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

[Maxperson]

Well, everything we currently consider intelligent* on Earth is considered a person. Like seven billion of them. Quite a lot. Does it have much meaning here?

The point of caling something a "person" is to note that it ought to get a certain amount of basic respect, not be made to unnescesarily suffer, and be assumed to have some rights, so long as it holds up its own end of the social contract - life, liberty, and the purfuit of happineff, and such stuff.

You'd prefer that in our game worlds, intelligent beings... not generally get that?

D&D is quite a bit different from Earth. Here we are all human. There you have not just humans and humanoids, but dragons, mindflayers, githyanki, intelligent constructs and more. They are are going to think differently, quite a bit differently when it comes to aberrations, and have different social contracts. So which social contract do they have to hold up on their end in order to be a person? Human? Their own? If they hold up their own and the social contract is different, even opposite to the human social contract, are they people? Are they not people? Are they only people to themselves? If they're only people to themselves, then humans won't be people to them.

Have you thought through the ethical ramifications of that?

Sure. It's just a more complicated situation than just naming everything intelligent a person.

 

[Aldarc]

Apparently orcs are “human enough” in their thinking that the game thinks that real world humans can play them without much fuss.

 

[Maxperson]

Apparently orcs are “human enough” in their thinking that the game thinks that real world humans can play them without much fuss.

I've played mind flayers and almost everything else, too. DM's have to play lots of different creatures, regardless of how oddly they think.

 

[DammitVictor]

*Not that we actually have a great definition of 'intelligent', but that's really a separate discussion.

A good practical definition of intelligence is whether or not the entity in question takes exception to its intelligence being questioned.

Far as I'm concerned, the first machine to pass the Turing Test is going to be the first machine that objects to failing one.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Admittedly one problem with drow in Eberron (from what I recall) is that they were created as a slave race for the Giants in the Elvish Civil War and they live in an off-brand Africa/South America. Or broadly speaking, an exotic Southern Hemisphere continent. So there is some potential (again, likely unintentional) racial coding.

Sadly, themes like slavery are part of D&D. If we remove anything that is remotely 'insensitive' to everyone, you will have nothing left for the PCs to fight against. So, is it a problem that there is a race (or species) of people enslaved? I don't think so but I think it's important that WotC and published adventures recognizes that this is something 'wrong' that the PCs should fight against. Participants at the table should also all be aware and on-board with whatever content is being used and, if anyone is uncomfortable, they change it or remove it. That is being inclusive.

I think it would be a bad move to remove all hints of controversy(not just slavery). Own it, acknowledge it and be respectful of people's feelings. Be clear that the company intends these themes are to be an obstacle to the PCs and not for a way for players to role play racist fantasies. I think people are going to do whatever they want at their own tables but WotC should be clear that they don't approve.

And this is where the tip-toe dance is going to take place. They will change the flavour of Orcs but, I feel the classic role of Orcs will just be shifted to Gnolls and many published adventures are going to have a difficult time publishing adventures that touch on any real-world issues. But maybe I'm being pessimistic. There's lots of creative people out there. I'm worried there's going to be a lot more taboo subjects from here on out which will affect what kinds of adventures we are going to get published.

 

[Umbran]

D&D is quite a bit different from Earth. Here we are all human. There you have not just humans and humanoids, but dragons, mindflayers, githyanki, intelligent constructs and more. They are are going to think differently, quite a bit differently when it comes to aberrations, and have different social contracts.

Maybe. But, I think you may be guessing that in the wrong direction. Barring some outright differences in cognitive ability we have no reason to believe exists in the fantasy world - humans and other thinking beings generalize very well. In the real world, we note that the more contact and exposure people have with different cultures, the more egalitarian they become about such, rather than less. Greater exposure leads to greater empathy and acceptance. No, it isn't a universal rule, but that's the trend.

The village of Phandalin has humans, elves, half-elves, dwarves, and halflings in it, with gnomes that come to visit and trade. So, if a member of a race nobody in Phandalin has ever seen (say, a githyanki) wanders in and starts talking rather than swinging a sword or spells around, "that's not a person" is not going to be the initial reaction. They already know that persons come in lots of forms, after all, and it is sensible to think they are going to assume personhood until proven otherwise.

 

[Umbran]

Sure. It's just a more complicated situation than just naming everything intelligent a person.

You keep asserting words to this effect, but... not really giving any support to the assertion. Repeating it doesn't make you more correct.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Importantly. In D&D. Or in any fantastical setting. Just because something is intelligent does not mean they are by definition people. May very well be beyond people. And consider them insects. Or cattle.

 

[Oofta]

Hypothetical monster time. Let's say I make a new monster, the Unitaur. Similar to a centaur they're a combination of horse and human except that they have a unicorn head and they're chaotic evil.

An offensive monster depiction:

Spoiler

They're described as being opposed to any form of law and order, always braying about freedom. They only form bonds with unitaurs of their own sex. When dealing with non-unitaurs the females hate all males. The males can can charm females and always trying to seduce the males. They only get together to perpetuate the species. Throw in some stuff about not believing in gender and attacking clerics of "good" religions first. All of this, of course, makes them chaotic evil.

That monster would be horrible, offensive in so many ways. But they obviously aren't humanoid, so for some it seems that they wouldn't qualify as a person. Would you not call out the bigotry in the depiction of unitaurs?

That is my point about what is offensive only applying to monsters that qualify as a "person".

 

[Aldarc]

Okay? But no one has really demonstrated or argued that fiends, for example, have similarly offensive racist rhetoric as we find with orcs. If you would like to make that argument, assuming you are genuinely presenting it in good faith, then the floor is yours to do so. I cede my time for you to cogently make that case.