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

[Mercurius]

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.

I hear you, and it is a good point. D&D--as a domain of fantasy and imagination--cannot, and generally does not, represent actual reality, in a similar way that a piece of art--unless it is photo-realistic (which I'm not a fan of)--doesn't accurately or exactly portray what it is representing. D&D, as I see it, is mythic: it deals in archetypes and ideas, not literal realities.

This, I think, is where a lot of the current concerns stem from, a perspective that art (D&D) must accurately represent life (real world ideas). Now D&D can be played that way, but that isn't the traditional default approach. There is a reason we like to play make-believe, so that we can explore other worlds.

I mean, who wants to play a D&D game where you have to wait in line at the fantasy version of the DMV? Or stuck in traffic? Paying taxes? Dealing with gout?

As far as evil is concerned, I think where we both agree is that neither of us wants to inhabit the imaginative space of being evil, at least for too long. It is interesting to consider, and when I DM of course that is part of it, but a DM has greater distance between themselves and the monsters than a player and their character, if only because a DM takes on the roles of multiple creatures and people, all over the spectrum.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

At some point you have to exclude those who refuse to change, though. Do you want to be so inclusive that you have a table with a Leftist and an Alt-right and an LGBT ally and a homophobe, etc?

Right. You exclude the bigots, because they are a direct threat to an inclusive hobby.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Right. You exclude the bigots, because they are a direct threat to an inclusive hobby.

Yes, if they refuse to change or just cannot keep their opinions to themselves. Sadly, we probably all know people like that and just do not know it because that person has never demonstrated those beliefs around us or maybe have never acted on them. Though in the social media age, it has become very hard for people to keep their mouths shut and act like they do not hate who they actually do hate. And even though there are people out there who are trying to fill the role, we do not have Thought Police yet.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, if they refuse to change or just cannot keep their opinions to themselves. Sadly, we probably all know people like that and just do not know it because that person has never demonstrated those beliefs around us or maybe have never acted on them. Though in the social media age, it has become very hard for people to keep their mouths shut and act like they do not hate who they actually do hate. And even though there are people out there who are trying to fill the role, we do not have Thought Police yet.

Sure. If the bigots know their ideology isn’t welcome anywhere, they won’t spout their bigotry, and fewer and fewer young people will be recruited, improving society.

My best friend in grade school and for years after, one of my groomsmen, who housed me when I was unemployed after the 08 recession hit my area especially hard (we had the highest unemployment in the nation, at one point), is no longer my friend, because he descended into the sort of abjectly stupid racism that drives a person to argue that one “race” is biologically less intelligent than another, and tried to quote the kind of crap you see on websites like stormfront.

There is no place for bigots in D&D.

 

[Olrox17]

I appreciate what the OP is trying to accomplish in this thread. I have some ideas.

- The -2 Int penalty for orc can go, and already has for Eberron orcs. Orcs being low IQ is not, I feel, a necessary part of their heritage. Not even Tolkien orcs would necessarily qualify as dumb to me, honestly.

- Different settings could and should have different depictions of races. FR halfings are good people, DS halflings are evil cannibalistic xenophobes. Greyhawk orcs should be allowed to be almost demonic, while Eberron orcs are just people.

- In worlds where Gruumsh is present, it may be a little easier to have 95% of orcs as evil. A literal god, a meddling one to boot, created this race and wants it to be like him. Gruumsh uses his power to actively influence orc society, and handsomely rewards the destruction of any orc tribe that chooses to defy his will. Think greek god levels of pettiness.

- So, if we established that orcish society can be almost monolithically evil in the right setting and with the right story, how to represent evil orcs well? We removed the -2 Int, so they're not dumb, primitive savages.
My take: all orcs have a powerful fury in their hearts.
Orcs that are evil (because of the influence of beings like Gruumsh or Iuz, or out of free choice) channel that fury for violent, wanton destruction, and they're little more than earthly demons.
Orcs that are good feel great, righteous fury in the face of evil and do everything in their power to stop it.
We might even have lawful neutral orcs being judge dredd types, and chaotic neutral orcs being true anarchists. Oh, and true neutral orcs might embody that strange "everything must be in balance" ideal that I hear was common in early D&D.
Bottom line, evil orcs are scary and dangerous. Good orcs are also scary and dangerous...to their foes.

 

[Hussar]

Rolling back to the beginning

/snip
1) Do you agree that both "truths" are important and worth acknowledging and nourishing? If not, why not? If so, then...

No, I do not. Inclusivity trumps Heritage. If, at any point, a "Heritage" element impedes inclusivity, then the Heritage element has to be changed. That's just how it goes. We don't accept chainmail bikinis anymore. This is no different.

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?

Again, if something is impeding inclusivity, then it must be changed. That's the bottom line. It makes the most sense from a business perspective (appeal to a broader audience) and a moral one. There just is no argument here. Someone's interpretation of a fantasy element is NEVER more important than the living, breathing person at the table. Full stop.

3) If you adhere to one side or the other, what sort of concessions on your part do you feel are reasonable? What are not reasonable?

There can be no concessions here. You can't say, "Well, it's okay to be a little bit racist/bigoted/misogynistic." That's like saying it's okay to abuse your dog a little bit. Just don't kick the dog too much okay? It's ridiculous. And, I'm sorry, but the lack of empathy being shown here is shocking. That people would actually argue that it's MORE important that their fantasy orcs be irredeemably evil than making the game more inclusive to people is mind bogglingly selfish.

And, with that said, we have this:

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?

Right, @Derren, that's the issue. We cannot decide which ethnic group is being insulted, Asians or Blacks, (hey, guess what, IT'S BOTH!!!) and so, that's why we cannot remove the connections.

But, hey, keep being that force of change @Derren, one would hate to see consistency not rewarded.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

1) Do you agree that both "truths" are important and worth acknowledging and nourishing? If not, why not? If so, then...

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?

3) If you adhere to one side or the other, what sort of concessions on your part do you feel are reasonable? What are not reasonable?

1) YES
2) For the instance n°2 Sacrifice Alignment restrictions rules or Alignment at all. For the instance n°1 leave everything past produced as is.
3) To modify things in the past is not reasonable. To modify things from now on making more inclusive is ok. But avoid paranoia and keep firm that if some thing could be overinterpreted, the problem is overinterpretation.

 

[Olrox17]

We cannot decide which ethnic group is being insulted, Asians or Blacks, (hey, guess what, IT'S BOTH!!!) and so, that's why we cannot remove the connections.

A note: the description for orcs also matches some greek and roman descriptions for celtic and germanic tribes.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

A note: the description for orcs also matches some greek and roman descriptions for celtic and germanic tribes.

Obvious since Orcs are the stereoypes for Barbarian Invaders. And they were created as Orcs and not Black, German, Asian, Mongols etc just to avoid reference with a single folk in RL. So the whole Orc matter seems to me very odd.
It is obviously a problem of overinterpretation. In Italy we say: "Malice is in the eyes of who is looking"

 

[Derren]

Right, @Derren, that's the issue. We cannot decide which ethnic group is being insulted, Asians or Blacks, (hey, guess what, IT'S BOTH!!!) and so, that's why we cannot remove the connections.

Or when people can't even agree on what is insulting it is a strong sign that the insult is imagined because people desperately want to find something to complain about.