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

[FrogReaver]

I think it’s more to do with the language chosen to describe them than their very existence (although this may be better discussed elsewhere).

if the problem was simply a word or phrase that could be changed without changing the meaning and concept that would be a place I would be willing to compromise and I think others would too.

I don’t think that’s the issue though. I think it’s the concept and not the words being used to describe it that some find issue with. Seems to me that changing the concept takes away traditional orcs as anything other than name only.

 

[Oofta]

if the problem was simply a word or phrase that could be changed without changing the meaning and concept that would be a place I would be willing to compromise and I think others would too.

I don’t think that’s the issue though. I think it’s the concept and not the words being used to describe it that some find issue with. Seems to me that changing the concept takes away traditional orcs as anything other than name only.

Which is my problem as well. Orcs and other evil monsters serve a role in the game. Just like Borg, Cardassians or The Dominion do in Star Trek.

Without orcs being evil it's just one more generic human with a rubber mask to me and I don't see what purpose they serve in the game.

EDIT: Might as well just make them another sub-race of elves.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is somewhat pertinent because evil monsters is part of the heritage of D&D.

I have tried to avoid wading into any of these issues on the multiple threads, but I wanted to touch on this. I am not a huge fan of the word heritage. In many Southern areas of the United States, you will often see or hear the phrase, "Heritage not hate" used as a defense to overt symbols of racism. And it's always the same- for example, no one discusses the need for amazing BBQ, or fine bourbon, or the proper way to make cornbread with a need to say that its heritage and not hate ... but you start talking about flags, or how awesome plantations are, and guess what? There is that phrase again.

The reason I bring that up is that "heritage" cannot be used to shortcut uncomfortable conversations, or to elide over unpleasant truths. When I see that the OP framed the debate as one between "heritage" and "inclusivity" it therefore had unfortunate resonance with me.

Heritage and tradition can be, and are, wonderful things. The rituals that we go through, that we pass along, from one generation to the next can be a source of comfort and bonding. All of us have these rituals that we go through in our lives; things as simple and comforting as a favorite movie that we watch every holiday with our families, or a tradition of having a family meal at a certain restaurant to celebrate. These rituals can provide comfort and structure to our lives, even at the most dire (the release of the funeral and wake being a good example).

It's the same with TTRPGs. Many of us are familiar with the rituals ... with the heritage of the game writ small (sitting around a table, rolling dice) or large (kobolds, mind flayers, elves, fighters, six abilities, etc.). We get comfort from that, and we pass that on to a new generation. Some things change, some stay the same.

But these rituals, and this heritage, should never a substitute for inclusivity. I have to re-evalutate things that I don't like to think about.

Some things came easily to me. I often use the example of the ability caps and "cheesecake" art in early D&D because it exemplifies structural misogyny. I didn't consider it at the time, but in retrospect it is glaringly obvious how it both reflected the gender norms of the time and reified them; I could not image a teenage girl today feeling comfortable playing an all-male game with that kind of art and the expectation inherent in it, and while some did at the time, I now understand how it was more difficult for them in ways that I did not understand. And I am happy that it changed.

And I also see that there have been racially-charged elements in the game; some of it is unavoidable given the antecedent sources. There are times when I want to argue with people about things; after all, problematic things like Oriental Adventures stirred a love of all things Asian in me and made me look to the source material for a much deeper and more nuanced dive than if I had never read it. In effect, I became more broad-minded because of it. It's the same with Deities and Demigods; with all due respect to Jim Ward who had a thankless task, there are some serious errors in it ... but I would not have bothered to learn more had I not had the initial exposure. One of my best friends that I grew up playing with went on to get a PhD in history, primarily because of our shared love of what we had been learning that was spurred by D&D.

...but, that's not an excuse to avoid making things better. And I have to admit, I understand what you are saying. Part of me, the part that grew up playing D&D and slaughtering orcs and kobolds and goblins (oh my!) cannot understand the current ruckus. I do understand the "orc" issue, but I am also worried about the categorical attempts to get rid of all humanoid creatures that are "default evil." Because if you don't know that ALL orcs are evil, then how can you slaughter them without worrying about it?

And maybe that's the issue? I don't know. I know that lately I've been a lot less comfortable with humanoid monsters as critters to be slaughtered, as if they were extras in Commando (Ah-nahld 80s movie). I think that there are people, a new generation, that are playing D&D and I might need to listen to what they are saying. It doesn't mean that they are right about this, or about everything, but I am less certain that I am right, and more convinced that I need to hear other people out.

