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

[Chaosmancer]

I mean, there's also that one table in the DMG about modifying NPC's to be certain races, and all of those have pluses to their stats (in addition to the normal racial features) so I don't think, in this case, the PC's being special is why they get those pluses.

Sure, but that is an optional DMG rule, compared to the stats which are front and center in the PHB. For player use.

It really comes back to, how often do you actually bother to stat out an NPC? Do you bother to do the math to know how strong the butcher has to be to be able to lift that pig carcass he is putting into the cart? Or do you just assume that he is capable of doing it? Or how strong the hunter has to be to bring the stag they shot back to the settlement, along with how dexterous because they needed to kill it with a single shot with a longbow, and that isn't actually easy to do?


So, with the idea that we generally don't bother with NPCs stats, we can look towards only PCs. And when we do we can quite quickly realize that there is little to no reason to prevent people from building characters which are equally effective, despite being different (race/species/kith/ect)

 

[FrogReaver]

If you truly believe this, then I would strongly advise that in the future that you refrain from making drive-by “unsupported assertions” of your own regarding bigotry and then retreating behind mod comments when people actually challenge your assertions.

If you have the Privilege to assert something here then I believe I have the privilege to disagree, providing that what I say isn’t in support of racism or breaking some other rule.

So while We can disagree about whether something is X, the rules of the forum often prevent us from elaborating about why.

so if you would like my assertions to stop I believe there are two outlets

1. Report my post and let the mod decide if it’s against the rules.
2. Stop asserting things that you know I will both disagree with and be incapable of defending due to forum rules.

Trust me. I don’t hide behind mod comments. I would love nothing more than to freely state my opinion, but I respect the mod comments and will not disregard them

I’ve even offered to take our disagreements to pm where I can be more open.

 

[FrogReaver]

Impressed by the chutzpah of someone who, in a thread about making D&D more inclusive, and marked positive comments only, decides that this is the perfect moment to defend homophobia.

IMO. Calling others homophobes is not positive.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

IMO. Calling others homophobes is not positive.

Properly identifying the negative elements is a necessary step in building a positive environment.

 

[FrogReaver]

Properly identifying the negative elements is a necessary step in building a positive environment.

maybe it would be more inclusive to not use pejoratives when identifying negative elements?

 

[MGibster]

Does a list of inspirational church songs contain songs to inspire the person who will sing them? It would be odd if they were somehow songs that helped create the religion.

I can see someone seeing the name and thinking it was books to inspire them (until they read the paragraph explaining it).

I don't know what this means. I've read it several times but I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

maybe it would be more inclusive to not use pejoratives when identifying negative elements?

It was a descriptive term with clear meaning. Furthermore, inclusivity logically cannot encompass the inclusion of bigots.

 

[Wishbone]

I don't know what this means. I've read it several times but I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make.

Yeah, perhaps calling his work "foundational" or "influential" rather than "inspirational" clarifies things on Lovecraft and his influence.

I understood Cadence was saying it would be better to replace inspirational with by a more apt word like influential or foundational to avoid the potential confusion Cadence mentioned.

 

[MGibster]

I understood Cadence was saying it would be better to replace inspirational with by a more apt word like influential or foundational to avoid the potential confusion Cadence mentioned.

I didn't think it was unclear to begin with. These are works we think will serve as inspiration for your own games because they inspired us.

 

[FrogReaver]

It was an a descriptive term with clear meaning.

so are most pejorative terms. That doesn’t mean you should use them in a discussion on inclusivity. The term anti-homosexual would be more accurate. Homophobe is a slur that isn’t actually factually true of most that have it applied to them.

Furthermore, inclusivity logically cannot encompass the inclusion of bigots.

that’s another discussion I don’t think we can actually have here. I’m open to discussing that in pm though.