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

[Hussar]

Rather than go through your longer post, I'll just thank you here for the work you put into it.

The only change that needs to be made to IMO make it all work just fine is that instead of the Duergar coming back to the Dwarves seeking peaceful re-entry and being rejected, have them come back as aggressive invaders and get rejected. That gives each group ongoing reason to be torqued off with the other, and on we go.

Alternatively, you could present a segment of Dwarven society that realizes they made a mistake and are working to find some sort of rapprochement between the two groups. It adds depth to both sides.

It's certainly resolvable without too much effort.

 

[Scott Christian]

Right, so abandon morality and ethics, they will not serve you here.

The logic was if you get caught by slavers and don't get to worship properly, you are a bad person. And I don't want that in my fantasy stories, sorry

In the lore, it doesn't really spell out "bad person." It implies weakness. Kind of like Denethor made Faramir feel for ceding Osgiliath. I mean he made him charge into a battle that would certainly be his death. Or a Klingon being excised because they lose a fight. So instead of "bad person" we could come from the vantage point of weak; ie, the dwarves thinking: We managed to stave off these creatures. You should have too.

And since we are looking at these things from all sorts of perspectives, that one seems valid. At least that's my remembrance of the lore.

 

[Chaosmancer]

In the lore, it doesn't really spell out "bad person." It implies weakness. Kind of like Denethor made Faramir feel for ceding Osgiliath. I mean he made him charge into a battle that would certainly be his death. Or a Klingon being excised because they lose a fight. So instead of "bad person" we could come from the vantage point of weak; ie, the dwarves thinking: We managed to stave off these creatures. You should have too.

And since we are looking at these things from all sorts of perspectives, that one seems valid. At least that's my remembrance of the lore.

I'm going to agree that it is a valid interpretation of the mythos. And I am going to assume that is as far as you intended that to go.


Now I'm going to step beyond that.

That is a big problem, if that is the intended message. Because that is victim-blaming. Whole-Hog.

"You should have been strong enough not to be mentally compelled into slavery, everything that happened is because you were too weak"

And again, having a character say this to another character isn't wrong, but having it presented from a good character, one meant to embody the concepts of goodness, and it be a proper chastisement, not them being cruel or extreme but being reasonable, that is ugly and a problem with your story.

I mean, imagine Mother Theresa for a second, someone who is referred to as a near saint, and imagine her telling someone "you got sick because you were too weak. This illness is your fault." It just doesn't jive, it feels dissonant and wrong. And that's the issue I've got with the Duergar situation. The actions of the dwarves are not justified, but are presented as though they were justified.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

All these "whataboutits" really, really miss the point of what people are complaining about.

I'm not ignoring or missing what people are complaining about. I think I mentioned a few hundred posts ago that I understood why people would be both, upset about the issue with races AND with the changes. A 'whataboutit' (as you call it) is trying to delve deeper into the issue than what is presently going on. It's saying, "ok, here is how they are dealing with the issue. Has the solution been well thought out? What will be the consequences of those decisions? If so, how can issues arising from the solution be mitigated? How might it affect the game in the future?"

These are actual concerns and questions people have. Why not talk about them?

I mean, it's fine if people don't want to get into the meat of an issue and just want to have cyclic arguments about who's right and who's wrong. I'm not interested in that and I didn't really think that was the point of this thread. It's also why I'm done discussing it.

 

[Scott Christian]

I'm going to agree that it is a valid interpretation of the mythos. And I am going to assume that is as far as you intended that to go.


Now I'm going to step beyond that.

That is a big problem, if that is the intended message. Because that is victim-blaming. Whole-Hog.

"You should have been strong enough not to be mentally compelled into slavery, everything that happened is because you were too weak"

And again, having a character say this to another character isn't wrong, but having it presented from a good character, one meant to embody the concepts of goodness, and it be a proper chastisement, not them being cruel or extreme but being reasonable, that is ugly and a problem with your story.

I mean, imagine Mother Theresa for a second, someone who is referred to as a near saint, and imagine her telling someone "you got sick because you were too weak. This illness is your fault." It just doesn't jive, it feels dissonant and wrong. And that's the issue I've got with the Duergar situation. The actions of the dwarves are not justified, but are presented as though they were justified.

I agree with everything you say except that it is a problem.

First, it is not my story. It is lore. It is a make believe story in a make believe world, with make believe characters, and make believe magic, and make believe cultures, that worship make believe gods. It is not mine.

