Can I just observe what an utterly lost cause it is to attempt to "un-monster" literal monsters? Last I checked: Mindflayers for one reproduce by inserting tadpoles into sentient creatures and eating their brain matter from the inside out. I'm not sure what sort of disturbed person actively identifies with these things.. Then again there were people "identifying" with Pennywise for a while so who knows. The Tyranid is not a moral actor: any more than a shark is: it wants to eat you, and you'd rather it didn't. Ironically: making monsters "less monsterous" makes the entire affair more morally dubious as opposed to less if you think about it in anything but an utterly superficial way.
And before anyone jumps down my throat of "you're just saying that because you are ignorant etc etc etc" I'm First Nations (that's Canada-speak for Native American): I think I know a bit about ACTUAL racism.
Before this incredibly stupid era in which we live, the one of "identity politics" I promise you the number of people who looked at a raiding orc and went "yeah: that's a black person!" were in the single digits. But now apparently the "truth has been improved" 1984 style to "have always been the case". This is supposedly an "improvement"? I'm not sure how.
Call me "gate-keeper-y" all you want: but MAYBE, just maybe; if you're put off by swords and sorcery, and you don't like combat of any sort, and literal demons are too morally complicated for you, you're upset to the point of tears if numbers on a piece of paper don't go your way, and you are made uncomfortable by the imagined existence of things that do not now, never have, and never will exist... then maybe D&D just isn't for you.
I see people using examples from Starwars, in which aliens have racial stereotypical accents. He's talking about a movie created through the direction and vision of a few people, if not a single man. I saw no examples from d&d, or any traditional fantasy product for that matter. If your DM puts on a racist accent to portray a race in one of your games by all means, call them out on it. I've called people out for more serious offences in my games.
And this is what happens when you don't read the thread. Read this post, and you'll understand why there are actually racial issues in D&D that have reasons for being addressed.
D&D's problem is not "stereotypical accents" (and that wasn't the whole issue with the Neimoidians, either), that's a problem from table-to-table and WotC can't really do anything about it. The problem that people are talking about is a long history of marginalized peoples continuing to have harmful stereotypes and depictions of them (and their cultures) being spread through the media. It happened in older D&D products like the GAZ10 for Mystara, and the effects of linking real world people to fictional races/species in a racist manner has been an issue for a lot longer than that. That's the problem that WotC is trying to address with much of these errata (not all of them, though, some changed for entirely different reasons). And the problem also isn't "offense", it's perpetuating and supporting harmful stereotypes and derogatory language.
It's a mixture of a history of being marginalized by the people with the power to influence the opinions of the public, appropriating and mocking the cultures that are/have been marginalized, and spreading harmful stereotypes about these people through the usage of language and imagery similar to those used to disparage these marginalized communities. It's not to score political points or try to tote their "wokeness" (whatever that means), as this issue is not political and Wizards of the Coast is not running for some public office.
It's about the legitimate harm that D&D products have caused in the past, and trying to rectify that and prevent similar examples from happening in the future. That's the issue. That's what most of this Errata and the recent direction of D&D has been about, and it's for the betterment of the hobby and the inclusiveness of the game. It's not the "second Satanic Panic", like so many out-of-touch older gamers have been saying, but it's instead about real, actual, historical harm that D&D has helped perpetuate. Does that make sense?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It's about the legitimate harm that D&D products have caused in the past, and trying to rectify that and prevent similar examples from happening in the future. That's the issue. That's what most of this Errata and the recent direction of D&D has been about, and it's for the betterment of the hobby and the inclusiveness of the game. It's not the "second Satanic Panic", like so many out-of-touch older gamers have been saying, but it's instead about real, actual, historical harm that D&D has helped perpetuate. Does that make sense?
Oh please; arbiter of all that is true, tell me, where this unspeakable "real harm" is? Because this sure SOUNDS like the "D&D allows your kids to summon demons with the devil's dice!" level of hysteria.
Last I checked; I was fighting hypothetical monsters, through a hypothetical avatar, in a hypothetical world, that does not now, and will never exist. I somehow fail to see how Strahd Von Zarovich "does real harm" to the proud people of Romania any more than his direct inspiration does, IE: none, at least, none for several centuries.
The "cultural appropriation" argument is one that I deeply despise; because the simple fact is, cultures bouncing off one another is how we get interesting things. Anime was spawned from post-war Japan seeing what Disney was doing state-side, Rock and Roll was born out of Jazz and Country mixing, even "questionable" things like the works of HP Lovecraft lead to this: if we didn't have Horrible Phobias Lovecraft, we wouldn't have Guillermo Del Toro, or Bloodborne, or most of D&D's aberrations.
I am not "harmed" by Blizzard using my people's culture as one of the visual inspirations for the Tauren, nor am I "harmed" by RPGs that use "spirit animal" mechanics. I'm not that pathetic.
So is the big to-do simply that Wizards have removed alignment guidelines from humanoids? Is that it?
I mean i get it kind of ... remove blanket statements about character/motive from anything vaguely humanoid and leave it to DM's/Players to RP all that ... I mean races traditionally "evil" can still be played that way but not all members of that race need to be locked into that if the players/DMs dont want to.
I do like that racial bonuses to attibutes remain ... this just slants the average position of races against each other in some characteristics that match real life ... Elves can be more dextrous on average over other races (doesnt mean that those races can not reach 20 dex) .. Str/Dex/Con is reasonably black and white there. Intelligence may prove more problematic. But the same remains .. on average some races may have a higher intelligence than others but that doesnt preclude you hitting 20.