 

[Oofta]

I have tried to avoid wading into any of these issues on the multiple threads, but I wanted to touch on this. I am not a huge fan of the word heritage. In many Southern areas of the United States, you will often see or hear the phrase, "Heritage not hate" used as a defense to overt symbols of racism. And it's always the same- for example, no one discusses the need for amazing BBQ, or fine bourbon, or the proper way to make cornbread with a need to say that its heritage and not hate ... but you start talking about flags, or how awesome plantations are, and guess what? There is that phrase again.

The reason I bring that up is that "heritage" cannot be used to shortcut uncomfortable conversations, or to elide over unpleasant truths. When I see that the OP framed the debate as one between "heritage" and "inclusivity" it therefore had unfortunate resonance with me.

Heritage and tradition can be, and are, wonderful things. The rituals that we go through, that we pass along, from one generation to the next can be a source of comfort and bonding. All of us have these rituals that we go through in our lives; things as simple and comforting as a favorite movie that we watch every holiday with our families, or a tradition of having a family meal at a certain restaurant to celebrate. These rituals can provide comfort and structure to our lives, even at the most dire (the release of the funeral and wake being a good example).

It's the same with TTRPGs. Many of us are familiar with the rituals ... with the heritage of the game writ small (sitting around a table, rolling dice) or large (kobolds, mind flayers, elves, fighters, six abilities, etc.). We get comfort from that, and we pass that on to a new generation. Some things change, some stay the same.

But these rituals, and this heritage, should never a substitute for inclusivity. I have to re-evalutate things that I don't like to think about.

Some things came easily to me. I often use the example of the ability caps and "cheesecake" art in early D&D because it exemplifies structural misogyny. I didn't consider it at the time, but in retrospect it is glaringly obvious how it both reflected the gender norms of the time and reified them; I could not image a teenage girl today feeling comfortable playing an all-male game with that kind of art and the expectation inherent in it, and while some did at the time, I now understand how it was more difficult for them in ways that I did not understand. And I am happy that it changed.

And I also see that there have been racially-charged elements in the game; some of it is unavoidable given the antecedent sources. There are times when I want to argue with people about things; after all, problematic things like Oriental Adventures stirred a love of all things Asian in me and made me look to the source material for a much deeper and more nuanced dive than if I had never read it. In effect, I became more broad-minded because of it. It's the same with Deities and Demigods; with all due respect to Jim Ward who had a thankless task, there are some serious errors in it ... but I would not have bothered to learn more had I not had the initial exposure. One of my best friends that I grew up playing with went on to get a PhD in history, primarily because of our shared love of what we had been learning that was spurred by D&D.

...but, that's not an excuse make things better. And I have to admit, I understand what you are saying. Part of me, the part that grew up playing D&D and slaughtering orcs and kobolds and goblins (oh my!) cannot understand the current ruckus. I do understand the "orc" issue, but I am also worried about the categorical attempts to get rid of all humanoid creatures that are "default evil." Because if you don't know that ALL orcs are evil, then how can you slaughter them without worrying about it?

And maybe that's the issue? I don't know. I know that lately I've been a lot less comfortable with humanoid monsters as critters to be slaughtered, as if they were extras in Commando (Ah-nahld 80s movie). I think that there are people, a new generation, that are playing D&D and I might need to listen to what they are saying. It doesn't mean that they are right about this, or about everything, but I am less certain that I am right, and more convinced that I need to hear other people out.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don't even disagree - I think Oriental Adventures, Al-Qaddim, the Vistani were all products of their time. I can even see why the picture in 5E of the hobgoblin could be considered problematic. Orcs could be done better.

But any time I try to ask if there is any room at all for making orcs (or goblins or ogres or hill giants or succubi or any intelligent sentient creature for that matter) anything but a human that looks different the conversation stops.

So that's the issue I've had with the conversation. It's not a conversation. It starts, and ends, with the assumption that orcs are a stand-in for PoC and that if you believe making them evil you're a racist. For the record, I think making them "usually evil" is just as bad. It's the "They're all warlike brutes, but I'm sure there are some good ones" nod and wink.

