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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So I think you can write the entry for a given monster in a way that clarifies that you are speaking to the orcs that are likely to be adversarial to the PCs while hinting that not all orcs are like Monster Manual orcs. Basically strip out the essentialism. Then you absolutely can give them a listed alignment.

When you do the write up for PC orcs you can talk in more depth about orc culture and the diverse ways it expresses itself.

They'd also have to give stat blocks for most other races as opponent creatures. Setting books could also add specific monster stats based on world-specific lore (Gnoll Fang of Yeenoghu, Drow Matron Mother, etc).

 

[SehanineMoonbow]

Thank you!

None of those were on the list - but a lot of it is the old 1e list.

AppendixE

Visit the post for more.

ironbombs.wordpress.com

I'm usually slow to try new authors, but I'll make a point to try a few of these. Lately my new-to-me fantasy authors were either in short story collections or to pick one every few years from the old 1e list. I need some more fantasy variety. (That, and I'm finishing the two detective/noir/crime series I've been on for a while).

I'm always reading lol. Some of the ones I listed are YA, but they're good, imho.

 

[Hussar]

In short, it is beginning to feel like good faith attempts aren't good enough and some topics should best be avoided so as to not invite controversy.

But, that's not really true though. Good faith attempts are most certainly good enough. No one is saying that Gygax and Cook are raging bigots for writing OA. Just that, thirty some years later, what was a good faith attempt then isn't really good enough now. Viewpoints change as more information comes to the fore and society's view of these changes also change.

IOW, there are all sorts of very good faith arguments about, say, the changes in orcs to make them more inclusive. Most of the people really are discussing in good faith.

But, you have to ask yourself, (and by yourself, I mean everyone, not just you), is the point I'm bringing up ACTUALLY an issue or is it something hypothetical? If no one is actually arguing that orcs should not be evil, then maybe, bringing up orc alignment isn't really the issue at hand. Actually drilling down to the real issue at hand is where the boundaries are.

Actually, to be fair, there are no "boundaries". Trying to define "boundaries" as in, "This is okay and that is not okay" is a rabbit hole in and of itself. Stop trying to make a general statement and focus on the real issues and you'll find that conversation is so much more productive. Identify what the real problem is with something, and then address THAT problem. Stop trying to make rules for everything. It won't work. Every element is different and there is considerable nuance.

Take the the Appendix E argument - should the authors in Appendix E be there or not? Now, @Cadence mentioned Lieber. I'm not aware of any issue regarding Leiber's writing. He doesn't come up at all and, in fact, I would generally hold up Leiber as being probably one of the best examples of a writer from the Golden Age that we can hold up as inspirational. Leiber's writing and his personal life, AFAIK (and please correct me if I'm wrong) haven't been an issue before, so, I have no idea why he would be a problem now.

OTOH, Lovecraft most certainly IS problematic. His fiction and his personal life are rife with bigotry and intollerance. When he talks about the fish eyed abominations in Shadows of Innsmouth, he is SPECIFICALLY talking about my children. So, yeah, I'd say I have a fairly large problem with his inclusion in Appendix E. I would much rather see him removed. Now, why Lovecraft and not,say, Howard? Well, sure, Howard and Burroughs aren't exactly the epitome of cultural sensitivity, but, let's be honest, they are both more simply reflective of their times. Howard and Burroughs don't really go out of their way to attack various minorities in the way that Lovecraft does.

So, for me, I'd remove Lovecraft from Appendix E, but, Howard and Burroughs can stay. Maybe add a sidebar noting the issues with them, but, that's not a major problem. Outright racist writing, or, like the descriptions in orcs, writing that mirrors outright racists, should probably not be enshrined in the game or placed in a position of honor with "Inspirational Reading."

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, but I tend to look at site names and such, and a place called OneHotCupofJoe doesn't really give me a lot of confidence in their scientific ability.

it was a lengthy but good article.

 

[Cadence]

I'm always reading lol. Some of the ones I listed are YA, but they're good, imho.

My problem with reading is when I start I have to finish... which isn't bad if it's just one book. But if there is a new series I find I like it really cuts into getting work done and getting to bed on time for a while. (I guess one good side effect of this spring being goofy is I didn't get in trouble for finally trying e-books through the library and finishing the couple dozen John Sanford Minnesota books the library had that I hadn't finished.).

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Since Oriental Adventures was mentioned, I'd like to take a moment to let people know the recently released video game Ghosts of Tsushima has been very well received by even Japanese critics despite it being a game about Japan made by Westerners.

 

[Umbran]

Calling a common scientific consensus...

Mod Note:

Starting with an appeal to science does not save you from issues on making this personal, bringing in real world religion, and so on. You've earned yourself a trip out of the thread.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

And-- you know-- on a certain level I get the suspicion on behalf of the tribes. After all-- U.S. schools aren't really in the habit of telling children that Native Americans had their own dog breeds or reasonably large cities and vast trade networks, or that Native Americans excelled at agriculture and were responsible for breeding many of the grains and vegetables that have become staple foods for people around the world. But-- thing is-- the scientific community never opposed any of those ideas, it was the politics of those who got to decide what got taught in school that decided to bury those things and only those who really focused on studying those particular fields that knew about it. But these are things that actually happened. Enough study has been done to uncover and demonstrate all of that. And yet.... what has never been found? Pre-1500s horse breeding and riding.

Um...then why was I taught that in an American school 20 years ago?

 

[Umbran]

science can’t really support the non-existence of something from hundreds of years ago. most science could say was that we have no evidence of horses in NOrth America before Europeans arrived.

Science could add that we do have evidence of loads of other fauna in North America from that period, and that the utter lack of evidence of horses in the same record would need to be explained.

 

[Umbran]

Um...then why was I taught that in an American school 20 years ago?

Because one person getting that information is not evidence of an overall habit in the school systems nationwide.