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

[Mercurius]

Just to be clear -- if this thread does just end up rehashing the existing two, we'll need to close it. The moderation overhead right now is immense, and we don't have the hours in the day to handle a third identical thread (the post reports number at the top of my screen is red and is not a small number, and it's 1am!) Just an advance warning.

That would be sad and I hope it doesn't come to that, because the impetus behind this thread--unlike the two other threads--is to bring the two sides together, while the other two are more focused on entrenched two-sidedness, so I hope that will be considered with regards to any moderation that does occur.

So to re-frame my intention: How do we bring the two sides together? If both perspectives--as outlined in my original post--are true on their own, how to honor both? I'm going to stroll in the woods, but will try to offer my thoughts later.

 

[Mercurius]

People can't even agree on to which ethnic group orcs supposedly are connected, so how can you remove said connection without removing orcs entirely?

It is a valid point, but I think given Morrus's warning, that is better addressed in one of the other threads. I'll instead reframe what you said, as follows: Given that some feel that orcs are characterized by negative racial stereotypes, how to de-couple or negate that stereotypes while still preserving what makes orcs orcish?

The point being, let's try to focus on constructive solutions, rather than arguing one side or the other.

 

[bloodtide]

The Cliff Notes version (as I see it):

Thanks.

Well, the first one is a bit pointless. I mean I guess WotC can come out with a new book, The All Race Book. And that book can "officially" say "anyone of any race can be anything" and have special anything rules. And with everything a "stereotype" to someone...what can they remove? Everything?

And the other side does not really have to worry as everything has always been the "anything" way always.

Like the the New Player will grab the All Race Book and hold it up high and say "finnaly I can play a Good Drow Character!" and then the older gamer will say "Oh I have a Good Drow Character that I have been playing for 20 years...lets get together and play a game."

Really, I see the two sides as already on the same page. Is there a split they don't agree on?

 

[Xenonnonex]

If D&D heritage is found to be a problem why should it be preserved. Honor it in other ways. And change things from concerns. Change things from suggestions. Does not take away its meaningfulness. Or its history.
Still clinging onto its heritage is meaningless. And harmful. If concerns are ignored. If suggestions are ignored.
We live in different times. Hopeful we have at least come further in society.

 

[LordEntrails]

@Mercurius Nice try. I agree with you that it doesn't have to be either or, but I think people are too set in the emotional viewpoints to actually see and consider a different view or to question their own absolutes.

Good luck.

 

[delphonso]

I feel the heritage of DnD can be safely ignored. DnD has had setting shifts, rules rewrites, and description changes along the way. Kobolds became lizardy, Firbolgs became naturey, etc. So I feel changing specifics to help inclusivity is not a problem - even moreso, it's in keeping with DnD heritage of filling a niche in new editions which wasn't filled before.

People on this forum rail against Rune Knight's size increase. I think that is representative of the problem in inclusivity as DnD currently stands. Racial decisions result in your character having features and drawbacks you didn't decide or want, based on the book, rather than discussion between player and GM. Easily avoidable, yes, but often not.

 

[DammitVictor]

1) D&D Heritage. D&D heritage, as a whole, is meaningful and should be preserved, including the act of creative imagination for its own sake, and the nature of fantasy as distinct from reality.

2) Inclusivity. The D&D game should be welcoming and inclusive to anyone who wants to play it, no matter their ethnicity, gender, sexual preference or identity, ideology, disability, etc.

Despite my activity of the last few days, I would actually identify myself much more with #1 than with #2-- I agree with both statements, as a matter of course, but I don't want to see the nature of D&D fundamentally changed-- and when I am upset with WotC, it is more often than not because they have changed something than because they haven't.

I do not want to change the fundamental gameplay loop of D&D, the "colonialist narrative" that I have to keep reminding people actually means something except to restore the domain-level play (the act of ruling your colony) and immortal-level play that WotC senselessly amputated in 2000. I just want people to acknowledge the elephant in the room, first because their flimsy denials offend my sense of reason, and second because I believe-- in my heart of hearts-- that consciously acknowledging that certain ideas are toxic makes it easier to entertain those notions without accepting them.

Because as far as I know, I'm the only person on this forum saying that it's okay for D&D to be racist as hell as long as everyone at the table is drawing that bright line between what the game says is Good and what is actually good. Everyone else appears to be arguing either that roleplaying is a purely meaningless pastime with no bearing on our thoughts and feelings-- again, obvious nonsense-- or that the gameplay narrative of heroic civilized people going into the wilderness to eradicate uncivilized people isn't problematic.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but people who don't think that's a problem are the reason it's such a big problem.

2) How to do so in a way that preserves/nourishes the core of both? What can and should be sacrificed? What shouldn't be?

Well, I think we can easily start by saying that human(oid) cultures that are based on gross ethnic stereotypes need to be revised-- that this is not a terrible loss, and that most of the work can be accomplished by adding to those cultures rather than subtracting from them.

Second, we can acknowledge that it's possible for "the pretty people" to be war with "the ugly people", to have always been at war with them-- for noone on either side to have hope for peace-- without making it psychologically or spiritually impossible for then to be at peace. Human beings are theoretically capable of living in peace with one another, and yet no American on this forum has lived a single day when American soliders were not making war somehwere on the globe.