There are physiological differences between different races in humans in real life .. this is not racism .. just reality. Even studies on IQ and race have been conducted and generated results for discussion.
As long as the game is played respectfully then what more can we really ask.
That article very quickly moves beyond parody, "saying goblins are evil is a racist statement because it robs goblins of their agency" they are subjects of a work of fiction, not real people or analogues of real people If you want to draw contrived parallels between reality and fantasy that's your choice.
What harmful or derogatory language exists in d&d? Any slurs for Elves? Orcs? Gnomes?
I see a lot of talk about real world harm, but never any examples.
The rules have always been up to interpretation with some games deviating heavily from established lore. I've played games that completely homebrew their lore concerning races. It is entirely political that Wizards have made these changes to their books because anyone with a scrap of common sense that thought the content was problematic probably dismissed it in favour of their own take. If it's no big deal for them to remove content because we're all free to play how we want then why was it ever a problem that the content was there to begin with.
Like I asked before, did they consult the players? Or did they just make changes to the lore and then tried claiming that it was done on behalf of marginalized people who didn't ask for these changes?
That article very quickly moves beyond parody, "saying goblins are evil is a racist statement because it robs goblins of their agency" they are subjects of a work of fiction, not real people or analogues of real people If you want to draw contrived parallels between reality and fantasy that's your choice.
What harmful or derogatory language exists in d&d? Any slurs for Elves? Orcs? Gnomes?
I see a lot of talk about real world harm, but never any examples.
The rules have always been up to interpretation with some games deviating heavily from established lore. I've played games that completely homebrew their lore concerning races. It is entirely political that Wizards have made these changes to their books because anyone with a scrap of common sense that thought the content was problematic probably dismissed it in favour of their own take. If it's no big deal for them to remove content because we're all free to play how we want then why was it ever a problem that the content was there to begin with.
Like I asked before, did they consult the players? Or did they just make changes to the lore and then tried claiming that it was done on behalf of marginalized people who didn't ask for these changes?
If you don’t see examples of real world harm in this very discussion, it’s because you are not reading. Yurei kindly provided two such examples.
Really though, it’s a rather sad comment on humanity that some people are incapable of understanding that a thing does not have to harm them to be harmful to another. Nor do other people have to justify to you what they find harmful. A decent person listens to the report of injury and endeavours not to engage in causing further harm. Any other response means you are a bad person and you should feel bad.
Report away. I hope lots of nasty people see themselves called out before my banination because someone needs to say it to them. Be better people and none of this will bother you.
It's about the legitimate harm that D&D products have caused in the past, and trying to rectify that and prevent similar examples from happening in the future. That's the issue. That's what most of this Errata and the recent direction of D&D has been about, and it's for the betterment of the hobby and the inclusiveness of the game. It's not the "second Satanic Panic", like so many out-of-touch older gamers have been saying, but it's instead about real, actual, historical harm that D&D has helped perpetuate. Does that make sense?
Oh please; arbiter of all that is true, tell me, where this unspeakable "real harm" is?
Are you saying that basing orcish cultures in D&D books after marginalized peoples in a mocking tone is not harmful? Because that's definitely a "strange" stance to take.
(P.S. If you think that the "real harm" that we're referring to is "unspeakable", maybe you should read more about what we're posting. We've given examples. It's not our job to make sure that you make the effort to understand it.)
Because this sure SOUNDS like the "D&D allows your kids to summon demons with the devil's dice!" level of hysteria.
No, it doesn't. The Satanic Panic was a bunch of hysterical fundamental Christians that thought including Demons, Devils, and similar content in D&D would somehow make their children commit suicide and become Satanists. It was not based in reality, and the people involved in censoring D&D back then knew next-to-nothing about the hobby. The calls for change in how D&D approaches races in its books and settings is largely by people that have actually played the game and read the products that they're using as examples of bad ways to treat races in D&D.
Saying that this is the "new Satanic Panic" or "woke SJWs are trying to destroy D&D" is 100% a false equivalency and a strawman argument.
Last I checked; I was fighting hypothetical monsters, through a hypothetical avatar, in a hypothetical world, that does not now, and will never exist. I somehow fail to see how Strahd Von Zarovich "does real harm" to the proud people of Romania any more than his direct inspiration does, IE: none, at least, none for several centuries.
No one is complaining about Strahd Von Zarovich. No one. They're complaining about the racist depictions of Vistani (and, yes, their depictions in Curse of Strahd and earlier Ravenloft books were racist), and similar examples. So, this is a strawman (not actually correctly representing the other side's arguments).
The "cultural appropriation" argument is one that I deeply despise; because the simple fact is, cultures bouncing off one another is how we get interesting things. Anime was spawned from post-war Japan seeing what Disney was doing state-side, Rock and Roll was born out of Jazz and Country mixing, even "questionable" things like the works of HP Lovecraft lead to this: if we didn't have Horrible Phobias Lovecraft, we wouldn't have Guillermo Del Toro, or Bloodborne, or most of D&D's aberrations.
There's a difference between cultural appropriation and culturalappreciation. For example, the Pixar movie Coco is a great example of cultural appreciation. However, the usage of bastardized and mocking versions of Native American, African American, and Asian cultures in the Mystaran Gazetteer Number 10 is cultural appropriation.
"Is it respectful" is the line between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation. Coco is respectful and a beautiful movie, while the Gazetteer Number 10 is a mocking and racist book.
