D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Maxperson]

No. Not at all. What I am saying is that people think that there is some magic about the First Amendment (which applied to state action). That's great, and all, and I am a huge supporter of that.

But the FA did not arise in a vacuum; it arose from principles of free speech. Those principles are worth defending regardless of state action (or lack thereof). Simply parroting the First Amendment standard, especially on a board that attracts an international audience, is a poor substitute for reasoned discourse.

It would be similar to someone saying something isn't fair, and getting the "But DUE PROCESS requires DA GUMMINT!" response. Yeah, great. Not what was being discussed. But thanks for the insight.

That's why I think that Facebook and other social media platforms need to be reigned in by Congress. Facebook can shift how the world(forget just America) views things by censoring this and having lots of that show up in feeds.

 

[Mirtek]

Are you seriously comparing that to Orcs of Thar? Because slippery slopes live and die on their likelihood: Italy invading more places was likely because they were a warlike power. Do you really think we're in danger of banning everything here?

Again, there's no reason to take it to an absurd level

That depends what you define as "absurd". For some the removal of "always evil orcs" might very well be such an absurd thing that they would have never seen coming down the line when OA got it's disclaimer.

And the latest errata removes negative descriptions for Beholders and Mindflayers. Where will that end? I wonder how in light on this they seem so stubborn to hold onto their "always evil Gnolls"

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And the latest errata removes negative descriptions for Beholders and Mindflayers.

No, it doesn't.

Where will that end?

Wherever they want it to.

I wonder how in light on this they seem so stubborn to hold onto their "always evil Gnolls"

I really hope we see some playable gnolls in an official product at some point. It's silly to draw a hard line there, when at least two previous editions have included good and neutral gnolls before 5e.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That's why I think that Facebook and other social media platforms need to be reigned in by Congress. Facebook can shift how the world(forget just America) views things by censoring this and having lots of that show up in feeds.

Oh …. Don’t get me started on Facebook.

You DO NOT want me to go there.

EDIT- this was the last time. ...

TSR - TSR3.5 Launches IndieGogo Campaign to "Stop" WotC

The latest in the TSR3 saga, which has gone quiet for a while, is a new IndieGoGo campaign launched to "stop Wizards of the Coast". They cite wrongful bullying of TSR, and refusal to answer requests that WotC show TSR "proof of their claims" (although the campaign page doesn't mention what those...

www.enworld.org

 

[Mecheon]

I really hope we see some playable gnolls in an official product at some point. It's silly to draw a hard line there, when at least two previous editions have included good and neutral gnolls before 5e.

Heck, not even two editions. There's been more editions with playable gnolls than without. One of the playable gnolls is from this very book

To drag it back to Mystara, Mystara had good and playable gnolls. Sure they were hanging out with elves, but they were nice. 5E's the odd one in not having them

 

[Zardnaar]

Yep for some moronic reason they thought Gnolls as demonspawn made sense.
I use the Midgard Gnolls if someone really wants to play one.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No, it doesn't.

Yeah . . . I'm really confused by when people say "So, Beholders and Mind Flayers aren't evil anymore!?!"

Like . . . no. Have you guys even read the errata and the context for it? What they got rid of was redundant description text for these monsters. What the sections they got rid of said was already stated in other parts of the same chapters.

And if Beholders and Mind Flayers suddenly do become not-always-evil . . . so what? Large Luigi from Spelljammer wasn't evil (at least, he was able to restrain his beholder instincts enough to be a freaking bartender). Gnome Ceremorphs are already stated to be able to be any alignment. Just because not all of them are evil doesn't mean that you can't still use them as villains or enemies in your games. Not all humans are evil, but they're a super common enemy to face in most D&D adventures (as bandits, evil mages, evil nobles, etc).

Wherever they want it to.

Yeah. As John Oliver put it, the answer to "when does it stop!?!" is always "freaking somewhere!"

It stops somewhere. It won't continue on forever. It will continue (I'd be surprised if Giants, for example, were listed as any specific alignment in the revised Monster Manual that's coming out in 2024), but it won't continue on forever.

I really hope we see some playable gnolls in an official product at some point. It's silly to draw a hard line there, when at least two previous editions have included good and neutral gnolls before 5e.

Ditto. Eberron and Exandria in 5e are already stated to have non-evil gnolls and hint at them being playable . . . but there's no official playable Gnoll race Explorer's Guide to Wildemount or Eberron: Rising from the Last War. It's really disappointing that we don't have one yet, IMO.

 

[Faolyn]

Yep for some moronic reason they thought Gnolls as demonspawn made sense.

That actually comes from waaay early in AD&D. There was an article in Dragon #63 that talks about their origins as the creations of demon prince Yeenoghu (unlike the other humanoids, who have actual gods) and has the 1e stats for the shoosuvas. I guess that for 5e they really leaned into that origin and dialed it up a few notches.

Personally, I'm kind of torn. If the 5e gnolls were called anything other than gnolls (and were officially fiends rather than humanoids), I'd be fine with them. But I like gnolls as a people too much.

 

[Hussar]

That is given both the quote and the preceding non-quote text too much weight. It says nothing about what you ascribe to it.

Gary is quoted that he was inspired by this to create D&D and then the non-quote says that the following list are those books plus a few more that inspired the designers to write D&D.

Nothing at all about it being important to read any of this to play D&D.

And it's tucked away at the very end of the PHB in form of a very boring long list. I doubt most players ever even read this page or spared the list after the introductory words more than a glance

It's nothing but a bibliography preceded by the Gary quote and 2 non-quote sentences

Then there's absolutely no problem with removing Lovecraft's name is there? If it's that unimportant and no one reads it, then it doesn't really matter to you whose name is listed, does it?

You can't have it both ways. It can't be both completely unimportant but also important that we keep the list the way it is.

 

[Zardnaar]

Then there's absolutely no problem with removing Lovecraft's name is there? If it's that unimportant and no one reads it, then it doesn't really matter to you whose name is listed, does it?

You can't have it both ways. It can't be both completely unimportant but also important that we keep the list the way it is.

Disclaimer in PHB or dump inspiration list.