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

[Libramarian]

Yes, but, there's the issue. We're not Romans or ancient Greeks.

Now, the fact that these depictions of orcs do directly match colonialist, racist depictions of blacks, virtually word for word, IS THE PROBLEM.

The depiction of orcs doesn't match the most common and pernicious colonialist depictions of blacks. Orcs are far too dangerous to D&D humans for them to enjoy minstrel shows featuring the trope of the lazy, happy-go-lucky orc. Orcs in D&D Land are obviously not a conquered and colonized people--they're barbarians massing outside the gates, like the Vandals/Huns/Mongols.

The problematic aspects of orcs (dark skin, ugly but physically superior, sexually insatiable, etc.) do have similarities with the hysterias of the KKK, and I guess their descendants in today's Alt-Right preoccupied with urban crime statistics and inter-racial couples. It feels like a modern American issue, so I can see why it's so uncomfortable to modern Americans, and since D&D is a modern American game I guess it's inevitable that these aspects will be changed. The question is whether the barbarians-turned-up-to-11 monster must also be thrown out with the bathwater.

 

[Eltab]

Heritage should be remembered, both the good and the bad. The good to keep doing it and the bad to avoid doing it again.

+1

 

[Weiley31]

I don't mind the dumb but strong Orc. Because there is always gonna be some Orcs that are much smarter than their own brethren. Those particular Orcs are gonna be the ones who end up being the compelling villain or hero that proves everybody else wrong.

As for the Drow? All of their issues stem from Lolth. If it wasn't for her, the Drow would have a different view upon them.

And Glory(Bikini) Armor? I mean, sure your belly button was exposed, but how many Adventurers had their lives saved from a Dragon Claw swipe due to its overall protective nature? And considering it's cheap price for being a +3 armor back in the day, it was quite the steal. Man the Adventurer Guild members were sad when the updated Realm sanctioned dress code was regulated for Dungeoneering.

 

[Minigiant]

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

Both heritage and inclusivity are important. They are attractive to old fans, new fans, and future potential fans.

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?

5e's strong focus on subclasses and subraces is one.

What can be sacrificed is the "freedom" of "monster type". True monster psychology between the different types of monster might have to be explored and expanded. This would be to give the different mentalities of other creatures more strength and put a more rigid framework on how people think about the different elements in the game itself.

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?

Toughie. Would have to ponder.

 

[5atbu]

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?

Popper's Paradox.
At the end of the day the tolerant can't tolerate the intolerant.

However.. note tolerant, and all those four may be tolerant, thus co-exist.

 

[DammitVictor]

Sexual orientation plays a minor role in the games i dm and it is totally up to the player to portray his character any way he likes for this aspect.

Yeah. Real talk, I don't put a lot of thought into NPCs being LGBT+ because my players don't normally hit on NPCs-- even when married couples come up, Kings have Queens and Lords have Ladies because feudalism rather than heteronormativity. If any of my players started taking an interest in playing out romances with various NPCs... well, my recent campaigns have taken a lot of inspiration from Etheria, anyway, might as well play by Etherian rules.

 

[DammitVictor]

And Glory(Bikini) Armor? I mean, sure your belly button was exposed, but how many Adventurers had their lives saved from a Dragon Claw swipe due to its overall protective nature? And considering it's cheap price for being a +3 armor back in the day, it was quite the steal. Man the Adventurer Guild members were sad when the updated Realm sanctioned dress code was regulated for Dungeoneering.

I like chainmail bikinis, but I would like them a whole lot better if they were an option for (male and female) PCs and a small minority of women depicted in the artwork. Because I enjoy that as much as any red-blooded heterosexual man, because some women feel empowered by dressing that way, but also because I enjoy realism and because the majority of women in the art should be designed to appeal to the majority of the women buying the game.

Just like 99% of the men in fantasy art are going to be stacked... but as a man, I want the majority of them to look like Ron Perlman and only a few to look like Channing Tatum, but I still damned well want a few of them to look like Channing Tatum.

 

[the Jester]

Yeah. Real talk, I don't put a lot of thought into NPCs being LGBT+ because my players don't normally hit on NPCs-- even when married couples come up, Kings have Queens and Lords have Ladies because feudalism rather than heteronormativity.

Yeah, I actually had a subplot in 3e where the pcs had an npc buddy that was a gay dwarf whose father was a ruler, and who pushed the pcs to help get his son to accept marrying a female dwarf in order to both appease the dwarven nobility (who were largely homophobic) and to ensure that his line would continue.

 

[DammitVictor]

Yeah, I actually had a subplot in 3e where the pcs had an npc buddy that was a gay dwarf whose father was a ruler, and who pushed the pcs to help get his son to accept marrying a female dwarf in order to both appease the dwarven nobility (who were largely homophobic) and to ensure that his line would continue.

My WIP novel is set in a world that doesn't have a lot of overt homophobia, but there are expectations of the nobility that are expected to outweigh any individual nobles' own preferences. It's the source of a major subplot, because the reluctant hero who does not want to become the Rightful King-- the prophecy specifies a Knight and a Squire, but is ambiguous which is which-- is very much in love with the older, commonborn widower who serves as his brother's left-hand man.

He loves the Princess in his own right, easily as much as his brother does-- if not moreso, because his brother's kind of a dick-- but doesn't want to marry her, any more than he wants to sit on the throne.

 

[Weiley31]

if they were an option for (male and female)

Who says they can't be still?