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

[Coroc]

I do like restrictions on race class and combos available, but not because of heritage only. I would never restrict someone from e.g. playing a person of color when choosing a human. But i would not allow someone chose a drow if that race is not included in my roster, just because someone says he identifies as one in RL.
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.
RL religion does not have a place in my games, also RL politics other than as satire element.
If someone wants to play a character with a disability i am fine with that.
The main reason i do install restrictions, is to increase challenge and match game world flavor, and to increase justification, why the PC would e.g. oppose another faction in game. E.g. it gets hard for the orc PC if the main antagonists are orcs in a given campaign.
In general i do not associate with people who are racist or intolerant, so using the game as a tool to create awareness of RL problems would be preaching to the choir in my case.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Or when people can't even agree on what is insulting it is a strong sign that the insult is imagined because people desperately want to find something to complain about.

No, I believe that the complains are sincere. But I think they are the result of overinterpretation.

 

[Hussar]

A note: the description for orcs also matches some greek and roman descriptions for celtic and germanic tribes.

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.

Gah, I'm so sick of this. We have the SAME bloody argument every single time the hobby starts becoming more inclusive. The EXACT same people were against changes to the art to make the game more inclusive. The EXACT same people were against changes to make the game more inclusive to the LGBTQ community. The EXACT same people, with the same tired old arguments getting trotted out over and over again, and every time being proven wrong.

Folks, aren't you tired of being wrong every single time?

 

[Olrox17]

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.

I'm a roman, but yes, we are not ancient romans or ancient greeks. We also aren't slave owners or slave traders. None of us are conquistadores or colonialists. Some of our ancestors were, and screw them.

Anyway, I believe this thread is more about proposing HOW to "fix" orcs and drow without obliterating their established lore. I proposed some fixes, and I would like to see others do the same. Otherwise, this thread will become the same as the other two.
Let's try to be constructive.

Gah, I'm so sick of this. We have the SAME bloody argument every single time the hobby starts becoming more inclusive. The EXACT same people were against changes to the art to make the game more inclusive. The EXACT same people were against changes to make the game more inclusive to the LGBTQ community. The EXACT same people, with the same tired old arguments getting trotted out over and over again, and every time being proven wrong.

Folks, aren't you tired of being wrong every single time?

I won't elaborate on this bit. It's inflammatory and adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[Mercurius]

No, I do not. Inclusivity trumps Heritage. If, at any point, a "Heritage" element impedes inclusivity, then the Heritage element has to be changed. That's just how it goes. We don't accept chainmail bikinis anymore. This is no different.

For one, I think you err in seeing the two as mutually exclusive or opposed. They aren't, or don't need to be. Another way to frame the original post is, how to preserve as much D&D heritage as possible while still making the game as inclusive as possible?

Secondly, I don't agree that this is the same thing as chainmail bikinis, at least in most cases being discussed. Chainmail bikinis are overtly sexualized depictions of women--there is no way to refute that, no interpretation needed. People can disagree on whether it is good or bad, but there is no denying the fact that it is an actual woman, depicted in a sexualized way (with ludicrous "armor," to boot).

As I said in a response to you in another thread, equating orcs with a specific ethnic group is an act of interpretation. Orcs are not depicted in a way to equate them with any particular ethnic group, without a rather large leap of imagination (and reinforcement of stereotypes). Drow have a few more problematic areas that can be, and have been to a large extent, addressed: removing the "curse = dark skin" lore, clarifying that their skin is obsidian black and/or grayscale, not brown. That's probably all that's really problematic enough to change or clarify. I won't comment on the Vistani because I don't know them well enough.

Again, if something is impeding inclusivity, then it must be changed.

I agree, like reinforcing the tenuous (at best) connection between orcs and specific stereotypes.

That's the bottom line. It makes the most sense from a business perspective (appeal to a broader audience) and a moral one. There just is no argument here. Someone's interpretation of a fantasy element is NEVER more important than the living, breathing person at the table. Full stop.

I agree, but different living, breathing people have different interpretations. If WotC is guided by the most offended person at any table, then the game would be changed beyond recognition.

I worked at a private high school some years ago and observed that policy decisions were often dictated by the sensibilities of the most culturally conservative person in the room, be it a parent or teacher. In some cases we changed policy (for better or worse), but in other cases we held the line, when we felt like it was necessary to preserve the integrity of the school and the type of environment we were trying to foster. If we gave in to every single concern, the end result would have been an extremely narrow, rigid, and controlled school environment.

I think the same applies to D&D. Some change is necessary, but some change can damage the game.

There can be no concessions here. You can't say, "Well, it's okay to be a little bit racist/bigoted/misogynistic." That's like saying it's okay to abuse your dog a little bit. Just don't kick the dog too much okay? It's ridiculous. And, I'm sorry, but the lack of empathy being shown here is shocking. That people would actually argue that it's MORE important that their fantasy orcs be irredeemably evil than making the game more inclusive to people is mind bogglingly selfish.

