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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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?
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
I've seen several posts saying, "I don't believe that..." or, "In my experience..." and .... just stop for a moment - please.
If your personal experiences do not include being part of a marginalised group, whose experiences are being discussed, please just stop and listen to the experiences of those who are from that group. It's entirely possible that you've never seen, or heard of, experiences others are discussing. This doesn't mean they aren't real.
Something I would like for everyone to understand - all of us hold some form of privilege - some more than others.
Use that for good, by listening to those who have less privilege, and believing them when they talk about their life experiences.
Asking people to evidence claims of trauma is a horrific thing to do.
I've seen several posts saying, "I don't believe that..." or, "In my experience..." and .... just stop for a moment - please.
If your personal experiences do not include being part of a marginalised group, whose experiences are being discussed, please just stop and listen to the experiences of those who are from that group. It's entirely possible that you've never seen, or heard of, experiences others are discussing. This doesn't mean they aren't real.
Something I would like for everyone to understand - all of us hold some form of privilege - some more than others.
Use that for good, by listening to those who have less privilege, and believing them when they talk about their life experiences.
Asking people to evidence claims of trauma is a horrific thing to do.
Please don't ever be that person.
Thank you all 💗
Asking people to cite which paragraphs in current 5e books they find problematic and why is not the same as asking them to evidence trauma. That's a bad faith take if there ever was one.
No, I was speaking to those who have been wronged, mistreated, mischaracterized, or otherwise treated poorly. The onus of proving such treatment is on them. Does it suck? Yup, but that's how life works. You can't expect results from blanket statements made from one group to another. That's how we got to the vestigial racism we see today. Folks have been content for so long with wrong and incomplete takes on foreign cultures, not pushing for correct depictions. We all need specifics of what has been bad-wrong. And I'm glad to see that there have been great examples of this on this thread. Yurei1453 gave good examples back early on (page 1). Those examples allowed me to ponder and consider the mistreatment. But for that to happen, both Yurei and I had to be willing to communicate. That was great!
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?
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.
We are discussing text revisions being done by the copyright holder of said text entries. You seem to be insisting that said copyright holder should have to prove necessity per court standards.
It does not work that way. This is their property to change. Furthermore, this is text, not any person, not even in the corporate entity sense. They can change it on any arbitrary basis they please. It is theirs to change.
To add on to Kotath, Let's also recognize further flaws in the "legal" analogy just floated. The private publishing entity can do whatever they want, and they've done so perhaps out of a moral sense of social responsiblity, the "Diversity and Dragons" statement is definitely written to make folks think that, but these changes were most definitely out of what they feel as good business sense ("who wouldn't want as broad a market for D&D as possible and if that means changing some content to reflect social trends and norms? let's do it" to that one poster in this discussion who maintaining the "were the players ever consulted?" I mean, you know what market research is, right?). Those practices are the precedent in the universe of fact those who wannabe litigate must content with. What the complainants, who in this case are those arguing against the changes, must do is prove some damage done to them by these changes.
As I've written elsewhere in this thread when we werew still actually talking about the specific changes in the most recent errata, and not full on embracing Bell of Lost Souls alarm baiting, I see no harm done. The Volo's changes remove some content that push past standards regarding slavery, cannibalism, and let's call it "rapacious eugnenics" that may be a bit much for the broader D&D market WotC is trying to capture. You can still "go there" if you're really tied into lore that embraced those aspects of Fire Giants, Yuan-Ti and Orcs, but WotC will no longer be drawing you a specific map or license to do so. The rest of the Volo's excisions simply remove role playing dictates for a variety of monsters, dictates I'd argue aren't even really adhered to well in 5e or prior canon anyway. I suppose the Drow color shift would be shocking ... if you haven't been aware of Drow art direction throughout 5e.
So again, for those of you who are complaining, how does any of this harm your game? If the removed descriptors were so essential to your game, I'm guessing it's already well established if not entrenched in your present game so no need to worry or worst case, take notes, as you should for your campaigns anyway.