Second, it is a fantasy trope; a characteristic of dwarves, among many fantasy races: elves being haughty and egotistical might have come to the same conclusion; githyanki being a caste society and with the "stronger pillage the weak" mentality would certainly come to the same conclusion; even a modron might view it as a parasite and thus resort to exile. I realize that only one of those are "good." But threw in the evil and neutral to stop the debate from veering down that road.

Here is what you wrote: "And again, having a character say this to another character isn't wrong, but having it presented from a good character, one meant to embody the concepts of goodness, and it be a proper chastisement, not them being cruel or extreme but being reasonable, that is ugly and a problem with your story."

I italicized the part I agree with. There should be two sides represented. Sounds like a good idea for a novel to tell you the truth. A Dwarven sect that wants to defend their pre-duergar brothers from being outcasts, and thus come to be rebels against the other dwarves. It should be there. And you are right, it is ugly. But it's not a problem (and again, not my story). It is called conflict. Many conflicts in fantasy are ugly. That is what makes them a conflict. I mean the definition of conflict in a story is the struggle between opposing forces. Some of those forces might be good, but doing the wrong thing. Some might be bad but doing the wrong thing. The devils are keeping the demons at bay and from destroying the world. It doesn't make them good.

So again, I agree. But, maybe if you can explain to me why it's a problem I promise I will listen, keep an open mind, and try to understand.

And please, I am asking nicely (and not just you), please stop using real life analogies. It doesn't fit. I would probably worship Mother Theresa if I saw her cast raise dead or cure critical wounds. But she can't. So she is a person in real life meant to be an inspiration to millions. That's it. There is no D&D cross-reference for her. In my humble opinion.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You missed a lot of points here, and some of them I'm honestly scratching my head about.

I agree with everything you say except that it is a problem.

First, it is not my story. It is lore. It is a make believe story in a make believe world, with make believe characters, and make believe magic, and make believe cultures, that worship make believe gods. It is not mine.

Perhaps this is an English thing. But, I never implied or thought that you were the writer for Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. I was using "you" in the generic referring to an audience sense. If someone is writing a story, and this is what happens, it is a problem with that story they wrote.

Secondly, being make believe has nothing to do with anything. A story is a story, whether make believe or not, and in fact, make believe stories must be even more careful about making sense, because you do not have the defense of "look, I know it doesn't make sense, but that is what really happened." Full Authorial Control has that drawback.

And please, I am asking nicely (and not just you), please stop using real life analogies. It doesn't fit. I would probably worship Mother Theresa if I saw her cast raise dead or cure critical wounds. But she can't. So she is a person in real life meant to be an inspiration to millions. That's it. There is no D&D cross-reference for her. In my humble opinion.

What? Honestly, what does having her be worshiped, raising the dead or anything like that have to do with her personality?

I used her as an example because she is an inspiration to millions for her kindness, compassion and good work. She is a near universal benchmark to point to and say "that is a good person". That is why if you heard a story about her acting cruel or malicious, it would be dissonant and wrong. Because she is a good person, that doesn't make sense for her to act that way.

Second, it is a fantasy trope; a characteristic of dwarves, among many fantasy races: elves being haughty and egotistical might have come to the same conclusion; githyanki being a caste society and with the "stronger pillage the weak" mentality would certainly come to the same conclusion; even a modron might view it as a parasite and thus resort to exile. I realize that only one of those are "good." But threw in the evil and neutral to stop the debate from veering down that road.

Here is what you wrote: "And again, having a character say this to another character isn't wrong, but having it presented from a good character, one meant to embody the concepts of goodness, and it be a proper chastisement, not them being cruel or extreme but being reasonable, that is ugly and a problem with your story."

I italicized the part I agree with. There should be two sides represented. Sounds like a good idea for a novel to tell you the truth. A Dwarven sect that wants to defend their pre-duergar brothers from being outcasts, and thus come to be rebels against the other dwarves. It should be there. And you are right, it is ugly. But it's not a problem (and again, not my story). It is called conflict. Many conflicts in fantasy are ugly. That is what makes them a conflict. I mean the definition of conflict in a story is the struggle between opposing forces. Some of those forces might be good, but doing the wrong thing. Some might be bad but doing the wrong thing. The devils are keeping the demons at bay and from destroying the world. It doesn't make them good.

So again, I agree. But, maybe if you can explain to me why it's a problem I promise I will listen, keep an open mind, and try to understand.

