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

[TheSword]

I think you raise an existential question for this matter. Is it even possible to use the creative process to create content about savages, war loving people, completely evil races, dumber than average races, etc without having that content be offensive? Or are those topics simply off limits? I mean so far, the only solutions I've seen are to simply remove those elements (let's make orcs not dumb, let's make orcs not evil).

If the stereotype is important to you then confound it and turn it on it’s head - orcs as frat boys for in the case of Games Workshop British football hooligans.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I'm offended by the Chardalyn Dragon. At $79.99 it remembers me that some of the coolest things about this hobby are only for people who have a lot of money to spare, which is not my case, with a 1-yo son, an unemployed wife, and 1 USD being about 5.30 BRL right now. I think the existence of the Chardalyn Dragon as a product keeps remembering me that this is not an inclusive hobby, and I feel excluded by it existing and WizKids selling it as one of the "Icons of the Realms". Is my Realms campaign not iconic enough if I cannot afford one?

Obviously, the above is not how I really feel about the Chardalyn Dragon (though I wish I could afford one without taking money from my boy's college fund), but I do know people who believe that this is a perfectly fine position to take about that product. If I took the time to discuss that seriously, I'm pretty sure many people would agree and remember me that I don't hate WizKids, I hate Capitalism, and there's no ethical consumption under capitalism, and that D&D is not an inclusive hobby because books are expensive and all (this is a real discussion on Brazilian Twitter, for those who doubt it).

What do I mean with that? What I and many people here are saying, I believe, is that no amount of offense can set you free of the burden of rational argumentation. Here lies what I believe is an unsolvable conflict: some people here seem to believe that a statement about how one feels about something releases that person from that burden. I don't think that's true unless we're talking about religious testimonials.

One example I'm looking at right now is Paizo's new adventure path. From what I read, it revolves around murder investigation in a big city, and characters happen to be law officers. People are offended about playing as law officers. It seems reasonable at first glance, but look: this is not about street police crushing riots or poor people being framed essentially for being poor, it's more of a Sherlock Holmes-style endeavor. Do I still believe that it's reasonable to be offended? No, I don't. You're free to vote with your money and even campaign online for changes to the module, but I don't believe Paizo should pay attention to your concerns. I don't believe they are reasonable.

On the opposite side of the issue is WotC's drunken Vistani in Curse of Strahd. There you have a module that manages to incorporate pretty much every negative stereotype about Romani people that I have seen in real life. It's reasonable to be offended, to point that, and campaign for a serious review of the original text? I believe it is. I also must state that this, as well as my position on Paizo's new adventure path, is how I see the situation. I'm always willing to change my mind, as long as those trying to persuade me do so based on reasonable arguments.

tl; dr: no amount of personal offense can free you of the burden of presenting reasonable arguments to be offended.

 

[FrogReaver]

So what if they were off-limits if it meant more people enjoyed the game by their absence than those defending their presence?

I'd prefer to establish if we are to the point where those elements are too offensive to include regardless of implementation. Thanks.

 

[FrogReaver]

If the stereotype is important to you then confound it and turn it on it’s head - orcs as frat boys for in the case of Games Workshop British football hooligans.

But that doesn't really answer the primary question being brought forth. Are those elements I listed too offensive to include or is it just a particular implementation of them that's out?

 

[Aldarc]

I'd prefer to establish if we are to the point where those elements are too offensive to include regardless of implementation. Thanks.

This sort of criteria - often set by the non-offended party - is one reason why positive change takes decades.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I'm offended by the Chardalyn Dragon. At $79.99 it remembers me that some of the coolest things about this hobby are only for people who have a lot of money to spare, which is not my case, with a 1-yo son, an unemployed wife, and 1 USD being about 5.30 BRL right now. I think the existence of the Chardalyn Dragon as a product keeps remembering me that this is not an inclusive hobby, and I feel excluded by it existing and WizKids selling it as one of the "Icons of the Realms". Is my Realms campaign not iconic enough if I cannot afford one?

Obviously, the above is not how I really feel about the Chardalyn Dragon (though I wish I could afford one without taking money from my boy's college fund), but I do know people who believe that this is a perfectly fine position to take about that product. If I took the time to discuss that seriously, I'm pretty sure many people would agree and remember me that I don't hate WizKids, I hate Capitalism, and there's no ethical consumption under capitalism, and that D&D is not an inclusive hobby because books are expensive and all (this is a real discussion on Brazilian Twitter, for those who doubt it).

Sorry, I don't mean to ignore your second point but I did want to touch on this: Having a price - any price - excludes a portion of the population from the game. This is a major issue in Parks Services. As soon as you put a price on anything(like access to a National Park), you are telling a certain portion of the population they cannot participate or enjoy something.

Most hobbies are expensive and there's no way around it otherwise companies go bankrupt - although, some materials are free. Certain ethnic groups are disproportionately poor. This is also an issue but I'm not sure it's solvable within the context of the industry itself. But I may be wrong.