Complain all you want about whether or not you think D&D has done cultural appropriation or if the majority of accusations of this type are valid, but cultural appropriation is almost always a bad thing, and is a valid complaint as a whole.
I am not "harmed" by Blizzard using my people's culture as one of the visual inspirations for the Tauren, nor am I "harmed" by RPGs that use "spirit animal" mechanics. I'm not that pathetic.
That's your personal experience. Don't try to apply it to everyone else of every marginalized ethnic group/culture that has had their culture appropriated by others. And making an attack against those that aren't on-board with that is . . . as you say, "pathetic".
Nobody with real problems was ever dealt "serious harm" by a book; not even truly abominable ones; which is why we consider book burning something that only authoritarian regimes do... or at least we once did. Of course: my government had a "book burning of peace and reconciliation" without recognizing the irony.
Notes: All users are expected to be civil and resectful to each other
It's about the legitimate harm that D&D products have caused in the past, and trying to rectify that and prevent similar examples from happening in the future. That's the issue. That's what most of this Errata and the recent direction of D&D has been about, and it's for the betterment of the hobby and the inclusiveness of the game. It's not the "second Satanic Panic", like so many out-of-touch older gamers have been saying, but it's instead about real, actual, historical harm that D&D has helped perpetuate. Does that make sense?
Oh please; arbiter of all that is true, tell me, where this unspeakable "real harm" is? Because this sure SOUNDS like the "D&D allows your kids to summon demons with the devil's dice!" level of hysteria.
......
I am not "harmed" by Blizzard using my people's culture as one of the visual inspirations for the Tauren, nor am I "harmed" by RPGs that use "spirit animal" mechanics. I'm not that pathetic.
Do you not see a smidge of hypocrisy between these two statements? You mockingly call another user "arbiter of all that is true" and prescribe them the false position of speaking for all that is right in D&D, but then end on you speaking for what is right in D&D because it doesn't harm you?
Isn't it possible that while you are unharmed, others are not and both those positions are true and valid?
That article very quickly moves beyond parody, "saying goblins are evil is a racist statement because it robs goblins of their agency" they are subjects of a work of fiction, not real people or analogues of real people If you want to draw contrived parallels between reality and fantasy that's your choice.
What harmful or derogatory language exists in d&d? Any slurs for Elves? Orcs? Gnomes?
I see a lot of talk about real world harm, but never any examples.
The rules have always been up to interpretation with some games deviating heavily from established lore. I've played games that completely homebrew their lore concerning races. It is entirely political that Wizards have made these changes to their books because anyone with a scrap of common sense that thought the content was problematic probably dismissed it in favour of their own take. If it's no big deal for them to remove content because we're all free to play how we want then why was it ever a problem that the content was there to begin with.
Like I asked before, did they consult the players? Or did they just make changes to the lore and then tried claiming that it was done on behalf of marginalized people who didn't ask for these changes?
If you don’t see examples of real world harm in this very discussion, it’s because you are not reading. Yurei kindly provided two such examples.
Really though, it’s a rather sad comment on humanity that some people are incapable of understanding that a thing does not have to harm them to be harmful to another. Nor do other people do not have to justify to you what they find harmful. A decent person listens to the report of injury and endeavours not to engage in causing further harm. Any other response means you are a bad person and you should feel bad.
Report away. I hope lots of nasty people see themselves called out before my banination because someone needs to say it to them. Be better people and none of this will bother you.
How does asking for examples or evidence make me a bad person?
I fully understand that something can be harmful. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and not a single person who claims that descriptions of fictional characters and creatures has been able to back that up with evidence. At best they've brought up a dated description of an orc from a 35 year old setting that predates the current team and owner, and at worst just made claims about the content of my own character.
If people want to change a product that I have paid money for, something I have a vested interest in, then honestly they should have to justify it, especially when they are removing content and not replacing it with anything, all without cited reason or consent from people who have already paid money.
Real world harm exists, and has existed long before the modern depiction of these fantasy creatures and monsters. If you want to fix the damage caused by events in our long history, you can start with the institutions that are at least partially responsible for that history instead of making changes to a work of fiction that's only been relevant for the past 4 decades.
Nobody with real problems was ever dealt "serious harm" by a book; not even truly abominable ones; which is why we consider book burning something that only authoritarian regimes do... or at least we once did. Of course: my government had a "book burning of peace and reconciliation" without recognizing the irony.
Do you know why authoritarian regimes burn books? It's not just a symbol of their power, it's a way that they keep people under their control. Authoritarian regimes and people that want to control the public opinion try banning books or burning them because they know that the content of those books can sway public opinion, which can in-turn manipulate how the public acts.
The "authoritarian regimes burn books" isn't the scathing proof of "my side's badness/wrongness" that you think it is. Instead, it supports my argument by proving that the things that are written in a book matter and can influence how someone thinks about the topics it addresses. Containing racist imagery can influence people into thinking that those kinds of actions are "normal" or "okay". It's just like how video games don't make you more violent, but can make you less likely to react properly to certain types of violence, as you become desensitized to certain kinds of it. Reading books and playing games that include racist imagery can do the same thing, but with how you react to other depictions of racism and bigotry in the media as well as in the real world.
If books and the media didn't have any power, authoritarian regimes and fascists wouldn't try to control them. Your argument proved mine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Nobody with real problems was ever dealt "serious harm" by a book; not even truly abominable ones; which is why we consider book burning something that only authoritarian regimes do... or at least we once did. Of course: my government had a "book burning of peace and reconciliation" without recognizing the irony.
