D&D 5E Which common monsters/creature types do you exclude from your campaigns?

[Thomas Rainsborough]

That is why I was surprised it was about VGtM for 5E... I just read the section on orcs and, frankly, found nothing remotely racist there.

I know a lot of people today don't like the warlike portrayal of orcs, and in my games they are warlike, but not quite to the extend the write-up in Volo's implies...

And I'm sure when Volo's was released a lot of people thought it was brilliant, while others might not appreciate such write-ups.

As I said, this idea of re-writing the history and lore of D&D is a new thing. I am not going to get drawn into that battle, which as I have said, have seen across numerous platforms the last 2 or 3 years. But yes, there is a segment of the population that sees racism in peanut butter. I have chosen to ignore that group, and will embrace all the lore and material in books that represent the almost 50 years of D&D.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Believe it or not, I've pseudo-excluded dragons from my current game. That is, there are only and exactly three dragons in the entire region where the players are located, and no others (to the best of their knowledge) for literally thousands of miles in any direction.

One dragon is an ally, hunting the second dragon, a wicked black dragon trying to take over their city. Defeating that dragon's machinations is a major goal for the party. The third dragon is a "spirit" dragon, bound to an origami dragon "statue" the party found. If they can learn its true name, they may be able to ask for its aid on something.

So, there's one BBEG dragon, one BAGG (big awesome good guy) dragon, and one almost-genie-like dragon...and that's it. All other dragons live far away.

Other than that, though, I don't really exclude a whole lot. I guess you could say I exclude drow and driders and stuff like that because those wouldn't make sense in this game...?

 

[el-remmen]

I think the "strangest" change I've made to the basic lore/organization of a common D&D "monster" is that I made hobgoblins and goblins two different sex/gender expressions of the same species - so that the females tend to be physically larger and are organized around a rigid warrior/patrician hierarchy, while the males are smaller and serve other cultural niches (artisans, laborers, etc) with the groups being socialized separately (think of ancient Sparta-ish). Of course, there is the potential for a variety of non-binary identities between them - but the PCs have not encountered any. (Since in my setting goblinoids are basically extinct in the part of the world the PCs come from, they are just now being introduced to this phenomenon).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I never saw anything in 5E Volo's that would strike that chord, but views differ.

Yeah...not really a fan of being told I am a racist. But I have seen this culture war fought on many forums for a couple years now. Funny how something published a scant 6 years ago, and was considered a brilliant piece of work, is now considered be some as written by people in white hats.

Maybe you should separate your own personality from the things you read, Thomas?

You are not your books. Sorry. I know some people like to think they are. Just because you own a book with racism in it, doesn't make you a racist, and it definitely doesn't entitle you to falsely claim you are "being told you are a racist". Talk about wanting to be a victim! Also weeping about a "culture war" is unhelpful and borderline against the rules of this board, as well as disingenuous as hell.

The idea that the age of a text impacts whether it is racist or not is absolutely laughable. A great example is the 4E Vistani vs. the 5E Vistani. 4E revisited the Vistani, and toned down the stereotypes (not entirely), but more importantly, made a Vistani a culture, not a race, thus avoiding mirroring racist propaganda against the Roma people. 5E Vistani swept all that aside, and went directly back to the obviously racist 1/2/3E take where the Vistani were non-humans who just looked like humans (something said about the Roma countless times), conformed to virtually every Roma stereotype (some with a more positive spin, but many of them not), and so on. Then it changed them to being oh look, a culture, not a race, and toned down the stereotypes!

That was more recent, and more racist. That you are having difficulty with this concept doesn't reflect a "culture war" or the like, it reflects a very simplistic understanding of culture, where "more recent" automagically means "less bad". No. That has never, in human history, been how it has worked.

With Orcs the situation was not entirely dissimilar. 5E went back the oldest stereotypes of Orcs, which, unfortunately, mirror the worst stereotypes about East Asian and Black people. The original conception of Orcs by Tolkien sadly did contain some of this, but frankly 5E ramped it up. I very much doubt it was intentional, but the mirroring was pretty close, so calling it "beautifully written" seems well, uh, fanciful at best. Note that the "warlike"-ness isn't really the key issue, it's other traits that mirror the racist stuff most closely and creepily. If warlike-ness was a problem, Hobgoblins would be a problem, but they're a much poorer match for racist sentiments (the worst I can offhand say is that there has been some rather Orientalist - in the Edward Said sense - tendencies in how they've been portrayed visually).

