D&D General Nolzur creates inclusive miniatures, people can't handle it.

[Sacrosanct]

You don't need to be personally against inclusion to say and do things that are anti-inclusive.

One of life's lessons I've learned that took probably longer than it should have was that acceptance of the status quo is being discriminatory in many way because the status quo is discriminatory (i.e, privilege). What I mean by acceptance is that you don't have to actively support the status quo, you just have to not make an active effort to change it. Which is too many of us. Tacit approval and all that.

In this context for this situation, I think it impacts it as thus. Exclusion of minis that represent disabled PCs is the status quo. So when someone says, "I don't see why we need these." or "That doesn't make sense because that's gonna cause all kinds of problems in a dungeon" or "why doesn't the cleric just heal themselves", those are statements in support of the status quo--why would these minis even need to exist? They aren't overtly anti-inclusionary, but because they support a status quo that is exclusionary, it is in fact an anti-inclusionary position.

Will it cause issues exploring a dungeon? Sure. But so do a million other things. One of the whole points of a dungeon is to come up with ways to overcome challenges. (edit I'll note the blind swordsman/martial artist has been a trope in fantasy since the start of D&D. We even have a trait for it (blindsense) that PCs can choose. Seems arbitrarily to be against other disabilities.)
Why wouldn't a cleric heal themselves? I dunno, I can think of a lot of reasons. Maybe they don't have the ability to? Maybe they don't want to? Maybe it's against their religious ethos to do so? Who cares? That's up to the player. Taking a blanket statement to exclude them isn't the way to go, IMO.

I've seen a lot of posts from people on X and other sites along the lines of "Just because I think this is silly makes me a bad person according to people I guess." A bad person? probably not. doesn't really matter. A person supporting an exclusionary status quo? Absolutely. It's being against something that makes others feel welcome while having zero impact to your game or your experience. Bad intention or not, the result is making others feel unwelcome by mocking something that is part of their identity.

TL,DR version: It's up to us who have had a seat at the table the entire time make an effort to make others feel like they have a seat at the table too. Actively. And intentionally.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Also because you're generally looking at a 3 cm tall figure at a distance of up to a meter. Things need to be a little exaggerated to show up at that distance. It's the same principle as theatre make-up.

Regarding the minis themselves, I don't have anything against them per se, or against disabled characters. I do think it's a bit much to expect a character in a wheelchair to have the same capabilities as one who can walk, at least not without some serious session 0 discussions, or to have fortifications that are otherwise built specifically to make it hard for invaders to maneuver to make accommodations for wheelchair users. I don't mind if they do as a sort of power fantasy/wish fulfillment, but I don't think it's something one should expect. And if your campaign does take a more realistic approach to wheelchairs and similar gear, perhaps that means disabled characters should seek out options where their disabilities are less of an issue. That doesn't mean they can't be adventurers, but perhaps more likely to be wizards than fighters. Either that or have a seriously tricked-out wheelchair that can compensate for stuff that otherwise is a problem.

Of course, this depends a whole lot on the game in question. What's reasonable in D&D is significantly different than in Star Trek. Having ramps and such for greater accessibility on a starship is a lot more reasonable than having them in a dungeon, and the range of assistive tools would also be greater (at least without delving into heavy-duty magic).

I hear you on wanting things to work together.

In my experience though, it’s easy to make it happen.

I have a fond memory of an underwater adventure we had back in the day. It was pretty epic AD&D!

But we all had to have a way to breath and move…A few magic items gifted to us later and we are battling evil underwater empires!

I think the whole not able to walk thing is no more complicated and can be handled pretty easily…

 

[Micah Sweet]

One of life's lessons I've learned that too probably longer than it should have was that acceptance of the status quo is being discriminatory in many way because the status quo is discriminatory (i.e, privilege). What I mean by acceptance is that you don't have to actively support the status quo, you just have to not make an active effort to change it. Which is too many of us. Tacit approval and all that.

In this context for this situation, I think it impacts it as thus. Exclusion of minis that represent disabled PCs is the status quo. So when someone says, "I don't see why we need these." or "That doesn't make sense because that's gonna cause all kinds of problems in a dungeon" or "why doesn't the cleric just heal themselves", those are statements in support of the status quo--why would these minis even need to exist? They aren't overtly anti-inclusionary, but because they support a status quo that is exclusionary, it is in fact an anti-inclusionary position.

