Can DnD beyond change the generic NPC term from thug to something else, such as mobster. Thug is generally used as a epithet against people of color. And before you answer that you are just using the term given by WoC, that wouldn't be a good reason not to.
Unfortunately, it is a 'good' reason not to, as their license to use the content at all is based on replicating it word for word (down to typos) from Wizard's materials. If you want racially-tinged words like 'thugs' replaced with more generic terms like 'goons' you would have to make that case to Wizards of the Coast. DND Beyond literally can't make that change.
Can DnD beyond change the generic NPC term from thug to something else, such as mobster. Thug is generally used as a epithet against people of color. And before you answer that you are just using the term given by WoC, that wouldn't be a good reason not to.
I've never heard thug used to describe someone by ethnicity (a have heard people of darker pigmentation (white is a color too, you would have to be invisible to not be "of color") refered to as gangsters). I've only heard it used to describe a person who uses violence or the threat of violence to get their way, or in multiple games to refer to a type of criminal NPC (usually a low level physical type).
And even if some unenlightened individuals use synonyms for criminal to refer to people of different ethnicities or cultures, that doesn't mean we should stop using the terms by their dictionary meaning. If we did that then we wouldn't be able to use mobster, gangster, thief, thug, brute, hooligan, or basically any term for "criminal" because some morons will always be using them to describe people they don't like in an attempt to justify their not liking them.
When you change your language because bullies are using words as insults, the bullies win. Words like idiot and ******** were originally [edit]magical medical (no idea how that happened) terms to refer to learning disorders (people with autism or ADHD would have qualified and they are by no measure less intelligent than the people who would later use these terms as insults), and bow these are considered "bad words" because the new meaning became the only meaning.
Language can change based on growing understanding of the harm it can cause. Look at the word ****** and how people changed their use of it because of the connotations it has. The people who still use words like that are not seen in a nice light.
My feeling is that since DnD and DnD beyond are striving to be more inclusive they should be willing to reconsider the terminology they use.
A quick Google and Bing search turns up the definition that DxJxC stated with the additional definition referring to worshippers of Kali peppered throughout.
Is this truly an epidemic use of the word racially or is this something localized? People here use odd definitions of words as insults but they're not widespread beyond this area. In Spanish, the same word that is harmless in one region of the USA (lazy in a joking manner) is an insult in another (ballsy in an offensive manner). What's the right thing to do?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Thug is used frequently in the U.S. as a racist dog-whistle. It's coded language that taps into a false perception of POC as brutish. Pull up any discussion of crime in the U.S. and you'll see it used to drum up racial resentment.
We may not like the word being used that way, but it is. Non-POCs don't get to opine on how it's harmless.
We do support debate and discussion, but we will not tolerate anyone shutting down or discounting the opinions of others. Every human being gets to have and express their opinion within this community, in accordance with our Site Rules & Guidelines.
I will remind the current and future contributing users of this thread to keep comments constructive and respectful, as this remains an inviting community of all persons, thoughts, and opinions.
I do agree with what Red_Emma and Heartofjuyomk2 said. It definitely has racial overtones in the US. As to why Wizards of the Coast and/or DnDBeyond should pay attention to comments like this, there is a very simple economic rational. When I first played D&D around 1980, I never encountered an hispanic or black person that played the game. I was involved with a fairly large gaming group at the local college. Everyone in that group was white, with about 80% of the people being male. One of the reasons that D&D has grown is that it has expanded its audience to include females and POCs. Using terms that some of those groups find offensive will turn them off and curtail the growth of D&D.
There is a thread in the play--by-post forum in which one pc used the term "wench" to refer to the woman behind the bar. If we look at language in the 18th and 19th century, that was a common and acceptable use of the term "wench." Today, it is not. One of the female pcs in the game (I don't know if the actually player is female) took offense at the term.
I realize that not everyone uses "thug" in racist terms, but, there are POCs who are offended by that term. I could see someone new to D&D getting turned off by the appearance of the term in the official literature.
I'll clarify in a "respectful" way. Thinking a word isn't harmful doesn't make it constructive to tell others that they're wrong when they perceive it otherwise. Quoting the dictionary definition of a word is likely to miss the context behind the historical use of that word. We all wish we could erase the history of certain words and pretend that they can be used in a neutral way, especially if those words haven't historically been used targeted you or your family/ethnic group/nationality/etc.
