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

[5atbu]

1-3) - Change is inevitable and I'm all for changing D&D to make it better and even more fun.

.....

Oh and please don't touch what is already established....

I assume you can hear that contradiction yourself, right?
Do you want change or don't you?

 

[5atbu]

I think determining who is tolerant and who is intolerant is quite a bit more difficult than you make it out to be.

Actually it isn't.
Do you tolerate other people's beliefs and practices where they allow for a similar level of tolerance?
If not then you are not tolerant.
Inclusivity is different, I am all for it.
Tolerance can include separatism.
Tolerance doesn't fix injustice.
But it's a start.

 

[5atbu]

Maybe, but it seems to me the inclusivity side demands anything other than the removal of traditional orcs is a no go.

I am sure some may be saying that, but that is not tolerant not inclusive of them.

What we need is a way to separate obvious genetics from culture (which includes economic factors). We need a solution that allows a table to build dwarfs that are the same as the ones you love from 5e, maybe from other versions or systems, and new variants.

Then the table gets to choose. Either by DM fiat, democracy or whatever your table uses to make group decisions.

That would be tolerant and inclusive IMHO.

 

[Umbran]

This discussion would be super interesting between two characters in a game. In Real Life, it's probably up to your DM and the table to decide what is and isn't canabalism in a fantasy world.

So, I did a lot of work on putting together my Lizardfolk character, and part of it was preparing for such a discussion, because the character... isn't too terribly picky about where his meat comes from. He wouldn't go hunting sentients unless he was under starving conditions, largely because sentient are just smarter, and so harder and more dangerous to catch. Higher risk, and uses up more calories. And nobody likes to see their cousin become gumbo, and they'd raise a fuss. A deer is about the same mass, and is so much easier...

But, the party killed an ogre, and he was like... "You guys are just gonna leave it there? There's a lotta good meat on that thing."

 

[Umbran]

Maybe, but it seems to me the inclusivity side demands anything other than the removal of traditional orcs is a no go.

I am sure some may be saying that, but that is not tolerant not inclusive of them.

Mod Note:

Folks, we just closed that thread a couple days ago. Please don't go down the same road.

 

[Oofta]

So, I did a lot of work on putting together my Lizardfolk character, and part of it was preparing for such a discussion, because the character... isn't too terribly picky about where his meat comes from. He wouldn't go hunting sentients unless he was under starving conditions, largely because sentient are just smarter, and so harder and more dangerous to catch. Higher risk, and uses up more calories. And nobody lies to see their cousin become gumbo, and they'd raise a fuss. A deer is about the same mass, and is so much easier...

But, the party killed an ogre, and he was like... "You guys are just gonna leave it there? There's a lotta good meat on that thing."

I'm forgetting the book, but it had a centaur who would do the same thing. When he started cooking the dead his response was something along the lines of "He's dead. He doesn't need the body any more."

 

[5atbu]

Because if you don't know that ALL orcs are evil, then how can you slaughter them without worrying about it?

Exactly. You shouldn't. Where is the "role" in this? Where is the morality? Where is the drama or self exploration? Now u can play a genocidal paladin wiping out the evil orcs and their babies BUT surely what makes this more than a xenophobic duck hunt is that the game system shouldn't explicitly tell you this was right with a flag that says evil.
Even in D&D evil primarily means self serving and selfish. Grounds for genocide? As a role, sure, but play the role, feel the death head on your cap.
There is a reason alignment is only left in D&D.. it's a bad system that has bad consequences.

Oh and no, it's not "only a game"..

 

[Helldritch]

Exactly. You shouldn't. Where is the "role" in this? Where is the morality? Where is the drama or self exploration? Now u can play a genocidal paladin wiping out the evil orcs and their babies BUT surely what makes this more than a xenophobic duck hunt is that the game system shouldn't explicitly tell you this was right with a flag that says evil.
Even in D&D evil primarily means self serving and selfish. Grounds for genocide? As a role, sure, but play the role, feel the death head on your cap.
There is a reason alignment is only left in D&D.. it's a bad system that has bad consequences.

Oh and no, it's not "only a game"..

It entirely depends on the setting. In Eberron, you're right. It would be evil to do so. In Greyhawk, it would be evil not to do so.

The problem is probably related to newer settings where orcs (and other humanoids) were given a nice leeway out of their usual evil box. Since those settings are more up to date to the world view we have now, people assume that all humanoids from all settings should follow the same pattern. Which was not the case and still is not.

The base game assumes that orcs are of the irremediably evil type with a few exceptions as the DM sees fit. But most people speaks from their setting point of view. We should forget about settings and just concentrate on the core books. Orcs are evil, not by choice, but by design from their god. They can't help themselves. As such, any comparison between orcs and real life ethnicities is irrelevant.

 

[Aldarc]

Are you really serious?

Yes I am, and your post only demonstrates that you have failed to either read, listen, to the conversation or both, because you are doing a terrible job of actually presenting the argument at hand, but doing one fantastic job of straw-manning opposing viewpoints. Because the problem - as others have said before - is not orcs per se, but the rhetoric used to describe orcs. It's not that orcs are representative of black people or any people, but, rather, that the rhetoric of orcs has parallels and undertones analogous to the rhetoric of white supremacists about non-whites. These are separate arguments. But if one fails to understand or comprehend that difference, I could see how that could get misconstrued. Maybe if we repeat it enough times, it will drive this point home. I hope that people can grasp this difference, because it's helpful for understanding the actual conversation that WotC and other gamers in favor of the changes are arguing. This is why the discussion of blackface, minstrel shows, and racist rhetoric gets brought up. It's not that orcs = black people, but, rather, that its one of the most obvious illustrations of the language of racism and how undertones of that rhetoric can be found in the description of orcs.

As to examples? People have been posting them and providing links. And yet when people post them, this evidence gets either dismissed, ignored, or internally rationalized via a Thermian argument. You want a discussion with more thoughts on the matter being considered? Yeah, that happened over that past few decades. This forum evidences that discussion happening in our community. This conversation has being going on for a long time now. Trying to invite further discussion is just kicking the can down the road to postpone or stonewall the changes from happening.

 

[Oofta]

Exactly. You shouldn't. Where is the "role" in this? Where is the morality? Where is the drama or self exploration? Now u can play a genocidal paladin wiping out the evil orcs and their babies BUT surely what makes this more than a xenophobic duck hunt is that the game system shouldn't explicitly tell you this was right with a flag that says evil.
Even in D&D evil primarily means self serving and selfish. Grounds for genocide? As a role, sure, but play the role, feel the death head on your cap.
There is a reason alignment is only left in D&D.. it's a bad system that has bad consequences.

Oh and no, it's not "only a game"..

First, everyone plays for different reasons. I'm not going to tell someone they're playing wrong if they play D&D it like a tabletop version of DOOM or if they have to figure out what to do with all those orc babies that are going to die without the protection of the males you just killed because they were eating villagers.

Personally I rarely use orcs. I have never, and will never, have a scenario with baby orcs because I want to play D&D as escapism. I don't want to worry about real world issues, I just want to sit around, crack jokes, roll some dice, eat some junk food with friends.

Want to put adventurers into the business of running orphanages for the widows and orphans? Go ahead.

My hope is that D&D can find a happy medium and maintain that flexibility so different tables can tell different stories. If that includes some improvement to wording and imagery that makes some people feel unwelcome? Fantastic.

If we could we discuss what those changes might look like that would also be fantastic.