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

[Cadence]

Nothing is hurt, but nothing is gained, either. People have the ability to make orcs into whatever they want for their games, so those that are offended can just change orcs, just as those that are offended by murder can get rid of murder in their game, and those who are offended by grave robbing can get rid of that for their game.

People whose ancestors regularly had things written about them that mimic what is written about the currently-just-exist-to-be-killed races would no longer have D&D presented as a game that relies on those tropes as the default. That sure feels like a gain to me...

And so, in your opinion @Maxperson , what is hurt by having the MM no long specify that the various humanoids are evil by default, and having it note that their religions, cultures, and motivations can differ greatly from world to world (with examples from the variety of published settings to show the possible differences)? What makes that unacceptable as a bridge between heritage and exclusivity?

I have no issue with setting creating different lore for orcs. Settings exist to change the default of the game in interesting and new ways. Creating new settings such as Eberron with different lore is a great way for you guys to have what you want, while still leaving those of us who like orcs the way they are with what we want. Everyone gets included that way.

So, changing the default in the MM to more explicitly highlight these alternatives (so removing the default alignment, and showing a range of examples from classic to Eberron) would be an acceptable solution to you?

 

[Sadras]

Respectfully, I would suggest that you are now dangerously close to understanding the problem.

Maybe! I think the halfbreed term might be a callback to a WoW in-game cinematic or the movie - cannot say. It is not a word used in SA, even for derogatory purposes. Outcast is a term, for me more associated with elves and half elves probably due to Tanis, Half-Elven. Dragons of Autumn Twilight being the first D&D novel I read.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I don't know. I also don't care. Let's fix the problem in front of us and not worry about "what about it's" that may or may not ever happen. Saying, "We can't change this because, down the road, it might become a problem" is a cop out and frankly, pretty presumptuous that the people complaining won't ever be satisfied.

It's weird that you thought my statement was a challenge to your position. Because, it wasn't. Did I say, "we can't change this" in my statement? Or do you think I was trying to expand the discussion and get people's opinions on the future of the game? I, literally, wasn't trying to take any particular stance but, instead, trying to get people's opinions as to where the game was going. I mean, these changes will, literally, become the heritage of the game. I find it interesting to know people's opinions of where the game is headed. I'm not sure why you're so defensive. If you don't want to engage in a discussion regarding your opinions(which you clearly don't because you said "I DON'T CARE)", that's your prerogative but there's no need to be rude and tell me I'm 'copping out' or 'complaining' or 'won't ever be satisfied'.

Here's my original statement, if you don't remember what I said:

"My question is this: Do you think that orcs are just going to get replaced by another race, like goblins or demons or undead or gnolls? If so, doesn't it mean the issue still stands? Or do you think it is possible for some kind of compromise? "

For the record, to you and anyone else in the thread that I happen to engage, I'm not interested in 'gotchas'. You are free to have a discussion with me without me taking your words and twisting them on you to prove a point I want to make. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything - This thread has just repeated the same points over and over so many times, that I've already made up my mind about the issue. I'm kind of interested in other aspects of the discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah but see @Mercurius, there is the primary issue. You accept that some people see the linkage and are open to making changes, even if you don’t necessarily agree with the linkage.

@Maxperson is repeatedly detailing conversation, forcing unnecessary sidebars and pointless regressions in attempts to force people to “prove” that the linkage exists.

That’s why I called him out as part of the problem. He rejects all changes as unnecessary because he refuses to accept that other interpretations can exist.

So first, I'm not trying to force anything. I'm presenting my views and the solutions I see to the issue. Second, this post of your boils down to, "If Maxperson doesn't accept my interpretation as correct, and it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong, he is a problem."

 

[Cadence]

But telling the Linkage People that you don't see the linkage, no, that doesn't automatically make one part of the problem (of exclusion). Unless, of course, I'm running around in gatherings of Linkage People and shouting, "you're all wrong!" One can say, "I don't agree with your interpretation for these reasons, but I don't think you or anyone should feel excluded, so let's find a way to change that."

