TSR Running list of potential problematic issues in TSR era DnD

[Jfdlsjfd]

The issue isn’t with having monotheism in D&D. You completely misread that comment. The problem is ONLY having monotheism depicted.

Why is it whenever people talk about adding inclusivity, there’s always people who immediately act like you’re taking away their representation? There are several posts like that in this thread. It’s not true. Stop using strawmen to defend lack of inclusivity in the game. You’ve made similar comments in other threads.

I'd say that this one isn't ill-intent but simply lack of familiarity with polytheism. LIke when a game tries to evoke a feudal society and fails. It's not a deliberate disparaging of medieval Europe but usually the result of necessary simplification of the story. And lack of familiarity with the complex social system which is often simplified to explain it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But if a DM's setting is a world that has or is an established institution where it is Monothesism only, and the entire group is okay with it or what not, how is that a problem as well?

Must DM's bend their setting will? Or is that after the PC's revolt and overthrow the DM with another player?

Again, no one is saying that's a problem. The problem is when the game of D&D is being presented as monotheistic. What I mean by that is that while yes, there certainly are polytheistic religions in D&D, the game makes those religions for all intents and purposes monotheistic because clerics are always depicted as getting their powers from one god they worship. The game was basically Christianized from the beginning, and never stopped being so. Many religions, even those depicted in the game, were where followers prayed to many gods depending on what they were wanting. So clerics of those mythologies should be depicted as getting their powers from many gods, not just one. Which is how the game has been from the beginning.

And again, since it apparently keeps getting lost. NO ONE IS SAYING WORSHIPPING ONE GOD IS BAD. It's the lack of other representation that is problematic.

 

[jasper]

If only D&D had something like magical armor....

They are Mesoamerican. Not white. In traditional dress and weapons. By a Mesoamerican artist.

The only clue I see are the two weapons and possible tiger hat. Artist name is not readable. The POINT is with out you TELLING me it was Traditional Dress and artist. It screams cheese cake, beefcake, and generic fantasy art.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'd say that this one isn't ill-intent but simply lack of familiarity with polytheism. LIke when a game tries to evoke a feudal society and fails. It's not a deliberate disparaging of medieval Europe but usually the result of necessary simplification of the story.

I agree. When the game was designed, it was designed by white American Christians. So of course subconscious things were changed by people unfamiliar with other cultures to fit the culture the creators were familiar with. I'm not blaming Gygax. I'm only saying that we know better now, and to keep doing it (Christianwashing other religions) is not a great thing to be doing.

*Edit for example, in Norse mythology, practitioners of seiðr were essentially clerics, in how we describe clerics in D&D. They prayed to, and worshipped, both the Vanir and Æsir . But in D&D, as soon as this polytheistic religion was brought into the game, was Christianwashed (lack of a better term) to reflect how worshippers would only worship and get their powers from one of the Norse gods.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The only clue I see are the two weapons and possible tiger hand. Artist name is not readable. The POINT is with out you TELLING me it was Traditional Dress and artist. It screams cheese cake, beefcake, and generic fantasy art.

No, the point is having art that represents other cultures, and to do so accurately. You don't need to know the artist's name in order for that to happen. That was the original point made early on, how hardly any other cultures are being represented back then (they had to have their own sourcebooks because they weren't included in the core books). So going forward, the core books should reflect that as a default, every culture can be represented, and not just set aside later for their own separate books while the core books are all European centered.

 

[Weiley31]

Cleric 1: I should probably ask Tyr for a handy spell.
Cleric 2: No, you should probably still stick with Hirst. She pays your spell bills. You've been part of her club for how long?
Cleric 1: Yeah, but see how well it went for the Drow sticking to one diety?
Cleric 2: Yeah but Hirst offers a great dental plan, remember?

Cleric 1: Oh yeah: guess I'll stay mono.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This was my first thought too. But then, as my own recent "+" thread proved... well, to misquote a certain post-credits character, "threadcrappers gonna threadcrap"

Yep. I thought my first post was pretty clear on what the context of this thread is. Apparently a lot of folks either won't read that, or choose to be disingenuous and ignore what I wrote to argue strawmen. Recreating a thread with a + won't change that.

 

[Weiley31]

Wait: how come nobody has mentioned Gypsies yet? Wasn't that kinda of an issue or thing with the early/original depiction of the Vistani when Ravenloft first came out?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So my own personal contributions to this, which overlap with the OP:

1. Art. Personally, I still love the B&W line drawings and classic fantasy art. But they aren't inclusive or representative, and definitely not very welcoming to female gamers. Art that is more representative of the wide diversity of players we have today would be better.

2. Alignment. Again, I like alignment. And I think it would be great to keep objective alignment for concepts like the outer planes or some sort of metaphysical battle (whether it's the 9-point great wheel of the outer planes, or a Moorcockian Law/Chaos). But not necessary for the races and PCs if you're building from scratch.

3. Gatekeeping classes. One of the frustrating things with the way that TSR D&D was built was that they always "gatekeeped" classes and abilities behind absurd requirements; in effect, in order to get super-cool abilities, you already had to have super-cool abilities! That's why you got those ludicrous requirements for psionics, or the 17 Charisma for the Paladin, or any of the other numerous "pre-requisites."

4. Mixing granularity and genericity. This is a slightly different one, but TSR-era D&D often mixed granular and culture-specific with generic and flexible (something that still happens!). An easy example is the comparison between the Fighter (which can be easily adapted to almost anything) and its subclass of Paladin (which is an exceptionally specific type of Holy Knight).

5. Other descriptions. Sure, people discuss the harlot table. But what's worse is, for example, the description of the Goodwife that's also in the urban encounters. Here it is- "Goodwife encounters are with a single woman, often indistinguishable from any other type of female (such as a magic-user, harlot, etc.). Any offensive treatment or seeming threat will be likely to cause the woman to scream for help, accusing the offending party of any number of crimes, i.e. assault, rape, theft, or murder. 20% of goodwives know interesting gossip." In other words, this is one of the few encounters you have with a female, you can't tell the difference between her and a harlot, her only positive use is that she knows gossip, and any offensive treatment will cause her to (falsely) accuse the party of crimes such as rape. Oh boy .... There's just too much to unpack there. Suffice to say, you don't want that.

6. XP for Gold or Killing. Players respond to incentives. If the base model to advance is to kill stuff, or steal their stuff, then players are going to kill stuff, or steal their stuff. Period. If you don't want that to be the model, then you need a different standard for awarding XP (and, perhaps, kill/steal as an alternative).

7. Racial/Gender minimum and maximums.

 

[Aldarc]

Wait: how come nobody has mentioned Gypsies yet? Wasn't that kinda of an issue or thing with the early/original depiction of the Vistani when Ravenloft first came out?

At the very least, it's probably because it's now considered poor taste to refer to the Romani people as such.