But no one is calling anyone or anything racist is the main takeaway here.
That's not entirely true.
As the commentary around this article has progressed, it's become clear ("frank and straightforward,") that there are some who DO feel that anyone DISAGREEING with the article on the basis of the one (wholly unnecessary) idea it presented--namely that D&D in its original form "reflects" racist thoughts--is likely to be racist, and some of these people apparently have no qualms bluntly calling out this perceived racism. (Although some prefer to take a more diplomatic approach and merely suggest that just perhaps there's racism present, and that maybe the person disagreeing should search their soul with a fine-toothed comb to ensure it's not.)
Given that, is it any wonder that many suspect that condemning such an attitude--one of disregarding D&D's "problematic" elements--as racist was an implied purpose of the article's author even broaching the topic in the first place?
Given that, is it any wonder that many suspect that condemning such an attitude--one of disregarding D&D's "problematic" elements--as racist was an implied purpose of the article's author even broaching the topic in the first place?
I have yet to see anything to support this idea. People react, and there are some extreme reactions on both side of the debate. Saying it was the intention of the author seems unfair to me.
I have yet to see anything to support this idea. People react, and there are some extreme reactions on both side of the debate. Saying it was the intention of the author seems unfair to me.
Fair enough (and in general, I agree with you.)
But that's the problem that's causing this. There's been a trend in the US lately to label anyone who doesn't, let's say, accept a certain collection of supposedly enlightened ideas and values, as being motivated in part by racism. Especially for anyone with a moderate or conservative political viewpoint, this has been a message they've been hearing repeatedly for at least the last 3 years, if not had thrown at them directly as an outright personal accusation.
So when an otherwise-fine article appears as the lead on D&D Beyond's front page, with, not just a passing comment about how D&D has racist roots, but a link to a second charged article to prove the point, it's almost inevitable that people will question the motive, and conclude it's something beyond simply providing a neighborly PSA about negative racial attributes in games.
Adding that link showed poor judgment at the very least, and considering that (1) there's been no retraction or clarification, and (2) the article remains as-is, the article is going to continue to prove controversial, and people who don't find issue with orcs and gnomes having different stats will continue to speculate as to the author's motive for a good while. People don't like being accused of being racist, or even being accused of associating with anything racist, especially when they are not, and when they find the reason for the accusation (enjoying a game about fantasy creatures) to be ridiculous. Considering the link was in no way necessary to the article, this speculation could have easily been avoided, but it wasn't. And here we are.
Personally, I'm not of the opinion that the article needs to come down, or even be changed. If the author wants to signal his opinion in the culture war like that, I think it's odd, out-of-place and unprofessional, but he can engage in that type of writing if he chooses, and if D&D Beyond has no issue with it, at least I have an inkling as to their viewpoint on the issue and on such behavior. (Although if getting people to purge their hearts and minds of any speck of possible racism WASN'T the intent of the author, it would be helpful to have that explicitly stated--though I honestly don't think that's going to happen.)
So when an otherwise-fine article appears as the lead on D&D Beyond's front page, with, not just a passing comment about how D&D has racist roots, but a link to a second charged article to prove the point, it's almost inevitable that people will question the motive, and conclude it's something beyond simply providing a neighborly PSA about negative racial attributes in games.
That's sort of a catch-22, had he just made the affirmation without any source to back it up, people would accuse him of making things up. He claimed something, gave a link for those interested to follow, and that could have been it. There was no need to get all up in arms, creating a controversy where none was required.
Adding that link showed poor judgment at the very least, and considering that (1) there's been no retraction or clarification, and (2) the article remains as-is, the article is going to continue to prove controversial, and people who don't find issue with orcs and gnomes having different stats will continue to speculate as to the author's motive for a good while. People don't like being accused of being racist, or even being accused of associating with anything racist, especially when they are not, and when they find the reason for the accusation (enjoying a game about fantasy creatures) to be ridiculous. Considering the link was in no way necessary to the article, this speculation could have easily been avoided, but it wasn't. And here we are.
I have a huge issue here, because his point with regards to racism wasn't about races having different abilities, but races having an ability flaw, which 5e doesn't have. So even if you think the article makes the point that using certain rules mean you're racist, by RAW, you don't even actually use those rules.
And as I mentioned, I do use those rules, but I didn't feel like I was being called out as racist. I really think people should ask themselves why they do.
It's not a coy way to say "well, but aren't you a bit racist though ?", I'm genuinely and sincerely saying that if someone feels like they're being called racist because of this, they should probably ask themselves why.
I get that it's a sensitive topic, and I get that being called racist can be frustrating because you can't do much beyond saying "am not!", but that doesn't mean you should jump to the defensive and start attacking because something makes you uncomfortable, or you think you're being called or associated with something you don't believe yourself to be. And even if you believe it is related to some racist ideas, it doesn't even mean you have to change it. You are allowed to look at something with a critical eye, and still enjoy it. You're even allowed to not look at it critically, if you don't want to.
(this is a general "you", not you specifically, I don't believe this applies to you from what I'm reading from you)
I refer you to my comments on the article page and these forum posts.
