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.Something is always racist because someone says it is.
Tell you what @Oofta, come back in twenty or thirty years. If you can make the same argument then and point to numerous sources that agree with your interpretation, then we’ll take you seriously.Kind of funny how one person's interpretation and association of an orc to one ethnicity is a joke that can be dismissed out of hand, while another's is serious and taken at face value and spawns thousands of posts.
Almost like people can read things into text if they want to whether there's actually a connection or not.
This from the poster who insists that anyone who has an issue here is inventing reasons to be offended.Considering that they are now attacking your personally shows that you are on to something. Not that it isn't completely obvious to everyone by now.
So what part of "I think some of the description of orcs should change" never seems to get through?
From multiple posts earlier in this and other threads:And the search for what is actually offensive about orcs continues. Will it ever find something or do we have to do with a general "its racist because someone said it is"?
No, I don't think that (the big list). But it does seem that are people, including yourself, who think we should make a long list of every D&D that is offensive according to a certain ideological framework, and remove them from the game. I disagree with that.Well, since that steroetype is "women" I think that is a rather large enough population of the world that WoTC should consider their opinions.
Sure, one trope among many, but why publish it at all? Seriously, is there some "here are the tropes for DnD" book that I'm not aware of?
You seem to think that just making a big list and saying "here are all the tropes of human storytelling, from the innocent, the grand, the racist and the misgynistic, pick what you like" somehow makes things okay. But not only does that still not make the bad tropes okay, we've never once created a book like that for DnD, so why do it now?
If people are interested in the history, they will research the history, we don't need to publish the entire history in every new book.
I see three options:Right, make them people. Make them more complex than just "all orcs in all worlds are X". That is the proposed solution, but people don't want us to take their orcs from some 60 year old magazine away from them. But we aren't, we are changing things going forwards.
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).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.
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./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.
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."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.
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.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.
Who was it? I know my first post on that topic was responding to someone else/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.
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.Saying and being are two different things.