1-3) In terms of Heritage - Change is inevitable and I'm all for changing D&D to make it better and even more fun. That said I want well thought out changes that aren't a knee-jerk reaction to seeing racist parallels in everything. Oh and please don't touch what is already established. When you are ready to make these kinds of changes put out some new material such as a setting or a new edition or alternate setting rules to accomplish it. In terms of Inclusivity - you can't be inclusive to everyone, someone will get left out because their are contradictions between beliefs and viewpoints. That's the existential problem of unbridled inclusivity. Which brings me to the inevitable question of - who or what deems who or what is worthy of being included? It's only after those specifics are worked out that we can talk about specific sacrifices/concessions and even whether that's the kind of inclusivity we want?
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.
Bang on correct, thus far.I would like Wizards to make a book with all the player character races in it, maybe call it the Player's Handbook (PHB). These races are used to make characters, call them PCs- (player characters, not politically correct). Another book can contain all the opposing peoples and monsters (if we can use that word). Call this book the Monster Manual (MM). The players have the PHB races and the DM has the MM races, plus is able to use the PHB races as monsters if chosen.
But here it falls completely off the track, as you've now got two completely different interpretations of the same creature, its general culture, its general background, and everything else that makes it tick.Now if Wizards wants to have certain races, or all the races, in the MM be able to be used as player races they can make it so. They can make a new book for 5e that allows this and gives clarity to how these are different than the 'traditional' found in the MM.
Absolutely. I'm referring to the baseline defaults from which one can then vary if desired.Now where this gets totally weird is that I can make up my own world for my own fun and populate it with anything I want and play with whomever I want. I can make new rules for any of the races to be used for players or monsters. If I want all my orcs to have +2 Int or -2 Int, I can. When it comes to play, the other players will be playing with me or choose to play someplace else if they do not like they way I made my world or home rules. This will either confirm that what I'm doing is ok, or leave me by myself, hopefully thinking about making changes so I can play nicely with others again.
I'm guessing you probably won't like it, then, when I tell you that full-blooded Orcs in my game have this as a built-in biological feature: adult Orcs semi-spontaneously changing gender (a process that takes a few hours) is a relatively frequent - as in a few times a year for any given one - occurrence.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*
I would like to keep them apart and have races that players can play and races that are the monsters. I can also accept that some others like to have things both ways and an optional book that lets them do this is ok. I will not buy it, but some will and play just fine with it. If all my players want to try and play in Eberon and that world allows orcs to be PCs, I would let the player play one. In my home campaign or the modified FR we play in, I don't. There was an orc NPC that joined the party for a few weeks while they assaulted the sky cult spire, but not as a PC.So which interpretation takes precedence?
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*
Gotta say, I gamed 3 years in a group with a guy who- judging by the way we interacted- was probably not super fond of black people.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?
I'm guessing you probably won't like it, then, when I tell you that full-blooded Orcs in my game have this as a built-in biological feature: adult Orcs semi-spontaneously changing gender (a process that takes a few hours) is a relatively frequent - as in a few times a year for any given one - occurrence.
Sure made me put in a lot of thought as to how they'd reproduce, but I think I've got it sorted.