D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[S'mon]

Drow have always been a negative and stereotyped portrayal of the Dominatrix-American community.

 

[Mercurius]

1-3) In terms of Heritage - Change is inevitable and I'm all for changing D&D to make it better and even more fun. That said I want well thought out changes that aren't a knee-jerk reaction to seeing racist parallels in everything. Oh and please don't touch what is already established. When you are ready to make these kinds of changes put out some new material such as a setting or a new edition or alternate setting rules to accomplish it. In terms of Inclusivity - you can't be inclusive to everyone, someone will get left out because their are contradictions between beliefs and viewpoints. That's the existential problem of unbridled inclusivity. Which brings me to the inevitable question of - who or what deems who or what is worthy of being included? It's only after those specifics are worked out that we can talk about specific sacrifices/concessions and even whether that's the kind of inclusivity we want?

Very well said - I very much agree. And thanks for a constructive suggestion.

 

[Mercurius]

I have tried to avoid wading into any of these issues on the multiple threads, but I wanted to touch on this. I am not a huge fan of the word heritage. In many Southern areas of the United States, you will often see or hear the phrase, "Heritage not hate" used as a defense to overt symbols of racism. And it's always the same- for example, no one discusses the need for amazing BBQ, or fine bourbon, or the proper way to make cornbread with a need to say that its heritage and not hate ... but you start talking about flags, or how awesome plantations are, and guess what? There is that phrase again.

The reason I bring that up is that "heritage" cannot be used to shortcut uncomfortable conversations, or to elide over unpleasant truths. When I see that the OP framed the debate as one between "heritage" and "inclusivity" it therefore had unfortunate resonance with me.

Maybe it was a poor choice in wording, and "tradition" would have been better. But I think this kind of illustrates a point: any and all words, ideas, tropes, have connotations for different people. If we remove everything that could be interpreted in a certain manner, we're left with--as someone mentioned--amorphous blobs. I agree that change is inevitable and could be a good thing, but as FrogReaver said upthread, we should do so carefully.

One more thing. I liked your anectode about Oriental Adventures because it illustrates that, as a whole, D&D has a very positive influence (if on a small scale). I imagine that all of us can provide similar anecdotes about our minds were broadened or how a new interest was sparked. I think it is important to not lose sight of that, as we focus in on details. Forest and trees, I guess. As someone pointed out, a major part of D&D heritage is actually inclusion.

 

[Lanefan]

I would like Wizards to make a book with all the player character races in it, maybe call it the Player's Handbook (PHB). These races are used to make characters, call them PCs- (player characters, not politically correct). Another book can contain all the opposing peoples and monsters (if we can use that word). Call this book the Monster Manual (MM). The players have the PHB races and the DM has the MM races, plus is able to use the PHB races as monsters if chosen.

Bang on correct, thus far.

Now if Wizards wants to have certain races, or all the races, in the MM be able to be used as player races they can make it so. They can make a new book for 5e that allows this and gives clarity to how these are different than the 'traditional' found in the MM.

But here it falls completely off the track, as you've now got two completely different interpretations of the same creature, its general culture, its general background, and everything else that makes it tick.

So which interpretation takes precedence?

All this does (other than blow up internal setting consistency) is provide a breeding ground for arguments, both at the table and in discussions like this.

No. If a creature is first and foremost a 'monster' then it's specifically not intended to be played as a player's character; and if a situation arises where a player somehow does end up playing one that player is bound to the MM interpretation.

Don't like that interpretation, player? Then play a different creature.

Now where this gets totally weird is that I can make up my own world for my own fun and populate it with anything I want and play with whomever I want. I can make new rules for any of the races to be used for players or monsters. If I want all my orcs to have +2 Int or -2 Int, I can. When it comes to play, the other players will be playing with me or choose to play someplace else if they do not like they way I made my world or home rules. This will either confirm that what I'm doing is ok, or leave me by myself, hopefully thinking about making changes so I can play nicely with others again.

Absolutely. I'm referring to the baseline defaults from which one can then vary if desired.

 

[Lanefan]

You know what was a pretty significant piece of D&D's "heritage"? So much so that it became a recurring joke in the first two Baldur's Gate games?

The Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity

Some things are best left in the past, where they belong*

I'm guessing you probably won't like it, then, when I tell you that full-blooded Orcs in my game have this as a built-in biological feature: adult Orcs semi-spontaneously changing gender (a process that takes a few hours) is a relatively frequent - as in a few times a year for any given one - occurrence.

Sure made me put in a lot of thought as to how they'd reproduce, but I think I've got it sorted.

 

[aco175]

So which interpretation takes precedence?

I would like to keep them apart and have races that players can play and races that are the monsters. I can also accept that some others like to have things both ways and an optional book that lets them do this is ok. I will not buy it, but some will and play just fine with it. If all my players want to try and play in Eberon and that world allows orcs to be PCs, I would let the player play one. In my home campaign or the modified FR we play in, I don't. There was an orc NPC that joined the party for a few weeks while they assaulted the sky cult spire, but not as a PC.

 

[the Jester]

You know what was a pretty significant piece of D&D's "heritage"? So much so that it became a recurring joke in the first two Baldur's Gate games?

The Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity

Some things are best left in the past, where they belong*

Interesting- I have never viewed it as problematic, any more than I view effects that change your skin color as problematic. I'm even down with cursed items that change your race.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

At some point you have to exclude those who refuse to change, though. Do you want to be so inclusive that you have a table with a Leftist and an Alt-right and an LGBT ally and a homophobe, etc?

Gotta say, I gamed 3 years in a group with a guy who- judging by the way we interacted- was probably not super fond of black people.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I’ve gamed in 100+ different RPG systems since picking up AD&D in 1977, mostly fantasy, Sci-fi, horror and supers. One thing I’ve noticed is that some games do much better jobs than others at depicting sentient nonhumans without using real-world racist stereotypes. So many, in fact, that I wonder why some RPG writers keep relying on those old, tired crutches.

Want irredeemably evil races? No problem with that, personally, until the human stereotypes get folded in.

Want to base a fictional culture in a real world one? No problem with that, personally, until the cultural stereotypes get folded in.

More on point: in one particular homebrew, I didn’t remove Orcs, I reskinned* Fritz Lieber’s Nehwon ghouls. IOW, their flesh was essentially transparent, so they looked a lot like skeletons. There were three subspecies, one with green-tinted bones, one with red, one with black. The coloration was linked to environment and diet. While barbaric and carnivorous as Athasian halflings, they were not stupid or bestial beyond their fang-filled mouths. They were obligatory carnivores, but even so, some individuals and even communities had managed to eschew eating sentients.**







* Pun not intended
** Usually

 

[Sadras]

I'm guessing you probably won't like it, then, when I tell you that full-blooded Orcs in my game have this as a built-in biological feature: adult Orcs semi-spontaneously changing gender (a process that takes a few hours) is a relatively frequent - as in a few times a year for any given one - occurrence.

Sure made me put in a lot of thought as to how they'd reproduce, but I think I've got it sorted.

I pegged you for a traditionalist. That is wild.