Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
[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.
Insisting that it hurts no one because it doesn’t hurt you demonstrates an appalling lack of empathy. Your pain is not the only pain. As well, insisting that there is no evidence when it’s been presented in numerous iterations by several posters is not a refutation of what you’ve been presented. Obstinance in the face of reasoned discourse is not terribly flattering behaviour either.
Since it’s likely on the tip of your tongue to ask: why is their pain more worthy of consideration than your pain in this instance? It’s simple in that your injury over the removal of materials is purely histrionic—the materials have not been removed. Unless the Lore Police have made a trip to your house and confiscated a bunch of your books… I still have all of my books and therefore all the lore. Furthermore, despite anything WoTC has written, re-written, removed or otherwise altered, my DM’s world is still incredibly racist, grognard-style. To the point where we had a fellow who, against the DM’s advice, rolled a full orc and ended up moving on because he didn’t enjoy his character being treated like the monster he is considered to be at our table.
We play the game as racist as we want because the lore that WoTC creates is not now and never has been binding at any table. Rule 0 trumps everything so you have lost nothing at all. In the meantime, the general framework of the overall game is more neutral and welcoming of players of all sorts, who enjoy the opportunity to decide on a table by table basis whether or not they want to play D&D rather than feeling black-balled by the very roots of an entire hobby community.
I'm citing a lack of evidence that people within these marginalized communities found the content harmful, everyone loves to speak on their behalf, but how many have actually asked these groups what would make the game more welcoming, if they do indeed think that there's a problem to begin with. I am asking for real world examples, some academic or journalist writing an article doesn't reflect the real world in the slightest. No one on here has even said that they themselves find it harmful, only that others might. Which, quite frankly, doesn't constitute this kind of action of WoTC's part. It seems like they have acted in reaction to a few oversensitive online journalists and the overall political environment in the US than actually think about the player experience.
DDB has blessed us with the ignore feature.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I am not a POC nor queer, but, as a woman, let me assure you that the cultural changes in the hobby community, in many ways spearheaded by the developers despite the objections of folks like you, represent a vast improvement to my early days as a player. I played for prolly two full decades before I ever even encountered another female player. They are still quite a rarity but becoming more common, anecdotally similar in frequency for me as POC and queers, which, like women, were conspicuously absent at tables until well into the 00’s.
I must say that the level of empathy expressed by some here really has made me extremely proud to be part of this community. You are the people who make D&D accessible to everyone and D&D is better because of people like you. Well done.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
You what is very tiring? Having to constantly prove to people that something that is traumatic is really, actually traumatic. It's extremely wearing on people to have to prove that their experience is real, but you know what? Here's someone from this very forum talking about their own hurt with this. I would suggest maybe going back a page in that conversation as well, because there's more personal experiences from real people, including me: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/95854-design-direction-changes-for-race-in-d-d-5e?page=19#c398
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 can completely understand the weariness that can and does set in with "having to prove" something. Yet, that how it is done in the U.S. It's the entire backbone of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty. This applies socially, as well (at least it should). It may suck, but the burden of proof MUST be on those who are lobbying for change. And don't get me wrong, change is very good and must happen... but it cannot come about with generic, blanket statements made from one group about another (that's kinda how we got here in the first place, ain't it?). Specific examples must be used. If not, the other side will not listen as all they'll hear is that they're being attacked.
I don't think either side truly wants to attack the other. Both sides want to be heard. So, for both sides, be specific and -- most importantly -- listen to the other side when true communication is being offered.
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."