Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8496684" data-attributes="member: 6799660">My general point is that, within one IP (especially if you are going to do the traditional D&D thing of trying to have it both ways on whether it is a generic game system or an implied setting), if you have this supplement over here that treat orcs (or morks, or borks) as lovey-dovey hippy nature enthusiast tribal-culture analogues most often just minding their own business, but then over here treat them as people-eating monsters with no moral compass (to which the heroes ought have no morale compunction against slaughtering), people are going to conflate these two interpretations (and not without reason). One (and here I mean a game company making a product) should be prepared for that reasonable reaction. D&D 3e did something different with Eberron and drow by drawing a distinct line and saying, 'things are different over here! Drow are...' and it mostly worked (mind you, drow had had a 10-15 years of villain decay at that point, and were maybe more often known for the exceptions to their normal characterization already). If 2e AD&D and BECMI had been more straightforward in their playable humanoid books about 'this is a decidedly alternate interpretation you should take back to your normal game only as a recognized variant,' this issue might not have become quite such a big deal. While yes, clearly there are some people who will say something like 'your evil if you like evil orcs,' I don't think it is really that prevalent, especially when you divide by the sum total of gamers out there. Skimming Facebook or Reddit (or better yet, have a politically motivated friend collate them all into evidence that they are being attacked somehow*) can cherry pick a swath of this, but I'd need a lot of convincing that it is a trend. What I do see is a lot of calls for WotC (or Piazzo) to change how the default presentation of these humanoid species is presented in their published rulebooks. Not policing game tables, urging changes in specific corporate decisions. *or am I the only one with a friend like this?It should be noted that Tonto was set up as 'the exception' and Native Americans were, if not as universally villainous as cattle rustlers or bank robbers, certainly seen as dangerous entities. This was more pronounced in the radio show than the later tv version. I think we're generally agreeing that there is a transitional trend across the 20th century. Interesting. I grew up in the 70s/very early 80s and my interpretation is that there was a large shift between me and the kids I ended up babysitting -- their cartoons started having lessons at the end (and also were more often bald-faced toy commercials). The 90s seemed like just an extrapolation of that trend. I then went to college and had an eye into children's shows again at maybe 2000-2005 when I dated a woman with a child (I seem to recall starting Dora the Explorer and ending with Kim Possible) and those shows seemed to have the lessons those earlier heavy handed very special shows taught as assumed qualities.</blockquote>

Verification