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

[Hussar]

So shamans are more like warlocks (as defined by 5e)?

I'd argue that shaman are maybe closer to Oath of Ancients Paladins, at least flavor wise. Obviously mechanically there's some differences.

What are Illithids and Beholders? Are they too mundane to be cosmic horror?

Answer: What are monsters that almost never get used Alex?

 

[Haldrik]

Aberrations- BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION!

Lovecraft is comprehensible.

Cthulhu = white racist supremacism that philosophizes that might-makes-right for the sake of an "amoral" (N*zi Nietzsche) brutal violent takeover, where other humans are hapless "sheep".

No mystery about it.

Neutral Evil it is.

 

[Minigiant]

Lovecraft is comprehendable.

Cthulhu = amoral (N*zi Nietzsche) white racist supremacism − philosophizing that might makes "right" and other humans are hapless "sheep".

No mystery about it.

That's why we should move away from him.
It's.. his ideas are against the lore of the Far Realm.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Isn't yugoloths all about selfish power and wealth

In theory and in the general lore, yes they are. And that makes them a little to close to devils to my taste. That's why I'm suggesting finding them another niche, the one of ''alien evil'' rather than putting them in the little-less-power hungry-than-devils-a-little-less-random lol-than-demons corner.

 

[Remathilis]

Really?

If there was a D&D plane called "Ku Kl*x Klan", you would have a hard time following the outrage?

Really?

Lovecraft is a problematic source.

WotC does well to keep it away.

The Mythos are public domain. There is more Non-Lovecraft stories in the world then ones penned but him. The Mythos have been reclaimed from Lovecraft, and increasingly by people of color.

What you're setting though is a dangerous prescident. If we are to remove derivative works based on what their author's were like, be ready to start cleaning out a lot. We've discussed Tolkien and his views on race in multiple orc threads: should we remove dwarves, elves, orcs, and hobbits? Bram Stoker had some outdated views on race and gender, guess we get rid of vampires. The Bible has a lot of text that isn't very inclusive; goodbye Heaven, Hell, angels and demons.

Eggshells man, eggshells...

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Really?

If there was a D&D plane called "Ku Kl*x Klan", you would have a hard time following the outrage?

Really?

Lovecraft is a problematic source.

WotC does well to keep it away.

Well, don't neo-nazi's support norse neo-paganism?

That sounds like a good enough reason for getting rid of the norse pantheon in D&D if we should get rid of cosmic horror because the popularizer was a racist.

 

[Minigiant]

In theory and in the general lore, yes they are. And that makes them a little to close to devils to my taste. That's why I'm suggesting finding them another niche, the one of ''alien evil'' rather than putting them in the little-less-power hungry-than-devils-a-little-less-random lol-than-demons corner.

I think the difference is goal.

Devil's are building power for a goal. The goal might be secret or known to a few. But Asmodues isn't being evil and amassing power just for his own sake. There is a bit of self righteousness in it. Devil's believe they deserve power because it will be used properly.

Yugoloths are all about the money. CREAM. They actively pursue the status quo to keep the money train going. Yugoloths will actively disrupt world domination because no war means no war profiteering.

 

[Haldrik]

Well, don't neo-nazi's support norse neo-paganism?

That sounds like a good enough reason for getting rid of the norse pantheon in D&D if we should get rid of cosmic horror because the popularizer was a racist.

There is a difference between white supremacists supporting neo-paganism,

versus importing an actual white supremacist document. Even if lampshaded or dog-whistled.

 

[Hussar]

You asked a question. More than one of us has given you basically the same answer. The fact that you do not understand it does not make it absurd.

So long as this conversation is a fight to get past your persistently judgemental incredulity, I am not terribly interested in it.

Look, as someone who has argued pretty strongly for pulling Lovecraft's name out of the game, I have to say, I am also in the boat thinking that this is going too far.

Number one, beholders, as a specific example, aren't inspired by anything Lovecraftian, despite being aberrations. You can read the entirety of Lovecraft from front to back and not see a single reference to a beholder or anything resembling beholders. So, why would the Far Realms, where beholders are supposed to come from, (a "beyond known reality - a trope that Lovecraft certainly didn't invent) be problematic? Mind Flayers are Lovecraftian in the sense of being tentacle horrors, but, again, Lovecraft hardly has a monopoly on that.

Cthulhu is mentioned (AFAIR) a single time in the PHB under GOO warlocks. Pull that reference out and everything is fine.

The key here is SMALL changes. We don't need to completely rewrite things because, well, that's not answering specific issues. "Inspired by Lovecraft" is an unprovable position. Mind Flayers are just as much Japanese Hentai anime as they are Lovecraft. Sure, they are inspired by mythos stories (Brian Lumley was the inspiring author - google) but, again, Mythos stories aren't really the issue. I want to keep those - or at least those stories that aren't grounded in racism. I would just rather that direct references to Lovecraft were removed.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

There is a difference between white supremacists supporting neo-paganism,

versus importing an actual white supremacist document. Even if lampshaded or dog-whistled.

So only the original interpretation of a subject matters? You can't ever reclaim something ever?