What's funny is that I rarely use orcs in my games. I think I've used orcs or goblins maybe twice over the past couple of years. Throw in gnolls and hobgoblins and since the inception of 5E I could still probably count the number of times without having to take my shoes off. But still, once in a while I like black and white, good and evil. Take away the baseline simplicity of the game and say "everything is gray" by default and I think the game loses something.

 

[Gradine]

You know what was a pretty significant piece of D&D's "heritage"? So much so that it became a recurring joke in the first two Baldur's Gate games?

The Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity

Some things are best left in the past, where they belong*

*They didn't belong then either, but we can all pretend "it was a different time" is a good excuse to make us all feel better about ourselves, if you'd like

 

[ZeshinX]

I have tried to avoid wading into any of these issues on the multiple threads, but I wanted to touch on this. I am not a huge fan of the word heritage. In many Southern areas of the United States, you will often see or hear the phrase, "Heritage not hate" used as a defense to overt symbols of racism. And it's always the same- for example, no one discusses the need for amazing BBQ, or fine bourbon, or the proper way to make cornbread with a need to say that its heritage and not hate ... but you start talking about flags, or how awesome plantations are, and guess what? There is that phrase again.

The reason I bring that up is that "heritage" cannot be used to shortcut uncomfortable conversations, or to elide over unpleasant truths. When I see that the OP framed the debate as one between "heritage" and "inclusivity" it therefore had unfortunate resonance with me.

Heritage and tradition can be, and are, wonderful things. The rituals that we go through, that we pass along, from one generation to the next can be a source of comfort and bonding. All of us have these rituals that we go through in our lives; things as simple and comforting as a favorite movie that we watch every holiday with our families, or a tradition of having a family meal at a certain restaurant to celebrate. These rituals can provide comfort and structure to our lives, even at the most dire (the release of the funeral and wake being a good example).

It's the same with TTRPGs. Many of us are familiar with the rituals ... with the heritage of the game writ small (sitting around a table, rolling dice) or large (kobolds, mind flayers, elves, fighters, six abilities, etc.). We get comfort from that, and we pass that on to a new generation. Some things change, some stay the same.

But these rituals, and this heritage, should never a substitute for inclusivity. I have to re-evalutate things that I don't like to think about.

Some things came easily to me. I often use the example of the ability caps and "cheesecake" art in early D&D because it exemplifies structural misogyny. I didn't consider it at the time, but in retrospect it is glaringly obvious how it both reflected the gender norms of the time and reified them; I could not image a teenage girl today feeling comfortable playing an all-male game with that kind of art and the expectation inherent in it, and while some did at the time, I now understand how it was more difficult for them in ways that I did not understand. And I am happy that it changed.

And I also see that there have been racially-charged elements in the game; some of it is unavoidable given the antecedent sources. There are times when I want to argue with people about things; after all, problematic things like Oriental Adventures stirred a love of all things Asian in me and made me look to the source material for a much deeper and more nuanced dive than if I had never read it. In effect, I became more broad-minded because of it. It's the same with Deities and Demigods; with all due respect to Jim Ward who had a thankless task, there are some serious errors in it ... but I would not have bothered to learn more had I not had the initial exposure. One of my best friends that I grew up playing with went on to get a PhD in history, primarily because of our shared love of what we had been learning that was spurred by D&D.

...but, that's not an excuse to avoid making things better. And I have to admit, I understand what you are saying. Part of me, the part that grew up playing D&D and slaughtering orcs and kobolds and goblins (oh my!) cannot understand the current ruckus. I do understand the "orc" issue, but I am also worried about the categorical attempts to get rid of all humanoid creatures that are "default evil." Because if you don't know that ALL orcs are evil, then how can you slaughter them without worrying about it?

And maybe that's the issue? I don't know. I know that lately I've been a lot less comfortable with humanoid monsters as critters to be slaughtered, as if they were extras in Commando (Ah-nahld 80s movie). I think that there are people, a new generation, that are playing D&D and I might need to listen to what they are saying. It doesn't mean that they are right about this, or about everything, but I am less certain that I am right, and more convinced that I need to hear other people out.

To me, that is seeking the nuance of any subject matter, you merely stated it in a radically more eloquent way (and boy howdy did that give me a tingly sense of 'I just read something awesome').