It's been said, and I'll repeat there are no "lore police" who are going to force you to play different if you want to make broken back jokes in your game's slave trade, have cannibalism an explicit part of your Yuan Ti settlements, or have your Orcs consider "breeding stock" when they reproduce. Personally, none of that is really my thing (I guess I like my "edgelordness" a bit more existential/philosophical) but play on. No one can stop you.
While there are no "lore police", it does seem there are "lore revanchists" that seem to show up to air these arguments (and nothing else) on these forums. Not once have I ever read anyone in any iteration of these arguments demonstrate to the forum how their game was harmed through a WotC editorial change. As such, the rhetorical volume some of these complaints reach is literally incredible.
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?
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.
You seem to be under the impression that everything should be treated as if it were a court case and that is not the case. Some changes can, and should, come about with the need for a literal trial. For one thing it would take forever for anything to get done, even in the US we don't depend on the judicial system for everything, that's why we have the other two branches. For a second thing, we don't always need to be so adversarial about everything. You say that if specific examples aren't used that people will automatically feel attacked and I object and posit that people don't automatically need to feel attacked when things change, I think it says something about you if you automatically assume that to be the natural response to things.
Also, Wizards of the Coast doesn't have any sort of obligation, legal or otherwise, to make any sort of case for these changes they are making. It is a product they make for sale for the public. As long as they follow the legal safety guidelines (like ... they don't print it on poisonous paper or something) they don't have to get the approval of the public to alter their product.
Anyway, I believe my link is to the actual specific example of what Yurei was talking about on the first page. I could give more examples: Like how uncomfortable the Oriental Adventures books makes me because of how stereotypically it portrays Asian culture even if it's meant to be fictional and not Asia at all.
I'll take the selfish route here. Inclusivity means more fans and users. More fans and users means more content. More content means the game grows and the dice roll. I bet by being more inclusive most groups or organizations grow more than they lose. It seems, to me, that this is not a great hill to die on when we want more for our games. And, and this is the real crazy part, there is probably an audience for the type of game you want to play, because the rules are more like guidelines and you can do anything you want and be who you want in D&D. The fantasy of playing as someone completely different from you, or someone with your traits that can accomplish more than you think you can is something just about anyone can appreciate.
If you're against changes to the game that might bring in more people to the game I can't really help you. And that makes me sad.
No, I was speaking to those who have been wronged, mistreated, mischaracterized, or otherwise treated poorly. The onus of proving such treatment is on them. Does it suck? Yup, but that's how life works. You can't expect results from blanket statements made from one group to another. That's how we got to the vestigial racism we see today. Folks have been content for so long with wrong and incomplete takes on foreign cultures, not pushing for correct depictions. We all need specifics of what has been bad-wrong. And I'm glad to see that there have been great examples of this on this thread. Yurei1453 gave good examples back early on (page 1). Those examples allowed me to ponder and consider the mistreatment. But for that to happen, both Yurei and I had to be willing to communicate. That was great!
... how is modern racism in any way vestigial?
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!
No, I was speaking to those who have been wronged, mistreated, mischaracterized, or otherwise treated poorly. The onus of proving such treatment is on them. Does it suck? Yup, but that's how life works. You can't expect results from blanket statements made from one group to another. That's how we got to the vestigial racism we see today. Folks have been content for so long with wrong and incomplete takes on foreign cultures, not pushing for correct depictions. We all need specifics of what has been bad-wrong. And I'm glad to see that there have been great examples of this on this thread. Yurei1453 gave good examples back early on (page 1). Those examples allowed me to ponder and consider the mistreatment. But for that to happen, both Yurei and I had to be willing to communicate. That was great!
How many times? To whom? Do they need photographic proof? I mean no; how many times does one need to relive the abuse because somebody asks for proof. Is it going to be like Anubis weighing the proof like a heart with a feather?
No, I was speaking to those who have been wronged, mistreated, mischaracterized, or otherwise treated poorly. The onus of proving such treatment is on them. Does it suck? Yup, but that's how life works. You can't expect results from blanket statements made from one group to another. That's how we got to the vestigial racism we see today. Folks have been content for so long with wrong and incomplete takes on foreign cultures, not pushing for correct depictions. We all need specifics of what has been bad-wrong. And I'm glad to see that there have been great examples of this on this thread. Yurei1453 gave good examples back early on (page 1). Those examples allowed me to ponder and consider the mistreatment. But for that to happen, both Yurei and I had to be willing to communicate. That was great!