I also had a lengthy debate at my local comic shop over the weekend with other players that were talking, and yelling, about the article.
I've encouraged them all to make their opinions known on Beyond. Many of them don't use Beyond, and now I doubt they ever will because these types of beliefs are supported by the creators of the site.
I cannot tell if the objections to the article are based upon being politically correct, or all the way into politically stupid. The full blooded orc race with the minus to intelligence, the kobolds with the minus to strength, are based on those races being typically dim witted or physically weak. I am actually surprised that the gnomes and halflings in the game do not have a penalty to strength based on their actual size. This article as written is based on giving ideas for home brewing rules, which is something that has merit. The rules written and published by WotC have to basis to racism in the real world as it is a game of the imagination. The fact that anyone could think that the author demeaned anyone in anyway is nonsense. So I believe that DDB should stand behind the author as he has done nothing but offer up a potential homebrew for others to think about and discuss, but dragging him through the mud is silly.
EDIT: added the bolded text as I forgot to have those words in the origional post.
I've encouraged them all to make their opinions known on Beyond. Many of them don't use Beyond, and now I doubt they ever will because these types of beliefs are supported by the creators of the site.
"Some content author mentioned that a 15 year old rule might have similarities to racism ? I'LL NEVER SUPPORT THEM ! NEVER !" is definitely a moderate and reasonable stance.
People react, and there are some extreme reactions on both side of the debate. Saying it was the intention of the author seems unfair to me.
If it is unfair to call into question the intention of the author, why then is that same standard NOT applied when in criticism to the piece by James Mendez Hodes, cited by Haeck? Where is the criticism of Hodes when he calls into question the intentions of JRR Tolkien, or when he expands his condemnation to include an entire genre of game and an entire community of players? If James Haeck considers the piece by Hodes to be a fair analysis of Tolkien worthy of endorsement, if Haeck feels that the accusations lodged at the D&D community should be promoted... then he should not be at all surprised to have his own work questioned at the same level.
Below is a quote from Hodes article, which Haeck has forced upon us here... after a long and tediously intellectually dishonest article with all the academic rigor of a freshman book report we receive this quote.
Maybe you’re not doing it out of racism. Maybe you only think it’s interesting to explore these ideas. Fine. Perhaps you, alone among humans, aren’t racist. But if that’s so, I’m not worried about you. I’m worried about everyone who will show up to stan this thing because they’re racist and it lets them indulge their racist fantasies. That’s a problem in fandom. In Part II of this article, we’ll see how the problem worsens when people act it out, because we’re going to look at Dungeons & Dragons.
So here we are, the sarcasm thick around the concept of it even being possible for a human being NOT to be a racist... here we have Hodes directly attacking the community and presuming that people are here to act out racist fantasies. Hodes seems entirely comfortable to assume ill intent and map bad motives onto entire groupings of people... and Haeck not only endorses the article, but brings it to our doorstep and during what was supposed to be a casual discussion about homebrew game rules, throws this article in our face as though it is NOT a disgusting propaganda pamphlet (which it is).
Hodes accusations lodged at Dungeons & Dragons players is literally no different than the Christian smear campaigns staged against D&D in the 80's. Perhaps James Haeck would like us to examine A Christian Response to Dungeons and Dragons: The Catechism of the New Age as well? Just to see if anything about Baatzu or Tanarri is 'problematic' and the product of an unconscious bias toward Satanism.
Hodes combs through Tolkien's work for strained correlations to his sin du jour of racism and then uses those examples to call out how fantasy fiction, and worse fantasy gaming has led us so-called sinners to the devil. His article reads like he got a playbook from Patricia Pulling or William Schnoebelen, and no different from them, Hodes even states in his article that he is financially motivated to promote his own hysteria.
But I’m a multiracial person of color who works in gaming as a cultural consultant, and therefore a connoisseur of classic racial prejudice.
(emphasis mine) Hodes may not be a simple charlatan, he may have in fact just drunk his own kool-aid, but the checks he is cashing probably assist with that too. Regardless of his motivation that still makes him literally no different from any other ideological zealot who would like save our souls by convincing us of his own righteousness and our possible damnation.
Having lived through the hysteria of the 80's, I was lucky enough to have well meaning parents who were for the most part champions of free thought and imagination... even then I STILL had to fend off ignorant accusations and stigma tied to playing D&D in some family and social circles well into the 90s.
Hodes is carrying forward a long tradition of singling out a niche group for to be put up and paraded around on his personal cross, for sins and imagined sins, but I see no reason why any leaders in the gaming community like James Haeck should help him do it.
Meanwhile, if kids these days would like to join the revival and burn all books containing racial ability scores while swooning to their knees to cast out the devil of racism they imagine now inflicts them... I suppose old timers like me have to resign themselves to wait for this hysterical fad to pass too.
It is a homebrew suggestion by him. D&D Beyond has every right to put up alternative rule ideas for articles. If you don't like them don't use them. If you do or are intrigued, use them.
I think we are getting out of the line here. Please, stop calling and shaming others in a disrespectful manner. Expressing an opinion is one thing, offending is another.
