Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Nudity, inclusivity and racial representation in RPGs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dualazi" data-source="post: 7042986" data-attributes="member: 6855537"><p>For sure, and to be fair, the male incubus is included in products like the 5th edition D&D MM, and was also included in one of the 4e supplements as well. I also agree with your observations about different racial/cultural assumptions. However, given that the audience is primarily western, and that others may not have as nuanced view toward in-world considerations, it’s not a huge surprise to me that developers use their limited art spaces for more iconic and immediately identifiable imagery.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think this is just a byproduct of most adventurers being drawn to conflicts that need solving and naturally portray said adventurers as protagonists in the fight against evil, so naturally they’re going to be exposed to more negative aspects of all aspects of life. Hobgoblins, for example, portray a negative example of a militaristic society in D&D, which isn’t universally a negative societal structure. While it wouldn’t hurt to have positive depictions as well, they’re harder to include in an organic fashion, particularly in a work that prides itself on being grim and gritty.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Granted, though comfort or pride/culture might also come into play. This was more directed at the quips about a succubus still wearing clothes; so long as they need to infiltrate society to corrupt their prey, they’ll at least make a token effort at normalcy. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>100% agreed, I’m anti-censorship, even self-censorship to the last. I just wanted to make it clear to the OP, who is running the kickstarter, that my personal convictions aren’t always economically viable. I’d prefer it if they were, though.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Here is where we absolutely disagree, art in no way shape or form is relevant to the ethics of the producers, if anything it merely indicates the genre and expectations of the work in question. An anime themed RPG might have every piece of art be heavily stylized with every character rocking a perfect body, a classic sword and sorcery game might have chainmail bikinis and barbarians with an affinity for body oil, and so on and so forth. None of those are exclusionary unless you’re not interested in participating in that fantasy, which can be the case regardless of your IRL qualities. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It never needed to be stated, though, especially since you’ve already concluded that the product in question is already exclusionary along a different axis. Point is, nothing stopped people from playing before statements like these, and after the statements are included groups of jerks are going to continue to remain jerk-ish.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because it isn’t the right thing to do, full stop. It can be a choice they make, but making the blanket statement that doing so is morally correct is probably cutting to the core of my huge, huge issue with the concept. We’ve come to a point in time, where, as you said above, we try and extrapolate endorsements of ethics or politics from works that frankly aren’t there. </p><p></p><p>Up-thread Salamandyr is dead on the money when he talks about the shifting nature of the word ‘inclusive’, because that no longer means the inclusion of multiple groups, it means the inclusion of said groups in such a way that’s unambiguously supportive of them, which is a ridiculous box to try and force designers into, and in many ways is insulting to the groups in question. A topical example of this is the current storm in a teacup surrounding <em>Beauty and the Beast</em>, which features the first confirmed gay character in a Disney film, and there are still cultural critics flipping out because he’s a simpering henchman to the villain. Basically if your inclusiveness doesn’t include the full gamut of negative and positive possibilities, it’s definitely not worth it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed. All I’ve ever asked is that a given work sticks to its guns creatively, if it can allow for all ethnicities/cultures/etc to be present, then yeah, go to town. I simply resent it when a work tries to be more focused (for any number of reasons) and people cry about it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Absolutely, parity between all tastes and depictions should be considered.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dualazi, post: 7042986, member: 6855537"] For sure, and to be fair, the male incubus is included in products like the 5th edition D&D MM, and was also included in one of the 4e supplements as well. I also agree with your observations about different racial/cultural assumptions. However, given that the audience is primarily western, and that others may not have as nuanced view toward in-world considerations, it’s not a huge surprise to me that developers use their limited art spaces for more iconic and immediately identifiable imagery. I think this is just a byproduct of most adventurers being drawn to conflicts that need solving and naturally portray said adventurers as protagonists in the fight against evil, so naturally they’re going to be exposed to more negative aspects of all aspects of life. Hobgoblins, for example, portray a negative example of a militaristic society in D&D, which isn’t universally a negative societal structure. While it wouldn’t hurt to have positive depictions as well, they’re harder to include in an organic fashion, particularly in a work that prides itself on being grim and gritty. Granted, though comfort or pride/culture might also come into play. This was more directed at the quips about a succubus still wearing clothes; so long as they need to infiltrate society to corrupt their prey, they’ll at least make a token effort at normalcy. 100% agreed, I’m anti-censorship, even self-censorship to the last. I just wanted to make it clear to the OP, who is running the kickstarter, that my personal convictions aren’t always economically viable. I’d prefer it if they were, though. Here is where we absolutely disagree, art in no way shape or form is relevant to the ethics of the producers, if anything it merely indicates the genre and expectations of the work in question. An anime themed RPG might have every piece of art be heavily stylized with every character rocking a perfect body, a classic sword and sorcery game might have chainmail bikinis and barbarians with an affinity for body oil, and so on and so forth. None of those are exclusionary unless you’re not interested in participating in that fantasy, which can be the case regardless of your IRL qualities. It never needed to be stated, though, especially since you’ve already concluded that the product in question is already exclusionary along a different axis. Point is, nothing stopped people from playing before statements like these, and after the statements are included groups of jerks are going to continue to remain jerk-ish. Because it isn’t the right thing to do, full stop. It can be a choice they make, but making the blanket statement that doing so is morally correct is probably cutting to the core of my huge, huge issue with the concept. We’ve come to a point in time, where, as you said above, we try and extrapolate endorsements of ethics or politics from works that frankly aren’t there. Up-thread Salamandyr is dead on the money when he talks about the shifting nature of the word ‘inclusive’, because that no longer means the inclusion of multiple groups, it means the inclusion of said groups in such a way that’s unambiguously supportive of them, which is a ridiculous box to try and force designers into, and in many ways is insulting to the groups in question. A topical example of this is the current storm in a teacup surrounding [I]Beauty and the Beast[/I], which features the first confirmed gay character in a Disney film, and there are still cultural critics flipping out because he’s a simpering henchman to the villain. Basically if your inclusiveness doesn’t include the full gamut of negative and positive possibilities, it’s definitely not worth it. Agreed. All I’ve ever asked is that a given work sticks to its guns creatively, if it can allow for all ethnicities/cultures/etc to be present, then yeah, go to town. I simply resent it when a work tries to be more focused (for any number of reasons) and people cry about it. Absolutely, parity between all tastes and depictions should be considered. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Nudity, inclusivity and racial representation in RPGs
Top