"It's just a bandage"' is not a counter argument, it is a warning that the argument doesn't go far enough. The only danger a bandage poses is that of people becoming complacent and stopping there. Not placing the bandage in the first place is not a solution, it's throwing up one's hands and not even starting at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I want to highlight the quote from John Oliver there.
"Whenever someone asks, 'Where does it stop?' the answer is always, 'F*cking somewhere!'"
Your argument is logically fallacious, as has been pointed out a countless number of times by now. Changing "Madness/Insanity" to "Fears and Stress" will not result in the destruction of D&D, or the removal of its combat system, or the Frightened and Charmed Conditions, or Thought Policing. None of those will happen because of this change. None of them. They're nowhere on the same line. That's now what we're arguing for, and you keep offensively and blatantly mischaracterizing our argument by completely misusing and abusing the Reductio Ad Absurdum debate tactic.
Slippery slope arguments are not valid. Your argument is not valid. Stop it.
I want to highlight the quote from John Oliver there.
"Whenever someone asks, 'Where does it stop?' the answer is always, 'F*cking somewhere!'
Your argument is logically fallacious, as has been pointed out a countless number of times by now. Changing "Madness/Insanity" to "Fears and Stress" will not result in the destruction of D&D, or the removal of its combat system, or the Frightened and Charmed Conditions, or Thought Policing. None of those will happen because of this change. None of them. They're nowhere on the same line. That's now what we're arguing for, and you keep offensively and blatantly mischaracterizing our argument by completely misusing and abusing the Reductio Ad Absurdum debate tactic.
Slippery slope arguments are not valid. Your argument is not valid. Stop it.
But do remember, Vince, that your feelings are valid. As much as we disagree with you, we can understand how hurt, how frightened you must be at the changes you see in the game, and in the world around you. We can even understand your fear turning into anger, as you wildly attack all the terrifying new ideas in the world. We cannot like or support your attacks against vulnerable people sharing painful experiences or your outright dismissal of the value of their lives, but we can understand the pain and terror which led to this.
"It's just a bandage"' is not a counter argument, it is a warning that the argument doesn't go far enough. The only danger a bandage poses is that of people becoming complacent and stopping there. Not placing the bandage in the first place is not a solution, it's throwing up one's hands and not even starting at all.
But at the moment it is all that seems to be being done. And I still think that what they are changing it to is worse.
It is actually possible to aggravate a wound by applying a bandage badly or applying the wrong bandage.
No, I am not saying any hands should be thrown up or that change should not be considered. I just feel that this change, in its current form, is not as helpful as it may seem to some.
I see that. Just because something needs to be done doesn't mean that absolutely any "something" will do. Some "somethings" will be less helpful than others, and some may even be harmful.
Now, in this instance a few people have stated that it will be helpful for them, and there are professionals out there who study this kind of thing who have stated they believe this trip be a positive course of action. It may be that we learn more as we move forward and realise that this wasn't the best way to handle it, but I doubt that taking this approach in the short term will do any more serious damage than doing nothing would. Without an alternative approach on the table (one which doesn't involve telling those affected to shut up and just deal with it), I think it's a sensible approach to try.
...And a Fear effect is not a mental health issue...
I'm going to have to disagree on this one though. I've suffered from anxiety panic disorder, which was very much a mental health issue where I for no reason would fear that I should die from a heart attack. Even the thought of it can bring back the fear from time to time.
Now we have discussed at lengths in this thread. What's the solution?
Here you go! You may want to read carefully through that page, as it explains in depth why this argument against change is neither valid nor helpful in any case.
What I posted wasn't an argument against change. If you read it as such, then you've misinterpreted what I was communicating, and assuming that I am not trying to be constructive. It was not a rhetorical question, nor was it an argument against trying to do anything. It was an actual serious attempt at getting people to discuss solutions rather than add another 12 pages of the same back and forth finger pointing.
...And a Fear effect is not a mental health issue...
I'm going to have to disagree on this one though. I've suffered from anxiety panic disorder, which was very much a mental health issue where I for no reason would fear that I should die from a heart attack. Even the thought of it can bring back the fear from time to time.