Do you know why authoritarian regimes burn books? It's not just a symbol of their power, it's a way that they keep people under their control. Authoritarian regimes and people that want to control the public opinion try banning books or burning them because they know that the content of those books can sway public opinion, which can in-turn manipulate how the public acts.
The "authoritarian regimes burn books" isn't the scathing proof of "my side's badness/wrongness" that you think it is. Instead, it supports my argument by proving that the things that are written in a book matter and can influence how someone thinks about the topics it addresses. Containing racist imagery can influence people into thinking that those kinds of actions are "normal" or "okay". It's just like how video games don't make you more violent, but can make you less likely to react properly to certain types of violence, as you become desensitized to certain kinds of it. Reading books and playing games that include racist imagery can do the same thing, but with how you react to other depictions of racism and bigotry in the media as well as in the real world.
If books and the media didn't have any power, authoritarian regimes and fascists wouldn't try to control them. Your argument proved mine.
Books and media do "hold power":
- Power to inspire change - Certainly
- Power to inspire action - Certainly
- Power to spawn discussion - Definitely
- Power to spark imagination - Best of all
- Power to "deal serious harm" simply through the consumption like an info-hazard from the SCP foundation - Certainly not
I find this parallel particularly interesting: "just like how video games don't make you more violent, but can make you less likely to react properly to certain types of violence, as you become desensitized to certain kinds of it."
And yet: time and again, much to the outrage of activists of both conservative and progressive persuasions; we have decided that we should NOT ban or censor games; even with that most flimsy of justifications. Likewise: censoring racist or xenophobic factions within a world setting does NOT make those things magically go away in the real world. It simply forbids their discussion within a purely fictional setting and context. Removing the Yuan-ti's pension for slavery will free precisely zero slaves in the real world, present or past. Because their slavery never existed, and never will. Likewise labelling a monster "evil" cannot "rob them of agency" because the monster has none, it is a fictional being, in a fictional world, that short of the magic game board from Jumanji has exactly as much bearing upon reality as my D20 is capable of doing slashing damage.
So is the big to-do simply that Wizards have removed alignment guidelines from humanoids? Is that it?
I mean i get it kind of ... remove blanket statements about character/motive from anything vaguely humanoid and leave it to DM's/Players to RP all that ... I mean races traditionally "evil" can still be played that way but not all members of that race need to be locked into that if the players/DMs dont want to.
It's not just about alignments, it's that Drow are allowed to have more variety in skin tone, ie they can have "hues" of grey.
Perhaps it's purely because I'm fairly new to D&D and therefore don't have the same.investment, but it does seem like the complaints are pretty much either "change...grrr...kids on lawn...grr..." or just political in nature, and not because D&D itself has suffered in any way due to the changes.
I have a slight concern about the alignments. I'm fairly new to the franchise, and I like to have guidance so I can make the creatures come alive more convincingly. Even with familiar ones, like goblins, I'd like some guidance on how to portrau them, in case it provides some inspiration. D&D is already very sparse on that point, and one of my complaints is that I'd wish that they'd provide some additional info and background with the monster stats in the MM etc. If I don't want to use heir info, that's fine, I can always Rule Zero it out at no loss to myself. I just want that there to help me as a DM in case it helps.
Removing the alignment is just removing another of the [very few] data points that they did have to indicate what these creatures are like.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Nobody with real problems was ever dealt "serious harm" by a book; not even truly abominable ones; which is why we consider book burning something that only authoritarian regimes do... or at least we once did. Of course: my government had a "book burning of peace and reconciliation" without recognizing the irony.
Do you know why authoritarian regimes burn books? It's not just a symbol of their power, it's a way that they keep people under their control. Authoritarian regimes and people that want to control the public opinion try banning books or burning them because they know that the content of those books can sway public opinion, which can in-turn manipulate how the public acts.
The "authoritarian regimes burn books" isn't the scathing proof of "my side's badness/wrongness" that you think it is. Instead, it supports my argument by proving that the things that are written in a book matter and can influence how someone thinks about the topics it addresses. Containing racist imagery can influence people into thinking that those kinds of actions are "normal" or "okay". It's just like how video games don't make you more violent, but can make you less likely to react properly to certain types of violence, as you become desensitized to certain kinds of it. Reading books and playing games that include racist imagery can do the same thing, but with how you react to other depictions of racism and bigotry in the media as well as in the real world.
If books and the media didn't have any power, authoritarian regimes and fascists wouldn't try to control them. Your argument proved mine.
You're right that these regimes burned books because of the threat their ideas posed to their power structure. Not all books burned were necessarily good books, but all were perceived to be harmful.
Book burning in any form is a bad act though so it doesn't matter how and why people try to justify it. Where is the racist imagery in D&D though? I'm assuming you're referring to the "Orcs are black analogues" argument? I can honestly tell you that as someone who has grown up around black people of a variety of ethnic groups from across the diaspora, I have never once thought they looks remotely similar to an orc, or any other fantasy race for that matter, unless of course you count human as a fantasy race.
I can honestly tell you that as someone who has grown up around black people of a variety of ethnic groups from across the diaspora, I have never once thought they looks remotely similar to an orc, or any other fantasy race for that matter, unless of course you count human as a fantasy race.
Which is great, but not the point. Racism is not a problem only when it's pervasive. Racism is a problem even with only a single racist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As I've written before, for me the foundation of D&D lore since decades is fantasy worlds where philosophical concepts such as good and evil can be absolute and manifest in physical form, and where gods are real and have an impact. That mean that gods creating a race of evil creatures is a possibility, and many of my campaigns have included racism, slavery etc. Not to promote the concepts, but as a way to explore the mechanisms behind them and let the characters be heroes by putting an end to such in-game evil phenomena.