When you change your language because bullies are using words as insults, the bullies win. Words like idiot and ******** were originally magical terms to refer to learning disorders (people with autism or ADHD would have qualified and they are by no measure less intelligent than the people who would later use these terms as insults), and bow these are considered "bad words" because the new meaning became the only meaning.
I can't say I agree. Bullies "win" when they harm others. They continue to "win" when they convince others that a harmful activity is justified. Bullies "lose" when we move forward as a society and recognize the need to stop committing harmful acts. I don't see it as a great win for bullies that we have a cultural stigma against certain words I won't repeat.
Can DnD beyond change the generic NPC term from thug to something else, such as mobster.
I get what you're saying and I looked up when "Thug" became a monster. Thinking that maybe it was part of early versions that would pre-date the common association you're talking about. So I think you may be totally right that the word thug in pop usage may coincide with the naming of the monster.
I'm not sure what would be an acceptable replacement though. You offered up "Mobster" but would there be Italians/Italian Americans who take offense to that?
I also want to mention that the entomology of Thug has little to do with a racial slur in the way (I think) you're talking about it. It's been around for a long time and didn't even originate in this country. There's some literature references saying it goes back to 1665. So while I agree it has connotations that are obviously bothering some people, it's still an accurate description going from a purely entomologist point of view.
With all that said, I want everyone playing D&D! If something so simple was potentially stopping people from playing I'm happy to support a name change to something innocuous.
I can see what you are saying about mobster, but I also don't see it being used in the same way thug is in our culture. Maybe its not a major barrier, but it has the potential to be a microagression for some people.
I'm bringing this up because I love D&D and the spirit of inclusion D&D and DnD Beyond they have developed. I feel that they would want to make sure there are no barriers for anyone.
I don't see how this could be a feasible position to make. If they changed the word then the replacement may not be a microaggression in your culture - but it certainly will be somewhere else in the world. The word represents a form of criminal stereotype and by that very nature it attracts negative connotations. It's unavoidable. Someone - somewhere - will find it offensive.
Yeah, this a tough one in finding a name that wouldn't be offensive to someone based on the very definition of the monster itself
"ruthless enforcers skilled at intimidation and violence. They work for money and have few scruples."
Mobster could cause issues, gangster for the same reasons as thug, what about henchman?
I think there used to be an earlier version of D&D that had henchman as monsters but 5e doesn't. I know there are rules regarding henchman should a player have their own criminal organization but I think those roles are filled with bandits, spy, acolyte, etc...
Yup, that article does go on to say that regardless of it's roots it's been co-opted and loaded and isn't acceptable in it's usage to marginalize a certain demographic. Which has been brought up by a couple folks in the thread already,
Yup, that article does go on to say that regardless of it's roots it's been co-opted and loaded and isn't acceptable in it's usage to marginalize a certain demographic. Which has been brought up by a couple folks in the thread already,
You miss my point. The word “thug” was invented to be a slur. Calling someone a “thug” was shorthand for saying “they are like those dark-skinned, uncivilized savages, the Thuggies.”
Nine times out of ten, I would be the first person to say someone is overreacting about something like this. In this particular instance however....
When you change your language because bullies are using words as insults, the bullies win. Words like idiot and ******** were originally magical terms to refer to learning disorders (people with autism or ADHD would have qualified and they are by no measure less intelligent than the people who would later use these terms as insults), and bow these are considered "bad words" because the new meaning became the only meaning.
I can't say I agree. Bullies "win" when they harm others. They continue to "win" when they convince others that a harmful activity is justified. Bullies "lose" when we move forward as a society and recognize the need to stop committing harmful acts. I don't see it as a great win for bullies that we have a cultural stigma against certain words I won't repeat.
They "win" because we stopped using the word correctly, so the word only has the new negative meaning. Now you can't even argue and say they are wrong "he isn't a thug, he is a businessman," you can only admonish them for treating race as a negative "he may be a thug, but that is no reason to be hateful."
We are not the ******** for using words according to their dictionary definition in fiction just because some other ******** use the word incorrectly in real life. (Especially when it appears to be not common place or used only in certain hate circles (which is probably why for most of us this is the first we are hearing it is a problem)).