The conclusion itself isn't the problem. It is the framing around the conclusion.

Yes, good people can act terribly. That happens. Yes, bad things can happen to good, innocent people. That happens.

But, how we frame those events adds another layer, and the framing in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes is not just that the Dwarves blamed the Duergar for their plight, but that the Dwarves were not wrong to do so.

We both agree that this course of action was ugly and wrong, but the book presents the story as though the dwarves did the right thing. That what they did was not ugly and wrong, after all, the Duergar are the bad guys and the Dwarves are the good guys. The Duergar are greedy now, they do hate Moradin now, so they must have been greedy and hateful back then, and that is why they were enslaved and tortured.

We are not meant to see the Dwarves choice to cast them out as morally wrong, but morally right.

And that is the problem. You have an event that was ugly, cruel and needless, and it is being framed as the correct course of action for the good dwarves to have taken.

And remember, this is not presented to us as "the dwarven side of the story" this is presented to us from an impartial third party point of view.

 

[Bagpuss]

No they couldn't. The whole current debate was sparked by the fact that up until recently you couldn't play an orc who wasn't evil and stupid, and now you can.

How recently? You could in 3rd Ed it even had rules for orc PCs.

Even in 3rd Ed orcs are only usually Chaotic Evil, and have a -2 Int modifier, 16 Int isn’t exactly stupid you could even be a reasonable Wizard.

Now if you had said Gully Dwarfs in 2nd Ed fair enough they couldn’t have a Int above 9.

 

[Oofta]

How recently? You could in 3rd Ed it even had rules for orc PCs.

Even in 3rd Ed orcs are only usually Chaotic Evil, and have a -2 Int modifier, 16 Int isn’t exactly stupid you could even be a reasonable Wizard.

Now if you had said Gully Dwarfs in 2nd Ed fair enough they couldn’t have a Int above 9.

The main difference is that most races had a negative modifier in 3E. I had a dwarf in Living Greyhawk that had a 5 charisma after being hit with an ugly stick.

In 5E orcs are the only ones, or one of the few.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not ignoring or missing what people are complaining about. I think I mentioned a few hundred posts ago that I understood why people would be both, upset about the issue with races AND with the changes. A 'whataboutit' (as you call it) is trying to delve deeper into the issue than what is presently going on. It's saying, "ok, here is how they are dealing with the issue. Has the solution been well thought out? What will be the consequences of those decisions? If so, how can issues arising from the solution be mitigated? How might it affect the game in the future?"

These are actual concerns and questions people have. Why not talk about them?

I mean, it's fine if people don't want to get into the meat of an issue and just want to have cyclic arguments about who's right and who's wrong. I'm not interested in that and I didn't really think that was the point of this thread. It's also why I'm done discussing it.

But, that's not the "meat" of the issue, nor is it delving deeper. The meat of the issue isn't "what about evil bad guys" because "evil bad guys" is not an issue. No one has a problem with evil bad guys, because, well, bad guys are supposed to be evil. So, your Hitler Lich would be perfectly fine. He's a BAD GUY. It would only be problematic if the victims were presented as deserving to die and be turned into mindless undead, or if Hitler Lich were somehow justified in his actions.

So, why not talk about them? Because these issues are non-sequiturs that only serve to confuse the issue. Why are you talking about "evil bad guys" when no one has an issue with evil bad guys?

It's why this topic is so frustrating.

A: We want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B: I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. What about being evil?
A: No, no, we want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B; I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. What about this other monster that's completely unrelated to what you brought up?
A: No, no, we want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B: I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. What about these monsters over here that are completely unrelated to what you are saying?
A: No, no, we want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B: I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. Why won't you talk about these other issues. They are important aren't they? Why aren't they problems for you?
A: No, no, we want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.

Wash, rinse, repeat for page after page after page.

Even if you don't agree with the interpretation, that doesn't meant that there is some other problem. Your (and I'm using you here in the general sense of anyone reading this) inability to empathize with other people's issues is the key issue here. Even if you don't have a problem with the language, how is it in anyone's interest to keep insisting on other justifications? Why not actually take a look at what is needed to resolve the issue - minor editing of a couple of monsters in such a way that the core of the monster is largely unchanged, as has been REPEATEDLY shown in this thread - instead of continuously searching for some sort of other reason?

 

[Sadras]

I REALLY need to read my MToF, didn't realise there was an issue with the dwarvern history.
The only thing I have used of that book so far is the Githyanki Lore and some of the stat blocks.