Mercurius
Legend
I wanted to start a new thread to explore a specific element of recent discussions around D&D races that I think has the potential to at least encourage some kind of integration.
As I see it, there are two core truths or meanings that are underlying the two "sides" in the ongoing debate that, if we tease them out from the more extreme variants, are both quite reasonable (with the caveat that I don't like the idea of "two-sidedness," and find this polarization to be a major part of the problem):
1) D&D Heritage. D&D heritage, as a whole, is meaningful and should be preserved, including the act of creative imagination for its own sake, and the nature of fantasy as distinct from reality.
2) Inclusivity. The D&D game should be welcoming and inclusive to anyone who wants to play it, no matter their ethnicity, gender, sexual preference or identity, ideology, disability, etc.
If we start from looking at those two points, I think it would be difficult to find that--taken on their own--they aren't both meaningful and valid, and worthy of consideration.
Most of the disagreements seem to stem from adherents of either position feeling that the other position in some way undermines their chosen position. This thread is based on the premise that this doesn't need to be the case--that there are ways to integrate both positions, to both preserve D&D heritage and continue to increase inclusiveness.
Now how that can be done is debatable. But if we start from a place of agreement that both are valuable, and most importantly, that both can be integrated into a broader framework, then I think tremendous progress can be made. There probably (definitely) isn't a way to please everyone, and most of us will likely have to bend or adapt our perspective to varying degrees, depending upon how extreme we are one way or the other.
Some questions to be explored could be:
1) Do you agree that both "truths" are important and worth acknowledging and nourishing? If not, why not? If so, then...
2) How to do so in a way that preserves/nourishes the core of both? What can and should be sacrificed? What shouldn't be?
3) If you adhere to one side or the other, what sort of concessions on your part do you feel are reasonable? What are not reasonable?
I have my own ideas on this that I've shared in other threads, but would rather leave it as open-ended, and engage as the discussion goes forward.
While everyone is free to participate however they choose, I would only ask that you at least consider the importance of both views.
As I see it, there are two core truths or meanings that are underlying the two "sides" in the ongoing debate that, if we tease them out from the more extreme variants, are both quite reasonable (with the caveat that I don't like the idea of "two-sidedness," and find this polarization to be a major part of the problem):
1) D&D Heritage. D&D heritage, as a whole, is meaningful and should be preserved, including the act of creative imagination for its own sake, and the nature of fantasy as distinct from reality.
2) Inclusivity. The D&D game should be welcoming and inclusive to anyone who wants to play it, no matter their ethnicity, gender, sexual preference or identity, ideology, disability, etc.
If we start from looking at those two points, I think it would be difficult to find that--taken on their own--they aren't both meaningful and valid, and worthy of consideration.
Most of the disagreements seem to stem from adherents of either position feeling that the other position in some way undermines their chosen position. This thread is based on the premise that this doesn't need to be the case--that there are ways to integrate both positions, to both preserve D&D heritage and continue to increase inclusiveness.
Now how that can be done is debatable. But if we start from a place of agreement that both are valuable, and most importantly, that both can be integrated into a broader framework, then I think tremendous progress can be made. There probably (definitely) isn't a way to please everyone, and most of us will likely have to bend or adapt our perspective to varying degrees, depending upon how extreme we are one way or the other.
Some questions to be explored could be:
1) Do you agree that both "truths" are important and worth acknowledging and nourishing? If not, why not? If so, then...
2) How to do so in a way that preserves/nourishes the core of both? What can and should be sacrificed? What shouldn't be?
3) If you adhere to one side or the other, what sort of concessions on your part do you feel are reasonable? What are not reasonable?
I have my own ideas on this that I've shared in other threads, but would rather leave it as open-ended, and engage as the discussion goes forward.
While everyone is free to participate however they choose, I would only ask that you at least consider the importance of both views.