Will it cause issues exploring a dungeon? Sure. But so do a million other things. One of the whole points of a dungeon is to come up with ways to overcome challenges. (edit I'll note the blind swordsman/martial artist has been a trope in fantasy since the start of D&D. We even have a trait for it (blindsense) that PCs can choose. Seems arbitrarily to be against other disabilities.)
Why wouldn't a cleric heal themselves? I dunno, I can think of a lot of reasons. Maybe they don't have the ability to? Maybe they don't want to? Maybe it's against their religious ethos to do so? Who cares? That's up to the player. Taking a blanket statement to exclude them isn't the way to go, IMO.

I've seen a lot of posts from people on X and other sites along the lines of "Just because I think this is silly makes me a bad person according to people I guess." A bad person? probably not. doesn't really matter. A person supporting an exclusionary status quo? Absolutely. It's being against something that makes others feel welcome while having zero impact to your game or your experience. Bad intention or not, the result is making others feel unwelcome by mocking something that is part of their identity.

TL,DR version: It's up to us who have had a seat at the table the entire time make an effort to make others feel like they have a seat at the table too. Actively. And intentionally.

It's a great sentiment, and hard to disagree with in principle. The only difficulty I have with it is that you are essentially condemning everyone who isn't an activist.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

One of life's lessons I've learned that too probably longer than it should have was that acceptance of the status quo is being discriminatory in many way because the status quo is discriminatory (i.e, privilege). What I mean by acceptance is that you don't have to actively support the status quo, you just have to not make an active effort to change it. Which is too many of us. Tacit approval and all that.

In this context for this situation, I think it impacts it as thus. Exclusion of minis that represent disabled PCs is the status quo. So when someone says, "I don't see why we need these." or "That doesn't make sense because that's gonna cause all kinds of problems in a dungeon" or "why doesn't the cleric just heal themselves", those are statements in support of the status quo--why would these minis even need to exist? They aren't overtly anti-inclusionary, but because they support a status quo that is exclusionary, it is in fact an anti-inclusionary position.

Will it cause issues exploring a dungeon? Sure. But so do a million other things. One of the whole points of a dungeon is to come up with ways to overcome challenges. (edit I'll note the blind swordsman/martial artist has been a trope in fantasy since the start of D&D. We even have a trait for it (blindsense) that PCs can choose. Seems arbitrarily to be against other disabilities.)
Why wouldn't a cleric heal themselves? I dunno, I can think of a lot of reasons. Maybe they don't have the ability to? Maybe they don't want to? Maybe it's against their religious ethos to do so? Who cares? That's up to the player. Taking a blanket statement to exclude them isn't the way to go, IMO.

I've seen a lot of posts from people on X and other sites along the lines of "Just because I think this is silly makes me a bad person according to people I guess." A bad person? probably not. doesn't really matter. A person supporting an exclusionary status quo? Absolutely. It's being against something that makes others feel welcome while having zero impact to your game or your experience. Bad intention or not, the result is making others feel unwelcome by mocking something that is part of their identity.

TL,DR version: It's up to us who have had a seat at the table the entire time make an effort to make others feel like they have a seat at the table too. Actively. And intentionally.

Exactly. If it doesn't impact you, why would you try to prevent (or at least denigrate) what others do or say?

 

[Composer99]

Cool miniatures! I don't play live at the moment, so I don't buy them, but they do look neat.

One of life's lessons I've learned that too probably longer than it should have was that acceptance of the status quo is being discriminatory in many way because the status quo is discriminatory (i.e, privilege). What I mean by acceptance is that you don't have to actively support the status quo, you just have to not make an active effort to change it. Which is too many of us. Tacit approval and all that.

In this context for this situation, I think it impacts it as thus. Exclusion of minis that represent disabled PCs is the status quo. So when someone says, "I don't see why we need these." or "That doesn't make sense because that's gonna cause all kinds of problems in a dungeon" or "why doesn't the cleric just heal themselves", those are statements in support of the status quo--why would these minis even need to exist? They aren't overtly anti-inclusionary, but because they support a status quo that is exclusionary, it is in fact an anti-inclusionary position.

Will it cause issues exploring a dungeon? Sure. But so do a million other things. One of the whole points of a dungeon is to come up with ways to overcome challenges. (edit I'll note the blind swordsman/martial artist has been a trope in fantasy since the start of D&D. We even have a trait for it (blindsense) that PCs can choose. Seems arbitrarily to be against other disabilities.)
Why wouldn't a cleric heal themselves? I dunno, I can think of a lot of reasons. Maybe they don't have the ability to? Maybe they don't want to? Maybe it's against their religious ethos to do so? Who cares? That's up to the player. Taking a blanket statement to exclude them isn't the way to go, IMO.

