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

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
So the inclusion of tons of false gods to worship was designed to not give offense to Christians? The inclusion of a tarot deck 5e included to tell the future via the Vistani was designed to give a pro-Christian message? The inclusion of demons and devils, the latter designed to corrupt mortals and take their souls to hell is designed with a pro-Christian message in mind? And heck, if we're talking about ugly language, here you go...

How does that stop something Christians feel so strongly about from being offensive? At the end of the day, you have some people playing characters who are making bargains with devils at the cost of souls.

As mentioned above, the core books in 1e and 2e don't seem to force polytheism. The 1e Deities and Demigods Preface goes out of its way to explain "It is is not intended as a treatment of world religions and the rightness or wrongness of their philosophies. It is a simple of historical or literary details man has recorded for all to see. Do not look for a favoring of good versus evil or neutrality versus everything else." And, in the editors introduction: "The most important thing to remember about this book is that, unlike the other AD&D volumes, everything contained within this book is guidelines, not rules. ... We would not presume to tell a Dungeon Master how to set up his or her campaign's religious system."

A religious person who wants to do the equivalent of what WotC is being asked to do now, seems like they would ask for it to be clear that monotheism and lack of magic can make a fine D&D game and to not use symbols from their real world beliefs as part of the game. They would hopefully be told that's already the case as far as monotheism and lack of magic, and hopefully WotC would go through and not have crosses, or a Eucharist, or things named after Satan, or to be sure that monotheism wasn't portrayed by default as it's worst stereotype. (Christianity is far from the only religion with things like demons, devils, and the underworld).

A religious person asking to have nothing that describes anything magical or from mythology in the base game rules doesn't seem like they're asking for their sensitivities to be respected. It feels like they're asking to be able to force their particular beliefs on everyone else with no options for other beliefs to be given.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Doug McCrae

Legend
Evil humanoids such as orcs are not very important in Gary Gygax's Greyhawk setting, which is humanocentric. Afaict they are in the majority in only one land, Pomarj.

They are far more numerous in 5e's default world. 5e Monster Manual:

Humanoids are the main peoples of the D&D world, both civilized and savage, including humans and a tremendous variety of other species... The most common humanoid races are the ones most suitable as player characters: humans, dwarves, elves, and halflings. Almost as numerous but far more savage and brutal, and almost uniformly evil, are the races of goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears), orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds.​

5e presents a world finely balanced between the "civilized" and the "savage".
 
Last edited:

Speaking as a Dutch person, over here in the Netherlands we've been having an intense national discussion about our St Nicholas celebration, and specifically the appearance of the character Black Pete. He has the typical blackface look, as Moorish servants were depicted for years in art from that era. For years the Dutch didn't think too much of it and didn't bother to update it. Keep in mind that we've never had the type of segregation here that the US had. But now attitudes are changing, and the voices for change become louder. Is it really too much to update an obvious old fashioned stereotype? Especially when it concerns a fictional character? Just as you can choose to make Spiderman black, you can choose to make Black Pete not offensive, and drow likewise.
 
Last edited:

Sadras

Legend
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.

Actually I can concur with what Dire Bare is saying.
My sister lives in Europe on an island of less than 3000 people and my nephew and niece (both 10 and under) were learning about different cultures. And their practise in the school is to dress up (clothing, makeup, hair and all) the part of those they are learning about (cultures, countries and basic greetings). It was a completely innocent educational exercise for the kids. No racist undertones. But can you imagine if that had occured in the US.

As Dire Bare rightly says you cannot get too judgemental about attitudes of different countries due to their very different histories.
 
Last edited:

5e presents a world finely balanced between the "civilized" and the "savage".

Any thoughts or predictions on how, if any, the changes will affect those kinds of themes in a game or in the content?

Civilization/Wilderness
Advanced/Primal
Warlike/Peaceful
Expansion/protection

Do you think any of these themes are going to become taboo?

Will the antagonists change overall? What will be the face of the implacable foe at the gates? Will people just find stand-ins for the races that are changed? Do you think, in general, it will make games more complex/flavourful?

From my own experience, younger players, new to the game, just kill everything. It doesn't matter if they're bandits or orcs or demons. More experienced DMs/story-tellers, overall, have more nuanced villains, whether or not they be orcs or human bandits. Do you think the changes will influence new players and encourage them to play in a different way or will that be DM dependent?
 
