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

[Scott Christian]

See, the problem that folks are having is that you think that an interpretation needs your agreement in order to be valid. That's not true. The interpretation, for example, of orcs being monolithically evil in D&D is a perfectly valid interpretation. It's easily supportable. You can point to all sorts of examples of it in the texts of the game. However, the same is true for the language surrounding orcs mirroring real world racist language. Again, this isn't really up for debate. It's demonstrably true. That you don't think that it's the same really doesn't matter. An interpretation doesn't need your approval or agreement. So long as the interpretation can be supported, it's valid.

So, all this stuff about "framing" and whatnot, doesn't matter one whit. I couldn't care less if you agree with the interpretation or not. Your approval is neither needed nor required. What is required, is the recognition that this is an interpretation that is held by a significant number of people who are asking you to change the verbiage. Your feelings or my feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

You are correct. The language should be changed. I have stated this.
I was just trying to help you understand those with whom you have a disagreement with. I figured since you have been debating for over 200 pages worth of forum reads, and have yet to convince those who you disagree with, that you might want to understand the disconnect. Sorry for wasting your time.

 

[Oofta]

You are correct. The language should be changed. I have stated this.
I was just trying to help you understand those with whom you have a disagreement with. I figured since you have been debating for over 200 pages worth of forum reads, and have yet to convince those who you disagree with, that you might want to understand the disconnect. Sorry for wasting your time.

No need to apologize. I've tried bending over backwards on some of these arguments to be accommodating. I've acknowledged that some of the wording should be reviewed along with discussing some of the more complex nuances which largely gets ignored. I'm sure I've made statements that were misinterpreted along the way, but there are just times when attempting to have a dialog is kind of pointless.

 

[MichaelSomething]

People have conflicting views on the meaning of Orcs is like people having conflicting views on the meaning of HP.

 

[Hussar]

Wait, what?

What am I being unreasonable about?

The ONLY thing I've harped on is that the language should be changed. And, since we now pretty much all agree on that, the only real problem that I see is folks bringing in all sorts of corollary elements that aren't really issues.

So, tell me, what am I demanding that is unreasonable? "Bending over backward" @Oofta? Seriously? What am I misunderstanding @Scott Christian? What point am I missing?

As far as I am concerned, this is a win. This thread started with me being told in pretty clear terms that heritage is more important than inclusivity. This thread now ends with everyone agreeing that heritage isn't actually all that important and that the language of the game can be changed to make it more inclusive.

Am I missing anything?

 

[Hussar]

People have conflicting views on the meaning of Orcs is like people having conflicting views on the meaning of HP.

There is unfortunately more truth in this statement than there should be.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

People have conflicting views on the meaning of Orcs is like people having conflicting views on the meaning of HP.

I think people are split on both of those. If you think hit points are just physical health in 5e, you're just wrong, and the PHB says so.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

As far as I am concerned, this is a win. This thread started with me being told in pretty clear terms that heritage is more important than inclusivity. This thread now ends with everyone agreeing that heritage isn't actually all that important and that the language of the game can be changed to make it more inclusive.

Heritage is important and means something, but yes, inclusivity is 100 times more important than this. If there's something from D&D heritage that makes the game less inclusive, we should get rid of/change that thing.

 

[Mercurius]

As far as I am concerned, this is a win. This thread started with me being told in pretty clear terms that heritage is more important than inclusivity. This thread now ends with everyone agreeing that heritage isn't actually all that important and that the language of the game can be changed to make it more inclusive.

Am I missing anything?

If you're suggesting that my OP was a back-handed way of saying that heritage is more important than inclusivity, you'd be misreading my intention and words. My point was that the two aren't opposed, if we focus on the underlying issues.

 

[Hussar]

If you're suggesting that my OP was a back-handed way of saying that heritage is more important than inclusivity, you'd be misreading my intention and words. My point was that the two aren't opposed, if we focus on the underlying issues.

To be fair, @Mercurius, you've been more than open right from the beginning. Totally cool.

However, there are a number of posts throughout this thread and others that show that there are others who were not so groovy.

I would point out though, that I'm not really sure what you mean by them not being opposed. Right from the first page of the thread, these two elements are shown in tension with each other. And, frankly, there really hasn't been much change since then. Those that argued for inclusivity, like myself, get exactly what we asked for - the removal of racist elements from the descriptions of various monsters. Done.

The whole alignment canard is just so much blown smoke over the issue because no one cares if monsters are evil or not. Just that we can have a bit of deviation from the baseline of the Monster Manual to reflect the fact that there is a significant number of players who want to play orcs and are having a tough go of it because there are those who insist that the only orc that can be presented in the Monster Manual MUST BE the monolithically evil orc.

But, again, that line of argument got shot down too because now we're seeing that WotC is going to amend alignment elements too.

In other words, just as I stated WAYYYY back at the start of this thread, inclusivity trumps heritage. Anyone who thinks otherwise is setting themselves up for disappointment. So, you essentially have two choices - get on board or get out of the way because, well, the arguments were made, weighed and found wanting.

And, just like the arguments over chainmail bikinis and sexualized art in the game, and non-binary elves in the game, in a couple of years, people will look back at this argument and just shake their head.

 

[Mercurius]

To be fair, @Mercurius, you've been more than open right from the beginning. Totally cool.

However, there are a number of posts throughout this thread and others that show that there are others who were not so groovy.

I would point out though, that I'm not really sure what you mean by them not being opposed. Right from the first page of the thread, these two elements are shown in tension with each other. And, frankly, there really hasn't been much change since then. Those that argued for inclusivity, like myself, get exactly what we asked for - the removal of racist elements from the descriptions of various monsters. Done.

The whole alignment canard is just so much blown smoke over the issue because no one cares if monsters are evil or not. Just that we can have a bit of deviation from the baseline of the Monster Manual to reflect the fact that there is a significant number of players who want to play orcs and are having a tough go of it because there are those who insist that the only orc that can be presented in the Monster Manual MUST BE the monolithically evil orc.

But, again, that line of argument got shot down too because now we're seeing that WotC is going to amend alignment elements too.

In other words, just as I stated WAYYYY back at the start of this thread, inclusivity trumps heritage. Anyone who thinks otherwise is setting themselves up for disappointment. So, you essentially have two choices - get on board or get out of the way because, well, the arguments were made, weighed and found wanting.

And, just like the arguments over chainmail bikinis and sexualized art in the game, and non-binary elves in the game, in a couple of years, people will look back at this argument and just shake their head.

I think what you're not incorporating here is how inclusivity is accomplished. It isn't simply "get on board or move out of the way," but what are we getting on board with? When you frame it as you do, it is like saying, "Buy this all-expenses paid vacation for $1000 to somewhere in the world!" Sure, I'd like go somewhere but where are we going?

I'm all for "progress" - but change isn't always progressive, isn't always good. It doesn't always succeed and sometimes causes more harm than good.

So when I say the two aren't opposed, I'm saying that it isn't an either/or--like you describe here. It isn't either "no changes" or "change everything according to whomever cries loudest." It isn't either "you're for progress" or you're a dinosaur.

The OA disclaimer is a good example: it preserves the book, but adds a company position about the book. Some folks on either side of the issue won't be happy.

Or we can talk about orcs, drow, alignment, etc. There are ways to change them without getting rid of the traditional ideas.