Ok, I read it. So the word originates from an Indian criminal organization that preyed on travellers in India. It was later appropriated to refer to criminals in general, and eventually just violent people. Then a black celebrity (a rapper) associated themself with the term (and for a while I seem to recall people who liked rap saying "thug life" in a positive sense). Now it is mostly used by its dictionary definition, but some activists are claiming it is hate speech. Actually, the article doesn't say who, when, or where it is used as racially, just that people were mad that rioters were refered to by it, then some anecdotes about how it should not be used as hate speech. Seems like a problem without a cause.
Can DnD beyond change the generic NPC term from thug to something else, such as mobster. Thug is generally used as a epithet against people of color. And before you answer that you are just using the term given by WoC, that wouldn't be a good reason not to.
Unfortunately, it is a 'good' reason not to, as their license to use the content at all is based on replicating it word for word (down to typos) from Wizard's materials. If you want racially-tinged words like 'thugs' replaced with more generic terms like 'goons' you would have to make that case to Wizards of the Coast. DND Beyond literally can't make that change.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Oh, I've asked them as well. I still don't feel that its an adequate reason.
I've never heard thug used to describe someone by ethnicity (a have heard people of darker pigmentation (white is a color too, you would have to be invisible to not be "of color") refered to as gangsters). I've only heard it used to describe a person who uses violence or the threat of violence to get their way, or in multiple games to refer to a type of criminal NPC (usually a low level physical type).
And even if some unenlightened individuals use synonyms for criminal to refer to people of different ethnicities or cultures, that doesn't mean we should stop using the terms by their dictionary meaning. If we did that then we wouldn't be able to use mobster, gangster, thief, thug, brute, hooligan, or basically any term for "criminal" because some morons will always be using them to describe people they don't like in an attempt to justify their not liking them.
When you change your language because bullies are using words as insults, the bullies win. Words like idiot and ******** were originally [edit]
magicalmedical (no idea how that happened) terms to refer to learning disorders (people with autism or ADHD would have qualified and they are by no measure less intelligent than the people who would later use these terms as insults), and bow these are considered "bad words" because the new meaning became the only meaning.Thug is not used anywhere as a racial epithet. You need to lighten up OP.
A quick google search says otherwise.
Language can change based on growing understanding of the harm it can cause. Look at the word ****** and how people changed their use of it because of the connotations it has. The people who still use words like that are not seen in a nice light.
My feeling is that since DnD and DnD beyond are striving to be more inclusive they should be willing to reconsider the terminology they use.
A quick Google and Bing search turns up the definition that DxJxC stated with the additional definition referring to worshippers of Kali peppered throughout.
Is this truly an epidemic use of the word racially or is this something localized? People here use odd definitions of words as insults but they're not widespread beyond this area. In Spanish, the same word that is harmless in one region of the USA (lazy in a joking manner) is an insult in another (ballsy in an offensive manner). What's the right thing to do?
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Thug is used frequently in the U.S. as a racist dog-whistle. It's coded language that taps into a false perception of POC as brutish. Pull up any discussion of crime in the U.S. and you'll see it used to drum up racial resentment.
We may not like the word being used that way, but it is. Non-POCs don't get to opine on how it's harmless.
We do support debate and discussion, but we will not tolerate anyone shutting down or discounting the opinions of others. Every human being gets to have and express their opinion within this community, in accordance with our Site Rules & Guidelines.
I will remind the current and future contributing users of this thread to keep comments constructive and respectful, as this remains an inviting community of all persons, thoughts, and opinions.
I do agree with what Red_Emma and Heartofjuyomk2 said. It definitely has racial overtones in the US. As to why Wizards of the Coast and/or DnDBeyond should pay attention to comments like this, there is a very simple economic rational. When I first played D&D around 1980, I never encountered an hispanic or black person that played the game. I was involved with a fairly large gaming group at the local college. Everyone in that group was white, with about 80% of the people being male. One of the reasons that D&D has grown is that it has expanded its audience to include females and POCs. Using terms that some of those groups find offensive will turn them off and curtail the growth of D&D.
There is a thread in the play--by-post forum in which one pc used the term "wench" to refer to the woman behind the bar. If we look at language in the 18th and 19th century, that was a common and acceptable use of the term "wench." Today, it is not. One of the female pcs in the game (I don't know if the actually player is female) took offense at the term.