We all (I hope) love D&D because is, first and foremost, a welcoming community and we are doing the exact opposite here.
Actions will be taken if this behaviour persists. I really hope we can count on your common sense.
It is a homebrew suggestion by him. D&D Beyond has every right to put up alternative rule ideas for articles. If you don't like them don't use them. If you do or are intrigued, use them.
Obviously the homebrew rules are not the point of the discussion. I've seen races, racial bonuses, class restrictions... game systems and rules galore... and every variation under the sun for 30+ years.
The point is the Haeck's choice to shoehorn into a rules discussion, the half-baked ramblings of a hate monger who is clearly hostile to the entire community.
The community and fandom surrounding role-playing games in general and Dungeon's and Dragons in specific, is one of the most inclusive and progressive spaces there is. In any given campaign I have played with people who become a character that is a different race, species, gender from the characteristics they were assigned at birth as a means of exploring ALL the facets of their identity in a safe place. This safe place is MY HOME! OUR HOME!
I don't often talk about concepts like safe spaces, but there it is... the table you sit around for D&D MUST be a safe place in order to allow people to freely be creative and share what's in their imagination without threat of all the social pressure and judgement. One HAS to be free to adopt a high voice and portray a snobbish, Elizabethan-like, fop of an elf if you're actually 6'2" and 350lbs; or be the hulking sterio-typical macho Barbarian if you're actually 95lbs and a woman. Or ANY number of identities you have within you to explore.
The minute you introduce someone to the table who says things like "of course you'd play an Orc slaying Elf, how colonial of you, to act out your oppression fantasies" or "you can't play a Calishite character, in reality you're not a person of color", or "you can't play a female character you're a male"... the minute those ideas enter the game, it is poison. If you can't accept your friend's creative attempt to role-play a woman; how can you possibly accept magic, dragons, and fairies.
I watched this documentary on YouTube, and fool that I am, it choked me up... the people who talked about Dungeon's and Dragons being their refuge and their place to be themselves really connected with me. This is the community I know and care for, these are the people that fill it, ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE! This is OUR HOME!
The D&D community has taught acceptance and inclusion from the start WAY BACK. Look at these vintage "What's New with Phil & Dixie" comics that were originally published in Dragon Magazine. Lessons For Life 1 & Lessons For Life 2 The Foglios who created Phil & Dixie are D&D veterans who now produce "Girl Genius" a Hugo Award winning web comic that portrays a female protagonist that is very positive. I bought the books for my kids to read because I wanted them to see those kinds of female role models. Like I said, this is OUR HOME!
Now compare the community and game we know, OUR HOME, to the things that James Mendez Hodes has to say about us.
Hodes walks up the driveway, with a can of gas in one hand, a book of matches in the other... and wearing a T-Shirt that says "I love arson" and a picture of Donald Sutherland from Backdraft on it... and James Haeck invites him right in the front door.
The minute you introduce someone to the table who says things like "of course you'd play an Orc slaying Elf, how colonial of you, to act out your oppression fantasies" or "you can't play a Calishite character, in reality you're not a person of color", or "you can't play a female character you're a male"... the minute those ideas enter the game, it is poison. If you can't accept your friend's creative attempt to role-play a woman; how can you possibly accept magic, dragons, and fairies.
[...]
Hodes walks up the driveway, with a can of gas in one hand, a book of matches in the other... and wearing a T-Shirt that says "I love arson" and a picture of Donald Sutherland from Backdraft on it... and James Haeck invites him right in the front door.
Nobody said the first thing, you're extremely overreaching the point being made, and your conclusion is extremely disingenuous. You're shutting down any chance of anyone having any kind of rational exchange with these outrageous exaggerations.
He's a racist all pissed that someone dares to not care for his views. They love to make up scenarios as if their views are held by most (which they aren't), which are really just him and his one racist buddy ranting. He's clearly a racist provocateur trying to stir up a harassment campaign against D&D Beyond and the author.
Whether that's true or not, or whether you believe so, this kind of replies makes sure that other people reading this and being on the fence will stop listening to what's being said. Saying it might be satisfying for you, but it's counter-productive for everyone else.
And that was my last intervention here, I think the conversation devolved to a point where nothing more will come out of it. I wish everyone here to have fun playing their game.
If anything D&D beyond has gone too far trying not to be racist. Sure different races can have different stat adds, but even a kobold barbarian which does have a strength penalty now has the same max strength as a human barbarian of 24.
We're talking about different species here with the different physical capabilities and restrictions. They were literally either created or evolved differently. This would be the same for mental capabilities. The different races in the game are not simply humans with an illusion making them look funny.
Then again, in the name of anti-sexism, D&D has never differentiated human men, from human women, which in the real world have clearly defined different capabilities in the physical departments.
So in the end, I guess it's a game, and realism be damned. If a group is all, yay everyone's the same and equal in every way, and that's what they enjoy, then let them enjoy it. If another likes exploring the ideas of a world with different sentient species with different strengths, weaknesses, and different ways of thinking. Where creatures evolve socially by finding ways to work with their strengths and lessen their flaws. Then let them enjoy it.