All players at my table is active in anti-racist movements, and half of them is elected municipality politicians for the leftist party. Imho, the idea of banning or censure books, games and media that include bigot perspectives because they presumably desensitize you to real world oppression is absurd. On the contrary, reading and discussing for example historical fiction where the author hold bigot views that reflects in their work is important to understand oppression mechanisms and historical change. The alternative is cultural and historical revision, which are fascistoid control tools.
But to the subject: With the current lore changes Wizards is actually telling me that my tables way of playing is wrong, and as a long time DM I can feel a bit sad that the company erase four decades of lore fundamentals. But if that actually opens up the game to a more diverse player base , that's fine, I have no problems with it. The more the merrier, and everyone should feel welcome and included.
And to us long time gamers who are leaning towards grognardism, it doesn't matter at all, we can keep playing the game however we want :-)
Nobody with real problems was ever dealt "serious harm" by a book; not even truly abominable ones; which is why we consider book burning something that only authoritarian regimes do... or at least we once did. Of course: my government had a "book burning of peace and reconciliation" without recognizing the irony.
Do you know why authoritarian regimes burn books? It's not just a symbol of their power, it's a way that they keep people under their control. Authoritarian regimes and people that want to control the public opinion try banning books or burning them because they know that the content of those books can sway public opinion, which can in-turn manipulate how the public acts.
The "authoritarian regimes burn books" isn't the scathing proof of "my side's badness/wrongness" that you think it is. Instead, it supports my argument by proving that the things that are written in a book matter and can influence how someone thinks about the topics it addresses. Containing racist imagery can influence people into thinking that those kinds of actions are "normal" or "okay". It's just like how video games don't make you more violent, but can make you less likely to react properly to certain types of violence, as you become desensitized to certain kinds of it. Reading books and playing games that include racist imagery can do the same thing, but with how you react to other depictions of racism and bigotry in the media as well as in the real world.
If books and the media didn't have any power, authoritarian regimes and fascists wouldn't try to control them. Your argument proved mine.
You're right that these regimes burned books because of the threat their ideas posed to their power structure. Not all books burned were necessarily good books, but all were perceived to be harmful.
Book burning in any form is a bad act though so it doesn't matter how and why people try to justify it.
But the thing is, "we" are not book burning. Instead, "we" want people to realize the racist and overall bigoted past of D&D, and have the creators of D&D do better at handling those issues that the early creators of the game did. That's, like, the opposite of burning a book: analyzing the tropes that were in its core, deconstructing them, and doing things differently in the future while still acknowledging their past.
Where is the racist imagery in D&D though? I'm assuming you're referring to the "Orcs are black analogues" argument? I can honestly tell you that as someone who has grown up around black people of a variety of ethnic groups from across the diaspora, I have never once thought they looks remotely similar to an orc, or any other fantasy race for that matter, unless of course you count human as a fantasy race.
Did you seriously miss the two times in the past 2 pages that I've linked this? And what about this?
The people that profess "D&D does not/never has had racist imagery" are ignoring the Vistani, the Mystaran GAZ10, and the plenty examples throughout the hobby's nearly 50-year existence where it has had racist and problematic imagery and content.
Mystara had "Red Orcs" and "Yellow Orcs", which were not-so-subtle racist stand-ins for Native Americans and East Asians (commonly Mongolians) in the respective order. It also had art of Orcs in a stereotypical "African American" style, with the orc with a mohawk with a boombox and the other orc breakdancing.
That was racist. That was an official D&D product with racist contents, and is far from the only one.
So, yes, I seriously am saying that Orcs in D&D have been analogues for not only People of Color, but also Asians and Native Americans, and D&D has had other seriously bigoted content in it (cough, Dragonlance, cough).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I do find it deliciously ironic that in the search to try and expunge the sins of the past the system is still inherently optimised for violence. There are systems out there that do better at what D&D appears to be trying to retcon (I'm a big fan of Genesys which makes social encounters potentially as intricate as combat, if that's what you prefer, and their Realms of Terrinoth species actually have interesting cultures). The problem is D&D has so much mind share and so many resources. It seem inevitable that the culture wars would bleed in given its long history.
I wonder if WOTC would have been better making these lore changes with a 5.5 or 6.0 reboot. They seem to have been foisting a lot of new lore onto us and even blaming us when they got it wrong (poor misunderstood Drow because of all those stupid players). New product, new lore might have helped.
Maybe a new edition would have gone better, maybe not. If they're anticipating this to hit their sales, they might decide to do it with 5.0 and have the controversy largely forgotten by the time 5.5 (or whatever it is) comes out in 2024 that will have a fresh start and not have the negative associations of this controversy, not being the edition that was PC or whatever.
Is that correct and it would be beneficial to do it now? Is that their line of thinking? We have no idea. It could just be a rush to get in on the tail end of BLM. Who knows. Not anyone that would be able to tell us.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Can I just observe what an utterly lost cause it is to attempt to "un-monster" literal monsters? Last I checked: Mindflayers for one reproduce by inserting tadpoles into sentient creatures and eating their brain matter from the inside out. I'm not sure what sort of disturbed person actively identifies with these things.. Then again there were people "identifying" with Pennywise for a while so who knows. The Tyranid is not a moral actor: any more than a shark is: it wants to eat you, and you'd rather it didn't. Ironically: making monsters "less monsterous" makes the entire affair more morally dubious as opposed to less if you think about it in anything but an utterly superficial way.