Last edited:

Cadence

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

As Dire Bare rightly says you cannot get too judgemental about attitudes of different countries due to different history.

It's also interesting to see how (or if) it changes over time even in those countries...

The small town my ancestors from the Cloppenburg district of Germany helped found in Central, IL has apparently had a group portray the three kings yearly since the 1880s - with the one portraying Balthazar in black-face. I was shocked to when I just checked that the town's most recent anniversary book still showed it from 2014 (I thought the last picture was older than that!!). The town is over 99.5% white and the momentum of tradition feels like a thing that is hard to change until someone points it out enough. I wonder if pressure from the younger generation has (or will soon) change it. They did have a small group home from college hold up signs in solidarity with the protests earlier this month.
 
Last edited:

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Evil humanoids such as orcs are not very important in Gary Gygax's Greyhawk setting, which is humanocentric. Afaict they are in the majority in only one land, Pomarj.

They are far more numerous in 5e's default world. 5e Monster Manual:

Humanoids are the main peoples of the D&D world, both civilized and savage, including humans and a tremendous variety of other species... The most common humanoid races are the ones most suitable as player characters: humans, dwarves, elves, and halflings. Almost as numerous but far more savage and brutal, and almost uniformly evil, are the races of goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears), orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds.​

5e presents a world finely balanced between the "civilized" and the "savage".

Weird to see lizardfolk called out on that list, considering they're typically (if not uniformly) neutral.
 

Sadras

Legend
Evil humanoids such as orcs are not very important in Gary Gygax's Greyhawk setting, which is humanocentric. Afaict they are in the majority in only one land, Pomarj.

They are far more numerous in 5e's default world. 5e Monster Manual:

Humanoids are the main peoples of the D&D world, both civilized and savage, including humans and a tremendous variety of other species... The most common humanoid races are the ones most suitable as player characters: humans, dwarves, elves, and halflings. Almost as numerous but far more savage and brutal, and almost uniformly evil, are the races of goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears), orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds.​

5e presents a world finely balanced between the "civilized" and the "savage".

It is coming off a PoL setting so it kinda follows.
 

Doug McCrae

Legend
Weird to see lizardfolk called out on that list, considering they're typically (if not uniformly) neutral.
You're right. Lizardfolk alignment in 5e is very peculiar imo and doesn't make much sense given their behaviour and the fact they are sentient. They almost seem to be permitted to escape the normal good/evil judgement. 5e Monster Manual:

Lizardfolk have no notion of traditional morality, and they find the concepts of good and evil utterly alien. Truly neutral creatures, they kill when it is expedient and do whatever it takes to survive...​
Any creature that enters their territory is fair game to be stalked, killed, and devoured. They make no distinction between humanoids, beasts, and monsters...​
Lizard folk are omnivorous, but they have a taste for humanoid flesh. Prisoners are often taken back to their camps to become the centerpieces of great feasts and rites involving dancing, storytelling, and ritual combat. Victims are either cooked and eaten by the tribe, or are sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god.​

I'd say they are definitely evil. They also of course fit a colonialist narrative of "primitive" races practicing cannibalism and human sacrifice. They have shamans, which are often associated with non-white people.

EDIT: The entry doesn't seem to understand that D&D alignment is supposed to be objective, not subjective. It doesn't matter if lizardfolk have "no notion of traditional morality".
 
Last edited:

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Any thoughts or predictions on how, if any, the changes will affect those kinds of themes in a game or in the content?

Civilization/Wilderness
Advanced/Primal
Warlike/Peaceful
Expansion/protection

Do you think any of these themes are going to become taboo?

Will the antagonists change overall? What will be the face of the implacable foe at the gates?

My guess is that the default rules will mix up which humanoids are civilized/wilderness, advanced/primal, warlike/peaceful, expansion/protection and at the gates (army of Evil dwarves attacking the city? a city where orcs and humans live in peace? an advanced navy of goblinoid traders?).

I can see "expansion" being always portrayed as a morally dubious or bad thing. But the rest of the themes feel to me like they could keep being a thing.
 

Remove ads

Top