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

[Maxperson]

You're doing the equivalent of when someone complains about being put in danger or hurt and responding to their complaints "but did anyone die, though?" That the situation can't be demonstrated as being worse doesn't make the situation as-is acceptable.

Eh, no. If people are claiming exclusion, a response of, "But can you show even a single exclusion to back up the claim?" is a valid question. If you make a claim, you have to be able to cite examples and give proof to back it up.

 

[Maxperson]

Mine never really left that. It wasn't until reading these threads that I learned the description of orcs had changed so much since then.

If you ignore the poor artwork that doesn't reflect the description, this is how 5e describes orcs.

"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks."

So they're viking pig people. The only thing not present is green.

 

[Maxperson]

Satirizing forms of Christianity is not the same thing as being anti-Christian.

Satire can be and often is offensive, though.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd be interested to know if any Christian who knows D&D well thinks it has an anti-Christian message.

Demons and devils are presented as evil and so are their followers. The players can take on the role of clerics who have many spells derived from Christianity such as Raise Dead. Evil clerics reverse these spells. The lack of monotheistic religions was intended to avoid giving offence to Christians. Overall I'd say the game has a pro-Christian message.

So the inclusion of tons of false gods to worship was designed to not give offense to Christians? The inclusion of a tarot deck 5e included to tell the future via the Vistani was designed to give a pro-Christian message? The inclusion of demons and devils, the latter designed to corrupt mortals and take their souls to hell is designed with a pro-Christian message in mind? And heck, if we're talking about ugly language, here you go...

"Devils live to conquer, enslave, and oppress. They take perverse delight in exercising authority over the weak, and any creature that defies the authority of a devil faces swift and cruel punishment."

 

[Cadence]

As I mentioned in the other thread, there was a poster who was Christian, who complained that WotC forced pantheism on him by excluding Monotheism.

Do you remember which version of D&D they thought did that? The 1e PHB and DMG don't say much at all that I could find. Deities and Demigods addresses that its just putting real world myths in game form if someone wanted it. The 2e PHB starts the section on pantheons by noting that nothing about religion beyond being generically good or evil needs to be said. The DMG talks about how cosmology can be completely different from world to world.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The inclusion of demons and devils, the latter designed to corrupt mortals and take their souls to hell is designed with a pro-Christian message in mind? And heck, if we're talking about ugly language, here you go...

"Devils live to conquer, enslave, and oppress. They take perverse delight in exercising authority over the weak, and any creature that defies the authority of a devil faces swift and cruel punishment."

That's entirely consistent with Christianity. That's what demons/devils do in the Christian tradition. They're supposed to be very evil and punish sinners in Hell. The extent to which they have power over the physical world varies.

 

[Maxperson]

That's entirely consistent with Christianity. That's what demons and devils do in the Christian tradition. They're supposed to be very evil and punish sinners in Hell. The extent to which they have power over the physical world varies.

How does that stop something Christians feel so strongly about from being offensive? At the end of the day, you have some people playing characters who are making bargains with devils at the cost of souls.

 

[Doug McCrae]

So the inclusion of tons of false gods to worship was designed to not give offense to Christians?

It may seem strange but the answer is yes. This post by Gary Gygax explains his position:

Did you ever consider using a vague monotheism à la The Lord of the Rings in AD&D rather than polytheism? I'm assuming not, given things you've said in the past about angels vs. devas, etc. I ask primarily because I've always found the medieval trappings of the game somewhat at odds with its pulp polytheism.

By no means!

As a Christian, playing with actual religion is quite beyond the pale.

EDIT: Gary Gygax seems to be unaware of the existence of modern paganism here, as he doesn't consider polytheism to be an "actual religion".

 

[Sadras]

Do you remember which version of D&D they thought did that? The 1e PHB and DMG don't say much at all that I could find. Deities and Demigods addresses that its just putting real world myths in game form if someone wanted it. The 2e PHB starts the section on pantheons by noting that nothing beyond being generically good or evil needs to be said.

I believe he was complaining about 5e. He was a solitary voice in this issue, but he did bring it up more than once hence it was memorable. I forgot the username, but it began with a Y. Anyways.

 

[Cadence]

I believe he was complaining about 5e. He was a solitary voice in this issue, but he did bring it up more than once hence it was memorable. I forgot the username, but it began with a Y. Anyways.

Thanks. Apparently another poster who mentioned no one reads the DMG might have been right in this case. 5e explicitly mentions monotheism as one of the various kinds of cosmologies that could be used.