How many times? To whom? Do they need photographic proof? I mean no; how many times does one need to relive the abuse because somebody asks for proof. Is it going to be like Anubis weighing the proof like a heart with a feather?
Asking which sections of the book is problematic is not asking you to relive abuse though, is it?
No, I was speaking to those who have been wronged, mistreated, mischaracterized, or otherwise treated poorly. The onus of proving such treatment is on them. Does it suck? Yup, but that's how life works. You can't expect results from blanket statements made from one group to another. That's how we got to the vestigial racism we see today. Folks have been content for so long with wrong and incomplete takes on foreign cultures, not pushing for correct depictions. We all need specifics of what has been bad-wrong. And I'm glad to see that there have been great examples of this on this thread. Yurei1453 gave good examples back early on (page 1). Those examples allowed me to ponder and consider the mistreatment. But for that to happen, both Yurei and I had to be willing to communicate. That was great!
How many times? To whom? Do they need photographic proof? I mean no; how many times does one need to relive the abuse because somebody asks for proof. Is it going to be like Anubis weighing the proof like a heart with a feather?
Asking which sections of the book is problematic is not asking you to relive abuse though, is it?
Asking, "Which parts of this book makes you uncomfortable?", directly asks you to think about the abuse you have suffered. I don't understand how it is that you can't see this.
No, I was speaking to those who have been wronged, mistreated, mischaracterized, or otherwise treated poorly. The onus of proving such treatment is on them. Does it suck? Yup, but that's how life works. You can't expect results from blanket statements made from one group to another. That's how we got to the vestigial racism we see today. Folks have been content for so long with wrong and incomplete takes on foreign cultures, not pushing for correct depictions. We all need specifics of what has been bad-wrong. And I'm glad to see that there have been great examples of this on this thread. Yurei1453 gave good examples back early on (page 1). Those examples allowed me to ponder and consider the mistreatment. But for that to happen, both Yurei and I had to be willing to communicate. That was great!
... how is modern racism in any way vestigial?
Ophidimancer, I argue that most racism we see in D&D is vestigial based on the following definition from Google: "forming a very small remnant of something that was once much larger or more noticeable. 'he felt a vestigial flicker of anger from last night'"
I do not believe the racism we see in D&D is intentional, nor is it meant to be antagonistic. The racism we see is passive acceptance of tropes that are inherently mischaracterizations of a culture or lifestyle. It was the bane of the 80s & 90s to create caricatures of things we didn't fully understand, especially in the entertainment industry. Is it perhaps sloppy? Absolutely! But I don't believe that most of these caricatures were intentionally antagonistic. Did they display prejudice? Yes, indeed. But it wasn't malicious. It was... lazy. Still, prejudice is a piece of racism (by definition) and should not be ignored. The racism we see in D&D today is vestigial in that it is merely an acceptance of old tropes. WotC is taking steps to rectify this by rewriting established lore. That's good. It's good to revisit old material and update it. But, I think it would be wrong to assume that any racism in old material is based in malice. Ignorance is a poor defense, but that is truly what I believe most such racism in D&D's past was and still is today.
And, honestly, I think most racism we see in modern society follows this as well. I, as a white male, am being told I am a racist by default, to which I automatically recoil. Do I have racist tendencies in my thinking? Looking inward, I'd have to say I probably do. I think everyone does. I'd argue, however, that mine and yours and most everyone else's are more of the prejudicial kind, not the antagonistic. I absolutely do not think I am better than anyone else. I doubt you do either. Let's assume best intentions of each other and we might find a better avenue toward healthy communication.
What many consider to be systemic or structural racism endemic in global and many national power and privilege structures are often dismissed as "vestigial" or "not as bad as it was a generation or seven generations ago" by folks who don't want to acknowledge the perspective that's been exhaustively provided ... outside this thread beyond these forums.
To use vestigial (i.e. "well, it's not as bad as it used to be") in this context is insensitive to folks who do regularly suffer from prejudice in the contemporary moment. It's unthinking blowhard word choice pretending to be high minded.