Without disrespect to you, having a disorder means your (mental) health is not optimal. Fear effects in D&D affect everyone, including characters with perfect mental health, with a few exceptions due to special abilities or qualities. Fear effects are no different from other illusion or enchantment effects in general in that regard. Obviously you can draw the line somewhere else, but for me that's a meaningful enough distinction to separate the two.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Please remember to keep posts on-topic to the thread title. If individuals wish to break out into debate with the user behind the post (or go off on a tangent), take it to Private Messages.
For all the dancing, I will make this simple: If this someone stated on, say a Warhammer fan site, that they found the extreme violence mixed with some religious aspects offensive, what do you think the reaction of the players or the game designers would be. Or if someone was furious with the sexism and violence in Grand Theft Auto, what would be the response?
How is D&D any different?
A few years ago some Peta nutcases tried to throw shade at Games Workshop for "animale cruelty or representation of animale cruelty" cause and i Quote "Some models are represented with Animals hides and skins on themselfs"...
They where "furious" Cause Space WOLVES models (the Space Marines CHapter who's whole theme is Vikings in Space) had Wolf pelts and capes made out of wolf hides..., on PLASTIC MODELS.
Thats the kind [REDACTED] we have to deal with in our today's society...
Madness is the correct term for this...
Notes: Please keep posts respectful and constructive.
For all the dancing, I will make this simple: If this someone stated on, say a Warhammer fan site, that they found the extreme violence mixed with some religious aspects offensive, what do you think the reaction of the players or the game designers would be. Or if someone was furious with the sexism and violence in Grand Theft Auto, what would be the response?
How is D&D any different?
A few years ago some Peta nutcases tried to throw shade at Games Workshop for "animale cruelty or representation of animale cruelty" cause and i Quote "Some models are represented with Animals hides and skins on themselfs"...
They where "furious" Cause Space WOLVES models (the Space Marines CHapter who's whole theme is Vikings in Space) had Wolf pelts and capes made out of wolf hides..., on PLASTIC MODELS.
Thats the kind [REDACTED] we have to deal with in our today's society...
Madness is the correct term for this...
The same sort of shade has been thrown onto World of Darkness games back when there was the Vampire murders in NY state, which werent Vampire murders but just normal murders which the media blew out of proportion because a Vampire the Masquerade RPG book was held up within the window for the camera to catch.
As someone myself that suffers from mental illness I a lot being read into WotC and DnD as a while when it comes to the term madness. Honestly, people need to stop reading into such. Also, I'm not going to even bother reading through 14 pages worth of stuff, was bad enough reading the first couple of pages so I came directly to the end. I've made my point and wont be coming back to answer/defend my post from the OP's hunt for confirmation of their beliefs of things in a fantasy game. I also ask NOT to be privately messaged about such, messaging me about such will have me posting said message back here.
It is not very long ago that the N-word was considered the correct term for black people. Similarly, many considered one of the large number of derogatory terms for homosexuals to be the correct term for them. In both cases, they tended to reinforce negative and wildly inaccurate stereotypes and perpetuate prejudice and discrimination.
Now, most would know that calling even a fantasy race with no connection to black people in the real world the n-word world be wrong. The word and the ideas behind it are damaging to a large group of people, evoking memories of horrific treatment past and present.
Now we come to madness. Several people have shared experiences which state that they find it harmful. Now, even if it accurately described the effects in the game, due to horror tropes and historical use, is it not at least reasonable to examine how harmful it may be, and whether other terms may be more suitable and less harmful? The n-word accurately described black people for a long time to most people, but that didn't make it's continued use right.
It isn't a fallacy, though, if Vince can show an actual trend. And arguably, he can. Whether the trend is good or bad is worth debating and how far the trend will continue is worth debating. However, there is always a danger of the pendulum swinging go far and it is valid to question whether it already has.
I would argue that the slippery slope is still fallacious. Even if we can see that WotC has made some changes, arguing that they will go further and end up going to an extreme position is not a valid argument.
I agree that there is a discussion to be had over how far to go, and it is even valid to discuss whether what has already been done is too far. But arguing that we have started down a slippery slope which never ends is a logical fallacy. Just because steps 1 and 2 have been taken does not mean that we will get to step 687468546 and beyond.
