D&D 5E Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Oofta]

This was also a thing in Ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Mesoamerica, Ancient Italy, Ancient Celtic Europe, Ancient Japan, Ancient China…

Ancestor Worship, the Divine King or Queen of the City, the God of the Tribe, and genius loci are very very very common in so-called Polytheisms.

Usually it's more that there is the patron deity of the tribe but you recognise a few other deities too as important to offer sacrifices too, and when you're visiting another city, you offer sacrifice to their patron god as well, just in case.

The big shift for monotheisms like Atenism and Judaism were their refusals to offer sacrifices to or recognition of the other nations' deities (including the Egyptian and Roman God-Emperors, when it comes to the Hebrews).

So when you're portraying a Pelor faction, sure, recognise that the Raven Queen exists too (after all, you eventually will die), and maybe make a generous offering to her temple when you visit Nera or Gloomwrought, but otherwise you're not going to spend much effort on her, since she and Pelor aren't closely related. Erathis and Ioun, on the other hand, live in the same divine city as Pelor as co-rulers, so you may be more likely to have a small shrine to each of them off to the side in your Temple of Pelor.

Yeah, one of the things I have to keep reminding people is that clerics may be the chosen of a specific deity but unless you're in a very large city you are not generally going to find a temple dedicated to a specific god. Maybe a shrine or special dedication to a specific god here and there, but most lay priests are priests of the entire pantheon.

So since I use a pantheon loosely based on Norse mythology for humans someone may pray to Thor for rain, ask for a blessing from Uller when hunting and about to fire an arrow, sacrifice to Odin before battle. In a smaller village or town with multiple races (particularly on trade routes), there may even be nooks for elven or dwarven deities.

 

[Hussar]

There are a lot of complex reasons why young orc men join the OSS, and branding all of them as evil terrorists is simplistic and problematic.

No, it really isn't.

 

[Reynard]

No, it really isn't.

Yes, it really is. It's one of the most important problems to solve in the world and dismissive attitudes and judgemental condemnation get people killed.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, it really is. It's one of the most important problems to solve in the world and dismissive attitudes and judgemental condemnation get people killed.

I think you are conflating the real world with a game. It's the same old same old. Comic books are destroying our youth. Then it was TV and video games. Study after study has never shown any causation. People recognize the difference between games and reality.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I think you are conflating the real world with a game. It's the same old same old. Comic books are destroying our youth. Then it was TV and video games. Study after study has never shown any causation. People recognize the difference between games and reality.

Hell, it was famously D&D at one point, only instead of the current "it's going to turn everyone into a bigot" it was "it's going to turn everyone into a Satanist." It didn't then, and it won't now. I understand a certain degree of change to address instances where real life cultures and minorities have been stereotyped, demonized or marginalized (see the Vistani issue). That's only sensible, and I'd say it's good change without reservation. But going the distance further and saying that we must protect wholly fictional constructs in the same way we do real life cultures because of how it effects us is, in my opinion, stepping across the threshold to moral panic, and that never leads anywhere good.

If WotC wants to write out lengthy world building books filled with complex societies and nuanced cultures, by all means, I'm for it. There's no evidence that they are willing to do that, however, and stereotypes are a fine shortcut if you're not going to go into detail. It can be taken as given that stereotypes are just that, and if I'm running homebrew, I can add details as needed. But a starting point needs to evoke something to make me want to use it over other options, and I'll take colorful summaries and easy to use tools at the expense of painting with an overly broad brush over vague summaries that basically say "you figure it out" for everything. I'm certainly not opposed to making things more nuanced (see my post about alignment above), but it needs to be in service to making a better game, not in trying not to offend people who are specifically looking for things to be offended by. If I have people hare being offensive at the gaming table, I'm perfect capable of addressing that myself, either by correcting the behavior, or ensuring that either they or I am not at the table.

 

[Umbran]

But going the distance further and saying that we must protect wholly fictional constructs in the same way we do real life cultures because of how it effects us is, in my opinion, stepping across the threshold to moral panic, and that never leads anywhere good.