I personally have no issue with someone telling me my cat can't beat the piss out of someones mastiff unless the mastiff allowed it. I'd find it absurd if they tried to argue otherwise.
Oh and this is coming from someone who thinks in the real world the very concept of race is idiotic, and even using the term to apply to different people at all is stupid. There's a huge difference between how the term race is used in the real world verses how it's used in a game where race actually basically means, "sentient humanoid of differing species", whereas in the real world it means, "humans with varying superficial differences and arbitrarily drawn lines denoting those differences into various classifications that many self identify as, creating division for absurd reasons."
It is a homebrew suggestion by him. D&D Beyond has every right to put up alternative rule ideas for articles. If you don't like them don't use them. If you do or are intrigued, use them.
I have no qualms about his alternative rules. I think it is creative.
My concern is the future culture of DDB and whose ideas they are promoting. Haeck has attacked the community by implying that there is racism and used an outside article to support his belief. It has no place on a website dedicated to the game that this site should be promoting. I made this forum post in hopes that we could get a response from DDB.
I think we are getting out of the line here. Please, stop calling and shaming others in a disrespectful manner. Expressing an opinion is one thing, offending is another.
We all (I hope) love D&D because is, first and foremost, a welcoming community and we are doing the exact opposite here.
Actions will be taken if this behaviour persists. I really hope we can count on your common sense.
This is the only reply we have seen from DDB. I am offended by Haeck's statement "your choice of race has distasteful similarities to real-life racist ideology". Apparently, DDB feels the same way by not removing it. Yet they have allowed the author to make other revisions to his original article.
I have investigated Haeck's other comments on social media and I believe he is not loyal to the brand. That's fine. He has a right to do that. That right should not extend to a site dedicated to the game he dislikes.
How else should I, and others who feel the same way, react? We pay for this site's game service because it works. I do not like paying for articles that have an agenda that discredits the game we love.
Can we please have the offending portion of the article, and the link to another website article, removed?
Haeck has attacked the community by implying that there is racism
I mean, are you saying that no one in the D&D community is racist? There probably are racist people in the community, that's a sad fact of life. As the game because increasingly inclusive, those people will feel less and less welcome. His article, if it has any agenda, is to make those people feel unwelcome, and rightly so. He's not attacking the community, if he's attacking anyone it's those that would drag the community down.
It has no place on a website dedicated to the game that this site should be promoting.
He is promoting the game, he's promoting it as somewhere where discussions about how we can make the game better by being more inclusive are welcome (at least by most people). Discussions about what the game is and can be, how it can be made even better. That's what this game is all about, in fact that's what WotC is all about. They have repeatedly said how they keep inclusivity in mind and are cognisant of what the game and it's mechanics may say or do to promote or hinder inclusivity.
I am offended by Haeck's statement "your choice of race has distasteful similarities to real-life racist ideology".
Uh, that quote is grossly out of context in an attempt to create a false narrative. What James actually said was:
This is to say nothing of the fact that linking ability score penalties (which are thankfully absent from the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, at least) to your choice of race has distasteful similarities to real-life racist ideology.
He was not saying that your choice has distasteful implications, he's saying the connection that the previous versions of the games mechanics made were distasteful. This has nothing to do with:
What the players choice says
The current edition of D&D
I have investigated Haeck's other comments on social media and I believe he is not loyal to the brand. That's fine. He has a right to do that. That right should not extend to a site dedicated to the game he dislikes.
This is just some straight up creepy thought policing. James Haeck loves D&D and contributes to in a myriad of ways. Just because he voices views about the game that you disagree with, that does not mean he dislikes the game. That's a stretch of 'logic' that makes my head hurt to just contemplate.
How else should I, and others who feel the same way, react? We pay for this site's game service because it works. I do not like paying for articles that have an agenda that discredits the game we love.
Stop paying for the service, if you feel attacked by someone saying "Let's think about how we can make this game even more inclusive". Or you could just read the articles and then accept that they're the views of someone who loves the game in a different way to you. Or you could just not read the articles.
It appears that DDB's solution was to close the comments on the article. But the offending statement remains.
Well, at least that should quell suspicion that the point of the article's link was primarily to fan the flames of controversy in the hopes of generating clicks...
And I get how the statement and link can be offending, but I'll reiterate that I don't think the article had to change. If anything, let it stand as a testament of the opinion of the author (and the stance of DDB on expressing such an opinion in such a manner,) rather than having that opinion be swept under the rug as if it was never expressed. There are advantages to this, and hiding away every possible source of offense often does more harm than good.
Anyways. While watching the aftermath of all this play out has been... riveting (in a horrific cant-turn-away-from-the-train-wreck sort of way,) at least for myself, now seems like an ideal point to take what has been learned and move on.
I really appreciate and respect your point of view.
However, if his intent was to make the game more inclusive, then he should not have made the statement with a link to another inflammatory article. Can we both agree on that? Can we agree that it would not have created controversy if it was left out, or removed from, the article? To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time any article was linked to another article that was not WotC content. Why was this specific one allowed? Could it be based on the current political news environment in the states?