I've seen a lot of posts from people on X and other sites along the lines of "Just because I think this is silly makes me a bad person according to people I guess." A bad person? probably not. doesn't really matter. A person supporting an exclusionary status quo? Absolutely. It's being against something that makes others feel welcome while having zero impact to your game or your experience. Bad intention or not, the result is making others feel unwelcome by mocking something that is part of their identity.

TL,DR version: It's up to us who have had a seat at the table the entire time make an effort to make others feel like they have a seat at the table too. Actively. And intentionally.

This is what these miniatures are all about, isn't it?

Today's socioeconomic status quo is still discriminatory and exclusionary - towards all sorts of people, of course, but apropos of wheelchair-bound D&D characters, people with disabilities in particular. It's clear that one doesn't have to be viciously exclusionary or "a bad person" to propagate the status quo.

Also, regardless of one's intent, it's a bad look to publicly propagate the status quo by unreflectively criticising attempts to change it. After all, no one else can read your (*) mind or directly perceive your intentions. All they can do is see the things you write and listen to the things you say.

(*) "general" you, not anyone specifically

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's a great sentiment, and hard to disagree with in principle. The only difficulty I have with it is that you are essentially condemning everyone who isn't an activist.

Not condemning. Informing. As Gradine pointed out, the motivation really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if someone does it because they are a bad person (worth of condemning like the OP I was referring to in my original post), or if you're just regular person A making a comment why you don't think they are needed or how they wouldn't work. The important part is the impact it's having on real people. You (general you) don't have to be a bad person to exclude people. Heck, most of us fall into that camp unconsciously.

 

[M_Natas]

It's a great sentiment, and hard to disagree with in principle. The only difficulty I have with it is that you are essentially condemning everyone who isn't an activist.

I would say, and that's how I personally judge people:

Everybody has their biases and blindspots.
Like, I married a Black woman and my white ass still occasionally says something that could go on a "stupid stuff white people say about race"-show.

The important part that says alot about you is how you handle it when people tell you that you just said something discriminatory.

You have the AH that double down on it. They deny that what they are saying is problematic and people shouldn't attack them for it. They are just telling the truth(TM).

Then you have the good people who will apologise and try to do better the next time they are in such a position.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Like, I married a Black woman and my white ass still occasionally says something that could go on a "stupid stuff white people say about race"-show.

I have a mixed race family, and my partner frequently calls me out on behaviors or comments that seem pretty innocuous to me, but that's only because I've enjoyed the privilege of it being the norm. It's a forever work in progress, let me tell you lol.

for example, just yesterday she came home with lunch, and I asked, "which bag is for me?" She pointed out why am I asking her a question for something I could easily figure out myself? Why do I assume she'll drop whatever she was doing as if it wasn't as important as my question, to answer me. And that stuff happens all the time in male/female relationships traditionally. An opportunity for reflection for sure. It's usually the little things.

 

[Staffan]

I have a fond memory of an underwater adventure we had back in the day. It was pretty epic AD&D!

But we all had to have a way to breath and move…A few magic items gifted to us later and we are battling evil underwater empires!

I think the whole not able to walk thing is no more complicated and can be handled pretty easily…

Like I said, even with my realism-hat on I have no problem with a magic tricked-out wheelchair that can compensate for a some aspects of disability or even overcompensate to provide better abilities in some areas than non-disabled people. I am reminded of "Dalek", an episode in the first season of the rebooted Doctor Who series, where the eponymous Dalek is chasing some people, and they take to the stairs to escape... futilely as it turns out, as the Dalek starts screaming "ELEVATE!" and flies after them.

The issue, to whatever degree I have one, is with essentially making a wheelchair a cosmetic choice without any effect on your abilities at all – particularly a non-magical one.

As someone who is not himself disabled and as such might not be the best judge, I would look to Avatar: the Last Airbender for a good example of a character who is disabled and yet exceedingly competent: Toph Beifong. Toph is blind. However, she is also a very powerful earthbender, and she can use her earthbending as a very precise version of what D&D would call Tremorsense. This negates a lot of the disadvantages of being blind, but not all of them. She has no sense of color, she can't perceive things in the distance or things that fly (or much of anything if she herself doesn't have contact with the ground), and a light person moving softly can evade her senses. But on the other hand, she can sense things that are normally hidden, and she's just as able to move around in the dark as in light.

 

[Clint_L]

My spouse is non-binary and my child has autism, so I have also been forced to reconsider my assumptions about a lot of things. Not that it's about me, but I do think that opening myself to different perspectives has made my own life better. It has definitely made me a better teacher. Every year I start my Theory of Knowledge class by watching this video with my students, and I recommend it for everyone (it's not a boring lecture; it's super entertaining and fun, while being utterly illuminating):