TaranTheWanderer
Legend
Nice post. It really talks about actual concerns people have about the future of writing, art and the gaming community.Thanks, although I'm not sure it was as much a "realization" as the simple fact that I generally embrace change as a general rule - if that change improves and broadens the game. As you know, I don't agree with the interpretation that orcs are inherently problematic and invoke racism, but I also like playing with the core archetype and have always customized creatures and races to fit whatever campaign ideas come to me (for instance, there are non-evil orcs in my campaign setting). So change has always been part of my creative process.
What I did realize in the course of this conversation is that there are minor changes that can be made that broaden the game, appease those who want change, and preserve traditional D&D tropes within a wider range of possibilities. That was the impetus behind this thread. Maybe that's what you're picking up on.
I still think, though, that doubling down on orcs invoking racism actually perpetuates the problem. It is not inherently problematic to create a monstrous race that is "brutal, savage and evil," especially when they are depicted in a variety of ways that don't have clear connections to a specific race (e.g. I've always related them more to Northern European or Slavic "barbarians" than any other real-world ethnic group).
I am less concerned about preserving specific aspects of D&D tradition, and more the idea that "Fantasy Land" remains a free and open tableau to play with imaginary ideas, without interpreting everything through the lens of critical and/or cultural theory. See, for instance, this article that discusses the kerfuffle around young adult author Amelie Wen Zhao's "cultural appropriation" of "Black narratives."
So I have always been arguing from a position of wanting to preserve the tradition of make-believe - of myth-making, story-telling, and the free use of imagination. In this context, D&D. So let's make changes (not that we here have any say in the matter ;-), but let's do so carefully, and with an idea of broadening the possibilities of the game, not limiting them so that there is an ever-decreasing range of what is deemed appropriate to depict.
I've been trying to touch on other aspects of inheritance and inclusiveness but the conversation always seems to go back to whether or not a specific fantasy race is like a real one and whether or not it is offensive.
I think there's more to this conversation than that one particular angle. I'm not sure if my previous posts just aren't interesting or if they are too provocative to touch.
A summary of my previous posts:
What do the changes mean for people playing the game? Do people have any opinions or thoughts about it? Can I run a game about elves attacking loggers without being told I'm racist? Can I run a game where adventurers plunder Tombs without relating it back to colonialists robbing aboriginal grave sites?
If WotC makes the game more inclusive by including a broader array of coloured humans -which they have, do published games run the risk of being branded racist if the main enemy is one of those humans of colour? Or misogynistic if they are women? Or transphobic if they are trans?
I'm not saying it will one way or another, I'm just trying to broaden the discussion from: orcs are bad/orcs are not bad. As a white person, these are things I need to be concerned about in my games. I want to run exciting, interesting and inclusive adventures but also don't want to be branded a racist for the creative choices I make. Can I only include white villains because I am white? I mean, I never really thought about these issues before but since it's been brought up, it's like walking on eggshells.
Last edited: