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

[Mercurius]

It’s almost comical. Pretty much everyone agrees that the language is problematic and should be changed, yet even those who agree are still bringing up counter arguments.

It really is bizarre.

I don't think the language is problematic, but I accept that some do and that at this point, some finessing would be beneficial so that, at the least, these sorts of endless arguments dwindle (and we can move onto duergar...erk).

 

[Hussar]

/snip

The damsel in distress is a bit of a red herring because it isn't currently the issue; furthermore, damsels are real humans, orcs and drow are fantasy creatures. But the has already been mostly solved through diversifying the depiction of women, but that diversification doesn't erase the damsel. Similarly with what I am suggesting with orcs: broaden the definition, take a big tent approach that supports numerous depictions.

/snip

You mean, ... we shouldn't really worry about stuff that isn't an issue right now, and deal with stuff that actually IS an issue right now? But, but, but, that means we'll have to have this conversation again some time in the future because... well... people will always want to change stuff right... so... we shouldn't do anything until we have 100% of all the potential issue ironed out forevermore.

At least, that's the argument that's been put forth in this thread, more than a few times.

But, yeah, you and I largely agree on what needs to be done, and, frankly, I think most people do too. Broaden the tent is probably the most supported option.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Really? So the depiction of orcs by Keith Baker is racist depiction of Latinx? Because a lot of people seem to disagree with that. Truth be told I don't even really believe it all that much. On the other hand all races in D&D are described with one standard caricature with easy to grasp traits.

I know I would tweak the orc fluff if I could, that doesn't make your blanket statement true.

My statement is correct. I may have stated it wrong, but what I meant was "You can't have something be racist, if people aren't there to find it racist."
The person I quoted said that "it's racist because someone says it is" and I replied essentially saying, "If people say it's racist, it's probably because it is".

If some BIPOC or Hispanic person comes out and says that Eberron Orcs are racist, or they're offended by them, fine. If you're not in that group, you don't really get to determine if Eberron Orcs are racist against hispanics. Make sense?

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

Folks, the "this is racist/no it isn't" arguments were a large part of what got two threads closed a little while ago. At this point, nobody is actually convincing anyone. Both sides are entrenched - it is an argument to see who gives up first.

I will deny both sides the "win". Drop the argument. Now.

 

[Hussar]

Realistically, the "big tent" solution is probably the best way forward for everyone. Those that want any type of orc still get that and, with the broader depiction of orcs, it becomes a template for how to move forward if other bits become and issue. It's really win win for everyone.

Call it the Klingonization of fantasy races. I can't see how that's a bad thing. You still have Klingon bad guys while adding in Klingon good guys. And, hey, Klingons in between as well. Seems like a good idea.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes but for entirely different reasons.

The story of the Duergar is that they were dwarves who were tricked into mental slavery, but since they didn't worship Moradin on his holy day (because, you know, the slave masters who controlled their brains wouldn't let them) Moradin abandoned them as unfaithful and cast them out. And, they ended up having to save themselves, their new god being the hero who freed them from slavery

They are evil for hating and attacking the dwarves... which seems completely justified since the dwarves and Moradin essentially abadoned them to slavery and torment for centuries and are blaming the Duergar for what happened to them.

So yeah, I'm all for excising the Duergar entirely.

I honestly can't tell whether a) you're speaking as a Dwarf here and saying Duergar have to go in the fiction, or b) you've an issue with how Duergar and-or their lore are presented and are thus saying they have to go in reality.

If a), all is good.

If b), please elaborate.

 

[Maxperson]

Look who started the "what is a person" sidebar and your confusion should evaporate. No one arguing for changing the definitions of orcs and drow to remove the racist stuff is arguing that having evil humanoids is wrong. That's a straw man that has been invented whole cloth.

Who was it? I know my first post on that topic was responding to someone else/

 

[Maxperson]

Something is always racist because someone says it is.

Saying and being are two different things.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Saying and being are two different things.

We're not allowed to discuss if it is or isn't racist. All we know is that people complained about it, and it's being changed. I doubt WotC would change something major if it wasn't a significant complaint.

My question from many pages before remains mostly unanswered:
Is heritage or inclusivity more important?

I think the game should be as inclusive as important, even if that requires removing some of D&D's heritage. I've seen people arguing near the opposite, that heritage is more important than inclusivity.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Prioritizing heritage over inclusivity feels like gate-keeping to me - and when not talking about literal gates, I'm opposed to gate-keeping on principle.