It isn't a fallacy, though, if Vince can show an actual trend. And arguably, he can. Whether the trend is good or bad is worth debating and how far the trend will continue is worth debating. However, there is always a danger of the pendulum swinging go far and it is valid to question whether it already has.
I would argue that the slippery slope is still fallacious. Even if we can see that WotC has made some changes, arguing that they will go further and end up going to an extreme position is not a valid argument.
I agree that there is a discussion to be had over how far to go, and it is even valid to discuss whether what has already been done is too far. But arguing that we have started down a slippery slope which never ends is a logical fallacy. Just because steps 1 and 2 have been taken does not mean that we will get to step 687468546 and beyond.
Keep in mind that, from Vince's point of view, this is on top of other recent changes with respect to race and racial stats. Thus it could be shown as part of an ongoing trend.
Furthermore, I at least have been arguing that aspects of this could be taken further, or at least differently. At the lists of conditions should not be referred to as 'flaws.'
I can understand that from Vince's point of view, but it is still only 2 steps along the path. Even if it were 20, or 200, calling it a "never-ending slide" and invoking the slippery slope is still not a logically-justified argument, and I feel justified in calling this out.
He is right that these will likely lead to other changes, seeing as that is how society in general is moving, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a never-ending slippery slope which goes to the extremes which Vince and others argue. A person can get a tattoo without it leading to covering their entire bodies in them. A person can move to eating vegetarian meals 3 times a week without turning vegan. And WotC can make a few minor changes to D&D which make it more inclusive and welcoming to their target demographics without it leading to every part being ripped out.
Also, I'm aware that you are not completely siding with him on this, and you have raised some interesting points which are worthy of discussion. None of this is an attack against you (or, actually, against anyone at all).
The fallacy of logic with the slippery slope argument is assuming that changes are happening for changes sake only, and there would be no reason for them to stop. But there is always a reason. In this case it is simply that WoTC will only ever act in its own best interest. That means, by default, they will only be as interested in change so long as it also benefits them. It is arguably true that inclusive language and the removal of negative racial stereotypes is a benefit (in fact, I would call it not even an argument...its kind of a no-brainer), as it potentially expands the player base and their potential revenue, and generates positive PR. But there would be a point (probably between what we have now and wholesale changes to game mechanics that would negate the DMG/PH/MM) where the detriments/risks outweigh the benefits, and they will cease "sliding" as it were.
So no, this is not a "slippery slope" to the games deletion, new editions, or even changes to core books. Those are not in the best interest of WoTC right now and so any response to a demand for change will likely never rise to that level of change. and FYI, the change really under discussion here is so minor it may not even require anything other than the changes of some title headings and some descriptors.
And changing Ravenloft without changing the wording in the core rules makes this even more of an empty gesture.
I would like to personally disagree with this statement for three main reasons:
Firstly, it provides me with tools to be able to include themes of horror and dread without having to use rules that include language I personally find to be problematic*.
Secondly, it's psychologically informed language that encourages people to approach these themes in less harmful ways. Removing problematic* language and replacing it with more considerate language benefits everyone.
Thirdly, it's demonstrable praxis on behalf of WotC that they're thinking about the effects their products have on people. To quote a meme, I personally feel 'seen' by this change in language.
Also, the Fear and Stress mechanics are straight up better than what's found in the Dungeon Master's Guide and I full intend to use them in my Curse of Strahd game.
*By problematic, I don't mean in the obnoxious stereotype way that people use mockingly. I mean causing of a multitude of problems, without judgement of any fault or malice on behalf of WotC, that I would do a disservice to in attempting to lay them all out here.
And changing Ravenloft without changing the wording in the core rules makes this even more of an empty gesture.
I would like to personally disagree with this statement for three main reasons:
Firstly, it provides me with tools to be able to include themes of horror and dread without having to use rules that include language I personally find to be problematic*.
Secondly, it's psychologically informed language that encourages people to approach these themes in less harmful ways. Removing problematic* language and replacing it with more considerate language benefits everyone.
Thirdly, it's demonstrable praxis on behalf of WotC that they're thinking about the effects their products have on people. To quote a meme, I personally feel 'seen' by this change in language.