And before anyone jumps down my throat of "you're just saying that because you are ignorant etc etc etc" I'm First Nations (that's Canada-speak for Native American): I think I know a bit about ACTUAL racism.
Before this incredibly stupid era in which we live, the one of "identity politics" I promise you the number of people who looked at a raiding orc and went "yeah: that's a black person!" were in the single digits. But now apparently the "truth has been improved" 1984 style to "have always been the case". This is supposedly an "improvement"? I'm not sure how.
Call me "gate-keeper-y" all you want: but MAYBE, just maybe; if you're put off by swords and sorcery, and you don't like combat of any sort, and literal demons are too morally complicated for you, you're upset to the point of tears if numbers on a piece of paper don't go your way, and you are made uncomfortable by the imagined existence of things that do not now, never have, and never will exist... then maybe D&D just isn't for you.
And this is what happens when you don't read the thread. Read this post, and you'll understand why there are actually racial issues in D&D that have reasons for being addressed.
D&D's problem is not "stereotypical accents" (and that wasn't the whole issue with the Neimoidians, either), that's a problem from table-to-table and WotC can't really do anything about it. The problem that people are talking about is a long history of marginalized peoples continuing to have harmful stereotypes and depictions of them (and their cultures) being spread through the media. It happened in older D&D products like the GAZ10 for Mystara, and the effects of linking real world people to fictional races/species in a racist manner has been an issue for a lot longer than that. That's the problem that WotC is trying to address with much of these errata (not all of them, though, some changed for entirely different reasons). And the problem also isn't "offense", it's perpetuating and supporting harmful stereotypes and derogatory language.
It's a mixture of a history of being marginalized by the people with the power to influence the opinions of the public, appropriating and mocking the cultures that are/have been marginalized, and spreading harmful stereotypes about these people through the usage of language and imagery similar to those used to disparage these marginalized communities. It's not to score political points or try to tote their "wokeness" (whatever that means), as this issue is not political and Wizards of the Coast is not running for some public office.
It's about the legitimate harm that D&D products have caused in the past, and trying to rectify that and prevent similar examples from happening in the future. That's the issue. That's what most of this Errata and the recent direction of D&D has been about, and it's for the betterment of the hobby and the inclusiveness of the game. It's not the "second Satanic Panic", like so many out-of-touch older gamers have been saying, but it's instead about real, actual, historical harm that D&D has helped perpetuate. Does that make sense?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Oh please; arbiter of all that is true, tell me, where this unspeakable "real harm" is? Because this sure SOUNDS like the "D&D allows your kids to summon demons with the devil's dice!" level of hysteria.
Last I checked; I was fighting hypothetical monsters, through a hypothetical avatar, in a hypothetical world, that does not now, and will never exist. I somehow fail to see how Strahd Von Zarovich "does real harm" to the proud people of Romania any more than his direct inspiration does, IE: none, at least, none for several centuries.
The "cultural appropriation" argument is one that I deeply despise; because the simple fact is, cultures bouncing off one another is how we get interesting things. Anime was spawned from post-war Japan seeing what Disney was doing state-side, Rock and Roll was born out of Jazz and Country mixing, even "questionable" things like the works of HP Lovecraft lead to this: if we didn't have Horrible Phobias Lovecraft, we wouldn't have Guillermo Del Toro, or Bloodborne, or most of D&D's aberrations.
I am not "harmed" by Blizzard using my people's culture as one of the visual inspirations for the Tauren, nor am I "harmed" by RPGs that use "spirit animal" mechanics. I'm not that pathetic.
So is the big to-do simply that Wizards have removed alignment guidelines from humanoids?
Is that it?
I mean i get it kind of ... remove blanket statements about character/motive from anything vaguely humanoid and leave it to DM's/Players to RP all that ... I mean races traditionally "evil" can still be played that way but not all members of that race need to be locked into that if the players/DMs dont want to.
I do like that racial bonuses to attibutes remain ... this just slants the average position of races against each other in some characteristics that match real life ... Elves can be more dextrous on average over other races (doesnt mean that those races can not reach 20 dex) .. Str/Dex/Con is reasonably black and white there. Intelligence may prove more problematic. But the same remains .. on average some races may have a higher intelligence than others but that doesnt preclude you hitting 20.
There are physiological differences between different races in humans in real life .. this is not racism .. just reality. Even studies on IQ and race have been conducted and generated results for discussion.
As long as the game is played respectfully then what more can we really ask.
That article very quickly moves beyond parody, "saying goblins are evil is a racist statement because it robs goblins of their agency" they are subjects of a work of fiction, not real people or analogues of real people If you want to draw contrived parallels between reality and fantasy that's your choice.
What harmful or derogatory language exists in d&d? Any slurs for Elves? Orcs? Gnomes?
I see a lot of talk about real world harm, but never any examples.
The rules have always been up to interpretation with some games deviating heavily from established lore. I've played games that completely homebrew their lore concerning races. It is entirely political that Wizards have made these changes to their books because anyone with a scrap of common sense that thought the content was problematic probably dismissed it in favour of their own take. If it's no big deal for them to remove content because we're all free to play how we want then why was it ever a problem that the content was there to begin with.
Like I asked before, did they consult the players? Or did they just make changes to the lore and then tried claiming that it was done on behalf of marginalized people who didn't ask for these changes?
If you don’t see examples of real world harm in this very discussion, it’s because you are not reading. Yurei kindly provided two such examples.