I haven't seen anyone say anything like that, or argue that "a little bit of racism is OK." Well, maybe one or two folks. This is a misperception of different views, Hussar. Please refer to my reply to in the other thread.

The disagreement is not whether racism is OK or not, it is to what degree racism is present.

 

[Hussar]

I'm sorry, no, you aren't Roman. You're Italian, sure, but you aren't Roman. You don't speak Latin. You don't worship Roman gods. You certainly don't eat Roman food. At best, you could possibly trace a lineage back, but, then again, I probably could too. Bringing up the fact that Romans might have used this depiction too is nothing but a red herring to derail conversation.

But, yes, how do we fix this? Well, it's fairly simple. Instead of treating orcs as monolithic evil, we present them in various lights, doing various things. It's not exactly rocket science. You will never be able to completely change the lore around orcs, but, you can certainly add to it to depict a more robust, expanded lore that doesn't revolve around the whole "evil savage out to take our womenfolk" that orcs have been presented as previously.

 

[Derren]

I'm sorry, no, you aren't Roman. You're Italian, sure, but you aren't Roman. You don't speak Latin. You don't worship Roman gods. You certainly don't eat Roman food. At best, you could possibly trace a lineage back, but, then again, I probably could too. Bringing up the fact that Romans might have used this depiction too is nothing but a red herring to derail conversation.

It isn't, you only don't want to acknowledge it because it would bring your argument crashing down.
He isn't Roman the same way no one today is a British/European, Arab or African slave trader.

 

[Hussar]

@Mercurious - we are simply not going to agree then. When you can hold up the description of orcs in the Monster Manual and it's virtually word for word identical to racist screeds of the early 20th century, that's not tenuous. So, yeah, we aren't going to be able to have a discussion here because you and I will not agree on this point.

 

[Mercurius]

@Mercurious - we are simply not going to agree then. When you can hold up the description of orcs in the Monster Manual and it's virtually word for word identical to racist screeds of the early 20th century, that's not tenuous. So, yeah, we aren't going to be able to have a discussion here because you and I will not agree on this point.

Fair enough, but I'd like to address this point. To be clear, I don't disagree that there is similarity between the depiction of orcs and racist stereotypes. I disagree that this ties orcs to the ethnic groups in question, because the racist stereotypes have nothing to do with actual ethnic groups and everything to do with racial hatred and perception of the "evil other." The view of orcs espoused in the D&D text, which I assume is meant to represent the consensus view of character races, is similar to the view of certain racists whites towards non-whites. That actually makes a certain degree of sense, based upon folklore, D&D lore and the traditional role of orcs as the primary evil race.

Why is having an "evil other"--especially a non-human evil other--inherently problematic in a fantasy game to which fighting evil is a central tenet?

If this is a problem, it means that the whole notion of the "evil other" or evil monsters is a problem. I agree that it most certainly is in real life, but in a mythic fantasy game? If orcs are humanized and "brought into the fold," so to speak, why not extend the olive branch further? What about kobolds, gnolls, goblins, etc? What about dragons, even demons and devils, who often manifest in humanoid form?

As I said elsewhere, I like varying core assumptions and making my own versions of monsters and races. I don't think any monster or race has to conform to the traditional D&D trope. But I also don't see a problem with evil races in the context of a fantasy roleplaying game, which is more based on myth and folklore--in which there are evil creatures and spirits--than it is on real world anthropology.

 

[Olrox17]

I'm sorry, no, you aren't Roman. You're Italian, sure, but you aren't Roman. You don't speak Latin. You don't worship Roman gods. You certainly don't eat Roman food. At best, you could possibly trace a lineage back, but, then again, I probably could too. Bringing up the fact that Romans might have used this depiction too is nothing but a red herring to derail conversation.

Do not presume to tell me who I am. I was born in Rome, raised in Rome, I live in Rome. I can speak the roman italian dialect, and have studied latin at school. I am a roman, and an italian citizen. You don't know Italy and how its regional cultures work.
You're being as culturally insensitive as many of the ideologies you claim to oppose.

But, yes, how do we fix this? Well, it's fairly simple. Instead of treating orcs as monolithic evil, we present them in various lights, doing various things. It's not exactly rocket science. You will never be able to completely change the lore around orcs, but, you can certainly add to it to depict a more robust, expanded lore that doesn't revolve around the whole "evil savage out to take our womenfolk" that orcs have been presented as previously.

I'm all for adding stuff, less so for taking stuff away. Demonic evil orcs have a place in the game, and so do "normal folk" orcs. I've said before, Warcraft is a good example with how to handle orcs.