Also, the Fear and Stress mechanics are straight up better than what's found in the Dungeon Master's Guide and I full intend to use them in my Curse of Strahd game.
*By problematic, I don't mean in the obnoxious stereotype way that people use mockingly. I mean causing of a multitude of problems, without judgement of any fault or malice on behalf of WotC, that I would do a disservice to in attempting to lay them all out here.
But if the term in the DMG is still the current term, doesn't that imply the terms are interchangeable?
I mean, from one perspective they are interchangeable; they're both about conveying similar themes, effects and tones of adventure. However, X being interchangeable with Y doesn't invalidate the fact that X might be harmful while Y, less so. Ergo Y is the preferable choice if you are the sort of person that gives consideration to the harm your words and actions may cause.
This is why the argument of censorship and removing stuff from D&D is invalid. Nothing is being censored, nothing is being removed. It's just more appropriate elements are being introduced and those are the elements WotC is going forward with. Those that wish to engage with the older terms can, those that don't have a new option.
And changing Ravenloft without changing the wording in the core rules makes this even more of an empty gesture.
I would like to personally disagree with this statement for three main reasons:
Firstly, it provides me with tools to be able to include themes of horror and dread without having to use rules that include language I personally find to be problematic*.
Secondly, it's psychologically informed language that encourages people to approach these themes in less harmful ways. Removing problematic* language and replacing it with more considerate language benefits everyone.
Thirdly, it's demonstrable praxis on behalf of WotC that they're thinking about the effects their products have on people. To quote a meme, I personally feel 'seen' by this change in language.
Also, the Fear and Stress mechanics are straight up better than what's found in the Dungeon Master's Guide and I full intend to use them in my Curse of Strahd game.
*By problematic, I don't mean in the obnoxious stereotype way that people use mockingly. I mean causing of a multitude of problems, without judgement of any fault or malice on behalf of WotC, that I would do a disservice to in attempting to lay them all out here.
But if the term in the DMG is still the current term, doesn't that imply the terms are interchangeable?
I mean, from one perspective they are interchangeable; they're both about conveying similar themes, effects and tones of adventure. However, X being interchangeable with Y doesn't invalidate the fact that X might be harmful while Y, less so. Ergo Y is the preferable choice if you are the sort of person that gives consideration to the harm your words and actions may cause.
This is why the argument of censorship and removing stuff from D&D is invalid. Nothing is being censored, nothing is being removed. It's just more appropriate elements are being introduced and those are the elements WotC is going forward with. Those that wish to engage with the older terms can, those that don't have a new option.
To be fair there is removals happening but they are generally seen as a good thing:
"First things first, in Curse of Strahd the descriptions of the Vistani have been updated removing a few key phrases. For instance where it once read Vistani are wanderers who live outside civilization, it now reads simply wanderers, getting rid of the implication that they are “uncivilized.” Other descriptors like “drink heartily” and “can seem lazy and irresponsible to outsiders” have been cut out as well, making for a much less stereotypical portrayal of the Vistani. They get their own stat blocks, as do the Dusk Elves, which is the Guard stat block with Fey Ancestry added in. In the Vistani Camp, in chapter 4, Vistani have their own stat blocks with traits like Curse and Evil Eye, and the NPC Luvash, one of the brothers in charge of the camp, is no longer “so drunk that he has disadvantage.” Instead he is just older and more fearful than his younger brother. And the guards that might take up arms if an alarm as sounded are no longer described as “sober” because it doesn’t need a special call out.
Tomb of Annihilation, adventurers head out into Port Nyanzaru and Chult, an area inspired by African cultures. Many of the changes made here remove terminology that denigrates these cultures. According to the “patch notes” on Roll20, they have “removed or adjusted terminology such as ‘exotic,’ ‘tribal,’ and ‘savage’ in reference to Chult and its people.” An example of this can be found in the adventure hooks for Entertainer, where Chult was once described as “a distant and exotic land,” now it is simply “a distant land.” In most places where exotic once appeared, like the “exotic wares” sold by a Chultan trader, or the “tribal” goblins that inhabit the jungle are removed. Port Nyanzaru is a “bastion of civilization and commerce in a terrifying (instead of savage) land.”
