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

[TaranTheWanderer]

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.

Nice post. It really talks about actual concerns people have about the future of writing, art and the gaming community.

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.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think when a Sahuagin eats an Aarakocra it isn't cannibalism, but it's very close to the line. I don't think a Lizardfolk eating a human isn't "cannabalism" but it is crossing a major line. A dwarf eating an elf is cannabalism, though, IMO. Sure, they're different races/species, but a fleshy creature eating another fleshy should count as cannabalism.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I think when a Sahuagin eats an Aarakocra it isn't cannibalism, but it's very close to the line. I don't think a Lizardfolk eating a human isn't "cannabalism" but it is crossing a major line. A dwarf eating an elf is cannabalism, though, IMO. Sure, they're different races/species, but a fleshy creature eating another fleshy should count as cannabalism.

This discussion would be super interesting between two characters in a game. In Real Life, it's probably up to your DM and the table to decide what is and isn't canabalism in a fantasy world.

 

[Helldritch]

I think when a Sahuagin eats an Aarakocra it isn't cannibalism, but it's very close to the line. I don't think a Lizardfolk eating a human isn't "cannabalism" but it is crossing a major line. A dwarf eating an elf is cannabalism, though, IMO. Sure, they're different races/species, but a fleshy creature eating another fleshy should count as cannabalism.

I side with Umbran on this one. Cannibalism, in a context with many species should refer to the act of eating sentient life forms. The broader definition should be used.

 

[Cadence]

Are you really serious?
If someone comes and say that orcs are depicted as black I would like see proof of his reasoning in the texts. I would go on and show him that this behavior has been in many cultures and unfortunately, in a lot of "white" cultures too. Does this mean that orcs are representative of white people? or Asian? or Cri? Shoshone? Aztec? Inca? Eurasian? Nope. Orcs are orcs. Instead of accepting a missperception as a truth, I would truly try to explain that it is not a caricature of black people or any other type of people or culture for that matter. Just like I explained, decades ago, to religious people in my area, that D&D was not promoting satanism.
...
WotC is acting fast in light of the social context that we know. It is sad that they do so. More thougths on the matter should have been considered and weighted.

The main argument that I've seen from those asking for changes doesn't necessarily involve a particular humanoid type in D&D matching a particular real world group of people**. I've seen a number of those in the two-now-closed-threads who support the change regularly having to point out that the argument isn't really about a particular real world group being caricatured. It seems to me that their argument is something like:

a) The language used to describe many humanoid races, to justify driving them from their land, and to kill them on sight, closely mimics the language used throughout history for groups in power to other, subjugate, and kill actual groups of people who primarily differed on external characteristics.

b) Having the game based around othering, subjugating, and killing groups of "people" (for the purpose of charm person and things like that which affect sentient humanoids, and which are supported for play as non-evil PCs) makes a number of players uncomfortable - particularly some of those whose ancestors were othered in those ways (and not necessarily that long ago as many alive today were alive for the civil rights movement).

c) Changing the game rules to not have sentient humanoid monster types/species/whatever be irrevocably evil and existing only to be killed as baseline doesn't feel like it actually change much in terms of how the game is played in a particular campaign. In any particular world there can still be tribes of evil orcs or evil elves or evil humans. There can also be good or neutral or advanced or primitive ones. Or them all living together. It doesn't take that option away, it just makes it not the default.

d) That change would make some folks much more comfortable as it would imply that mere external appearance isn't a reason to judge fellow people.

** The Vistani as you note. It has also been noted that the descriptions of the Orcs by Tolkien (who heavily influenced D&D) were based on the Mongols - although it has been also pointed out that the orcs change a lot between editions. Hobogoblins are regularly seen in Japanese (sometimes mishmashed with Chinese) armor and grooming. And the Drow are also mentioned, with some of the art used over the years clearly matching dark skinned humans rather than the descriptions given in the books themselves.

---

It doesn't seem to me that the satanic-panic is a parallel to the current request for changes. Many of the folks complaining about "satanism" in the game weren't asking for minor edits to respect their sensitivity (the game already allowed them to play in a monotheistic, low magic world) or to not use terms about their particular religion in an offensive way (did it talk derisively about monotheism? regularly use names particularly from their religion in a derisive way? encourage folks to go after certain religions just because they were different?). Instead it feels like they didn't want the game have any content at all about magic or demons or devils or pantheism for any of the players anywhere. Not only did they not want it the default, they wanted it completely gone.

---

Given the background of some of the folks involved in making these decisions for the WotC line, it sounds like they've been considering these changes for a while. So, if they were in the works, the current climate seems like a time to bring them out.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This discussion would be super interesting between two characters in a game. In Real Life, it's probably up to your DM and the table to decide what is and isn't canabalism in a fantasy world.

Sahuagin Sam: Hey, why are you eating Sahuagin Steak?

Adam Aarakocra: Because I'm a pescatarian.

 

[S'mon]

c) Changing the game rules to not have sentient humanoid monster types/species/whatever be irrevocably evil and existing only to be killed as baseline

I would hope this kind of thing can be done in a positive sum manner. It's already how many of us run our D&D worlds - and I very rarely see any players operate under "Kill all Xs on sight", either - IME the PCs almost always wait to see if X is hostile, first. Many RPG publishers already do this - I think in my old copy of Runequest 3 the Orcs aren't presented as kill-on-sight, though I guess the Broo are. But they're more like a fantasy version of the ALIEN Xenomorph. Even WoTC haven't always presented Orcs as inveterately hostile; in FR the Kingdom of Many Arrows seems to be an entity that other races can interact with peaceably. I do also think it's possible that changes could be made in a bad, tokenistic manner - I think Paizo has often been guilty of this on social issues - so I'd like WoTC to take a mature and measured approach; try to make fantasy races/species more interesting, nuanced and three-dimensional. It might not hush all complaints, but it could certainly be a net gain for the game.

 

[Libramarian]

To make Orcs more relatable, rather than "balance them out" with positive traits (e.g. Orcs love just as passionately as they hate---blech), I would rather hear more from their perspective.

E.g. The Orcish word for Human is shara, or weakling. They believe Humans' gracility and smooth, unblotched skin are signs of stunted development, as if they were pulled too quickly from the Maker's cookfire. They enjoy ribald jokes about the undoubted boredom and dissatisfaction of Human women...etc.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

To make Orcs more relatable, rather than "balance them out" with positive traits (e.g. Orcs love just as passionately as they hate---blech), I would rather hear more from their perspective.

E.g. The Orcish word for Human is shara, or weakling. They believe Humans' gracility and smooth, unblotched skin are signs of stunted development, as if they were pulled too quickly from the Maker's cookfire. They enjoy ribald jokes about the undoubted boredom and dissatisfaction of Human women...etc.

Orcs are TNG Klingons?

 

[Libramarian]

I wouldn't mind heading more in that direction.