Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8021144" data-attributes="member: 59082">Whoops. Oh well.Anyhow, after reading through the last dozen or so pages, I am struck by how the solutions of the &quot;two sides&quot; are closer than the interpretation around the question of racism in D&amp;D tropes. Think about that for a moment. If we're somewhat close on solutions, why not just agree to disagree on the rest? If person A interprets the connection of x-trope with racism differently, it doesn't mean they don't care about people or are racist; if person B wants to see changes, it doesn't mean they want to destroy D&amp;D or legislate your game.The point being, let's stop arguing over interpretation and focus on solutions, which are far easier to come to agreement on. So here goes:Most of us seem to agree on broadening the presentation of orcs to provide for a wider range of orcish theme and behavior. Gruumsh orcs remain as a viable monster race, but options are provided for non-all-evil orcs. OK? Can we all agree on that?Drow might be a bit trickier, but I think the same applies. Fully excise the &quot;cursed=black skin&quot; thing, keep traditional drow otherwise as-is, but re-frame them not as &quot;fallen elves&quot; but &quot;fallen drow&quot; - meaning, they are a sub-sub-race, and non-evil (daerk-skinned) drow exist and are actually the &quot;true&quot; original drow, but exist in secret because of the association with the bad drow (I like the idea of the original drow being more neutral-aligned). I actually like the idea that the original drow are black skinned, with the fallen drow being shades of gray -- which better fits the idea of a subterranean race, anyway.Vistani? Again, I don't know them enough to have an opinion, but it sounds like the parallels with a real world culture are more obvious. Seems to be a cultural consultant--preferably of Romani descent--is in order. Let's leave it to them.OK? Does anyone actually disagree with these solutions?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 8021144, member: 59082"] Whoops. Oh well. Anyhow, after reading through the last dozen or so pages, I am struck by how the [I]solutions [/I]of the "two sides" are closer than the [I]interpretation [/I]around the question of racism in D&D tropes. Think about that for a moment. If we're somewhat close on solutions, why not just agree to disagree on the rest? If person A interprets the connection of x-trope with racism differently, it doesn't mean they don't care about people or are racist; if person B wants to see changes, it doesn't mean they want to destroy D&D or legislate your game. The point being, let's stop arguing over interpretation and focus on solutions, which are far easier to come to agreement on. So here goes: Most of us seem to agree on broadening the presentation of orcs to provide for a wider range of orcish theme and behavior. Gruumsh orcs remain as a viable monster race, but options are provided for non-all-evil orcs. OK? Can we all agree on that? Drow might be a bit trickier, but I think the same applies. Fully excise the "cursed=black skin" thing, keep traditional drow otherwise as-is, but re-frame them not as "fallen elves" but "fallen [I]drow" - [/I]meaning, they are a sub-sub-race, and non-evil (daerk-skinned) drow exist and are actually the "true" original drow, but exist in secret because of the association with the bad drow (I like the idea of the original drow being more neutral-aligned). I actually like the idea that the original drow are black skinned, with the fallen drow being shades of gray -- which better fits the idea of a subterranean race, anyway. Vistani? Again, I don't know them enough to have an opinion, but it sounds like the parallels with a real world culture are more obvious. Seems to be a cultural consultant--preferably of Romani descent--is in order. Let's leave it to them. OK? Does anyone actually disagree with these solutions? [/QUOTE]

Verification