Asking which sections of the book is problematic is not asking you to relive abuse though, is it?
That isn't what you did, though. What you did was ask for personal testimony of trauma, which I provided, but which also is a traumatizing thing to do, per me and Stormknight, etc.
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.
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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."
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersI've seen several posts saying, "I don't believe that..." or, "In my experience..." and .... just stop for a moment - please.
If your personal experiences do not include being part of a marginalised group, whose experiences are being discussed, please just stop and listen to the experiences of those who are from that group. It's entirely possible that you've never seen, or heard of, experiences others are discussing. This doesn't mean they aren't real.
Something I would like for everyone to understand - all of us hold some form of privilege - some more than others.
Use that for good, by listening to those who have less privilege, and believing them when they talk about their life experiences.
Asking people to evidence claims of trauma is a horrific thing to do.
Please don't ever be that person.
Thank you all 💗
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Asking people to cite which paragraphs in current 5e books they find problematic and why is not the same as asking them to evidence trauma. That's a bad faith take if there ever was one.
But you do you, I guess
Kotath, that's not what I am referring to at all!
No, I was speaking to those who have been wronged, mistreated, mischaracterized, or otherwise treated poorly. The onus of proving such treatment is on them. Does it suck? Yup, but that's how life works. You can't expect results from blanket statements made from one group to another. That's how we got to the vestigial racism we see today. Folks have been content for so long with wrong and incomplete takes on foreign cultures, not pushing for correct depictions. We all need specifics of what has been bad-wrong. And I'm glad to see that there have been great examples of this on this thread. Yurei1453 gave good examples back early on (page 1). Those examples allowed me to ponder and consider the mistreatment. But for that to happen, both Yurei and I had to be willing to communicate. That was great!
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
To add on to Kotath, Let's also recognize further flaws in the "legal" analogy just floated. The private publishing entity can do whatever they want, and they've done so perhaps out of a moral sense of social responsiblity, the "Diversity and Dragons" statement is definitely written to make folks think that, but these changes were most definitely out of what they feel as good business sense ("who wouldn't want as broad a market for D&D as possible and if that means changing some content to reflect social trends and norms? let's do it" to that one poster in this discussion who maintaining the "were the players ever consulted?" I mean, you know what market research is, right?). Those practices are the precedent in the universe of fact those who wannabe litigate must content with. What the complainants, who in this case are those arguing against the changes, must do is prove some damage done to them by these changes.
As I've written elsewhere in this thread when we werew still actually talking about the specific changes in the most recent errata, and not full on embracing Bell of Lost Souls alarm baiting, I see no harm done. The Volo's changes remove some content that push past standards regarding slavery, cannibalism, and let's call it "rapacious eugnenics" that may be a bit much for the broader D&D market WotC is trying to capture. You can still "go there" if you're really tied into lore that embraced those aspects of Fire Giants, Yuan-Ti and Orcs, but WotC will no longer be drawing you a specific map or license to do so. The rest of the Volo's excisions simply remove role playing dictates for a variety of monsters, dictates I'd argue aren't even really adhered to well in 5e or prior canon anyway. I suppose the Drow color shift would be shocking ... if you haven't been aware of Drow art direction throughout 5e.
So again, for those of you who are complaining, how does any of this harm your game? If the removed descriptors were so essential to your game, I'm guessing it's already well established if not entrenched in your present game so no need to worry or worst case, take notes, as you should for your campaigns anyway.
It's been said, and I'll repeat there are no "lore police" who are going to force you to play different if you want to make broken back jokes in your game's slave trade, have cannibalism an explicit part of your Yuan Ti settlements, or have your Orcs consider "breeding stock" when they reproduce. Personally, none of that is really my thing (I guess I like my "edgelordness" a bit more existential/philosophical) but play on. No one can stop you.
While there are no "lore police", it does seem there are "lore revanchists" that seem to show up to air these arguments (and nothing else) on these forums. Not once have I ever read anyone in any iteration of these arguments demonstrate to the forum how their game was harmed through a WotC editorial change. As such, the rhetorical volume some of these complaints reach is literally incredible.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You seem to be under the impression that everything should be treated as if it were a court case and that is not the case. Some changes can, and should, come about with the need for a literal trial. For one thing it would take forever for anything to get done, even in the US we don't depend on the judicial system for everything, that's why we have the other two branches. For a second thing, we don't always need to be so adversarial about everything. You say that if specific examples aren't used that people will automatically feel attacked and I object and posit that people don't automatically need to feel attacked when things change, I think it says something about you if you automatically assume that to be the natural response to things.