Really though, it’s a rather sad comment on humanity that some people are incapable of understanding that a thing does not have to harm them to be harmful to another. Nor do other people have to justify to you what they find harmful. A decent person listens to the report of injury and endeavours not to engage in causing further harm. Any other response means you are a bad person and you should feel bad.
Report away. I hope lots of nasty people see themselves called out before my banination because someone needs to say it to them. Be better people and none of this will bother you.
Are you saying that basing orcish cultures in D&D books after marginalized peoples in a mocking tone is not harmful? Because that's definitely a "strange" stance to take.
(P.S. If you think that the "real harm" that we're referring to is "unspeakable", maybe you should read more about what we're posting. We've given examples. It's not our job to make sure that you make the effort to understand it.)
No, it doesn't. The Satanic Panic was a bunch of hysterical fundamental Christians that thought including Demons, Devils, and similar content in D&D would somehow make their children commit suicide and become Satanists. It was not based in reality, and the people involved in censoring D&D back then knew next-to-nothing about the hobby. The calls for change in how D&D approaches races in its books and settings is largely by people that have actually played the game and read the products that they're using as examples of bad ways to treat races in D&D.
Saying that this is the "new Satanic Panic" or "woke SJWs are trying to destroy D&D" is 100% a false equivalency and a strawman argument.
No one is complaining about Strahd Von Zarovich. No one. They're complaining about the racist depictions of Vistani (and, yes, their depictions in Curse of Strahd and earlier Ravenloft books were racist), and similar examples. So, this is a strawman (not actually correctly representing the other side's arguments).
There's a difference between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation. For example, the Pixar movie Coco is a great example of cultural appreciation. However, the usage of bastardized and mocking versions of Native American, African American, and Asian cultures in the Mystaran Gazetteer Number 10 is cultural appropriation.
"Is it respectful" is the line between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation. Coco is respectful and a beautiful movie, while the Gazetteer Number 10 is a mocking and racist book.
Complain all you want about whether or not you think D&D has done cultural appropriation or if the majority of accusations of this type are valid, but cultural appropriation is almost always a bad thing, and is a valid complaint as a whole.
That's your personal experience. Don't try to apply it to everyone else of every marginalized ethnic group/culture that has had their culture appropriated by others. And making an attack against those that aren't on-board with that is . . . as you say, "pathetic".
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
[REDACTED]
Nobody with real problems was ever dealt "serious harm" by a book; not even truly abominable ones; which is why we consider book burning something that only authoritarian regimes do... or at least we once did. Of course: my government had a "book burning of peace and reconciliation" without recognizing the irony.
Do you not see a smidge of hypocrisy between these two statements? You mockingly call another user "arbiter of all that is true" and prescribe them the false position of speaking for all that is right in D&D, but then end on you speaking for what is right in D&D because it doesn't harm you?
Isn't it possible that while you are unharmed, others are not and both those positions are true and valid?
Something to think about
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
How does asking for examples or evidence make me a bad person?
I fully understand that something can be harmful. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and not a single person who claims that descriptions of fictional characters and creatures has been able to back that up with evidence. At best they've brought up a dated description of an orc from a 35 year old setting that predates the current team and owner, and at worst just made claims about the content of my own character.
If people want to change a product that I have paid money for, something I have a vested interest in, then honestly they should have to justify it, especially when they are removing content and not replacing it with anything, all without cited reason or consent from people who have already paid money.
Real world harm exists, and has existed long before the modern depiction of these fantasy creatures and monsters. If you want to fix the damage caused by events in our long history, you can start with the institutions that are at least partially responsible for that history instead of making changes to a work of fiction that's only been relevant for the past 4 decades.
Do you know why authoritarian regimes burn books? It's not just a symbol of their power, it's a way that they keep people under their control. Authoritarian regimes and people that want to control the public opinion try banning books or burning them because they know that the content of those books can sway public opinion, which can in-turn manipulate how the public acts.
The "authoritarian regimes burn books" isn't the scathing proof of "my side's badness/wrongness" that you think it is. Instead, it supports my argument by proving that the things that are written in a book matter and can influence how someone thinks about the topics it addresses. Containing racist imagery can influence people into thinking that those kinds of actions are "normal" or "okay". It's just like how video games don't make you more violent, but can make you less likely to react properly to certain types of violence, as you become desensitized to certain kinds of it. Reading books and playing games that include racist imagery can do the same thing, but with how you react to other depictions of racism and bigotry in the media as well as in the real world.
If books and the media didn't have any power, authoritarian regimes and fascists wouldn't try to control them. Your argument proved mine.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Books and media do "hold power":
- Power to inspire change - Certainly
- Power to inspire action - Certainly
- Power to spawn discussion - Definitely
- Power to spark imagination - Best of all
- Power to "deal serious harm" simply through the consumption like an info-hazard from the SCP foundation - Certainly not
I find this parallel particularly interesting: "just like how video games don't make you more violent, but can make you less likely to react properly to certain types of violence, as you become desensitized to certain kinds of it."
And yet: time and again, much to the outrage of activists of both conservative and progressive persuasions; we have decided that we should NOT ban or censor games; even with that most flimsy of justifications. Likewise: censoring racist or xenophobic factions within a world setting does NOT make those things magically go away in the real world. It simply forbids their discussion within a purely fictional setting and context. Removing the Yuan-ti's pension for slavery will free precisely zero slaves in the real world, present or past. Because their slavery never existed, and never will. Likewise labelling a monster "evil" cannot "rob them of agency" because the monster has none, it is a fictional being, in a fictional world, that short of the magic game board from Jumanji has exactly as much bearing upon reality as my D20 is capable of doing slashing damage.
