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

[WayOfTheFourElements]

This might not be what you meant, but this is how it reads . . . . .

People of color are morons who cannot compartmentalize and differentiate fiction from reality.

I don't remember saying that. Personally, I believe skin color has no affect on moronic tenancies.

 

[Dire Bare]

Um...what? I'm not sure I'd call Neil DeGrasse Tyson a warrior or Sherman Alexie a noble savage. Anyone who equates African-Americans with warriors or Native Americans with a noble savage has a brain virus. Skin color does not contribute to culture, character, or morality.

EDIT: Sorry, I reacted to strongly here. Your reply seems to imply that I, personally, view all Africans as part of a warrior race and all Native Americans are noble savages. Which, is the opposite of what I actually said.

The African "warrior race" and the Native American "noble savage" stereotypes are just that, stereotypes. They do not reflect reality, they are negative, and they are racist.

Tweet at Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Sherman Alexie about their experiences with being subjected to racist stereotypes. The stereotypes don't make sense, but they are elements of racism and discrimination minorities have to deal with daily.

 

[S'mon]

99% agreement here, but have to "well, actually" you on your blackface comments.

Americans ARE more sensitive to blackface depictions than folks from other countries, both in Europe and elsewhere.

The reason is that the minstrel shows that we are reacting against were largely an American phenomenon, as was the extent of African slavery. We of course, weren't the only nation to enslave others, or even Africans, but the extent of the practice was uniquely (sadly) American. Not that Americans have a monopoly on racism either, but how long it took us to end slavery, and how much longer after that did we have a cultural movement to dehumanize African-Americans, which included the awful minstrel shows, was very American (and of course, this movement isn't really over).

Blackface in America is such a taboo that it blows my mind how many idiots who "aren't racist" get caught doing it at some point . . . politicians, comedians having to apologize after photos/videos surface of them doing blackface. It's such a taboo that even if you aren't mimicking the minstrel style of blackface, if you are darkening your skin color for practically any reason, it's seen as racist.

But outside of the U.S., blackface being taboo isn't really a thing, or didn't used to be. They didn't have the racist minstrel shows at the heart of the taboo. As more cultures become aware of why blackface is so taboo in America, it is becoming taboo in other places too . . . there was some controversy about a U.K. sitcom with blackface episodes not too long ago.

So, don't get too judgmental about blackface attitudes outside of the U.S., they don't have the same taboos we do, they don't have the same history we do.

The USA is certainly very different. But as you say, US mores do tend to export globally over time, with other Anglosphere nations generally hit hardest. Usually the forms end up somewhat milder when taken out of their original context. Even my more radical UK academic colleagues come across fairly moderate on cultural issues compared to US equivalent, although on economics of course the European left is much more radical than the US. This process happens on both right and left of course.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think designating a group "Always Lawful Good" can be a problem too as it can be used to justify abhorrent behaviour "ok Elves do commit genocide but they are Good so it's ok!" I don't think Gygax designating his Dervishes LG was intended as a comment on 19th century Mahdists and the ethics of Jihad, but it did give me a double take. As did BECMI's Desert Nomads, with the Lawful/Good Sunni-Analogue Alasiyans and the Chaotic/Evil Shia analogue Thuleans with their Master depicted as Ayatollah Khomeini.

Ah, as a Mystara fan growing up, I remember this! When I was in middle school, the mirror that the Desert Nomads, and also the Ylari culture, had with Islam seemed brilliant at the time! But I was an ignorant 13-year-old, and when going back over those depictions when older . . . . ugh. Again, like so many things in D&D, I don't think the author's intent was to be racist or to trivialize Muslim culture, but that is something that's going to need a rework if Mystara ever gets republished.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yep. Why Dragonlance is so bad with this. Good commits heinous acts. But because good they are good and fine. That does not fly.
Nuance is good for a lot more.

I love Dragonlance. But Dragonlance is weird with how "good" and "evil" are depicted. The idea that if the balance sways to far in either direction, bad things happen, even struck me as weird as a middle-schooler reading the books for the first time. When the "good" nation of Istar got too powerful and needed the gods to drop a mountain on them, they weren't really still "good", they had turned evil in how their society treated other peoples of the fantasy world of Krynn.

Still though, the books described Istar and the Kingpriest as capital-G "Good", but not sympathetically at all. You weren't supposed to empathize with the Kingpriest in his arrogance. But in-universe, how everybody was like, "Yup, that's what happens if you let the good guys get too full of themselves" . . . . that was just weird. Like nobody on Krynn was introspective enough to go, "Well, actually, the Kingpriest was NOT a good man overreaching his mortal limits, he was a right tyrannical bastard. And why drop a mountain on the entire city because of one guy?!?! That's a rational reaction from the gods of Good?!?!"

 

[Oofta]

I don't think it all needs to go, but perhaps some positive traits should be added. In my game, orcs are brutal and savage jungle-dwelling creatures with leathery dark purple skin with yellow eyes, claws, and teeth. (Different humanoids have different color skin in my game; hobgoblins are leathery and red, goblins are green, bugbears have electric blue fur, etc.).

​

Orcs are cunning hunters, but lack intellectual prowess. They hunt game and other humanoids alike. The orcish language uses the same word for raiding and hunting. No line is drawn between them.​

​

Orcs are honorable to a fault but have strict cultural norms that value strength and willpower above all other traits.​

​

Their homeland is deadly and dangerous and they do what they must to survive. Individualism isn't valued, group survival is prioritized.​

​

Those who do not fit what a true "orc" should be are exiled from their tribe or brutally sacrificed to appease their merciless gods (who are not actual beings, but merely imaged manifestations of super-powered orcs), to whom they erect massive stone ziggurats, while they orcs live in crude wooden huts and cave complexes.​

​

There are few to no differences between the expectations of male and female orcs.​

Personally, I don't find any this offensive and neither have any of my players.

Thanks for one of the few posts on how you would actually change the wording. I like the idea of additions of traits, even if I'm not going to change orcs in my home campaign to look exactly like this.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Thanks for one of the few posts on how you would actually change the wording. I like the idea of additions of traits, even if I'm not going to change orcs in my home campaign to look exactly like this.

Every world is unique. In my mind, every monster should differ (at least slightly) from one campaign to another.

 

[Lem23]

I'm a big fan of OSR (have been since, well, since it wasn't the old school, it was just the school, back in the early 80s). If it's a choice between "tradition" and inclusion, then inclusion 100%, of course.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I suggested, maybe in this thread, or possibly another, that instead of getting into the nitty gritty of cultural tendencies of specific races, all sentient groups - including humans - should be described in the same way a Narrator describes animals on Wild Kingdom.

All creatures are described based on their behaviors and their biology. Lions aren't evil despite being carnivorous creatures that eat cute, baby gazelles. You can describe a Pride's behaviors, physical features and social structure in those terms and then add it to any setting.

 

[Morrus]

And rape.

What were you thinking? This is completely inappropriate. Don’t again in this thread.