Also, Wizards of the Coast doesn't have any sort of obligation, legal or otherwise, to make any sort of case for these changes they are making. It is a product they make for sale for the public. As long as they follow the legal safety guidelines (like ... they don't print it on poisonous paper or something) they don't have to get the approval of the public to alter their product.
Anyway, I believe my link is to the actual specific example of what Yurei was talking about on the first page. I could give more examples: Like how uncomfortable the Oriental Adventures books makes me because of how stereotypically it portrays Asian culture even if it's meant to be fictional and not Asia 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!
I'll take the selfish route here. Inclusivity means more fans and users. More fans and users means more content. More content means the game grows and the dice roll. I bet by being more inclusive most groups or organizations grow more than they lose. It seems, to me, that this is not a great hill to die on when we want more for our games. And, and this is the real crazy part, there is probably an audience for the type of game you want to play, because the rules are more like guidelines and you can do anything you want and be who you want in D&D. The fantasy of playing as someone completely different from you, or someone with your traits that can accomplish more than you think you can is something just about anyone can appreciate.
If you're against changes to the game that might bring in more people to the game I can't really help you. And that makes me sad.
... how is modern racism in any way vestigial?
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!
How many times? To whom? Do they need photographic proof? I mean no; how many times does one need to relive the abuse because somebody asks for proof. Is it going to be like Anubis weighing the proof like a heart with a feather?
Asking which sections of the book is problematic is not asking you to relive abuse though, is it?
Asking, "Which parts of this book makes you uncomfortable?", directly asks you to think about the abuse you have suffered. I don't understand how it is that you can't see this.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Ophidimancer, I argue that most racism we see in D&D is vestigial based on the following definition from Google: "forming a very small remnant of something that was once much larger or more noticeable. 'he felt a vestigial flicker of anger from last night'"
I do not believe the racism we see in D&D is intentional, nor is it meant to be antagonistic. The racism we see is passive acceptance of tropes that are inherently mischaracterizations of a culture or lifestyle. It was the bane of the 80s & 90s to create caricatures of things we didn't fully understand, especially in the entertainment industry. Is it perhaps sloppy? Absolutely! But I don't believe that most of these caricatures were intentionally antagonistic. Did they display prejudice? Yes, indeed. But it wasn't malicious. It was... lazy. Still, prejudice is a piece of racism (by definition) and should not be ignored. The racism we see in D&D today is vestigial in that it is merely an acceptance of old tropes. WotC is taking steps to rectify this by rewriting established lore. That's good. It's good to revisit old material and update it. But, I think it would be wrong to assume that any racism in old material is based in malice. Ignorance is a poor defense, but that is truly what I believe most such racism in D&D's past was and still is today.
And, honestly, I think most racism we see in modern society follows this as well. I, as a white male, am being told I am a racist by default, to which I automatically recoil. Do I have racist tendencies in my thinking? Looking inward, I'd have to say I probably do. I think everyone does. I'd argue, however, that mine and yours and most everyone else's are more of the prejudicial kind, not the antagonistic. I absolutely do not think I am better than anyone else. I doubt you do either. Let's assume best intentions of each other and we might find a better avenue toward healthy communication.
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
What many consider to be systemic or structural racism endemic in global and many national power and privilege structures are often dismissed as "vestigial" or "not as bad as it was a generation or seven generations ago" by folks who don't want to acknowledge the perspective that's been exhaustively provided ... outside this thread beyond these forums.
To use vestigial (i.e. "well, it's not as bad as it used to be") in this context is insensitive to folks who do regularly suffer from prejudice in the contemporary moment. It's unthinking blowhard word choice pretending to be high minded.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That isn't what you did, though. What you did was ask for personal testimony of trauma, which I provided, but which also is a traumatizing thing to do, per me and Stormknight, etc.
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!