I can go dig through the two threads-that-are-now-disposed-of, but iirc, others provided direct quotes from the racist literature of the early 1900s and lined it up almost word-for-word with the descriptions of the evil humanoids in the literature. The two-blog videos make a similar line-up the portrayals. If the line-up of quotes is there, it doesn't seem to me that "see[ing] the linkage" is the issue. It's either "seeing the linkage as being that strong" or "seeing the linkage as a problem". Anyway...

If, as you are, everyone was great with taking time to address things, even when they personally didn't see it as such a big deal -- well, it feels like that would fix a crapton of things in the real world!!! Thank you.

I think the frustration expressed by some of the "linkage folks" here is at those who find the need to take every chance to attack the legitimacy of some people feeling excluded - by adding doubts, disclaimers, what-abouts, and slippery slopes to answers where it isn't even relevant to the question at hand. For example, to say the proposed change people are asking are fine, but then add that they don't fix anything and to liken it other issues - feels like it is doing what I think you are saying bad because it is trying to illegitimize the concerns of those who see a linkage. At some point, it feels like it's starting to add to the problem.

 

[Cadence]

I might be misunderstanding you here, but I don't think this in something testable in game through spellcasting. Are dragons people? That question has to be answered by the designers of the game, and on another level decided by DM's regarding their home games.

I was wondering if the choices of the designers, as codified into the spells and other rules, implied things about the universe... so exactly things like:

This did pop an image of some scholar types running highly unethical experiments within the D&D world . . . . "Don't worry Mr. Dragon, this test is only to determine if dragons do indeed have souls! If you are reincarnated as, well, anything, then you have a soul! If you are not reincarnated, then it doesn't really matter now does it?"

But I didn't have anything that colorful in mind. I do now though. Thank you!

 

[Cadence]

Halfbreed makes me think of the offspring between orcs and humans, less so of the offspring between elves and humans. Is the word halfbreed still used in the world other than when someone is teasing their friend? Like if you're the only half-Italian in a group of Italian friends and they affectionately call you half-breed.

To be fair, intellectually, I KNOW those poeple didn't mean it as a racial epithet. So, in my head, I knew they didn't really have a racist bone in their body. But, it still didn't stop my blood pressure from shooting out my ears when someone would pat my daughter on the head and say, "Oh, what a pretty little hafu".

This issue of seeing what names mean is brought up with a character in the second Percy Jackson Series. The camp the demigods live in is Camp Half-Blood (as in half-god's blood). It has a very different sound to one of the characters who has one Native American parent and one that was apparently white. I'm wondering if it is something the author got an earful about the camp name and decided to address it.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

So, changing the default in the MM to more explicitly highlight these alternatives (so removing the default alignment, and showing a range of examples from classic to Eberron) would be an acceptable solution to you?

This is going to be a challenge for WotC. How do you give each interpretation enough space to do it justice. The MM could end up pretty huge. And, possibly, more expensive. I wonder if it would be worth having a companion book that is as important as the PHB, MM and DMG that expands on these. Humanoids Handbook? Obviously, this wouldn't be a thing in the current iteration of the game. But I wonder if that might be where things are going.

 

[Eric V]

In South Africa we have a political racial term known as coloureds, a term in USA I believe which is very much a no-no. To give you an example Trevor Noah would be classified as coloured as would his offspring. The term itself, to all South Africans, is not deemed as derogatory at all, it is a racial classification utilised when compiling various statistics.

I wonder how Trevor Noah feels about that classification...

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

When it comes to calling people "coloureds" I find myself seeing it as othering those people and absolutely derogatory because there's no possible purpose for using a word that, at base definition, should apply to every people - no matter what color your skin is that color is equally a color, even 'white' - to segment people into groups.

And that's me being in the group of people that wouldn't be called "coloureds" feeling that way, so I find it hard to believe that anyone actually having the word applied to them would think of it as anything but an agitation yet to be addressed.