I come from a long line of criminals and adventurers, which I'm proud of, and some of my ancestors took part in the slave trade, which I'm less proud of. I'm a white descendant of the Choctaw Nation. I've had family on both sides of every single American war from the Revolution to World War II, and on the US side of every military engagement since.

I am saying this to demonstrate that it is absolutely, 100% possible to kill people and take their stuff and to engage in every manner of crime and war and war crime without the Objectively Lawfully Goodest God of Genocide and Hygiene holding your hand and telling you that you're a good boy. You can still play all the scenarios you ever played before, make all the same decisions you did before, in a world where orcs are simply violently unpleasant people who don't like your face.

And then you can tell other stories, too, like the dual-wielding CG orcish ranger who has rejected his evil society. Or... the CG orcish barbarian who's adventuring to get the wealth and allies needed to take over his evil society before his demihuman "allies" beat him to it. Or the CN orcish bard who doesn't give a pile of dead gnomes about his evil society. The orcish rogue who escaped from his human slavemasters, and wants to get rich enough in human society that they can't take him back.

See... and this sounds like it's all #2, but it isn't. Orcs were playable in Classic D&D via The Orcs of Thar (though, yiiiiikes, I hope they don't start censoring their old stuff because I love this one but yiiiiikes) and in AD&D via The Complete Book of Humanoids. Don't recall which book, but one of the early First Edition random encounter tables-- for a civilized urban area-- had a result for gangs of humanoids living right in the middle of the city. They might not get on well, they might not have much regard for the law--but they got there somehow and nobody else killed them yet.

Monstrous Player Characters are a part of D&D's legacy. They've been a part of D&D's legacy for longer than most of the people saying they ain't.

 

[Mercurius]

Thanks for the reply, @FaerieGodfather. There's a lot there to digest, some of which I resonate with, some not so much--but that's ok and par for the course.

I just want to parse out one aspect, that of the "colonialist narrative." I agree that it is a largely unacknowledge elephant the room that creates a basic assumption to the game. To some degree that fits with the pre-modern aesthetic and fits the notion of play-acting Medieval crusaders or early modern explorers. Nothing wrong with that, with the caveat that I personally put limits on what sort of characters I want to play or games I want to DM (e.g. not a big fan of raping and pillaging, even in a fantasy context).

What I would add that in fantasy, there are other basic assumptions to draw from. That's part of the fun of it: you can create a world of your own making. For instance, for my own fictional world that I've been developing for years for a series of novels, I play with the idea of a non-Medieval fantasy that is closer to early modernity, with elements of the contemporary world, and thus has different assumptions. The point being, a specific campaign world can be designed in any number of ways, and it would be interesting to see WotC explore more variations than just the default pseudo-Medievalism--not just in terms of window-dressing, but the deeper assumptions about what "adventuring" is about.

 

[bloodtide]

I feel the heritage of DnD can be safely ignored.

Not so much ignored: it is more that it does not exist. I get some people saying they "like x", but they sure can't say D&D has always had "x". I agree that the game should not be changed on a whim, but the game has already changed...years, if not decades ago.

that the gameplay narrative of heroic civilized people going into the wilderness to eradicate uncivilized people isn't problematic.

Except this is not the core of D&D? Sure over the past near 50 years some adventure plots have been that....but then tons of them have not been that. Going all the way back to 1E, the big adventures were Against the Giants and Against the Drow.....both civilized people.

Second, we can acknowledge that it's possible for "the pretty people" to be war with "the ugly people",

Again, not exactly a core D&D thing. Going way back elves have been at war with the drow AND other elves and humans, etc. The campgain settings are quite complex with such things.

And then you can tell other stories, too,

D&D based fiction has never been shy of telling such stories.

but one of the early First Edition random encounter tables-- for a civilized urban area-- had a result for gangs of humanoids living right in the middle of the city. They might not get on well, they might not have much regard for the law--but they got there somehow and nobody else killed them yet.

I'm pretty sure this book was called The Dungeonmasters Guide.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I just want to parse out one aspect, that of the "colonialist narrative." I agree that it is a largely unacknowledge elephant the room that creates a basic assumption to the game. To some degree that fits with the pre-modern aesthetic and fits the notion of play-acting Medieval crusaders or early modern explorers. Nothing wrong with that, with the caveat that I personally put limits on what sort of characters I want to play or games I want to DM (e.g. not a big fan of raping and pillaging, even in a fantasy context).

One of the problems with this, when compared to the real world, is that a vast majority of "evil" done by humans in war and expansionism is done in the name of religion. And while we could argue for the rest of our lives whether any of Earth's deities are real or not, in most fantasy settings they are very real to the PCs and NPCs. So if your god tells you to go and conquer your neighbor, you do it. And if you worship one of the darker deities that is morally grey or outright evil, you use all the horrible tools you can in your conquest. This is also why I do not participate in games where evil alignments are allowed. I don't want to be associated with any of that, even in an imaginary way.