You correctly point out he specifies that penalties were left out of 5e (except for some, like kobold). But that implies that the past editions had rules that were veiled racism and that those who still play those editions use their character creation discissions based on real-world racist ideology. In my opinion, this was the wrong assumption. I believe they were based on the reasoning that some "races" had differences that were expressed in their ability scores. But that's not my argument here. My argument is that DDB should not have allowed the statement to remain. The fact that no other DDB official has commented on it is troubling. I fear that this mode of getting site visits (by publishing inflammatory articles that allow users to comment) will only continue. That statement had no relation to his concept of homebrew rules. The only reason it served was to align the author's beliefs to another author's opinion.
I enjoy the functionality the service provides. If I pay for the service and say nothing about opinionated articles, then I'm essentially agreeing with their/his opinion. I read the articles because I'm also paying (indirectly) for the articles to be written. I do not agree, and I am attempting to use the tools the service provides to draw attention to it. I do not like a service I am paying for to be used for an agenda I don't agree with.
The author has a public image and looking at his public image is not creepy thought policing. It's an attempt to discover the author's intentions and writing history. I discovered that he is not loyal to the brand and that in the past, he has drawn attention to "race" issues found in D&D publications simply to get a rise out of his followers. In my opinion, those actions are not appropriate for this site to support.
Anyways. While watching the aftermath of all this play out has been... riveting (in a horrific cant-turn-away-from-the-train-wreck sort of way,) at least for myself, now seems like an ideal point to take what has been learned and move on.
Agreed.
My point has been made. I will not be responding to this thread anymore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's not entirely true.
As the commentary around this article has progressed, it's become clear ("frank and straightforward,") that there are some who DO feel that anyone DISAGREEING with the article on the basis of the one (wholly unnecessary) idea it presented--namely that D&D in its original form "reflects" racist thoughts--is likely to be racist, and some of these people apparently have no qualms bluntly calling out this perceived racism. (Although some prefer to take a more diplomatic approach and merely suggest that just perhaps there's racism present, and that maybe the person disagreeing should search their soul with a fine-toothed comb to ensure it's not.)
Given that, is it any wonder that many suspect that condemning such an attitude--one of disregarding D&D's "problematic" elements--as racist was an implied purpose of the article's author even broaching the topic in the first place?
Whistler
Titus - V. Human Battle Master Fighter 3 - [Pic] - [Pic2] - [Traits] - in Shadowglass
Locke - V. Human Shadow Monk 3 / Undead Warlock 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in FOW - DMless West Marches
Flèche - V. Human Swords Bard 10 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in The Scarlet Mist
Sterling - V. Human Bard 1 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
My message was about the article, and the current discussion here. And I maintain what I said.
I have yet to see anything to support this idea. People react, and there are some extreme reactions on both side of the debate. Saying it was the intention of the author seems unfair to me.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
Fair enough (and in general, I agree with you.)
But that's the problem that's causing this. There's been a trend in the US lately to label anyone who doesn't, let's say, accept a certain collection of supposedly enlightened ideas and values, as being motivated in part by racism. Especially for anyone with a moderate or conservative political viewpoint, this has been a message they've been hearing repeatedly for at least the last 3 years, if not had thrown at them directly as an outright personal accusation.
So when an otherwise-fine article appears as the lead on D&D Beyond's front page, with, not just a passing comment about how D&D has racist roots, but a link to a second charged article to prove the point, it's almost inevitable that people will question the motive, and conclude it's something beyond simply providing a neighborly PSA about negative racial attributes in games.
Adding that link showed poor judgment at the very least, and considering that (1) there's been no retraction or clarification, and (2) the article remains as-is, the article is going to continue to prove controversial, and people who don't find issue with orcs and gnomes having different stats will continue to speculate as to the author's motive for a good while. People don't like being accused of being racist, or even being accused of associating with anything racist, especially when they are not, and when they find the reason for the accusation (enjoying a game about fantasy creatures) to be ridiculous. Considering the link was in no way necessary to the article, this speculation could have easily been avoided, but it wasn't. And here we are.
Personally, I'm not of the opinion that the article needs to come down, or even be changed. If the author wants to signal his opinion in the culture war like that, I think it's odd, out-of-place and unprofessional, but he can engage in that type of writing if he chooses, and if D&D Beyond has no issue with it, at least I have an inkling as to their viewpoint on the issue and on such behavior. (Although if getting people to purge their hearts and minds of any speck of possible racism WASN'T the intent of the author, it would be helpful to have that explicitly stated--though I honestly don't think that's going to happen.)
Whistler
Titus - V. Human Battle Master Fighter 3 - [Pic] - [Pic2] - [Traits] - in Shadowglass
Locke - V. Human Shadow Monk 3 / Undead Warlock 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in FOW - DMless West Marches
Flèche - V. Human Swords Bard 10 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in The Scarlet Mist
Sterling - V. Human Bard 1 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
That's sort of a catch-22, had he just made the affirmation without any source to back it up, people would accuse him of making things up. He claimed something, gave a link for those interested to follow, and that could have been it. There was no need to get all up in arms, creating a controversy where none was required.