It's not just about alignments, it's that Drow are allowed to have more variety in skin tone, ie they can have "hues" of grey.
Perhaps it's purely because I'm fairly new to D&D and therefore don't have the same.investment, but it does seem like the complaints are pretty much either "change...grrr...kids on lawn...grr..." or just political in nature, and not because D&D itself has suffered in any way due to the changes.
I have a slight concern about the alignments. I'm fairly new to the franchise, and I like to have guidance so I can make the creatures come alive more convincingly. Even with familiar ones, like goblins, I'd like some guidance on how to portrau them, in case it provides some inspiration. D&D is already very sparse on that point, and one of my complaints is that I'd wish that they'd provide some additional info and background with the monster stats in the MM etc. If I don't want to use heir info, that's fine, I can always Rule Zero it out at no loss to myself. I just want that there to help me as a DM in case it helps.
Removing the alignment is just removing another of the [very few] data points that they did have to indicate what these creatures are like.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You're right that these regimes burned books because of the threat their ideas posed to their power structure. Not all books burned were necessarily good books, but all were perceived to be harmful.
Book burning in any form is a bad act though so it doesn't matter how and why people try to justify it. Where is the racist imagery in D&D though? I'm assuming you're referring to the "Orcs are black analogues" argument? I can honestly tell you that as someone who has grown up around black people of a variety of ethnic groups from across the diaspora, I have never once thought they looks remotely similar to an orc, or any other fantasy race for that matter, unless of course you count human as a fantasy race.
Which is great, but not the point. Racism is not a problem only when it's pervasive. Racism is a problem even with only a single racist.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As I've written before, for me the foundation of D&D lore since decades is fantasy worlds where philosophical concepts such as good and evil can be absolute and manifest in physical form, and where gods are real and have an impact. That mean that gods creating a race of evil creatures is a possibility, and many of my campaigns have included racism, slavery etc. Not to promote the concepts, but as a way to explore the mechanisms behind them and let the characters be heroes by putting an end to such in-game evil phenomena.
All players at my table is active in anti-racist movements, and half of them is elected municipality politicians for the leftist party. Imho, the idea of banning or censure books, games and media that include bigot perspectives because they presumably desensitize you to real world oppression is absurd. On the contrary, reading and discussing for example historical fiction where the author hold bigot views that reflects in their work is important to understand oppression mechanisms and historical change. The alternative is cultural and historical revision, which are fascistoid control tools.
But to the subject: With the current lore changes Wizards is actually telling me that my tables way of playing is wrong, and as a long time DM I can feel a bit sad that the company erase four decades of lore fundamentals. But if that actually opens up the game to a more diverse player base , that's fine, I have no problems with it. The more the merrier, and everyone should feel welcome and included.
And to us long time gamers who are leaning towards grognardism, it doesn't matter at all, we can keep playing the game however we want :-)
But the thing is, "we" are not book burning. Instead, "we" want people to realize the racist and overall bigoted past of D&D, and have the creators of D&D do better at handling those issues that the early creators of the game did. That's, like, the opposite of burning a book: analyzing the tropes that were in its core, deconstructing them, and doing things differently in the future while still acknowledging their past.
Did you seriously miss the two times in the past 2 pages that I've linked this? And what about this?
The people that profess "D&D does not/never has had racist imagery" are ignoring the Vistani, the Mystaran GAZ10, and the plenty examples throughout the hobby's nearly 50-year existence where it has had racist and problematic imagery and content.
Mystara had "Red Orcs" and "Yellow Orcs", which were not-so-subtle racist stand-ins for Native Americans and East Asians (commonly Mongolians) in the respective order. It also had art of Orcs in a stereotypical "African American" style, with the orc with a mohawk with a boombox and the other orc breakdancing.
That was racist. That was an official D&D product with racist contents, and is far from the only one.
So, yes, I seriously am saying that Orcs in D&D have been analogues for not only People of Color, but also Asians and Native Americans, and D&D has had other seriously bigoted content in it (cough, Dragonlance, cough).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I do find it deliciously ironic that in the search to try and expunge the sins of the past the system is still inherently optimised for violence. There are systems out there that do better at what D&D appears to be trying to retcon (I'm a big fan of Genesys which makes social encounters potentially as intricate as combat, if that's what you prefer, and their Realms of Terrinoth species actually have interesting cultures). The problem is D&D has so much mind share and so many resources. It seem inevitable that the culture wars would bleed in given its long history.
I wonder if WOTC would have been better making these lore changes with a 5.5 or 6.0 reboot. They seem to have been foisting a lot of new lore onto us and even blaming us when they got it wrong (poor misunderstood Drow because of all those stupid players). New product, new lore might have helped.
Maybe a new edition would have gone better, maybe not. If they're anticipating this to hit their sales, they might decide to do it with 5.0 and have the controversy largely forgotten by the time 5.5 (or whatever it is) comes out in 2024 that will have a fresh start and not have the negative associations of this controversy, not being the edition that was PC or whatever.
Is that correct and it would be beneficial to do it now? Is that their line of thinking? We have no idea. It could just be a rush to get in on the tail end of BLM. Who knows. Not anyone that would be able to tell us.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I believe the answer to this is "yes."
Regardless, their actual stance and reasoning are available here (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/diversity-and-dnd), to avoid putting words in their mouths.