For me, it's the current crux of a lot of the discussions now taking place (though the discussions are indeed a reward all their own). Removal of anything that makes one feel icky or revolted or incredulous is an understandable desire that I think all have had and continue to have in life. The risk I see, is that if it is removed and avoided, lost is the opportunity to expand and grow. As you pointed out with Oriental Adventures, I found the same to be true for me. I knew that what was present in Oriental Adventures was a fantastical presentation, drawing heavily from various Asian cultural histories, folklore and myths. I desired to learn more about what inspired them, the actual myths and legends and history of those actual nations and cultures. It was a rewarding experience.

The flip side is also, unfortunately, true. That one can take such things and pervert them and take away a less enlightened view of whatever cultures inspired the fantastical presentations, or even worse, learn more about the inspirations and twist and distort it to support whatever awful and hateful ideology they want to put into the (fictional or real) world regarding those cultures.

Then of course you have every little nuanced element in between, intentional or not.

That is the inherent risk of just being alive and part of the human community. I don't oppose the changes that are coming, but I do wonder if what we will lose will balance what is gained. Presently I think it will be more damaging, long term....but only time can answer that.

 

[Oofta]

You know what was a pretty significant piece of D&D's "heritage"? So much so that it became a recurring joke in the first two Baldur's Gate games?

The Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity

Some things are best left in the past, where they belong*

*They didn't belong then either, but we can all pretend "it was a different time" is a good excuse to make us all feel better about ourselves, if you'd like

The last time I used one it was when the PCs were commissioned to find one for an NPC. One person's curse is another person's god-send.

But yes, as an actual cursed item I'd use on a player? Nope.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So that's the issue I've had with the conversation. It's not a conversation. It starts, and ends, with the assumption that orcs are a stand-in for PoC and that if you believe making them evil you're a racist. For the record, I think making them "usually evil" is just as bad. It's the "They're all warlike brutes, but I'm sure there are some good ones" nod and wink.

One of the things I have been trying to do is imagine how things are for the other person. In other words, I have lived a life where, for the most part, I can be assured that I will be listened to and my voice will be heard.

Not everyone has had that luxury. And in many ways, it is a luxury.

In that way, it does seem pretty weird ... awful even, when someone in effect is telling me, "Shut up. Your opinion doesn't matter. I don't want to hear from you." It makes me feel voiceless, and powerless, as if nothing I say matters. I can't stand it. It makes me feel like I'm not a person. It makes me angry.

I can't even imagine what that would feel like if that was the default. If my issues and my problems were not heard, any my voice was reflexively silenced and marginalized. Which seems relevant to what's going on right now.

In that sense, I can at least understand a little bit of the frustration that other people are having. The whole, "Oh, wait, you've ignored this problem, and you haven't listened to people that have complained about it, and now that this is blowing up .... now is when you want to make sure that there is a conversation, so that YOUR voice is heard? I don't think so."

I think that there is a lot going on. It doesn't make it right; I don't think calling people who really are trying to understand things "racists" is helping, but I can empathize with the frustration while at the same time understanding the hurt that this causes.

I'm watching these different threads and conversations take place, and while there are a lot of trolling, and some anger, I think people are trying to understand these issues.

It's not easy. We see this over and over again; how do you reconcile the things you love or the things you grew up with? How do we move from a default position of resisting and justifying what we have done to openness to fair critique?

I don't have answers to any of this, but I have hope that the more people think about it, talk about it, and reflect ... the better we will be, and the better the hobby will be.

 

[aco175]

A simplified analogy could be the Christmas episode of South Park where everything was stripped out of the school play that was offensive to somebody until the kids were spinning around as grey blobs. All the parents in the crowd were shocked and angry that the school play became what it did. I still think there should be some base or semblance of good vs. evil in the game and that means we have good and bad races. I also see where some things are 'off-pudding' to others and should be changed. I did find that Al-Qadim made me want to investigate and read more about those Earth cultures it was kind of portraying.

 

[DammitVictor]

I still think there should be some base or semblance of good vs. evil in the game and that means we have good and bad races. I also see where some things are 'off-pudding' to others and should be changed.

See, honestly, I want to agree with the first part of this sentence but then you add the second part of that sentence and-- no offense-- it renders the first part utterly meaningless. People say they want "absolute morality", "black and white morality", but then they say things that make it clear that this sense of "objective morality" that they crave doesn't have anything to do with objective standards of behavior.

People who defend this system are quick to accuse anyone who opposes it of being moral relativists, people who don't believe in absolute moral standards-- but this idea, that the same behaviors are good or evil based on who's performing them, is literally what moral relativism means.