D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

[Alzrius]

The status quo is not an action, no. But choice is action. And you either choose to keep with the status quo, or you choose to act against it.

The question then becomes (as I see it), what is the morality of any particular action that you take (in any regard)?

 

[The Choice]

You keep saying that, and Pathfinder keeps having a larger and still increasing market share. Kind of puts holes in that line of reasoning.

Do I think their popularity is solely due to being willing to have gay, bi and trans iconic characters and some racial diversity? No. But clearly it isn't hurting them at the bank, where people have been voting with their dollars and buying more of their product.

Exactly. From a pure economics perspective, adding diversity will not hurt your product.

And I'll add that those who do get offended and take their money elsewhere, well you don't want them as part of your clientele to begin with.

 

[Dausuul]

But speaking of black being white and up being down, I'm going to turn my attention toward the Underdark for a minute. I had a thought on an idea someone had suggested a few pages back about whether drow should be presented with different skin colors. I'm against that idea for several reasons.

First and foremost, I don't think the same argument in favor of presenting different human races applies here. To the extent that drow are a monster race, people aren't intended to be able to "relate" to them, so there's no imperative to make the drow a race with a great degree of variety.

Secondly, the drow are already a different "race" of elves. You've got sun elves, wood elves, dark elves, etc., so having different "races" of drow would just be redundant.

Ah, now this is one of those interesting real-world questions. Well, as real-world as D&D gets.

Here's my suggestion for the drow. Instead of "elf with black skin," the art direction on drow should be "elf who's part spider." All elves have large eyes, but drow eyes are a little too large and round, and entirely red without whites or pupils, suggesting spider eyes. Their black skin is glossy and has small folds around the joints, so it looks like a carapace. Their hair is very fine, and not so much white as translucent, like spider silk. Their poses are often crouching, arms and legs splayed. Some might have short fangs. Others would have birthmarks in the shape of red hourglasses.

Then give regular elves a wide variety of skin tones, comparable to humans. Some will have pale skin and flowing blond hair. Others will have dark brown skin and tightly curled black hair. This would let D&D get away from "light-skinned elves good, dark-skinned elves bad," while preserving the distinctive appearance of the drow. (A big part of the problem with drow is that they have traditionally been the only dark-skinned elves in the game. Even elves who are stated in the text to have brown skin are almost always depicted looking like white people with heavy tans.)

Back up these changes in the text by stating that the appearance of the drow is deliberately cultivated, both by breeding and by magic, to bring them closer to Lolth. Driders represent the pinnacle of this effort and are regarded as the height of beauty in drow society. (Yes, this is a change to the concept of driders as outcasts, but lots of people have observed that that concept never made much sense. Why should a spider's body be a mark of shame in drow society? Shouldn't it be a badge of honor?) Drow communities that move away from the worship of Lolth would revert over generations to more natural skin tones--or perhaps, since they live underground, they would lose all pigmentation and take on an albino-like appearance, like most subterranean critters in the real world.

 

[bogmad]

Changing the semantics doesn't speak to the issue I raised, that being that the question already supposes a definitive moral failing to the action which I don't think was the case. Having said that, I wouldn't call this a "rabbit hole" - we're having a good exchange of ideas and opinions, and I'm enjoying it, and I hope you are too.

I'm enjoying it to an extent. "Deontological ethics" is not something particularly interesting to me.
Some people do attribute a moral failing to the action we're talking about. That's more interesting to me than the all deontological reasons you do not.

If people say "what you are doing is hurting me!" do you have an obligation to address what you're doing?
People are saying the status quo is hurting them. We can argue if that's valid or not, but suppose it is. Does changing things to be more diverse then go on to hurt anyone else? Tell me how being diverse is hurtful and to who and then I'll adjust whether I think their complaints are valid.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm enjoying it to an extent. "Deontological ethics" is not something particularly interesting to me.
Some people do attribute a moral failing to the action we're talking about. That's more interesting to me than the all deontological reasons you do not.

That's fair enough; I won't say that your (or their) opinion is wrong, only that I don't share it and that these (deontological ethics) are my reasoning why.

If people say "what you are doing is hurting me!" do you have an obligation to address what you're doing?

If by "address" you mean "make an alteration to," then I suppose that depends on if you agree with their assertion, which in this case I don't.

People are saying the status quo is hurting them. We can argue if that's valid or not, but suppose it is. Does changing things to be more diverse then go on to hurt anyone else? Tell me how being diverse is hurtful and to who and then I'll adjust whether I think their complaints are valid.

That's the issue though; I don't suppose that it is. That said, I don't think that making things more inclusive hurts other people; inclusivity is (in my opinion) good.

The bottom line here seems to be that you and I have different opinions about some of the fundamentals of this particular issue - which, again, is not a bad thing (and certainly nobody is saying that anyone else is immoral). We just disagree, is all.

 

[CroBob]

"Sexual orientation" is a relatively recent psychological term that wouldn't have had any bearing on the medieval, albeit fantastic, societies depicted in D&D settings.

So your entire argument is built on "In the real world it's like this" in order to support how something is in a fictional world? Yes, D&D is loosely based on European Medieval times, but the looseness of it is broad. D&D settings aren't even using the same countries you'd find in Europe, the game world being an outright different place. Why would we inject European Medieval social mores into sexuality, when we're already changing around the values you'd have found back then with modern ones in just about every other place, including already changing the ones about gender roles, etc?

 

[bogmad]

That's the problem though, I don't suppose that it is. Moreover, I don't think that making things more inclusive hurts other people; inclusivity is good.

Since we both believe that inclusivity is good. Is there an argument for not making the next edition more diverse?
I don't really care if I agree with a group's assertion that the status quo is harmful, or if it's true or not. I'm just willing to acknowledge they think it is. And since I agree inclusivity is a good thing, I'm more than willing to have a more diverse edition since I don't find it harmful to me at all, or against what I'd accept in a new edition...

... to an extent. I'd keep my drow black, and sexuality tame for the core product, though I'd be fine with gay characters.

 

[Alzrius]

Since we both believe that inclusivity is good. Is there an argument for not making the next edition more diverse?

I don't think that I've heard anyone suggest that there's virtue to be found in not including diversity.

I don't really care if I agree with a group's assertion that the status quo is harmful, or if it's true or not. I'm just willing to acknowledge they think it is.

Well sure; there's no real way to tell someone that their opinion is wrong.

And since I agree inclusivity is a good thing, I'm more than willing to have a more diverse edition since I don't find it harmful to me at all, or against what I'd accept in a new edition...

... to an extent. I'd keep my drow black, and sexuality tame for the core product, though I'd be fine with gay characters.

I agree completely, here.

 

[CroBob]

I don't think that I've heard anyone suggest that there's virtue to be found in not including diversity.

While I don't have an argument advocating to avoid diversity, per say, It has always irritated me when people quoted the famous "Variety is the spice of life". I mean, people can do whatever they want, interact with whomever they want, etc, but I'm not under the impression that something's good just because it's different. For example, someone mentioned bringing in races of humans you don't find in the real world, for example, and that struck me a a variety for variety's sake sort of idea. Including real world human races makes sense if only so that real world people don't feel left out, but with all the human races, plus all the demi-human races, it seems like you're just building up too much diversity. Not that there's anything wrong with it if you want to, but with human races differences being purely superficial, what's the point?

This may be something of an off-subject tangent, though.

 

[TanithT]

Pathfinder is still largely an unknown property made by a small company.

You mean, that unknown property by a small company that is consistently outselling D&D? And clearly not being handicapped in their sales by a strong effort to actively include gender and orientation diversity in their iconics?