Mod Note:
"Moral panic" is becoming yet another dogwhistle buzzword. I think we may need to have Morrus add it to inclusivity policy for terms that are used to dismiss, without addressing the actual issues.

in trying not to offend people who are specifically looking for things to be offended by.

And here, you tell us that you don't actually respect the opinions of those who don't agree with you. And that means you're done in the thread.

 

[Marandahir]

Hell, it was famously D&D at one point, only instead of the current "it's going to turn everyone into a bigot" it was "it's going to turn everyone into a Satanist." It didn't then, and it won't now. I understand a certain degree of change to address instances where real life cultures and minorities have been stereotyped, demonized or marginalized (see the Vistani issue). That's only sensible, and I'd say it's good change without reservation. But going the distance further and saying that we must protect wholly fictional constructs in the same way we do real life cultures because of how it effects us is, in my opinion, stepping across the threshold to moral panic, and that never leads anywhere good.

If WotC wants to write out lengthy world building books filled with complex societies and nuanced cultures, by all means, I'm for it. There's no evidence that they are willing to do that, however, and stereotypes are a fine shortcut if you're not going to go into detail. It can be taken as given that stereotypes are just that, and if I'm running homebrew, I can add details as needed. But a starting point needs to evoke something to make me want to use it over other options, and I'll take colorful summaries and easy to use tools at the expense of painting with an overly broad brush over vague summaries that basically say "you figure it out" for everything. I'm certainly not opposed to making things more nuanced (see my post about alignment above), but it needs to be in service to making a better game, not in trying not to offend people who are specifically looking for things to be offended by. If I have people hare being offensive at the gaming table, I'm perfect capable of addressing that myself, either by correcting the behavior, or ensuring that either they or I am not at the table.

It's not that D&D is going to "turn everyone into a bigot."

It's that discriminatory attitudes that carry even a vaneer of racism were wrong then and are wrong now, and are warding people away from the game. WotC wants to grow their attitude, so they're dropping a lot of the stuff that was non-inclusive.

"All dark skinned elves are evil?" Really Gygax? Oh, sorry, R.A. Salvatore's on the scene: "except for that one dark-skinned elf ranger friend; he's cool. Look at those shiny scimitars and his black panther! The rest of them though, they're monsters..."

…you see what I mean? This is why we have Udadrow, Loradrow, and Aevendrow now. And the "darkness of the drow" sidebar is going bye-bye. We need to break apart the harmful stereotypes.

 

[Scribe]

The rest of them though, they're monsters..."

And Eilistraee says what?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I concur.

This is why I strongly disfavour humanoids who reproduce in a "normal" way, have free(ish) will, a child stage, non-combatants, and so on as block "Evil" factions. Because otherwise it's very hard to work around situations where the PCs are likely to come into contact with the non-combatants, question whether the humanoids really went to be there, and so on.

For block "Evil" factions I prefer beings who lack free will, or at the very least don't have non-combatants, kids and so on. Or factions where literally everyone has actively chosen to sign up to Evil (certain kinds of cult, for example).

5th ed appears to agree with you. Hence the interminable series of cultists in every 5e adventure.

 

[loverdrive]

I went hunting for a couple of days, and it looks like during my absence something weird happened. At least I have a wild duck.

I certainly can get behind getting rid of fictional races being coded as real-world oppressed minorities, but just removing all the stereotypes about all the fictional groups is, honestly, real weird.

It's that discriminatory attitudes that carry even a vaneer of racism were wrong then and are wrong now, and are warding people away from the game. WotC wants to grow their attitude, so they're dropping a lot of the stuff that was non-inclusive.

"All dark skinned elves are evil?" Really Gygax? Oh, sorry, R.A. Salvatore's on the scene: "except for that one dark-skinned elf ranger friend; he's cool. Look at those shiny scimitars and his black panther! The rest of them though, they're monsters..."

Maybe I'm missing something, but are drow based on stereotypes about dark-skinned people, or are they just evil bastards who happen to have a dark skin?