As far as inclusiveness and heritage go, have the books always been, traditionally, expensive?

 

[TheSword]

I'm offended by the Chardalyn Dragon. At $79.99 it remembers me that some of the coolest things about this hobby are only for people who have a lot of money to spare, which is not my case, with a 1-yo son, an unemployed wife, and 1 USD being about 5.30 BRL right now. I think the existence of the Chardalyn Dragon as a product keeps remembering me that this is not an inclusive hobby, and I feel excluded by it existing and WizKids selling it as one of the "Icons of the Realms". Is my Realms campaign not iconic enough if I cannot afford one?

Obviously, the above is not how I really feel about the Chardalyn Dragon (though I wish I could afford one without taking money from my boy's college fund), but I do know people who believe that this is a perfectly fine position to take about that product. If I took the time to discuss that seriously, I'm pretty sure many people would agree and remember me that I don't hate WizKids, I hate Capitalism, and there's no ethical consumption under capitalism, and that D&D is not an inclusive hobby because books are expensive and all (this is a real discussion on Brazilian Twitter, for those who doubt it).

What do I mean with that? What I and many people here are saying, I believe, is that no amount of offense can set you free of the burden of rational argumentation. Here lies what I believe is an unsolvable conflict: some people here seem to believe that a statement about how one feels about something releases that person from that burden. I don't think that's true unless we're talking about religious testimonials.

One example I'm looking at right now is Paizo's new adventure path. From what I read, it revolves around murder investigation in a big city, and characters happen to be law officers. People are offended about playing as law officers. It seems reasonable at first glance, but look: this is not about street police crushing riots or poor people being framed essentially for being poor, it's more of a Sherlock Holmes-style endeavor. Do I still believe that it's reasonable to be offended? No, I don't. You're free to vote with your money and even campaign online for changes to the module, but I don't believe Paizo should pay attention to your concerns. I don't believe they are reasonable.

On the opposite side of the issue is WotC's drunken Vistani in Curse of Strahd. There you have a module that manages to incorporate pretty much every negative stereotype about Romani people that I have seen in real life. It's reasonable to be offended, to point that, and campaign for a serious review of the original text? I believe it is. I also must state that this, as well as my position on Paizo's new adventure path, is how I see the situation. I'm always willing to change my mind, as long as those trying to persuade me do so based on reasonable arguments.

tl; dr: no amount of personal offense can free you of the burden of presenting reasonable arguments to be offended.

Do you honestly feel that the unpleasant experiences where people of colour are reminded of racism by what they experience in the game equates to not being able to buy a luxury toy you want?

It’s great that you empathize with people associated with the vistani but the fact that you don’t empathize say with James Mendez Hodes or Clio Yun-Su Davis doesn’t make them wrong. They have explained why is a problem. If you haven’t read that I suggest you google his blog or find the links posted in the other threads.

 

[FrogReaver]

This sort of criteria - often set by the non-offended party - is one reason why positive change takes decades.

I think it's fair to establish what the full extent of the positive change you are talking about looks like.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, don’t make it remind real world people of racism they have experienced in the real world. Simple.

Unless it’s for your home game and you’re pretty sure no one will be offended, in which case do what you like.

So much for trying to engage in conversation or gain an understanding.

@Oofta, the problem is not the orcs per de but, rather, how the rhetoric the game uses to describe and talk about orcs has parallels (if not links via roots in colonialist literature) to the rhetoric that white supremacists use/have used about non-whites. A significant part of the calls for change pertain to changing the rhetoric for orcs and other “monstrous” humanoids.

To answer your question about evil forces that players can face with little qualms - here noting that this would not be the first (nor I imagine the last) time that people have given you acceptable answers for you to discard - undead, aberrations, abominations, and the like are still available even if one does not want to use fiends.

If there is wording or imagery that is troubling, there is no way to change that wording or imagery so that it is not troubling?

I like having simplistic black-and-white in my games sometimes. But even that phrase "black-and-white" could be seen as offensive. I remember there being a big kerfluffle at one point about black holes. People take offense at a lot of things, and in many cases it's justified. In other cases it is not.

Another example. Are ogres a racist depiction? If we made them medium would they be? After all they're even dumber than orcs on average, just as violent. Less is written about them, but what separates them from orcs other than size?

 

[FrogReaver]

Do you honestly feel that the unpleasant experiences where people of colour are reminded of racism by what they experience in the game equates to not being able to buy a luxury toy you want?

It’s great that you empathize with people associated with the vistani but the fact that you don’t empathize say with James Mendez Hodes or Clio Yun-Su Davis doesn’t make them wrong. They have explained why is a problem. If you haven’t read that I suggest you google his blog or find the links posted in the other threads.

Wait a minute, aren't Brazillians people of colour?