To be fair there is removals happening but they are generally seen as a good thing
To whom? Cause destruction of languages has NEVER been used to squash debate/dissent in the past, right? People who read "to outsiders, these people seem like lazy, shiftless bums" isn't saying they're lazy shiftless bums. its showing the people viewing them are prejudiced. Maybe the outrage crowd needs to learn a little critical thinking....
To be fair there is removals happening but they are generally seen as a good thing
To whom? Cause destruction of languages has NEVER been used to squash debate/dissent in the past, right? People who read "to outsiders, these people seem like lazy, shiftless bums" isn't saying they're lazy shiftless bums. its showing the people viewing them are prejudiced. Maybe the outrage crowd needs to learn a little critical thinking....
Read OptimusGrimus's post, and you'll see why those removals were seen as good things. Making Vistani less tied to the harmful stereotypes of the Romani people is a good thing, even if a book has to be edited to do that. Not referring to people with dark skin that live in a jungle as "exotic", "tribal", or "primitive" is a good thing, even if the books have to be edited to make that change.
I know you are trying to score points with your side/base, but you really ought to read the offensive language that is being changed before you get mad about it. Maybe the side getting "outraged" about these changes isn't the one advocating for removing the offensive language, but the one that throws themselves into a fit at the mere idea of considering the idea of changing it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
"It's just a bandage"' is not a counter argument, it is a warning that the argument doesn't go far enough. The only danger a bandage poses is that of people becoming complacent and stopping there. Not placing the bandage in the first place is not a solution, it's throwing up one's hands and not even starting at all.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Here you go.
I want to highlight the quote from John Oliver there.
Your argument is logically fallacious, as has been pointed out a countless number of times by now. Changing "Madness/Insanity" to "Fears and Stress" will not result in the destruction of D&D, or the removal of its combat system, or the Frightened and Charmed Conditions, or Thought Policing. None of those will happen because of this change. None of them. They're nowhere on the same line. That's now what we're arguing for, and you keep offensively and blatantly mischaracterizing our argument by completely misusing and abusing the Reductio Ad Absurdum debate tactic.
Slippery slope arguments are not valid. Your argument is not valid. Stop it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
But do remember, Vince, that your feelings are valid. As much as we disagree with you, we can understand how hurt, how frightened you must be at the changes you see in the game, and in the world around you. We can even understand your fear turning into anger, as you wildly attack all the terrifying new ideas in the world. We cannot like or support your attacks against vulnerable people sharing painful experiences or your outright dismissal of the value of their lives, but we can understand the pain and terror which led to this.
I see that. Just because something needs to be done doesn't mean that absolutely any "something" will do. Some "somethings" will be less helpful than others, and some may even be harmful.
Now, in this instance a few people have stated that it will be helpful for them, and there are professionals out there who study this kind of thing who have stated they believe this trip be a positive course of action. It may be that we learn more as we move forward and realise that this wasn't the best way to handle it, but I doubt that taking this approach in the short term will do any more serious damage than doing nothing would. Without an alternative approach on the table (one which doesn't involve telling those affected to shut up and just deal with it), I think it's a sensible approach to try.
I'm going to have to disagree on this one though. I've suffered from anxiety panic disorder, which was very much a mental health issue where I for no reason would fear that I should die from a heart attack. Even the thought of it can bring back the fear from time to time.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
What I posted wasn't an argument against change. If you read it as such, then you've misinterpreted what I was communicating, and assuming that I am not trying to be constructive. It was not a rhetorical question, nor was it an argument against trying to do anything. It was an actual serious attempt at getting people to discuss solutions rather than add another 12 pages of the same back and forth finger pointing.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Without disrespect to you, having a disorder means your (mental) health is not optimal. Fear effects in D&D affect everyone, including characters with perfect mental health, with a few exceptions due to special abilities or qualities. Fear effects are no different from other illusion or enchantment effects in general in that regard. Obviously you can draw the line somewhere else, but for me that's a meaningful enough distinction to separate the two.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Please remember to keep posts on-topic to the thread title. If individuals wish to break out into debate with the user behind the post (or go off on a tangent), take it to Private Messages.