I realize that not everyone uses "thug" in racist terms, but, there are POCs who are offended by that term. I could see someone new to D&D getting turned off by the appearance of the term in the official literature.
I'll clarify in a "respectful" way. Thinking a word isn't harmful doesn't make it constructive to tell others that they're wrong when they perceive it otherwise. Quoting the dictionary definition of a word is likely to miss the context behind the historical use of that word. We all wish we could erase the history of certain words and pretend that they can be used in a neutral way, especially if those words haven't historically been used targeted you or your family/ethnic group/nationality/etc.
I can't say I agree. Bullies "win" when they harm others. They continue to "win" when they convince others that a harmful activity is justified. Bullies "lose" when we move forward as a society and recognize the need to stop committing harmful acts. I don't see it as a great win for bullies that we have a cultural stigma against certain words I won't repeat.
I get what you're saying and I looked up when "Thug" became a monster. Thinking that maybe it was part of early versions that would pre-date the common association you're talking about. So I think you may be totally right that the word thug in pop usage may coincide with the naming of the monster.
I'm not sure what would be an acceptable replacement though. You offered up "Mobster" but would there be Italians/Italian Americans who take offense to that?
I also want to mention that the entomology of Thug has little to do with a racial slur in the way (I think) you're talking about it. It's been around for a long time and didn't even originate in this country. There's some literature references saying it goes back to 1665. So while I agree it has connotations that are obviously bothering some people, it's still an accurate description going from a purely entomologist point of view.
With all that said, I want everyone playing D&D! If something so simple was potentially stopping people from playing I'm happy to support a name change to something innocuous.
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
I can see what you are saying about mobster, but I also don't see it being used in the same way thug is in our culture. Maybe its not a major barrier, but it has the potential to be a microagression for some people.
I'm bringing this up because I love D&D and the spirit of inclusion D&D and DnD Beyond they have developed. I feel that they would want to make sure there are no barriers for anyone.
I don't see how this could be a feasible position to make. If they changed the word then the replacement may not be a microaggression in your culture - but it certainly will be somewhere else in the world. The word represents a form of criminal stereotype and by that very nature it attracts negative connotations. It's unavoidable. Someone - somewhere - will find it offensive.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Yeah, this a tough one in finding a name that wouldn't be offensive to someone based on the very definition of the monster itself
"ruthless enforcers skilled at intimidation and violence. They work for money and have few scruples."
Mobster could cause issues, gangster for the same reasons as thug, what about henchman?
I think there used to be an earlier version of D&D that had henchman as monsters but 5e doesn't. I know there are rules regarding henchman should a player have their own criminal organization but I think those roles are filled with bandits, spy, acolyte, etc...
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
Actually, IRL the word “Thug” comes from a tribAL name.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32538487.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yup, that article does go on to say that regardless of it's roots it's been co-opted and loaded and isn't acceptable in it's usage to marginalize a certain demographic. Which has been brought up by a couple folks in the thread already,
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
You miss my point. The word “thug” was invented to be a slur. Calling someone a “thug” was shorthand for saying “they are like those dark-skinned, uncivilized savages, the Thuggies.”
Nine times out of ten, I would be the first person to say someone is overreacting about something like this. In this particular instance however....
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I still have never heard "thug" used racially. Maybe I'm just not hanging out with the wrong people.
They "win" because we stopped using the word correctly, so the word only has the new negative meaning. Now you can't even argue and say they are wrong "he isn't a thug, he is a businessman," you can only admonish them for treating race as a negative "he may be a thug, but that is no reason to be hateful."
We are not the ******** for using words according to their dictionary definition in fiction just because some other ******** use the word incorrectly in real life. (Especially when it appears to be not common place or used only in certain hate circles (which is probably why for most of us this is the first we are hearing it is a problem)).
Ok, I read it. So the word originates from an Indian criminal organization that preyed on travellers in India. It was later appropriated to refer to criminals in general, and eventually just violent people. Then a black celebrity (a rapper) associated themself with the term (and for a while I seem to recall people who liked rap saying "thug life" in a positive sense). Now it is mostly used by its dictionary definition, but some activists are claiming it is hate speech. Actually, the article doesn't say who, when, or where it is used as racially, just that people were mad that rioters were refered to by it, then some anecdotes about how it should not be used as hate speech. Seems like a problem without a cause.