I have a huge issue here, because his point with regards to racism wasn't about races having different abilities, but races having an ability flaw, which 5e doesn't have. So even if you think the article makes the point that using certain rules mean you're racist, by RAW, you don't even actually use those rules.
And as I mentioned, I do use those rules, but I didn't feel like I was being called out as racist. I really think people should ask themselves why they do.
It's not a coy way to say "well, but aren't you a bit racist though ?", I'm genuinely and sincerely saying that if someone feels like they're being called racist because of this, they should probably ask themselves why.
I get that it's a sensitive topic, and I get that being called racist can be frustrating because you can't do much beyond saying "am not!", but that doesn't mean you should jump to the defensive and start attacking because something makes you uncomfortable, or you think you're being called or associated with something you don't believe yourself to be. And even if you believe it is related to some racist ideas, it doesn't even mean you have to change it. You are allowed to look at something with a critical eye, and still enjoy it. You're even allowed to not look at it critically, if you don't want to.
(this is a general "you", not you specifically, I don't believe this applies to you from what I'm reading from you)
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
Thank you for all your statements.
@RodtheBard
I refer you to my comments on the article page and these forum posts.
I also had a lengthy debate at my local comic shop over the weekend with other players that were talking, and yelling, about the article.
I've encouraged them all to make their opinions known on Beyond. Many of them don't use Beyond, and now I doubt they ever will because these types of beliefs are supported by the creators of the site.
I cannot tell if the objections to the article are based upon being politically correct, or all the way into politically stupid. The full blooded orc race with the minus to intelligence, the kobolds with the minus to strength, are based on those races being typically dim witted or physically weak. I am actually surprised that the gnomes and halflings in the game do not have a penalty to strength based on their actual size. This article as written is based on giving ideas for home brewing rules, which is something that has merit. The rules written and published by WotC have to basis to racism in the real world as it is a game of the imagination. The fact that anyone could think that the author demeaned anyone in anyway is nonsense. So I believe that DDB should stand behind the author as he has done nothing but offer up a potential homebrew for others to think about and discuss, but dragging him through the mud is silly.
EDIT: added the bolded text as I forgot to have those words in the origional post.
"Some content author mentioned that a 15 year old rule might have similarities to racism ? I'LL NEVER SUPPORT THEM ! NEVER !" is definitely a moderate and reasonable stance.
Come on.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
If it is unfair to call into question the intention of the author, why then is that same standard NOT applied when in criticism to the piece by James Mendez Hodes, cited by Haeck? Where is the criticism of Hodes when he calls into question the intentions of JRR Tolkien, or when he expands his condemnation to include an entire genre of game and an entire community of players? If James Haeck considers the piece by Hodes to be a fair analysis of Tolkien worthy of endorsement, if Haeck feels that the accusations lodged at the D&D community should be promoted... then he should not be at all surprised to have his own work questioned at the same level.
Below is a quote from Hodes article, which Haeck has forced upon us here... after a long and tediously intellectually dishonest article with all the academic rigor of a freshman book report we receive this quote.
So here we are, the sarcasm thick around the concept of it even being possible for a human being NOT to be a racist... here we have Hodes directly attacking the community and presuming that people are here to act out racist fantasies. Hodes seems entirely comfortable to assume ill intent and map bad motives onto entire groupings of people... and Haeck not only endorses the article, but brings it to our doorstep and during what was supposed to be a casual discussion about homebrew game rules, throws this article in our face as though it is NOT a disgusting propaganda pamphlet (which it is).
Hodes accusations lodged at Dungeons & Dragons players is literally no different than the Christian smear campaigns staged against D&D in the 80's. Perhaps James Haeck would like us to examine A Christian Response to Dungeons and Dragons: The Catechism of the New Age as well? Just to see if anything about Baatzu or Tanarri is 'problematic' and the product of an unconscious bias toward Satanism.
Hodes combs through Tolkien's work for strained correlations to his sin du jour of racism and then uses those examples to call out how fantasy fiction, and worse fantasy gaming has led us so-called sinners to the devil. His article reads like he got a playbook from Patricia Pulling or William Schnoebelen, and no different from them, Hodes even states in his article that he is financially motivated to promote his own hysteria.
(emphasis mine) Hodes may not be a simple charlatan, he may have in fact just drunk his own kool-aid, but the checks he is cashing probably assist with that too. Regardless of his motivation that still makes him literally no different from any other ideological zealot who would like save our souls by convincing us of his own righteousness and our possible damnation.
Having lived through the hysteria of the 80's, I was lucky enough to have well meaning parents who were for the most part champions of free thought and imagination... even then I STILL had to fend off ignorant accusations and stigma tied to playing D&D in some family and social circles well into the 90s.
Hodes is carrying forward a long tradition of singling out a niche group for to be put up and paraded around on his personal cross, for sins and imagined sins, but I see no reason why any leaders in the gaming community like James Haeck should help him do it.