I think the "strangest" change I've made to the basic lore/organization of a common D&D "monster" is that I made hobgoblins and goblins two different sex/gender expressions of the same species - so that the females tend to be physically larger and are organized around a rigid warrior/patrician hierarchy, while the males are smaller and serve other cultural niches (artisans, laborers, etc) with the groups being socialized separately (think of ancient Sparta-ish). Of course, there is the potential for a variety of non-binary identities between them - but the PCs have not encountered any. (Since in my setting goblinoids are basically extinct in the part of the world the PCs come from, they are just now being introduced to this phenomenon).

That's a pretty fascinating take.

 

[Thomas Rainsborough]

Maybe you should separate your own personality from the things you read, Thomas?

You are not your books. Sorry. I know some people like to think they are. Just because you own a book with racism in it, doesn't make you a racist, and it definitely doesn't entitle you to falsely claim you are "being told you are a racist". Talk about wanting to be a victim! Also weeping about a "culture war" is unhelpful and borderline against the rules of this board, as well as disingenuous as hell.

The idea that the age of a text impacts whether it is racist or not is absolutely laughable. A great example is the 4E Vistani vs. the 5E Vistani. 4E revisited the Vistani, and toned down the stereotypes (not entirely), but more importantly, made a Vistani a culture, not a race, thus avoiding mirroring racist propaganda against the Roma people. 5E Vistani swept all that aside, and went directly back to the obviously racist 1/2/3E take where the Vistani were non-humans who just looked like humans (something said about the Roma countless times), conformed to virtually every Roma stereotype (some with a more positive spin, but many of them not), and so on.

That was more recent, and more racist. That you are having difficulty with this concept doesn't reflect a "culture war" or the like, it reflects a very simplistic understanding of culture, where "more recent" automagically means "less bad". No. That has never, in human history, been how it has worked.

With Orcs the situation was not entirely dissimilar. 5E went back the oldest stereotypes of Orcs, which, unfortunately, mirror the worst stereotypes about East Asian and Black people. The original conception of Orcs by Tolkien sadly did contain some of this, but frankly 5E ramped it up. I very much doubt it was intentional, but the mirroring was pretty close, so calling it "beautifully written" seems well, uh, fanciful at best. Note that the "warlike"-ness isn't really the key issue, it's other traits that mirror the racist stuff most closely and creepily. If warlike-ness was a problem, Hobgoblins would be a problem, but they're a much poorer match for racist sentiments (the worst I can offhand say is that there has been some rather Orientalist - in the Edward Said sense - tendencies in how they've been portrayed visually).

That's a pretty fascinating take.

Yeah, not getting sucked into this. I stand by my statement. I embrace all the lore and history of 50 years of D&D, and am not changing any of it, no matter what direction WOTC and their enablers take the game going forward.

 

[Reynard]

All things "cutesy".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I embrace all the lore and history of 50 years of D&D, and am not changing any of it, no matter what direction WOTC and their enablers take the game going forward.

Oh really, so you embrace, for example, GAZ10 Orcs of Thar? Hmmm? Do you? Really though? Do you embrace that? It's pretty special stuff.

Also logically doesn't this mean you embrace all the changes in the new Mordenkainen and so on as well? Presumably, given you say 50 years, you're pre-embracing the 5.5E changes too?

Also "WotC and their enablers" is pretty hilarious. I guess that's like, all the tens of millions of people (and growing) who play 5E? Those enablers! What are they enabling exactly?

 

[Mannahnin]

Yeah, not getting sucked into this. I stand by my statement. I embrace all the lore and history of 50 years of D&D, and am not changing any of it, no matter what direction WOTC and their enablers take the game going forward.

"Enablers" in what sense? By buying Volo's, aren't you an enabler?

TSR and WotC have changed the lore and history over time. As Ruin Explorer pointed out, the Vistani originally had some racist stereotypes about Romani people built in, then WotC reduced that, then they brought it back stronger, more in keeping with the old TSR stuff. That's observable just looking at the text.

 

[Thomas Rainsborough]

Oh really, so you embrace, for example, GAZ10 Orcs of Thar? Hmmm? Do you? Really though? Do you embrace that? It's pretty special stuff.

Also logically doesn't this mean you embrace all the changes in the new Mordenkainen and so on as well? Presumably, given you say 50 years, you're pre-embracing the 5.5E changes too?

Also "WotC and their enablers" is pretty hilarious. I guess that's like, all the tens of millions of people (and growing) who play 5E? Those enablers! What are they enabling exactly?

I have said all I am going to say. Read into my comments what you will. I am not trying to convince you of anything, and am not going to debate.

 

[Vaalingrade]

WOTC and their enablers take the game going forward.

Wow.