Thanks.
A few years ago some Peta nutcases tried to throw shade at Games Workshop for "animale cruelty or representation of animale cruelty" cause and i Quote "Some models are represented with Animals hides and skins on themselfs"...
They where "furious" Cause Space WOLVES models (the Space Marines CHapter who's whole theme is Vikings in Space) had Wolf pelts and capes made out of wolf hides..., on PLASTIC MODELS.
Thats the kind [REDACTED] we have to deal with in our today's society...
Madness is the correct term for this...
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
The same sort of shade has been thrown onto World of Darkness games back when there was the Vampire murders in NY state, which werent Vampire murders but just normal murders which the media blew out of proportion because a Vampire the Masquerade RPG book was held up within the window for the camera to catch.
As someone myself that suffers from mental illness I a lot being read into WotC and DnD as a while when it comes to the term madness. Honestly, people need to stop reading into such. Also, I'm not going to even bother reading through 14 pages worth of stuff, was bad enough reading the first couple of pages so I came directly to the end. I've made my point and wont be coming back to answer/defend my post from the OP's hunt for confirmation of their beliefs of things in a fantasy game. I also ask NOT to be privately messaged about such, messaging me about such will have me posting said message back here.
It is not very long ago that the N-word was considered the correct term for black people. Similarly, many considered one of the large number of derogatory terms for homosexuals to be the correct term for them. In both cases, they tended to reinforce negative and wildly inaccurate stereotypes and perpetuate prejudice and discrimination.
Now, most would know that calling even a fantasy race with no connection to black people in the real world the n-word world be wrong. The word and the ideas behind it are damaging to a large group of people, evoking memories of horrific treatment past and present.
Now we come to madness. Several people have shared experiences which state that they find it harmful. Now, even if it accurately described the effects in the game, due to horror tropes and historical use, is it not at least reasonable to examine how harmful it may be, and whether other terms may be more suitable and less harmful? The n-word accurately described black people for a long time to most people, but that didn't make it's continued use right.
Exactly.
I would argue that the slippery slope is still fallacious. Even if we can see that WotC has made some changes, arguing that they will go further and end up going to an extreme position is not a valid argument.
I agree that there is a discussion to be had over how far to go, and it is even valid to discuss whether what has already been done is too far. But arguing that we have started down a slippery slope which never ends is a logical fallacy. Just because steps 1 and 2 have been taken does not mean that we will get to step 687468546 and beyond.
I can understand that from Vince's point of view, but it is still only 2 steps along the path. Even if it were 20, or 200, calling it a "never-ending slide" and invoking the slippery slope is still not a logically-justified argument, and I feel justified in calling this out.
He is right that these will likely lead to other changes, seeing as that is how society in general is moving, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a never-ending slippery slope which goes to the extremes which Vince and others argue. A person can get a tattoo without it leading to covering their entire bodies in them. A person can move to eating vegetarian meals 3 times a week without turning vegan. And WotC can make a few minor changes to D&D which make it more inclusive and welcoming to their target demographics without it leading to every part being ripped out.
Also, I'm aware that you are not completely siding with him on this, and you have raised some interesting points which are worthy of discussion. None of this is an attack against you (or, actually, against anyone at all).
The fallacy of logic with the slippery slope argument is assuming that changes are happening for changes sake only, and there would be no reason for them to stop. But there is always a reason. In this case it is simply that WoTC will only ever act in its own best interest. That means, by default, they will only be as interested in change so long as it also benefits them. It is arguably true that inclusive language and the removal of negative racial stereotypes is a benefit (in fact, I would call it not even an argument...its kind of a no-brainer), as it potentially expands the player base and their potential revenue, and generates positive PR. But there would be a point (probably between what we have now and wholesale changes to game mechanics that would negate the DMG/PH/MM) where the detriments/risks outweigh the benefits, and they will cease "sliding" as it were.
So no, this is not a "slippery slope" to the games deletion, new editions, or even changes to core books. Those are not in the best interest of WoTC right now and so any response to a demand for change will likely never rise to that level of change. and FYI, the change really under discussion here is so minor it may not even require anything other than the changes of some title headings and some descriptors.