Meanwhile, if kids these days would like to join the revival and burn all books containing racial ability scores while swooning to their knees to cast out the devil of racism they imagine now inflicts them... I suppose old timers like me have to resign themselves to wait for this hysterical fad to pass too.
It is a homebrew suggestion by him. D&D Beyond has every right to put up alternative rule ideas for articles. If you don't like them don't use them. If you do or are intrigued, use them.
Dear members of the community,
I think we are getting out of the line here. Please, stop calling and shaming others in a disrespectful manner. Expressing an opinion is one thing, offending is another.
We all (I hope) love D&D because is, first and foremost, a welcoming community and we are doing the exact opposite here.
Actions will be taken if this behaviour persists. I really hope we can count on your common sense.
Obviously the homebrew rules are not the point of the discussion. I've seen races, racial bonuses, class restrictions... game systems and rules galore... and every variation under the sun for 30+ years.
The point is the Haeck's choice to shoehorn into a rules discussion, the half-baked ramblings of a hate monger who is clearly hostile to the entire community.
The community and fandom surrounding role-playing games in general and Dungeon's and Dragons in specific, is one of the most inclusive and progressive spaces there is. In any given campaign I have played with people who become a character that is a different race, species, gender from the characteristics they were assigned at birth as a means of exploring ALL the facets of their identity in a safe place. This safe place is MY HOME! OUR HOME!
I don't often talk about concepts like safe spaces, but there it is... the table you sit around for D&D MUST be a safe place in order to allow people to freely be creative and share what's in their imagination without threat of all the social pressure and judgement. One HAS to be free to adopt a high voice and portray a snobbish, Elizabethan-like, fop of an elf if you're actually 6'2" and 350lbs; or be the hulking sterio-typical macho Barbarian if you're actually 95lbs and a woman. Or ANY number of identities you have within you to explore.
The minute you introduce someone to the table who says things like "of course you'd play an Orc slaying Elf, how colonial of you, to act out your oppression fantasies" or "you can't play a Calishite character, in reality you're not a person of color", or "you can't play a female character you're a male"... the minute those ideas enter the game, it is poison. If you can't accept your friend's creative attempt to role-play a woman; how can you possibly accept magic, dragons, and fairies.
I watched this documentary on YouTube, and fool that I am, it choked me up... the people who talked about Dungeon's and Dragons being their refuge and their place to be themselves really connected with me. This is the community I know and care for, these are the people that fill it, ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE! This is OUR HOME!
The D&D community has taught acceptance and inclusion from the start WAY BACK. Look at these vintage "What's New with Phil & Dixie" comics that were originally published in Dragon Magazine. Lessons For Life 1 & Lessons For Life 2 The Foglios who created Phil & Dixie are D&D veterans who now produce "Girl Genius" a Hugo Award winning web comic that portrays a female protagonist that is very positive. I bought the books for my kids to read because I wanted them to see those kinds of female role models. Like I said, this is OUR HOME!
Now compare the community and game we know, OUR HOME, to the things that James Mendez Hodes has to say about us.
Hodes walks up the driveway, with a can of gas in one hand, a book of matches in the other... and wearing a T-Shirt that says "I love arson" and a picture of Donald Sutherland from Backdraft on it... and James Haeck invites him right in the front door.
Nobody said the first thing, you're extremely overreaching the point being made, and your conclusion is extremely disingenuous. You're shutting down any chance of anyone having any kind of rational exchange with these outrageous exaggerations.
Whether that's true or not, or whether you believe so, this kind of replies makes sure that other people reading this and being on the fence will stop listening to what's being said. Saying it might be satisfying for you, but it's counter-productive for everyone else.
And that was my last intervention here, I think the conversation devolved to a point where nothing more will come out of it. I wish everyone here to have fun playing their game.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
If anything D&D beyond has gone too far trying not to be racist. Sure different races can have different stat adds, but even a kobold barbarian which does have a strength penalty now has the same max strength as a human barbarian of 24.
We're talking about different species here with the different physical capabilities and restrictions. They were literally either created or evolved differently. This would be the same for mental capabilities. The different races in the game are not simply humans with an illusion making them look funny.
Then again, in the name of anti-sexism, D&D has never differentiated human men, from human women, which in the real world have clearly defined different capabilities in the physical departments.
So in the end, I guess it's a game, and realism be damned. If a group is all, yay everyone's the same and equal in every way, and that's what they enjoy, then let them enjoy it. If another likes exploring the ideas of a world with different sentient species with different strengths, weaknesses, and different ways of thinking. Where creatures evolve socially by finding ways to work with their strengths and lessen their flaws. Then let them enjoy it.
I personally have no issue with someone telling me my cat can't beat the piss out of someones mastiff unless the mastiff allowed it. I'd find it absurd if they tried to argue otherwise.
Oh and this is coming from someone who thinks in the real world the very concept of race is idiotic, and even using the term to apply to different people at all is stupid. There's a huge difference between how the term race is used in the real world verses how it's used in a game where race actually basically means, "sentient humanoid of differing species", whereas in the real world it means, "humans with varying superficial differences and arbitrarily drawn lines denoting those differences into various classifications that many self identify as, creating division for absurd reasons."
I have no qualms about his alternative rules. I think it is creative.
My concern is the future culture of DDB and whose ideas they are promoting. Haeck has attacked the community by implying that there is racism and used an outside article to support his belief. It has no place on a website dedicated to the game that this site should be promoting. I made this forum post in hopes that we could get a response from DDB.
This is the only reply we have seen from DDB. I am offended by Haeck's statement "your choice of race has distasteful similarities to real-life racist ideology". Apparently, DDB feels the same way by not removing it. Yet they have allowed the author to make other revisions to his original article.
I have investigated Haeck's other comments on social media and I believe he is not loyal to the brand. That's fine. He has a right to do that. That right should not extend to a site dedicated to the game he dislikes.
How else should I, and others who feel the same way, react? We pay for this site's game service because it works. I do not like paying for articles that have an agenda that discredits the game we love.
Can we please have the offending portion of the article, and the link to another website article, removed?
UPDATE:
It appears that DDB's solution was to close the comments on the article. But the offending statement remains.
I mean, are you saying that no one in the D&D community is racist? There probably are racist people in the community, that's a sad fact of life. As the game because increasingly inclusive, those people will feel less and less welcome. His article, if it has any agenda, is to make those people feel unwelcome, and rightly so. He's not attacking the community, if he's attacking anyone it's those that would drag the community down.
He is promoting the game, he's promoting it as somewhere where discussions about how we can make the game better by being more inclusive are welcome (at least by most people). Discussions about what the game is and can be, how it can be made even better. That's what this game is all about, in fact that's what WotC is all about. They have repeatedly said how they keep inclusivity in mind and are cognisant of what the game and it's mechanics may say or do to promote or hinder inclusivity.
Uh, that quote is grossly out of context in an attempt to create a false narrative. What James actually said was:
He was not saying that your choice has distasteful implications, he's saying the connection that the previous versions of the games mechanics made were distasteful. This has nothing to do with:
This is just some straight up creepy thought policing. James Haeck loves D&D and contributes to in a myriad of ways. Just because he voices views about the game that you disagree with, that does not mean he dislikes the game. That's a stretch of 'logic' that makes my head hurt to just contemplate.
Stop paying for the service, if you feel attacked by someone saying "Let's think about how we can make this game even more inclusive". Or you could just read the articles and then accept that they're the views of someone who loves the game in a different way to you. Or you could just not read the articles.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Well, at least that should quell suspicion that the point of the article's link was primarily to fan the flames of controversy in the hopes of generating clicks...
And I get how the statement and link can be offending, but I'll reiterate that I don't think the article had to change. If anything, let it stand as a testament of the opinion of the author (and the stance of DDB on expressing such an opinion in such a manner,) rather than having that opinion be swept under the rug as if it was never expressed. There are advantages to this, and hiding away every possible source of offense often does more harm than good.
Anyways. While watching the aftermath of all this play out has been... riveting (in a horrific cant-turn-away-from-the-train-wreck sort of way,) at least for myself, now seems like an ideal point to take what has been learned and move on.
Whistler
Titus - V. Human Battle Master Fighter 3 - [Pic] - [Pic2] - [Traits] - in Shadowglass
Locke - V. Human Shadow Monk 3 / Undead Warlock 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in FOW - DMless West Marches
Flèche - V. Human Swords Bard 10 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in The Scarlet Mist
Sterling - V. Human Bard 1 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
@Davedamon
I really appreciate and respect your point of view.
However, if his intent was to make the game more inclusive, then he should not have made the statement with a link to another inflammatory article. Can we both agree on that? Can we agree that it would not have created controversy if it was left out, or removed from, the article? To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time any article was linked to another article that was not WotC content. Why was this specific one allowed? Could it be based on the current political news environment in the states?
You correctly point out he specifies that penalties were left out of 5e (except for some, like kobold). But that implies that the past editions had rules that were veiled racism and that those who still play those editions use their character creation discissions based on real-world racist ideology. In my opinion, this was the wrong assumption. I believe they were based on the reasoning that some "races" had differences that were expressed in their ability scores. But that's not my argument here. My argument is that DDB should not have allowed the statement to remain. The fact that no other DDB official has commented on it is troubling. I fear that this mode of getting site visits (by publishing inflammatory articles that allow users to comment) will only continue. That statement had no relation to his concept of homebrew rules. The only reason it served was to align the author's beliefs to another author's opinion.
I enjoy the functionality the service provides. If I pay for the service and say nothing about opinionated articles, then I'm essentially agreeing with their/his opinion. I read the articles because I'm also paying (indirectly) for the articles to be written. I do not agree, and I am attempting to use the tools the service provides to draw attention to it. I do not like a service I am paying for to be used for an agenda I don't agree with.
The author has a public image and looking at his public image is not creepy thought policing. It's an attempt to discover the author's intentions and writing history. I discovered that he is not loyal to the brand and that in the past, he has drawn attention to "race" issues found in D&D publications simply to get a rise out of his followers. In my opinion, those actions are not appropriate for this site to support.
Agreed.
My point has been made. I will not be responding to this thread anymore.