you know!!!!!!!!!!

Zombie Lives Mattered

 

[Thirteenspades]

When the necromancer starts raising undead and killing the local villages, you'll know they're evil without a marker saying that they're evil. When a Gold Dragon flies down to a city and starts incinerating it just because they felt like showing off their power, you know they're evil. If a human goes to a goblinoid settlement that has done nothing to provoke them, and starts slaughtering all of them, you know they're evil.

Good and bad can exist in D&D without alignment.

Bigot! Zombies were people too, you know!!!!!!!!!!

Trigot! When your players start fighting at the table because one scored a critical hit but the other cheated, how do you know who's evil?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Trigot! When your players start fighting at the table because one scored a critical hit but the other cheated, how do you know who's evil?

Trial by combat.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

When

Dear, Thor! Do I really have to post the same picture on the same page?

Since 1974. No Good and Evil here:

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't want my games sterile and safe. I want blood, guts, grit, and races that are actually evil.

D&D has been too mainstream to be that for almost its entire history. At least as far back as 1e, content has been modified to avoid giving offence:

1) In a recent interview Tim Kask said the choices for Appendix N in the 1e DMG were partly influenced by concerns over what parents might find offensive. This is why the Gor books aren't listed.
2) D&D religion is pagan polytheism to avoid offending Christians.