I would like to personally disagree with this statement for three main reasons:
Firstly, it provides me with tools to be able to include themes of horror and dread without having to use rules that include language I personally find to be problematic*.
Secondly, it's psychologically informed language that encourages people to approach these themes in less harmful ways. Removing problematic* language and replacing it with more considerate language benefits everyone.
Thirdly, it's demonstrable praxis on behalf of WotC that they're thinking about the effects their products have on people. To quote a meme, I personally feel 'seen' by this change in language.
Also, the Fear and Stress mechanics are straight up better than what's found in the Dungeon Master's Guide and I full intend to use them in my Curse of Strahd game.
*By problematic, I don't mean in the obnoxious stereotype way that people use mockingly. I mean causing of a multitude of problems, without judgement of any fault or malice on behalf of WotC, that I would do a disservice to in attempting to lay them all out here.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I mean, from one perspective they are interchangeable; they're both about conveying similar themes, effects and tones of adventure. However, X being interchangeable with Y doesn't invalidate the fact that X might be harmful while Y, less so. Ergo Y is the preferable choice if you are the sort of person that gives consideration to the harm your words and actions may cause.
This is why the argument of censorship and removing stuff from D&D is invalid. Nothing is being censored, nothing is being removed. It's just more appropriate elements are being introduced and those are the elements WotC is going forward with. Those that wish to engage with the older terms can, those that don't have a new option.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
To be fair there is removals happening but they are generally seen as a good thing:
"First things first, in Curse of Strahd the descriptions of the Vistani have been updated removing a few key phrases. For instance where it once read Vistani are wanderers who live outside civilization, it now reads simply wanderers, getting rid of the implication that they are “uncivilized.” Other descriptors like “drink heartily” and “can seem lazy and irresponsible to outsiders” have been cut out as well, making for a much less stereotypical portrayal of the Vistani. They get their own stat blocks, as do the Dusk Elves, which is the Guard stat block with Fey Ancestry added in. In the Vistani Camp, in chapter 4, Vistani have their own stat blocks with traits like Curse and Evil Eye, and the NPC Luvash, one of the brothers in charge of the camp, is no longer “so drunk that he has disadvantage.” Instead he is just older and more fearful than his younger brother. And the guards that might take up arms if an alarm as sounded are no longer described as “sober” because it doesn’t need a special call out.
Source: https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/06/dd-about-those-diversity-changes-curse-of-strahd-tomb-of-annihilation-updated.html"
Tomb of Annihilation, adventurers head out into Port Nyanzaru and Chult, an area inspired by African cultures. Many of the changes made here remove terminology that denigrates these cultures. According to the “patch notes” on Roll20, they have “removed or adjusted terminology such as ‘exotic,’ ‘tribal,’ and ‘savage’ in reference to Chult and its people.” An example of this can be found in the adventure hooks for Entertainer, where Chult was once described as “a distant and exotic land,” now it is simply “a distant land.” In most places where exotic once appeared, like the “exotic wares” sold by a Chultan trader, or the “tribal” goblins that inhabit the jungle are removed. Port Nyanzaru is a “bastion of civilization and commerce in a terrifying (instead of savage) land.”
Source: https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/06/dd-about-those-diversity-changes-curse-of-strahd-tomb-of-annihilation-updated.html
To whom? Cause destruction of languages has NEVER been used to squash debate/dissent in the past, right? People who read "to outsiders, these people seem like lazy, shiftless bums" isn't saying they're lazy shiftless bums. its showing the people viewing them are prejudiced. Maybe the outrage crowd needs to learn a little critical thinking....
Read OptimusGrimus's post, and you'll see why those removals were seen as good things. Making Vistani less tied to the harmful stereotypes of the Romani people is a good thing, even if a book has to be edited to do that. Not referring to people with dark skin that live in a jungle as "exotic", "tribal", or "primitive" is a good thing, even if the books have to be edited to make that change.
I know you are trying to score points with your side/base, but you really ought to read the offensive language that is being changed before you get mad about it. Maybe the side getting "outraged" about these changes isn't the one advocating for removing the offensive language, but the one that throws themselves into a fit at the mere idea of considering the idea of changing it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms